Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="rnabokov, post: 2577528, member: 1847"] I agree with most of what you say but short shrifting the Eels is a bit unfair. They came into this game no doubt having carefully analyzed our weaknesses, and had a game plan to exploit them, which they executed particularly well. As I saw it, their game plan was to let the ball do the work, passing more at the defensive line than dying with the ball, keeping depth, width and always support. They passed the ball. They stretched the space and spread us thin and wide. That's when our structures, such as they are, fell apart too often. We ended up giving them room to run. We let Hayne run. We didn't move up. As for our talent, I reckon we have plenty. It's the game plan which is fragile, because for mine, it is substantially organized around Hoffman at 5/8 by design and consequence. Our kicking game was woeful. For mine, the halves ... both halves, along with the dummy half, organize the team, structure the plays and keep it together. Hoffman doesn't do that, or can't, or won't ... whatever. We lack not talent, but the means to use it, like Barba as a glaring example. For mine, Hook needs to change a lot in the way this team is, or rather isn't, organized, and starting with a game plan based on 2 play makers and organizers in the halves is simply essential, if even it means taking risks. And 42 missed tackles? Maybe a lot of that came from the game being taken away from the middle by a team determined to spread the ball and keep it alive, as much as by their powerful forward running and defence. Looks to me like the Eels have a plan, and the halves to make it happen (not to mention Peats and Hayne). Do we? [/QUOTE]

Verification

Active Now

No members online now.

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)

Reply to thread

Log in

Active Now