Seneca Wallace
-
Okay, tough loss.
Where was Seneca when Jake came up lame? It seems to me that we have a real "relief pitcher" type option here with Seneca in that he can bring a different skill set for the defense to cope with.
With Jake limping, and the offense facing 96 yards to pay dirt, why not bring in Seneca and spread the field so that he has the option to hurt them and grab a first down or so with his feet?
What I took from this game. Our coaches are young. Especially Mangini and most especially Daboll. I am not saying they can't do it, I see an interesting edge to the formations we run where our TEs end up outside blocking on DBs on short passes, but our play calling just isn't decisive overall.
-
Okay, tough loss.
Where was Seneca when Jake came up lame? It seems to me that we have a real "relief pitcher" type option here with Seneca in that he can bring a different skill set for the defense to cope with.
With Jake limping, and the offense facing 96 yards to pay dirt, why not bring in Seneca and spread the field so that he has the option to hurt them and grab a first down or so with his feet?
What I took from this game. Our coaches are young. Especially Mangini and most especially Daboll. I am not saying they can't do it, I see an interesting edge to the formations we run where our TEs end up outside blocking on DBs on short passes, but our play calling just isn't decisive overall.
c-dawg said:
Okay, tough loss.Where was Seneca when Jake came up lame? It seems to me that we have a real "relief pitcher" type option here with Seneca in that he can bring a different skill set for the defense to cope with.
With Jake limping, and the offense facing 96 yards to pay dirt, why not bring in Seneca and spread the field so that he has the option to hurt them and grab a first down or so with his feet?
What I took from this game. Our coaches are young. Especially Mangini and most especially Daboll. I am not saying they can't do it, I see an interesting edge to the formations we run where our TEs end up outside blocking on DBs on short passes, but our play calling just isn't decisive overall.
That my man is the million dollar question or the 7 million dollar question to be more precise...and it just answered itself!
It will become more obvious as this season slowly torments and tortures browns fans very sports souls why dabs and the cover queengini have to go..lets punish a couple fumbles by our workhorse and reward a hurt QB that should have been sit out a bit by taking his YAC dump off guy out of the game...never mind the fact the line is constantly stacked and the OC has no answer other than to punish bad boys that fumble, these 2 guys do not know how to coach or coordinate, they need to be doing pop warner...
-
You can't just put in a backup quarterback near the end of the game and expect him to drive down the field and score the game winning TD. Jake was in the entire game, he was observing the defense from the focal point. There's no doubt there were things in the game he picked up on that Seneca would have no clue of coming into the game in the 4th. How the CB's line up when they're playing man, when they're playing zone. What moves the DE uses on the LT when he's coming on the rush. How long it takes our WR to break on their route when the CB comes up on the press. Those are all subtle things that are picked up throughout the game, and a QB coming off the bench has no idea about any of that until he's in the game.
Sticking with your starter is something we've never done here, and just because of a 3 point loss to a team that's got a lot of young talent, we're trying to switch QB's in week 2. This isn't Madden. The defense would have torn Seneca apart.
-
You can't just put in a backup quarterback near the end of the game and expect him to drive down the field and score the game winning TD. Jake was in the entire game, he was observing the defense from the focal point. There's no doubt there were things in the game he picked up on that Seneca would have no clue of coming into the game in the 4th. How the CB's line up when they're playing man, when they're playing zone. What moves the DE uses on the LT when he's coming on the rush. How long it takes our WR to break on their route when the CB comes up on the press. Those are all subtle things that are picked up throughout the game, and a QB coming off the bench has no idea about any of that until he's in the game.
Sticking with your starter is something we've never done here, and just because of a 3 point loss to a team that's got a lot of young talent, we're trying to switch QB's in week 2. This isn't Madden. The defense would have torn Seneca apart.
You can't just put in a backup quarterback near the end of the game and expect him to drive down the field and score the game winning TD. Jake was in the entire game, he was observing the defense from the focal point. There's no doubt there were things in the game he picked up on that Seneca would have no clue of coming into the game in the 4th. How the CB's line up when they're playing man, when they're playing zone. What moves the DE uses on the LT when he's coming on the rush. How long it takes our WR to break on their route when the CB comes up on the press. Those are all subtle things that are picked up throughout the game, and a QB coming off the bench has no idea about any of that until he's in the game.
Sticking with your starter is something we've never done here, and just because of a 3 point loss to a team that's got a lot of young talent, we're trying to switch QB's in week 2. This isn't Madden. The defense would have torn Seneca apart.
I hear you about the end of the game, and that was a focus of my post. I should have kept it more general. I actually liked the idea of switching the QBs up a little earlier on too, although that can have its problems as well.
I get your point about Jake dissecting the D, I think Jake is very good at that and undoubtedly learned a lot during the game. And, just like Jake knew more about the Tampa D then did Seneca, the Tampa D also knew a helluva lot less about Seneca than they did Jake, just like they knew Jake wasn't running.
So I think Seneca could have been an X factor in that regard, and could have possibly torn into the Tampa D himself.
Also, I don't advocate switching QBs overall. Jake should be the starter next week, period, and I expect him to improve. But when the field is wet and your starter is limping into his throws, I do like the idea of spreading the field, bringing in Davis as a speedy outlet, and moving the freaking ball with Seneca's fresh legs when needed.
-
Okay, tough loss.
Where was Seneca when Jake came up lame? It seems to me that we have a real "relief pitcher" type option here with Seneca in that he can bring a different skill set for the defense to cope with.
With Jake limping, and the offense facing 96 yards to pay dirt, why not bring in Seneca and spread the field so that he has the option to hurt them and grab a first down or so with his feet?
What I took from this game. Our coaches are young. Especially Mangini and most especially Daboll. I am not saying they can't do it, I see an interesting edge to the formations we run where our TEs end up outside blocking on DBs on short passes, but our play calling just isn't decisive overall.
c-dawg said:
Okay, tough loss.Where was Seneca when Jake came up lame? It seems to me that we have a real "relief pitcher" type option here with Seneca in that he can bring a different skill set for the defense to cope with.
With Jake limping, and the offense facing 96 yards to pay dirt, why not bring in Seneca and spread the field so that he has the option to hurt them and grab a first down or so with his feet?
What I took from this game. Our coaches are young. Especially Mangini and most especially Daboll. I am not saying they can't do it, I see an interesting edge to the formations we run where our TEs end up outside blocking on DBs on short passes, but our play calling just isn't decisive overall.
I agree, it appeared that we lacked speed in the second half and the Bucs were just pinning back their ears and coming after Jake. I thought a switch to Seneca and a little more Wild Dawg Offense would have been a great counter-punch, kept the Bucs off-balanced and may have lead to them making a mistake. Instead we dumbed it down for them and played conservative.
-
You can't just put in a backup quarterback near the end of the game and expect him to drive down the field and score the game winning TD. Jake was in the entire game, he was observing the defense from the focal point. There's no doubt there were things in the game he picked up on that Seneca would have no clue of coming into the game in the 4th. How the CB's line up when they're playing man, when they're playing zone. What moves the DE uses on the LT when he's coming on the rush. How long it takes our WR to break on their route when the CB comes up on the press. Those are all subtle things that are picked up throughout the game, and a QB coming off the bench has no idea about any of that until he's in the game.
Sticking with your starter is something we've never done here, and just because of a 3 point loss to a team that's got a lot of young talent, we're trying to switch QB's in week 2. This isn't Madden. The defense would have torn Seneca apart.
I hear you about the end of the game, and that was a focus of my post. I should have kept it more general. I actually liked the idea of switching the QBs up a little earlier on too, although that can have its problems as well.
I get your point about Jake dissecting the D, I think Jake is very good at that and undoubtedly learned a lot during the game. And, just like Jake knew more about the Tampa D then did Seneca, the Tampa D also knew a helluva lot less about Seneca than they did Jake, just like they knew Jake wasn't running.
So I think Seneca could have been an X factor in that regard, and could have possibly torn into the Tampa D himself.
Also, I don't advocate switching QBs overall. Jake should be the starter next week, period, and I expect him to improve. But when the field is wet and your starter is limping into his throws, I do like the idea of spreading the field, bringing in Davis as a speedy outlet, and moving the freaking ball with Seneca's fresh legs when needed.
c-dawg said:
I hear you about the end of the game, and that was a focus of my post. I should have kept it more general. I actually liked the idea of switching the QBs up a little earlier on too, although that can have its problems as well.I get your point about Jake dissecting the D, I think Jake is very good at that and undoubtedly learned a lot during the game. And, just like Jake knew more about the Tampa D then did Seneca, the Tampa D also knew a helluva lot less about Seneca than they did Jake, just like they knew Jake wasn't running.
So I think Seneca could have been an X factor in that regard, and could have possibly torn into the Tampa D himself.
Also, I don't advocate switching QBs overall. Jake should be the starter next week, period, and I expect him to improve. But when the field is wet and your starter is limping into his throws, I do like the idea of spreading the field, bringing in Davis as a speedy outlet, and moving the freaking ball with Seneca's fresh legs when needed.
I understand what you're saying. Speed is something we haven't had in a while, and it's good to have that option. Especially when it's unknown speed, like Seneca and Davis. I think we should utilize more of the bench players. And I believe Davis needs to see the field a hell of a lot more than he's been given. The kid is special, and they just don't realize it.
-
Zombo said:
I thought we should haver switched to Wallace as soon as Delhomme was injured.That's the beauty of having an experienced back up who can wn games. Or at least I thought it was.
I guess we sinking or swimming with Jake ... I would have definitely used Wallace a lot more yesterday, Delhomme was highly ineffective after the injury.
Zombo
Limping or not Jake is still the best QB on your roster. I watched a lot of Seneca when he played for Seattle and ....he's a good back up, so don't expect him to come in and win games. He's not a deep threat and he's more likely to run than try to throw a fastball in the coverage. Defenses know that and play accordingly. When he gets hit 2-3 times his accuracy goes to zero.
Jake (and Browns) will do better if they play "tall ball", but that would mean getting whole new set of WR's.
-
I'm not a fan of having a 35 year old retread quarterback starting on a rebuilding team. By the time this team is good enough to truly compete JD will be retired. Wallace isn't a youngster himself at 30, but I'd like to see if he can play in games that matter. More mobility would help at the QB position given the way that teams are stacking the line daring the Browns to pass.
Winning those last 4 games in 2009 was fun but I'd rather have gotten Sam Bradford. We're never going to draft high enough to get an elite guy winning 5-6-7 games a year. This is the treadmill we are currently stuck on.
It is amazing that we have a guy like Josh Cribbs and this coaching staff cannot find a way to use him. The WR experiment just hasn't worked.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login