chipwhich Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Mike Rumph only had one year in the system. But maybe that was just out there to throw everyone off :whoknows: ..... And if it was Mike Rumph why would you take anything from a guy who is basically a bust in the NFL and couldn't stay on a team DESPERATE for corner help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robotfire Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 So THAT'S why Rumph got cut? Oh man, I can't believe how long I've been incorrectly blaming this thing on Archuletta. That poor guy. He's been placed in a crappy system and had a story incorrectly assigned to him. If it was Rumph, he's incredibly ungrateful. It's not our fault he never contributed to us or the 49ers. Wouldn't it be incredible if Adam Archuletta became a huge part of this team next year? I could see it happen, too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzmuda Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 ....I think it brings up an interesting point about Williams though. Either Williams was o.k.-ing Lindsay's coaching or he was un-able to control his underlings...either way that's not a good reflection on Williams as our next head coach. When your two choices are either incompentence or lack of leadership, well you're in trouble. It could be a third alternative. Some of these position coaches are quite senior. In order to keep these older guys happy it could be in their job description that they determine playing-time decisions and techniques. It makes perfect sense for a guy as old as Lindsay; not so much for Jackson though. Still, it simply could have been out of Williams' hands, and was actually Gibbs' responsibility. Either way, something needed to be done in-season and we don't know what was done. We do know that if they changed anything in-season it certainly didn't work. You'll see so much deep play-action in the first game of the year it will make your head spin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigRay Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 I'm not buying it. From high school on they teach you to read the O line and react accordingly. If they "push out", its a run. If they stand up and don't attack, its a pass. I find it hard to believe that Steve Jackson can simply tell ST......."read the ball instead", and everything goes haywire. Secondary comes down to one thing and one thing only. Pressure up front. I don't care if you have 4 Deions in his prime back there, give a qb enough time and he will win. Get pressure up front period, and everyone else immedietly looks 1000 times better. Ding Ding:applause: ladies and gentlemen we have a winner !!!. You nailed it right on the head my friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desertfox59 Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 It could be a third alternative. Some of these position coaches are quite senior. In order to keep these older guys happy it could be in their job description that they determine playing-time decisions and techniques. It makes perfect sense for a guy as old as Lindsay; If that is the case, it's ass backward. Football is a dictatorship, just like the military. You do what your boss tells you to do right from the top (Gibbs) down. This rule by committee stuff has gotta stop. It will never be consistantly successful. 1. there's no accounability that way....you can always pass the buck. 2. You lose players trust and respect when they dont see and experience a clear chain of command. 3. You get confusing and muddled coaching of the basics of the game. One coach tells the Corner back to square up and give the receiver the inside thinking that the safety will help him and the safety coach might have him reading near side back or end for outside release...boom it's play action right up the middle to the tight end to put the cowboys into game-winning-fieldgoal position. Get rid of the coaches who can't or won't follow directions because they are so narcissistic that they let their ego's get in the way of our Redskins success...that goes for everyone from Joe Gibbs (whom I doubt does this) right down the the cone moving practice squad coach.... ...This is Football not a garden party. Come on Gibbs. :mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altair4 Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 Is he still here? I thought that cat would be long gone by now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldBFree76 Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 Interesting theory.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tastes Like Chicken Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 He's scheduled to be at the Beach Blitz. Now there's a great opportunity to tell him directly exactly what you think of him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duckus Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 He's scheduled to be at the Beach Blitz. Now there's a great opportunity to tell him directly exactly what you think of him. His post was not really about how he felt about the man, but about what he had heard from players who know the situation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KTrainSkinsFan Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 Even if this is true, it is coming from the mouth of one CB (a bad one at that). To blame everything on that one detail is ridiculous. I mean, if you ALWAYS key on the O-Line, it means you will be beat on draw plays and play action also. Mike Rumph is not a defensive genius. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KTrainSkinsFan Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 I think a stronger argument would be, "Reading the QB makes for a slower read/reaction and therefore diminishes the natural abilities of a Sean Taylor" and not "Reading the QB gets you beat on play-action"...reading the O-Line gets you beat on play-action! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeaconBlue Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 Personally, for whatever it's worth, I think that throwing a potential explanation out the window simply on the basis that it's "too simple" doesn't make alot of sense. I mean how many of us in our own lives have come up against problems that we rack our brains over in the search for a solution only to have one of those " Uh Duh!!" monents because you looked over something easy? Are any of these coaches so much less fallable than the rest of us. Now we will never trully know if its as simple as Jackson teaching bad football basics but it is difficult to discount what we saw on the feild last year and how well it would be explained if the secondary followed this bad advice. And so what if it was Mike Rumph? Pointing out his horrid play is hardly a foolproff method of disproving what he may have saw or heard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.