"No one can cover us" - Steve Smith

luck has nothing to do with executing plays and capitalizing on opponents mistakes.

most really good footbal games are nail biters.

 

I love the way to play football. It is exciting, it is something that will get us a lot of national TV games next season if we keep winning.

I say keep the drama. I do not want to be like the Chiefs where we just throw up tons of points every game. Makes you soft. You want routs, go to the fucking WNBA...

 

true.........but you see.....its my tick-tock that cant stand the close games. i'm ready for a few laffers (us doing all the laffing of course). i say we stomp the skins this Sunday and give my tick-tock a rest.

shut up steve....you beas

 

I don't think we should open it up for 4 QTRs either. We are a running and play action team.

But we do have a pattern of going into a shell offensively with a lead, and I'd rather us just step on someone's throat when we get them down. Like Jake said, those seam routes were their.

 

That's been changing some. We opened it up against the Texans right off the bat, but after jake got picked off, it seems to have fizzled - although I can;t say for sure what the playcalling was like after that.

We threw alot against Tampa, at least more than normal.

I think it has alot to do with confidence and odds. We've got Stephen Davis, it's safer to give the ball to him than ask Delhomme, who has 10 NFL starts now, to do it.

I think that's changing.

As far as game planning - Remember how the Giants were a run-only team in 2000, and then they TORCHED the Vikes through the air in the NFC championship game?

I don;t know if that has anything to do with anything, but I often think of that.

 

True.

We made more plays in the passing game. I don't know if we threw that much more till we got down. We still were more of a running team giving Foster 22, and we should be. But I'd like to see us continue to play our gameplan when it's working, instead of waiting till we have to.

I do think its more Fox than Henning, which is why I've laid off him. i don't think we'd be much different with a different coordinator, with more talent at reciever. And I think we will go after those things, but we will still basically be this type of team, just maybe more efficient. Which is OK, we are winning with what we have.

 

I think it's both. I remember Henning being interviewed before the 2002 season, saying that in his offense you want a guy to carry the flag, and you want that guy to be the running back.

I also think they consider Delhomme to be very young and inexeprienced, and don;t want to put the game on his shoulders for obvious reasons.

Whatever. It's all speculation and we're winning.

 

Yeah, its a run based offense and has been since his days in Washington. But he's capable of calling a good game with that offense, and not being so predicable, cause he did it in Washington. With frigging Mark Rypien. That was still a run based team, but they stepped on some throats too.

Maybe with some more confidence with Jake, we will grow more that way. But at the same time I kind of believe Fox when he says we'd be the same even if we had Elway.

And yeah, we are winning, so who cares.

 

I have nothing against being a run oriented offense, but I'd like to see us open it up more so that we don't have to run on 3rd down to set up the punt. I know field position is important but we seem to punt alot.

 

And Elway didn't win a SB until he had a RB named Davis