PDA

View Full Version : Does anyone think the DB's may not be smart enough to play zone defense?



Strife21
12-15-2011, 12:24 PM
Just a thought. It sure seems like no one knows what their doing half the time.

FBomb
12-15-2011, 12:57 PM
Yes......wish Fewell could figure that out too.

slipknottin
12-15-2011, 01:04 PM
Too dumb to play zone, and not good enough to cover anyone in man.

What's Fewell supposed to call then?

YATittle1962
12-15-2011, 02:59 PM
how about this.....


they are just not a very good defense to begin with and injuries have made them even worse

without a pass rush this style D is doomed..

even the almighty Spagnuolos defense would have been shredded without a pass rush

he just happen to have healthy players to rush the passer

and I only bring up Steve because so many of you still pray to a statue of him every night before you go to bed

guess what....

I loved Landrys defense ......but he's not coming back any time soon either so lets move on

Kruunch
12-15-2011, 03:09 PM
Just a thought. It sure seems like no one knows what their doing half the time.

You realize that zone defense is what you play when you're unsure of what to call on defense right?

If they're too stupid to play zone defense, then they wouldn't be in the NFL (they wouldn't have made it to college for that matter).

Now if you were to say that Fewell's brand of zone defense is a little too complex for them then I would agree.

Nonsensical would be another adjective I'd use for it.

Kruunch
12-15-2011, 03:10 PM
how about this.....


they are just not a very good defense to begin with and injuries have made them even worse

without a pass rush this style D is doomed..

even the almighty Spagnuolos defense would have been shredded without a pass rush

he just happen to have healthy players to rush the passer

and I only bring up Steve because so many of you still pray to a statue of him every night before you go to bed

guess what....

I loved Landrys defense ......but he's not coming back any time soon either so lets move on

If Spags gets fired this year by the Rams, you wouldn't want to see him back on the Giants sidelines?

YATittle1962
12-15-2011, 03:20 PM
how about this.....


they are just not a very good defense to begin with and injuries have made them even worse

without a pass rush this style D is doomed..

even the almighty Spagnuolos defense would have been shredded without a pass rush

he just happen to have healthy players to rush the passer

and I only bring up Steve because so many of you still pray to a statue of him every night before you go to bed

guess what....

I loved Landrys defense ......but he's not coming back any time soon either so lets move on

If Spags gets fired this year by the Rams, you wouldn't want to see him back on the Giants sidelines?

sure Id like to see him back

but its a completely different team.....a whole different time.....Id hate to see something that is remembered so fondly be horrible in the redux

even though the last time we saw a Spagnuolo defense the most memorable things are the Eagles converting a 3rd and 24 and McNabb shredding the middle of the field all day and not getting touched...... sparkling clean white jersey

Kruunch
12-15-2011, 03:22 PM
how about this.....


they are just not a very good defense to begin with and injuries have made them even worse

without a pass rush this style D is doomed..

even the almighty Spagnuolos defense would have been shredded without a pass rush

he just happen to have healthy players to rush the passer

and I only bring up Steve because so many of you still pray to a statue of him every night before you go to bed

guess what....

I loved Landrys defense ......but he's not coming back any time soon either so lets move on

If Spags gets fired this year by the Rams, you wouldn't want to see him back on the Giants sidelines?

sure Id like to see him back

but its a completely different team.....a whole different time.....Id hate to see something that is remembered so fondly be horrible in the redux

even though the last time we saw a Spagnuolo defense the most memorable things are the Eagles converting a 3rd and 24 and McNabb shredding the middle of the field all day

Odd ... the most memorable thing about Spags' defense (to me) was 17-14.

But yeah I agree ... I'd hate to see Spags come here and our defense be horrible.

But I honestly think with the exact same players, our defense would have been Top 10 this year (not Top 5 only due to injuries).

If for no other reason that Spags knows how and when to blitz and Fewell doesn't.

burier
12-15-2011, 03:23 PM
Just a thought. It sure seems like no one knows what their doing half the time.

You realize that zone defense is what you play when you're unsure of what to call on defense right?

If they're too stupid to play zone defense, then they wouldn't be in the NFL (they wouldn't have made it to college for that matter).

Now if you were to say that Fewell's brand of zone defense is a little too complex for them then I would agree.

Nonsensical would be another adjective I'd use for it.

could you elaborate on what is so complex about Fewell's zone defense?

Roosevelt
12-15-2011, 03:27 PM
how about this.....


they are just not a very good defense to begin with and injuries have made them even worse

without a pass rush this style D is doomed..

even the almighty Spagnuolos defense would have been shredded without a pass rush

he just happen to have healthy players to rush the passer

and I only bring up Steve because so many of you still pray to a statue of him every night before you go to bed

guess what....

I loved Landrys defense ......but he's not coming back any time soon either so lets move on


The things is this, we shouldn't be as bad as we are in our secondary. We only lost 2 starters on defense to IR, TT and Goff.

We often drop 8 into coverage and we still cannot cover. To me that's on our coaches.

If our guys don't know what they are doing the coaches must simplify the system to suit their skill-set. It's no different than last year with the wide-outs.

If our coaches do not dumb it down then it's on them.

But with that said, there's no excuse for Corey Webster and Antrel Rolle not being on the same page. Who's to blame for that?

YATittle1962
12-15-2011, 03:30 PM
how about this.....


they are just not a very good defense to begin with and injuries have made them even worse

without a pass rush this style D is doomed..

even the almighty Spagnuolos defense would have been shredded without a pass rush

he just happen to have healthy players to rush the passer

and I only bring up Steve because so many of you still pray to a statue of him every night before you go to bed

guess what....

I loved Landrys defense ......but he's not coming back any time soon either so lets move on

If Spags gets fired this year by the Rams, you wouldn't want to see him back on the Giants sidelines?

sure Id like to see him back

but its a completely different team.....a whole different time.....Id hate to see something that is remembered so fondly be horrible in the redux

even though the last time we saw a Spagnuolo defense the most memorable things are the Eagles converting a 3rd and 24 and McNabb shredding the middle of the field all day

Odd ... the most memorable thing about Spags' defense (to me) was 17-14.

But yeah I agree ... I'd hate to see Spags come here and our defense be horrible.

But I honestly think with the exact same players, our defense would have been Top 10 this year (not Top 5 only due to injuries).

If for no other reason that Spags knows how and when to blitz and Fewell doesn't.

that 17- 14 was a whole season before we last saw Spagnuolo.......

Im talking about the last time he was on our sideline

YATittle1962
12-15-2011, 03:35 PM
how about this.....


they are just not a very good defense to begin with and injuries have made them even worse

without a pass rush this style D is doomed..

even the almighty Spagnuolos defense would have been shredded without a pass rush

he just happen to have healthy players to rush the passer

and I only bring up Steve because so many of you still pray to a statue of him every night before you go to bed

guess what....

I loved Landrys defense ......but he's not coming back any time soon either so lets move on


The things is this, we shouldn't be as bad as we are in our secondary.* We only lost 2 starters on defense to IR, TT and Goff.

We often drop 8 into coverage and we still cannot cover.* To me that's on our coaches.

If our guys don't know what they are doing the coaches must simplify the system to suit their skill-set.* It's no different than last year with the wide-outs.*

If our coaches do not dumb it down then it's on them.

But with that said, there's no excuse for Corey Webster and Antrel Rolle not being on the same page.* Who's to blame for that?

*




they know what they are doing Rosey......but I see with my own eyes them trying to communicate on the field and a guy or two not even getting the check....

there is no way that is on the coach...

if you cant pay attention to a check being called on the field you shouldnt be playing football...

if you flat out cant hear it....thats another story

but neither case is on the coach.

all this....Fewell should blitz more....Fewell should play man more....Fewell should play zone more......

this is all opinion

the facts are....these players are horrible at communicating on the field....I see it every game from my seat in the stadium

now if you need a coach to hold your hand to constantly teach you how to get a check to your teammate......I dont even know what to tell you

Kruunch
12-15-2011, 03:36 PM
Just a thought. It sure seems like no one knows what their doing half the time.

You realize that zone defense is what you play when you're unsure of what to call on defense right?

If they're too stupid to play zone defense, then they wouldn't be in the NFL (they wouldn't have made it to college for that matter).

Now if you were to say that Fewell's brand of zone defense is a little too complex for them then I would agree.

Nonsensical would be another adjective I'd use for it.

could you elaborate on what is so complex about Fewell's zone defense?

He has some weird mixes of man-under zone top and vica versa that he consistantly rotates through.

This is the majority of the reason why you see some horribly blown coverages in his schemes (such as the Dez Bryant touch down). You can blame the players (and ultimately it IS their fault) but a good coach realizes when his schemes aren't working with the personel at hand, and changes them up accordingly.

That and he used to run an aggressive zone (with the Bills) that you can't run anymore because clotheslining receivers is now illegal and apparently looking at a receiver now draws an Illegal Contact penalty. A non-aggressive zone is like candy to a kid for passing offenses.

Kruunch
12-15-2011, 03:39 PM
how about this.....


they are just not a very good defense to begin with and injuries have made them even worse

without a pass rush this style D is doomed..

even the almighty Spagnuolos defense would have been shredded without a pass rush

he just happen to have healthy players to rush the passer

and I only bring up Steve because so many of you still pray to a statue of him every night before you go to bed

guess what....

I loved Landrys defense ......but he's not coming back any time soon either so lets move on

If Spags gets fired this year by the Rams, you wouldn't want to see him back on the Giants sidelines?

sure Id like to see him back

but its a completely different team.....a whole different time.....Id hate to see something that is remembered so fondly be horrible in the redux

even though the last time we saw a Spagnuolo defense the most memorable things are the Eagles converting a 3rd and 24 and McNabb shredding the middle of the field all day

Odd ... the most memorable thing about Spags' defense (to me) was 17-14.

But yeah I agree ... I'd hate to see Spags come here and our defense be horrible.

But I honestly think with the exact same players, our defense would have been Top 10 this year (not Top 5 only due to injuries).

If for no other reason that Spags knows how and when to blitz and Fewell doesn't.

that 17- 14 was a whole season before we last saw Spagnuolo.......

Im talking about the last time he was on our sideline

I remember him more for the Top 5 defense he coached in 2008 then.

That and Eli having a REALLY bad day against the Eagles.

Kruunch
12-15-2011, 03:41 PM
how about this.....


they are just not a very good defense to begin with and injuries have made them even worse

without a pass rush this style D is doomed..

even the almighty Spagnuolos defense would have been shredded without a pass rush

he just happen to have healthy players to rush the passer

and I only bring up Steve because so many of you still pray to a statue of him every night before you go to bed

guess what....

I loved Landrys defense ......but he's not coming back any time soon either so lets move on


The things is this, we shouldn't be as bad as we are in our secondary.* We only lost 2 starters on defense to IR, TT and Goff.

We often drop 8 into coverage and we still cannot cover.* To me that's on our coaches.

If our guys don't know what they are doing the coaches must simplify the system to suit their skill-set.* It's no different than last year with the wide-outs.*

If our coaches do not dumb it down then it's on them.

But with that said, there's no excuse for Corey Webster and Antrel Rolle not being on the same page.* Who's to blame for that?

*




they know what they are doing Rosey......but I see with my own eyes them trying to communicate on the field and a guy or two not even getting the check....

there is no way that is on the coach...

if you cant pay attention to a check being called on the field you shouldnt be playing football...

if you flat out cant hear it....thats another story

but neither case is on the coach.

all this....Fewell should blitz more....Fewell should play man more....Fewell should play zone more......

this is all opinion

the facts are....these players are horrible at communicating on the field....I see it every game from my seat in the stadium

now if you need a coach to hold your hand to constantly teach you how to get a check to your teammate......I dont even know what to tell you

That happening occasionally is definitely on the players.

That happening consistantly is definitely on the coach.

YATittle1962
12-15-2011, 03:43 PM
Just a thought. It sure seems like no one knows what their doing half the time.

You realize that zone defense is what you play when you're unsure of what to call on defense right?

If they're too stupid to play zone defense, then they wouldn't be in the NFL (they wouldn't have made it to college for that matter).

Now if you were to say that Fewell's brand of zone defense is a little too complex for them then I would agree.

Nonsensical would be another adjective I'd use for it.

could you elaborate on what is so complex about Fewell's zone defense?

He has some weird mixes of man-under zone top and vica versa that he consistantly rotates through.

This is the majority of the reason why you see some horribly blown coverages in his schemes (such as the Dez Bryant touch down). You can blame the players (and ultimately it IS their fault) but a good coach realizes when his schemes aren't working with the personel at hand, and changes them up accordingly.

That and he used to run an aggressive zone (with the Bills) that you can't run anymore because clotheslining receivers is now illegal and apparently looking at a receiver now draws an Illegal Contact penalty. A non-aggressive zone is like candy to a kid for passing offenses.

the problem a lot of the time is communication.

I see it every week from my seat ....guys not getting checks....

you shouldnt need a coach to hold your hand to get a check when its called....yr a pro football player

and on that Dez Bryant blown play.....they were in cover 3 ....the deep assignment was Websters......and he blew it.... unacceptable for a vet no matter what scheme you are running

this guy has been running cover 3 his whole life....everyone has

man under......fire zone......cover 2.......banjo......whaever...it shouldnt matter.......if any of these are too complicated in week 14 you have deeper problems than your coach sucking

Redeyejedi
12-15-2011, 03:49 PM
Just a thought. It sure seems like no one knows what their doing half the time.

You realize that zone defense is what you play when you're unsure of what to call on defense right?

If they're too stupid to play zone defense, then they wouldn't be in the NFL (they wouldn't have made it to college for that matter).

Now if you were to say that Fewell's brand of zone defense is a little too complex for them then I would agree.

Nonsensical would be another adjective I'd use for it.

could you elaborate on what is so complex about Fewell's zone defense?

He has some weird mixes of man-under zone top and vica versa that he consistantly rotates through.

This is the majority of the reason why you see some horribly blown coverages in his schemes (such as the Dez Bryant touch down). You can blame the players (and ultimately it IS their fault) but a good coach realizes when his schemes aren't working with the personel at hand, and changes them up accordingly.

That and he used to run an aggressive zone (with the Bills) that you can't run anymore because clotheslining receivers is now illegal and apparently looking at a receiver now draws an Illegal Contact penalty. A non-aggressive zone is like candy to a kid for passing offenses.

the problem a lot of the time is communication.

I see it every week from my seat ....guys not getting checks....

you shouldnt need a coach to hold your hand to get a check when its called....yr a pro football player

and on that Dez Bryant blown play.....they were in cover 3 ....the deep assignment was Websters......and he blew it.... unacceptable for a vet no matter what scheme you are running

this guy has been running cover 3 his whole life....everyone has

man under......fire zone......cover 2.......banjo......whaever...it shouldnt matter.......if any of these are too complicated in week 14 you have deeper problems than your coach suckingYeah your right. Everyone want s more man but they are terrible in man as well. The only good that can come out of man is we will know exactly which guy is getting beat

giantsfan420
12-15-2011, 03:58 PM
Just a thought. It sure seems like no one knows what their doing half the time.

You realize that zone defense is what you play when you're unsure of what to call on defense right?

If they're too stupid to play zone defense, then they wouldn't be in the NFL (they wouldn't have made it to college for that matter).

Now if you were to say that Fewell's brand of zone defense is a little too complex for them then I would agree.

Nonsensical would be another adjective I'd use for it.

could you elaborate on what is so complex about Fewell's zone defense?

He has some weird mixes of man-under zone top and vica versa that he consistantly rotates through.

This is the majority of the reason why you see some horribly blown coverages in his schemes (such as the Dez Bryant touch down). You can blame the players (and ultimately it IS their fault) but a good coach realizes when his schemes aren't working with the personel at hand, and changes them up accordingly.

That and he used to run an aggressive zone (with the Bills) that you can't run anymore because clotheslining receivers is now illegal and apparently looking at a receiver now draws an Illegal Contact penalty. A non-aggressive zone is like candy to a kid for passing offenses.

the problem a lot of the time is communication.

I see it every week from my seat ....guys not getting checks....

you shouldnt need a coach to hold your hand to get a check when its called....yr a pro football player

and on that Dez Bryant blown play.....they were in cover 3 ....the deep assignment was Websters......and he blew it.... unacceptable for a vet no matter what scheme you are running

this guy has been running cover 3 his whole life....everyone has

man under......fire zone......cover 2.......banjo......whaever...it shouldnt matter.......if any of these are too complicated in week 14 you have deeper problems than your coach suckingYeah your right. Everyone want s more man but they are terrible in man as well. The only good that can come out of man is we will know exactly which guy is getting beat

i dunno bout all that. when we've played man we've actually made it so the qb didnt trust the throw.

how many times have we seen a qb scramble bc theres nowhere to throw and the db's are in man thus having there back to the qb so he can run through wide open lanes bc our dl doesnt maintain gap integrity?

rodgers had like 5 plays where man coverage was tight and he ran it upfield bc the db's had there back to him


man to man seems to work more than zone but thats just my opinion, although it is unfair to harp on the whole zone concept when fewell only rushes 3 dl...any qb and we've literally seen that; ANY qb (whitehurst, moore, jackson, grossman) can pick apart an 8 man drop zone coverage if there is absolutely no pressure on the qb...


fewell and the defense need to turn it up, i dont care whose more at fault, the players AND coaches have not delivered on defense and it needs to carry its weight and pick up the slack bc the offense is championship level good...if our run game gets going we could have the best offense heading into the playoffs...for it to be wasted bc of the defense would mean heads are going to roll

Kruunch
12-15-2011, 04:26 PM
Just a thought. It sure seems like no one knows what their doing half the time.

You realize that zone defense is what you play when you're unsure of what to call on defense right?

If they're too stupid to play zone defense, then they wouldn't be in the NFL (they wouldn't have made it to college for that matter).

Now if you were to say that Fewell's brand of zone defense is a little too complex for them then I would agree.

Nonsensical would be another adjective I'd use for it.

could you elaborate on what is so complex about Fewell's zone defense?

He has some weird mixes of man-under zone top and vica versa that he consistantly rotates through.

This is the majority of the reason why you see some horribly blown coverages in his schemes (such as the Dez Bryant touch down). You can blame the players (and ultimately it IS their fault) but a good coach realizes when his schemes aren't working with the personel at hand, and changes them up accordingly.

That and he used to run an aggressive zone (with the Bills) that you can't run anymore because clotheslining receivers is now illegal and apparently looking at a receiver now draws an Illegal Contact penalty. A non-aggressive zone is like candy to a kid for passing offenses.

the problem a lot of the time is communication.

I see it every week from my seat ....guys not getting checks....

you shouldnt need a coach to hold your hand to get a check when its called....yr a pro football player

and on that Dez Bryant blown play.....they were in cover 3 ....the deep assignment was Websters......and he blew it.... unacceptable for a vet no matter what scheme you are running

this guy has been running cover 3 his whole life....everyone has

man under......fire zone......cover 2.......banjo......whaever...it shouldnt matter.......if any of these are too complicated in week 14 you have deeper problems than your coach sucking

Ok first correction ... they weren't running Cover 3 (which is usually a prevent look btw) ... they were running a Cover 2 with 2 deep safeties, and the corners up shallow in a man look.

In a Cover 2, NOTHING is supposed to get past the Safeties. That's the point of a Cover 2 ... your Safeties are the deepest guys in the field.

Webster lets his guy (Bryant) go but Rolle had cut inside (presumably to pick up the slot receiver who was already covered) leaving that side of the Cover 2 exposed, which is where Bryant ran into.

http://www.redskins101.com/2011/12/14/redskins-101-round-table-blown-calls-eli-manning-and-game-predictions/ @ 3:35

Additionally, while Rolle is almost always the culprit of being out of position, last year Fewell was recorded as saying that he allows Rolle to free lance (and even pushes him towards it on occasion). Rolle obviously loses more times then wins on his freelancing ... so who do you put that on ... the player that can't do it, or the coach that expects it of him time and again?

Secondly, it absolutely matters how you're scheming your defense ... just like offenses, too complex a scheme leaves too many chances for missed communications. Organization is a basic tenet of coaching ... this is why I lay this at Fewell's feet ... because it happens time and again.

It's too simplistic a statement to simply say "well the players just aren't smart enough". Especially considering when you're talking about one of the best CBs in the league (Webster) and skilled veterans in Rolle and Grant.

Scheme is everything at the NFL level ...

Redeyejedi
12-15-2011, 04:30 PM
Just a thought. It sure seems like no one knows what their doing half the time.

You realize that zone defense is what you play when you're unsure of what to call on defense right?

If they're too stupid to play zone defense, then they wouldn't be in the NFL (they wouldn't have made it to college for that matter).

Now if you were to say that Fewell's brand of zone defense is a little too complex for them then I would agree.

Nonsensical would be another adjective I'd use for it.

could you elaborate on what is so complex about Fewell's zone defense?

He has some weird mixes of man-under zone top and vica versa that he consistantly rotates through.

This is the majority of the reason why you see some horribly blown coverages in his schemes (such as the Dez Bryant touch down). You can blame the players (and ultimately it IS their fault) but a good coach realizes when his schemes aren't working with the personel at hand, and changes them up accordingly.

That and he used to run an aggressive zone (with the Bills) that you can't run anymore because clotheslining receivers is now illegal and apparently looking at a receiver now draws an Illegal Contact penalty. A non-aggressive zone is like candy to a kid for passing offenses.

the problem a lot of the time is communication.

I see it every week from my seat ....guys not getting checks....

you shouldnt need a coach to hold your hand to get a check when its called....yr a pro football player

and on that Dez Bryant blown play.....they were in cover 3 ....the deep assignment was Websters......and he blew it.... unacceptable for a vet no matter what scheme you are running

this guy has been running cover 3 his whole life....everyone has

man under......fire zone......cover 2.......banjo......whaever...it shouldnt matter.......if any of these are too complicated in week 14 you have deeper problems than your coach sucking

Ok first correction ... they weren't running Cover 3 (which is usually a prevent look btw) ... they were running a Cover 2 with 2 deep safeties, and the corners up shallow in a man look.

In a Cover 2, NOTHING is supposed to get past the Safeties. That's the point of a Cover 2 ... your Safeties are the deepest guys in the field.

Webster lets his guy (Bryant) go but Rolle had cut inside (presumably to pick up the slot receiver who was already covered) leaving that side of the Cover 2 exposed, which is where Bryant ran into.

http://www.redskins101.com/2011/12/14/redskins-101-round-table-blown-calls-eli-manning-and-game-predictions/ @ 3:35

Additionally, while Rolle is almost always the culprit of being out of position, last year Fewell was recorded as saying that he allows Rolle to free lance (and even pushes him towards it on occasion). Rolle obviously loses more times then wins on his freelancing ... so who do you put that on ... the player that can't do it, or the coach that expects it of him time and again?

Secondly, it absolutely matters how you're scheming your defense ... just like offenses, too complex a scheme leaves too many chances for missed communications. Organization is a basic tenet of coaching ... this is why I lay this at Fewell's feet ... because it happens time and again.

It's too simplistic a statement to simply say "well the players just aren't smart enough". Especially considering when you're talking about one of the best CBs in the league (Webster) and skilled veterans in Rolle and Grant.

Scheme is everything at the NFL level ...Didnt Rolle Flat out say they were playing Cover 3 yesterday

Kruunch
12-15-2011, 04:46 PM
Just a thought. It sure seems like no one knows what their doing half the time.

You realize that zone defense is what you play when you're unsure of what to call on defense right?

If they're too stupid to play zone defense, then they wouldn't be in the NFL (they wouldn't have made it to college for that matter).

Now if you were to say that Fewell's brand of zone defense is a little too complex for them then I would agree.

Nonsensical would be another adjective I'd use for it.

could you elaborate on what is so complex about Fewell's zone defense?

He has some weird mixes of man-under zone top and vica versa that he consistantly rotates through.

This is the majority of the reason why you see some horribly blown coverages in his schemes (such as the Dez Bryant touch down). You can blame the players (and ultimately it IS their fault) but a good coach realizes when his schemes aren't working with the personel at hand, and changes them up accordingly.

That and he used to run an aggressive zone (with the Bills) that you can't run anymore because clotheslining receivers is now illegal and apparently looking at a receiver now draws an Illegal Contact penalty. A non-aggressive zone is like candy to a kid for passing offenses.

the problem a lot of the time is communication.

I see it every week from my seat ....guys not getting checks....

you shouldnt need a coach to hold your hand to get a check when its called....yr a pro football player

and on that Dez Bryant blown play.....they were in cover 3 ....the deep assignment was Websters......and he blew it.... unacceptable for a vet no matter what scheme you are running

this guy has been running cover 3 his whole life....everyone has

man under......fire zone......cover 2.......banjo......whaever...it shouldnt matter.......if any of these are too complicated in week 14 you have deeper problems than your coach sucking

Ok first correction ... they weren't running Cover 3 (which is usually a prevent look btw) ... they were running a Cover 2 with 2 deep safeties, and the corners up shallow in a man look.

In a Cover 2, NOTHING is supposed to get past the Safeties. That's the point of a Cover 2 ... your Safeties are the deepest guys in the field.

Webster lets his guy (Bryant) go but Rolle had cut inside (presumably to pick up the slot receiver who was already covered) leaving that side of the Cover 2 exposed, which is where Bryant ran into.

http://www.redskins101.com/2011/12/14/redskins-101-round-table-blown-calls-eli-manning-and-game-predictions/ @ 3:35

Additionally, while Rolle is almost always the culprit of being out of position, last year Fewell was recorded as saying that he allows Rolle to free lance (and even pushes him towards it on occasion). Rolle obviously loses more times then wins on his freelancing ... so who do you put that on ... the player that can't do it, or the coach that expects it of him time and again?

Secondly, it absolutely matters how you're scheming your defense ... just like offenses, too complex a scheme leaves too many chances for missed communications. Organization is a basic tenet of coaching ... this is why I lay this at Fewell's feet ... because it happens time and again.

It's too simplistic a statement to simply say "well the players just aren't smart enough". Especially considering when you're talking about one of the best CBs in the league (Webster) and skilled veterans in Rolle and Grant.

Scheme is everything at the NFL level ...Didnt Rolle Flat out say they were playing Cover 3 yesterday

If he did then he was wrong ... look at the video.

Cover 3 is 3 deep. We only were running 2 deep.

Additionally, Webster was in a man coverage look (right up on the line) but the other corner (can't see who it was specifically) was playing cushion turned in (which usually means he's going to take away the inside and pin his guy to the sideline).

It all looks like fairly good coverage in fact (two LBs playing center field, slot covered, X receiver should get picked up by the right Safety, and a CB/Safety combo on the Z (Bryant). Webster jams and then lets him go (expected) but Rolle cuts into the middle of the field (no reason for him to do that whatsoever) leaving his area open.

So from a coverage standpoint, you have a Cover 2, Man Under look that turns to full zone, doubling the Z. Webster gets beat, but that's ok because he knows he should have help on top (and presumably he half-step bit on the crossing guy) but his help on top is biting on the slot receiver who is double covered over and under already.

Rolle blew coverage.

Now if the other guys were supposed to be in a different formation and/or running different coverages, that's a different story ... but the only guy who did something totally unexpectedly from that look and play, was Rolle.

Redeyejedi
12-15-2011, 04:46 PM
MikeGarafolo Mike Garafolo
Fewell said the defense was giving a "special" look on Dez TD. "The defenders saw it different." Hence why both think they're right. #nyg
2 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply

burier
12-15-2011, 04:48 PM
Just a thought. It sure seems like no one knows what their doing half the time.

You realize that zone defense is what you play when you're unsure of what to call on defense right?

If they're too stupid to play zone defense, then they wouldn't be in the NFL (they wouldn't have made it to college for that matter).

Now if you were to say that Fewell's brand of zone defense is a little too complex for them then I would agree.

Nonsensical would be another adjective I'd use for it.

could you elaborate on what is so complex about Fewell's zone defense?

He has some weird mixes of man-under zone top and vica versa that he consistantly rotates through.

This is the majority of the reason why you see some horribly blown coverages in his schemes (such as the Dez Bryant touch down). You can blame the players (and ultimately it IS their fault) but a good coach realizes when his schemes aren't working with the personel at hand, and changes them up accordingly.

That and he used to run an aggressive zone (with the Bills) that you can't run anymore because clotheslining receivers is now illegal and apparently looking at a receiver now draws an Illegal Contact penalty. A non-aggressive zone is like candy to a kid for passing offenses.

the problem a lot of the time is communication.

I see it every week from my seat ....guys not getting checks....

you shouldnt need a coach to hold your hand to get a check when its called....yr a pro football player

and on that Dez Bryant blown play.....they were in cover 3 ....the deep assignment was Websters......and he blew it.... unacceptable for a vet no matter what scheme you are running

this guy has been running cover 3 his whole life....everyone has

man under......fire zone......cover 2.......banjo......whaever...it shouldnt matter.......if any of these are too complicated in week 14 you have deeper problems than your coach sucking

Ok first correction ... they weren't running Cover 3 (which is usually a prevent look btw) ... they were running a Cover 2 with 2 deep safeties, and the corners up shallow in a man look.

In a Cover 2, NOTHING is supposed to get past the Safeties. That's the point of a Cover 2 ... your Safeties are the deepest guys in the field.

Webster lets his guy (Bryant) go but Rolle had cut inside (presumably to pick up the slot receiver who was already covered) leaving that side of the Cover 2 exposed, which is where Bryant ran into.

http://www.redskins101.com/2011/12/14/redskins-101-round-table-blown-calls-eli-manning-and-game-predictions/ @ 3:35

Additionally, while Rolle is almost always the culprit of being out of position, last year Fewell was recorded as saying that he allows Rolle to free lance (and even pushes him towards it on occasion). Rolle obviously loses more times then wins on his freelancing ... so who do you put that on ... the player that can't do it, or the coach that expects it of him time and again?

Secondly, it absolutely matters how you're scheming your defense ... just like offenses, too complex a scheme leaves too many chances for missed communications. Organization is a basic tenet of coaching ... this is why I lay this at Fewell's feet ... because it happens time and again.

It's too simplistic a statement to simply say "well the players just aren't smart enough". Especially considering when you're talking about one of the best CBs in the league (Webster) and skilled veterans in Rolle and Grant.

Scheme is everything at the NFL level ...Didnt Rolle Flat out say they were playing Cover 3 yesterday

yup.

He also flat out said he was where he was supposed to be so...

I think we've got alittle suto Xs and Os goin on here.

Redeyejedi
12-15-2011, 04:52 PM
Just a thought. It sure seems like no one knows what their doing half the time.

You realize that zone defense is what you play when you're unsure of what to call on defense right?

If they're too stupid to play zone defense, then they wouldn't be in the NFL (they wouldn't have made it to college for that matter).

Now if you were to say that Fewell's brand of zone defense is a little too complex for them then I would agree.

Nonsensical would be another adjective I'd use for it.

could you elaborate on what is so complex about Fewell's zone defense?

He has some weird mixes of man-under zone top and vica versa that he consistantly rotates through.

This is the majority of the reason why you see some horribly blown coverages in his schemes (such as the Dez Bryant touch down). You can blame the players (and ultimately it IS their fault) but a good coach realizes when his schemes aren't working with the personel at hand, and changes them up accordingly.

That and he used to run an aggressive zone (with the Bills) that you can't run anymore because clotheslining receivers is now illegal and apparently looking at a receiver now draws an Illegal Contact penalty. A non-aggressive zone is like candy to a kid for passing offenses.

the problem a lot of the time is communication.

I see it every week from my seat ....guys not getting checks....

you shouldnt need a coach to hold your hand to get a check when its called....yr a pro football player

and on that Dez Bryant blown play.....they were in cover 3 ....the deep assignment was Websters......and he blew it.... unacceptable for a vet no matter what scheme you are running

this guy has been running cover 3 his whole life....everyone has

man under......fire zone......cover 2.......banjo......whaever...it shouldnt matter.......if any of these are too complicated in week 14 you have deeper problems than your coach sucking

Ok first correction ... they weren't running Cover 3 (which is usually a prevent look btw) ... they were running a Cover 2 with 2 deep safeties, and the corners up shallow in a man look.

In a Cover 2, NOTHING is supposed to get past the Safeties. That's the point of a Cover 2 ... your Safeties are the deepest guys in the field.

Webster lets his guy (Bryant) go but Rolle had cut inside (presumably to pick up the slot receiver who was already covered) leaving that side of the Cover 2 exposed, which is where Bryant ran into.

http://www.redskins101.com/2011/12/14/redskins-101-round-table-blown-calls-eli-manning-and-game-predictions/ @ 3:35

Additionally, while Rolle is almost always the culprit of being out of position, last year Fewell was recorded as saying that he allows Rolle to free lance (and even pushes him towards it on occasion). Rolle obviously loses more times then wins on his freelancing ... so who do you put that on ... the player that can't do it, or the coach that expects it of him time and again?

Secondly, it absolutely matters how you're scheming your defense ... just like offenses, too complex a scheme leaves too many chances for missed communications. Organization is a basic tenet of coaching ... this is why I lay this at Fewell's feet ... because it happens time and again.

It's too simplistic a statement to simply say "well the players just aren't smart enough". Especially considering when you're talking about one of the best CBs in the league (Webster) and skilled veterans in Rolle and Grant.

Scheme is everything at the NFL level ...Didnt Rolle Flat out say they were playing Cover 3 yesterday

If he did then he was wrong ... look at the video.

Cover 3 is 3 deep. We only were running 2 deep.

Additionally, Webster was in a man coverage look (right up on the line) but the other corner (can't see who it was specifically) was playing cushion turned in (which usually means he's going to take away the inside and pin his guy to the sideline).

It all looks like fairly good coverage in fact (two LBs playing center field, slot covered, X receiver should get picked up by the right Safety, and a CB/Safety combo on the Z (Bryant). Webster jams and then lets him go (expected) but Rolle cuts into the middle of the field (no reason for him to do that whatsoever) leaving his area open.

So from a coverage standpoint, you have a Cover 2, Man Under look that turns to full zone, doubling the Z. Webster gets beat, but that's ok because he knows he should have help on top (and presumably he half-step bit on the crossing guy) but his help on top is biting on the slot receiver who is double covered over and under already.

Rolle blew coverage.

Now if the other guys were supposed to be in a different formation and/or running different coverages, that's a different story ... but the only guy who did something totally unexpectedly from that look and play, was Rolle.

Yeah I looked at it again.Certainly looks like Cover 2 but im going with what the players are saying. Grant said it wasnt Rolles fault and Rolle said it was Cover 3. Either way the finger pointing on defense is a really bad thing and once again its because of Rolles big mouth .Rolle could of diffused everything but instead made it worse. I hope the Giants cut him in the offseason.

Kruunch
12-15-2011, 04:52 PM
Just a thought. It sure seems like no one knows what their doing half the time.

You realize that zone defense is what you play when you're unsure of what to call on defense right?

If they're too stupid to play zone defense, then they wouldn't be in the NFL (they wouldn't have made it to college for that matter).

Now if you were to say that Fewell's brand of zone defense is a little too complex for them then I would agree.

Nonsensical would be another adjective I'd use for it.

could you elaborate on what is so complex about Fewell's zone defense?

He has some weird mixes of man-under zone top and vica versa that he consistantly rotates through.

This is the majority of the reason why you see some horribly blown coverages in his schemes (such as the Dez Bryant touch down). You can blame the players (and ultimately it IS their fault) but a good coach realizes when his schemes aren't working with the personel at hand, and changes them up accordingly.

That and he used to run an aggressive zone (with the Bills) that you can't run anymore because clotheslining receivers is now illegal and apparently looking at a receiver now draws an Illegal Contact penalty. A non-aggressive zone is like candy to a kid for passing offenses.

the problem a lot of the time is communication.

I see it every week from my seat ....guys not getting checks....

you shouldnt need a coach to hold your hand to get a check when its called....yr a pro football player

and on that Dez Bryant blown play.....they were in cover 3 ....the deep assignment was Websters......and he blew it.... unacceptable for a vet no matter what scheme you are running

this guy has been running cover 3 his whole life....everyone has

man under......fire zone......cover 2.......banjo......whaever...it shouldnt matter.......if any of these are too complicated in week 14 you have deeper problems than your coach sucking

Ok first correction ... they weren't running Cover 3 (which is usually a prevent look btw) ... they were running a Cover 2 with 2 deep safeties, and the corners up shallow in a man look.

In a Cover 2, NOTHING is supposed to get past the Safeties. That's the point of a Cover 2 ... your Safeties are the deepest guys in the field.

Webster lets his guy (Bryant) go but Rolle had cut inside (presumably to pick up the slot receiver who was already covered) leaving that side of the Cover 2 exposed, which is where Bryant ran into.

http://www.redskins101.com/2011/12/14/redskins-101-round-table-blown-calls-eli-manning-and-game-predictions/ @ 3:35

Additionally, while Rolle is almost always the culprit of being out of position, last year Fewell was recorded as saying that he allows Rolle to free lance (and even pushes him towards it on occasion). Rolle obviously loses more times then wins on his freelancing ... so who do you put that on ... the player that can't do it, or the coach that expects it of him time and again?

Secondly, it absolutely matters how you're scheming your defense ... just like offenses, too complex a scheme leaves too many chances for missed communications. Organization is a basic tenet of coaching ... this is why I lay this at Fewell's feet ... because it happens time and again.

It's too simplistic a statement to simply say "well the players just aren't smart enough". Especially considering when you're talking about one of the best CBs in the league (Webster) and skilled veterans in Rolle and Grant.

Scheme is everything at the NFL level ...Didnt Rolle Flat out say they were playing Cover 3 yesterday

yup.

He also flat out said he was where he was supposed to be so...

I think we've got alittle suto Xs and Os goin on here.

Rolle would have been out of position if they had been playing Cover 3 too, unless he was assigned the SS spot (which he wasn't since he was deep).

Video don't lie.

Kruunch
12-15-2011, 04:54 PM
MikeGarafolo Mike Garafolo
Fewell said the defense was giving a "special" look on Dez TD. "The defenders saw it different." Hence why both think they're right. #nyg
2 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply

Hence why I don't particularly like Fewell as DC ... he's confusing his own defense more then opposing offenses.

Kruunch
12-15-2011, 04:56 PM
Just a thought. It sure seems like no one knows what their doing half the time.

You realize that zone defense is what you play when you're unsure of what to call on defense right?

If they're too stupid to play zone defense, then they wouldn't be in the NFL (they wouldn't have made it to college for that matter).

Now if you were to say that Fewell's brand of zone defense is a little too complex for them then I would agree.

Nonsensical would be another adjective I'd use for it.

could you elaborate on what is so complex about Fewell's zone defense?

He has some weird mixes of man-under zone top and vica versa that he consistantly rotates through.

This is the majority of the reason why you see some horribly blown coverages in his schemes (such as the Dez Bryant touch down). You can blame the players (and ultimately it IS their fault) but a good coach realizes when his schemes aren't working with the personel at hand, and changes them up accordingly.

That and he used to run an aggressive zone (with the Bills) that you can't run anymore because clotheslining receivers is now illegal and apparently looking at a receiver now draws an Illegal Contact penalty. A non-aggressive zone is like candy to a kid for passing offenses.

the problem a lot of the time is communication.

I see it every week from my seat ....guys not getting checks....

you shouldnt need a coach to hold your hand to get a check when its called....yr a pro football player

and on that Dez Bryant blown play.....they were in cover 3 ....the deep assignment was Websters......and he blew it.... unacceptable for a vet no matter what scheme you are running

this guy has been running cover 3 his whole life....everyone has

man under......fire zone......cover 2.......banjo......whaever...it shouldnt matter.......if any of these are too complicated in week 14 you have deeper problems than your coach suckingYeah your right. Everyone want s more man but they are terrible in man as well. The only good that can come out of man is we will know exactly which guy is getting beat

The only guy on our team who can consistantly run man is Webster.

Prince has the ability to (and why we drafted him).

Ross *CAN* do it when he doesn't get in his own way (but he's too inconsistant to rely on in that capacity).

TT is horrible at man but great in zone (apparently the only person in our secondary who actually plays zone well and he's not even on the field this year).

Redeyejedi
12-15-2011, 04:57 PM
MikeGarafolo Mike Garafolo
Fewell said the defense was giving a "special" look on Dez TD. "The defenders saw it different." Hence why both think they're right. #nyg
2 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply

Hence why I don't particularly like Fewell as DC ... he's confusing his own defense more then opposing offenses.


@NYPost_Schwartz
Paul Schwartz
Perry Fewell explained the Dez Bryant 50-yd TD by saying all 11 players did not play the call properly, thus all 11 in the wrong spot. #nyg

Redeyejedi
12-15-2011, 05:00 PM
Just a thought. It sure seems like no one knows what their doing half the time.

You realize that zone defense is what you play when you're unsure of what to call on defense right?

If they're too stupid to play zone defense, then they wouldn't be in the NFL (they wouldn't have made it to college for that matter).

Now if you were to say that Fewell's brand of zone defense is a little too complex for them then I would agree.

Nonsensical would be another adjective I'd use for it.

could you elaborate on what is so complex about Fewell's zone defense?

He has some weird mixes of man-under zone top and vica versa that he consistantly rotates through.

This is the majority of the reason why you see some horribly blown coverages in his schemes (such as the Dez Bryant touch down). You can blame the players (and ultimately it IS their fault) but a good coach realizes when his schemes aren't working with the personel at hand, and changes them up accordingly.

That and he used to run an aggressive zone (with the Bills) that you can't run anymore because clotheslining receivers is now illegal and apparently looking at a receiver now draws an Illegal Contact penalty. A non-aggressive zone is like candy to a kid for passing offenses.

the problem a lot of the time is communication.

I see it every week from my seat ....guys not getting checks....

you shouldnt need a coach to hold your hand to get a check when its called....yr a pro football player

and on that Dez Bryant blown play.....they were in cover 3 ....the deep assignment was Websters......and he blew it.... unacceptable for a vet no matter what scheme you are running

this guy has been running cover 3 his whole life....everyone has

man under......fire zone......cover 2.......banjo......whaever...it shouldnt matter.......if any of these are too complicated in week 14 you have deeper problems than your coach suckingYeah your right. Everyone want s more man but they are terrible in man as well. The only good that can come out of man is we will know exactly which guy is getting beat

The only guy on our team who can consistantly run man is Webster.

Prince has the ability to (and why we drafted him).

Ross *CAN* do it when he doesn't get in his own way (but he's too inconsistant to rely on in that capacity).

TT is horrible at man but great in zone (apparently the only person in our secondary who actually plays zone well and he's not even on the field this year).Ross is a 4th corner. If he was playing man against a 4th WR he would be fine

Mod_C
12-15-2011, 05:02 PM
how about this.....


they are just not a very good defense to begin with and injuries have made them even worse

without a pass rush this style D is doomed..

even the almighty Spagnuolos defense would have been shredded without a pass rush

he just happen to have healthy players to rush the passer

and I only bring up Steve because so many of you still pray to a statue of him every night before you go to bed

guess what....
<font color="#0000FF">
I loved Landrys defense ......but he's not coming back any time soon either so lets move on</font>

NOW I'm bummed out [;)]

Kruunch
12-15-2011, 05:05 PM
MikeGarafolo Mike Garafolo
Fewell said the defense was giving a "special" look on Dez TD. "The defenders saw it different." Hence why both think they're right. #nyg
2 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply

Hence why I don't particularly like Fewell as DC ... he's confusing his own defense more then opposing offenses.


@NYPost_Schwartz
Paul Schwartz
Perry Fewell explained the Dez Bryant 50-yd TD by saying all 11 players did not play the call properly, thus all 11 in the wrong spot. #nyg

Ah ok so it was everyone else's fault, not his.

Good to know.

My statements about him still stand (even more so now).

P.S. - Had Rolle actually played the Cover 2, it would have been the perfect scheme against the play the Cowboys were running ... two deep bracketed and the middle double covered (although Witten looked like he was breaking free across the middle).

Roosevelt
12-15-2011, 05:15 PM
MikeGarafolo Mike Garafolo
Fewell said the defense was giving a "special" look on Dez TD. "The defenders saw it different." Hence why both think they're right. #nyg
2 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply

Note to all Giants on defense.

SPECIAL LOOK = BAD.

JesseJames
12-15-2011, 06:20 PM
my question about Fewell is why in the world did we bring him in in the first place, we have a history of sucking really bad with his type of defense and yet here he is . It almost looks to me like our DB's either don't understand what is required of them or they can't play this scheme or its just not suited to their particular skills, somewhere in all of this is the answer...

Strife21
12-16-2011, 10:47 AM
I feel like there is a reoccurring theme here.

Johnny Lynn, Tim Lewis, Perry Fewell

YATittle1962
12-16-2011, 11:36 AM
MikeGarafolo Mike Garafolo
Fewell said the defense was giving a "special" look on Dez TD. "The defenders saw it different." Hence why both think they're right. #nyg
2 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply

Hence why I don't particularly like Fewell as DC ... he's confusing his own defense more then opposing offenses.


@NYPost_Schwartz
Paul Schwartz
Perry Fewell explained the Dez Bryant 50-yd TD by saying all 11 players did not play the call properly, thus all 11 in the wrong spot. #nyg

thats what he has to say

Kruunch
12-16-2011, 11:41 AM
Just a note of self correction here (heh my wife smacked me with this one):

Some teams term Cover 2, 1 Man Under as Cover 3.

If that's the case with the Giants, then they were indeed in a Cover 3 on that play.

However Rolle was still horribly out of position.

Kase-1
12-16-2011, 11:42 AM
MikeGarafolo Mike Garafolo
Fewell said the defense was giving a "special" look on Dez TD. "The defenders saw it different." Hence why both think they're right. #nyg
2 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply

Hence why I don't particularly like Fewell as DC ... he's confusing his own defense more then opposing offenses.


@NYPost_Schwartz
Paul Schwartz
Perry Fewell explained the Dez Bryant 50-yd TD by saying all 11 players did not play the call properly, thus all 11 in the wrong spot. #nygIf you watch any of those long bomb TDs its a simple lack of communication of the field which led to the scores. WRs run through our guys zones and we just let them run right on past us, there were times where half of our team ran zone while the other half ran a man coverage play resulting in people giving up on routes.... It was FUGLY watching our 2ndary last week

YATittle1962
12-16-2011, 11:45 AM
Just a note of self correction here (heh my wife smacked me with this one):

Some teams term Cover 2, 1 Man Under as Cover 3.

If that's the case with the Giants, then they were indeed in a Cover 3 on that play.

However Rolle was still horribly out of position.

could you explain how cover 2 could be called cover 3 in an instance thats not Tampa 2 where the MLB doesnt drop deep ?

its about field division......and the only way cover 2 can divide the field as a cover 3 would is Tampa 2....which they did not run on that particular play

Kruunch
12-16-2011, 11:53 AM
Just a note of self correction here (heh my wife smacked me with this one):

Some teams term Cover 2, 1 Man Under as Cover 3.

If that's the case with the Giants, then they were indeed in a Cover 3 on that play.

However Rolle was still horribly out of position.

could you explain how cover 2 could be called cover 3 in an instance thats not Tampa 2 where the MLB doesnt drop deep ?

Assuming you're not trolling because I like to believe the best of my fellow human being ...

I believe I just did in the explanation that you quoted.

YATittle1962
12-16-2011, 11:55 AM
Just a note of self correction here (heh my wife smacked me with this one):

Some teams term Cover 2, 1 Man Under as Cover 3.

If that's the case with the Giants, then they were indeed in a Cover 3 on that play.

However Rolle was still horribly out of position.

could you explain how cover 2 could be called cover 3 in an instance thats not Tampa 2 where the MLB doesnt drop deep ?

Assuming you're not trolling because I like to believe the best of my fellow human being ...

I believe I just did in the explanation that you quoted.

but its about field division

the only way the field could be divided as cover 3 would in cover 2 would be Tampa 2....which they were not in....

cover 2 man under would not divide the field as cover 3 would

and I honestly have no idea what trolling is.....im asking you a question

Kruunch
12-16-2011, 12:01 PM
Just a note of self correction here (heh my wife smacked me with this one):

Some teams term Cover 2, 1 Man Under as Cover 3.

If that's the case with the Giants, then they were indeed in a Cover 3 on that play.

However Rolle was still horribly out of position.

could you explain how cover 2 could be called cover 3 in an instance thats not Tampa 2 where the MLB doesnt drop deep ?

Assuming you're not trolling because I like to believe the best of my fellow human being ...

I believe I just did in the explanation that you quoted.

but its about field division

the only way the field could be divided as cover 3 would in cover 2 would be Tampa 2....which they were not in....

cover 2 man under would not divide the field as cover 3 would

and I honestly have no idea what trolling is.....im asking you a question

Ah ok ... in traditional C3 you would be correct and no, we weren't showing a T2 look.

As I said, some teams call C3, C2/1MU (Cover 2, 1 Man Under). Traditional C3 is more of a prevent look generally speaking.

Cover 2, 1 Man Under was the defensive play we were running on the Dez Bryant TD, however apparently Rolle kept saying they were running C3. I was attempting to explain why he would say that (past the point of him being a flat idiot).

Corrected Link:

http://www.giants.com/media-vault/videos/GameDay-Giants-vs-Cowboys-highlights/420d3b20-9f83-42e5-a1d7-4e729fc69a09 @ 3:35

YATittle1962
12-16-2011, 12:04 PM
Just a note of self correction here (heh my wife smacked me with this one):

Some teams term Cover 2, 1 Man Under as Cover 3.

If that's the case with the Giants, then they were indeed in a Cover 3 on that play.

However Rolle was still horribly out of position.

could you explain how cover 2 could be called cover 3 in an instance thats not Tampa 2 where the MLB doesnt drop deep ?

Assuming you're not trolling because I like to believe the best of my fellow human being ...

I believe I just did in the explanation that you quoted.

but its about field division

the only way the field could be divided as cover 3 would in cover 2 would be Tampa 2....which they were not in....

cover 2 man under would not divide the field as cover 3 would

and I honestly have no idea what trolling is.....im asking you a question

Ah ok ... in traditional C3 you would be correct.

As I said, some teams call C3, C2/1MU (Cover 2, 1 Man Under). Traditional C3 is more of a prevent look generally speaking.

Cover 2, 1 Man Under was the defensive play we were running on the Dez Bryant TD, however apparently Rolle kept saying they were running C3. I was attempting to explain why he would say that (past the point of him being a flat idiot).

Corrected Link:

[url]http://www.giants.com/media-vault/videos/GameDay-Giants-vs-Cowboys-highlights/420d3b20-9f83-42e5-a1d7-4e729fc69a09p/url] @ 3:35

but cover 2 man under would suggest man coverage with a split field deep ......of which I see none on that play

it actually looks like 9 guys are running one look and 2 guys are running a completely different look

very odd

Ive seen a lot of blown coverages but that one may be the oddest ive ever seen

still looks like a completely blown cover 3 to my eyes.....thats exactly what it looked like from my seat in the stadium as well

Kruunch
12-16-2011, 12:15 PM
but cover 2 man under would suggest man coverage with a split field deep ......of which I see none on that play

it actually looks like 9 guys are running one look and 2 guys are running a completely different look

very odd

Ive seen a lot of blown coverages but that one may be the oddest ive ever seen

still looks like a completely blown cover 3 to my eyes.....thats exactly what it looked like from my seat in the stadium as well

The field was split deep ... we had 2 Safeties deep. The near side CB (Webster) was in man-press coverage on Bryant ... the far side CB was playing a cushion.

At the snap Webster jams Bryant and then follows in the trail position. Bryant runs deep, but Rolle (who is playing that side of the field deep) sprints in towards the middle (for no apparent reason although the field of vision is cut on the video) and then tries to recover but is beat badly at that point.

On the otherside of the field the CB and Safety have Miles Austin bracketed and Witten is covered coming across a shallow crossing route by an 2 LBers. The other LB drops deep to cover the slot.

Like I said, of the 11 guys on the field, Rolle was the only person (I saw) running his own play.

Who was the other person out of position that you saw?

Kruunch
12-16-2011, 12:19 PM
My thinking (and dislike) for Fewell is that he mixes up his zones too much with partial man-coverage (some press, some not).

This is what is confusing our secondary (imo) as to who is supposed to be playing zone and who is to be playing man (and what kind of man coverage for that matter).

And I think it's totally losing our LB corps (who are fairly challenged to begin with).

gumby742
12-16-2011, 01:45 PM
how about this..... they are just not a very good defense to begin with and injuries have made them even worse without a pass rush this style D is doomed.. even the almighty Spagnuolos defense would have been shredded without a pass rush he just happen to have healthy players to rush the passer and I only bring up Steve because so many of you still pray to a statue of him every night before you go to bed guess what.... I loved Landrys defense ......but he's not coming back any time soon either so lets move on</P>


Ah, but the difference is that even when we were relatively healthy with the front 4, we still got shredded. And by garbage teams no less.</P>

gumby742
12-16-2011, 01:46 PM
Missed assignments, blown coverages, crossed signals, miscommunication - that all points to coaching.

burier
12-16-2011, 01:50 PM
Missed assignments, blown coverages, crossed signals, miscommunication - that all points to coaching.

agreed.

You can't pretend that we don't have top flight talent on two of the 3 defensive units and the third unit is perfectly decent with Boley and Kiwi.

The talent is there.

YATittle1962
12-16-2011, 02:20 PM
but cover 2 man under would suggest man coverage with a split field deep ......of which I see none on that play

it actually looks like 9 guys are running one look and 2 guys are running a completely different look

very odd

Ive seen a lot of blown coverages but that one may be the oddest ive ever seen

still looks like a completely blown cover 3 to my eyes.....thats exactly what it looked like from my seat in the stadium as well

The field was split deep ... we had 2 Safeties deep. The near side CB (Webster) was in man-press coverage on Bryant ... the far side CB was playing a cushion.

At the snap Webster jams Bryant and then follows in the trail position. Bryant runs deep, but Rolle (who is playing that side of the field deep) sprints in towards the middle (for no apparent reason although the field of vision is cut on the video) and then tries to recover but is beat badly at that point.

On the otherside of the field the CB and Safety have Miles Austin bracketed and Witten is covered coming across a shallow crossing route by an 2 LBers. The other LB drops deep to cover the slot.

Like I said, of the 11 guys on the field, Rolle was the only person (I saw) running his own play.

Who was the other person out of position that you saw?

I saw cover 3 .....Rolle down playing the curl /flat ....Webster should have had the 1/3 deep zone

Rolle and Webster took the same zone......by the way it was positioned Rolle should have had the curl / flat....it would make no sense for him to take the deep 1/3

Kruunch
12-16-2011, 06:08 PM
but cover 2 man under would suggest man coverage with a split field deep ......of which I see none on that play

it actually looks like 9 guys are running one look and 2 guys are running a completely different look

very odd

Ive seen a lot of blown coverages but that one may be the oddest ive ever seen

still looks like a completely blown cover 3 to my eyes.....thats exactly what it looked like from my seat in the stadium as well

The field was split deep ... we had 2 Safeties deep. The near side CB (Webster) was in man-press coverage on Bryant ... the far side CB was playing a cushion.

At the snap Webster jams Bryant and then follows in the trail position. Bryant runs deep, but Rolle (who is playing that side of the field deep) sprints in towards the middle (for no apparent reason although the field of vision is cut on the video) and then tries to recover but is beat badly at that point.

On the otherside of the field the CB and Safety have Miles Austin bracketed and Witten is covered coming across a shallow crossing route by an 2 LBers. The other LB drops deep to cover the slot.

Like I said, of the 11 guys on the field, Rolle was the only person (I saw) running his own play.

Who was the other person out of position that you saw?

I saw cover 3 .....Rolle down playing the curl /flat ....Webster should have had the 1/3 deep zone

Rolle and Webster took the same zone......by the way it was positioned Rolle should have had the curl / flat....it would make no sense for him to take the deep 1/3

Ummm Webster was tight in man-press. How do you see traditional Cover 3 from that?

Or did you mean Webster was supposed to be in a C3 look and wasn't?

http://www.kruunch.com/bryant_td.jpg

YATittle1962
12-16-2011, 07:21 PM
but cover 2 man under would suggest man coverage with a split field deep ......of which I see none on that play

it actually looks like 9 guys are running one look and 2 guys are running a completely different look

very odd

Ive seen a lot of blown coverages but that one may be the oddest ive ever seen

still looks like a completely blown cover 3 to my eyes.....thats exactly what it looked like from my seat in the stadium as well

The field was split deep ... we had 2 Safeties deep. The near side CB (Webster) was in man-press coverage on Bryant ... the far side CB was playing a cushion.

At the snap Webster jams Bryant and then follows in the trail position. Bryant runs deep, but Rolle (who is playing that side of the field deep) sprints in towards the middle (for no apparent reason although the field of vision is cut on the video) and then tries to recover but is beat badly at that point.

On the otherside of the field the CB and Safety have Miles Austin bracketed and Witten is covered coming across a shallow crossing route by an 2 LBers. The other LB drops deep to cover the slot.

Like I said, of the 11 guys on the field, Rolle was the only person (I saw) running his own play.

Who was the other person out of position that you saw?

I saw cover 3 .....Rolle down playing the curl /flat ....Webster should have had the 1/3 deep zone

Rolle and Webster took the same zone......by the way it was positioned Rolle should have had the curl / flat....it would make no sense for him to take the deep 1/3

Ummm Webster was tight in man-press. How do you see traditional Cover 3 from that?

Or did you mean Webster was supposed to be in a C3 look and wasn't?

http://www.kruunch.com/bryant_td.jpg

the fact that a pre snap look has you convinced of the actual coverage worries me......I know yr more savy than that

the only way to understand a look , unless you are in the huddle is post snap

and I dont understand yr point here....Webster obviously was not manned up on Bryant

unless he just forgot that he was once the ball was snapped

:)

Gianthunter
12-16-2011, 08:27 PM
With the advantage of the coaches’ “All-22” look, I was able to see a bit more than what NBC showed.</P>


In looking at the play again, the Dallas Cowboys came out in a bunch formation to the defensive right side. But then, they motioned tight end John Phillips out wide to that side, where Aaron Ross was stationed. That seemed to result in some confusion on the defensive side of the ball, as Deon Grant cheated that way. Having the tight end out wide with two wide receivers inside of him might be what Justin Tuck meant when he said on Monday the formation was “sloppy.”</P>


Now, back up a bit to when the Giants break the huddle. At this point, NBC was showing a picture of the wrap on Sean Lee’s hand. By the time they came back, the viewers had missed linebacker Michael Boley getting Rolle’s attention and pointing toward the running back. If Rolle was to play the deep half in a Cover-2 look, the running back in the flat wouldn’t be his concern at all. This lends credence to what Rolle said when he indicated the defense was in a Cover-3 look, which would mean he had “hook to flat” responsibility.</P>


It’s tough to tell, but it looks like Webster didn’t get the full communication from Boley and Rolle. That’s why he continues to play Cover-2.</P>


Oh, and since Fewell said the defense was trying to give a “special” look, I’d say it’s more ammo for Rolle because they came out in a Cover-2 “shell.” Showing Cover-2 and staying in Cover-2 is hardly a “special” defense.</P>


http://www.nj.com/giants/index.ssf/2011/12/giants_perry_fewell_says.html</P>

YATittle1962
12-16-2011, 09:36 PM
With the advantage of the coaches’ “All-22” look, I was able to see a bit more than what NBC showed.</P>


In looking at the play again, the Dallas Cowboys came out in a bunch formation to the defensive right side. But then, they motioned tight end John Phillips out wide to that side, where Aaron Ross was stationed. That seemed to result in some confusion on the defensive side of the ball, as Deon Grant cheated that way. Having the tight end out wide with two wide receivers inside of him might be what Justin Tuck meant when he said on Monday the formation was “sloppy.”</P>


Now, back up a bit to when the Giants break the huddle. At this point, NBC was showing a picture of the wrap on Sean Lee’s hand. By the time they came back, the viewers had missed linebacker Michael Boley getting Rolle’s attention and pointing toward the running back. If Rolle was to play the deep half in a Cover-2 look, the running back in the flat wouldn’t be his concern at all. This lends credence to what Rolle said when he indicated the defense was in a Cover-3 look, which would mean he had “hook to flat” responsibility.</P>


It’s tough to tell, but it looks like Webster didn’t get the full communication from Boley and Rolle. That’s why he continues to play Cover-2.</P>


Oh, and since Fewell said the defense was trying to give a “special” look, I’d say it’s more ammo for Rolle because they came out in a Cover-2 “shell.” Showing Cover-2 and staying in Cover-2 is hardly a “special” defense.</P>


http://www.nj.com/giants/index.ssf/2011/12/giants_perry_fewell_says.html</P>

good article

I always enjoy Garafolo