Panther's Running Back Failure(s)

He played in a few preseason games - he was with the team. We depended on him as a RB, and didn't have any depth at all.

 

Honestly, no, I don't find Hoover to be an incredible blocker. I do believe him to be better than Mangum, and he hits his assignments (as does Mangum). He lays his block, that player doesn't often factor into the play, and that's what they want.

Of course, we're playing an offense that relies on seams, and no more than average does he play a big part in that creation. It's not like he's an I formation fullback, no. And he does many other things well - ST, I guess; he's a decent runner and an under-rated receiver, in my book. I don't feel we use him incredibly well there. But he's not Griffith, and I do know that a lot of ears perked up when Cramer came in to lead block and started blowing people up. Not that Cramer's great, no. But I think that it did make me realize somewhat that Hoover isn't burying people on his blocks, and that he's doing what the team asks nonetheless.

 

You know, you could get over it. It's just a suggestion, not a requirement or a request, but you could get over it. I really hate when people carrying grudges over disagreement spend so much time whining about me being hard-headed when yeah, chances are they're making themselves mad over their own hardheadedness.

 

I'm fucking ecstatic that we got Wahle and Mathis. These two are athletic and yet can move you out of a hole. Not coincidentally, that's about the time I stopped complaining about it.
I don't think it's a major problem in this offense to have a FB or a TE that isn't an incredible inline blocker. Which is good, because I don't believe we have one in the group. It's frustrating that we don't use those players (as the WCO does) as supplements to the passing offense, because that's usually a positive of a player at FB or TE that isn't an incredible inline blocker.



BTW, seriously. I don't take shots at you just for idle curiosity. I figure that, like our usual arguments, that you'll belittle something I'm suggesting we need (and then, more often than not, go and get the next offseason) by calling it pollyanna bullshit, that it means you can handle or even encourage playful shots across each other's bow. So why is it that you're uncompromisingly angry about my existence, regardless of the subject? I said it above, and I'm saying it now, I think you should consider letting it go.

 

:banginghe :banginghe

 

This I agree with. Yeah, there's obviously plenty in between mind-numbingly stupid, and the ideal of being an arrogant asshole just because there's implied justification. I don't believe that "correction of opinion with intended malice" is a positive in any way, and so you're on the right track.

So why go there with the below?

It opens the door for so much, not to mention it does show you want to dish it out, on a personal level, and not really want to take it.

 

Yes, I think I might have seen the formation once or twice...probably while playing Madden...

 

>> I really hate when people carrying grudges

it's not a grudge. it was frustration. my sense is that, even disregarding all the insults he would toss, it would be twice the frustration with Collin. which is why i was excusing myself for not wanting to spend hours anymore disecting a game (besides having more time constraints now than then), especially with the likes of Collin.

at the moment the only thing that mite change either of our minds about Henning is the panthers getting to the SB year-in, year-out or them returning to being dogmeat offensively, then i mite would consider conceding. i can understand where you are coming from on Henning. i can understand those in your corner. i just differ in opinion and want to exercise my right to cast a vote as often as you on the matter. on my scorecard, you've won a minor point or two. just not enough to change my mind on Henning.

 

My mind's not going to be changed on Henning because I'm angry at certain decisions, not at him, not at his offense, but his decisions. Maybe that's part of why we don't see eye to eye on that, because you've determined that I'm conspiring to assassinate Henning when I'm speaking out against third down draws and being too conservative for our talent.

And the other part of it's usually that you blame Trgo in ways that you defend Henning, which just isn't logical, especially when you won't blame Fox for his defense but will for his offense.

Regardless, yeah. Let it go. "mags" doesn't equal "this one argument I have with mags".