DKSweets wrote:I'm not as surprised by Patterson's lack of touches as others seem to be. The defense followed Patterson on every fake, and we never really made them pay.
Agreed. They were keying on him all day and the rest of the offense needed to make them pay for that but more often than not, they didn't get that done.
This kind of game is why Cassel got drummed out of KC by the fan base. Perhaps he landed in an ideal spot given how tired we were of Ponder. I suspect that will only last him so long if this continues.
I'm going to get too bent out of shape on this at this point. It is week 2. It sucks to see our hope for some positivity dashed, but when you take a step back we lost to one of the top three teams in the AFC. Also, it is week 2 and all kinds of goofy stuff happens during the first 4-6 games every season. Who thought the Saints would be 0-2 right now or that vaunted Seahakws would be 1-1. Heck, did anyone thing the Bears would beat the 49ers like they did last night?
Bottom line for me, when your QB throws 4 picks you are going to lose about the vast majority of the time.
Winning is not a sometime thing it is an all of the time thing - Vince Lombardi
PacificNorseWest wrote:I feel like they don't wanna rush him, but it's time to get McKinnon involved. He can help this team if we're to believe the glimpses of his play making ability that we saw week 1 of the preseason. I wouldn't be surprised if they game plan to get him a lot more touches and targets in week 3. On the turf in NO seems like a perfect spot for his showcase.
They need to utilize him this week. It was next to impossible to adjust our game plan when Adrian was deactivated on Friday. This week they will be able to work the other backs in during practice.
DKSweets wrote:I'm not as surprised by Patterson's lack of touches as others seem to be. The defense followed Patterson on every fake, and we never really made them pay.
I agree that the rest of the team needed to do more while Patterson was drawing attention. However, fakes only work when the person being faked to actually gets the ball sometimes ...
Patterson has the kind of ability where it doesn't necessarily matter that a defense is keying on him. He's a threat out of the backfield and it would have been nice to see him get the ball there a couple of times. Especially considering that NE's rushing defense is weaker than their passing defense.
I really didnt feel that he was so poorly protected by the OL. Some of his bad throws were while he was deep in a nice comfy pocket. He just isnt a top quality QB.
I think the Wilf's, or Zimmer, will put Teddy in, when Cassel has another game like yesterday. Was hoping Teddy would get half the season, but we cant afford to waste the whole season, if the QB isn't working out. We did that with Ponder, it didn't do him any good, and it didn't help the Vikings, at all. I really wish we had kept MBT over Ponder. I know he didn't show much, and I don't think anyone even picked him up, but I always had a feeling for him, like I do for Mallett.
I'm not sure if my take is off, but it seems to me that Cassel is great(well, he's ok) when things are going to plan. It seems when the defence makes adjustments that he/the team hasn't accounted for is when things start to go awry.
juventus1 wrote:I'm not sure if my take is off, but it seems to me that Cassel is great(well, he's ok) when things are going to plan. It seems when the defence makes adjustments that he/the team hasn't accounted for is when things start to go awry.
He's definitely "hot and cold" We got a good dose of "cold" last Sunday. Quite a contrast from his 113.7 rating he posted during the season opener.
I've told people a million times not to exaggerate!
Just Me wrote:
He's definitely "hot and cold" We got a good dose of "cold" last Sunday. Quite a contrast from his 113.7 rating he posted during the season opener.
I guess that's part of my point as well. Things were going to plan in the Rams game. Sure AD didn't break off too many runs, but we knew that they were going to put all focus on him and they did, which freed up a lot of other options. Of course that can be said for all offences/QB's but I'm starting to get the feeling Cassel isn't the greatest improviser or reader/reactor to new situations. Not that we necessarily thought he was great at that to begin with anyways.
jackal wrote:To be honest i didnt watch the game. I worked and knew we got crushed and
wasnt feeling like watching the Vikings after all the Peterson stuff.
from what I.read the OL and Cassel were the two biggest factors in the loss.
We came out very hot. The offence looked great going down the field on the first drive, and it seemed they couldn't be stopped.
After that touchdown though, things went downhill; BB made some good defensive adjustments and the offence never looked even a quarter as competent again.
Cassel didn't look good at all, but when he did make the throw our receivers weren't making the catches. The O-Line did look awful as well. I'm a bit worried about Kalil.
