PDA

View Full Version : Opposing passing offenses attacking 10-15 yards along the sideline


TexansSeminole
11-11-2009, 03:01 AM
Anyone notice how teams are easily completing the stops and hitch routes along the sideline? It's not always those routes, but often it is. It was even more apparent in the Colts game due to their superior quarterback and timing.

The main reason for this IMO is that when we are running man coverage, our corners give a lot of room in order to not get beat deep. I don't know if they are coached this way because we don't have strong corners or they just do it to avoid embarrassment.

Dunta actually seems to be the most vulnerable starting corner we have in coverage. He has honestly been terrible. He's either letting the receiver catch the ball cleanly in front of him, or he is mugging the receiver and getting a penalty. He actually did make a good play on that hitch route in the 4th quarter, but if they keep running the same route you have to eventually make a play on it.

The Colts worked Clark inside on quick passes and almost all of their longer developing plays seemed to be 10-15 yard deep along the sideline.

Sometimes you have to give a little to avoid teams giving alot, but giving 10-15 yard pass plays along the sideline will kill you. Is their anything we can do about this or is it something we'll have to live with until we make some personnel changes at the corner and safety positions?

Goatcheese
11-11-2009, 03:11 AM
I commented on this in another thread.

http://www.texanstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1297403&postcount=62

The DBs are playing the coverage exactly like they're supposed to. The philosophy behind cover-3 is 'deeper than the deepest'.

D-Rob is doing his job, and if he came up to stop those 12 yard plays he would risk an entire 1/3 of the field to a big play.

TexansSeminole
11-11-2009, 03:18 AM
I commented on this in another thread.

http://www.texanstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1297403&postcount=62

The DBs are playing the coverage exactly like they're supposed to. The philosophy behind cover-3 is 'deeper than the deepest'.

D-Rob is doing his job, and if he came up to stop those 12 yard plays he would risk an entire 1/3 of the field to a big play.

I thought about cover 3, but generally in cover 3 you have a linebacker or even a safety come down to play the flats. I haven't seen that from us alot. Usually nobody is in the vicinity other than the corner coming up to watch the receiver step out of bounds or to make the tackle.

Even if it were cover 3 most of the time, why do we run the same variation of underneath coverage where QBs are easily identifying the open area?

I'm watching the Colts game on NFL network and it doesn't look like a lot of cover 3 to me anyway, it looks like man coverage on a lot of plays.

Goatcheese
11-11-2009, 03:28 AM
I thought about cover 3, but generally in cover 3 you have a linebacker or even a safety come down to play the flats. I haven't seen that from us alot. Usually nobody is in the vicinity other than the corner coming up to watch the receiver step out of bounds or to make the tackle.

Even if it were cover 3 most of the time, why do we run the same variation of underneath coverage where QBs are easily identifying the open area?

I'm watching the Colts game on NFL network and it doesn't look like a lot of cover 3 to me anyway, it looks like man coverage on a lot of plays.

There were guys underneath most of the time. Manning just drops the ball in over their heads. Most of the 10-15 yard completions I saw along the boundary D-Rob and Reeves are clearly sitting downfield waiting with their eyes upfield watching Manning. That's a pretty clear sign they're in zone. If they were in man they would have reacted to the open man instead of hanging back watching. We did run quite a bit of man coverage, but I only remember a couple of completions against our corners on those plays.

TexansSeminole
11-11-2009, 03:45 AM
There were guys underneath most of the time. Manning just drops the ball in over their heads. Most of the 10-15 yard completions I saw along the boundary D-Rob and Reeves are clearly sitting downfield waiting with their eyes upfield watching Manning. That's a pretty clear sign they're in zone. If they were in man they would have reacted to the open man instead of hanging back watching. We did run quite a bit of man coverage, but I only remember a couple of completions against our corners on those plays.

I saw both. You can't really do much when you don't get pressure and the QB finds the open spot in the zone.

When I examine the problem, my first question in regards to zone is why do we continue to run the same zone coverage if we are getting killed on the same routes? We didn't run much cover 2 at all. You would think we would try to stop some of their quick passes with cover 2. But then I look at our safeties and I can actually understand why we don't run cover 2 often against pass heavy teams like the Colts. Eugene and Pollard covering a large portion of the field isn't exactly putting our players in the best position to win. We can show different underneath coverage variations in cover 3 and 4 but even then your really pretty predictable. If your Frank Bush and you want to run cover 3, which safety are you going to drop down more often and which safety are you going to have cover the deep middle? The answer is pretty obvious. Predictable.

I wonder if, as an adjustment, we will see Frank Bush try to drop a corner down in the flats in a cover 3 look and have him jam the #1 receiver at the line. Instead of dropping Pollard, or Wilson you have Dunta cover the flat, the two safeties and Reeves cover deep thirds, and the linebackers play the middle and opposite side of the corner. It would be a sacrifice to run defense compared to the normal cover 3, but maybe it could be used on occasion to mess up the timing of those easy pass plays to the outside.

I don't think our only problem is in zone though. We really aren't a good man coverage team either. Reeves is decent in man coverage, but outside of that, we really aren't going to get a lot of success running it with our corners.

It's really a personnel problem we are having right now. We are limited in which coverages we can run. I can't blame Frank Bush for alot of this stuff.

One of the problems is that we aren't dominate in either rushing the passer or just pure confusing the quarterback with coverages. We could live with limited coverage ability if we were getting at the quarterback often, but that's not the case.

I guess what I am trying to say is that our lack of versatility in the secondary is the weakest part of our team.

DexmanC
11-11-2009, 09:54 AM
I will say this to Frank Bush. After this defense got GASHED for 3 straight
games, he quickly found a way to scheme our defense to fit the STRENGTH
of the personnel. His players are extremely aggressive, which makes them
excellent at stopping the run. We don't get constant D-line pressure up
the middle, so we have to do every thing we can to not get beat deep.

We mix up our looks a lot. I often see Barwin walking around the line before
the snap to screw with the O-line's coverage calls. Leaving Wilson and
Pollard to guard the deep-middle wouldn't be a good idea, so we help
the D-line's pressure with our linebackers. The first pick by Pollard was
due to Peyton having to get rid of the ball earlier than he wanted to.

If quarterbacks get pressured constantly, it won't matter if we keep
running cover three. For the first time, the Texans are CONSTANTLY
in the backfield, forcing early throws from the QB's. We aren't getting
a lot of sacks, but we ARE getting a ton of hurried throws.

I have every confidence in Frank Bush and his assistants, unlike Richard Smith, to put our players in the best-possible position to succeed.