New Defensive Emphasis

Discussion in 'The National Football League' started by MojoX, Aug 24, 2004.

  1. MojoX

    MojoX Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2004
    Messages:
    387
    Likes Received:
    19
    One thing annoying me about the emphasis on contact past 5 yards is the overreacting from DBs and defensive coaches. Here is a sample of their cries (emphasis mine):
    So these guys are complaining because Marvin is such a good route runner that they can't cover him without clawing, grabbing and mauling? Oh, they're lives are so hard because Randy Moss is 6'4", blazing fast, can jump out the roof and catch whatever floats his way? Well, tough luck. If you can't cover Marvin's precise routes, then study more film and work on your technique. Or double team him. But it is ridiculous to depend upon rule bending and "grey areas" as the basis of your coverage technique.

    The reason this new emphasis was made is because these guys were abusing these grey areas instead of just becomming better technicians or the coaches becomming better schemers. The NFL is basically reversing what were de facto interpretation changes favoring DBs due to bigger, faster, stronger receivers like Moss, Owens, Boston, Andre Johnson, etc. The problem is that what was once allowed to deal with athletic freaks like Moss was allowed to be use against technicians like Harrisson. Not every CB is Deion, so just shut up and get some double team help.

    I think the Miami DBs have the best take on this so far (from same article):
    In other words, corners who have real talent and technique will still play tight man coverage, all the pretenders are just gonna have to get saftey help.
     
  2. RTP2110

    RTP2110 Thank You Andre

    Joined:
    May 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,023
    Likes Received:
    131
    Location:
    Atascocita
    I agree 100%. One funny thing is that I keep hearing people refer to this as a new rule. It's always been a rule, they're just going to enforce it more. What they are doing now is what they should have been doing all along. I think they should do this with offensive line holding as well. There's holing on nearly every play, but it is seldomly called. Then people will say, ''Let the players play." They can play they just need to do it within the rules.
     
  3. gwallaia

    gwallaia Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Messages:
    7,897
    Likes Received:
    723
    The one aspect of this "renewed enforcement" of this rule that I don't like is the ease at which it can be called. As discussed in other threads on this board, why not just send your receivers blazing toward the defenders forcing them to touch you?? Automatic penalty and a first down.

    Is there such a thing as a penalty for the receivers "forcing" the defender to touch them? Can the receiver be flagged for initiaing the contact? .. or will it always be the defender's fault?

    In my opinion, this "renewed enforcement" is going to result in a whole lot of penalties this season if the pre-season bombardment of flags on this call continues. :twocents:
     
  4. MojoX

    MojoX Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2004
    Messages:
    387
    Likes Received:
    19
    I think DBs and coaches will adjust. There won't be a rash of lags after week 8. Once the playoffs are on the line, along with the jobs of several coaches, the players and coaches will stop resisting. This has happened before in the league and the coaches always yield when the prize (and paycheck) is on the line.

    I believe there is still incidental contact and the WR senario-in which the WR just runs at a defender--will fall under that. Anyway, these rules won't be a problem for the talented DBs.
     
  5. aj.

    aj. Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2004
    Messages:
    4,769
    Likes Received:
    347
    The old rule allowed for incidental contact. I don't think that's allowable under the new rule. It seems that any contact, whether incidental or prohibited, will be flagged. The new rule blows.
     
  6. infantrycak

    infantrycak Mod. Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Messages:
    56,352
    Likes Received:
    2,964
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    The old rule did allow for incidental contact. The new emphasis is also supposed to allow contact that does not inhibit a WR's route. Problem is, and what the DB's and coaches are upset about, is the enforcement so far--for instance a DB in the St. Louis/KC game was flagged for brushing (and I mean lightly touching) the back of his hand across the WR's bicep to keep track of the WR as they ran down field together. Some of the refs appear to have thrown out the inhibiting the WR's route part of the rule which would be a huge change.
     
  7. MojoX

    MojoX Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2004
    Messages:
    387
    Likes Received:
    19
    I've seen incidental contact not be called in games I've seen thus far (49er, Raider, Raven, and Eagle games). The vast majority of play I have seen hasn't been a 100% "no touch" rule. I've seen DBs not get flagged for having a WR run into them so long as the DB didn't reach out to the WR. So a few tight/questionable flags don't make a rule.

    The problem is when you allow a player to "brush" against a WR and then that "brush" evolves into a light grab. DBs knew they could "feel" for the WR so they have used reaching out to track the WR as a means to arm bar, jersey grab, etc. DBs have been relying on that grey area to inhibit WRs. The DBs and coaches over-abused the grey area and now it is mostly gone. They have noone to blame but themselves. They violated the spirit of the rule--all the way to the Superbowl--so the league has to clamp down and start getting literal with it. No need to punish WRs who master their art and the teams lucky to have them just because the non-Charles Woodsons, non-Champ Baileys of the world can't cover them man-to-man.

    I don't think the DBs and coaches are so upset about this "brushing" thing so much as they are about the fact that a bunch of DBs are about to be exposed as lacking real talent. The DBs in the article weren't angry about brushing. They were upset because they need more than a brush to deal with Marvin Harrison. And that might mean some coach's jobs will be on the line when their once brilliant defensive schemes no longer work since you can't maul the receiver 10-15 yards down field.

    And I do agree with the coach who commented that this rule is gonna be like "Globetrotters" to Randy Moss. He is gonna have a ridiculous season going against those teams with undistinguished 5'10" defenders, unless there is dedicated saftey help. And that is where this is gonna get interesting. Against some teams, there can be no 8/9 in the box.

    Anyway, do any of you guys think the college game is gonna start "finding" 6'+ CBs to match these huge receivers?
     
  8. aj.

    aj. Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2004
    Messages:
    4,769
    Likes Received:
    347


  9. MojoX

    MojoX Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2004
    Messages:
    387
    Likes Received:
    19
    Thanks. Here are some quotes from the article:

    From this, it doesn't seem like too big of a deal. Of course, Detroit, with the Rogers-Williams tandem, is gonna benefit from enforcement a lot. The DBs just have to be technicians and they will be fine. I can't wait to see how Bellichick alters his D (even with the illegal stuff he is a good coach). :soapbox:
     
  10. edo783

    edo783 Site Contributor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Messages:
    7,715
    Likes Received:
    311
    Location:
    Houston, again.
    Suposedly (as heard on the herd) this may have a pretty negative inpact on the "Cover 2" teams.
     

Share This Page