Two plays: It wasn't nearly as bad as you all think

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

    Re: Two plays: It wasn't nearly as bad as you all think

    In Response to Re: Two plays: It wasn't nearly as bad as you all think:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Two plays: It wasn't nearly as bad as you all think : Zed, forgive my ignorance, but according to Madden, Cover 3 involves both corners and one safety playing deep, whereas Cover 2 involves 2 safeties playing deep - wouldn't it have been better to have 2 safeties play deep most of the night - usually it was just Merriweather back there.  So if the corners played man and the 2 safeties played deep, would that have been the same as "man cover 2"?  And if dime - 3 cornerbacks and 3 safeties - could we have stopped the run?
    Posted by themightypatriotz[/QUOTE]

    yes. Cover three man under is a dime package.

    cb                     S                      cb

                           x  x
           cb/s      x   x   x   x           cb/s (McGowan)
           (man)                               (man)

    That is cover three man under. Cove three up top, with two extra CBs playing man underneath.

    It is both man and zone. You cna play (and they do) any combo of man and zone.

    NE has played a lot of Nickel with only ONE guy in man, and that is McGowan manned up on a TE.

    I think they need to play more thug-cb type play, and smack people around at the line. Zone is much, much harder for rookies.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Two plays: It wasn't nearly as bad as you all think

    I would add tha if the Saints want to hand the ball off all night . . . let them.

    Treat them like others treat NE.

    Dare their running backs.

    It is better than letting WRs beat you.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from andrewmcintosh. Show andrewmcintosh's posts

    Re: Two plays: It wasn't nearly as bad as you all think

    In Response to Re: Two plays: It wasn't nearly as bad as you all think:
    [QUOTE]I would add tha if the Saints want to hand the ball off all night . . . let them. Treat them like others treat NE. Dare their running backs. It is better than letting WRs beat you.
    Posted by zbellino[/QUOTE]
    Though I agree with your assessment, it's worth noting that with the occasional solid play by Wilfork and Warren, the Pats got BLOWN off the ball all night.  I was watching some replays today, and when Brady dropped back to throw the pocket was consistently collapsing or being pushed back 5-7 yards (kazcur has been dominated in recent games if anyone hasn't noticed).  Brees barely got touched and there were gashing holes in the run game.  Add corners who thought they could bait Brees, and some terrible safety play and you get the blowout we all had to endure.  The mistakes are correctable, but I worry that at this point in the season it's a bit late to be blowing basic assignments.    
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from FOWLER8196. Show FOWLER8196's posts

    Re: Two plays: It wasn't nearly as bad as you all think

    i have this weird feeling like there is some significant change that will be occurring soon.  idk what it is... but i feel a change coming on.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from MaritimePatsFan. Show MaritimePatsFan's posts

    Re: Two plays: It wasn't nearly as bad as you all think

    So ultimately, Z you would have had Merriweather and Chung playing deep zone. McGowan likely manning with Shockey and then Bodden and Butler manning up outside and Wilhite in the slot? I say Wilhite in the slot because he seems to be the best blitzing CB we have and it is easier to blitz from the slot.

    This leads to my next question, who is up front? I tend to prefer the 3-2 combo of Wilfork at nose with TBC and Warren playing end and then Mayo and Thomas lining up at LB. This gives flexability to play anywhere from a 23, 32, or 41 dime, while keeping "adequate" pass rush and not giving up too much against the run.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from themightypatriotz. Show themightypatriotz's posts

    Re: Two plays: It wasn't nearly as bad as you all think

    In Response to Re: Two plays: It wasn't nearly as bad as you all think:
    [QUOTE]So ultimately, Z you would have had Merriweather and Chung playing deep zone. McGowan likely manning with Shockey and then Bodden and Butler manning up outside and Wilhite in the slot? I say Wilhite in the slot because he seems to be the best blitzing CB we have and it is easier to blitz from the slot. This leads to my next question, who is up front? I tend to prefer the 3-2 combo of Wilfork at nose with TBC and Warren playing end and then Mayo and Thomas lining up at LB. This gives flexability to play anywhere from a 23, 32, or 41 dime, while keeping "adequate" pass rush and not giving up too much against the run.
    Posted by MaritimePatsFan[/QUOTE]

    I don't know, seems awful weak against the run - Wilfork and Warren are the only ones who can stuff the run in that package. 

    Wouldn't it be awesome if our 2003 players were still young and stuff?  But hey, even they gave up 34 points in a regular season dome. 
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from MaritimePatsFan. Show MaritimePatsFan's posts

    Re: Two plays: It wasn't nearly as bad as you all think

    It does seem awful weak against the run, but that is because it is meant to defend the pass. This isn't a base D to play out of the whole game but a package to put on the field when Saints had their spread offense on the field. Meaning, one or no RB and 3 or more WRs.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from MaritimePatsFan. Show MaritimePatsFan's posts

    Re: Two plays: It wasn't nearly as bad as you all think

    Would our 2003 defense be good in today's game. I don't really think so. I think our DBs would be suspect with the rule changes that have been put in place. Our LBs were meant to stop the run. Today's passing game has changed so much from five years ago. We would be complaining how bad our LBs are in coverage. I do however, prefer our pass rush with Big Willie and Vrabes of '03 to whatever it is we have now.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from NickC1188. Show NickC1188's posts

    Re: Two plays: It wasn't nearly as bad as you all think

    In Response to Re: Two plays: It wasn't nearly as bad as you all think:
    [QUOTE]Would our 2003 defense be good in today's game. I don't really think so. I think our DBs would be suspect with the rule changes that have been put in place. Our LBs were meant to stop the run. Today's passing game has changed so much from five years ago. We would be complaining how bad our LBs are in coverage. I do however, prefer our pass rush with Big Willie and Vrabes of '03 to whatever it is we have now.
    Posted by MaritimePatsFan[/QUOTE]

    I think that's WHY the team drafted guys like Hobbs, Wilhite, and Wheatley.  The game has changed and quicker, more agile guys might be able to cover guys without depending on contact to push them off of their routes.  Then, with physical safeties like Merriweather, McGowan, and Chung, they can play over the top and hit receivers hard if they do catch the ball or make a play on the ball from deep.  This is why the importance of safety has exceeded the importance of cornerbacks.  Great defenses have great safeties: Pittsburgh and Baltimore are prime examples.  The Redskins' defense is decent with LaRon Landry back there, and was even better with Landry paired with the late Sean Taylor.  Look at the Giants' defense WITHOUT Kenny Phillips.

    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Two plays: It wasn't nearly as bad as you all think : NE was actually in Cover Three for most of the night, with man under assignments. Some cover-4 as well. They were trying hard to not get beat deep. The problem was that without someone to contest their WR's at the line, they were making quick breaks, and the DBs got caught peaking five or six times, which is why thery were one step behind most of the night. I don't think it was smart. I would have gone with man cover two BIG dime. Keeping Meriweather, McGowan and Chung in the game at one time.
    Posted by zbellino[/QUOTE]

    I didn't watch the coverage on some of the shallower plays, but I saw a lot of Cover 2 man under.  On one of the big plays, Merriweather was playing the defensive deep left and bit on an out route by the slot receiver, allowing the wideout to run a skinny post and gain big yardage after Wilhite lost his footing and missed the tackle.  On the wide open pass to Henderson, Merriweather was alone in Cover 1 and Brees looked him off to Merriweather's right while the defensive left slot cornerback blitzed, leaving the deep defensive left side wide open and the slot receiver (Henderson) uncovered.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from mosseffect43. Show mosseffect43's posts

    Re: Two plays: It wasn't nearly as bad as you all think

    if i had control of time,then i could take away a lot of plays,but i cant.so they happened regardless with the would of,or could of.im not giving up on the team.even though they have a lot of problems that needs fixing.but the would of or could of dosent fix anything,or change anything.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from wmo1679. Show wmo1679's posts

    Re: Two plays: It wasn't nearly as bad as you all think

    It's as simple and cliche as offense wins games defense wins championships. The pats are clearly rebuilding on the defensive side of the ball and it may take a couples seasons to get the defense where it needs to be.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share