We could run the ball much better in the second half.
The line looked sharper and most importantly the backs looked better.
It could be argued that the threat of CJ throwing long opened up the run, but I would like to postulate something totally different:
Mark Weisman.
Is it possible we just have not had enough Weisman in the previous three games?
We could run the ball much better in the second half.
The line looked sharper and most importantly the backs looked better.
It could be argued that the threat of CJ throwing long opened up the run, but I would like to postulate something totally different:
Mark Weisman.
Is it possible we just have not had enough Weisman in the previous three games?
In this game it's true. You can argue that the change at qb created the better execution, but they didn't change the playcalling from what I saw. Wrs caught deep passes in the second half (in this game, both qbs looked pretty accurate), which allowed the oline to be able to execute their blocks better, which created space for the rbs to execute better.
I like cj at qb over ruddock, and would agree that the team executes better with him in the game.
I think it was a combination. Although I think if we'd gotten more of Weisman or Canzeri (more of a focus on one back, doesn't matter which one), it would have been an improvement. It lets that guy get into a rhythm and get a better feel for the game.
But taking more shots downfield definitely had a big role in opening up the run game, even with Rudock under center. Pitt's defense couldn't just stack the box all the time and stop both our ground and passing games in the process.