Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Brown?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Soaring Eagle
    I agree we need "good" backs. We have 1 in Westbrook. We could use another as a #2 RB. And that quality #2 should bring something different to the game, not be a scatback IMO. I brought up Jackson for comparison because he was available 2 years ago when we drafted Andrews. Taking Andrews was the right choice. But could we have won a SB with Jackson in 2004 running against the Pats hybrid 2-6 front? Yes, it could have been. Enough old dreams...
    Even with Steven Jackson we would have been passing. Yeah they had only 2 "down lineman" but they had 8 guys right up close to the line. Not to mention the fact that we were gouging them in the pass game. Not being able to run isn't what cost us the Super Bowl, a few poorly timed turnovers did.

    The point that an extra 15 pounds (of muscle) does not mean anything, all else being equal, in a violent collision fighting for an extra yard does not ring true to me. I've played RB and LB. And when hitting a guy straight up, it comes down to force equals mass times acceleration. A bigger guy accelerating to a tackle at the same speed applies more force than a smaller guy. One could see this in the 4th quarter of Sunday's game. Westbrook runs into a pile at the line He tries for an extra yard and gets nothing more because he's not big enough to fall forward carrying a defender on his back.
    Time for a basic physics lesson: F = ma² which translates to force equaling mass times acceleration times accelleration. So speed is actually much more significant in creating force than mass. I would think even shaving one tenth of a second on your 40 yard dash would be able to compensate for 10-15 yards.

    However, short yardage running in the NFL is not about measurables like speed and size, it's a frame of mind. You need a line that likes to push people around, a RB who knows how to lower his shoulder and keep pushing his legs until that whistle blows, and a coach that will establish the run.

    This line loves to run block and that's good because they outweigh most defensive lines significantly.

    Buckhalter and Moats have shown in the past that they can and will lower the shoulder and deliver a hit and fight for that extra yard.

    The only thing that is in question is if we have a coach that is willin to establish the run. In the past he has (see 2003), but right now the passing game is clicking on all cylinders and he is going with what is working. However, I have a feeling that he is going to show more of a commitment to the run starting this week, especially if Westy's knee is feeling better.

    After Bucky's fumbles, he is a question mark IMO.
    See MDFAN's above post...
    Whatcha Gonna Do Brother, When the Eagles run wild on you?

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by leifdawg
      Originally posted by Soaring Eagle
      I agree we need "good" backs. We have 1 in Westbrook. We could use another as a #2 RB. And that quality #2 should bring something different to the game, not be a scatback IMO. I brought up Jackson for comparison because he was available 2 years ago when we drafted Andrews. Taking Andrews was the right choice. But could we have won a SB with Jackson in 2004 running against the Pats hybrid 2-6 front? Yes, it could have been. Enough old dreams...
      Even with Steven Jackson we would have been passing. Yeah they had only 2 "down lineman" but they had 8 guys right up close to the line. Not to mention the fact that we were gouging them in the pass game. Not being able to run isn't what cost us the Super Bowl, a few poorly timed turnovers did.

      The point that an extra 15 pounds (of muscle) does not mean anything, all else being equal, in a violent collision fighting for an extra yard does not ring true to me. I've played RB and LB. And when hitting a guy straight up, it comes down to force equals mass times acceleration. A bigger guy accelerating to a tackle at the same speed applies more force than a smaller guy. One could see this in the 4th quarter of Sunday's game. Westbrook runs into a pile at the line He tries for an extra yard and gets nothing more because he's not big enough to fall forward carrying a defender on his back.
      Time for a basic physics lesson: F = ma² which translates to force equaling mass times acceleration times accelleration. So speed is actually much more significant in creating force than mass. I would think even shaving one tenth of a second on your 40 yard dash would be able to compensate for 10-15 yards.

      However, short yardage running in the NFL is not about measurables like speed and size, it's a frame of mind. You need a line that likes to push people around, a RB who knows how to lower his shoulder and keep pushing his legs until that whistle blows, and a coach that will establish the run.

      This line loves to run block and that's good because they outweigh most defensive lines significantly.

      Buckhalter and Moats have shown in the past that they can and will lower the shoulder and deliver a hit and fight for that extra yard.

      The only thing that is in question is if we have a coach that is willin to establish the run. In the past he has (see 2003), but right now the passing game is clicking on all cylinders and he is going with what is working. However, I have a feeling that he is going to show more of a commitment to the run starting this week, especially if Westy's knee is feeling better.

      [quote:4ddea]After Bucky's fumbles, he is a question mark IMO.
      See MDFAN's above post...[/quote:4ddea]

      I (forcefully) suggest you check your terms.
      See for example,
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force#Quan ... definition
      or
      http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSCI/P ... u2l3a.html


      As for the 2004 superbowl, my point was hypothetical.
      Other alternatives to what happened are also just that.

      I agree that Reid has shown the capacity to call the run.
      But it's been quite a few years...

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by MDFAN
        "After Bucky's fumbles, he is a question mark IMO."

        Using that assessment, Westy should be also!

        Bucky has one fumble and he and Dmac share a 2nd, Westy has two already all by himself.
        That seems correct.

        Both Westy's fumbles were on 1st downs if I remember correctly.
        Both of Bucky's (or 1.5 if Donovan gets 0.5) were inside the 5 yard line.
        Kind of different situations, but again, this is just my opinion.
        The fumble(s) did not seem to affect Reid at all in calling runs for Bucky.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by JackieBlue
          Buck Fumbled... Twice in a half..



          Wow- A new curse word...

          "Man- y'all see dat hit- He got BuckFumbled up!


          You should be on jeopardy with Turd Ferguson.
          Pedro

          Comment


          • #35
            [quote=leifdawg]
            Originally posted by Soaring Eagle
            Originally posted by leifdawg
            Originally posted by "Soaring Eagle":3a858
            Observant defensive coordinators have and will take advantage of that.
            Yes they will tell their players to make sure to let the Eagles get those 2-4 extra yards so instead of having 3 and 5 they will have to go to the dreaded 3 and 1
            That's pretty silly
            I gave a silly response to a silly argument.[/quote:3a858]
            I thought your scenario was funny.

            Anyway, I have to laugh at that part of my post.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Soaring Eagle
              Originally posted by MDFAN
              "After Bucky's fumbles, he is a question mark IMO."

              Using that assessment, Westy should be also!

              Bucky has one fumble and he and Dmac share a 2nd, Westy has two already all by himself.
              That seems correct.

              Both Westy's fumbles were on 1st downs if I remember correctly.
              Both of Bucky's (or 1.5 if Donovan gets 0.5) were inside the 5 yard line.
              Kind of different situations, but again, this is just my opinion.
              The fumble(s) did not seem to affect Reid at all in calling runs for Bucky.
              Well in fact we won the game with 1.5 Bucky fumbles and yet one of Westys fumble was a very very big factor in the Giants comeback loss-- so one may conclude that it had much more impact than Bucky's!!!

              Bucky has been semi doghoused since his fumble but Westy hasn't been, IMO.

              All I was saying is that "if" you want to "question mark" Bucky due to fumbling, as you did -- you need to also "question mark" Westy for the same problem.

              I'm saying it happens, it's part of the game and neither guy has a history of laying the ball down so I don't see a reason to label either one as a "question mark".

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by MDFAN
                "After Bucky's fumbles, he is a question mark IMO."

                Using that assessment, Westy should be also!

                Bucky has one fumble and he and Dmac share a 2nd, Westy has two already all by himself.
                You know the rule MD... Points on turnovers win games- Luckily, I think we took the least damage team vs team. Actually- We may have a good ratio there.... We may have some pts. racked up in that area... I need to see/look into that stat as with the entire NFL teams...
                http://www.myspace.com/r3nj

                Comment

                Working...
                X