PDA

View Full Version : Time to get rid of Meeks



Natston
10-31-2004, 11:17 PM
I know he doesn't have much to work with but right now he's playing like his predecessor Vic Fangio. His gameplan was ridiculous, if you even try to consider that a gameplan. Why would anyone take a Pro Bowl DE and play him at DT (this negating his speed advantage, and using his size against him), and drop him back in pass coverage? What the **** was he thinking when he failed to put in either of our effective speed rushers down in the red zone? Why in the hell after you were having success blitzing late in the game, would you revert back to the Manilla ******** that was surrendering yards and points all game long. We need to fire his ***...






























out of a cannon...


















and get someone that actually has some experience as a defensive coordinator and has had some success in the league doing it. I doubt that Dungy will even do it because he is too nice. :rolleyes:

Natston
10-31-2004, 11:39 PM
Why stop there? We have a coach that can't game plan, and a GM who hasn't built a defense in 20 years of trying.

I can't ask for everything you know. ;)

Anyway, we'd be leaps and bounds better if we had someone like the Chiefs coordinator. They played hard and were active even though they are just as bad as us. We have some semblance of some solid players but we need a coaching staff that will put them in the position to do something... :(

obnoxiousmodesty
11-01-2004, 04:22 PM
At this rate I'll be happy if anything is done in the offseason.

I better prepare to be disappointed.

TheSauceMaster
11-01-2004, 07:18 PM
What do you expect when you throw all your money into Offense , and there is just scraps of change for a Defense :shakehead:

I will be :o if we make it too where we ended up last year , the Superbowl is all but a pipe dream and unfortunately the schedule doesn't get any easier :mad:

Lord Helmet
11-03-2004, 08:43 PM
What do you expect when you throw all your money into Offense , and there is just scraps of change for a Defense :shakehead:

I will be :o if we make it too where we ended up last year , the Superbowl is all but a pipe dream and unfortunately the schedule doesn't get any easier :mad:
No it doesn't :mad: You are right the SB is only a dream. :cry: Now do you guys think we need Chad Bratzke back?If I recall he could at least make tackles.

Lord Helmet
11-03-2004, 09:06 PM
What do you expect when you throw all your money into Offense , and there is just scraps of change for a Defense :shakehead:

I will be :o if we make it too where we ended up last year , the Superbowl is all but a pipe dream and unfortunately the schedule doesn't get any easier :mad:
No it doesn't :mad: You are right the SB is only a dream. :cry: Now do you guys think we need Chad Bratzke back?If I recall he could at least make tackles.


Hahahahahahahahahahahah.........Chad Bra.............I can't even say it..........laughing too hard..............


No. He wouldn't help.
I somehow knew you were going to clown my post ;) Well all I want is D.What do you think the problem is talent or coaching?They had a poll on IS and most people said talent.

Bball
11-04-2004, 12:07 AM
It's management. That is the problem. With a coaching change and several players thru the doors and yet continual poor defensive play year after year the problem lies deeper than on the field.

IMHO

-Bball

TheSauceMaster
11-04-2004, 07:09 PM
Well the Offense needs to stop making mistakes , we don't have a D that can make up for those kinda turnovers we have really shot ourselves in the foot the past couple of games.

I dunno I thought the D before the bye week was serviceable at best and after the bye week I thought it would get better ..boy was I wrong and it actually looks worse.

I dunno if I so much put the blame on Meeks as I do the higher up's , I think Meeks is just trying to work with what he has got and that's about next to nothing.

ChicagoJ
11-04-2004, 07:42 PM
Irsay's obsession with the franchise quarterback as the cure of all ills is your problem.

That family has had that disease since the Elway trade. Must be incurable?

TheSauceMaster
11-04-2004, 10:08 PM
Irsay's obsession with the franchise quarterback as the cure of all ills is your problem.

That family has had that disease since the Elway trade. Must be incurable?

Maybe that's his plan so he can move to LA ;)

Bball
11-04-2004, 11:54 PM
Irsay's obsession with the franchise quarterback as the cure of all ills is your problem.

That family has had that disease since the Elway trade. Must be incurable?

I have a feeling there's plenty of truth in that.... altho I figure it has more to do with feeling the QB can sell the fans (and media) on even a mediocre team than feeling the QB is the be all end all of a Super Bowl team.

-Bball

ChicagoJ
11-05-2004, 05:17 PM
Not sure I understand your Pittsburgh point. Care to expand?

To be fair, I think Bob Irsay's obsession with the 'franchise QB' was the real problem.

I thought Jim would be smarter after he saw Daddy blow up a team on the verge of greatness with *Chris Chandler* at QB but also with Dickerson, Hinton, Rison and a decent defense, to get Jeff George, struggle mightily for several seasons, then right after Jeff leaves they have a lot of success and play the Steelers in a memorable AFC Champtionship game with *Jim Harbaugh* at QB and lose to team led by *Neil O'Donnell*.

ChicagoJ
11-08-2004, 09:03 PM
Not sure I understand your Pittsburgh point. Care to expand?

To be fair, I think Bob Irsay's obsession with the 'franchise QB' was the real problem.

I thought Jim would be smarter after he saw Daddy blow up a team on the verge of greatness with *Chris Chandler* at QB but also with Dickerson, Hinton, Rison and a decent defense, to get Jeff George, struggle mightily for several seasons, then right after Jeff leaves they have a lot of success and play the Steelers in a memorable AFC Champtionship game with *Jim Harbaugh* at QB and lose to team led by *Neil O'Donnell*.

My point is: The Steelers have the 1970's. The franchise would survive if they let a Hall of Fame QB go. The Indianapolis version of the Colts would not. The situation is tenuous enough with no one believing that the team will be here in a year. If they let Peyton go, or traded him, they wouldn't sell 10 tickets. In this situation, they HAD to re-sign Peyton no matter what the cost. The Steelers would have recovered from letting him go or trading him, the Indy Colts wouldn't

Okay, that's fair. There are more differences than that, however. And that doesn't explain the whole Jeff George thing.

If Indiana is the heart of basketball country, at all levels, then Western PA is the home of decades of excellent football, at all levels. Before "Hoosiers", there was "All the Right Moves", and I don't just love that movie because Lea Thompson is in it :drool: (Note to self: quit showing your age :blush: )

ChicagoJ
11-08-2004, 10:53 PM
Alright... I thought you were over-simplifying (not that there's anything wrong with that.)