PDA

View Full Version : Bruener had a good blocking game


Runner
10-17-2005, 09:55 AM
Bruener was lined up as a tight end on the left side next to Pitts on several plays yesterday. His assignment was to block the whole play, not chip and go out for the pass. On several occasions he blocked the DE himself while Pitts blocked another person or Pitts waited to give support if the end got around Bruener. In other cases Bruener and Pitts doubled teamed the end from the snap.

Many times Bruener controlled the end by himself. This plan worked in pass protection, but it certainly cut down on our receiving options, which are already fairly limited.

Later in the game I noticed the DE positioned himself between Pitts and Bruener, rather than to Bruener's outside. I don't think this helped much.

I see Pitts is getting credited for having a pretty good game; I think he should be buying Bruener dinner this week too.

infantrycak
10-17-2005, 10:08 AM
Bruener did a very good job. Then the Einsteinian coaching staff got involved and thought TE's should be interchangeable and stuck Rivers alone on Wistrom--ouch, not even a match-up. Of course if you aren't going to release Bruener into a passing route why not just play Wand at TE like they did in 2003?

touttail
10-17-2005, 11:14 AM
Bruener did a very good job. Then the Einsteinian coaching staff got involved and thought TE's should be interchangeable and stuff Rivers alone on Wistrom--ouch, not even a match-up. Of course if you aren't going to release Bruener into a passing route why not just play Wand at TE like they did in 2003?

Wistrom put on a clinic with Pitts and Rivers. That guy blew by them so fast. Wistrom literally ate their lunch!!!

bobby 119C :brickwall

infantrycak
10-17-2005, 11:27 AM
Wistrom put on a clinic with Pitts and Rivers. That guy blew by them so fast. Wistrom literally ate their lunch!!!

bobby 119C :brickwall

Wistrom only got one sack and it came against Rivers. Pitts wasn't pretty, but it was his 1st game back and it was a huge upgrade on Riley.

Vinny
10-17-2005, 11:28 AM
Wistrom only got one sack and it came against Rivers. Pitts wasn't pretty, but it was his 1st game back and it was a huge upgrade on Riley.
Agreed...if anyone cares to look back at the first games Riley got the same kind of help and was crushed on a regular basis.

Runner
10-17-2005, 11:36 AM
Wistrom only got one sack and it came against Rivers.

That is what happened, and it is worrisome in itself - is our best solution to have tight ends go one-on-one with defensive ends?

Runner
10-17-2005, 11:38 AM
Agreed...if anyone cares to look back at the first games Riley got the same kind of help and was crushed on a regular basis.


Agreed, Riley had lots of TE help in the previous games. However the TEs last night frequently maintained the block the whole play; they didn't help and then go out on a route. I'm not sure how much of that I've seen earlier in the year.

Vinny
10-17-2005, 11:41 AM
I saw quite a bit of it with Riley. I mentioned it when I broke down the 2nd game. We did have more max protect yesterday on both sides though. The RT got more help than he has gotten in the first games...thats where most of the extra, "extra" help went.

BigBull17
10-17-2005, 11:43 AM
That is what happened, and it is worrisome in itself - is our best solution to have tight ends go one-on-one with defensive ends?
Nah then you change it up and have backs block them...

touttail
10-17-2005, 11:53 AM
Wistrom only got one sack and it came against Rivers. Pitts wasn't pretty, but it was his 1st game back and it was a huge upgrade on Riley.

We just gave up 3 sacks, that was a big big upgrade. Wistrom was getting by Pitts. Chester had two holding penalities. The comentators stated they need to put a TE there to help out Chester. They put Rivers there and you are right, Wistrom got a sack.

bobby 119C :brickwall