Quote
dzrams
Quote
jemach
and any argument that a good TE wouldn't benefit a red zone just typical of a contrarian.
Of course there are a number of factors that go into Red Zone success.
But having a good TE is not a negative...and based on this offenses inability to attack the middle of the field, whether it be coaching, personnel, whatever, a big solid TE would do wonders for Goff and our RZ percentage which is sub par.
And...BTW...Jordan Reed was a key cog in the success Washington had in the Red Zone in 2015.
In general I think we’d all agree that having a good TE can benefit RZ efficiency but I wasn’t making a general point.
I was making a specific point regarding McVay led teams. His teams have had subpar RZ percentages even when they had Reed.
Your data hasn’t dispelled that point. As Zn pointed out above, Washington’s targets to the TE position was largely the same in 2015 and 2016. And yet, the RZ percentage wasn’t great either year but really bad in 2016.
McVay himself has actually spoken on this issue and he says that he needs to do a better job of calling plays in the RZ. I believe that more than personnel, McVay is growing as a play caller and that is what is required - in combo with growth from the QB - to improve in RZ efficiency.
Yeah I agree with that. The point about Reed was not about the benefit of TEs in general. It was about Washington. Reed had 114 targets in 2015, and Reed and Davis combined in 2016 had 110. Yet they dropped off in RZ efficiency. So either Davis is really bad, which just makes it Reed, or, TE production is not the sole answer to what happened in the RZ when it comes to Washington in 2016.
So the main point continues to hold---yeah it's nice to have a top TE, but on the other hand teams have been effective in the RZ without that, and McVay wasn't always effective in the RZ WITH that.
So it's just not that cut n dried. Is all.
...
