Do you know enough to give up on Deshone Kizer?

[buno67]

8 minutes ago, bruceb said:

I think it is more than that.

I think Hue's system -- if he even has one -- is a big part of the problem.

I also think his coaches are meh, at best.

 

to me it all stems from Hue tho. It is hard to wear two hats in the NFL, specially when both hats are as the HC and OC. I think Hue could be a lot better if he didnt have to devote all his time to the offense. IMO a HC cant be one sided. To me Hue tries to devote all the time he can to be an OC but he has to work on other aspects. He needs an OC who can focus all his time on offense. Lets say coaches only have 40 hours to spend a week on doing football related activites. An OC will devote all 40 hours to the offense. With Hue, its impossible for him to devote all 40 hours. There have to be aspects to this team that are not getting the full attention they need

[Iamcanadian]

8 hours ago, brownie man said:

Give me Barkley I’ve been saying that since the offseason 

he would totally change our offense

like I said I believe adding Barkley and a Free Safety like Minkah would do more for our team than drafting a QB. 

Yeah, teams would be so scared of our passing that Barkley would have open lanes to run through all day, or perhaps, teams would see that Kizer is inept and not worry too much about him beating them and use 7 run defenders to strictly stop the run, even adding an eighth occasionally, making running the ball almost impossible.

I guess that is why teams with solid franchise QB's usually make the playoffs while teams with inept QB's, rarely even get close to the playoffs.

[Reginaldm9]

On 11/23/2017 at 6:13 PM, brownie man said:

Ok heres my stance 

if were to get the number 1 pick which I don’t think we will. I think we’re gonna finish the season strong

but if we were to 

I can understand drafting a QB at one to at least put the most valuable pick at the most valuable position 

but for those who say Kizers never going to amount to anything based on what we’ve seen and the team around him I think that’s some BS. I believe in him and would rather add Saquon Barkley who would be our Zeke. Who has shown can totally transform a team as you see how they’re playing without him. 

But if we did draft a QB I could accept it. 

But if so give me Darnold. Rosen overrated 

Skipping bargaining and depression in the grief process are we? 

[Kiwibrown]

I know enough to draft a QB1 and I know enough for kisser to play out the contract. 

[H2ThaIzzo]

23 hours ago, buno67 said:

to me it all stems from Hue tho. It is hard to wear two hats in the NFL, specially when both hats are as the HC and OC. I think Hue could be a lot better if he didnt have to devote all his time to the offense. IMO a HC cant be one sided. To me Hue tries to devote all the time he can to be an OC but he has to work on other aspects. He needs an OC who can focus all his time on offense. Lets say coaches only have 40 hours to spend a week on doing football related activites. An OC will devote all 40 hours to the offense. With Hue, its impossible for him to devote all 40 hours. There have to be aspects to this team that are not getting the full attention they need

I still have a theory that Hue knew the offense was going to be a major project and asked to have the responsibility as OC initially knowing that if things were as bad as they are, the pressure would be there to remove whoever he chose as the OC anyways. Why not take the lumps as HC yourself and bring in a guy you respect once the rebuild is in a better situation?

[AkronsWitness]

20 minutes ago, H2ThaIzzo said:

I still have a theory that Hue knew the offense was going to be a major project and asked to have the responsibility as OC initially knowing that if things were as bad as they are, the pressure would be there to remove whoever he chose as the OC anyways. Why not take the lumps as HC yourself and bring in a guy you respect once the rebuild is in a better situation?

Becasue the NFL is a what have you done for me lately business and no coach has time to sit around and wait a few years until the situation is perfect.

[Onizuka]

21 hours ago, Iamcanadian said:

Yeah, teams would be so scared of our passing that Barkley would have open lanes to run through all day, or perhaps, teams would see that Kizer is inept and not worry too much about him beating them and use 7 run defenders to strictly stop the run, even adding an eighth occasionally, making running the ball almost impossible.

I guess that is why teams with solid franchise QB's usually make the playoffs while teams with inept QB's, rarely even get close to the playoffs.

Have you seen what Dak looks like without Zeke?

Not saying Kizer is the answer, but, the Cowboys made the playoffs last year by focusing their offense on Zeke and asking Dak to throw it every now and then on play action. Everyone was hailing Dak, anointing him a franchise QB and they even gave him ROTY, when Zeke was the one doing the heavy lifting by keeping the offense on the field and allowing their defense to have plenty of rest. Our defense has been for the most part great this year, we have holes of course, but, it's by the 3rd/4th quarter they are gassed for because they are on the field for 3/4 of the game it seems.

Again, I still think coaching is our biggest issue, it won't matter who we draft if they aren't being utilized or coached properly. We need a coach that molds the offense/defense to personnel and not try to force players that don't match their scheme.

[AkronsWitness]

1 hour ago, Onizuka said:

Have you seen what Dak looks like without Zeke?

Not saying Kizer is the answer, but, the Cowboys made the playoffs last year by focusing their offense on Zeke and asking Dak to throw it every now and then on play action. Everyone was hailing Dak, anointing him a franchise QB and they even gave him ROTY, when Zeke was the one doing the heavy lifting by keeping the offense on the field and allowing their defense to have plenty of rest. Our defense has been for the most part great this year, we have holes of course, but, it's by the 3rd/4th quarter they are gassed for because they are on the field for 3/4 of the game it seems.

Again, I still think coaching is our biggest issue, it won't matter who we draft if they aren't being utilized or coached properly. We need a coach that molds the offense/defense to personnel and not try to force players that don't match their scheme.

I think the biggest thing is to create a simplified offense that highlights the strengths of your players. Its the same thing we always talk about and sounds simple stupid but how many times do we see it happen and work. For example: Wade Phillips, John Fox, Sean McVay. All of them came in and designed offenses/defenses around the strengths of your players instead of trying to fit them into your 'box'

It also doesnt help that we have a terrible and inconsistent running game. It would be nice to draft a Guice, Harris, or Chubb and have a legit feature back who can make plays for your offense to take the pressure off your young QB and other teams have to plan for.

Do you know any idea how much a Gurley helps Goff or as we have seen Zeke helps Dak? WE NEED A GURLEY/ZEKE if what Im trying to say. Look how much better your offense flows when you have a good balanced attack where the defense cant just pin their ears back and speed rush until your QB is broken into pieces or throws 3 INTs a game.

In the end, do I think Kizer is the guy? I have about 20% faith in him at this point and unfortunately he may not even get another shot after this year to find out if he grew after a year. It still goes back to the things that plagued him in college--accuracy and decision making. I have been vocal about neither of those things being easy or possible to learn. You either have it or you dont and so far all of the reasons Kizer slipped in the draft are being shown this entire year in the pros.

I might throw in the towel with him if there is a cant miss guy that the FO really really likes at #1.

[bruceb]

2 hours ago, H2ThaIzzo said:

I still have a theory that Hue knew the offense was going to be a major project and asked to have the responsibility as OC initially knowing that if things were as bad as they are, the pressure would be there to remove whoever he chose as the OC anyways. Why not take the lumps as HC yourself and bring in a guy you respect once the rebuild is in a better situation?

That's deep. 

 

[buno67]

2 hours ago, H2ThaIzzo said:

I still have a theory that Hue knew the offense was going to be a major project and asked to have the responsibility as OC initially knowing that if things were as bad as they are, the pressure would be there to remove whoever he chose as the OC anyways. Why not take the lumps as HC yourself and bring in a guy you respect once the rebuild is in a better situation?

still, if you knew it was going to be a major project, you bring in support. If he knew it was going to be that demanding, then he is causing issues because now he is devoting more time to the offense and the duties of being an OC than focusing on being a HC. I have never heard an issue for losing was having too many coaches. Heck the more offensive minds the better. 

You would want Hue to spend all this time and effort on the offense and once everything is figured out, he should bring in a guy to take over it? Why? If Hue was able to turn the offense around by himself and not lose the entire team, why go to an OC now? Why not reap the rewards of your effort? The job is going to be easier, why change.

Prolly would of been smarter to have an OC. He is another offensive mind to help with scheming and game planning. Everyone will see things different and can come up with ideas and adjustments. I know when I coached, I had a lot less experience than the coaches around me. I would see things different and always brought up ideas or concepts that the others didnt pick up. I dont know how that would hurt coach. If the OC wasnt really working out with Hue, it gives him out by being able to fire the OC. He could of always gone that he wasnt happy that the OC was going against the idea of running the ball, going against the idea of featuring Duke as the main weapon and so far. Hue wanted to the extra duties, now he has to bear the negatives of it. 

Also if Hue was forecasting this rebuild/tear down with young talent, having another coach on staff to help them would of done nothing but benefit them. 

[Kiwibrown]

I really wish we had kept John Defillippo, he was a great OC. 

so was Shanny. and chud was pretty good as well. 

[Thomas5737]

55 minutes ago, AkronsWitness said:

It also doesnt help that we have a terrible and inconsistent running game. It would be nice to draft a Guice, Harris, or Chubb and have a legit feature back who can make plays for your offense to take the pressure off your young QB and other teams have to plan for.

Do you know any idea how much a Gurley helps Goff or as we have seen Zeke helps Dak? WE NEED A GURLEY/ZEKE if what Im trying to say. Look how much better your offense flows when you have a good balanced attack where the defense cant just pin their ears back and speed rush until your QB is broken into pieces or throws 3 INTs a game.

We may have an inconsistent running game but only 7 NFL teams average more per rush. We average .2 yards per carry more than the Rams they just run it more. We've ran it 55 times less than the Rams but have passed 58 more times. We've also taken 17 more sacks so it is even more lopsided that it appears. So that is 7th most attempts per game and 27th most yards per game. Rushing we are tied for 8th best yards per attempts and 25 in attempts. Sure, being behind plays a part in that as it has for the Giants and the 49ers but even though they are both bottom 10 in passer rating (SF is 31st) they are considerably better than our passing attack.

A lot of that is coaching putting us in a position to lose by continuing to go with a heavy passing attack when it isn't working and when it isn't necessary. Take the Jaguar game, they were #1 in passing defense and bottom 10 in rush defense. It was cold, wet and windy. We attempted 32 passes and took 5 sacks. The QB turned it over 4 times. We ran 13 times with running backs for a total of 28 yards, not good but no turnovers and not enough attempts over the course of a game to really say it failed (3 carries per quarter). We lost by 12 with 16 points coming off of turnover from the passing game.

Would we have won if we went run heavy? Hard to say but there is a 100% chance we lose if we go pass heavy because we saw it. Our QB is a turnover machine. Our coach is putting the game in his hands. You end up getting what is to be expected. Losses.

[NudeTayne]

51 minutes ago, Thomas5737 said:

We may have an inconsistent running game but only 7 NFL teams average more per rush. We average .2 yards per carry more than the Rams they just run it more. We've ran it 55 times less than the Rams but have passed 58 more times. We've also taken 17 more sacks so it is even more lopsided that it appears. So that is 7th most attempts per game and 27th most yards per game. Rushing we are tied for 8th best yards per attempts and 25 in attempts. Sure, being behind plays a part in that as it has for the Giants and the 49ers but even though they are both bottom 10 in passer rating (SF is 31st) they are considerably better than our passing attack.

A lot of that is coaching putting us in a position to lose by continuing to go with a heavy passing attack when it isn't working and when it isn't necessary. Take the Jaguar game, they were #1 in passing defense and bottom 10 in rush defense. It was cold, wet and windy. We attempted 32 passes and took 5 sacks. The QB turned it over 4 times. We ran 13 times with running backs for a total of 28 yards, not good but no turnovers and not enough attempts over the course of a game to really say it failed (3 carries per quarter). We lost by 12 with 16 points coming off of turnover from the passing game.

Would we have won if we went run heavy? Hard to say but there is a 100% chance we lose if we go pass heavy because we saw it. Our QB is a turnover machine. Our coach is putting the game in his hands. You end up getting what is to be expected. Losses.

 

[NudeTayne]

51 minutes ago, Thomas5737 said:

We may have an inconsistent running game but only 7 NFL teams average more per rush. We average .2 yards per carry more than the Rams they just run it more. We've ran it 55 times less than the Rams but have passed 58 more times. We've also taken 17 more sacks so it is even more lopsided that it appears. So that is 7th most attempts per game and 27th most yards per game. Rushing we are tied for 8th best yards per attempts and 25 in attempts. Sure, being behind plays a part in that as it has for the Giants and the 49ers but even though they are both bottom 10 in passer rating (SF is 31st) they are considerably better than our passing attack.

A lot of that is coaching putting us in a position to lose by continuing to go with a heavy passing attack when it isn't working and when it isn't necessary. Take the Jaguar game, they were #1 in passing defense and bottom 10 in rush defense. It was cold, wet and windy. We attempted 32 passes and took 5 sacks. The QB turned it over 4 times. We ran 13 times with running backs for a total of 28 yards, not good but no turnovers and not enough attempts over the course of a game to really say it failed (3 carries per quarter). We lost by 12 with 16 points coming off of turnover from the passing game.

Would we have won if we went run heavy? Hard to say but there is a 100% chance we lose if we go pass heavy because we saw it. Our QB is a turnover machine. Our coach is putting the game in his hands. You end up getting what is to be expected. Losses.

 

[NudeTayne]

52 minutes ago, Thomas5737 said:

We may have an inconsistent running game but only 7 NFL teams average more per rush. We average .2 yards per carry more than the Rams they just run it more. We've ran it 55 times less than the Rams but have passed 58 more times. We've also taken 17 more sacks so it is even more lopsided that it appears. So that is 7th most attempts per game and 27th most yards per game. Rushing we are tied for 8th best yards per attempts and 25 in attempts. Sure, being behind plays a part in that as it has for the Giants and the 49ers but even though they are both bottom 10 in passer rating (SF is 31st) they are considerably better than our passing attack.

A lot of that is coaching putting us in a position to lose by continuing to go with a heavy passing attack when it isn't working and when it isn't necessary. Take the Jaguar game, they were #1 in passing defense and bottom 10 in rush defense. It was cold, wet and windy. We attempted 32 passes and took 5 sacks. The QB turned it over 4 times. We ran 13 times with running backs for a total of 28 yards, not good but no turnovers and not enough attempts over the course of a game to really say it failed (3 carries per quarter). We lost by 12 with 16 points coming off of turnover from the passing game.

Would we have won if we went run heavy? Hard to say but there is a 100% chance we lose if we go pass heavy because we saw it. Our QB is a turnover machine. Our coach is putting the game in his hands. You end up getting what is to be expected. Losses.

 

Just now, NudeTayne said:

We may have an inconsistent running game but only 7 NFL teams average more per rush. We average .2 yards per carry more than the Rams they just run it more. We've ran it 55 times less than the Rams but have passed 58 more times. We've also taken 17 more sacks so it is even more lopsided that it appears. So that is 7th most attempts per game and 27th most yards per game. Rushing we are tied for 8th best yards per attempts and 25 in attempts. Sure, being behind plays a part in that as it has for the Giants and the 49ers but even though they are both bottom 10 in passer rating (SF is 31st) they are considerably better than our passing attack.

A lot of that is coaching putting us in a position to lose by continuing to go with a heavy passing attack when it isn't working and when it isn't necessary. Take the Jaguar game, they were #1 in passing defense and bottom 10 in rush defense. It was cold, wet and windy. We attempted 32 passes and took 5 sacks. The QB turned it over 4 times. We ran 13 times with running backs for a total of 28 yards, not good but no turnovers and not enough attempts over the course of a game to really say it failed (3 carries per quarter). We lost by 12 with 16 points coming off of turnover from the passing game.

Would we have won if we went run heavy? Hard to say but there is a 100% chance we lose if we go pass heavy because we saw it. Our QB is a turnover machine. Our coach is putting the game in his hands. You end up getting what is to be expected. Losses.