burningmetal

They were never going to get to Bradford, because it was a ton of three man rushes, and I don't recall seeing any blitzes. Maybe one... Maybe. I'm not even sure about that.

But all of the coverage busts meant that Bradford didn't even need time. It was just not good in any fashion on that side of the ball. I continue to be puzzled as to why a team who struggles to stop anyone, would not blitz far more often. It's a very risky thing to blitz often because of holes it leaves in the secondary, but when your secondary is leaving a Grand Canyon for the QB to throw into, and your defensive line isn't generating any pressure, you have no choice.

Yeah you'll give up some big plays, but you'll also increase the odd's of creating turnovers, which is how our defense lived throughout the entire 2009 season. I didn't like Gregg Williams' defenses after that year, because they continued to give up yards, but the pressure and turnovers seemed to disappear; but at least for that one season, it worked. Nothing Dennis Allen is doing is working. He coaches like he thinks we have 7 hall of famers out there. Just send them out there and let them do whatever.

If I had a nickel for every time I heard that, the NFL would fine and suspend me.

CharityMike

I was screaming at the tv every time we actually got pressure and it effected Bradfords throws. I don't understand how they can't seem to grasp this.

I know we blitzed at least once for sure because the announcers made a point to cradle Cooks sack for holding off the blitzer. But I am sure we blitzed more but the fact that we can't recall it was because it was so ineffective, it looked like a regular play.

I stand by my comment that the game plan, on both sides of the ball, was absolute garbage. And to make matters worse, did we adjust at all after half time? Nooooooooooooo. This game stunk to high heaven in all sorts of ways and I am not looking forward to this week against the Pats. I hope they don't embarrass us to bad.