PDA

View Full Version : What happened to Bennet and Pollard


Reerun_KC
09-11-2006, 11:20 AM
Where were these guys yesterday?

Why didnt we use Bennet on a couple of screens to help counter the instense pressure up I-65?

MichaelH
09-11-2006, 11:23 AM
Good question about Bennett. Maybe in Herm's book starting means you're the only one playing RB the whole game.

petegz28
09-11-2006, 11:24 AM
Good question about Bennett. Maybe in Herm's book starting means you're the only one playing RB the whole game.

Johnson only carried the ball 17 times. Wasn't much opportunity for rotation.

morphius
09-11-2006, 11:26 AM
We didn't have the ball enough to wear LJ down, so he was in the game. He did okay on his screen, but the other one got read pretty quickly and nobody fell for it.

Pollard missed some tackles and reads in preseason, probably getting a bit more time to learn the system.

Reerun_KC
09-11-2006, 11:27 AM
Johnson only carried the ball 17 times. Wasn't much opportunity for rotation.


Exactly what I am talking about, GAME Management! When it dont work you dont keep pounding the ball for no gain. But we did have a nice average ypc though.

You have to adjust and make changes. Bring in Bennet for a swing, screen, SOMETHING! Not saying he was the answer. But what the hell?

I think Herm's only concern was getting Trent a Snickers!

He did the same thing in NY with Martin. Ran him into retirement.

Woodrow Call
09-11-2006, 11:30 AM
Page has moved ahead of Pollard because he is better in coverage and seems to have better instincts as well. Wesley didnt play that bad so there wasn't much of a need for Pollard.

As far as Bennett goes there wasn't much of a chance to use him.

htismaqe
09-11-2006, 11:32 AM
Page played because of the personnel package. If Wesley had come off the field, you would have seen more Pollard. Page is also further along in his development than Pollard.

Reerun_KC
09-11-2006, 11:34 AM
Just wondered?

Didnt seem like we mixed up our packages or personnel very much yesterday. We became predictable and conserative way to early.

I wonder what Jesus Saunders would of done?


I truly think Herm pissed himself yesterday.

NaptownChief
09-11-2006, 11:35 AM
And where was Kris Siavii errrr I mean Wilson at yesterday?

htismaqe
09-11-2006, 11:40 AM
Exactly what I am talking about, GAME Management! When it dont work you dont keep pounding the ball for no gain. But we did have a nice average ypc though.

You have to adjust and make changes. Bring in Bennet for a swing, screen, SOMETHING! Not saying he was the answer. But what the hell?

I think Herm's only concern was getting Trent a Snickers!

He did the same thing in NY with Martin. Ran him into retirement.

ROFL

So let me get this straight:

Larry didn't run the ball enough, but you can't keep pounding the ball for no gain. Larry didn't run the ball enough, we should have run him more, but Herm is bad because he ran Martin into the ground. We passed the ball too much, but we should have brought in Bennet for a pass.

Seriously, this is some high quality stuff here.

htismaqe
09-11-2006, 11:43 AM
Just wondered?

Didnt seem like we mixed up our packages or personnel very much yesterday. We became predictable and conserative way to early.

I wonder what Jesus Saunders would of done?

I truly think Herm pissed himself yesterday.

It didn't seem like we mixed up our packages yesterday because you weren't watching the game...

Dave Lane
09-11-2006, 11:48 AM
Actually what I saw yesterday would have made Marty cringe...

Dave

Mecca
09-11-2006, 11:48 AM
I don't care who's calling the game. When you have a LT that gets picked up and tossed at the QB and a RT that would be lucky to block posters on this board, it doesn't matter what you're calling.

noa
09-11-2006, 11:51 AM
It didn't seem like we mixed up our packages yesterday because you weren't watching the game...


Since I've seen you shoot down other people's criticism of our play calling in other threads, I would like to know if you thought there were any problems at all with our play calling. Is there anything at all you would have changed?

htismaqe
09-11-2006, 11:59 AM
Since I've seen you shoot down other people's criticism of our play calling in other threads, I would like to know if you thought there were any problems at all with our play calling. Is there anything at all you would have changed?

What would I have changed?

Start someone OTHER THAN Jordan Black at RT. That's what I would have changed.

Had the line been able to protect and run block early, the whole game could have been called differently.

The playcalling wasn't good. It was NECESSARY.

htismaqe
09-11-2006, 12:04 PM
I don't care who's calling the game. When you have a LT that gets picked up and tossed at the QB and a RT that would be lucky to block posters on this board, it doesn't matter what you're calling.

The LT did not get "picked up and tossed". He got pushed back into the QB TWICE. And it would have gone unnoticed had #65 not let his man run unabated to the QB while he was trying to step up in the pocket...

Reerun_KC
09-11-2006, 01:05 PM
What would I have changed?

Start someone OTHER THAN Jordan Black at RT. That's what I would have changed.

Had the line been able to protect and run block early, the whole game could have been called differently.

The playcalling wasn't good. It was NECESSARY.


Okay so they were running down I-65 during rush hour. We all know that. So if you dont have anyone to replace I-65 with. Why do you keep putting yourself in situations that cause him to fail?

What make you think anyone other than I-65 would be different?


Now that you have established that. Why not run, Pass, screen, pitch or any other freaking football play away from Black?