Connorbear Posted December 12, 2008 Report Share Posted December 12, 2008 with 4 friggin minutes to go after the 4th down stop. WTF was Turner thinking??? Run the ball down their friggin throats and end the game. Peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted December 12, 2008 Report Share Posted December 12, 2008 I would add, why run the ball so little all game. Collinsworth was even talking about this. While it didn't work, it was obvious early on NO could not defend Hester, and they started dropping everyone deep. It was pointed out how light they were in the box, and questioned why we had so few carried on the game. with 4 friggin minutes to go after the 4th down stop. WTF was Turner thinking??? Run the ball down their friggin throats and end the game. Peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChileBear Posted December 12, 2008 Report Share Posted December 12, 2008 I would add, why run the ball so little all game. Collinsworth was even talking about this. While it didn't work, it was obvious early on NO could not defend Hester, and they started dropping everyone deep. It was pointed out how light they were in the box, and questioned why we had so few carried on the game. I'll join the Dump Turner Club. You've got the lead, it's cold and you have Forte, AP and KJ. Why save the clock for the aints? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearsFan Posted December 12, 2008 Report Share Posted December 12, 2008 with 4 friggin minutes to go after the 4th down stop. WTF was Turner thinking??? Run the ball down their friggin throats and end the game. Peace I'd say Turner didn't want to sit on a 4 point lead with 5 1/2 minutes left in the game. The running game in the 2nd half wasn't getting any yards: 4, 3, 1, 2, and 2 yards. The Saints D wasn't worn down like they were going into overtime. I know the passing game was sucking too, but I don't blame Turner for passing under the circumstances. (I'm not taking a shot at you, Connor - this is a general statement) If he'd tried pounding the ball and taken a three and out, the fans would have been screaming that Turner always gets way to conservative with a lead, and he should have been playing to get more points. Heh, the guy catches hell no matter what he does! LOL . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted December 12, 2008 Report Share Posted December 12, 2008 The only logicaly thought is they were afraid to over-run Forte... But I simply think the staff was trying to be tricky for tricky's sake yet again... I would add, why run the ball so little all game. Collinsworth was even talking about this. While it didn't work, it was obvious early on NO could not defend Hester, and they started dropping everyone deep. It was pointed out how light they were in the box, and questioned why we had so few carried on the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted December 12, 2008 Report Share Posted December 12, 2008 Isn't there a middle ground? Why does it have to be all or nothing? You run on 1st. If you get 6-7 yards, you run again. If not, you play-action, then on 3rd you pass again. Something. Other than 3 cruddy passes. I'd say Turner didn't want to sit on a 4 point lead with 5 1/2 minutes left in the game. The running game in the 2nd half wasn't getting any yards: 4, 3, 1, 2, and 2 yards. The Saints D wasn't worn down like they were going into overtime. I know the passing game was sucking too, but I don't blame Turner for passing under the circumstances. (I'm not taking a shot at you, Connor - this is a general statement) If he'd tried pounding the ball and taken a three and out, the fans would have been screaming that Turner always gets way to conservative with a lead, and he should have been playing to get more points. Heh, the guy catches hell no matter what he does! LOL . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted December 12, 2008 Report Share Posted December 12, 2008 Turner said it himself. He said they would be expecting us to run the ball. That frankly is classic Turner. He loves the chess element of the game. "What do they think I will do? What should I do to surprise them". That is all well and good, but the issue I have is, too often I see us go away from our strength and away from the opponents weakness. Forte is our strength. So instead of handing him the ball, grinding out some yards and eating some clock, we throw to a recently called up FB? The only logicaly thought is they were afraid to over-run Forte... But I simply think the staff was trying to be tricky for tricky's sake yet again... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted December 12, 2008 Report Share Posted December 12, 2008 ARRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! My blood pressure just sky-rocketed! Turner is too smart for his own good... Or he thinks he is. Turner said it himself. He said they would be expecting us to run the ball. That frankly is classic Turner. He loves the chess element of the game. "What do they think I will do? What should I do to surprise them". That is all well and good, but the issue I have is, too often I see us go away from our strength and away from the opponents weakness. Forte is our strength. So instead of handing him the ball, grinding out some yards and eating some clock, we throw to a recently called up FB? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted December 12, 2008 Report Share Posted December 12, 2008 Agreed. And I would add in there, if we are going to pass, why would we not run a play designed to get the ball into the hands of a more reliable receiver? If we are going to pass, I would think you try to sling it out to Forte, Olsen or Clark. In that late stage of the game, I just do not agree w/ running a play designed to throw to a player who was recently called up and is not well tested. Isn't there a middle ground? Why does it have to be all or nothing? You run on 1st. If you get 6-7 yards, you run again. If not, you play-action, then on 3rd you pass again. Something. Other than 3 cruddy passes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connorbear Posted December 12, 2008 Author Report Share Posted December 12, 2008 Agreed. And I would add in there, if we are going to pass, why would we not run a play designed to get the ball into the hands of a more reliable receiver? If we are going to pass, I would think you try to sling it out to Forte, Olsen or Clark. In that late stage of the game, I just do not agree w/ running a play designed to throw to a player who was recently called up and is not well tested. Exactly. At least change it up and, if you are passing, throw it to one of those 3. Peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ54 Posted December 13, 2008 Report Share Posted December 13, 2008 I suspect there was some effort to reduce Forte's carries due his injury. At least I'm telling myself that to keep from pulling my hair out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaxBearsFan Posted December 13, 2008 Report Share Posted December 13, 2008 I suspect there was some effort to reduce Forte's carries due his injury. At least I'm telling myself that to keep from pulling my hair out. The only thing I could think of is with Forte's injury, and the fact that NO's secondary is pretty awful, Turner must've tried to exploit those weaknesses. I question the timing, 5:00 minutes left in the 4th quarter with a lead...and did there need to be a pass on nearly EVERY DOWN in the second half? Not a good game for the offense... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.