MizzouHawkGal
Well-known member
First of all I am no home wrecker. Second and most importantly am I on the right track?nanomoz":1rou7j6u said:
I'd appreciate if you could answer my question and maybe explain it a bit so I have it down more clearly.
Doug Baldwin is our "Secret Superstar"
- Thread starter hawknation2015
- Start date
I'd appreciate if you could answer my question and maybe explain it a bit so I have it down more clearly.
theincrediblesok
New member
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2014
- Messages
- 1,550
- Reaction score
- 0
I'm already on record to say that Doug will have the best chance to get 1k yards this season, not saying he will but it's a good possibility with the arrival of Graham. Baldwin averaged 51.56 yards a game last year, all he needs is 62.50 yards a game and he will get 1k yards.
The good thing about our offense is that it's about mismatch. Doug can play all the WR position, and so will Graham, and looks like Tyler will get that chance too. This is going to be a fun season. I think that is going to be our deadliest combination with Doug on the outside with Graham, Tyler in the slot and Lynch in the backfield. The second deadliest would be the "All Tall Everything" with Matthews and Graham on the outside and Luke Willson in the slot, Will Tukuafu and Lynch in the backfield. I chose Tukuafu because of his height, imagine 4 tall guys running down the field, and a Beast hiding behind the tall grass (offensive players) ready to pounce.
The good thing about our offense is that it's about mismatch. Doug can play all the WR position, and so will Graham, and looks like Tyler will get that chance too. This is going to be a fun season. I think that is going to be our deadliest combination with Doug on the outside with Graham, Tyler in the slot and Lynch in the backfield. The second deadliest would be the "All Tall Everything" with Matthews and Graham on the outside and Luke Willson in the slot, Will Tukuafu and Lynch in the backfield. I chose Tukuafu because of his height, imagine 4 tall guys running down the field, and a Beast hiding behind the tall grass (offensive players) ready to pounce.
MizzouHawkGal
Well-known member
Tokuafu doesn't make this team. Coleman will school him. Personally I hope some team is smart enough to pick him up. But it won't be us.theincrediblesok":3sxat0mf said:
Pete wasn't kidding this team is ridiculous concerning depth. Especially since they are actually attempting to give Wilson an actual offense beyond Lynch and run for your life.
theincrediblesok
New member
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2014
- Messages
- 1,550
- Reaction score
- 0
MizzouHawkGal":2artmxqp said:
You might be right, the only thing Tukuafu got going for him is versatility on defense but Coleman plays special teams and we need him more, we really did miss him last year in that sense.
I don't even know what Pete is thinking, I mean he's all about the defense and run game right? How dare he gets Graham, and trade three picks for Tyler Lockett and get abundance of O-lineman when any QB should be able to play with all the stud undrafted receivers we already have and a forever changing O-line. We should of drafted nothing but defensive players and Running backs.
MizzouHawkGal
Well-known member
It's not confusing it's called evolving and starting the transition from Lynch to Wilson. You can't pay ANY running back what Lynch gets for more than a year because the rules don't allow it. The NFL is all about the quarterback hence our little dance with Wilson.theincrediblesok":2im20loo said:
theincrediblesok
New member
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2014
- Messages
- 1,550
- Reaction score
- 0
MizzouHawkGal":3q0a0iec said:
Hopefully i set the sarcasm tone lol just in case you thought I was truly questioning Pete.
MizzouHawkGal
Well-known member
Oh, I understand but methinks a lot of others don't. Pete isn't stupid or against passing. He just wants to do it on his terms with a quarterback that understands it's okay to move the chains but be able to do the Arizona/Oakland thing on any given play.
That's a damn hard thing to find in a quarterback. Currently there's probably five out of thirty two that have the skill set to even attempt it. And we have one of them.
That's a damn hard thing to find in a quarterback. Currently there's probably five out of thirty two that have the skill set to even attempt it. And we have one of them.
vin.couve12
New member
Browner is 3 yards from where he started and Kearse looks for the flag after the play specifically for Lockette. Kearse isn't even running a route. He also knows exactly where the ball is going pre-snap, which is why he can't help but look directly at the play while it's happening.theincrediblesok":1ykzc2e5 said:
Your viewpoint is really fascinating though. I bet that's how the salem witch trials happened. I mean, starting with "Kearse was unable to push him back" when video evidence, HD at that, shows a good 3 yards of Browner going backwards. Somebody's gotta pay and you'll see what you want to. It's amazing really.
OP
OP
hawknation2015
New member
vin.couve12":2us2v53g said:
Kearse himself admitted after the Super Bowl that he "didn't execute" on this play because it was supposed to be a pick play with Kearse running up field before Butler could cross through him, leaving Lockette open for the easy TD. Browner did a good job jamming Kearse at the line to prevent the pick on Butler.
vin.couve12
New member
Nah, I'm fully aware you want that to be a natural pick. It's possible if Butler is tighter to the LOS and NOT shaded inside, but as it is where Butler is inside shade AND off the ball as much as he is there's no way Kearse would be able to shove even a 150 pound CB to that point. Butler is perfectly suited to stop this play where he is regardless of who the LOS WR and CB are. The sheer geometry of thay play dictates that NE owns the inside shade. This play was always doomed. There is no pick when the corner is that far off and mathematically owns the best angle to the ball. Kearse and Browner had nothing to do with the play. NE's preperation in knowing what spacing they wanted to defend a pick play was better than the Hawks' very vanilla call. NE was ready for that.hawknation2015":3buteupp said:
OP
OP
hawknation2015
New member
vin.couve12":3rgr7buc said:
This was a very standard pick play that you see from a lot of teams, and there about a hundred articles that can attest to that fact. Butler is lined up where he is because that is where Lockette is lined up. It's the design of the play:
It wasn't Kearse's job to move Browner back; rather, it was Kearse's job to move himself in Butler's path. I think they were anticipating Kearse to either beat Browner off the line or for Browner to drop back in pursuit of Kearse. That is what is supposed to create the pick.
vin.couve12
New member
You dont disregard the alignment of the defenders. It is absolutely NOT standard. If you put Megatron where Kearse is that play still doesn't succeed specifically because of the alignment. As multiple NE players and coaches have said themselves, they knew it was coming. Butler's inside shade is an illustration of just that. If Butler is directly in front of Lockette then it can succeed, but NE was prepared. People need to put down the pitchforks and accept that. On that play we were outcoached in multiple ways. It happens...hawknation2015":18xr4pj6 said:
A
Anonymous
Guest
Holy gratuitous quoting, Batman!
Y'all know you can just hit "post reply", type your thoughts, and hit "submit", right?
:mrgreen:
Y'all know you can just hit "post reply", type your thoughts, and hit "submit", right?
:mrgreen:
OP
OP
hawknation2015
New member
vin.couve12":1nzhou8m said:
On that we can agree. No doubt we were out-coached on that play. Expecting Kearse to get off the line to disrupt Butler, while facing off against arguably the most physical corner in the game, who was jamming Kearse at the LOS all game long, was a losing proposition from the start. I also agree with you that Kearse was not to blame for the coaches' decision to call for an inside slant/pick play in that situation. This was a standard pick play for New England. It was a poor matchup for us and a bad decision to dial that up. Even worse when you consider that they could have handed the ball to Lynch.
theincrediblesok
New member
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2014
- Messages
- 1,550
- Reaction score
- 0
That shizz got me confused on who was replying about my statement. Vin, I never said that Kearse never got a push, Hawknation agreed with me on how the play was designed. At the same time you got Luke Kuechly saying that same play was hard to defend, but I also understand what your saying about the alignment. I'm not even blaming Kearse I'm giving Browner and Butler some credit, and also blame the coach for not going for a run as well. Shoot I was hoping Wilson would say f it and ran it himself in.
I still believe that Kearse and Browner were instrumental in that play. If you look at the aerial view you can see that if Malcom had ran in front of Browner a second later he actually would of been blocked by them.
I still believe that Kearse and Browner were instrumental in that play. If you look at the aerial view you can see that if Malcom had ran in front of Browner a second later he actually would of been blocked by them.
purpleneer
New member
Or cut some of the quoted post(s). Some posters do it well; sometimes it doesn't get done and the thread gets overloaded with the same thing repeated a dozen times.HoustonHawk82":1jamy8es said:
vin.couve12
New member
OK, that's cool. All I'm saying is that if you freeze this at 35 seconds you see Butler's outside foot in-line with Lockette's inside foot. That spacing is a fundamental key in defending a pass like this. If Butler is head up then maybe that play has a better chance That one square foot of inside shade makes an enormous difference. Then as you play it along second by second, if you watch Butler's head you see him watch that stupid jab step and immediately turn his head for the ball. There is no delay. The ball is out in 1 second and by that one second he's already by Browner and at the catch point by the 2nd second. If Kearse tries to go hard inside it's a flag for OPI. Maybe they don't call it, maybe they do, but it's not practiced that way strictly because it's a much more clear PI.
https://youtu.be/U7rPIg7ZNQ8?list=PLC1G ... 5_WFE&t=35
All our football lives we hear that football is a game of inches, but that may not mean what some think it means. Coaches say that more than anyone. We hear that the most on the practice field. It's not a TV catch phrase as it applies to first downs and touchdowns. Coaches at all levels harp on it more than anyone because it's one of the fundamentals of teaching foot and hand placement. For RBs it's depth for specific formations because the angles of a run changes, timing for when you hit the hole and how much time the OL have to get to where they need to be. For OL it's about line splits, kick drops, pulling and anchoring. For WRs it's about foot placement and spacing between players and sideline. All of these things are of the upmost importance and absolutely apply to the defense as well. Where you line up changes how a blocker has to approach a given play. Head up is head up, but if you shade outside it then turns into a reach block, if you're shaded inside you can get hooked etc, etc ,etc.
I look at that play at 35 seconds and immediately say we're F'd regardless of what happens next. Maybe Kearse could have thrown Browner, maybe Lockette does away with the jab step and explodes better, maybe RW puts the ball center mass instead of at the shoulder level etc, etc ,etc
Or maybe we call a fade there and actually call a pass play with an extreme little chance of becoming an INT instead of a pass play where even if it's not an INT, the ball has a good chance of a pop up.
Or maybe we hand off the ball to the best RB in the league against one of the worst GL run defenses in the league and not use an excuse about them using a heavy package when our heavy package is better.
But when I look at that spacing at 35 seconds...your chances are just not good at all. Just severely outcoached there. I do believe them about the notion of almost wasting a play though. I can almost guarantee that the ATL game was in the back of their minds. Especially with an infirmary secondary at basically every DB spot. It was just a bad, bad day. One of the worst.
I'm still not sure it's worse than the 2005 superbowl though. That Superbowl was TAKEN from SEA. At least this was of our own doing.
https://youtu.be/U7rPIg7ZNQ8?list=PLC1G ... 5_WFE&t=35
All our football lives we hear that football is a game of inches, but that may not mean what some think it means. Coaches say that more than anyone. We hear that the most on the practice field. It's not a TV catch phrase as it applies to first downs and touchdowns. Coaches at all levels harp on it more than anyone because it's one of the fundamentals of teaching foot and hand placement. For RBs it's depth for specific formations because the angles of a run changes, timing for when you hit the hole and how much time the OL have to get to where they need to be. For OL it's about line splits, kick drops, pulling and anchoring. For WRs it's about foot placement and spacing between players and sideline. All of these things are of the upmost importance and absolutely apply to the defense as well. Where you line up changes how a blocker has to approach a given play. Head up is head up, but if you shade outside it then turns into a reach block, if you're shaded inside you can get hooked etc, etc ,etc.
I look at that play at 35 seconds and immediately say we're F'd regardless of what happens next. Maybe Kearse could have thrown Browner, maybe Lockette does away with the jab step and explodes better, maybe RW puts the ball center mass instead of at the shoulder level etc, etc ,etc
Or maybe we call a fade there and actually call a pass play with an extreme little chance of becoming an INT instead of a pass play where even if it's not an INT, the ball has a good chance of a pop up.
Or maybe we hand off the ball to the best RB in the league against one of the worst GL run defenses in the league and not use an excuse about them using a heavy package when our heavy package is better.
But when I look at that spacing at 35 seconds...your chances are just not good at all. Just severely outcoached there. I do believe them about the notion of almost wasting a play though. I can almost guarantee that the ATL game was in the back of their minds. Especially with an infirmary secondary at basically every DB spot. It was just a bad, bad day. One of the worst.
I'm still not sure it's worse than the 2005 superbowl though. That Superbowl was TAKEN from SEA. At least this was of our own doing.
theincrediblesok
New member
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2014
- Messages
- 1,550
- Reaction score
- 0
I'm in agreement Vin, that Atlanta game was probably in the back of their minds.
I want to focus on Browner because I mean I really think he held Kearse. Like I said usually they don't call those late in the game.
Frame 1 You can see Kearse at a position that he was going to run more to his left, look at where Browner's hands are right at the neckline of Kearse's neckline.
Frame 2-3 shows Kearse trying to get Browner's hands off his neck area. He couldn't do it.
Frame 4 he lets go of his arm there is where i think he was trying to show the ref that he was getting held, as you can see Butler is still back there.
Frame 5-7 pretty much shows that Browner had Kearse by the jersey, back of it, all that time.
This is what I see, let me know if you see differently
I want to focus on Browner because I mean I really think he held Kearse. Like I said usually they don't call those late in the game.
Frame 1 You can see Kearse at a position that he was going to run more to his left, look at where Browner's hands are right at the neckline of Kearse's neckline.
Frame 2-3 shows Kearse trying to get Browner's hands off his neck area. He couldn't do it.
Frame 4 he lets go of his arm there is where i think he was trying to show the ref that he was getting held, as you can see Butler is still back there.
Frame 5-7 pretty much shows that Browner had Kearse by the jersey, back of it, all that time.
This is what I see, let me know if you see differently
vin.couve12":28hcn15g said:
The problem is that Kearse was supposed to push Browner into Butler, or "pick" Butler himself. Browner gives up ground, but he gets inside position, which isn't where he needs to be on that play if you're the offense. This gives Butler a clear run at Lockette, which he wasn't supposed to have. You can tell by the way Lockette is totally suprised that anyone was there, that there wasn't supposed to be tight coverage if Kearse did his job. Which you really can't expect, because Browner is the most physical CB on the los in the entire league.
As for Baldwin being a superstar...not in this offense, and not with this QB. Pair him with Brady or Manning, and yes, I think Baldwin would be elite. Problem is that Wilson doesn't see Baldwin that well. I have huge hopes for Lockett but he's the same size as Baldwin, and the tape has shown time and again that Wilson doesn't see Baldwin consistently unless he scrambles and breaks contain. Baldwin (and Lockett as well) use their biggest asset (quickness and route running) to get open/separation early. Wilson doesn't see smaller WRs early, he sees them late when he's running around, or he sees them down field. This is where I think Lockett will shine: he's faster than Baldwin.
It's also why I think Graham is a bigger get than most people think. And I most think that most people think Graham was huge. My favorite draft pick this year was Lockett. I just had a feeling. But my biggest expectations/optimism this year are for Matthews.
A
Anonymous
Guest
purpleneer":3v64am6w said:
How about we insert a short tutorial in right here?
A way to get a handle on multiple quoting, that actually looks good, is to try the individual quoting function instead of the quick quote button method. That function limits the number of quotes to 4 and is the cause of this pain:
Try this:
1.) Open two tabs of .NET in your browser.
2.) Use one tab to start your full-editor style post, and use the other tab to locate and copy-out content you wish to quote.
3.) Back on the main tab, simply hit the "quote" button in the quick-tabs at the top of the dialog box and paste your copied content from tab 2 in between the brackets. Same as if you were linking a pic off-site (for example).
If you want to include the username, simply type ="username" after the "e" in the word "quote" in the first box. You need only adjust the first one as the "/quote" ends the quoted dialog for that user.
Note:
In this example below, I purposely left a space between the first bracket of the first quote box to illustrate what I am describing above. By doing so, I am enabling you to see how the quote is constructed. You can also see what leaving a errant space does to the appearance of your post (should you not preview it first before submitting and wonder why your quotes aren't working....)
[ quote="purpleneer"]stuff purpleneer said[/quote]
/\
space
Without that space, the above example looks like this:
purpleneer":3v64am6w said:
Once you master this, you can quote multiple users within a single post with ease. As you peruse the forums and notice that a particular user has taken the time to construct a masterful, quote-laden post, of such stunning visual beauty you are amazed and left wanting, simply quote that post and take a gander at how that skilled user has manipulated the tools to create that masterpiece.
We all must leave muddy footprints across the rice paper at first, but soon and with some investigation and experimentation, you'll be posting like a seasoned pro before you know it and that rice paper will be as smooth as an infant's posterior. It is also a good time to guide folks to our FAQ forum in which one can experiment and play around, ask questions, and fine tune yourself a bit.
Hope that helps. :mrgreen:
Go Hawks!!!
And we now return you to your topic...
