Tuesday, September 3, 2013

Peter Smith of Dawg Pound Daily Corrected!

At last I have you, PT! Ever since you asked for new writers for Dawg Pound Daily and ignored my submissions, I've been waiting for this!

I knew that I could never blow you out of the water as I can everybody else except Pluto, but I've been waiting for you to make more than one mistake in the same submission for several months now, and finally I have you!

It's irrelevant to me that much of this will sail over ignorant heads.  I aint going for the dumbass vote here:

Peter's Browns' Season Prediction was WAY, WAY smarter and insightful than any I've read anywhere to date, and I'm in no way bashing anybody here.  It's just that Peter implicitly rejected me more than once, so I have an axe to grind is all.

Anyway, as usual Peter is objective and insightful, and (see previous blog) makes Grossi look sick in comparison.

But here's where in my humble Da Vinci-like opinion I feel Mr. Smith was wrong:

1: While Trent Richardson is certainly a keystone component to this offense, his loss to injury is NOT neccessarily the doomsday disaster which Peter describes.

While he's right about a serious run threat (and balance in general) being critical for a Turner/Chud offense, I feel that Peter undervalues blocking, short passes, and a very real deep threat.

If it's Rainey or Johnson instead of Saint TRich, Peter is wrong in thinking that a defense will focus much more on disrupting Weeden or putting more people in coverage.  If they do, Rainey and/or Johnson will make them pay.

Peter, I agree with you that a healthy Trent Richardson is exceptional, and can turn little plays into big plays by breaking tackles and running away from people.  I agree with you that Rainey/Johnson/Obgannaya just aren't as good as he is.

But I can't agree with you that the other guys can't make a defense pay dearly for ignoring the run to stop the pass via pressure or coverage, and I feel you've insulted this offensive line.

This offense can be great with a healthy YRich, but can function well without him.

2: Stopping the run is not critical for this defense.  While you're right about forcing offenses to pass on second and third downs is ideal, it's not a deal-killer of they don't.

The fact is that modern offenses don't use the run to set up the pass as they have in the past.  They're as likely to pass on first down as they are to run, and to field three or more recievers on first down too.

You're right that the run, screen passes, and dumpoffs will be the best ways to attack this defense, but you overlook a few things:

A: The blitzes come from inside as well as the edges, and will blow up run plays in the backfield, or force them wide laterally, allowing the whole defense to converge before they can turn downfield.

B: It doesn't matter if a running back rips off 11 yards on one play, then 7 yards an the next, then another five yards if, on the next first down, he takes a two yard loss and the offense is first and twelve.  It looks like hell statistically, but in reality, vs. this front seven, this is an offense in a jam.

C: It doesn't matter if a back runs for 16 yards if, out of five, his other runs are for two, three, minus three, and zero.  Even if he isn't stripped of the ball.

Peter's win/loss estimate in this article is by far the most detailed and realistic one I've read, and in my opinion just about on the money.  

It's just that I'm used to him being at least 90% right about everything, and not being able to find anything to pick on him for...

But while I'm at it, he also underestimates Barnidge and Gilkey.

NOTE: New rookie FA acquistion Gray, MarQueis is listed as a RUNNING BACK, not a tight end, on the depth chart.
I can't take this too seriously, but it has to mean something.  In the rare scouting reports I've been able to dig up, he's been projected as a wide reciever--NOT a tight end.

Just sayin...his 4.73 40 time and size say tight end, but these coaches don't like labels or boxes, and might well have something unexpected in mind for this guy--I mean over and above the wildcat QB stuff.

In conclusion, Peter Smith is almost as good as me.




No comments: