- Thread Author
- #41
By joining our community, you'll be able to connect with fellow fans that live and breathe Detroit sports just like you!
Get StartedIf SD knew what they were calling how'd we get a 21-3 lead?
If SD knew what they were calling how'd we get a 21-3 lead?
Complete football ignorance on my part, but is it possible that Stafford has more pre-snap responsibilities with Dom gone, and lack of experience (simplified calls/options) is making offensive calls more predictable? Does that make any sense?
So they went to the Lockers at half time and started talking "I know what plays they're running?" Yippee.
Something to keep in mind, but does anyone remember the Dallas game? Two quick TDs and a FG to build a big lead over a team that couldn't move the ball on our D. Halftime comes, the other team adjusts, our O and D both implode the rest of the game. That actually sounds pretty similar to the Chargers game.
If defenses have already figured our offense out, why in the hell did it take Stafford so long to get "comfortable" with the new system?
Column: Lions' play-tipping is a damning indictment of Joe Lombardi, and there are no easy solutions
http://www.mlive.com/lions/index.ssf/2015/09/column_play-tipping_is_a_damni.html
The harsh reality is Detroit's issues are much more serious than a bad offensive line. It's even more serious than who's calling the plays, or who is screwing them up.
It's the plays themselves, and that's not a problem fixed easily -- or quickly.
Thats what happens when you hire a qb coach with no playbook that has never been a coordinator before.
No playbook? I thought he had a vast playbook, as in enormous, and that's why they had to "simplify" it for Stafford last year.
Tate interview after the Seattle loss
http://www.freep.com/story/sports/nfl/lions/2015/10/09/golden-tate-matthew-stafford/73664898/
Founded in 2011, Detroit Sports Forum is a community of fanatics dedicated to teams like the Lions, Tigers, Pistons, Red Wings, Wolverines, and more. We live and breathe Detroit sports!