| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
DaRealdeal
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 8612
Location: Jamison. on the sig
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 10:36 am Post subject: |
 |
|
|
Blount should be used as a finisher. 4th quarter, up by 7, the defense is tired and Blount is fresh. Let him trot out there and beat up on a softer defense. I don't want him taking too many early down carries from Martin, but I do believe that he will be important to this team.
With that being said, if some team offered a 3rd/4th for him I don't think that I could turn that down.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Lil' Shorty
Joined: 23 Nov 2007
Posts: 2499
Location: NC...surrounded by lame Panther fans.
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 1:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| DaRealdeal wrote: | Blount should be used as a finisher. 4th quarter, up by 7, the defense is tired and Blount is fresh. Let him trot out there and beat up on a softer defense. I don't want him taking too many early down carries from Martin, but I do believe that he will be important to this team.
With that being said, if some team offered a 3rd/4th for him I don't think that I could turn that down. |
I agree with your post except the trading him part. I think that Blount being able to finish and punish defenses in the 4th that are tired will be very important. Smith seems to be good but is unproven. We cant have him be the #2. We are screwed regardless if Martin goes down but it would be much worse if Smith was the only other capable guy on the depth chart. Blount for a 2nd would be worth it. But we need to hold onto him really, thats why I say the price is so high.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
epicMustache
Joined: 19 Jul 2010
Posts: 631
Location: Tallahassee
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 4:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Sorry for the double post, hit quote instead of edit...
_________________
| THE PACK MAN wrote: | | ... but the Packers wouldnt be as good if they had the 49ers defense. |
- Adopt a Buc -
Dallas Clark - TE - 47 REC, 435 YDS, 4 TDs, 9.3 AVG
Last edited by epicMustache on Tue Aug 28, 2012 4:24 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
epicMustache
Joined: 19 Jul 2010
Posts: 631
Location: Tallahassee
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 4:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Caaddy24 wrote: | | Do you watch the games? |
Do you? When you use a RB that can only run the ball in a single set, then yeah it's pretty obvious what we're going to do. But any half imaginative offensive coordinator (something Olson was obviously not) could use a two RB set and have a lot of success with it.
Don't blame a limited running back for an offensive coordinator using him like he wasn't one. If you can't figure out that a backfield of Martin and Blount would be a potentially lethal one, then I don't know what to tell you.
Please, enlighten us with something more than "he sucks," which is all you've contributed to this thread thus far. All I said was that knocking his ability as a pure RUNNER is ridiculous. And it is. Have a nice day. 
| Lil' Shorty wrote: | | I think that Blount being able to finish and punish defenses in the 4th that are tired will be very important. Smith seems to be good but is unproven. We cant have him be the #2. We are screwed regardless if Martin goes down but it would be much worse if Smith was the only other capable guy on the depth chart. Blount for a 2nd would be worth it. But we need to hold onto him really, thats why I say the price is so high. |
This. A 2nd you would have to consider, but anyone saying a 3rd or 4th is an advocate of moving him because they have a blind hatred that probably stemmed more from our vanilla offense last year than any real disapproval towards Blount's running style. Because I know for damn sure there were no Blount haters around here in 2010. Like I said before, hilarious what a year can do to sway people.
*EDIT* Don't know why it double posted like that, I was just trying to edit my prior post. Must have hit quote instead. DRD, if you could delete my previous post, I'd appreciate it!
_________________
| THE PACK MAN wrote: | | ... but the Packers wouldnt be as good if they had the 49ers defense. |
- Adopt a Buc -
Dallas Clark - TE - 47 REC, 435 YDS, 4 TDs, 9.3 AVG |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tml_gogo
Joined: 02 Feb 2007
Posts: 11710
Location: Montréal
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| epicMustache wrote: |
Don't blame a limited running back for an offensive coordinator using him like he wasn't one. If you can't figure out that a backfield of Martin and Blount would be a potentially lethal one, then I don't know what to tell you.
Please, enlighten us with something more than "he sucks," which is all you've contributed to this thread thus far. All I said was that knocking his ability as a pure RUNNER is ridiculous. And it is. Have a nice day.
|
Please, enlighten us more with something more than "knocking is ability is ridiculous." Did you read my post? Here we go again:
- He is slow
- If he doesn't get a massive hole with 5+ yards untouched, the run goes nowhere
- He has no vision, constantly runs into the backs of our o-linemen
- For a 250 pound back, he is completely useless in short yardage
- Incapable of running outside, even if it's open (another vision issue)
- No moves other than the odd hurdle
And all of that ignores the blocking and catching issue, which makes our offense completely one dimensional and predictable. It is no surprise that Martin clearly won the starting job, even Earnest Graham looked way better than Blount.
_________________
El Ramster |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
epicMustache
Joined: 19 Jul 2010
Posts: 631
Location: Tallahassee
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| tml_gogo wrote: | | epicMustache wrote: |
Don't blame a limited running back for an offensive coordinator using him like he wasn't one. If you can't figure out that a backfield of Martin and Blount would be a potentially lethal one, then I don't know what to tell you.
Please, enlighten us with something more than "he sucks," which is all you've contributed to this thread thus far. All I said was that knocking his ability as a pure RUNNER is ridiculous. And it is. Have a nice day.
|
Please, enlighten us more with something more than "knocking is ability is ridiculous." Did you read my post? Here we go again:
- He is slow
- If he doesn't get a massive hole with 5+ yards untouched, the run goes nowhere
- He has no vision, constantly runs into the backs of our o-linemen
- For a 250 pound back, he is completely useless in short yardage
- Incapable of running outside, even if it's open (another vision issue)
- No moves other than the odd hurdle
And all of that ignores the blocking and catching issue, which makes our offense completely one dimensional and predictable. It is no surprise that Martin clearly won the starting job, even Earnest Graham looked way better than Blount. |
First of all, I was directing nothing towards you, but mkay, here we go. He runs into the back of his O-linemen, that can't be denied. But to say he has no vision is crazy. To say that he can't run to the outside is also crazy. Most of his big runs result from him bouncing to the outside because the inside is clogged, and there's nowhere to go. You can find plenty of proof of that with even a little searching. You should know that by having watched him the past few years. But sure, he has "no vision"...  Now, is that the most dynamic facet of his game? Of course not... but it doesn't mean it's a glaring weakness like you're making it out to be.
He's slow, I absolutely can't refute that. But a lot of great RBs in the NFL were. He's also not on the Alstott level of being able to break tackles, but he damn sure doesn't have to be untouched in the first 5 yards to break a long run. Again, a little bit of searching can support this. Yeah, if he gets past the first level he's much more dangerous, but what RB isn't with a full head of steam?
No moves other than the hurdle? Not even going to bother with that. The fact that you're saying he doesn't have any vision tells me all that I need to know. Again, he does run into the back of his O-linemen a few times a game, but to say he has no vision... Well, I can't help you there.
And if I really need to harp on the fact that he's one dimensional, AGAIN - I'll do it. Yeah, he's one-dimensional. But a guy that's above average to moderately great in one aspect of football can still shine with a somewhat intelligent coordinator directing him. Which he's never had.
_________________
| THE PACK MAN wrote: | | ... but the Packers wouldnt be as good if they had the 49ers defense. |
- Adopt a Buc -
Dallas Clark - TE - 47 REC, 435 YDS, 4 TDs, 9.3 AVG |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucsfan333
Joined: 15 Jun 2007
Posts: 21940
Location: Kempes on the sig
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
What I like most about Blount is that he never gets brought to the ground. Never. His forward momentum just gets stopped when three guys jump on him. Dude's a monster.
_________________
| BigBillsFan13 wrote: | | you're damn sexy too |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
epicMustache
Joined: 19 Jul 2010
Posts: 631
Location: Tallahassee
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| bucsfan333 wrote: | | What I like most about Blount is that he never gets brought to the ground. Never. His forward momentum just gets stopped when three guys jump on him. Dude's a monster. |
Yep. I almost can't believe a lot of what I'm reading in this thread is coming from people who sit down and watch the games. Because it sure doesn't seem like it.
The biggest hiccup in Blount's career thus far has been a clueless coordinator, trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole by using him like he could be something he obviously wasn't... a 3 down back.
There are very few backs that could succeed when the other team knows exactly what you're doing (again referencing Olson leaving him in a single set backfield 99% of the time he was in the game - yeah, we're obviously going to run it and probably straight up the middle, since Olson rarely ever gave him an opportunity for a sweep)... and those backs are often lumped into the category of GOAT candidates.
_________________
| THE PACK MAN wrote: | | ... but the Packers wouldnt be as good if they had the 49ers defense. |
- Adopt a Buc -
Dallas Clark - TE - 47 REC, 435 YDS, 4 TDs, 9.3 AVG
Last edited by epicMustache on Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:24 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucsfan333
Joined: 15 Jun 2007
Posts: 21940
Location: Kempes on the sig
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Oh. And I believe he was, statistically, one of the most elusive backs in the NFL his rookie year. He trucked and made more guys miss tackles than almost anybody in the league.
You can see it. Once he gets a full head of steam goin' nobody wants to tackle him. His big runs always involve at least one guy too afraid to actually hit him.
_________________
| BigBillsFan13 wrote: | | you're damn sexy too |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
epicMustache
Joined: 19 Jul 2010
Posts: 631
Location: Tallahassee
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Just glad someone else here knows that he has more moves than just the hurdle. 
And you're right, people are very hesitant to tackle a LGB with a full head of steam. When defenders are hedging instead of trying to go at you full speed, you know you're doing something right. He reminds me of the kid in peewee football that was seemingly way over the weight and age limit. When he's on, he's on... and there's no one in the NFL that can reverse that momentum.
_________________
| THE PACK MAN wrote: | | ... but the Packers wouldnt be as good if they had the 49ers defense. |
- Adopt a Buc -
Dallas Clark - TE - 47 REC, 435 YDS, 4 TDs, 9.3 AVG |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tml_gogo
Joined: 02 Feb 2007
Posts: 11710
Location: Montréal
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Alright man, you can go on and get his hall of fame bust ready, I'll trust the coaches who just named a rookie the starter over him halfway through the preseason.
_________________
El Ramster
Last edited by tml_gogo on Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:30 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
canadabuccaneer
Joined: 20 Jan 2010
Posts: 653
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Detroit is looking for a RB and they will need to probably cut someone from their Dline, maybe Lawrence Jackson + a late pick?
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucsfan333
Joined: 15 Jun 2007
Posts: 21940
Location: Kempes on the sig
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| epicMustache wrote: | | bucsfan333 wrote: | | What I like most about Blount is that he never gets brought to the ground. Never. His forward momentum just gets stopped when three guys jump on him. Dude's a monster. |
Yep. I almost can't believe a lot of what I'm reading in this thread is coming from people who sit down and watch the games. Because it sure doesn't seem like it.
The biggest hiccup in Blount's career thus far has been a clueless coordinator, trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole by using him like he could be something he obviously wasn't... a 3 down back.
There are very few backs that could succeed when the other team knows exactly what you're doing (again referencing Olson leaving him in a single set backfield 99% of the time he was in the game - yeah, we're obviously going to run it and probably straight up the middle, since Olson rarely ever gave him an opportunity for a sweep)... and those backs are often lumped into the category of GOAT candidates. |
I think he can make a big impact if he's used properly. Like you said, he's not a third down back. Why force him to be right away. He can at least become a decent pass blocker. He's capable of making that catch in the flats. Just don't assume it's always gonna work just yet.
There have been teams that have had "thunder and lightning" backfields and have found success. We've got the personell to have an extremely dominant backfield. Just give it a year or two. Throw in Smith and watch out. Earth, Wind, and Fire V2? Yes, please.
_________________
| BigBillsFan13 wrote: | | you're damn sexy too |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mzerv00
Joined: 30 Mar 2009
Posts: 152
Location: Tampa Bay, FL
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
The negativity between this and Freeman's thread is crazy... 
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
epicMustache
Joined: 19 Jul 2010
Posts: 631
Location: Tallahassee
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| tml_gogo wrote: | | Alright man, you can go on and get his hall of fame bust ready, I'll trust the coaches who just named a rookie the starter over him halfway through the preseason. |
| epicMustache wrote: | Think most of us were expecting this, but good to hear. He's earned it...  |
First reply in this thread... you can tell so clearly I just yearned for him to remain the starter!
There are probably 20 posts by me in this forum saying how complete of a back Martin is, and how excited I am to have him. I've even done the stereotypical thing and compared him to Ray Rice, even though I think there are some differences in their respective games. I think you missed the point of my entire post, which is that RIGHT NOW he's a great asset to this team... late in the game. Not that he should be a cornerstone of the franchise, or that he has a bust waiting in Canton. Come on man, you're grasping for straws here. All I did was refute your points, no need to act like I'm attacking you or anything.
Again, he has vision. Maybe not in regards to his own offensive linemen, but he can bounce runs to the outside as well as some of the premier backs in the league. I'll say it one more time, then I'm done... his issues have been because he was being pegged into something he wasn't. We all knew LGB couldn't do anything but run the ball, so yeah it was extremely predictable with him back there in a single set. The times he did stay back to pass block, he almost got Josh killed a few times. He can improve on that facet of his game with a little work, though. Not saying he will, but he can.
| bucsfan333 wrote: | I think he can make a big impact if he's used properly. Like you said, he's not a third down back. Why force him to be right away. He can at least become a decent pass blocker. He's capable of making that catch in the flats. Just don't assume it's always gonna work just yet.
There have been teams that have had "thunder and lightning" backfields and have found success. We've got the personell to have an extremely dominant backfield. Just give it a year or two. Throw in Smith and watch out. Earth, Wind, and Fire V2? Yes, please. |
Exactly! When we have the potential to replicate some of the great 3-deep backfields the NFL has sprung forth the last few years, why would anyone risk anything to change that? Caddy was a terrible pass blocker his first few years, until he recognized he needed to improve in that area to remain a valuable commodity to the team. He did, and that quickly became the best aspect of his game. Blount is much bigger than Caddy, so he can become an even better blocker than #24 was his last year or two with us.
| mzerv00 wrote: | | The negativity between this and Freeman's thread is crazy... |
It seems like the sky is falling in Tampa Bay, according to most posters here... and I'm not really sure why.
_________________
| THE PACK MAN wrote: | | ... but the Packers wouldnt be as good if they had the 49ers defense. |
- Adopt a Buc -
Dallas Clark - TE - 47 REC, 435 YDS, 4 TDs, 9.3 AVG |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
