PDA

View Full Version : For people who watched the game?


d34ng3l021
09-09-2007, 10:17 PM
How did our younger players look?

JDB7821
09-10-2007, 03:43 PM
Jamaal was literally non-existent, Blalock was beat just like the rest of the offensive line, Houston didn't play a whole lot but didn't get beat when he did play, Jimmy looks like he's getting better, Boley was great outside of outrunning his assignment on Peterson in the backfield, Trey Lewis was only in for a few plays, but got some push on one play I saw, and Laurent Robinson should've been in the entire game, he led the receivers in catches and yards while playing limited time. If we're going to suck this year, we might as well throw all of these guys in the fire to let them get experience.

thefalconer
09-10-2007, 05:32 PM
robinson played well and shouldve played more than jenkins imo, white looked solid but i wish we woulda tried some long balls to stretch the secondary, and blalock played really rookie-like getting beat by williams almost every play.

iloxygenil
09-11-2007, 01:05 AM
Wow, Falcons fans know nothing about football. Blalock was fine, actually did a very good job against 2 pro bowl DTs...ask Petrino. 'Beat almost ever play' you obviously don't know what number Blalock is. You have him confused with 72.

Jamaal got good push when we were in a position to come after the QB, so to say he was non existent was stupid, he got some pressures and disrupted runs and whatnot...Jamaal is going to be very good, we were behind so his role was to hold the point of attack...which obviously these people don't understand...and he did a very good job at that. He didn't get out on the screen far enough but he started playing the ball when AP started to bobble instead of getting into position about the only knock I have.

thefalconer
09-11-2007, 02:22 PM
i know the difference. the vikings interior def penetrated the los repeatedly and caused havoc allowing henderson to be successful with his sacks. yeah lemme go call bobby petrino and ask him..

JDB7821
09-12-2007, 05:06 PM
Wow, Falcons fans know nothing about football. Blalock was fine, actually did a very good job against 2 pro bowl DTs...ask Petrino. 'Beat almost ever play' you obviously don't know what number Blalock is. You have him confused with 72.

Jamaal got good push when we were in a position to come after the QB, so to say he was non existent was stupid, he got some pressures and disrupted runs and whatnot...Jamaal is going to be very good, we were behind so his role was to hold the point of attack...which obviously these people don't understand...and he did a very good job at that. He didn't get out on the screen far enough but he started playing the ball when AP started to bobble instead of getting into position about the only knock I have.

2 tackles. That's all Jamaal had. For whatever "pressures" and "disruptions" he had, Peterson still went over 100 and we still had no sacks. I watched the game 3 times now, the 2nd time being mostly in slow motion so I could see what went wrong. Only a few times did I see Jamaal disrupt, and those were mostly at the beginning of the game. I think he's going to be good too, but to say he had a good game is a bit of a stretch.

D-Rod
09-12-2007, 05:52 PM
Yeah, let's be realistic, both Blalock and Anderson struggled.

But they're rookies, it's going to happen. Blalock was playing against the best DT pairing in football, of course he was going to get over-powered every so often. And Anderson is known to be raw, it'll take time for him to dominate consistently. Remember, even Mario Williams had a tough rookie year, and now look at him.

However, Houston looked okay when in the game, and JW was solid in coverage and the tackle. Babineaux also looked fairly good as usual, without quite being consistent enough off the snap.

People shouldn't underrate the Minnesota D, they'll be top 10 this year - they have three recent (high) 1st round picks on the D line, and a monster in Pat Williams. Add in a noisy crowd and a pretty good o-line, and it's no surprise we struggled.

It was a painful start to the season, and the rookies looked like, surprise, rookies, but we're unlikely to struggle like that all year.

BamaFalcon59
09-12-2007, 10:27 PM
Iloxy, don't be a homer. Blalock, our 'beef' on the offensive line, got pushed back by maybe the best defensive tackle in football several times. Jamaal Anderson did not look like the number 8 overall pick (well, he should have been 18 anyway), but that may be expected considering he is a junior and a 'potential' pick.

thule
09-12-2007, 10:36 PM
I watched the game on and off with the pats game. I didn't focus on many players. But being pretty high on Blalock I paid a bit of attention to him. While he did get beat or pushed back from time to time...he never got beat twice in a row. Looks to be the same problem he had at Texas. He can be an all-pro guard if he can stay focused. But it's going to take a very competitive team to keep a guy with those concerns playing hard from the opening kickoff to the final whistle.

iloxygenil
09-13-2007, 12:00 AM
I really don't like you Bama...really...I'm just going to put that out there. I'm not a homer...I'm putting things in the proper perspective. For rookies...they had good games. Blalock did a MUCH better job than anything we saw last year, except when Clabo had a couple good games.

Anderson had amazing push early...and is Jamaal supposed to keep a guy from running up the middle? NEWP, newbies know nothing obviously...but his job is to hold the point of attack...did you not notice not much of anything at all was able to happen on his side? I mean if you really watched the game in slow mo and 3 times at that, I'm SURE you saw it...right? Yes, he wore down as the game went on, but if you'll notice, their playcalling was different too. He was getting push when they weren't 1-2 second plays...no DE in football gets push on plays like that. To say that he had anything LESS than a good game for a rookie DE is foolishness. You have to keep things in perspective, and that's what most of the people here SUCK at. To say that he should have been #18 is also pretty foolish, did you not watch him in the pre-season? Might want to re-watch the 3rd game...that's just a FLASH of his potential...if he plays up to that level consistently he's going to be a top 5 DE in the league...maybe higher...to say that's not worth the #8 pick means you may be the least intelligent person I've ever met. Jamaal was picked on his raw ability and talent, not on his polished proven skill. He has the tools, we have to coach him properly. The Vikings had a good gameplan because they were ahead and could play that way, neutralized our pass rush.

Shiver
09-13-2007, 02:14 AM
The fact is this is a rebuilding year and the team is stock full of rookies. Of course they aren't going to play well early on. Look at Houston last year, they were in a similar situation as Atlanta is right now, they were awful the first three games but turned it around once the rookies picked up the speed of the game and the scheme. I'm not too worried. Patience will be a virtue while watching the team this year.

JDB7821
09-14-2007, 08:16 PM
I really don't like you Bama...really...I'm just going to put that out there. I'm not a homer...I'm putting things in the proper perspective. For rookies...they had good games. Blalock did a MUCH better job than anything we saw last year, except when Clabo had a couple good games.

Anderson had amazing push early...and is Jamaal supposed to keep a guy from running up the middle? NEWP, newbies know nothing obviously...but his job is to hold the point of attack...did you not notice not much of anything at all was able to happen on his side? I mean if you really watched the game in slow mo and 3 times at that, I'm SURE you saw it...right? Yes, he wore down as the game went on, but if you'll notice, their playcalling was different too. He was getting push when they weren't 1-2 second plays...no DE in football gets push on plays like that. To say that he had anything LESS than a good game for a rookie DE is foolishness. You have to keep things in perspective, and that's what most of the people here SUCK at. To say that he should have been #18 is also pretty foolish, did you not watch him in the pre-season? Might want to re-watch the 3rd game...that's just a FLASH of his potential...if he plays up to that level consistently he's going to be a top 5 DE in the league...maybe higher...to say that's not worth the #8 pick means you may be the least intelligent person I've ever met. Jamaal was picked on his raw ability and talent, not on his polished proven skill. He has the tools, we have to coach him properly. The Vikings had a good gameplan because they were ahead and could play that way, neutralized our pass rush.

http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/9328/vlcsnap209316gz6.jpg

Why do you think that is? Is it because Jamaal wasn't allowing anything to happen on his side? Again, I'm not saying he's not going to be good, because I think he will be, I'm just proving my point that he wasn't as disruptive as you think he was.

Shiver
09-14-2007, 08:32 PM
Very few defensive ends come out and immediately dominate in the NFL. I am not worried about Jamaal Anderson. In fact, I'm not worried about the defense at all. It's the offense that is the issue. That whole unit is a disaster and Petrino needs to focus the next off-season on revamping the offensive side of the ball. At least with Michael Vick the team was always guaranteed a strong rushing attack. Now the team has nothing. Harrington is like Vick if he couldn't run.

ATLDirtyBirds
09-14-2007, 09:08 PM
Very few defensive ends come out and immediately dominate in the NFL. I am not worried about Jamaal Anderson. In fact, I'm not worried about the defense at all. It's the offense that is the issue. That whole unit is a disaster and Petrino needs to focus the next off-season on revamping the offensive side of the ball. At least with Michael Vick the team was always guaranteed a strong rushing attack. Now the team has nothing. Harrington is like Vick if he couldn't run.


And Vick was a better passer to. You suck Joey.

Shiver
09-14-2007, 09:31 PM
That's really sad when you think about it, but your right. Vick had a positive TD/INT ratio, Harrington does not.

iloxygenil
09-14-2007, 10:27 PM
http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/9328/vlcsnap209316gz6.jpg

Why do you think that is? Is it because Jamaal wasn't allowing anything to happen on his side? Again, I'm not saying he's not going to be good, because I think he will be, I'm just proving my point that he wasn't as disruptive as you think he was.

Considering a team had to gameplan for a rookie...ya...he's as disruptive as I think he is...

BamaFalcon59
09-15-2007, 12:35 AM
I really don't like you Bama...really...I'm just going to put that out there. I'm not a homer...I'm putting things in the proper perspective. For rookies...they had good games. Blalock did a MUCH better job than anything we saw last year, except when Clabo had a couple good games.

Anderson had amazing push early...and is Jamaal supposed to keep a guy from running up the middle? NEWP, newbies know nothing obviously...but his job is to hold the point of attack...did you not notice not much of anything at all was able to happen on his side? I mean if you really watched the game in slow mo and 3 times at that, I'm SURE you saw it...right? Yes, he wore down as the game went on, but if you'll notice, their playcalling was different too. He was getting push when they weren't 1-2 second plays...no DE in football gets push on plays like that. To say that he had anything LESS than a good game for a rookie DE is foolishness. You have to keep things in perspective, and that's what most of the people here SUCK at. To say that he should have been #18 is also pretty foolish, did you not watch him in the pre-season? Might want to re-watch the 3rd game...that's just a FLASH of his potential...if he plays up to that level consistently he's going to be a top 5 DE in the league...maybe higher...to say that's not worth the #8 pick means you may be the least intelligent person I've ever met. Jamaal was picked on his raw ability and talent, not on his polished proven skill. He has the tools, we have to coach him properly. The Vikings had a good gameplan because they were ahead and could play that way, neutralized our pass rush.

Ok, that's fine.

I don't know if you saw the stat, but it logged the amount of Peterson rushing yards to each direction after the half, and all were to the middle or right. Lots were to the middle, but saying he plugged the run isn't entirely true. He also didn't get much pressure on the QB facing a mediocre right tackle. Now, considering he was a prospect based off of potential, I don't expect a ton of production early on. But I'm not going to be a homer and say he played great. None to the left. I'm not saying he doesn't have the tools. I'm saying he was not the 8th best prospect in the draft.

JaMarcus Russell
Adrian Peterson
Calvin Johnson
Gaines Adams
Joe Thomas
LaRon Landry

All, IMO, are definitely better prospects. I would also have, albeit not neccessarily for us, Amobi Okoye, Patrick Willis, Levi Brown, MarShawn Lynch and Adam Carriker rated higher.

iloxygenil
09-15-2007, 10:25 AM
I did see the stat, but when he was in there they didn't run well to his side either...and if you didn't notice they doubled and chipped him MOST of the game after he was pushing the RT wherever he wanted early on.

JDB7821
09-15-2007, 11:53 PM
Considering a team had to gameplan for a rookie...ya...he's as disruptive as I think he is...

What kind of game plan is running right at him? Abraham has a reputation for not being so great against the run (it's not true, but it's there), why didn't they run against him with a great left side? It's because they know Anderson doesn't have the technique down and he was going to struggle some.

iloxygenil
09-16-2007, 08:15 PM
So, that's why they doubled him and chipped him and cut him? Yeah...if that's not game planning for a rookie...nothing is...

JDB7821
09-17-2007, 05:49 AM
So, that's why they doubled him and chipped him and cut him? Yeah...if that's not game planning for a rookie...nothing is...

And I take it you thought he was "disruptive" against Jacksonville too? I'm not bashing him, because he's a really unrefined rookie, but he hasn't done much of anything up to this point.

BamaFalcon59
09-17-2007, 09:21 PM
And I take it you thought he was "disruptive" against Jacksonville too? I'm not bashing him, because he's a really unrefined rookie, but he hasn't done much of anything up to this point.

Very true. Not saying he won't do anything, but it's dissappointing seeing Calvin Johnson, Levi Brown, Adrian Peterson, Amobi Okoye, Patrick Willis, etc etc make plays. Then again Gaines Adams, Joe Thomas, JaMarcus Russell, Adam Carriker, etc etc haven't done much either.

D-Rod
09-18-2007, 10:12 AM
Everyone knew that he was raw, so I'm not surprised that he hasn't been a game-breaker already. However, he's already shown some signs. He actually held up reasonably well against one of the better run-blocking RTs (Tony Pashos), and beat him to the outside on several occasions.

He's not there yet, but I think the promise is there.