A funny thing about expectations
steveG
this win (with the exception from Iceberg) .. I'm not saying that
there is negativity except for maybe that Rivers should have been given
a bit more opportunity to pass the ball. We have become more critical.
At least that is the way it feels to me.
sdavmor
Very conservative but under the circumstances to be expected. And it
worked out for the best. Next game we'll see Rivers pass a bit more
then he did against Oakland. And the week after that some more, etc. I
think it's important early on to ask certain things of him and see him
execute them well, since the team has more than adequate weapons out
of the backfield, a strong defense, and a good kicking game. Then add
to that every week untilby the end of the season everything in the
playbook is available to Rivers. Maybe not very exciting, but in the
long run a sound plan for success that guarantees the development of
Rivers into a top NFL QB.
--
Cheers,
SDM -- a 21st century schizoid man
Systems Theory internet music project links:
soundclick <www.soundclick.com/systemstheory>
garageband <http://www.garageband.com/artist/systemstheory>
"Soundtracks For Imaginary Movies" CD released Dec 2004
"Codetalkers" CD coming very soon in 2006
NP: nothing
Ragnarok73
"steveG" <redden...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2006091207364816807-reddenedbeard@gmailcom...
>I think a few years ago, there would have been nothing but praise for this
>win (with the exception from Iceberg) .. I'm not saying that there is
>negativity except for maybe that Rivers should have been given a bit more
>opportunity to pass the ball. We have become more critical.
A few years ago, a win over the Raiders would have actually meant
something. Those guys have fallen long and hard since they lost to the Bucs
in the Super Bowl. I like the win, but I don't think for a second that it's
any real indicator of how good this Bolts team is.
They probably won't get a real test until Week 4 when they take on the
Ravens. If the Ravens don't end up being a test then there will certainly
be one in the week after when they take on the defending SB champs. They
also get to play the Bengals, Broncos, and Seahawks before the season ends.
Ragnarok73
--
"Life is warfare and the sojourn of a stranger in a strange land."
- Marcus Aurelius
Kurgan Gringioni
steveG wrote:
> I think a few years ago, there would have been nothing but praise for
> this win (with the exception from Iceberg) .. I'm not saying that
> there is negativity except for maybe that Rivers should have been given
> a bit more opportunity to pass the ball. We have become more critical.
There's a good reason for that: more talent. Much more.
steveG
That was my point.
Savage Lizard
I didn't like the conservative play calling, because I'm thinking that's a
good recipe to piss away a game. While we are sitting on a 13-0 lead, one
turnover, one big play, and we have less than a TD lead. In hindsight, it
was probably the best thing to do, as we were deep in our own end often, and
our defense was dominating. But at the time, I'm thinking "we are going to
let them back into this thing." Luckily, I was wrong.
Savage Lizard
Savage Lizard
news:1158081169.6...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
It's good to have talent on the team again. BB left the cupboard bare with
his horrible drafts year after year. Now the draft actually means
something, and we have a roster with depth.
Savage Lizard
Chuck D.
"Luckily, you were wrong." It's more like. By design, you were wrong.
Coach wasn't about to get Rivers scared before he got comfortable w/
what was going on. Coach knew how to win this game, he's ?28?-7 against
the Raiduh's now. That's not from being stupid about how he coaches the
game, it's because he's smart. If he had a shadow of doubt about what he
was doing, he would have changed it and we might have won by 40 not just
27.
Just like my buddy, John, was saying last nite. "They need to open it up
more... Blah, blah, blah..." You guys would be grilling Marty for
putting too much pressure on Philip. While "I" see it as, perfect timing
on that TD. Why??? Because Coach was patient in giving his first year
starter just enough to get him adjusted. No more, like you guys would
have been happy with. Would you also have been happy w/ an INT. The more
you throw, the better the chances are of one being picked off.
?whatever?
BTW. Anybody see how TERRIBLE our OLine is??? I mean. ZERO sacks,
they're fuckin horrible! :)
!!!GO BOLTS!!!
bol
>BTW. Anybody see how TERRIBLE our OLine is??? I mean. ZERO sacks,
>they're fuckin horrible! :)
>
>!!!GO BOLTS!!!
I will give the line credit for last nights play. To be fair, 11 pass
plays and 2 were downfield really. Not hard to avoid sacks with that!
lol
PBDepot
Yeah, the pass rush was good, but not really tested as you just said
cause of all the running plays. And I know the Raiders were stacking
the line, but come one. How many succesful holes for LT to run through
did they actually open up? Not that many.
I don't want to be a negative nancy, cause we did win, and will
continue to win with this O-line. But (and I know Chuck doesn't want to
hear this), the O-line is our main weakness right now, if not our ONLY
weakness.
I'm not being down on the team, it's just you can only scream "We're
the BESTEST Team around" so much. No matter how succesful the Chargers
get, It's still fun to criticize the team even if it's only the one
thing you can find about them that's struggling.
bol
wrote:
>
>Yeah, the pass rush was good, but not really tested as you just said
>cause of all the running plays. And I know the Raiders were stacking
>the line, but come one. How many succesful holes for LT to run through
>did they actually open up? Not that many.
>
>I don't want to be a negative nancy, cause we did win, and will
>continue to win with this O-line. But (and I know Chuck doesn't want to
>hear this), the O-line is our main weakness right now, if not our ONLY
>weakness.
>
>I'm not being down on the team, it's just you can only scream "We're
>the BESTEST Team around" so much. No matter how succesful the Chargers
>get, It's still fun to criticize the team even if it's only the one
>thing you can find about them that's struggling.
Agreed. If the o-line can play against elite d-lines as they did last
night, it will be good enough to win. They are the weak point of this
team and perhaps it isn't as weak as I think. Time will tell.
All World
I've finally learned that. I used to expect that Air Coryell would give
us a Super Bowl win. Not only didn't we get the win-we never even got
there. One thing I won't do is look ahead at the schedule and decide who
we'll beat and who we won't-been fooled enough doing that. I do think
our game plan for last night was awesome. A very good coaching job.
Robin Miller
> Agreed. If the o-line can play against elite d-lines as they did last
> night, it will be good enough to win. They are the weak point of this
> team and perhaps it isn't as weak as I think. Time will tell.
If the OL can do that, then the Chargers will win the Super Bowl.
--Robin
Raymond E. Feist
PBDepot <chu...@paintball-depot.com> wrote:
> bol wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 13:46:21 -0700, Fro...@webtv.net (Chuck D.) wrote:
> >
> >
> > >BTW. Anybody see how TERRIBLE our OLine is??? I mean. ZERO sacks,
> > >they're fuckin horrible! :)
> > >
> > >!!!GO BOLTS!!!
> >
> >
> > I will give the line credit for last nights play. To be fair, 11 pass
> > plays and 2 were downfield really. Not hard to avoid sacks with that!
> > lol
>
> Yeah, the pass rush was good, but not really tested as you just said
> cause of all the running plays. And I know the Raiders were stacking
> the line, but come one. How many succesful holes for LT to run through
> did they actually open up? Not that many.
"Not that many?" You don't rack up over 100 yards in less than a half
unless the line is opening up holes. L.T. may be the best back I've
ever seen (and I've seen Brown, Sayers, Peyton, and Saunders live), but
someone's got to be knocking linemen out of the way for him to get
loose.
>
> I don't want to be a negative nancy, cause we did win, and will
> continue to win with this O-line. But (and I know Chuck doesn't want to
> hear this), the O-line is our main weakness right now, if not our ONLY
> weakness.
>
> I'm not being down on the team, it's just you can only scream "We're
> the BESTEST Team around" so much. No matter how succesful the Chargers
> get, It's still fun to criticize the team even if it's only the one
> thing you can find about them that's struggling.
Man, get a new hobby! <g>
Best, R.E.F.
>
Ragnarok73
"Raymond E. Feist" <ray...@nospam.bittersea.com> wrote in message
news:120920062138170345%ray...@nospam.bittersea.com...
> "Not that many?" You don't rack up over 100 yards in less than a half
> unless the line is opening up holes. L.T. may be the best back I've
> ever seen (and I've seen Brown, Sayers, Peyton, and Saunders live), but
> someone's got to be knocking linemen out of the way for him to get
> loose.
LT *is* the best back I've ever seen. The guy can use exactly one step
the other way to turn an opposing LB inside-out. LT doesn't need an
all-star OL to put up numbers. Just look at his yardage compared to Brees
in 2003-04 behind the same mediocre OL if you want an example.
> Man, get a new hobby! <g>
Call it conditioning from years of disappointment, Raymond. I will gladly
eat a big plate of crow if my concerns about this team prove to be
unfounded.
Ragnarok73
"All World" <Fre...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:1460-450...@storefull-3277.bay.webtv.net...
This is how I generally take things: one game at a time. Just about every
time I've looked ahead with this team they've managed to disappoint, last
season included. I'm enjoying the Monday night win, but it's only Week 1.
Chuck D.
average of 8.0 per carry. Oh, I forgot to mention that was the
first-fucking-half! Yeah, you are SO definitely right. The OLine sucked
the hairy balls of the Oakland Raiders!
!!!GO BOLTS!!!
phlash74
Calm down man. Good win, everything's fine. However, LT did ONLY have
30 yards on 15 carries in the 2nd half. He also averaged less than 3
yards a carry in the first half with the obvious exception of the 58
yard breakaway. True, he was facing 8 in the box a majority of the
time (especially as it became more obvious that Marty was going to let
the defense win the game and not take any big chances), but he's done
better than that against defenses geared to stop him before. I fall
somewhere in between you and the "OL sucks" crowd. I think they're
unproven but have the potential to get the job done. We'll know a lot
more in weeks four and five against Bmore and Pitt.
Michael
Chuck D.
that many yards on that many carries, was because the Faders were
stuffing the box. AND the OLine still managed to get Tomlinson his
positive yards. Again, I still stand by my facetious comment... "Yeah,
our OLine REALLY sucks!" </sarcasm>
If you continue to believe that, that's YOUR problem. What "I" saw, was
some VERY conservative running to NOT lose the ball. But, then again...
:(
!!!GO BOLTS!!!
PBDepot
Raymond E. Feist wrote:
>
> "Not that many?" You don't rack up over 100 yards in less than a half
> unless the line is opening up holes. L.T. may be the best back I've
> ever seen (and I've seen Brown, Sayers, Peyton, and Saunders live), but
> someone's got to be knocking linemen out of the way for him to get
> loose.
Well, one of those runs was a 58 yarder. And we did run nearly every
play so of course LT would have some yards. But come on REF. You really
believe this O-line is firing on all cylinders right now? That they
couldn't be a little better?
What happens when another team puts 8 in the box, and Marty refuses to
throw again. Or even refuses to run counters and bootlegs. Reverse's
don't always cut it. We've seen it happen. He did this last year as
well. Decisions that may have cost us those real close games we lost
last year. All I'm saying is that the O-line isn't perfect, not like
most of the rest of our team, and that maybe Marty should try to play
to the team's strengths or LT's strenghts like running outside of the
tackles for once. When they do open up a hole in the middle, LT will
run right through it if it's big enough. But how often do we get those
type of holes?
Of course, you'd probably know the O-line better then I do, so do you
really think they're ready for a SuperBowl run? They'd be the only
thing stopping us right now if they weren't.
> > I don't want to be a negative nancy, cause we did win, and will
> > continue to win with this O-line. But (and I know Chuck doesn't want to
> > hear this), the O-line is our main weakness right now, if not our ONLY
> > weakness.
> >
> > I'm not being down on the team, it's just you can only scream "We're
> > the BESTEST Team around" so much. No matter how succesful the Chargers
> > get, It's still fun to criticize the team even if it's only the one
> > thing you can find about them that's struggling.
>
> Man, get a new hobby! <g>
After all these years, it's tough one to break. ;-)
Centella Cajon
>Calm down man. Good win, everything's fine. "Said" to Chuck D
Dear phlash74,
I don't recognize your screen name so I will assume you are somewhat
new in these parts. Not meant as a complaint but rather as a helpful
suggestion to you, to the betterment of your peace of mind. Here's the
thing, telling Chuck D to "calm down man" is roughly the same as
telling the wind not to blow, or the sun not to shine. Just ain't
gonna happen, not now, not ever. Few people I have ever "known" love
to live in a constant state of turmoil as much as Chuck D. Any attempt
to change him is bound for failure. Just let him rant. Hell he is
often amusing. No, really he IS! <grin>