Go on the record.

[Lygraf]

Originally Posted by Asmith(DE)

I find this amusing to say the kid's been struggling since he's played a grand total of....about 1 half of football?

To make any realistic judgement for or against his play at this point is simply moronic.

didn't know man. lemme try and find where that media trash entered my brain

update: nothing. derp. retracted.

i stand by my count, though. losing your starting center coming against a very angry and deep D-line at home, i'd say my numbers are pretty much the floor of possibility sunday

[GreggyDigital]

Originally Posted by Luvnit2

First, why don't you provide the video link to Dunlap's sack since you were saying he was unblocked. Simple, you are full of crap. Two, the play you are referencing was against RG3 and he was blocked, but he shed the block and made the tackle. They changed it from a sack to a tackle since they thought it was a running play.
.

I am full of crap. Here is the play you and I are talking about where you say he shed a block.

I'm guessing he shed the block of a ghost of some kind? I'll ask PhilDunlophos to check for me.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-h...on-option-play

But seriously, he was totally unblocked and it was a terrible zone read by RG3. 5 yard gain at least if he hands that off.

OP updated.

[rfaulk34]

Originally Posted by GreggyDigital

I am full of crap. Here is the play you and I are talking about where you say he shed a block.

I'm guessing he shed the block of a ghost of some kind? I'll ask PhilDunlophos to check for me.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-h...on-option-play

But seriously, he was totally unblocked and it was a terrible zone read by RG3. 5 yard gain at least if he hands that off.

OP updated.

What was terrible about his read?

[GreggyDigital]

Originally Posted by rfaulk34

What was terrible about his read?

Well, the fact that you zone read the DE so he should have given it to the back.

Mostly due to the fact that he got absolutely pummeled by an unblocked (and overrated) defensive end.

[rfaulk34]

Originally Posted by GreggyDigital

Well, the fact that you zone read the DE so he should have given it to the back.

Mostly due to the fact that he got absolutely pummeled by an unblocked (and overrated) defensive end.

Watch it again. Excellent play call against a perfectly (mis)aligned defense. All three LBs are lined up 5 yds from the ball. That means you leave the DE unblocked. It's the responsibility of the QB to pitch the ball before he's hit by the unblocked lineman. Fake dive, tackle initially doubles the DT and then goes to the MIKE. The back who was faked to blocks the WILL. Single coverage on the outside.

I would think an astute football observer like you would look at that play and decide that an excellent read and reaction from the DE (Dunlap) blew that play up. Therefore, i would expect that you would compliment Dunlap on the play instead of blaming RGIII for a bad read.

RGIII had no time to make the pitch after the fake....due to Dunlap's quickness in reading and reacting to the play.

[GreggyDigital]

Originally Posted by rfaulk34

Watch it again. Excellent play call against a perfectly (mis)aligned defense. All three LBs are lined up 5 yds from the ball. That means you leave the DE unblocked. It's the responsibility of the QB to pitch the ball before he's hit by the unblocked lineman. Fake dive, tackle initially doubles the DT and then goes to the MIKE. The back who was faked to blocks the WILL. Single coverage on the outside.

I would think an astute football observer like you would look at that play and decide that an excellent read and reaction from the DE (Dunlap) blew that play up. Therefore, i would expect that you would compliment Dunlap on the play instead of blaming RGIII for a bad read.

RGIII had no time to make the pitch after the fake....due to Dunlap's quickness in reading and reacting to the play.

The correct read was to give to the upback.

That's not a fake to him. That's the read.

RG3 held onto the ball and got destroyed by an unblocked defender (and the person who is suppose to get optioned.). That's probably a good indication that he made the incorrect read.

Again, the definition of a terrible read on an option (or read) play is getting destroyed by the person that's suppose to be optioned. I would think this would be obvious

Not to mention you don't have Luvnuts backup since you're not showing me how he "shed a block" here.

[rfaulk34]

Originally Posted by GreggyDigital

The correct read was to give to the upback.

That's not a fake to him. That's the read.

RG3 held onto the ball and got destroyed by an unblocked defender (and the person who is suppose to get optioned.). That's probably a good indication that he made the incorrect read.

Again, the definition of a terrible read on an option (or read) play is getting destroyed by the person that's suppose to be optioned. I would think this would be obvious

Not to mention you don't have Luvnuts backup since you're not showing me how he "shed a block" here.

That's not the read. Otherwise the Tackle would not have completely ignored Dunlap. The read was what they did. One unblocked player (Dunalp) is expected to hit the QB which leaves the back getting the pitch clean. The Bengals were in a basic 43 cover 2 man. The safeties were nowhere in the picture. The WRs were single press covered.

The Redskins expected one of two things. Either Dunlap was going to tackle the dive, which would have left RGIII the ball in his hands with only the WILL to contend with (in which case he could still pitch, or, Dunlap was going to go after the QB, which he did. They didn't expect him to get to the QB that fast and while he was there, extend his arm to stop the pitch, causing the fumble. It was a great play by Dunlap, bottom line. And it was the correct read and exactly what they wanted. They just didn't get a chance to execute it.

Thanks to Dunlap's excellent play.

Don't you agree?

[rfaulk34]

Originally Posted by GreggyDigital

Not to mention you don't have Luvnuts backup since you're not showing me how he "shed a block" here.

You already covered the "shed block".

It was a ghost of some kind.

[Asmith(DE)]

Originally Posted by rfaulk34

That's not the read. Otherwise the Tackle would not have completely ignored Dunlap. The read was what they did. One unblocked player (Dunalp) is expected to hit the QB which leaves the back getting the pitch clean. The Bengals were in a basic 43 cover 2 man. The safeties were nowhere in the picture. The WRs were single press covered.

The Redskins expected one of two things. Either Dunlap was going to tackle the dive, which would have left RGIII the ball in his hands with only the WILL to contend with (in which case he could still pitch, or, Dunlap was going to go after the QB, which he did. They didn't expect him to get to the QB that fast and while he was there, extend his arm to stop the pitch, causing the fumble. It was a great play by Dunlap, bottom line. And it was the correct read and exactly what they wanted. They just didn't get a chance to execute it.

Thanks to Dunlap's excellent play.

Don't you agree?

The argument was over whether or not he was blocked or not. If what you're saying he was unblocked...then you admit defeat...

If a player is unblocked and he makes a tackle...are we supposed to call him Reggie White because he made a basic play a defender is supposed to make?

[rfaulk34]

Originally Posted by Asmith(DE)

The argument was over whether or not he was blocked or not. If what you're saying he was unblocked...then you admit defeat...

If a player is unblocked and he makes a tackle...are we supposed to call him Reggie White because he made a basic play a defender is supposed to make?

You're barking up the wrong tree, hombre. I never disputed that he was unblocked. I raised a question about Greggy claiming it was a bad read by RGIII.

Do not ever go 'all sixandcouting' on me again!

P.S. Blowing up an option play and causing a fumble that you recover is never a "basic play a defender is supposed to make".

[Luvnit2]

Originally Posted by rfaulk34

Watch it again. Excellent play call against a perfectly (mis)aligned defense. All three LBs are lined up 5 yds from the ball. That means you leave the DE unblocked. It's the responsibility of the QB to pitch the ball before he's hit by the unblocked lineman. Fake dive, tackle initially doubles the DT and then goes to the MIKE. The back who was faked to blocks the WILL. Single coverage on the outside.

I would think an astute football observer like you would look at that play and decide that an excellent read and reaction from the DE (Dunlap) blew that play up. Therefore, i would expect that you would compliment Dunlap on the play instead of blaming RGIII for a bad read.

RGIII had no time to make the pitch after the fake....due to Dunlap's quickness in reading and reacting to the play.

Again, Greggy is so bent on trying to make Dunlap look bad he screws up the OP and then either is clueless or is trolling. The more he argues, i will go with clueless.

Nice job on correcting your mistake Greggy after it was pointed out to you by me.

So, i will correct mine as well...lol

[Luvnit2]

Originally Posted by GreggyDigital

Anyone can pick who wins or losses. That's boring. Here is something more challenging.

Mike Adams vs Carlos Dunlap.

It's been rumored here that Carlos Dunlap is an elite pass rusher. Pretty much made famous on this forum because of the great "almost sacks" discussion last year.

I told you he was an average player. Maybe I was wrong about that.

This year, in 4 games played, he has recorded 8 tackles and 1 sack. That one sack being a totally unblocked tackle on RG3 on a read option.

Now Mike Adams will coming to town and will start due to the 341234214320 injuries the Steelers have (Jonathon Dwyer might be starting, lol). A second round pick of the Steelers who Bengal fans turned their back on (he's an OSU guy) and now say he's terrible.

So, how many sacks do you think Dunlap will have on Sunday night?

I say 0. Maybe one if there is a converge sack. I will also go on the record as saying he will get 2 almost sacks (Luvnuts thinks they're more important than sacks.)

I see you are still full of crap.

[neek]

On record: Monday morning, Greggy will still have a man crush on Dunlap.

[Beaker]

I say Dunlap gets one when ben is flushed by Geno Atkins, spins to get away, and runs into Dunlap.

[Woodley]

Originally Posted by philhos

ON a related note, how come some announcers refer to Dunlap as 'Dunlop'?

Don't know, but we'll see how your Dunlops fare against 4 tough Steelers...

Terry Bradshaw Commercial for Steeler Tires 1980 - YouTube

[Interceptor]

I predict a repeat of the Browns game. Bengals will lose in the same fashion - they will move the ball well and at will only when the game is too far out of reach.

Either way, game ends and I will still be a Bengals fan.

[GreggyDigital]

Originally Posted by rfaulk34

That's not the read. Otherwise the Tackle would not have completely ignored Dunlap. The read was what they did. One unblocked player (Dunalp) is expected to hit the QB which leaves the back getting the pitch clean. The Bengals were in a basic 43 cover 2 man. The safeties were nowhere in the picture. The WRs were single press covered.

The Redskins expected one of two things. Either Dunlap was going to tackle the dive, which would have left RGIII the ball in his hands with only the WILL to contend with (in which case he could still pitch, or, Dunlap was going to go after the QB, which he did. They didn't expect him to get to the QB that fast and while he was there, extend his arm to stop the pitch, causing the fumble. It was a great play by Dunlap, bottom line. And it was the correct read and exactly what they wanted. They just didn't get a chance to execute it.

Thanks to Dunlap's excellent play.

Don't you agree?

No.

I can't stress enough that if a QB get blasted by a player that he KNOWS is going to be unblocked (and optioned on), it's a bad read. His correct read was 5 yards up the middle to running back on the dive.

Again, Robert KNOWS Dunlap is unblocked and STILL got blasted by him. That's not a good zone read.

I'm really unsure how you can possibly disagree with that.

[GreggyDigital]

Originally Posted by Luvnit2

I see you are still full of crap.

Tell me again about how he shed a block on that play?

[rotobeast]

I see Peko having the better game.

Maurkice who ?

[Asmith(DE)]

Originally Posted by rfaulk34

You're barking up the wrong tree, hombre. I never disputed that he was unblocked. I raised a question about Greggy claiming it was a bad read by RGIII.

Do not ever go 'all sixandcouting' on me again!

P.S. Blowing up an option play and causing a fumble that you recover is never a "basic play a defender is supposed to make".

QB's are highly fumble prone upon tackle/sack. He made a tackle. Big whoop. Shall we hand Sam Adams his HoF jacket now? I mean Antwan Odom, errr...who are we talking about again

[rfaulk34]

Originally Posted by GreggyDigital

No.

I can't stress enough that if a QB get blasted by a player that he KNOWS is going to be unblocked (and optioned on), it's a bad read. His correct read was 5 yards up the middle to running back on the dive.

Again, Robert KNOWS Dunlap is unblocked and STILL got blasted by him. That's not a good zone read.

I'm really unsure how you can possibly disagree with that.

Bull ****. Griffin's job is to get rid of the ball before the defender hits him. Carlos made that impossible.

I'm sure someone who's unwilling to give any credit where it's due disagrees here.

And it wouldn't have been a 5 yard gain. Dunlap was angling towards the FB. It would have been a loss. That's why Griffin pulled the ball out.

[rfaulk34]

Originally Posted by Asmith(DE)

QB's are highly fumble prone upon tackle/sack. He made a tackle. Big whoop. Shall we hand Sam Adams his HoF jacket now? I mean Antwan Odom, errr...who are we talking about again

Your mom.

[GreggyDigital]

Originally Posted by rfaulk34

Bull ****. Griffin's job is to get rid of the ball before the defender hits him. Carlos made that impossible.

I'm sure someone who's unwilling to give any credit where it's due disagrees here.

And it wouldn't have been a 5 yard gain. Dunlap was angling towards the FB. It would have been a loss. That's why Griffin pulled the ball out.

I'm not saying it wasn't a good play. He clocked the QB (he was unblocked).

You're trying to tell me the QB made a good read. That's not true.

[Luvnit2]

Originally Posted by GreggyDigital

Tell me again about how he shed a block on that play?

Tell us again how Dunlap's one sack he was unblocked.

[rfaulk34]

Originally Posted by GreggyDigital

I'm not saying it wasn't a good play. He clocked the QB (he was unblocked).

You're trying to tell me the QB made a good read. That's not true.

He made the exact read he was supposed to in that situation considering the defensive alignment.

It's clear as day. Dunlap was given the red carpet treatment to the backfield because the Tackle blocked down on the DT before releasing to the second level. The FB went to the WILL.

If Griffin puts the ball in the FBs belly, Dulap tackles him for a loss. Griffin pulled it out (that's what she said) and intended to either run or pitch.

If Dunlap tackles the FB, the Griffin's next responsibility is the WILL (either try and juke him or pitch), if Dunlap goes after the QB, Griffin pitches to the back.

Dunlap simply blew the play up.