PDA

View Full Version : This is a dumb question


Marcus
09-20-2006, 09:10 AM
I hope y'all don't mind if I ask it anyway. So here goes.

How can you tell if the secondary is playing bad if you can't get pressure on the QB?

I ask this, because I read a lot of posts where it says something like "Yeah, I know (so & so) has all day to throw, but our safeties suck, and our CBs couldn't cover the toilet lids with their own asses."

I guess I just don't understand the viewpoint that one is NOT dependant on the other, so I need some help here if y'all don't mind. What am I not seeing?

Cjeremy635
09-20-2006, 09:15 AM
Mainly by a cover person(s) being out of position to make a play. When a reciever is wide open in the secondary, whether it be over the middle or wherever, there was a blown assignment most of the time. Someone was either supposed to drop back and cover that section of the field, or someone was supposed to have that reciever. There are times where there is just too much time for the QB and someone is bound to get open, but there are plenty of times that someone is running open down the field after the snap. Sometimes the corner may come up to play the run if he bites on a playaction, and that's a blown cover assignment.

Hervoyel
09-20-2006, 09:35 AM
Based on the current state of the board that's not a dumb question. Not even close.

real
09-20-2006, 09:39 AM
I hope y'all don't mind if I ask it anyway. So here goes.

How can you tell if the secondary is playing bad if you can't get pressure on the QB?

I ask this, because I read a lot of posts where it says something like "Yeah, I know (so & so) has all day to throw, but our safeties suck, and our CBs couldn't cover the toilet lids with their own asses."

I guess I just don't understand the viewpoint that one is NOT dependant on the other, so I need some help here if y'all don't mind. What am I not seeing?

I think people are exagerrating how long McNabb and Manning had to throw...There were some plays that the QB had ample time, but that's gonna happen at times....But when the ball is thrown and there is no one around the guy...Odds are someone messed up...and it's easy to see when the corners get burned....

humbleone
09-20-2006, 09:54 AM
I hope y'all don't mind if I ask it anyway. So here goes.

How can you tell if the secondary is playing bad if you can't get pressure on the QB?

I ask this, because I read a lot of posts where it says something like "Yeah, I know (so & so) has all day to throw, but our safeties suck, and our CBs couldn't cover the toilet lids with their own asses."

I guess I just don't understand the viewpoint that one is NOT dependant on the other, so I need some help here if y'all don't mind. What am I not seeing?

You are not missing a thing IMO...one is dependant on the other but a great pass rush will make an average defensive backfield "look" good. The good Lord did not make enough truly great "cover corners" to do it the other way around however IMO.

I would only add that sadly, what we have so far is weakness within all three layers of our defense as has many times been discussed. So, in reality it is not one or the other but both. The place to start though is upfront which of course the Texans seem committed to albeit so far without happy results.

So far this year, the most disappointing thing about the way we have played is the lack of hurries/hits we are getting on the opposing QB and RB blowups in the backfield. Our CB's are better than they "look" IMO because for some reason Smith has them playing "soft" coverage (even Drob). It looks like he doesn't have confidence that we are going to get to the QB so he is just trying to keep everything in front of the defense. We have played a lot of really soft "nickel" junk so far against the Eagles and Colts.

Btw, I said our CB's are better than they "look"...CC Brown really has not played well so far this year.

The good news is that we do have some talent to build around...I really like Weaver, TJ is looking like he wants to compete, Babin looks better and if we can get Mario to play like it is his last game we may finally have something going. I would like to see them try some 5-3-3 (CC on the bench in this set) pin theirs ears back and go.

Sorry for the rant...I needed a moment to vent.

Go Texans! :superman:

done88
09-20-2006, 09:59 AM
Have you ever heard of a coverage sack. No such thing for the Texans. The secondary including Robinson has beeen disected. Quarter backs have no problem throwing to either side. They throw deep and short. The secondary is always a step behind and they are not dislogging the ball with monstor hits. They simply sit back and watch the other team score. Pressure on the QB or not is it too much to ask to make a play third down 1 out of 10 times. The only time they stopped the Colts on third down was when a wide open reciever just dropped the ball.

real
09-20-2006, 10:05 AM
I would like to see them try some 5-3-3 (CC on the bench in this set) pin theirs ears back and go.


Where are you guys getting this 5-3-3 stuff from??? Why do you think us having 1 safety and 2 corners would benifit us ? Why do you think having 5 D-Lineman in the game would benifit us ? I don't know a team in the leauge that wouldn't love for us to come out in that formation...so they can score 651658236598236 points.....

humbleone
09-20-2006, 10:11 AM
Have you ever heard of a coverage sack. No such thing for the Texans. The secondary including Robinson has beeen disected. Quarter backs have no problem throwing to either side. They throw deep and short. The secondary is always a step behind and they are not dislogging the ball with monstor hits. They simply sit back and watch the other team score. Pressure on the QB or not is it too much to ask to make a play third down 1 out of 10 times. The only time they stopped the Colts on third down was when a wide open reciever just dropped the ball.


Yep...coverage sacks, balls thrown away before a sack same deal...I'm just saying it looks like Smith is making his CB's play soft so far this year. If so, this crap is on him not Drob and Sanders. Regardless, no way CC gets a pass...so far this year he looks as bad as Coleman did back there last year.

HJam72
09-20-2006, 10:12 AM
Against Indy, a 3-3-5 might've helped some. :)


There are no dumb questions, only dumb people....oh....sorry. :hides:

real
09-20-2006, 10:13 AM
Yep...coverage sacks, balls thrown away before a sack same deal...

No...A coverage sack is when the QB is sacked because no one was open...

Vinny
09-20-2006, 10:29 AM
Where are you guys getting this 5-3-3 stuff from??? Why do you think us having 1 safety and 2 corners would benifit us ? Why do you think having 5 D-Lineman in the game would benifit us ? I don't know a team in the leauge that wouldn't love for us to come out in that formation...so they can score 651658236598236 points.....
the 5-3-3 isn't played in the NFL because of the advanced passing games. You only see that kind of d vs option or veer or bone teams.

Vinny
09-20-2006, 10:30 AM
Based on the current state of the board that's not a dumb question. Not even close.
:perfect10:

El Tejano
09-20-2006, 11:06 AM
Mainly by a cover person(s) being out of position to make a play. When a reciever is wide open in the secondary, whether it be over the middle or wherever, there was a blown assignment most of the time. Someone was either supposed to drop back and cover that section of the field, or someone was supposed to have that reciever. There are times where there is just too much time for the QB and someone is bound to get open, but there are plenty of times that someone is running open down the field after the snap. Sometimes the corner may come up to play the run if he bites on a playaction, and that's a blown cover assignment.


Or whenever you see the Safetybite hard on a play action pass and the QB just lobs the ball over their head for the score.

noxiousdog
09-20-2006, 11:13 AM
I think people are exagerrating how long McNabb and Manning had to throw...

I thought McNabb had all day, but Peyton threw pretty quickly and/or moved around the pocket really well.

real
09-20-2006, 11:15 AM
I thought McNabb had all day, but Peyton threw pretty quickly and/or moved around the pocket really well.

They were trying to stay in their lanes to stop him from scrambling....He held the ball longer than Manning but it wasn't all day...It was our first game...I could go on and on but you get the point...Our D-line isn't as bad as our secondary...basically

noxiousdog
09-20-2006, 11:19 AM
They were trying to stay in their lanes to stop him from scrambling....He held the ball longer than Manning but it wasn't all day...It was our first game...I could go on and on but you get the point...Our D-line isn't as bad as our secondary...basically

I should hope not. Our line is 4 guys who should be starting (two 1st rounders, a pricey FA, and a proven vet). Our secondary is one first rounder and guys that would struggle to make a team anywhere else (Earl being a possible exception, but he's no threat to make a pro-bowl).

threetoedpete
09-20-2006, 11:20 AM
Against Indy, a 3-3-5 might've helped some. :)
:hides:

Only if we armed them with hand granades. With Faggins and Buck out, we're a little thin back there. We get healthy against Miami and the Skins in the defensive backfeild then we might be over reacting. Two top five Qbs bombed us. That's all. My dumb knee jerk thought on that is, one fire is going to die down only to reveil another hot spot. If Cullpepper and Brunell get healthy against us, there is nothing Richard Smith can do. It's not a litle flare up, the forest is on fire. We just gotta ride it out till they get it.

run-david-run
09-20-2006, 11:29 AM
Where are you guys getting this 5-3-3 stuff from??? Why do you think us having 1 safety and 2 corners would benifit us ? Why do you think having 5 D-Lineman in the game would benifit us ? I don't know a team in the leauge that wouldn't love for us to come out in that formation...so they can score 651658236598236 points.....

You never know, NFL teams tend to outhink themselves. Atlanta used the UT "zone read" play from the shotgun and Vick ran for 135 yards, Atlanta for 306. Im not saying 5-3-3 or any other wacky formation will work, but dont discount it so easily.

real
09-20-2006, 11:34 AM
You never know, NFL teams tend to outhink themselves. Atlanta used the UT "zone read" play from the shotgun and Vick ran for 135 yards, Atlanta for 306. Im not saying 5-3-3 or any other wacky formation will work, but dont discount it so easily.

ummmm....no...Im gonna discount that one....I don't think there is anyway possible you could come out with a 5-3-3 as your base defense and truly expect to compete in the NFL.....Just because the zone read worked doesn't mean every other wacky idea will...

jerek
09-20-2006, 11:35 AM
I had typed a long post and hit Submit when I got a message that the board was being updated. Who updates software during the middle of the day? Mods, if that was your call, I am disappointed in you. :)

Any way, to answer the question (and it is a good question), you have to remember that DBs must constantly react to the play. In running a route, the WR for the most part knows where he is going ahead of time, and the DB must constantly react to his movement and the ball.

This puts a DB at an inherent disadvantage against the WR. There are tricks a DB can utilize to lessen that advantage (Aaron Glenn was a master at this) but the bottom line is that, all else being equal (athleticism, height, etc.), the DB begins the play at a slight disadvantage to the WR he is covering, and the disadvantage only widens as the play goes on. The inherent disadvantage isn't an "excuse" for poor coverage or technique (and we have had our share of that as well) but your defensive gameplan needs to account for it.

I don't think our secondary is that bad. They ain't good, but they're not that bad either. We have had our share of blown coverages, accidents (DBs running into each other, slipping, biting on play action, or just getting out-techniqued) but they're not as bad as some might suggest they have looked.

We simply need more pressure up front to force the QB to make bad throws. Our DBs need to improve their technique as well (and we do have a good DBs coach in Jon Hoke) but pass coverage is very much tied to QB pressure, and we're not doing our secondary any favors right now. It's simply not fair to expect DBs to cover as long as we repeatedly call on ours to do so.

This in part goes back to playcalling. The reason why the Steelers and Patriots own Peyton Manning year after year is not because they start 11 Pro-Bowlers, but because their Xs and Os consistently put their defenders in a position to make plays. Manning isn't that good when he's hurried (not many QBs are), he isn't mobile, and the Steelers and Pats consistently take advantage of that with aggressive blitzing and tight man coverage, forcing him to unload before he wants to.

Right now, Richard Smith ain't giving us good Xs and Os (and yes, I recognize that the Steelers D is more fundamentally talented than ours, but the talent differential isn't nearly to the extent that our scores would suggest.) And if he doesn't start doing that, then our secondary is going to continue to look bad.

Texans_Chick
09-20-2006, 12:18 PM
I think that is a fair question and hard for fans to answer.

It is hard sometimes to evaluate the secondary based on the angles that they show on TV. Sometimes they show the entire field in some shots, but usually you will see QB/line and then you will see the secondary after the pass is thrown. So as a TV viewer, it is kind of hard to tell.

Coaches film is just so much better.

Sometimes you can see. IIRC, in the second Indy TD, two members of the secondary ran into each other and the Indy player could run in free. There were just too many plays where there wasn't a Texans defender within the TV screen of the receiver.

Sometimes you can't see the secondary, but you can see how much the QB has time to throw the ball, and whether the QB is being rushed at all. If the QB has all time to throw, then it is going to be the line play more at fault. Especially, if the line isn't doing anything at all to surprise or breakup the rhythm of the QB.

And sometimes it is the scheme. Sometimes the QB can exploit the way the secondary is playing them, and the secondary is doing their job but schemewise-they can't keep up. (Or sometimes they are just not talented enough to hang, no matter what scheme is being played).

YAC stats can sometimes tell you some stuff about your secondary.

Right now, personally, from what I have seen, I am underwhelmed with the entirety of the defense.

TexansLucky13
09-20-2006, 12:26 PM
You have to seperate each individual unit to understand how well it is performing, just like anything else.

So your car breaks down. You have to look at all the factors that can influence the running of the car. Is it an engine problem? Did I run out of gas? How long has it been since I changed the oil? Stuff like that.

So you look at the individual play and see exactly what went right and what went wrong. Did we get pressure? If not, are the safeties giving the receivers too much cushion? Are the CBs staying on their man or did they get drawn off by the play action?

Personally I will not comment on an individual performance based on stats without giving my full explanation. When I looked at our secondary I just saw a lot of miscommunication with the safeties. At some point Dunta threw his hands up in an emotional outburst. He knew that the safeties weren't doing what they were supposed to on multiple plays.

So to answer your question, IMHO.... you can't judge one player or a group of players without looking at everything. And you also have to consider who we were playing..... Mr. "Defense Destroyer" Manning. That doesn't give our players an excuse to not be off their game, but its completely different if we are getting picked apart by Charlie Frye or Brunell. That would be sickening.

Second Honeymoon
09-20-2006, 12:34 PM
Yes, the defense has been horrible. The scheme, the talent level, and the coaching have all left something to be desired defensively. It's possible last year and this year's defense is us 'paying the piper' for quick fix attempts and bad personnel moves the past 2-3 years.

That being said, lets try and remember that they have faced a hot Eagles offense with a chip on the shoulder and Dr. Peyton. Let's see how they do against Burnell. If the defense sucks again at home against the Skins, there are serious questions that need to be asked and loads of blame to go around. With DeMeco and Mario anchoring this defense for years to come we should improve over time.

doug

Vinny
09-20-2006, 12:40 PM
I had typed a long post and hit Submit when I got a message that the board was being updated. Who updates software during the middle of the day? Mods, if that was your call, I am disappointed in you. :) nobody is going to stay up 24 hours a day to serve you....Glad we got you though. Of all the people we needed to intercept...I figured you were the one.

kcwilson
09-20-2006, 12:40 PM
I think that is a fair question and hard for fans to answer.

It is hard sometimes to evaluate the secondary based on the angles that they show on TV. Sometimes they show the entire field in some shots, but usually you will see QB/line and then you will see the secondary after the pass is thrown. So as a TV viewer, it is kind of hard to tell.

Coaches film is just so much better.

Sometimes you can see. IIRC, in the second Indy TD, two members of the secondary ran into each other and the Indy player could run in free. There were just too many plays where there wasn't a Texans defender within the TV screen of the receiver.

Sometimes you can't see the secondary, but you can see how much the QB has time to throw the ball, and whether the QB is being rushed at all. If the QB has all time to throw, then it is going to be the line play more at fault. Especially, if the line isn't doing anything at all to surprise or breakup the rhythm of the QB.

And sometimes it is the scheme. Sometimes the QB can exploit the way the secondary is playing them, and the secondary is doing their job but schemewise-they can't keep up. (Or sometimes they are just not talented enough to hang, no matter what scheme is being played).

YAC stats can sometimes tell you some stuff about your secondary.

Right now, personally, from what I have seen, I am underwhelmed with the entirety of the defense.

Even though the coverage isn't in the screen, you can generally get an idea of the coverage by watching the QB's head darting around. The minute he starts evaluating lineman, you can tell that no one is open (or his jresey says Carr on it, j/k). However, it is tough to tell where his eyes are looking when his head is straight forward. Not the best indicator, but a good sense of pressure created from coverage or the line.

Peyton doesn't lock onto a receiver when throwing to him, but on a few occassions he does, and that is when he seems to know that the coverage isn't there and it doesn't matter.

My opinion is that the d line pressure is a problem, but doesn't account for keystone cops bumbling in the middle of the field and C.C. Brown being out of position on multiple occassions. If C.C. played baseball and was leading off of first base, he would fall for that fake the pickoff to third and go to first move by the pitcher, the one from little league.

I have to say that I do think that Glenn Earl has been the one bright spot in the secondary. He seems to have put himself in position to 'make plays' and not just prevent big plays... the int called back, the fumble near the end zone (although diving to push the rb toward the end zone wasn't my favorite move). His tackles have been hard and solid, haven't seen him whiff, but haven't examined every play with a fine tooth comb.

Anyone else have any thoughts on earl?

thunderkyss
09-20-2006, 12:41 PM
Have you ever heard of a coverage sack. No such thing for the Texans. The secondary including Robinson has beeen disected. Quarter backs have no problem throwing to either side. They throw deep and short. The secondary is always a step behind and they are not dislogging the ball with monstor hits. They simply sit back and watch the other team score. Pressure on the QB or not is it too much to ask to make a play third down 1 out of 10 times. The only time they stopped the Colts on third down was when a wide open reciever just dropped the ball.

That's a little bit overstating what actually happened.

How many times have you seen Peyton scramble for a first down?? then he threw away two balls, because we actually covered someone twice, and the pressure was breaking down his line.

The thing about both McNabb & Peyton, they get rid of the ball quickly..... I'll say again, McNabb threw the ball on most snaps within 2 seconds.. Peyton did about the same. Not necessarily because of the pressure we provided, but because they saw what they were looking for. Their patterns played us like a fiddle...... they knew exactly how to get each other open..... with their drag routes, and what not.

the majority of passes went to underneath routes, short stuff...... the kind that the LBs are supposed to be around knocking down. Against Indy, we only had two LBs on the field, against Philly, we just sucked.

But if the ball is being thrown within 2 seconds of the snap, and they are making big plays..... you've got a coverage problem. If you give the QB more than 3 seconds...... for some reason the number 3.6 sticks in my head..... then you've got a line problem.

At least that's the way I see it. I know it's simplified...... & you can probably find fault with it(InfantryCak...... Jerek) but that's the way I see it.

infantrycak
09-20-2006, 12:52 PM
I'll say again, McNabb threw the ball on most snaps within 2 seconds..

I wouldn't have messed with you on this but now you are changing your claim even more--down from 2.5 seconds to 2. McNabb had quite a few plays with much more time (and without scrambling), for example:

1st qtr--snap at 6:39 on play clock, ball out with 6:35 on the clock
1st qtr--snap at 2:43 on play clock, ball out with 2:40 on the clock under no pressure
1st qtr--snap at 1:54 on play clock, ball out with 1:50 on the clock--play fake with clean pocket
2nd qtr--snap at 14:13 on play clock, ball out with 14:09 on the clock--never moves from drop point
2nd qtr--snap at 11:22 on play clock, ball out with 11:17 on the clock--straight play action

Yes both got many of the balls out quickly. WCO's generally do and Manning is famous for it as well, but there were still too many instances of 3+ seconds of time. In any event whatever the times are the pass rush has not been sufficient yet.

thunderkyss
09-20-2006, 12:53 PM
I thought McNabb had all day, but Peyton threw pretty quickly and/or moved around the pocket really well.

I didn't..........
I didn't start recording the time between the snap & the release until 13:47 in the second Qtr.
13:47 1-10 P31....... play action pass 13:45 McNabb throws the screen to Westbrook

13:08 2-2 P39....... hand off

12:27 1-10 P47...... Draw play

11:47 2-6 H49........ I didn't time it..... I believe Orr came in untouched, and McNabb threw a hurried incomplete pass.

11:42 3-6 H49...... McNabb releases the ball @ 11:39

11:22 1-10 H42.... Mcnabb releases the ball @ 11:17.... this was the long touchdown to Stallworth.... the only play I think DM had too much time.

LATER
5:58 1-10 P24,,,,,, the ball is gone @ 5:57...... incomplete

5:50 2-10 P24......... 5:49.. McNabb delivers the screen to WB for 2 yards.

5:09 3-8 P22......... 5:07 both feet are off the ground, as Earl hits McNabb... amazing catch by LJ smith.... for the 1st

4:38 1-10 P46..... handoff

4:13 2-2 H46...... 4:03 McNabb throws incomplete, as the pocket collapses.

4:04 3-2 H46........ 4:01 McNabb throws the ball as Babin folds him in half

LATER

0:57 1-10 P20....... @ 0:55 McNabb throws a 23 yard pass to Stallworth.

0:44 1-10 P43...... Mcnabb runs for 10 yards, as Mario chases him.

0:35 1-10 H47....... I didn't record the time, as it was a screen the whole way

0:28 2-5 H42......... I didn't record this one either... 37 yard pass to stallworth

0:17 1-Goal....... 0:15....... 5 yard pass to R.Brown.

LATER
14:55...... 14:53 incomplete

14:50...... 14:47 screen to WB...... Mario is in McNabbs face

Then there are a bunch of run plays, and that pitch to WB that screwed Mario pretty good.

11:41....... playaction....... fake reverse..... screen to WB @ 11:38 31 yard TD

I stopped taking notes......

But I stand by what I said... if McNabb had more than 2.5 seconds in the pocket, he was being hurried, or scrambling out of the pocket.....

all except for that one big strike.

I've been asking how much time is too much time, but I can't imagine 2.5 seconds being too little, because we've constantly provided Carr with 2.5 seconds......

jerek
09-20-2006, 12:53 PM
nobody is going to stay up 24 hours a day to serve you....Glad we got you though. Of all the people we needed to intercept...I figured you were the one.

LOL dude, forget your sleep, the board is bigger than your needs.

Any way I hope you knew I was joking around.

thunderkyss
09-20-2006, 01:01 PM
This in part goes back to playcalling. The reason why the Steelers and Patriots own Peyton Manning year after year is not because they start 11 Pro-Bowlers, but because their Xs and Os consistently put their defenders in a position to make plays. Manning isn't that good when he's hurried (not many QBs are), he isn't mobile, and the Steelers and Pats consistently take advantage of that with aggressive blitzing and tight man coverage, forcing him to unload before he wants to.


Both teams are also pretty good at disguising their coverage, so Peyton doesn't have his usual advantage of knowing what you are going to do before the snap. He has to read those defenses, while he's being pressured. It doesn't hurt Pittsburgh any, that they've got a guy they can blitz from 15 yards out, and 8 out of 10 times, he'll be the one who makes the play.

jerek
09-20-2006, 01:03 PM
That's a little bit overstating what actually happened.

How many times have you seen Peyton scramble for a first down?? then he threw away two balls, because we actually covered someone twice, and the pressure was breaking down his line.

The thing about both McNabb & Peyton, they get rid of the ball quickly..... I'll say again, McNabb threw the ball on most snaps within 2 seconds.. Peyton did about the same. Not necessarily because of the pressure we provided, but because they saw what they were looking for. Their patterns played us like a fiddle...... they knew exactly how to get each other open..... with their drag routes, and what not.

the majority of passes went to underneath routes, short stuff...... the kind that the LBs are supposed to be around knocking down. Against Indy, we only had two LBs on the field, against Philly, we just sucked.

But if the ball is being thrown within 2 seconds of the snap, and they are making big plays..... you've got a coverage problem. If you give the QB more than 3 seconds...... for some reason the number 3.6 sticks in my head..... then you've got a line problem.

At least that's the way I see it. I know it's simplified...... & you can probably find fault with it(InfantryCak...... Jerek) but that's the way I see it.

You've obviously never played a zone. You can say that the LBs were supposed to be on such and such a route "because it was underneath" (as you admit a simplificiation) but if you watch the tape, there were way too many times were Peyton comfortably unloaded to a receiver sitting right in the window where the nearest LB/DB who was playing his zone could not possibly have gotten to the WR in time.

Zones in general work great as a way of mixing up the coverage and forcing the QB to alter his reads, especially if he is having to unload quickly. Because the coverage might constantly be changing throughout the play, they are especially effective against inexperienced QBs who have trouble making those reads. They are in general lousy when the QB has excessive time to make that read and his WRs can find the holes and set up in them.

I'm watching the tape tonight and hopefully I will get the time to provide a breakdown of coverages. I'll be interested to see if my initial impressions (too much zone, not enough blitz, etc.) are correct. I will agree that we do have coverage issues but in many cases that is still a playcalling failure. If the play calls for the DB to drop into a zone, he's not supposed to come up and knock the ball down on the quick slant, even if the WR did make the play "right in front of him;" he's supposed to be dropping back into a zone. You can generally tell what the DB (or any defender) is supposed to be doing initially by watching his footwork; whether it's man, dropping into a zone, etc.

jerek
09-20-2006, 01:05 PM
Both teams are also pretty good at disguising their coverage, so Peyton doesn't have his usual advantage of knowing what you are going to do before the snap. He has to read those defenses, while he's being pressured. It doesn't hurt Pittsburgh any, that they've got a guy they can blitz from 15 yards out, and 8 out of 10 times, he'll be the one who makes the play.

I've noticed we've done more of that this year (showing blitz, etc.) but I agree that the Pats and Steelers do an excellent job of mixing up the look. This too is a reflection of coaching technique.

thunderkyss
09-20-2006, 01:07 PM
I wouldn't have messed with you on this but now you are changing your claim even more--down from 2.5 seconds to 2. McNabb had quite a few plays with much more time (and without scrambling), for example:

1st qtr--snap at 6:39 on play clock, ball out with 6:35 on the clock
1st qtr--snap at 2:43 on play clock, ball out with 2:40 on the clock under no pressure
1st qtr--snap at 1:54 on play clock, ball out with 1:50 on the clock--play fake with clean pocket
2nd qtr--snap at 14:13 on play clock, ball out with 14:09 on the clock--never moves from drop point
2nd qtr--snap at 11:22 on play clock, ball out with 11:17 on the clock--straight play action

Yes both got many of the balls out quickly. WCO's generally do and Manning is famous for it as well, but there were still too many instances of 3+ seconds of time. In any event whatever the times are the pass rush has not been sufficient yet.


I'm not changing anything...... within 2 seconds and 2.5 seconds is the same thing to me..... 2.5 isn't quite 3 yet, and since the clock isn't broken down in half seconds, I'll go with 2.

thunderkyss
09-20-2006, 01:13 PM
You've obviously never played a zone. You can say that the LBs were supposed to be on such and such a route "because it was underneath" (as you admit a simplificiation) but if you watch the tape, there were way too many times were Peyton comfortably unloaded to a receiver sitting right in the window where the nearest LB/DB who was playing his zone could not possibly have gotten to the WR in time.


In this situation, I'd expect him to be somewhere he can get a quick tackle, Like they were doing to us..... none of this short pass for 41 yards crap that we've been seeing.

wags
09-20-2006, 01:48 PM
How can you tell if the secondary is playing bad if you can't get pressure on the QB?

Well, when you have your pants pulled down on national tv because you bit hard on a play fake and the next game you tackle a receiver before the ball gets to him...then you are playing bad.

humbleone
09-20-2006, 02:09 PM
ummmm....no...Im gonna discount that one....I don't think there is anyway possible you could come out with a 5-3-3 as your base defense and truly expect to compete in the NFL.....Just because the zone read worked doesn't mean every other wacky idea will...

First, I did not say that I wanted to see a 5-3-3 as our "base defense". I said that I would like to see it as one of our sets. Second, almost everything new in the NFL was once called "wacky" by some.

My point was that right now, IMO, you actually do only have one safety on the field (Earl) and one doing an imitation of an NFL safety (CC Brown) therefore; I would not mind seeing some defensive sets where we put a potential playmaker on the field instead of on the sidelines (like Peek or Babin).

Or alternatively, if we do think we are better off with Brown on the field then we should put him up in the box predominately and have him stop some runs (what he is apparently best at anyway) and blitz from different angles.

:twocents:

real
09-20-2006, 02:12 PM
. If the play calls for the DB to drop into a zone, he's not supposed to come up and knock the ball down on the quick slant, even if the WR did make the play "right in front of him;" he's supposed to be dropping back into a zone. You can generally tell what the DB (or any defender) is supposed to be doing initially by watching his footwork; whether it's man, dropping into a zone, etc.

Jerek...to a certain extent you are right...There is always going to be a hole in the zone...It's up to the QB to recognize the coverage, know his routes and be able to deliver the ball in one of the holes in the zone...BUT at the same time, the defenders aren't the robots you are making them out to be.....Yes it's true that they are supposed to be disciplined and drop into their zone, BUT there are certain instances when there isn't a route or WR entering their zone....Like lets take a cover 2 zone...corners zoning the flats, and safeties zoning deep...Linebackers zoning middle...If a reciever runs a go route he'll come open between the corner and the safety...thats where the hole would be in that particular zone...Does that mean if he completes the pass it was no ones fault ??? No...at some point that safety has to come up and cover the reciever...he can't just keep backing up and let the man settle into the opening because it ain't his zone...If your zone doesn't become Man coverage at some point you will lose everytime...If what you say is true...what would be the point of playing zone...A reciever could just settle down in a hole....The defenders have to think a react...they can't play like droids and allow recievers to just settle into the holes...

HOU-TEX
09-20-2006, 02:16 PM
Jerek...to a certain extent you are right...There is always going to be a whole in the zone...It's up to the QB to recognize the coverage, know his routes and be able to deliver the ball in one of the holes in the zone...BUT at the same time, the defenders aren't the robots you are making them out to be.....Yes it's true that they are supposed to be disciplined and drop into their zone, BUT there are certain instances when there isn't a route or WR entering their zone....Like lets take a cover 2 zone...corners zoning the flats, and safeties zoning deep...Linebackers zoning middle...If a reciever runs a go route he'll come open between the corner and the safety...thats where the whole would be in that particular zone...Does that mean if he completes the pass it was no ones fault ??? No...at some point that safety has to come up and cover the reciever...he can't just keep backing up and let the man settle into the opening because it ain't his zone...If your zone doesn't become Man coverage at some point you will lose everytime...If what you say is true...what would be the point of playing zone...A reciever could just settle down in a hole....The defenders have to think a react...they can't play like droids and allow recievers to just settle into the holes...


Strangly enough that's what they looked like in the Indy game a few times.:brickwall

real
09-20-2006, 02:18 PM
First, I did not say that I wanted to see a 5-3-3 as our "base defense". I said that I would like to see it as one of our sets. Second, almost everything new in the NFL was once called "wacky" by some.

My point was that right now, IMO, you actually do only have one safety on the field (Earl) and one doing an imitation of an NFL safety (CC Brown) therefore; I would not mind seeing some defensive sets where we put a potential playmaker on the field instead of on the sidelines (like Peek or Babin).

Or alternatively, if we do think we are better off with Brown on the field then we should put him up in the box predominately and have him stop some runs (what he is apparently best at anyway) and blitz from different angles.


You're right you din't say that...But the guy who originaly started the whole 5-3-3 craziness was talking about it as our base defense...But Obviously you didn't know that...but now you do...ok:

And if you want to talk about the 5-3-3 we can....Here's why I don't think it would work.....1 safety...2 corners...thats 3 DB's....5 D-Lineman...That seriously limits your versatility and what you can do.....And don't respond that peek or Babin could be a stand up end...thats not a 5-3-3...5=5 down lineman...3=3 linebackers...3=3 DB's....Anything else is not a 5-3-3
....

I seriously don't understand what the purpose would be of implementing a 5-3-3...When would you use it?? Why would you use it ?

HOU-TEX
09-20-2006, 02:25 PM
You're right you din't say that...But the guy who originaly started the whole 5-3-3 craziness was talking about it as our base defense...But Obviously you didn't know that...but now you do...ok:

And if you want to talk about the 5-3-3 we can....Here's why I don't think it would work.....1 safety...2 corners...thats 3 DB's....5 D-Lineman...That seriously limits your versatility and what you can do.....And don't respond that peek or Babin could be a stand up end...thats not a 5-3-3...5=5 down lineman...3=3 linebackers...3=3 DB's....Anything else is not a 5-3-3
....

I seriously don't understand what the purpose would be of implementing a 5-3-3...When would you use it?? Why would you use it ?

We could just run a safety blitz every once in a while. That's the closest we'll get to a 5-3-3. It's not like C.C. can cover anyways.:tease:

real
09-20-2006, 02:29 PM
We could just run a safety blitz every once in a while. That's the closest we'll get to a 5-3-3. It's not like C.C. can cover anyways.:tease:

I freely admit that C.C has made his fair share of mistakes...But I don't think our linebackers get enough credit or blame....for our lack of pass coverage...

TexansSeminole
09-20-2006, 02:32 PM
I dont think you guys realize that the 4-3 and the 3-4 are dramatically different in zone coverage. 3 out of our 4 starters in the secondary have only played in the 3-4 in the NFL. They have 2 real games of 4-3 defense experience in the NFL as of today. Mistakes will be made.

real
09-20-2006, 02:41 PM
I dont think you guys realize that the 4-3 and the 3-4 are dramatically different in zone coverage. 3 out of our 4 starters in the secondary have only played in the 3-4 in the NFL. They have 2 real games of 4-3 defense experience in the NFL as of today. Mistakes will be made.

Is it really that much different ??? for the DB's??? How so ???

HOU-TEX
09-20-2006, 02:45 PM
I freely admit that C.C has made his fair share of mistakes...But I don't think our linebackers get enough credit or blame....for our lack of pass coverage...

lol. True, True. On top of that, how many screen passes against us have gone for good/very good yardage? I guess our pass coverage by our entire D has been subpar. Well, it can only get better from here on. Right?

humbleone
09-20-2006, 02:45 PM
Well, what I had in mind may not be a pure 5-3-3 fair enough...but this is what I would like to see us try:

Peek/Babin-Mario-Payne-TJ-Weaver. Although, as you correctly deduced, sometimes I would have Peek play up and go with the TE and sometimes pop him and then do a delayed blitz. You are absolutely right that this limits what we can do coverage wise but maybe it is a trade worth making.

Regarding when to use it, third and long situations because right now we can't get off the field because of a lack of serious pressure and weak nickel/dime play. Anyway, just my two cents from a fan, not someone who is getting a check to figure this stuff out.

Go Texans! :stirpot:

TexansSeminole
09-20-2006, 02:46 PM
Is it really that much different ??? for the DB's??? How so ???

For everyone. The thing about the 3-4 is you disguise who you are bringing on the rush. In the 3-4 you've got four linebackers on a normal basis and 3 in the 4-3. The 3-4 allows DBs to play a little farther back from the line of scrimmage. In the 4-3 you are asking your DBs, especially your safeties to read plays more and jump routes more, playing closer to the line of scrimmage. I think that is why we keep getting beat deep. Teams are eating us in the short passing game, and while that used to be mostly the linebackers fault, it is our whole secondary's fault now. So things like CC jumping the play action are happening and we keep gettin burnt by big plays.

thunderkyss
09-20-2006, 02:47 PM
You're right you din't say that...But the guy who originaly started the whole 5-3-3 craziness was talking about it as our base defense...But Obviously you didn't know that...but now you do...ok:

And if you want to talk about the 5-3-3 we can....Here's why I don't think it would work.....1 safety...2 corners...thats 3 DB's....5 D-Lineman...That seriously limits your versatility and what you can do.....And don't respond that peek or Babin could be a stand up end...thats not a 5-3-3...5=5 down lineman...3=3 linebackers...3=3 DB's....Anything else is not a 5-3-3
....

I seriously don't understand what the purpose would be of implementing a 5-3-3...When would you use it?? Why would you use it ?


You can use Peek as the fifth Lineman, and Simmons as the third LB......

Show a 3-3, then when the ball is snapped, Peek falls back to LB, and Simmons becomes our second safety...... heck, CC could be the third LB, or Orr can come down as the fifth Lineman.

TexansSeminole
09-20-2006, 02:49 PM
You can use Peek as the fifth Lineman, and Simmons as the third LB......

Show a 3-3, then when the ball is snapped, Peek falls back to LB, and Simmons becomes our second safety...... heck, CC could be the third LB, or Orr can come down as the fifth Lineman.

No way. I thought Peek's weakness in the 3-4 was PLAYING LINEBACKER. haha. He couldn't read anything that was going on. That's why he was so excited to go back to DE.

eriadoc
09-20-2006, 03:04 PM
You can use Peek as the fifth Lineman, and Simmons as the third LB......

Show a 3-3, then when the ball is snapped, Peek falls back to LB, and Simmons becomes our second safety...... heck, CC could be the third LB, or Orr can come down as the fifth Lineman.

I think Babin would be a little better in the stand up role, personally. I would like to see Simmons on the field a bit more (not that my avatar gives that away). He can lay some licks on receivers with the underneath stuff and he can come up with the INT here and there. I think he has earned a bit more playing time and I'd like to see what he could do with it. If he does nothing, well, you're not any worse off than you are right now.

real
09-20-2006, 03:09 PM
Well, what I had in mind may not be a pure 5-3-3 fair enough...but this is what I would like to see us try:

Peek/Babin-Mario-Payne-TJ-Weaver. Although, as you correctly deduced, sometimes I would have Peek play up and go with the TE and sometimes pop him and then do a delayed blitz. You are absolutely right that this limits what we can do coverage wise but maybe it is a trade worth making.

Regarding when to use it, third and long situations because right now we can't get off the field because of a lack of serious pressure and weak nickel/dime play. Anyway, just my two cents from a fan, not someone who is getting a check to figure this stuff out.

Go Texans! :stirpot:


That makes sense...But basically you're saying bring more pressure on third downs..and you'd rather have an extra D-lineman brining the heat than a LB or DB ??? And you could confuse them by either dropping peek or babin into coverage since they are the tweeners....????....

real
09-20-2006, 03:14 PM
You can use Peek as the fifth Lineman, and Simmons as the third LB......

Show a 3-3, then when the ball is snapped, Peek falls back to LB, and Simmons becomes our second safety...... heck, CC could be the third LB, or Orr can come down as the fifth Lineman.

Yeah...That would make sense....And There was a thread about this started a little while ago, and I basically said the same thing...I said it can work if you have a LB playing DL and a DB playing LB....I could see that working because it wouldn't take away from your versatility...

thunderkyss
09-20-2006, 03:17 PM
I think Babin would be a little better in the stand up role, personally. I would like to see Simmons on the field a bit more (not that my avatar gives that away). He can lay some licks on receivers with the underneath stuff and he can come up with the INT here and there. I think he has earned a bit more playing time and I'd like to see what he could do with it. If he does nothing, well, you're not any worse off than you are right now.

Well, making him an LB/Safety was to get him on the field more often. Same with Peek..... I think Babin should keep a hand on the ground.

IF Peek can't be a 3-4 LB, then he'll only see playing time on obvious passing situations...... & may not be on this team for very long.

I want him to play strongside, close to the line...... stop the run, and get the QB..... I'd like to see him rush the QB from the inside, and not just the edge...

I think the Center/Gaurd/Tackle(depending on which gap we line him up on) would have to pay him some attention when he shows blitz......

thunderkyss
09-20-2006, 03:25 PM
Yeah...That would make sense....And There was a thread about this started a little while ago, and I basically said the same thing...I said it can work if you have a LB playing DL and a DB playing LB....I could see that working because it wouldn't take away from your versatility...


& I think our LBs are playing soo poorly, we wouldn't miss them..... Simmons & Peek both need to be on the field, but I don't want to take anyone but a LB off.

AustinJB
09-20-2006, 11:58 PM
For everyone. The thing about the 3-4 is you disguise who you are bringing on the rush. In the 3-4 you've got four linebackers on a normal basis and 3 in the 4-3. The 3-4 allows DBs to play a little farther back from the line of scrimmage. In the 4-3 you are asking your DBs, especially your safeties to read plays more and jump routes more, playing closer to the line of scrimmage. I think that is why we keep getting beat deep. Teams are eating us in the short passing game, and while that used to be mostly the linebackers fault, it is our whole secondary's fault now. So things like CC jumping the play action are happening and we keep gettin burnt by big plays.

Exactly....IMO the biggest mistakes and completely blown coverages have been mental mistakes. It's not really due to our players being completely outmatched physically (although we do need an upgrade in a few positions.)

With this being said, the mental mistakes are correctable and SHOULD improve throughout the year. However, I still think it's blatantly obvious that we need a better FS who can not only cover better, but make better judgement calls.:twocents:

bigTEXan8
09-21-2006, 12:25 AM
maybe what the team needs the most is a swift kick in the a**. i hope that monday and tuesday...all the texans did was run till they puked. that maybe too high school football coach for some people, but i know that with my friends who played, always seemed to fix the mental mistakes. i said this in another thread, but i'd like to see the first part of the game practically all passing plays, or at least 80% of them.

real
09-21-2006, 09:08 AM
Exactly....IMO the biggest mistakes and completely blown coverages have been mental mistakes. It's not really due to our players being completely outmatched physically (although we do need an upgrade in a few positions.)

With this being said, the mental mistakes are correctable and SHOULD improve throughout the year. However, I still think it's blatantly obvious that we need a better FS who can not only cover better, but make better judgement calls.:twocents:

Think about this...If you are comfortable with what you're doing....Would you make a lot of mistakes ? ..... When players are tired or have been getting beat all game, that causes mental mistakes....C'mon...we don't have a veteran Defensive Backfield but they aren't newbies either....Mental mistakes shouldn't be that much of a problem at this point despite the change from the 3-4 to the 4-3....(I would still like for someone to explain to me how this changes coverage for the DB's)....They guys we have just simply arnen't that talented....

infantrycak
09-21-2006, 09:26 AM
(I would still like for someone to explain to me how this changes coverage for the DB's)

It does not change it automatically as stated above just like not all 3-4's are the same. Pittsburgh's penetrating 3-4 had almost no resemblence to the tie 'em up and hold them 3-4 of the Texans. Same thing with coverage--all sorts of options are available. Look at the regular season and then playoff games between Indy and the Patriots in 2004. In week 1 the Patriots played off the WR's in a softer zone coverage and beat the Colts and then in the playoffs played a tight bump frequently man coverage and beat the Colts. Same team, same 3-4--totally different coverage by the DB's.

real
09-21-2006, 09:33 AM
It does not change it automatically as stated above just like not all 3-4's are the same. Pittsburgh's penetrating 3-4 had almost no resemblence to the tie 'em up and hold them 3-4 of the Texans. Same thing with coverage--all sorts of options are available. Look at the regular season and then playoff games between Indy and the Patriots in 2004. In week 1 the Patriots played off the WR's in a softer zone coverage and beat the Colts and then in the playoffs played a tight bump frequently man coverage and beat the Colts. Same team, same 3-4--totally different coverage by the DB's.


O.k....thats what I thought....I thought maybe he knew something I didn't....I didn't think that your defensive formation neccessarily had anything to do with how your DB's played....

infantrycak
09-21-2006, 09:36 AM
O.k....thats what I thought....I thought maybe he knew something I didn't....I didn't think that your defensive formation neccessarily had anything to do with how your DB's played....

Clearly your front 7 has to interact with the DB's and how you choose to play up front effects the game plan for coverage but it isn't as simple or limited as a 3-4 dictates X kind of coverage.

thunderkyss
09-21-2006, 09:42 AM
(I would still like for someone to explain to me how this changes coverage for the DB's)....They guys we have just simply arnen't that talented....

So when our FS & Nickel corner bite on play action, it's because they aren't talented?? Or do they not trust our front 7 to do their job, and stop the run??

The only people I've seen get outran, are Dunta & Orr...... Just about every big play not concerning Dunta looks like people just weren't where they were supposed to be.

On that diving catch by Stallworth at the end of the half agains Philly, where Dunta was trailing Stallworth.... IIRC, he had Earl over the top. Earl should have broken on the ball as soon as it was thrown(I think he was facing McNabb) But he didn't. I would consider that a mental mistake. If he had broke on the ball, and Stallworth still made that catch, then I would say it was a lack of Talent.

I have to go back and watch that play, to see what really happened.

Can you point to any particular play that shows a lack of talent in the secondary??

jerek
09-21-2006, 10:07 AM
Jerek...to a certain extent you are right...There is always going to be a hole in the zone...It's up to the QB to recognize the coverage, know his routes and be able to deliver the ball in one of the holes in the zone...BUT at the same time, the defenders aren't the robots you are making them out to be.....Yes it's true that they are supposed to be disciplined and drop into their zone, BUT there are certain instances when there isn't a route or WR entering their zone....Like lets take a cover 2 zone...corners zoning the flats, and safeties zoning deep...Linebackers zoning middle...If a reciever runs a go route he'll come open between the corner and the safety...thats where the hole would be in that particular zone...Does that mean if he completes the pass it was no ones fault ??? No...at some point that safety has to come up and cover the reciever...he can't just keep backing up and let the man settle into the opening because it ain't his zone...If your zone doesn't become Man coverage at some point you will lose everytime...If what you say is true...what would be the point of playing zone...A reciever could just settle down in a hole....The defenders have to think a react...they can't play like droids and allow recievers to just settle into the holes...

Maybe I was assuming too much or maybe I didn't state that completely. Of course defenders must and do pick up receivers as they enter into their zone, becoming "man" coverage during that time period, if you will, until the receiver leaves their zone. Just pointing out that it is inherently perhaps more difficult to play a zone correctly mentally speaking; there is a lot more that goes into identifying and covering the receivers from an individual and a team cohesiveness perspective. It's much easier from a mental standpoint to just man cover the same guy throughout the play. Most times when a QB beats the zone it is either because the receiver found the window before the closest defender can get to him, or because of screwups/miscommunications on the defenders' part. We have had ample share of both and of course the longer the play goes on, the more likely it is that we will suffer a defensive breakdown somewhere, whether we are in man or zone. If you can't see that then I can't help you.

Taking your Cover 2 example, this is why the middle of the field is typically open against Cover 2, especially if you have for instance a long sideline route in that same play. The two deep safeties must choose who they are going to cover and at some point there is high probability that one of them will miss, or will be covering someone else, when the go route enters their zone, and is left wide open.

A quarterback like Manning -- especially when not pressured -- only needs a very small window of opportunity to hit his receivers. Which is why I repeat; pressure him. It's what every defense has done to beat him. The ones that soft zone him for most of the game get numbers like 400 yards passing hung on their heads.

real
09-21-2006, 10:10 AM
So when our FS & Nickel corner bite on play action, it's because they aren't talented?? Or do they not trust our front 7 to do their job, and stop the run??

Im not saying that guys don't make mental mistakes...because clearly they do...But my point is that the more talented you are, the easier the mental part comes IMO....For instance...If You are Lewis Sanders playing Randy Moss....His Mind will be running a million miles a minute because he knows Randy is far more talented than him...Just by him knowing that it will cause mistakes...Like cheating up, playing off, trying to get an advantage...When A player is more concerned about an opposing players ability it takes them out of their game...If you don't have to worry about an opposing player burning you or mand-handling you you can relax and play...does that make sense ??

On that diving catch by Stallworth at the end of the half agains Philly, where Dunta was trailing Stallworth.... IIRC, he had Earl over the top. Earl should have broken on the ball as soon as it was thrown(I think he was facing McNabb) But he didn't. I would consider that a mental mistake. If he had broke on the ball, and Stallworth still made that catch, then I would say it was a lack of Talent.


Well Im not familar with that particular play....but...My guess is that if Earl wasn't worried about stallworth's speed he might have closed faster...But again I'm not saying guys don't make mental mistakes...Im more so giving a reason why....


Can you point to any particular play that shows a lack of talent in the secondary??

Can we all agree that Marvin Harrison is more talented than D.Rob...our best corner ??? .... he torched him..all game long...Every player in the leauge makes mistakes....Some players mistakes aren't so noticeable because they have extreme talent which covers it up....Our players mistakes are easily seen because they don't have enough talent to cover their mistakes....D-Rob is easily our best DB.....I know Sanders has been playing better or just as good as him in some cases, but Sanders isn't holding #1 recievers all game like D-Rob is....I don't see how you can deny the lack of talent that we have across the board let alone our DB's which IMO, is the most talentless position on the team...They have made plays on occasion but none of them are consistent...

real
09-21-2006, 10:13 AM
Maybe I was assuming too much or maybe I didn't state that completely. Of course defenders must and do pick up receivers as they enter into their zone, becoming "man" coverage during that time period, if you will, until the receiver leaves their zone. Just pointing out that it is inherently perhaps more difficult to play a zone correctly mentally speaking; there is a lot more that goes into identifying and covering the receivers from an individual and a team cohesiveness perspective. It's much easier from a mental standpoint to just man cover the same guy throughout the play. Most times when a QB beats the zone it is either because the receiver found the window before the closest defender can get to him, or because of screwups/miscommunications on the defenders' part. We have had ample share of both and of course the longer the play goes on, the more likely it is that we will suffer a defensive breakdown somewhere, whether we are in man or zone. If you can't see that then I can't help you.

Taking your Cover 2 example, this is why the middle of the field is typically open against Cover 2, especially if you have for instance a long sideline route in that same play. The two deep safeties must choose who they are going to cover and at some point there is high probability that one of them will miss, or will be covering someone else, when the go route enters their zone, and is left wide open.

A quarterback like Manning -- especially when not pressured -- only needs a very small window of opportunity to hit his receivers. Which is why I repeat; pressure him. It's what every defense has done to beat him. The ones that soft zone him for most of the game get numbers like 400 yards passing hung on their heads.

I completely agree with everything you wrote...http://www.adripix.com/uploads/9589f7896d.jpg (http://www.adripix.com)

Just a visual of what you're talking about...

thunderkyss
09-21-2006, 11:38 AM
They have made plays on occasion but none of them are consistent...

I can say the same about our QB..... but we all agree he has talent.... just doesn't know how to use it yet.

As for DRob getting beat, I'd be upset to find out that Harrison is faster than DRob..... I can agree that he can catch better than Drob, and he can run routes better....... that's why he's on offense.

But Dunta has been getting beat since the Denver preseason game....... I don't think his talent is below any of those guys, with the exception of maybe the speed of DanteStallworth.

BrandonStokely in the corner of the endzone..... Dunta is a much better corner than Stokely is a reciever.

Sanders did a very good job on Wayne & Reggie Brown..... I don't think Reggie made any big plays on Sanders, and the one Wayne got was a good pass thrown outside..... Sanders was in position, where he needed to be.

& IMHO I think our safeties are being told to keep the play in front of them, I don't know if that's because RSmith is trying to compensate for a lack of talent or what.

real
09-21-2006, 11:40 AM
& IMHO I think our safeties are being told to keep the play in front of them, I don't know if that's because RSmith is trying to compensate for a lack of talent or what.

What else could it be ?

Mr. White
09-21-2006, 11:44 AM
What else could it be ?


OFF TOPIC: Dude you just turned 21 yesterday....why are you even awake now? You should be recovering from alcohol poisoning. :party:

Happy belated.

real
09-21-2006, 11:48 AM
OFF TOPIC: Dude you just turned 21 yesterday....why are you even awake now? You should be recovering from alcohol poisoning. :party:

Happy belated.

ha ha....thanks....But Im going out this weekend...and believe me...Im going to get stupid drunk....lol

HOU-TEX
09-21-2006, 11:50 AM
ha ha....thanks....But Im going out this weekend...and believe me...Im going to get stupid drunk....lol

Happy B-day! Be safe! Be happy! And again be safe.:redtowel:

PoolMaster21
09-21-2006, 11:59 AM
For everyone. The thing about the 3-4 is you disguise who you are bringing on the rush. In the 3-4 you've got four linebackers on a normal basis and 3 in the 4-3. The 3-4 allows DBs to play a little farther back from the line of scrimmage. In the 4-3 you are asking your DBs, especially your safeties to read plays more and jump routes more, playing closer to the line of scrimmage. I think that is why we keep getting beat deep. Teams are eating us in the short passing game, and while that used to be mostly the linebackers fault, it is our whole secondary's fault now. So things like CC jumping the play action are happening and we keep gettin burnt by big plays.

Good thread - thanks for the clarification. I'll watch the secondary more closely on Sunday.

Of course, McNabb and Manning both do a good job reading and exploiting D mistakes (especially Manning) - I'm not as concerned about Brunell finding those seams...........

HOU-TEX
09-21-2006, 12:02 PM
Good thread - thanks for the clarification. I'll watch the secondary more closely on Sunday.

Of course, McNabb and Manning both do a good job reading and exploiting D mistakes (especially Manning) - I'm not as concerned about Brunell finding those seams...........

I agree. Although they do have a guy named Clinton Portis that very well could run all over us if the run D doesn't step up.:twocents:

thunderkyss
09-21-2006, 12:02 PM
What else could it be ?

He could be playing them ultra conservative to make up for a lack of talent at the LB level......... I don't know??