Re: Mike Reiss ESPN response to beat Broncos
posted at 1/14/2014 3:21 PM EST
In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
In response to zbellino's comment:
In response to seawolfxs' comment:
In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
This has always been the recipe. The key is to take away any pre snap read for Gomie, and then just hold in the red zone/don't get beat over the top outside the red zone.
You do that by mixing personnel all over the place in zones (maybe even in man).
One example is this:
We may see Talib mostly on Demarius and sometimes on Julius. Logan Ryan would appear to get Demarious when Talib on Julius.
I think Dennard can handle Decker even with a height disadvantage.
The key is to not show the same thing over and over and move guys around. Collins would appear to be a huge piece to this and how BB uses him. Would not mind seeing some well timed blites with Collins or Fletcher.
I heard soemthing that I didnt know that PM is much worse agisnt 3-4
It's almost insubstantial. That graphic was misleading because, while he has struggled the last few times he played New England, the graphic Boomer brought up was outdated: New England is no longer a 3-4.
More importantly, Denver always faces nickel ... so it matters little what the base defense is like.
Just more braindead, for the masses John Madden (the team that wins will be the one to score more points) style broadcasting.
The teams that trouble Manning are the teams that are phsyical at the line of scrimmage with his WRs and disrupt his precious timing. The rest of the guessing game stuff about disguise etcetera is only anciliary. Denver has no special advantage there, as New England's entire offense is also designed around forcing opponents to declare.
We're gonna be whatever we want to be. We were a 4-3 base in 2011, 2012 and most of this year, but Siliga providing the NT needed to play 3-4, we can play 3-4, so Boomer is incorrect.
I've seen some 3-4 played well here since the Houston game.
The other advantage to the 3-4 obviously in this scenario is the ability to dicate coverage in certain situations when you drop a Nink into coverage on that strong side, to likely try to take away Moreno on a check down.
I have to chuckle, Z. You either have me on ignore or just ignore me , because you are completley intimidated in these discussions, because you lose them everytime. You try to come off so smart, which you are, but you can never admit when miss analysis on something.
Most of your analysis is English teacher fluff work.
You're not getting to accomplish being physical with Gomie's receivers, the way to do that and take out Moreno may be better broached via the 3-4.
Ok, Rust. I don't respond to any of your posts because they add so little value and aren't worth responding too. You just string football words you've heard before together (3-4, drop Nink into coverage, etcetera) without really knowing what they mean. Like you can't have a defensive end cover a route in the flats? Oh, that's never happened before.
Here is a tid-bit to show how low caliber this particular post is.
New England is going to lead the way and "broach" coverage (you should look up the meaning of broach) with the 3-4?
Try this, from my post: "More importantly, Denver always faces nickel ... so it matters little what the base defense is like. "
From the positional groupings tracker in ESPN Boston: "In Sunday's 34-31 overtime win over the Denver Broncos, the Patriots played a sub defense (mostly a nickel) for all 90 snaps." <http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-england-patriots/post/_/id/4754172/defensive-groupings-sub-total-rises>
All 90. All of them. Each and every snap was in nickel or dime. To be extra clear ... the last time they played they didn't play a single snap of 34 or 43. They had extra defensive backs for every single play.
What else would you do against an offense that runs 3 or 4 wide receivers out there on every single play? I just love the idea of leaving an edge linebacker out there against Wes Welker though ... that would go over really well. In short, what I said was 100% correct: the spot he is talking about (which I saw) was meaningless. New England hasn't played any 3-4 against Denver in years, and their base defense has been 43 for years.
And they aren't going to change a thing this time unless Denver comes out with a fullback or a two-TE package where you actually need the extra linebacker. The odds of that happening with a healthy Welker are practically zero save the unfortunate outcome that Denver is running time off the clock late.
It was some television pundit trying to make a connection between the fact that New England, Indianapolis, and San Diego were the three teams to beat Denver, and he made that connection by bending the facts.