Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Here's to hoping for a more "free" Josh Freeman « previous next »
Page: 1 ... 3 4 5

chace1986

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 13372
Offline
#60 : April 29, 2013, 05:42:20 PM

I don't think anyone is advocating Vick like running. Talking Aaron Rodgers or Cam Newtown... extend plays with your feet and make a big run when it's there. Like Free did in 2010.

Cam? Really?  Dude has over 100 carries each season. Thats vick like running. Rodgers is closer to 60per year and freeman isnt too far behind those totals. Were taliing the difference of 20 or so carries over freemans career to average around that 60 mark.

I honestly think most people have no idea of what qbs in the nfl are putting up for rushing totals.

I honestly don't care how many rushes he averages per game or where he is in carries compared to other QBs. What I care about is him taking advantage of his running ability in certain and specific situations. We all have seen over the past two years those specific plays where he has the opportunity to pick up a 1st down on 3rd and __, but chooses to force a throw. It may happen one time a game, a few times a game, or sometimes may not come up for a few games, but those plays have been out there to make and there has been some hesitation. Now, I definitely don't want to see him taking off like VY, Cam, or Vick. Under 60 sounds good for a season. Just depends on the circumstances. I'm sure he will strike a happy balance this coming season between what we saw last year, and what we saw in 2010.
 

so you want it like 2011 minus the most of the bad passes?

My point is even these mobile qbs people want freeman to be more like, freeman is putting up similar numbers. Pulling down and running aounds great until it gets your qb injured. It also takes their eyes off the wrs and could eliminate a big play. Id like to see him scramble around a little more, but not necessarily run much more.

I certainly don't want him being reckless. I don't want him to be a running QB or even be like one. I want to see a bit more escapability. I know the numbers of his scrambles in 2011 are similar to what they were in 2010, but I'm talking about specific moments in 2011 where he forced the ball instead of taking off when the opportunity presented itself. Like I said, this has nothing to do with an overall target of times he should run in a year. I don't remember any moment in 2010 when I was just dumbfounded on why he didn't take off on a certain play. I do remember a few from 2011 and a larger number from 2012.


Until preseason, you stay classy Red Board.

JC5100

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 8180
Offline
#61 : April 30, 2013, 08:54:54 AM

The statement of "the Bucs would have been 11-2" is absolutely absurd. There is no way of knowing that injecting a different player or two would have changed the outcome of a game or not. That's just speculative BS.

Also, how many other teams in the league can look back at last year and say, "man, if we could have changed _____, we would have been in the playoffs"..? Whether its secondary, offensive line, run d, WR, or QB deficiencies...the Bucs are not unique in the ability to add speculative "hindsight victories" when speaking of previous years.

How many other teams had the #32 pass defense, gave up 262 yards and 25 points in a qtr, lost a game when they had over 500 yards and 0 turnovers and let Nick Foles throw for 135 yards and 2 TDs in 7 minutes?

chace1986

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 13372
Offline
#62 : April 30, 2013, 09:17:07 AM

No other team gave up more passing yards. Nothing new there. The D was awful against the Giants. Nothing new there. The the last comment about the Eagles game is ignoring what transpired in the first 53 minutes of the game. You ignoring portions of play that you don't like, as if they never happened...nothing new there. It's still absurd to say that we would have been 11-2 had this happened or had that happened, of if we would have had a better player inserted at a specific position. That's impossible to know. It's impossible because a lot of the problems could be scheme related. Something else to think about would be, if you inserted a new player into the game, the opposing offense may not have ran plays in the exact same manner in which things originally happened. The defense most likely would not have faced the exact same situations or scenarios. The mere presence of a different player could have caused the offense to run a different set of plays toward a different direction which could alter things tremdously. So simply saying that better players here or there would have resulted in a define win, in the specific games mentioned, is more an theory than proven fact.
: April 30, 2013, 09:19:38 AM chace1986


Until preseason, you stay classy Red Board.

moose40

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 2347
Online
#63 : April 30, 2013, 09:24:37 AM

No other team gave up more passing yards. Nothing new there. The D was awful against the Giants. Nothing new there. The the last comment about the Eagles game is ignoring what transpired in the first 53 minutes of the game. You ignoring portions of play that you don't like, as if they never happened...nothing new there. It's still absurd to say that we would have been 11-2 had this happened or had that happened, of if we would have had a better player inserted at a specific position. That's impossible to know. It's impossible because a lot of the problems could be scheme related. Something else to think about would be, if you inserted a new player into the game, the opposing offense may not have ran plays in the exact same manner in which things originally happened. The defense most likely would not have faced the exact same situations or scenarios. The mere presence of a different player could have caused the offense to run a different set of plays toward a different direction which could alter things tremdously. So simply saying that better players here or there would have resulted in a define win, in the specific games mentioned, is more an theory than proven fact.

But Chace do you think the D was awful against the Giants overall, or just the second half? The first half, wasn't the score 24-13 Bucs, and didn't they pick off Manning 3 times? I may not be remembering the game well, but I don't think the d imploded until the second half when the offense didn't do much in sustaining drives and not turning the ball over, and the Giant's coaching staff seemed to make the proper adjustments and those two scenarios helped the Giants back into the game.

JC5100

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 8180
Offline
#64 : April 30, 2013, 09:29:59 AM

Now it's Freeman's fault we couldn't cover Nicks and Cruz


moose40

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 2347
Online
#65 : April 30, 2013, 09:35:15 AM

Now it's Freeman's fault we couldn't cover Nicks and Cruz
No, it's the coaching staff and defense's fault, for not adjusting to what the Giants were doing and the players being out of position. Not to mention Eli putting the ball in good spots for his receivers to make plays.
Freeman doesn't play defense, but Freeman and the offense also didn't sustain drives and turned the ball over twice. That didn't help the defense did it?

If the defense was so crappy, and it's only the defense that is bad, then how did the Bucs get three takeaways in the first half and build a 24-13 lead? Freeman must have been covering the Giant receivers in the first half huh?
: April 30, 2013, 09:36:49 AM moose40

chace1986

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 13372
Offline
#66 : April 30, 2013, 09:43:59 AM

No other team gave up more passing yards. Nothing new there. The D was awful against the Giants. Nothing new there. The the last comment about the Eagles game is ignoring what transpired in the first 53 minutes of the game. You ignoring portions of play that you don't like, as if they never happened...nothing new there. It's still absurd to say that we would have been 11-2 had this happened or had that happened, of if we would have had a better player inserted at a specific position. That's impossible to know. It's impossible because a lot of the problems could be scheme related. Something else to think about would be, if you inserted a new player into the game, the opposing offense may not have ran plays in the exact same manner in which things originally happened. The defense most likely would not have faced the exact same situations or scenarios. The mere presence of a different player could have caused the offense to run a different set of plays toward a different direction which could alter things tremdously. So simply saying that better players here or there would have resulted in a define win, in the specific games mentioned, is more an theory than proven fact.

But Chace do you think the D was awful against the Giants overall, or just the second half? The first half, wasn't the score 24-13 Bucs, and didn't they pick off Manning 3 times? I may not be remembering the game well, but I don't think the d imploded until the second half when the offense didn't do much in sustaining drives and not turning the ball over, and the Giant's coaching staff seemed to make the proper adjustments and those two scenarios helped the Giants back into the game.

Yes they did pick off manning 3 times. You also have to remember though that the Giants pretty much drove the ball right down the Bucs throats on two early drives and the Bucs were extremely lucky that two Redzone TDs were blatantly dropped on two drives that would have given the Giants more than just 6 points on those drives. Now, I am not going to fault the defense for dropped passes, since sometimes the pressure\presence of a defense can cause drops, but the Bucs got lucky on those two drives, IMO. I would say that the defense played pretty bad throughout. Sure. The 3 INTs were bright spots, but if you use the logic that 3 INTs=decent performance, I think that is flawed. Making plays on 3 specific plays means nothing if you play like dog **CENSORED** for much of the other 50+ plays.

All that said, whether JC5100 or anyone else wants to acknowledge it, the entire team contributed to that loss in some way shape or form. Freeman wasn't close to the primary reason why we lost that game, but his first INT gave the Giants new life and they grabbed the momentum after that. I don't know if it can be said that the Giants may not have come back had the Bucs had a long drive that resulted in some points there, but I do feel that play was one of the plays that shifted things in the Giants favor.

Either way, the defense should have battened down the hatches at that point, and they failed.
: April 30, 2013, 09:46:53 AM chace1986


Until preseason, you stay classy Red Board.

moose40

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 2347
Online
#67 : April 30, 2013, 10:07:21 AM

Good points Chace, while I've always said it's a team effort when they win or lose, I always forget about the "luck" portion as well. You're right, if the Giants score 14 instead of 6 on those drives, we go into halftime with a nail biting game instead of a "oh so soon to be removed" Bucs lead.
Page: 1 ... 3 4 5
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Here's to hoping for a more "free" Josh Freeman « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools