(09-24-2020, 02:02 PM)NeptuneBeachBum Wrote: [ -> ] (09-21-2020, 12:54 PM)knarnn Wrote: [ -> ]https://twitter.com/mattwaldman/status/1...81376?s=21
I’ve watched this clip about a 100 times and for the life of me I can’t figure it how putting Taven in this position would make sense on paper, a white board, or on the field.
Is it too early in the season to pull out the pitchforks and start asking for Wash to be fired yet?
I'm not sure you understand what you're looking at here. We only rushed 3 on this play and tried to add extra coverage by dropping Taven. Its not like the receiver here was his man... he was dropping to take away another throwing lane in the zone and just trailed the receiver. That was Jack's play to make.
I posted this in another thread, but it seems more appropriate in this one. The problem is not Wash... it is talent. Some have expressed we have not sheltered our secondary enough... that is just plain wrong. We have one of the lowest blitz percentages in the League (9.6% after 2 games). That IS sheltering our secondary. We seem to be in Cover 3 or Quarters all game and get picked apart because we can't get to the QB. The problem is our pass rush isn't good enough to get pressure without blitzing and our secondary isn't good enough to hold up in coverage if we do. You know why? Its LACK OF TALENT. Great defenses can rush and cover, average defenses are good at one or the other... we do not do either well. The fact we have been giving up 400 yards per game (300 in the pass game) and have only had 2 sacks all season clearly demonstrates that.
What would you like to see Wash do differently? Blitz more and truly leave our secondary exposed? I actually feel for the guy... he is choosing a slower death by playing coverage and hoping someone can make a play than a quick one by blitzing. Its damned if you do, damned if you don't. That's not scheme... its lack of talent.
Fire Caldwell but feel for Wash...lol
(09-24-2020, 02:25 PM)JaG4LyFe Wrote: [ -> ] (09-24-2020, 02:02 PM)NeptuneBeachBum Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not sure you understand what you're looking at here. We only rushed 3 on this play and tried to add extra coverage by dropping Taven. Its not like the receiver here was his man... he was dropping to take away another throwing lane in the zone and just trailed the receiver. That was Jack's play to make.
I posted this in another thread, but it seems more appropriate in this one. The problem is not Wash... it is talent. Some have expressed we have not sheltered our secondary enough... that is just plain wrong. We have one of the lowest blitz percentages in the League (9.6% after 2 games). That IS sheltering our secondary. We seem to be in Cover 3 or Quarters all game and get picked apart because we can't get to the QB. The problem is our pass rush isn't good enough to get pressure without blitzing and our secondary isn't good enough to hold up in coverage if we do. You know why? Its LACK OF TALENT. Great defenses can rush and cover, average defenses are good at one or the other... we do not do either well. The fact we have been giving up 400 yards per game (300 in the pass game) and have only had 2 sacks all season clearly demonstrates that.
What would you like to see Wash do differently? Blitz more and truly leave our secondary exposed? I actually feel for the guy... he is choosing a slower death by playing coverage and hoping someone can make a play than a quick one by blitzing. Its damned if you do, damned if you don't. That's not scheme... its lack of talent.
Fire Caldwell but feel for Wash...lol
I'm not firing anyone yet... but I am definitely in the camp of blowing the WHOLE thing up if we do not improve on our 6-10 season last year. It would be the only logical thing to do after 8 years and a TERRIBLE record.
Tell me specifically what you'd change in our scheme if you were Wash? Go Cover 0 all game and hope for the best? Feast or famine? Our secondary would get lit up. Tell me...
Maybe watch the steelers defense all day with your eyes priod open and wash could learn how to use his personnel. Doubtful but it woyld be a start. Blow it up washing my hands of this pathetic defense.
(09-24-2020, 02:02 PM)NeptuneBeachBum Wrote: [ -> ] (09-21-2020, 12:54 PM)knarnn Wrote: [ -> ]https://twitter.com/mattwaldman/status/1...81376?s=21
I’ve watched this clip about a 100 times and for the life of me I can’t figure it how putting Taven in this position would make sense on paper, a white board, or on the field.
Is it too early in the season to pull out the pitchforks and start asking for Wash to be fired yet?
I'm not sure you understand what you're looking at here. We only rushed 3 on this play and tried to add extra coverage by dropping Taven. Its not like the receiver here was his man... he was dropping to take away another throwing lane in the zone and just trailed the receiver. That was Jack's play to make.
I posted this in another thread, but it seems more appropriate in this one. The problem is not Wash... it is talent. Some have expressed we have not sheltered our secondary enough... that is just plain wrong. We have one of the lowest blitz percentages in the League (9.6% after 2 games). That IS sheltering our secondary. We seem to be in Cover 3 or Quarters all game and get picked apart because we can't get to the QB. The problem is our pass rush isn't good enough to get pressure without blitzing and our secondary isn't good enough to hold up in coverage if we do. You know why? Its LACK OF TALENT. Great defenses can rush and cover, average defenses are good at one or the other... we do not do either well. The fact we have been giving up 400 yards per game (300 in the pass game) and have only had 2 sacks all season clearly demonstrates that.
What would you like to see Wash do differently? Blitz more and truly leave our secondary exposed? I actually feel for the guy... he is choosing a slower death by playing coverage and hoping someone can make a play than a quick one by blitzing. Its damned if you do, damned if you don't. That's not scheme... its lack of talent.
I’m familiar with drop backs like this but you would normally drop a DT or a end on a zone blitz. Not like this. It’s a horrible play design.
Gotta love the innovative using 250+lbs 1st round edge rushers to cover a running back in man coverage running down the sidelines. Genius.
(09-25-2020, 02:01 PM)knarnn Wrote: [ -> ] (09-24-2020, 02:02 PM)NeptuneBeachBum Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not sure you understand what you're looking at here. We only rushed 3 on this play and tried to add extra coverage by dropping Taven. Its not like the receiver here was his man... he was dropping to take away another throwing lane in the zone and just trailed the receiver. That was Jack's play to make.
I posted this in another thread, but it seems more appropriate in this one. The problem is not Wash... it is talent. Some have expressed we have not sheltered our secondary enough... that is just plain wrong. We have one of the lowest blitz percentages in the League (9.6% after 2 games). That IS sheltering our secondary. We seem to be in Cover 3 or Quarters all game and get picked apart because we can't get to the QB. The problem is our pass rush isn't good enough to get pressure without blitzing and our secondary isn't good enough to hold up in coverage if we do. You know why? Its LACK OF TALENT. Great defenses can rush and cover, average defenses are good at one or the other... we do not do either well. The fact we have been giving up 400 yards per game (300 in the pass game) and have only had 2 sacks all season clearly demonstrates that.
What would you like to see Wash do differently? Blitz more and truly leave our secondary exposed? I actually feel for the guy... he is choosing a slower death by playing coverage and hoping someone can make a play than a quick one by blitzing. Its damned if you do, damned if you don't. That's not scheme... its lack of talent.
I’m familiar with drop backs like this but you would normally drop a DT or a end on a zone blitz. Not like this. It’s a horrible play design.
This is not a zone blitz, its only a 3-man rush. This is a red zone Cover 2 with a DT peeling off into coverage. They were in a 3x1 formation with the back offset to the weak side. The weak corner does not allow an outside release, passes the inside route to the safety, and would be responsible for Henry in the flat. Jack faked like he was blitzing and dropped to to hook-curl zone, but he was looking at the back in the flat (who the corner would have had) when he should have been expecting a crosser from the the trips side. The safety had the WR on the inside route. That was Jack's play to make, but he had his eyes in the wrong place and did not follow his keys properly. Dropping the DT here was to help re-route any crossing routes (which he did... though it could have been more effective), take away another potential throwing lane, or fill a gap if the QB started to scramble towards the end zone.
On 3rd and goal from the 5, I have no problem with this play call... its solid. Especially against a QB like Tannehill. But it was poorly executed, particularly by Jack. Jack is a very athletic player, but tends to make mental errors like this throughout the game and it holds him back from being elite. Poz would have made this play. Now if you want to argue "well that is coaching because Jack made a mistake"... I'm with you. But the scheme here is fine.
(09-25-2020, 02:41 PM)Jagsfan32277 Wrote: [ -> ]Gotta love the innovative using 250+lbs 1st round edge rushers to cover a running back in man coverage running down the sidelines. Genius.
Taven is a DT, not an edge rusher. And he is closer to 300 lbs than 250.
(09-25-2020, 02:52 PM)NeptuneBeachBum Wrote: [ -> ] (09-25-2020, 02:01 PM)knarnn Wrote: [ -> ]I’m familiar with drop backs like this but you would normally drop a DT or a end on a zone blitz. Not like this. It’s a horrible play design.
This is not a zone blitz, its only a 3-man rush. This is a red zone Cover 2 with a DT peeling off into coverage. They were in a 3x1 formation with the back offset to the weak side. The weak corner does not allow an outside release, passes the inside route to the safety, and would be responsible for Henry in the flat. Jack faked like he was blitzing and dropped to to hook-curl zone, but he was looking at the back in the flat (who the corner would have had) when he should have been expecting a crosser from the the trips side. The safety had the WR on the inside route. That was Jack's play to make, but he had his eyes in the wrong place and did not follow his keys properly. Dropping the DT here was to help re-route any crossing routes (which he did... though it could have been more effective), take away another potential throwing lane, or fill a gap if the QB started to scramble towards the end zone.
On 3rd and goal from the 5, I have no problem with this play call... its solid. Especially against a QB like Tannehill. But it was poorly executed, particularly by Jack. Jack is a very athletic player, but tends to make mental errors like this throughout the game and it holds him back from being elite. Poz would have made this play. Now if you want to argue "well that is coaching because Jack made a mistake"... I'm with you. But the scheme here is fine.
That’s what I said.
It’s a bad play design. You would normally drop a DT with QB spy responsibility on a zone blitz. The hope is to confuse the QB enough to allow the blitzer to get there. Dropping an extra lineman in a cover 2 scheme is ineffective there. Tannehill had all day to make a decision and waited until his man came free inbetween zones easily crossing Taven.
(09-25-2020, 02:59 PM)NeptuneBeachBum Wrote: [ -> ] (09-25-2020, 02:41 PM)Jagsfan32277 Wrote: [ -> ]Gotta love the innovative using 250+lbs 1st round edge rushers to cover a running back in man coverage running down the sidelines. Genius.
Taven is a DT, not an edge rusher. And he is closer to 300 lbs than 250.
He's talking about Chaison.
(09-25-2020, 03:03 PM)Dimson Wrote: [ -> ] (09-25-2020, 02:59 PM)NeptuneBeachBum Wrote: [ -> ]Taven is a DT, not an edge rusher. And he is closer to 300 lbs than 250.
He's talking about Chaison.
I misunderstood then. Everyone was talking about the DT dropping on this play, so I assumed that's who he meant. My apologies.
I'm no defensive mastermind but I saw Oehser said Dolphins played soft zone against Minshew and that's why he had trouble.
If this is right I wonder why it doesn't work for us but works for others? Lack of talent is the logical explanation.
(09-25-2020, 03:08 PM)CanDoBetter Wrote: [ -> ]I'm no defensive mastermind but I saw Oehser said Dolphins played soft zone against Minshew and that's why he had trouble.
If this is right I wonder why it doesn't work for us but works for others? Lack of talent is the logical explanation.
Our WRs have to catch the ball. That would help.
(09-25-2020, 03:08 PM)CanDoBetter Wrote: [ -> ]I'm no defensive mastermind but I saw Oehser said Dolphins played soft zone against Minshew and that's why he had trouble.
If this is right I wonder why it doesn't work for us but works for others? Lack of talent is the logical explanation.
Exactly right. A soft zone works if you can get pressure with 4 guys, but you have to have talent up front (think 49ers, Seahawks D of years past). If not, you have to blitz. If you blitz, you need talented DB's who can play tight man coverage (think Ravens). Currently, we have neither of those two things.
(09-25-2020, 03:02 PM)knarnn Wrote: [ -> ] (09-25-2020, 02:52 PM)NeptuneBeachBum Wrote: [ -> ]
This is not a zone blitz, its only a 3-man rush. This is a red zone Cover 2 with a DT peeling off into coverage. They were in a 3x1 formation with the back offset to the weak side. The weak corner does not allow an outside release, passes the inside route to the safety, and would be responsible for Henry in the flat. Jack faked like he was blitzing and dropped to to hook-curl zone, but he was looking at the back in the flat (who the corner would have had) when he should have been expecting a crosser from the the trips side. The safety had the WR on the inside route. That was Jack's play to make, but he had his eyes in the wrong place and did not follow his keys properly. Dropping the DT here was to help re-route any crossing routes (which he did... though it could have been more effective), take away another potential throwing lane, or fill a gap if the QB started to scramble towards the end zone.
On 3rd and goal from the 5, I have no problem with this play call... its solid. Especially against a QB like Tannehill. But it was poorly executed, particularly by Jack. Jack is a very athletic player, but tends to make mental errors like this throughout the game and it holds him back from being elite. Poz would have made this play. Now if you want to argue "well that is coaching because Jack made a mistake"... I'm with you. But the scheme here is fine.
That’s what I said.
It’s a bad play design. You would normally drop a DT with QB spy responsibility on a zone blitz. The hope is to confuse the QB enough to allow the blitzer to get there. Dropping an extra lineman in a cover 2 scheme is ineffective there. Tannehill had all day to make a decision and waited until his man came free inbetween zones easily crossing Taven.
I don't know what play you're watching. We actually had decent edge pressure on the weak side (for a change) but Tannehill threw the ball in about 2.5 seconds. We don't get to the QB in 2.5 seconds even when we blitz. The play was poorly executed by Jack... his eyes were in the wrong spot. The design and call were good... the execution by Jack was not. If you don't understand that, you're just being emotional and nothing I can tell you will help you get it. But that's fine.
(09-25-2020, 03:24 PM)NeptuneBeachBum Wrote: [ -> ] (09-25-2020, 03:02 PM)knarnn Wrote: [ -> ]That’s what I said.
It’s a bad play design. You would normally drop a DT with QB spy responsibility on a zone blitz. The hope is to confuse the QB enough to allow the blitzer to get there. Dropping an extra lineman in a cover 2 scheme is ineffective there. Tannehill had all day to make a decision and waited until his man came free inbetween zones easily crossing Taven.
I don't know what play you're watching. We actually had decent edge pressure on the weak side (for a change) but Tannehill threw the ball in about 2.5 seconds. We don't get to the QB in 2.5 seconds even when we blitz. The play was poorly executed by Jack... his eyes were in the wrong spot. The design and call were good... the execution by Jack was not. If you don't understand that, you're just being emotional and nothing I can tell you will help you get it. But that's fine.
If you think dropping your 300 pound DT in coverage is an ideal play design with a 3 man rush I can’t wait to see what we have planned for Hamilton and Jernigan.
(09-25-2020, 03:09 PM)Dimson Wrote: [ -> ] (09-25-2020, 03:08 PM)CanDoBetter Wrote: [ -> ]I'm no defensive mastermind but I saw Oehser said Dolphins played soft zone against Minshew and that's why he had trouble.
If this is right I wonder why it doesn't work for us but works for others? Lack of talent is the logical explanation.
Our WRs have to catch the ball. That would help.
Yep.
Conley killed drives that could have changed the momentum of the game really.
Not just one thing went wrong last night. Everything did.
Dolphins rushers got home after the QB, Jaguars rushers did not.
Phins WRs caught all their underneath balls vs our zone coverage, Jaguar WRs either dropped balls or Minshew missed guys.
I don't think we have a severe lack of talent. We have under developed talent. First or 2nd year players everywhere.
Guys like Wingard starting who are back ups and STs. The defense will struggle all year.
Our offense can not be off like it was last night. WRs played poorly. Minshew struggled. OL struggled.
Here's hoping Chark and Linder come back quickly. I think Linder is underappreciated on this board, he's really good and probably helps make protection calls against the pass rush. Chark draws coverage his way to open stuff for Cole and Viska and those guys...
Re-watching game now on NFL network and with 4 minutes left in the first quarter the announcers said, man Myles Gaskin (RB miami) going to the probowl the way he is playing right now. Man that hit a nerve! That is only in the first quarter!! Speaks volume about the year we are going to have.