- This topic has 10 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
That was his explanation. A friend of mine told me about it this morning on text. Ruiters tweet confirmed it
He thought he could score, use 3 timeouts and score again all within 96 seconds. Excuses are over. Being that Kitchens still has a job, Dorsey solidifies his own fate. Say goodbye to Dorsey and Kitchens at years end
Freedom!!!
I’ll wait til years end to make any conclusions.
As for Freddie wanting to do that, where are you seeing this? Ill believe it if Freddie says it, but as far as I can tell, you got a tweet and “unnamed source.”
Freddie said he “wouldn’t admit to that” when asked, which sounds like an admission of guilt. Not a good look.
I’ll wait til years end to make any conclusions.
As for Freddie wanting to do that, where are you seeing this? Ill believe it if Freddie says it, but as far as I can tell, you got a tweet and “unnamed source.”My buddy lives in Cleveland. This wasn’t a “source” thing but a need thing he told me about being I’m not there
Freedom!!!
He thought he could score, use 3 timeouts and score again all within 96 seconds.
I’m gonna go devils advocate here on his one and say……..so what?
Raise your hand if you have a problem with aggressive playcalling and believing in your teams ability to execute?
If Landry corrals that ball ball instead of having it go off his hands and getting picked, is it so outrageous to think that our defense could keep Seattle to a 3-and out and get us the ball back with time left to get another score in?
I don’t.
I’m honestly not seeing the issue.
I full-on understand the mindset of run the clock all the way down and score with almost no time left so Seattle can’t do anything after the kickoff, but what’s so wrong with being aggressive and confident enough that you want to score twice?
If it worked, would we be calling him an idiot or a genius?
We were moving the ball on them the entire half, and for the most part, Wilson’s TD run notwithstanding, stopping them on defense.
Fortune favors the bold.
Yes, I have a problem with it. It’s called situational playcalling. KISS. Instead we are 2-4. Want aggressive? Make an argument for going for it on every 4th down regardless of field position
Freedom!!!
Want aggressive? Make an argument for going for it on every 4th down regardless of field position
Well we converted them so……..
Want aggressive? Make an argument for going for it on every 4th down regardless of field position
Well we converted them so……..
I was for going on 4th on their half of the field. I’m talking about you advocating going for it on 4th and 15 from our own 5. IE never punting ever because going for it every time is aggressive.
Bottom line. His handling of the end of the Rams and end of half of Seattle cost us 2 games due to his ineptitude and inability to understand the situation. Much like his idiocy in the red zone with not running.
FYI read the Dawgpound article I linked. Wylie did protections and Saunders did red zone scheme last year.
Protections suck. Red zone sucks. Neither of the above are employed by the Browns in 2019.
Kitchens is a dope
Freedom!!!
While we disagree on Kitchens overall, I’m with Soup on this one. It’s moronic. I like being aggressive. But ASSUMING you’re going to hold Russel Wilson to a 3 and out is asinine. The best way to beat talent is to keep the ball out of their hands, and we had the ability to do just that.
Plus, in the situation, we’re not trailing and trying to catch up, we’re not talking about trying to take the lead. We’re trying to go up 27-12, and his focus is on going up 30-12 or 34-12. That’s a bad move. Just like being ultra conservative is a bad move.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.