Maximum Grilled Steelers Forum
Jul 31, 2014 at 05:04 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
  Home   Forum   Help Calendar Media Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: How did the o-line look?  (Read 393 times)
Steelerdipwad
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 3673
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,656



« on: Sep 22, 2009 at 17:49 »

The game wasn't televised here. I'm looking at the yards per rush and it's not bad, but I don't know if that indicative.
Logged

"Fanatics are picturesque. Mankind would rather see gestures than listen to reason." - Friederich Nietzsche
TwistedLemon
Member
***

Karma: 777
Offline Offline

Posts: 490



« Reply #1 on: Sep 23, 2009 at 00:33 »

While I dont know that I would go so far as to say they looked good, there actually were a couple of holes this time.  That would be a couple more than previously for our RB's.  Seemed to me that the holes (what few there were for the running game) appeared on the right side moreso than the left
Logged

"My reality check bounced"
Finnegans Wake
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 12188
Offline Offline

Posts: 22,198



« Reply #2 on: Sep 23, 2009 at 08:01 »

While I dont know that I would go so far as to say they looked good, there actually were a couple of holes this time.  That would be a couple more than previously for our RB's.  Seemed to me that the holes (what few there were for the running game) appeared on the right side moreso than the left

Yeah, I'd agree with that.  I was in a smoky bar without the opportunity to freeze and rewind and such, and the screen wasn't huge.  But the right side of the line seemed to offer some lanes, and the pass pro was decent, like 2H of the TT game.  Ben's got to do a better job of throwing away rather than taking the possession sack, esp. when it's obvious ain't jack happening.
Logged

Out of my mind on Saturday night...
jonzr
Asst. VP, Jonzring
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 11361
Offline Offline

Posts: 11,395


Have a cup o' joe.


WWW
« Reply #3 on: Sep 23, 2009 at 08:09 »

I noticed Kemo pulling and actually blocking people this time.  Seems like both Parker and Mendenhall had some decent holes.  Speaking of which, I'd like to see them stick strictly to P&M for the 1st and 2nd down carries and leave MM as the third down back.  It seems like they were using MM later in the game.  Why?

BTW, I even saw Parker catch a check-down pass and run for a couple yards. 

Logged

"I like David Bowie, he was always my favorite member of Tin Machine."
- Rodney Anonymous

It's a Steeler Nation
Finnegans Wake
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 12188
Offline Offline

Posts: 22,198



« Reply #4 on: Sep 23, 2009 at 09:02 »

I noticed Kemo pulling and actually blocking people this time.  Seems like both Parker and Mendenhall had some decent holes.  Speaking of which, I'd like to see them stick strictly to P&M for the 1st and 2nd down carries and leave MM as the third down back.  It seems like they were using MM later in the game.  Why?

BTW, I even saw Parker catch a check-down pass and run for a couple yards. 


Arians has a set RB rotation of Parker, series 1 & 2; MM as 3rd down and no huddle.  I'm fine with MM in those roles, as he's the best receiving back, though I think RM should get more looks catching.  What I object to is a concrete rotational schedule as opposed to assessing gameflow (e.g., Mendy's 39-yarder rewarded by a FWP getting 4 carries on a dead drive) and matchups (MM v. Titans... but RM v. Bears, IMVHFO).

Just hand the script to opposing DCs.  As if they'd need to see it.
Logged

Out of my mind on Saturday night...
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
SimplePortal 2.3.5 © 2008-2012, SimplePortal
| Sitemap
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!