PDA

View Full Version : Year later, Fenaca gone so is running attack.



steeler_george
12-17-2008, 10:30 AM
I am a Feneca fan, he was awesome here and is still one hell of a player, but it was time to go.

That being said, do you think that our running game is missing him?

Or is it more of the scheme of the over all offense. ( 3 new starts to the line, zone blocking, no true FB)

Captain Lemming
12-17-2008, 11:24 AM
I am a Feneca fan, he was awesome here and is still one hell of a player, but it was time to go.

That being said, do you think that our running game is missing him?

Or is it more of the scheme of the over all offense. ( 3 new starts to the line, zone blocking, no true FB)


Well Willie was having a career year with Arians offense while Faneca was still a Steeler.
Most of Willis memorable big runs came behind Faneca.

The answer seems obvious to me

Oviedo
12-17-2008, 11:28 AM
I am a Feneca fan, he was awesome here and is still one hell of a player, but it was time to go.

That being said, do you think that our running game is missing him?

Or is it more of the scheme of the over all offense. ( 3 new starts to the line, zone blocking, no true FB)

Three reasons the running game is stalling:

1. Lack of consistent use of a FB
2. Commitment to a more spread offense which realizes TEs actually are allowed to catch passes
3. Most importantly, our top two RBs have been injured most of the season with one being out completely since game #3.

Faneca being here would not have changed any of that.

I could care less if we are dead last in rushing if it means 11+ wins per season like this year. As Tomlin correctly says, it's about "winning football" not "Steelers football."

Captain Lemming
12-17-2008, 11:35 AM
I am a Feneca fan, he was awesome here and is still one hell of a player, but it was time to go.

That being said, do you think that our running game is missing him?

Or is it more of the scheme of the over all offense. ( 3 new starts to the line, zone blocking, no true FB)

Three reasons the running game is stalling:

1. Lack of consistent use of a FB
2. Commitment to a more spread offense which realizes TEs actually are allowed to catch passes
3. Most importantly, our top two RBs have been injured most of the season with one being out completely since game #3.

Faneca being here would not have changed any of that.

I agree on number 3.

We would be more successful with Alan despite points one and two.
Look at Willies entire career.
Take out long runs sprung by Alan, how does Willie look ?

blacknblue80s
12-17-2008, 11:47 AM
We definately miss Faneca's abillity to pull, especially since we don't use a fullback.

Acero
12-17-2008, 12:08 PM
In my opinion, it's a combination of all reasons provided in the thread.

You know what I really miss? Those screen passes to Willie that would net 40 yards. Problem is if you go back and look at those plays, usually you saw Marvel and Faneca way downfield... you also used to see the FB cracking that first LB at the line of scrimmage.

Can't Starks and Kemo get downfield like that to block? Is Willie too hesitant and/or injured? Why is Dan Kreider unemployed? What's Matt Cushing doing these days?

We don't have a big back. At least this year we don't. We really need to go back to the Fullback, no matter who's in the backfield.

steelsnis
12-17-2008, 12:38 PM
Why is Dan Kreider unemployed? What's Matt Cushing doing these days?

People in the NFL aren't idiots (most of them anyway). Kreider was released by the pathetic St. Louis Rams. I loved Kreider when he was here but why people are still clamoring for a guy 3-4 years past his prime is beyond me. If he could still play, he wouldn't have been dropped by one of the league's worst teams.

Acero
12-17-2008, 12:42 PM
OK so it isn't Kreider, fine. That's why I made the ridiculous Matt Cushing comment... I know FB's have a short shelf life, with rare exceptions.

My point is we need a lead blocker for the HB. I'm not sure why they're so enamored with the 2 TE set. I know they sometimes shift the 2nd TE into a FB position, but it's just not the same. FB's are among the cheapest players on a roster, the Steelers have a history of finding good blocking FB's.

That's all I'm saying.

Ezekiel 25:17
12-17-2008, 02:49 PM
Mewelde doesn't seem to have the same problems as Willie, who when healthy CLEARLY is more of a threat than Moore. FWP hasnt been "F" since his leg injury last year, at least that I've seen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_mXZNgh-KE

I want this guy back.

brothervad
12-17-2008, 02:54 PM
Here is something that I think I have noticed when watching Willie run vs Moore run. I don't pretend to be an expert which is why I am asking others who know more here what they think.

It appears to me that FWP decision making is slow/non-existent...not necessarily his physical talents. What I mean by that is he often takes too long to determine where the hole is or he will not improvise if the hole opens elsewhere.

I understand the blocking is often set up to the hole you are going to hit, but sometimes the biggest plays are due to improvisation.

Now I am not saying Moore is a world beater but I have noticed that he reads the field/holes much better than Parker and hits the line much quicker because of those reads.

This wasn't as important in prior years when our run blocking was very good to great, but with a mediocre line it becomes extremely important.

Which leads me to the questions I wanted to ask you guys.

A.) Am I off base on this observation?
B.) If not, do you think this is a product of Willie not having the carries in College? Not really getting that game experience to have a better head for the running game.


Thanks,
Brothervad

Oviedo
12-17-2008, 02:57 PM
OK so it isn't Kreider, fine. That's why I made the ridiculous Matt Cushing comment... I know FB's have a short shelf life, with rare exceptions.

My point is we need a lead blocker for the HB. I'm not sure why they're so enamored with the 2 TE set. I know they sometimes shift the 2nd TE into a FB position, but it's just not the same. FB's are among the cheapest players on a roster, the Steelers have a history of finding good blocking FB's.

That's all I'm saying.

When asked to do so McHugh has looked very capable. In my totally uninformed opinion I think that the ofense is whetted to the spread formation without a FB because in theory it takes defenders out of "the box" and takes blitz pressure off the OL.

SuperSize
12-17-2008, 03:42 PM
Here is something that I think I have noticed when watching Willie run vs Moore run. I don't pretend to be an expert which is why I am asking others who know more here what they think.

It appears to me that FWP decision making is slow/non-existent...not necessarily his physical talents. What I mean by that is he often takes too long to determine where the hole is or he will not improvise if the hole opens elsewhere.

I understand the blocking is often set up to the hole you are going to hit, but sometimes the biggest plays are due to improvisation.

Now I am not saying Moore is a world beater but I have noticed that he reads the field/holes much better than Parker and hits the line much quicker because of those reads.

This wasn't as important in prior years when our run blocking was very good to great, but with a mediocre line it becomes extremely important.

Which leads me to the questions I wanted to ask you guys.

A.) Am I off base on this observation?
B.) If not, do you think this is a product of Willie not having the carries in College? Not really getting that game experience to have a better head for the running game.


Thanks,
Brothervad

I don't think you are off-base in your observation. I have always felt that while Parker has unbelievable physical skills (speed & strength) he is not an instinctive RB.

With exceptional RB's, on replays you will see them cutting & running to where the hole is going to be, not where the hole is. They have the ability to predict the flow of the defenders, and to see the position of their blockers and know where that the hole is going to open up.

I remember watching Tunch on Sportsbeat one night with his "Tunchastrator" & and he was showing Stan that Kreider had an almost unnatural ability to do this, and that frequently Jerome would just follow Kreider's exact footsteps and that he would be able to run off Kreider's block at the second level. DK would run around the TE, for instance, and then cut back in to block the 'backer, because by the time Bettis got there, the TE had cleared his block & left a running lane.

I agree with you that Moore is the better "runner" due to his ability to see the play develop, where as Parker, when healthy, is the more superior player physically.


Pete

feltdizz
12-17-2008, 03:44 PM
Here is something that I think I have noticed when watching Willie run vs Moore run. I don't pretend to be an expert which is why I am asking others who know more here what they think.

It appears to me that FWP decision making is slow/non-existent...not necessarily his physical talents. What I mean by that is he often takes too long to determine where the hole is or he will not improvise if the hole opens elsewhere.

I understand the blocking is often set up to the hole you are going to hit, but sometimes the biggest plays are due to improvisation.

Now I am not saying Moore is a world beater but I have noticed that he reads the field/holes much better than Parker and hits the line much quicker because of those reads.

This wasn't as important in prior years when our run blocking was very good to great, but with a mediocre line it becomes extremely important.

Which leads me to the questions I wanted to ask you guys.

A.) Am I off base on this observation?
B.) If not, do you think this is a product of Willie not having the carries in College? Not really getting that game experience to have a better head for the running game.


Thanks,
Brothervad

FWP is fast.. but far from a natural RB.. he has no raw talent as a RB.. all speed.
but without a FB... it won't work with either RB...

Moore will have more success then FWP in a single back formation and is better suited right now IMO...

I'm an FWP fan though... I still think he should get a decent amount of touches because he is still a threat if everyone does their assignment.

mshifko
12-17-2008, 04:43 PM
i don't miss alan faneca, but i miss this feneca character you're talking about...he must have been a stud in the 70's