FalcFans Forums

Just a couple quotes I thought you guys might like to read.

"From 1995 through 2004, NFL wideouts produced 208 1,000 yard performances. Rookies accounted for only five of them: Joey Galloway (1995), Terry Glenn (96), Randy Moss (98), Anquan Boldin (03), and Michael Clayton (04). But for every Clayton, who caught 80 passes for 1,193 yards and seven touchdowns for the Bucs, there are a plethora of Michael Jenkinses, who had seven receptions for 119 yards and no touchdowns for the Falcons last season."

Also:

"Coordinator Ed Donatells' preference for nickel and dime coverages made MLB Ed Harwell obsolete in the first two weeks. Last week, Hartwell did a poor job of getting off fullback blocks."

Don't get me wrong, they had plenty of good things to say, but I have seen alot of talk on the boards about these two topics and just thought I would put out some thoughts that were outside our little circle.

MF1

I am starting to wonder about Ed Hartwell since we don't use the packages that would put him on the field.

I hope this isn't Peerless Price part II.

I am willing to write off Hartwell's performance so far to the fact that last Sunday was the only game so far he's seen signifigant playing time....let's hope it's not Peerless II, but I don't think it will be...

I thought Hartwell looked good vs. the Eagles in the rare occassions that he was on the field. But the past two weeks haven't been too good. He isn't missing tackles, but he has struggled to get off blocks. FBs and H-backs are having free shot at him. I think part of this is because Lavalais/Coleman/Babs/Lake aren't tying up blockers at the line of scrimmage as well as hoped.

But truthfully I think the running game is going to improve once Brady Smith is back in the lineup. Davis and Kerney just aren't run stoppers, and having Smith back in the rotation I think will be significantly better than one would think.

Although I don't want to get too far ahead. But teams are realizing they can have greater success running the football when Hartwell is off the field (because he's our best run stopper at LB) and also have the benefit of using 3-WR and 4-WR sets to exploit our lacking nickel CB situations.

So I don't think this problem is going to automatically correct itself until we prove we can consistently stop the run when Hartwell is off the field.

[quote="Pudge"]But truthfully I think the running game is going to improve once Brady Smith is back in the lineup. Davis and Kerney just aren't run stoppers, and having Smith back in the rotation I think will be significantly better than one would think.[quote]

Brady Smith has always been underrated in his contribution to this team. He's a pure run blocker that always manages to rack up 5 to 8 sacks a season. Of course this has a lot to do with Kerney/Coleman flushing the Quarterback out towards Smith. But thus far I can see Davis eventually becoming a 1 to 1 replacement for Smith down the road. I'd like to see the position upgraded when Smith retires though.

I think a major factor in this is the penetration and containment of our DL on running plays. When our DTs don't penetrate, they get manhandled. When the DEs don't contain, the RB runs right past them where the OLB is either covering someone or watching the cut to the inside. If we allow the opposing OL to dictate to us how we persue the ballcarrier, we will always get hammered like we have the past two games. However, we saw this same squad do an excellent job against the run last year and versus PHI. We know they are capable, but they have to find out where things are breaking down and focus more. Hartwell was picked up because they felt he would do well in our defense. Therefore, he will do a good job once he gels with the rest of the front 7. We also have to look at how Babs and Lavalais are doing their jobs. Chad did well last year with Lake next to him, but Lake is a lot different than Coleman and probably takes some getting used to. Both him and Babs are young and still learning the ropes at this level, so it will take some more focus from them as well.