Next Day Thread: Pew Pew Pew... Shots... Explosives

[Always A Commander Never A Captain]

Seems like we got a bit unlucky with pressures converting into sacks:

 

I know some of the "sacks" were not really sacks. Like Howell doing a QB keeper on a run play when he should have handed it off to Robinson. Or when he was forced out of bounds for a loss of like 1 inch. Technically sacks, but not really.

 

Also did not realize when Charles got bowled over by a straight power rush, that was the RB clipping his planted foot and taking his legs out by accident. That can happen to anyone. Our pass protection had a lot of little things go wrong, instead of being beat badly by lack of talent. If those things happen again and again, then there's some sort of coaching issue at play. But for right now it seems to have been a fluke. I'd wager if we played the Cardinals again, the OL will perform better. Still no idea how they'll look when they face an actually good DL like the Eagles in Week 4. Probably bad. Broncos don't have a good DL, so might be a bounce back performance we also should not overrate.

[Koolblue13]

[PlayAction]

Does anyone else feel that the QB curse has lifted and floated down upon another unfortunate team (Jets)?  How many times have brand new Skins QBs gone down with season, or career, ending injuries?

[Dark Acre]

1 hour ago, NickyJ said:

The Jets at 4 after losing their franchise QB on their first possession is beyond insane. I guess power rankings don't account for injuries, but gives a pretty good idea how meaningless power rankings are.

Right?  Look what happened to us after losing our franchise QB early in the first game 2 years ago.  Did we get ANY love?  Nope.  That said, it's a violent game and Rodgers is, in NFL terms, an old man.  It was bound to happen.

[Skinsinparadise]

23 minutes ago, PlayAction said:

Does anyone else feel that the QB curse has lifted and floated down upon another unfortunate team (Jets)?  How many times have brand new Skins QBs gone down with season, or career, ending injuries?

 

They've been running neck and neck with this team for a long time on that front. 

[Voice_of_Reason]

5 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

OK, you got me fooled that its an act partly because taking hard line stances and planting a flag on it seems on brand so I take it at your word.   Remember for example the one on the FO thread about how we want the stories to stop from WP on Dan because it amounts to nothing and just further damages the fan base for no reason?   You hit that point multiple tiimes.  The diatribes on Jay that led to a full thread on the topic.   And on this issue, PFF, your posts weren't just directed at me. 😎. 

As I had said before my PFF rants became kindof a schtick (which I really thought most people got, it was kindof a schtick), the analytics PFF provides I think are useful.  The grades, I do not.  The issue is they start weaving the grades, which I find inconsistent across the different evaluators, and are biased towards certain types of players, plays and are subject to the whim of the evaluator.  They're not analytical, in the strictest definition of the word.  I don't true/use them because I don't trust their process or the consistency of their evaluators.  

 

However, they provide a lot more information than just grades, which can be very useful. Which is what I am sure teams pay for.  That way they don't have to collect it themselves.  I doubt seriously anybody uses PFF grades to draw conclusions on players or teams.  They should have their own team to do their own evaluations and provide grades.  Ron quoting them about the ranking of the OL was one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.  

 

It's a nuanced view.  Granted, I turned it into schtick because it amuses me and made you write pages and pages and pages to counter the schtick, which also amused me. 

 

Jay was probably the worst coach in the NFL for the last 2-3 years of his tenure.  Maybe the whole tenure but McVay bailed him out for a few years.  Those rants also turned into schtick in some way, just because humor is good, but on this point, my view is much less nuanced: Jay was in over his head and was an awful HC, and has almost no credibility as a football coach to have an opinion on anything.  

 

5 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

But now you say you don't really mean it.  OK cool.    The only button I got on the topic is I think I am relatively savvy in how it can be used as a tool and how not.  You just globally make a point on it not being useful without explaining anything about it.  I got no problem hitting PFF.  I've done it plenty of times but i can explain where I find it useful and where I don't.  

So can I.  And actually I have.  Many times.  Before it became schtick.  

 

We all play to the audience a little bit. Just for fun.  Because, what's life without a little fun?

 

[Skinsinparadise]

17 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

As I had said before my PFF rants became kindof a schtick (which I really thought most people got, it was kindof a schtick),

 

 

Comes off like its a recent thing with you repackaging it into a joke but that's not been the vibe I got for quite some time until of late.  It's cool.  But In the past I know I wasn't responding to jokes. 

 

 

 

17 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

However, they provide a lot more information than just grades, which can be very useful. Which is what I am sure teams pay for.  That way they don't have to collect it themselves.  I doubt seriously anybody uses PFF grades to draw conclusions on players or teams.  They should have their own team to do their own evaluations and provide grades.  Ron quoting them about the ranking of the OL was one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.  

 

 

The grades I find useful as they parse them, better for example at run blocking or pass blocking?  You've said in a different post they have no idea what they are looking at on that front.  And from my experience, they at least have an idea because their seperation of a players strengths and weaknesses often (not always) mirrors what i see when I take the time to watch.

 

The mysterious thing about them ironically is as I mentioned they shrug off their own aggregate grades and factor context heavily when they pick their favorite players.  For example, I liked  Stromberg a lot.  Their overall grade of him was high.  But their anaylists were low on the player in spite of the high grade.  Plenty of other examples of that over the years. 

Edited September 12, 2023 by Skinsinparadise

[Voice_of_Reason]

5 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I'll say for them to end 10-7 which is your prediction and to me is the team's ceiling but certainly in play.  I think they have a decent shot if three things happens.

 

1.  How they looked last Sunday was an off day and that's not how the team plays this season.  If what we saw on Sunday is them, I think they will end up at my floor, 7-10, maybe worse.

I agree.  They have to play better. More specifically, for me, they have to play cleaner.  They can't afford things like drops and fumbles.  If they play clean football, I think they'll be much better.  

 

5 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

2.  They need to beat Denver

It would certainly help to be 2-0.  And Denver, at least week 1, didn't look great. I think this could be a good matchup for the Commanders, and they need to take advantage of it.

 

5 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

3.  They need to beat Buffalo.

Eh.  Week 1, you never know what's going to happen. I did predict the Bills could be one of the teams which take a step back this year. They looked HORRENDOUS last night. But who knows.  They could revert to form next week.  If they don't win that game, they can still win 10 games.  Some other team on the schedule is going to have a bad week/injury situation, something, and their season is going to collapse when not expected.

 

Assuming the reporting is true, Rodgers is done for the Jets.  That game already looks massively different than it did 24 hours ago.  

 

I'm ok playing the schedule game for the next game.  They need to go beat the Broncos.  

 

More than 1 week out?  The schedule game is impossible to play.  The Bills in 2 weeks might not look anything like the Bills yesterday.  If they lose to the Bills and end up at 2-1, they can still win 10 games.  Hell, they might turn around and beat the Eagles the next week.  You never know in division games.  And just based on history, I don't expect them to go 0-4 against the Eagles and Cowboys.  They'll get a game in there somewhere.  Because in divisions, it generally happens that way.  I think they'll end up at 3-3 in the division when all is said and done.  How they get there, I'm not entirely sure.  It's just a gut feel. 

 

5 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I said this last week if I had to predict a surprise win this year it would be that game.  Josh Allen is good but he's such a high variance player especially on the road.  And he started off poorly last year.  If we get bad Josh Allen we can win that one.

I predicted them to have a step back year.  Odd.  some of the serious contenders in the AFC all look somewhere between "meh" and awful: Chiefs, Buffalo, Ravens, Bengals.  Will that hold?  I doubt it.  But not great starts.  

[Skinsinparadise]

1 minute ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I agree.  They have to play better. More specifically, for me, they have to play cleaner.  They can't afford things like drops and fumbles.  If they play clean football, I think they'll be much better.  

 

 

I expect ups and downs from Howell but I think over time he will improve.  the O line eventually will have to deal with good pass rushing teams.  Fortunately its not this coming week.  But they will struggle when they face good D lines if they play like they did on Sunday.

 

3 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

It would certainly help to be 2-0.  And Denver, at least week 1, didn't look great. I think this could be a good matchup for the Commanders, and they need to take advantage of it.

 

  

Agree.

 

3 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

Eh.  Week 1, you never know what's going to happen. I did predict the Bills could be one of the teams which take a step back this year. They looked HORRENDOUS last night. But who knows.  They could revert to form next week.  If they don't win that game, they can still win 10 games.  Some other team on the schedule is going to have a bad week/injury sit

 

My point is Allen comes off to me as a high variance QB, especially early in the season.  So there is a chance we will see bad Josh Allen.

 

 

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

2 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Comes off like its a recent thing with you repackaging it into a joke but that's not been the vibe I got for quite some time until of late.  It's cool.  But In the past I know I wasn't responding to jokes. 

It's been a joke for a very, very long time.  

 

3 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

The grades I find useful as they parse them, better for example at run blocking or pass blocking?  You've said in a different post they have no idea what they are looking at on that front.  And from my experience, they at least an idea because their seperation of a players strengths and weaknesses often (not always) mirrors what i see when I take the time to watch.

I find them very inconsistent at best, and I don't think they know exactly what they're looking at, team to team, assignment to assignment.  And I think, not all the time, but at times, they assign credit to the wrong person and blame to the wrong person because they don't know exactly what was supposed to happen. A tackle gets beat to the inside, well, maybe the tackle was supposed to route the DE to the inside to the help, but the help went the wrong way.  Maybe a safety was supposed to cover to a spot, but didn't, and left the CB out to dry.  I think they get some of that right, and some of it wrong.

 

What they tend to get mostly right is if it's a 1:1 situation, who won that battle.  

 

But there is no way they can know all of the assignments for each player or team.  

 

Cooley came close, but the reason he could do it is because he played in the system and knew the offense, and could tell the play design because he played in it for years.  The PFF guys, to the best of my knowledge, cover multiple teams, and don't have near the level of understanding of each of them as a former player/coach in that scheme.

 

They are, at times, right.  They are miss a lot.  The problem is, because of the inconsistency, you can't trust it as anything other than a moderately educated opinion.  

 

All that to say, Chris Collinsworth is a self promoting ass hat, and the PFF grades are completely meaningless.   

[Voice_of_Reason]

1 minute ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I expect ups and downs from Howell but I think over time he will improve.  the O line eventually will have to deal with good pass rushing teams.  Fortunately its not this coming week.  But they will struggle when they face good D lines if they play like they did on Sunday.

I agree, the entire team needs to play better.  And I get If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, wouldn't it be a Merry Christmas, but what if Gibby doesn't fumble, and they score a FG there to go up 10-6.  And what if some of the drops are caught, and they score another FG somewhere along the way, and win 26-16.  We're feeling a lot better than we are now.  Even with offenseive line struggles and up and down performances.  

 

I think they can get to 24-26 points per game, but they have to play clean ball and they have to improve as the season goes on.  There will be huge gaffs at times, but if they play clean, I think they can be effective.

 

I personally liked what I saw from EB's play calling most of the game. I think the execution wasn't great, but the big issue was the 5 or so massive mistakes you just can't have.  

 

1 minute ago, Skinsinparadise said:

  

Agree.

At least we agree on something!

 

1 minute ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

My point is Allen comes off to me as a high variance QB, especially early in the season.  So there is a chance we will see bad Josh Allen.

 

Yeah, he is.  But that's a very good team.  It would be fantastic to beat them and really get our nose out in front, but I'm not counting that chicken until it's hatched.

 

What I said before the season, if they really want to content for the playoffs, they have to come out of the first 6 games at no worse than 3-3, preferably 4-2.  That's more "math" than who they're playing.  It's a really tough ask for any team to go on a 5-0 run mid to late season regardless of who they're playing to catch up because they're 2-4 or something after 6 games.  

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

if you say so

12 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

It's been a joke for a very, very long time.  

 

 

There are enough 1 and 1 for certain spots. Edge, OT, CB, WR, TE to get a sense of a players strengths and weaknesses.  For example charting YAC, pressures, drops, etc

 

Pretty rare for me to watch a player lets say Dalton Kincaid who they rate as a dude with elite hands and I watch him myself and think you know what his hands suck, they are way off.  Or they go Musgrave isn't much of a YAC player but i find that they are wrong and he indeed is.

 

Don't get me wrong I disagree with them plenty of times.  But I don't find their grades and rankings as just arbitrary nonsense as you reference in a number of posts.  And yes in recent weeks you do it jokingly but you definitely didn't start off that way. 

 

12 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

What they tend to get mostly right is if it's a 1:1 situation, who won that battle.  

 

But there is no way they can know all of the assignments for each player or team.  

 

 

Edited September 12, 2023 by Skinsinparadise

[FootballZombie]

3 hours ago, skinsmania123 said:

I think EB made some decent adjustments at half time and incorporated Robinson in the 2nd half.   I still think this team is capable of 10-7 this year. The talent is there. And I never saw any adjustments by Turner as OC, when things were not working on O. 

 

Wha? Where was I for this?

What halftime adjustments? Our O suffered its absolute worst stretch of play coming out of halftime. We had 42 yards of O in the 2nd half!

 

Our 3rd Qtr featured a 7 play drive that gained all of zero yards and ended in a punt and only marginally improved to gain 2 whole yards before punting on our following drive. Our O was lucky our D set us up in basically the red zone heading into the 4th Qtr cuz they were not getting there themselves.

 

We also only truly started running the ball more less b/c of adjustments and moreso because the optics of the game changed and we chose to become conservative with the lead, the one our D pretty much force-fed our O.

 

Our O was Godawful in the 2nd half. The buttons EB started pushing did nothing. Were just lucky our D balled out and that we were playing the Cards.

[Skinsinparadise]

14 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I agree, the entire team needs to play better.  And I get If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, wouldn't it be a Merry Christmas, but what if Gibby doesn't fumble, and they score a FG there to go up 10-6.  And what if some of the drops are caught, and they score another FG somewhere along the way, and win 26-16.  We're feeling a lot better than we are now.  Even with offenseive line struggles and up and down performances.  

 

You can say the same thing about the Cards.  What if they didn't drop 2 potentially INTs, 1 of which would likely be a pick 6.  What if Ertz didn't drop that pass that would have been a TD?    What if the Cards didn't give them over 100 yards in penalties?

 

14 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

I personally liked what I saw from EB's play calling most of the game. I think the execution wasn't great, but the big issue was the 5 or so massive mistakes you just can't have.  

 

 

I wasn't taken by EB's playcalling on Sunday.  But its just one game and I liked the hire so i'll give him a pass.

 

14 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

 

Yeah, he is.  But that's a very good team.  It would be fantastic to beat them and really get our nose out in front, but I'm not counting that chicken until it's hatched.

 

What I said before the season, if they really want to content for the playoffs, they have to come out of the first 6 games at no worse than 3-3, preferably 4-2.  That's more "math" than who they're playing.  It's a really tough ask for any team to go on a 5-0 run mid to late season regardless of who they're playing to catch up because they're 2-4 or something after 6 games.  

 

 

 

My point isn't that I expect them to beat the Bills.  But sometimes you can beat a better team if circumstances weigh in your favor.  And if Josh Allen is bad Allen, I think we can steal one.  If he's on his game they will likely get smoked.

 

I predicted a 4-2 start to the season but with a loss to Buffalo in that mix.  I think the early schedule favors them.  If they can beat Denver AND Buffalo, that would be key for me for them to bear the 8-9 record I am predicting.

Edited September 12, 2023 by Skinsinparadise

[Always A Commander Never A Captain]

So FootballOutsiders is dead. The parent company went bankrupt, and most of the staff went over to some fantasy football website named FTNFantasy.com, the DVOA stuff thankfully still exists. Here it is for Week 1:

 

 

 

Our offensive performance was ranked 19th and below average. That's better than I thought, and also shows just how bad a lot of the offenses in the league played.

[FootballZombie]

Scratch this post

 

misread

Edited September 12, 2023 by FootballZombie

[MartinC]

55 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

 

It would certainly help to be 2-0.  And Denver, at least week 1, didn't look great. I think this could be a good matchup for the Commanders, and they need to take advantage of it.

 

 

I watched some of the Denver game. The offense actually played reasonably well and Wilson looked a lot better than last year (which is not a high bar to be fair). He wasnt looking like peak Joe Montana or anything but he was clearly playing within the system, taking the check downs and generally looking like a competent NFL QB. He was 27 of 34 but only threw for 177 yards. Peyton is obviously making him play within the structure much more - we will see if that lasts.

 

They only scored 16 points but their kicker missed a FG and extra point and the O only had 6 drives total. Issue was their D could not get off the field and didnt generate any pass rush (those two things being closely related!)

 

It will be an interesting game - if we can keep Sam clean I feel good about our chances but the Broncos will obviously be a bigger test than the Cards. Especially if Jerry Juedy is back. We will not survive 3 turnovers this week.

[Skinsinparadise]

ex-PFF guy

 

 

[profusion]

3 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

ex-PFF guy

 

 

 

Did he actually watch any of Week 1?

[Voice_of_Reason]

48 minutes ago, MartinC said:

 

I watched some of the Denver game. The offense actually played reasonably well and Wilson looked a lot better than last year (which is not a high bar to be fair). He wasnt looking like peak Joe Montana or anything but he was clearly playing within the system, taking the check downs and generally looking like a competent NFL QB. He was 27 of 34 but only threw for 177 yards. Peyton is obviously making him play within the structure much more - we will see if that lasts.

 

They only scored 16 points but their kicker missed a FG and extra point and the O only had 6 drives total. Issue was their D could not get off the field and didnt generate any pass rush (those two things being closely related!)

 

It will be an interesting game - if we can keep Sam clean I feel good about our chances but the Broncos will obviously be a bigger test than the Cards. Especially if Jerry Juedy is back. We will not survive 3 turnovers this week.

I'd also like to think our defense is better than the Raider's defense.  

 

The offense HAS to play clean.  And better.  But more than better, clean.  I think if they play clean, they can score more points than the Raider's did, and I like our defense to hold them to about the same point total. 

 

The season comes down to winning games 23-17 in my opinion.  The defense is going to have to hold teams under 20, and the offense is going to have to score a little more than 20.

 

If both sides hold up their side of the bargain, they'll win more than they lose.  (And by my prediction, by 1.5 games better than a .500 record.)

 

I think that works out to be a top 5 defense and a very middle of the road offense.  That's what we're looking for.  

24 minutes ago, profusion said:

 

Did he actually watch any of Week 1?

He's ex-PFF.  Probably no.  

 

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I wasn't taken by EB's playcalling on Sunday.  But its just one game and I liked the hire so i'll give him a pass.

I'm not sure what "live" vs. "TV" (and not all 22, yet, I imagine) does to the perception of the game.

 

I liked a lot of what they did, with one big strategic mistake:  EB was slow to adjust that the Cards were dropping 7 into the short area to kill the quick-game.  The way you get teams to stop doing that is block-it-up and throw deep a few times.  They they have to back off a bit.  We have the weapons to do it, and Howell certainly can do it. In fact, the reason you run the ball and go quick-game is to set up the deep ball.   To you all-off-season point, do they have the protection to be able to do it?  I don't know.  But they didn't really try.  So, maybe EB knows they don't.  

 

They kept trying to run quick game or run the ball.  It's hard to run into that look for the same reason it's hard to pass into that look, a lot of guys around the LOS. And Howell held the ball on quick game concepts, and that's BAD.  The plays aren't blocked for more than 2.5, if you're forced to hold the ball, you get squished.  And if it's all covered, it's a bad combination.  

 

I wanted to see a few more creative protections which would have allowed for deeper route concepts, specifically on play-action.  I think those were missing.  My favorite is PA off a stretch run, where the QB either pulls the ball, sets and throws, or bails out the back side and then should have TONS of space to throw the ball.  You get the QB on the move, allow the OL to move, and generate space and time to get the ball down-field.  I don't think we did it once.  

 

My other gripe is there was way too much gun-run and not enough traditional run, where it's actually easier to run PA off of.  

 

But overall, I liked what he did. I felt at the beginning of the game, they got into a bit of a rhythm.  Then, after the dirty hit on Howell, I think it disappeared.  

 

I think that hit, which was followed reasonably closely by the Gibson fumble, just completely discombobulated the team for a while.  

[justice98]

4 hours ago, Always A Commander Never A Captain said:

Seems like we got a bit unlucky with pressures converting into sacks:

 

I know some of the "sacks" were not really sacks. Like Howell doing a QB keeper on a run play when he should have handed it off to Robinson. Or when he was forced out of bounds for a loss of like 1 inch. Technically sacks, but not really.

 

Also did not realize when Charles got bowled over by a straight power rush, that was the RB clipping his planted foot and taking his legs out by accident. That can happen to anyone. 

 

I felt bad that happened to Charles cuz I knew nobody would care he got tripped by his own guy.  He's already behind the 8 ball with everyone thinking he sucks.  He can't afford bad luck.

[No Nonsense]

1 hour ago, profusion said:

 

Did he actually watch any of Week 1?

So Dallas moves down a spot? Lol

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I'm not sure what "live" vs. "TV" (and not all 22, yet, I imagine) does to the perception of the game.

 

I liked a lot of what they did, with one big strategic mistake:  EB was slow to adjust that the Cards were dropping 7 into the short area to kill the quick-game.  The way you get teams to stop doing that is block-it-up and throw deep a few times.  They they have to back off a bit.  We have the weapons to do it, and Howell certainly can do it. In fact, the reason you run the ball and go quick-game is to set up the deep ball.   To you all-off-season point, do they have the protection to be able to do it?  I don't know.  But they didn't really try.  So, maybe EB knows they don't.  

 

They kept trying to run quick game or run the ball.  It's hard to run into that look for the same reason it's hard to pass into that look, a lot of guys around the LOS. And Howell held the ball on quick game concepts, and that's BAD.  The plays aren't blocked for more than 2.5, if you're forced to hold the ball, you get squished.  And if it's all covered, it's a bad combination.  

 

I wanted to see a few more creative protections which would have allowed for deeper route concepts, specifically on play-action.  I think those were missing.  My favorite is PA off a stretch run, where the QB either pulls the ball, sets and throws, or bails out the back side and then should have TONS of space to throw the ball.  You get the QB on the move, allow the OL to move, and generate space and time to get the ball down-field.  I don't think we did it once.  

 

My other gripe is there was way too much gun-run and not enough traditional run, where it's actually easier to run PA off of.  

 

But overall, I liked what he did. I felt at the beginning of the game, they got into a bit of a rhythm.  Then, after the dirty hit on Howell, I think it disappeared.  

 

I think that hit, which was followed reasonably closely by the Gibson fumble, just completely discombobulated the team for a while.  

 

They were about 3:1 pass to run in the first half.  I didn't like that for a young QB.    As Keim points out they've struggled with screens in the preseason through week 1 even though that is supposed to be Bieniemy's bread and butter.

 

Not much razzle dazzle -- expected more motion, a trick play or two.

 

I liked the hire, i like what I've heard.  But aside from throwing on first down, I can't say I was wowed by Bieniemy in week 1.  But the season is young.  

Edited September 12, 2023 by Skinsinparadise

[FootballZombie]

41 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Not much razzle dazzle -- expected more motion, a trick play or two.

 

We have to be a little more conservative w/ our trick plays

 

Nothing and I mean nothing draws the evil eye towards an OC like a failed trick play when your O is struggling... and we got 248 yards.

When KC does it and fails. nobody cares, they will cover it up w/ their 500 yd/gm O. If we try n fail... its all anyone's gonna talk about.

 

I'd crucify EB if he tried to run a reverse and the O line collapsed in on itself like an imploding star. You'd hear me over the crowd at the stadium

 

 

Until we get a bit more production outta the O, I'm fine with a lack of trick plays... for now at least. Still gotta be more creative however, less runs just smashing straight ahead into mobs.

 

I am also worried about the "we are gonna use Gibby better" lip service only to put him out there and almost exclusively make him the same run-him-into-brick-walls RB like the last regime. Get him in space, like on that screen play. Stop trying to make him a bulldozer.