McCourty - Safety or Corner

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from bredbru. Show bredbru's posts

    Re: McCourty - Safety or Corner

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to rkarp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Usually I agree with Bedard and find him very accurate with his analysis. He also has a way of explaining the situation that is easy to grasp.

    That being said, in this instance, I disagree with him. I thought the defensive game plan was to NOT pressure Sanchez. Play 4 on the line with primary responsability against the run lanes. This would allow the Pats to flood each zone using 8 defenders, making Sanchez check down to his 3 or 4th option. The checkdown would cause mistakes/turn overs, which is usually Sanchez's m-o.

    This worked on occasion, Dennards int, Nink's sack to end the game, both clearly mistakes on Sanchez, but in hind sight Sanchez played very well, finding Kerley time and time again.

    I see the comments regarding sending more pressure, but who? Mayo and Spikes are better run stuffers than pass rushers. Hightower can get to the QB, but that is not his strength. And he is hobbled.  Chung is out, Gregory is out. I understand everyone wants more pressure by sending more guys at the QB, but who do you send that can get to the QB?

    [/QUOTE]


    Couple things I'm not sure I agree with rkarp. With regards to the Dennard int, yes Sanchez blew it big time but on that play the S was beat badly and Dennard had to come back under the play. Obviously it wasn't game planned that way and we just got incrediably lucky that A) Sanchez threw a lollipop and B) Dennard was paying attention and ren back into the play otherwise no one was in position to make a play on the ball. It's hard to say you designed around Sanchez doing what Sanchez does when your players aren't even in the right position to begin with

    As for the pressure I would send any of the LB's and mix it up. Mayo isn't a great cover LB, Hightower hasn't been great either and Spikes you might as well plant a parking meter in the middle of the field would do just about as much good. Losing any one of those guys in coverage to send an extra rusher either off the bat or a delayed rush isn't going to break the coverage unit down any quicker then it already is. I'd send 4-5 on every play with 1 LB in the box as a reserve spy role to watch the lanes, 1 in coverage with 4 DB's, and 1 rushing either a gap rush or lined up on the outside. Either way, do you honestly believe given the Pats have essentially been doing what you suggest that sending an extra rusher who is average to sub-average in coverage anyways is really going to hurt this D?

    [/QUOTE]

    "nd Spikes you might as well plant a parking meter in the middle of the field would do just about as much good. Losing any one of those guys in coverage to send an extra rusher either off the bat or a delayed rush isn't going to break the coverage unit down any quicker then it already is"

    funny as hell and i agree with your poiint

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsLifer. Show PatsLifer's posts

    Re: McCourty - Safety or Corner

    I am not sure what is trollish about PatsEngs comment? Spikes is a liability in coverage plain and simple. 

    Thos is why I made the suggestion of going extra light on 3rd and longs and bringing in Chung and Wilson to play in the box replacing spikes and Hightower because they are better in pass coverage plus good in run support. We could even adjust the DL in this situation and use deaderick and hightower inside with nink and jones outside. Whatever...I thinWei would lito see see the pats put out a unit that would be better in coverage on third down than simply adding another db and hoping for the best from our LBs. 

    WithMcCourty and Gregory at safety you have 2 of your best cover safeties to patrol the back and help Dennard and Ras. 

    Would be interested in feedback on this approach. 

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: McCourty - Safety or Corner

    In response to PatsLifer's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I am not sure what is trollish about PatsEngs comment? Spikes is a liability in coverage plain and simple. 

    Thos is why I made the suggestion of going extra light on 3rd and longs and bringing in Chung and Wilson to play in the box replacing spikes and Hightower because they are better in pass coverage plus good in run support. We could even adjust the DL in this situation and use deaderick and hightower inside with nink and jones outside. Whatever...I thinWei would lito see see the pats put out a unit that would be better in coverage on third down than simply adding another db and hoping for the best from our LBs. 

    WithMcCourty and Gregory at safety you have 2 of your best cover safeties to patrol the back and help Dennard and Ras. 

    Would be interested in feedback on this approach. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Sure, they do nickel and dime stuff like this a lot especially if it's a true third and long.  If it's third and three, though, Spikes may stay in because there's still a high chance of a successful run.  Look for Spikes to sometimes blitz up the middle in those situations, though.  

    I agree Spikes is a liability in coverage. 

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from trouts. Show trouts's posts

    Re: McCourty - Safety or Corner

    In response to portfolio1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to rkarp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Usually I agree with Bedard and find him very accurate with his analysis. He also has a way of explaining the situation that is easy to grasp.

    That being said, in this instance, I disagree with him. I thought the defensive game plan was to NOT pressure Sanchez. Play 4 on the line with primary responsability against the run lanes. This would allow the Pats to flood each zone using 8 defenders, making Sanchez check down to his 3 or 4th option. The checkdown would cause mistakes/turn overs, which is usually Sanchez's m-o.

    This worked on occasion, Dennards int, Nink's sack to end the game, both clearly mistakes on Sanchez, but in hind sight Sanchez played very well, finding Kerley time and time again.

    I see the comments regarding sending more pressure, but who? Mayo and Spikes are better run stuffers than pass rushers. Hightower can get to the QB, but that is not his strength. And he is hobbled.  Chung is out, Gregory is out. I understand everyone wants more pressure by sending more guys at the QB, but who do you send that can get to the QB?

    [/QUOTE]


    Couple things I'm not sure I agree with rkarp. With regards to the Dennard int, yes Sanchez blew it big time but on that play the S was beat badly and Dennard had to come back under the play. Obviously it wasn't game planned that way and we just got incrediably lucky that A) Sanchez threw a lollipop and B) Dennard was paying attention and ren back into the play otherwise no one was in position to make a play on the ball. It's hard to say you designed around Sanchez doing what Sanchez does when your players aren't even in the right position to begin with

    As for the pressure I would send any of the LB's and mix it up. Mayo isn't a great cover LB, Hightower hasn't been great either and Spikes you might as well plant a parking meter in the middle of the field would do just about as much good. Losing any one of those guys in coverage to send an extra rusher either off the bat or a delayed rush isn't going to break the coverage unit down any quicker then it already is. I'd send 4-5 on every play with 1 LB in the box as a reserve spy role to watch the lanes, 1 in coverage with 4 DB's, and 1 rushing either a gap rush or lined up on the outside. Either way, do you honestly believe given the Pats have essentially been doing what you suggest that sending an extra rusher who is average to sub-average in coverage anyways is really going to hurt this D?

    [/QUOTE]

    I disagree about the S being beaten on that one interception by Dennard. I was at the game and so was able to see the field. In fact I was watching the deep coverage. It looked to me like the S would have gotten there in time had the throw been deeper.

    [/QUOTE]
     Our safties never get there in time.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from stewart7557. Show stewart7557's posts

    Re: McCourty - Safety or Corner

    Good article here where the author here supports keeping Devin McCourty at Safety

    http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1384178-new-england-patriots-how-the-pats-can-fix-their-secondary

    He contends although it seems counterintuitive to take away one of your few solid corners and stick him at an unnatural position, the Patriot defense desperately needs a centerfielder to lock down the deep middle. In other words, the Pats need a free safety. They have tried rookie second-rounder Tavon Wilson in that role, but his instincts haven't yet developed enough to defend the deep ball on his own. His decision-making has often been just a split-second too late to make up ground on open receivers and make

    Pats coach Bill Belichick praised McCourty on his play at safety, saying:

    I thought he did a pretty solid job from what I could see. We will take a little closer look at it, but I thought the deep part of the field was more secure than it has been.

    He also recommends moving Ras I back to the other corner - and suggests the reason Ras was not playing was becasue of the stupid penalties that he was committing rather than lack of ability.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from patsbandwagonsince76. Show patsbandwagonsince76's posts

    Re: McCourty - Safety or Corner

    In response to stewart7557's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Good article here where the author here supports keeping Devin McCourty at Safety

    http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1384178-new-england-patriots-how-the-pats-can-fix-their-secondary

    He contends although it seems counterintuitive to take away one of your few solid corners and stick him at an unnatural position, the Patriot defense desperately needs a centerfielder to lock down the deep middle. In other words, the Pats need a free safety. They have tried rookie second-rounder Tavon Wilson in that role, but his instincts haven't yet developed enough to defend the deep ball on his own. His decision-making has often been just a split-second too late to make up ground on open receivers and make

    Pats coach Bill Belichick praised McCourty on his play at safety, saying:

    I thought he did a pretty solid job from what I could see. We will take a little closer look at it, but I thought the deep part of the field was more secure than it has been.

    He also recommends moving Ras I back to the other corner - and suggests the reason Ras was not playing was becasue of the stupid penalties that he was committing rather than lack of ability.

    [/QUOTE]

    I agree with keeping McCourty at Safety and perhaps getting Spikes off the field for 3rd and greater than 8 yards.

    Locking down the deep part of the field is highest priority!! never want to see a replay of Seattle again. Seattle is not the kind of team that could mount two scoring drives if they had to be patient and only get 10-20 yards at a time.(doesn't that sound ridiculous but that is where we have come)

    If forced to work a little underneath to get yards every team can make mistakes and at least then they will turn it over or get stopped for a FG in the red zone. I think in this scenario the PAts can develop two corners or maybe Arrington...with confidence his back is covered can get back into Assante Samuel more and jump some routes...that really is his forte.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share