1 minute ago, cunninghamtheman said:

I can see how you misunderstood my post. More correct way to have stated my theory would have been by using a ? instead of …. Just explaining basic football 101 to you once again.

You stated they would gash us in the running game, then you claim something else. Dodge,deflect,deny. Can never man up and say you were wrong.So,after this happening numerous times, I DID go back to show you once again you were wrong and you owe me an apology for saying I misquoted you when it's all right there. We did not get gashed and I never thought we would. Just say ",yep I got that wrong". It's not hard to do

6 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

I can see how you misunderstood my post. More correct way to have stated my theory would have been by using a ? instead of …. Just explaining basic football 101 to you once again.

Actually we stopped their running game,forced them to pass,which nearly cost us the game

3 minutes ago, Bleedinggreen93 said:

I’m not saying Gains is the guy we should be using just that Scott clearly hasn’t shown anything as to why he is better he has actually shown to be quite a bit worse 

Clearly Gainwell was the chosen guy by Siri. Then as soon as Sanders got injured…Scott pulled up because he was the only legit starting option. They understood Gainwell at his best was just a complimentary RB option. Yet started this season believing the false belief of Gainwell the starting workhorse option.

I think it's way too early to judge in week 1. Remember our very POTENT defense last year got reamed by Detroit week 1(despite the fact we won) and that turned out ok. Yes we have alot of work to do

2 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

Clearly Gainwell was the chosen guy by Siri. Then as soon as Sanders got injured…Scott pulled up because he was the only legit starting option. They understood Gainwell at his best was just a complimentary RB option. Yet started this season believing the false belief of Gainwell the starting workhorse option.

Mmmmm Scott isn’t the starting workhorse option either he clearly showed last season he wasn’t better then gains the stats don’t lie my guy… 

3 minutes ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

You stated they would gash us in the running game, then you claim something else. Dodge,deflect,deny. Can never man up and say you were wrong.So,after this happening numerous times, I DID go back to show you once again you were wrong and you owe me an apology for saying I misquoted you when it's all right there. We did not get gashed and I never thought we would. Just say ",yep I got that wrong". It's not hard to do

I did admit I was wrong. My less than stellar English  skills I admitted were wrong and could see,slightly, how you came to this conclusion.

Gains gave you the same production lvl as Scott all of last year in the NE game yet you keep saying Scott is the obvious better option?????

 

I could see if you were saying Swift or hell even a healthy Penny two guys that have shown to be better but Scott nah 

1 minute ago, Bleedinggreen93 said:

Mmmmm Scott isn’t the starting workhorse option either he clearly showed last season he wasn’t better then gains the stats don’t lie my guy… 

No doubt. We don’t have one clearly.

5 minutes ago, Bleedinggreen93 said:

Mmmmm Scott isn’t the starting workhorse option either he clearly showed last season he wasn’t better then gains the stats don’t lie my guy… 

Was this a "tune up game" that got a bit out of hand? You know siri knows we have a short week here.Perhaps Swift and Penny weren't used to save them for the Vikes? Maybe Siri got a little too over confident. IDK just guessing but gassing Swift and Penny week 1 would make things more difficult week 2 on a short turn around?

1 minute ago, Bleedinggreen93 said:

Gains gave you the same production lvl as Scott all of last year in the NE game yet you keep saying Scott is the obvious better option?????

 

I could see if you were saying Swift or hell even a healthy Penny two guys that have shown to be better but Scott nah 

All are better options that Gainwell. But I do see Gainwell as the decent in every phase, or playcall, option. So you can have a full playbook with Gainwell in there. 

2 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

No doubt. We don’t have one clearly.

RBBC why do we NEED one? Let them all play. IDC who starts,I care about who finishes and that can change weekly depending on the opponent. Why do we need 1 size fits all??

1 minute ago, cunninghamtheman said:

No doubt. We don’t have one clearly.

I wouldn’t jump the gun so much the OL did do great… Gains have you just under 4 yards a carry in a game that we had no passing attack the only thing NE had to worry about was stopping the run.

And at some point during the game Gains injured his rips and the injury was severe enough that he could miss thursdays game. 
 

Give it some time RB room will work itself out a guy will step up 

Gainwell starting and failing just backs up my point about the RB room.

1 hour ago, cunninghamtheman said:

Players were the first to say it. Listen to them. Bellicheat was confusing the reads by the receivers and the QB. So if a WR, or in this case a TE, has a different read than the QB…he’s heading in a different direction than the QB is expecting. Coverage scheme absolutely matters. This isn’t pee wee football. Not all just a play called and they run one certain route and that’s it. There are reads involved and built in. You gotta give Bellicheat his credit on creating some confusion.

 

1 minute ago, cunninghamtheman said:

All are better options that Gainwell. But I do see Gainwell as the decent in every phase, or playcall, option. So you can have a full playbook with Gainwell in there. 

Lmao 🤣 my guy you are delusional nothing Scott has done has shown he is better then Gains… 

Penny/Swift if he can stay healthy possibly they are better but I wouldn’t even guarantee that 

Just now, GreenbleedinNC said:

RBBC why do we NEED one? Let them all play. IDC who starts,I care about who finishes and that can change weekly depending on the opponent. Why do we need 1 size fits all??

I’d prefer two good RBs. Gains started and finished. The scripted start was decent. The finish was abysmal.

1 hour ago, cunninghamtheman said:

Players were the first to say it. Listen to them. Bellicheat was confusing the reads by the receivers and the QB. So if a WR, or in this case a TE, has a different read than the QB…he’s heading in a different direction than the QB is expecting. Coverage scheme absolutely matters. This isn’t pee wee football. Not all just a play called and they run one certain route and that’s it. There are reads involved and built in. You gotta give Bellicheat his credit on creating some confusion.

 

1 minute ago, cunninghamtheman said:

Gainwell starting and failing just backs up my point about the RB room.

3.9 yards a carry when there was zero threat to pass I wouldn’t really call that a failure 

1 minute ago, cunninghamtheman said:

The scripted start was decent. The finish was abysmal.

Again when did the rip injury happen? 

1 minute ago, cunninghamtheman said:

I’d prefer two good RBs. Gains started and finished. The scripted start was decent. The finish was abysmal.

Their RB's didn't do so well either in heavy rain?????

Very confusing???    Was Goedert confused?   I can see the other guys....the ones who got looks from the QB saying it....did Goedert say it? 

2 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

I’d prefer two good RBs. Gains started and finished. The scripted start was decent. The finish was abysmal.

Nice you are once again able to predict injuries down to the very play!!!

1 minute ago, joemas6 said:

Very confusing???    Was Goedert confused?   I can see the other guys....the ones who got looks from the QB saying it....did Goedert say it? 

Despite even a broken route, the QB has to be able to see wide open receivers

1 minute ago, Bleedinggreen93 said:

3.9 yards a carry when there was zero threat to pass I wouldn’t really call that a failure 

If our RB room failed...then what about NE RBs?    Remember our run D apparently is a weakness.... we all know NE run D is good. 

2 minutes ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

Nice you are once again able to predict injuries down to the very play!!!

What are you talking about? You responded to a quote of mine about how Gainwell started and finished the game. Which I was responding to your quote about potentially switching to a better RB option.