Tucker is being Thomas Jones'd.
ROFLMAO
The loudest "GM" voices concoct conspiracies to make reality (Tucker getting les snaps in one game) conform with their GM analysis.
There is nothing out of the ordinary about running with Irving and White in such a pivotal game that played out as it did.
More importantly, its got almost NOTHING to do with the outcome and why did they give tucker snaps ealry? Just to make the Jones conspiracy coverup more plausible? Todd Bowles -- the incompetent, aff action HC - is also Maciahivelli?
Just further proof that Bowles was full of shit with the “hot hand” and the “we were behind” comments.
I think most folks understand that:
Maybe it's just coach speak
I’m not sure the “hot hand” theory is actually being applied
Really, it's only one shameless simpleton that keeps carrying that torch because it doesn't understand how the game works.
Really, it's only one shameless simpleton that keeps carrying that torch because it doesn't understand how the game works.
Lol.
I think the over/under on drunken string-replies from the barstool barrister on this one is at 1.5
Gonna pound the over.
it doesn't understand how the game works.
I am still trying to figure out how averages work (the Biggs School of statistics) and in terms of how football works, I am just trying to keep up with you high "football acumen" guys
I would expect Bucky to get a slightly similar split that Edmunds/Tucker had last season (maybe a little more, as I expect us to run more).
Now, because I disagree with you guys on things like Irving and Tucker and Bowles . . . out comes the name calling, right?
drunken string-replies
shameless simpleton
and . . . just as I pointed point . . in posts talking to each other.
holy Troll-y batman
Tucker is being Thomas Jones'd.
Or he's sitting some because Barry Sanders is ahead of him
"“I saw the him make a couple of Barry Sanders-type moves [Sunday] — I’m not calling him Barry Sanders. … I would like to see him get the ball and get fed a little bit and see what this kid can do.”
Kidding, of course and only post the Sanders reference from Beckles because of all the past RB comparisons and because it is not like Tucker got less snaps behind two clowns, right?
Saw the reference to Sanders, but considering the source (I have a on again/off again listening pattern when it comes to Beckles, probably based on when he goes hyperbolic on a player I like, then goes hyper negative on a different player I like). Beckles was a guard on some very crappy teams for about 6 years, and was never part of a winning season the entire time he was in Tampa.Tucker is being Thomas Jones'd.
Or he's sitting some because Barry Sanders is ahead of him
"“I saw the him make a couple of Barry Sanders-type moves [Sunday] — I’m not calling him Barry Sanders. … I would like to see him get the ball and get fed a little bit and see what this kid can do.”
Kidding, of course and only post the Sanders reference from Beckles because of all the past RB comparisons and because it is not like Tucker got less snaps behind two clowns, right?
I think your quote of Bowles saying we were behind and went away from the run probably had more to do with it than anything else, I think Baker threw 50 passes, so it does have some validity. They may have intended to have Tucker be a bigger part of the mix, but the game started getting away from us.
Still, there’s something else there - Tucker seemed to be on the rise - don’t know why they didn’t have him more heavily in the mix? It’s why I wonder if perhaps there wasn’t some trade discussion regarding Tucker? It’s a head scratcher. DH is right to focus on that, as I said, if something is weird, it’s usually important.
so the two competing theories?
They may have intended to have Tucker be a bigger part of the mix, but the game started getting away from us.
It’s why I wonder if perhaps there wasn’t some trade discussion regarding Tucker? It’s a head scratcher. DH is right to focus on that, as I said, if something is weird, it’s usually important.
I dont recall DH's comment on the trade, but will go back and look
I dont recall DH's comment on the trade, but will go back and lookNo, I was referencing the fact that DH correctly pointed out the 80% drop off in Tucker’s carries after he had just turned in 14 for 136 yards.
We can say “the game just got away from them” - but why didn’t they use Tucker, earlier? He doesn’t have the body mass to be a great blitz pick-up back - that’s all I got?
Remains weird.
We can say “the game just got away from them” - but why didn’t they use Tucker, earlier?
I think they did, right? They put him in for the start of the 3rd series. So they went White, Irving and then Tucker. They went away from him that drive by going back to both the other backs (who did well), but isn't he back the next series? I cant tell but there are two backs in on the first play.
DH correctly pointed out the 80% drop off in Tucker’s carries after he had just turned in 14 for 136 yards.
I get the concept that he had a great game against the Saints, but isn't it at least possible the team saw that as a great step but maybe needing to see more in the right scenario? The Saints gave up 200 plus the next game too, right? 130ish of that is from RBs.
It looks to me -- and could certainly be wrong - that after the Saints game they are mixing Tucker in but like he is the 3rd on the chart. So, against the Ravens he is in on the 3rd and 4th series and he is the 3rd in attempts game, in a game that immediately got away fro them in the 3rd quarter SO ALWAYS chasing the score. The Falcons game is similar. In on the 3rd drive and the drive after, i think. We are chasing again from that point and 50 throws whatever . . .
To each their own, but usually when there is a choice between the common and straight forward explanation that matches with experience and the theory that there is a conspiracy afoot, the common and straight forward theory is going to win.
I think some call that Occam's Razor . . or a version of it.
"Todd Bowles said it says a lot about WR Rakim Jarrett to come directly off injured reserve and only get a couple practices and then make some good, tough plays on Sunday against the Falcons."
By the Sean Tucker theory, Rakim Jarrett is the starter at WR against the Chiefs? he might be because he doesn't have an Irving or a White in front of him
