The former 1st round pick just hasn't fit in New Orleans. Would he fit in here? Pair with Miller? Would you offer a pick to add him to the stable?
Until we get some of our offensive line problems sorted out, I wouldn't offer a pick for any running back really. While our backs could have scratched out maybe a few more yards than they did Sunday, like Philbin said, "let's face it, there just weren't many yards there." Also, I think, in the end, our back should be a receiver almost as much as a rusher. It's funny that Reggie Bush had 90 yards rushing and then 100+ yards receiving for Detroit. That's really how he should be used, imo. Ironically, we need just that sort of back. Now, Reggie also had the propensity to lose some yards when plays weren't there, and I think it would have been a nightmare if Reggie would have been our RB last Sunday, at least from a rushing standpoint. I'm not going to give up on Lamar Miller yet. I think he has it in him to be good in our offense, and while he dropped some in the preseason, I think we still should be using our backs in the passing game. If he corrects his drops, he'll be alright once our line opens up some holes. On the one screen we ran (and I think we should have run more), Daniel Thomas, for whatever reason, ran right into the blocks he was getting. If he cuts it outside, I think he has at least 10-12 yards. He ended up with four. I don't think Thomas is the answer. I still hope Lamar Miller is. That said, again, I wouldn't use a pick to go after another runner than wouldn't have gained but 30 yards at most last Sunday. Just not enough reward for the loss of a pick. Plus, at this point, I think it reeks of desperation on our part, and I think New Orleans would hold out for their price. Pass.
I am unsure of how good those Alabama backs are. Richardson is a strong runner, but just that. In college those guys ran behind a beast line; 2 guys drafted in 1st round this year and another in the 4th round? That's a crazy good college line. Guys aren't getting sniffed until 2 yards past line of scrimmage. And I agree we need a running threat who clearly understands and fits into the passing game.
I think our passing game is OK without really "needing" a RB to catch passes...would it be nice gravy? Sure, but I don't think it's necessary...our slot guys are rippin'. As for the run game, improvement on the O line will make it much better...it will at least show a hint of whether Lamar is the guy or not. That HAS to be corrected...just HAS to. That said, I'd also like to see some passes to the RB just to mix things up, and last I thought Lamar made some nice plays in the pre-season catching the ball (may be confusing him with another back, but I thought it was him). Don't know why we didn't do any of that stuff against Cleveland.
While I have no qualms with upgrading our running back group, I don't think we'd get much bang for the buck with that move unless it was just dirt cheap.
I'm into exploring options (our backfield sucks), just not Mark Ingram. He's never really looked like a solid pro, imo. I think he's a slight upgrade from Miller right now, but not by much, not worth much of anything, not a draft pick. It's crazy that good teams like the Giants, Steelers, and Phins need help in the backfield even though RBs supposedly have little value nowadays and are 'a dime a dozen'.
I agree it's okay, and really, it's probably better than just okay the way things went against Cleveland, especially in the second half. However, I'd think the coaches would want to be able to attack from all levels of our offense through the air. Lamar Miller looks to be decent in open space, and he's faster than the LBers who would cover him or try to tackle him after making the catch. In my opinion, there are some big plays there that we're missing right now. Additionally, folks talk about short passes to WRs as an extension of the running game, but short passes to RBs work as an extension of the running game, too. Lastly and ideally, if the LBs have to worry about RBs either in the middle of the field, so they creep up, and safeties are worried about the deep threat with Wallace, that should leave a lot of space for Tannehill, Gibson, and Hartline, as well as even Wallace himself, on the intermediate stuff over the middle. If the backers backpedal fast to shut down that space, a RB like Miller should have some space to work with once he catches the ball, and that's easy yardage... which I like.
That's actually a big part of why I'd be loath to offer a pick for Ingram. I think RBs are basically fungible. I'd be more interested in checking in with Louis (RG) and seeing how his recovery is going than throwing a pick at Ingram and then using 2 to 5th round pick in the draft next year to upgrade the RB position.
Use the RB's in Pass Pro - Smack and release for safety valve at times. If you look at the play Lamar Miller makes his one catch, that is how we should use these backs in the passing game. (When were not running screens and shovel passes) Miller is being spied by a backer on the play...he goes into pass pro and engages - the backer releases Miller and goes to help coverage on Clay (I believe it was Clay - might have been Gibson) - Miller then releases and catches an easy wide open one for 7 yards. (In future hope - He can make a guy miss on those or put on a move or break a tackle and turn those into bigger gains.) In any event, you can damage a defense by engaging in pass pro and releasing. Besides, were going to need more than 5 in pass pro and keeping our backs in to block hopefully will give Tannehill more time to get the ball downfield to Wallace. I'm not a fan of wide reciever screens or reverses just to get Wallace touches, we need to get Wallace downfield. It is that threat that will keep this offense alive. Because when you break it down, teams are going to start jumping these short routes and when that happens we must be able to execute the deep burn job.
No, what we probably should have done was sign Brian Waters a few weeks ago to be our RG. But sometimes people dont think ahead or just pick the wrong time to be frugal
Ya at first thought I thought it was a bad move, but on second thought, it appears to me they're really trying to set up the future cap situation and think they have enough to at least improve this year, and keep improving year after year (how many times did Marino have to take a pay cut just for them to STILL be a one dimensional team). I'm certainly one for not living in cap hell year after year like we've seen in the past...leaves you virtually NO flexibility. Optimistically speaking of course. Really hurts to watch that run blocking though...wish we would've done something there.
I agree but Waters did take a 1 year deal. I mean would it have killed us to offer the guy say a $100k or 200k more then Dallas and he'd probably be a Dolphin and we'd have a viable RG instead of John Jerry and other assorted poop.
I like the idea of taking a third straight New Orleans back and resurrecting their career, and I think Ingram would be a pretty good candidate.
Heck no to any trades of draft picks for a mediocre RB. Heck yes to upgrading the OL and maybe we need a new OLC but the problem lies with lack of holes to run through, not Lamar Miller or D Thomas either. JMVHO
you know what is disturbing ? the Eagles , Washington and Seattle all have great olines but Ireland has been here for nearly 7 or 8 years and we still have issues at oline . we also need a proven tightend and another wr but this my opinion. just how long does it take to rebuild a team ? it sure seems like its taking Miami way too long to rebound.
Is there such a thing as a system RB .I dont know but if there is he is one of them . At least Trent Richardson has talent even though he may be overated too IMO.
During that time period they've also had dominant seasons or have seemingly solved every position except Right Guard. In some cases, multiple times. Jake Long, Justin Smiley, Jake Grove, Richie Incognito, Mike Pouncey, and Vernon Carey all played at a high level and/or made Pro Bowls. We only had a dominant line for a short period of time, but it's a constantly moving target and I don't think it's the decision on personnel. I wouldn't call any of those teams offensive lines great, either
id say this is a fitting image of our run blocking o line last sunday, ingram would do nothing for us
There's very much such a thing I think, and it's worth considering if he's best served by the one he is in. Most guys in the NFL are genuinely good at a small range of things- certain techniques, positionings, routes, and schemes. It's worth working to identify what a guy does and if you can get him to focus on that.
No, not at all, not meaning to be sarcastic...I just think our bigger problem is the OL, not necessarily the RBs...We don't know much about Miller and perhaps he's not the answer, but we do know about the weaker guys on the OL and they are more the problem...
The Browns may have one of the best front sevens in football, if we get stuffed in the run game by the COLTS!!??!!?? Then I will be concerned.
I think 20 yards on 23 carries should concern anyone. It concerned Philbin , Sherman, and Tannehill, and members of the OL. The concern would only increase if there are issues against the Colts.
Well at least the coaches are taking it seriously, judging by the reports coming out of today's practice...that's the LEAST we should expect. I also expect some changes in the scheming and play-calling to go hand-in-hand with that. RB receptions, change of directions, confusion (not on OUR part, we already have that down), etc, maybe get 7 out the box.
It's not impressive to find a photo of traffic pylons, but it *is* impressive to find a photo of five traffic pylons arranged roughly like an o-line.