You're being too hard on Mett. When you have receivers as good as Beckham and Landry going against undersized DBs, you're supposed to throw it up there and let them make plays. It just didn't work out; shite happens.

If you're looking for someone to blame, try your OL. They just didn't show up. 114 net yards on 35 carries, against a depleted DL using a walk-on at DE? WTF? Three sacks and a bunch of hurries, even though we rarely blitzed? WTF?

You should have been able to control the game and rush for 300 yards last night. It's not Mett's fault your OL was MIA.

3 ...

Report Post

Posted by OTIS2

NoLA

Member since Jul 2008

50185 posts

Posted on 10/20/13 at 8:34 am to TeeteringBrink

Teet, our OL got beat, but that was the theme of the night, no doubt. If Mett's ball placement was anything close to normal though, with everything else staying the same, we win by two scores or more...it's that damn clear.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Antonio Moss

Baton Rouge

Member since Mar 2006

48329 posts

Posted on 10/20/13 at 10:00 am to TeeteringBrink

quote:
You're being too hard on Mett. When you have receivers as good as Beckham and Landry going against undersized DBs, you're supposed to throw it up there and let them make plays. It just didn't work out; shite happens.

I don't care if you're throwing to Calvin Johnson, you don't throw the ball into the deep middle third into double coverage ... Especially when you have a receiver wide open underneath.

Mett did this twice.

We could run at will against the land mass; Mett just had to protect the ball.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by floyd13

New Orleans Uptown

Member since Sep 2010

1763 posts

Posted on 10/20/13 at 10:25 am to TeeteringBrink

If your in the I formation it's not hard to defend the run been saying this since Les Miles been the coach

1 ...

Report Post

Tiger Rant - Replies to Post

Return To Board