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.

On 3rd and goal from the 5... yah, I do.  The scheme and call were good on this play.  Now, if you want to argue Wash or the LB coach didn't do their job well teaching Jack how to execute on this play, I'm with you. Again, I hear a bunch of emotional complaining from people about the D, but no one with enough tactical knowledge to say what they would do differently with the shortage of talent we have on our team to make it better.

---

This is a results-oriented business.  There are no trophies or titles given for "moral victories" or for "winning the draft".  Our record with DC is 37-86.  6-10 is our 2nd best season in 8 years of Caldwell leadership.  These are the FACTS.

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...

On top of that, Minshew was just off. Seemed like his pocket awareness was off and he missed too many throws to open guys. Specifically the TD to Conley and a 3rd down where Cole was wide open.

I think we have young talent and bad coaching (I said that before the season started) which is why I said this is a 5 or 6 win team. The defense is really really bad. They can’t cover and they can’t rush the passer.... along with Wash.

A lot of season left but there aren’t reinforcements coming for the defense which means the offense can make zero mistakes.

---

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.

On 3rd and goal from the 5... yah, I do.  The scheme and call were good on this play.  Now, if you want to argue Wash or the LB coach didn't do their job well teaching Jack how to execute on this play, I'm with you.  Again, I hear a bunch of emotional complaining from people about the D, but no one with enough tactical knowledge to say what they would do differently with the shortage of talent we have on our team to make it better.

If you drop Smoot in coverage, who’s playing the 5 tech here on this play and let Jack blitz instead of dropping back and you rush Taven, Jack either splits the block for a pressure/sack or forces Tannehill to roll to his right because of Smoot - who in this scenario is in perfect position to take away the TE on a short crosser.

---

"Before you criticize a man, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, if he gets angry, he's a mile away and barefoot."

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.

On 3rd and goal from the 5... yah, I do.  The scheme and call were good on this play.  Now, if you want to argue Wash or the LB coach didn't do their job well teaching Jack how to execute on this play, I'm with you.  Again, I hear a bunch of emotional complaining from people about the D, but no one with enough tactical knowledge to say what they would do differently with the shortage of talent we have on our team to make it better.

It's funny as [BLEEP] to contrast your bombastic signature with your continuing defense of Wash. All that dissonance must sound like a hurricane inside your head.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

On 3rd and goal from the 5... yah, I do.  The scheme and call were good on this play.  Now, if you want to argue Wash or the LB coach didn't do their job well teaching Jack how to execute on this play, I'm with you.  Again, I hear a bunch of emotional complaining from people about the D, but no one with enough tactical knowledge to say what they would do differently with the shortage of talent we have on our team to make it better.

If you drop Smoot in coverage, who’s playing the 5 tech here on this play and let Jack blitz instead of dropping back and you rush Taven, Jack either splits the block for a pressure/sack or forces Tannehill to roll to his right because of Smoot - who in this scenario is in perfect position to take away the TE on a short crosser.

I like your creativity.  But a few problems with that:

1.  You think Smoot will play the hook-curl zone better than Jack?  No.
2.  You are making a HUGE assumption that Jack just splits between 2 pass protectors like that is easy.  Basically, you're counting on a lineman to blow an assignment here.
3.  You would have no outside contain with your pass rush on the weak side without Smoot coming at the 5 tech..  Even if you did get pressure with Jack in that scenario, Tannehill could just roll to his left.  No one schemes a pass rush without outside contain of the QB... especially one that can run a bit.
4.  If you want to bring Taven here, fine.  That's still just a 4-man rush and they have 5 to block it.

Your idea is not terrible, but the play call here is better.  Just poorly executed.

---

This is a results-oriented business.  There are no trophies or titles given for "moral victories" or for "winning the draft".  Our record with DC is 37-86.  6-10 is our 2nd best season in 8 years of Caldwell leadership.  These are the FACTS.

On 3rd and goal from the 5... yah, I do.  The scheme and call were good on this play.  Now, if you want to argue Wash or the LB coach didn't do their job well teaching Jack how to execute on this play, I'm with you.  Again, I hear a bunch of emotional complaining from people about the D, but no one with enough tactical knowledge to say what they would do differently with the shortage of talent we have on our team to make it better.

It's funny as [BLEEP] to contrast your bombastic signature with your continuing defense of Wash. All that dissonance must sound like a hurricane inside your head.

Haha... I am NOT a Wash supporter!  I want him gone too, but not because of scheme.  I think the scheme is average... not great, but not terrible.  I see players constantly making mistakes within the scheme, which makes me think he is not a great teacher.  Or his assistants are not good teachers.  Or we have a bunch of dumb players who aren't smart enough or disciplined enough to put the time in the film room.  Its probably a combination of all those things.  But the biggest factor why we are one of the worst defenses in the League is still lack of talent, imo.  I'm just trying to use a little logic over pure emotion in my analysis.  Although last night, my emotions were getting the best of me too!  lol

---

This is a results-oriented business.  There are no trophies or titles given for "moral victories" or for "winning the draft".  Our record with DC is 37-86.  6-10 is our 2nd best season in 8 years of Caldwell leadership.  These are the FACTS.

It's funny as [BLEEP] to contrast your bombastic signature with your continuing defense of Wash. All that dissonance must sound like a hurricane inside your head.

Haha... I am NOT a Wash supporter!  I want him gone too, but not because of scheme.  I think the scheme is average... not great, but not terrible.  I see players constantly making mistakes within the scheme, which makes me think he is not a great teacher.  Or his assistants are not good teachers.  Or we have a bunch of dumb players who aren't smart enough or disciplined enough to put the time in the film room.  Its probably a combination of all those things.  But the biggest factor why we are one of the worst defenses in the League is still lack of talent, imo.  I'm just trying to use a little logic over pure emotion in my analysis.  Although last night, my emotions were getting the best of me too!  lol

I see an obsolete scheme called by a guy who lacks the creativity or innovation to move past it. You could just as easily pose your "what do you suggest we do?" question to Wash and you'd get pretty much the same answers as here because he doesn't have any more ideas than the fans posting here about what could change. Wash is a one bullet coach that used up all his ammo in the 4 months of the 2017 season and he's been shooting blanks since then.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

If you drop Smoot in coverage, who’s playing the 5 tech here on this play and let Jack blitz instead of dropping back and you rush Taven, Jack either splits the block for a pressure/sack or forces Tannehill to roll to his right because of Smoot - who in this scenario is in perfect position to take away the TE on a short crosser.

I like your creativity.  But a few problems with that:

1.  You think Smoot will play the hook-curl zone better than Jack?  No.
2.  You are making a HUGE assumption that Jack just splits between 2 pass protectors like that is easy.  Basically, you're counting on a lineman to blow an assignment here.
3.  You would have no outside contain with your pass rush on the weak side without Smoot coming at the 5 tech..  Even if you did get pressure with Jack in that scenario, Tannehill could just roll to his left.  No one schemes a pass rush without outside contain of the QB... especially one that can run a bit.
4.  If you want to bring Taven here, fine.  That's still just a 4-man rush and they have 5 to block it.

Your idea is not terrible, but the play call here is better.  Just poorly executed.

Better then Taven? Yes.

We already have the contain caused by Chassion’s rush. Look at the traffic. Tannehill could only slide right in this play. 

Smoot would also be in a better position to slide towards Henry, who’s also wide open and unaccounted for in the current play design.

---

"Before you criticize a man, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, if he gets angry, he's a mile away and barefoot."

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.

On 3rd and goal from the 5... yah, I do.  The scheme and call were good on this play.  Now, if you want to argue Wash or the LB coach didn't do their job well teaching Jack how to execute on this play, I'm with you. Again, I hear a bunch of emotional complaining from people about the D, but no one with enough tactical knowledge to say what they would do differently with the shortage of talent we have on our team to make it better.

Please go back and watch that play again. Jack had no chance because of the stupid zone coverage.

Jack had to stay in that space. If Jack comes up to stop the TE, the WR coming over the middle in the end zone is open. If Jack comes up, the RB is wide open in the flat because the CB couldn't come up quickly. Jack stayed back in his zone to take away those 2 easy TDs but couldn't come up quick enough for the tackle.

It wasn't his fault, the play was setup to fail 3 ways.

Sent from my SM-T820 using Tapatalk

---

I like your creativity.  But a few problems with that:

1.  You think Smoot will play the hook-curl zone better than Jack?  No.
2.  You are making a HUGE assumption that Jack just splits between 2 pass protectors like that is easy.  Basically, you're counting on a lineman to blow an assignment here.
3.  You would have no outside contain with your pass rush on the weak side without Smoot coming at the 5 tech..  Even if you did get pressure with Jack in that scenario, Tannehill could just roll to his left.  No one schemes a pass rush without outside contain of the QB... especially one that can run a bit.
4.  If you want to bring Taven here, fine.  That's still just a 4-man rush and they have 5 to block it.

Your idea is not terrible, but the play call here is better.  Just poorly executed.

Better then Taven? Yes.

We already have the contain caused by Chassion’s rush. Look at the traffic. Tannehill could only slide right in this play. 

Smoot would also be in a better position to slide towards Henry, who’s also wide open and unaccounted for in the current play design.

My bad, I can't see the players numbers on my phone.  You said 5 tech, and that's Chassion then, outside the tackle.  Smoot must the 3 tech on this play.  Smoot is not covering that better than Jack.  Henry was not unaccounted for... the corner would have him in Cover 2.  He just played it poorly/lazily after releasing the WR to the safety.

And you misunderstand Taven's role on this play... he has no primary zone responsibility.  He is just a re-route for the crossers and an extra body in the passing lanes.  You aren't exchanging Smoot for Taven in coverage here for what you are proposing... you are exchanging Smoot for Jack.  That's not good thing.  And if Taven does not drop and re-route the first crosser, Tannehill hits him or the 2nd crosser immediately anyway.

Your play is not better than what was called.  Sorry man.

---

This is a results-oriented business.  There are no trophies or titles given for "moral victories" or for "winning the draft".  Our record with DC is 37-86.  6-10 is our 2nd best season in 8 years of Caldwell leadership.  These are the FACTS.

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.

On 3rd and goal from the 5... yah, I do.  The scheme and call were good on this play.  Now, if you want to argue Wash or the LB coach didn't do their job well teaching Jack how to execute on this play, I'm with you.  Again, I hear a bunch of emotional complaining from people about the D, but no one with enough tactical knowledge to say what they would do differently with the shortage of talent we have on our team to make it better.

Please go back and watch that play again. Jack had no chance because of the stupid zone coverage.

Jack had to stay in that space. If Jack comes up to stop the TE, the WR coming over the middle in the end zone is open. If Jack comes up, the RB is wide open in the flat because the CB couldn't come up quickly. Jack stayed back in his zone to take away those 2 easy TDs but couldn't come up quick enough for the tackle.

It wasn't his fault, the play was setup to fail 3 ways.

Sent from my SM-T820 using Tapatalk

^^^

Someone gets it

---

"Before you criticize a man, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, if he gets angry, he's a mile away and barefoot."

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.

On 3rd and goal from the 5... yah, I do.  The scheme and call were good on this play.  Now, if you want to argue Wash or the LB coach didn't do their job well teaching Jack how to execute on this play, I'm with you.  Again, I hear a bunch of emotional complaining from people about the D, but no one with enough tactical knowledge to say what they would do differently with the shortage of talent we have on our team to make it better.

Please go back and watch that play again. Jack had no chance because of the stupid zone coverage.

Jack had to stay in that space. If Jack comes up to stop the TE, the WR coming over the middle in the end zone is open. If Jack comes up, the RB is wide open in the flat because the CB couldn't come up quickly. Jack stayed back in his zone to take away those 2 easy TDs but couldn't come up quick enough for the tackle.

It wasn't his fault, the play was setup to fail 3 ways.

Sent from my SM-T820 using Tapatalk

You're wrong.  Its Football 101 red zone Cover 2:  The safety has the WR on an inside route.  The CB has the RB in the flat after he forces inside release of WR (granted, he played it poorly).  The weakside hook-curl player (Jack) needs to recognize the crosser.  He didn't even look.  That's on him.  Football 101 man.

---

Please go back and watch that play again. Jack had no chance because of the stupid zone coverage.

Jack had to stay in that space. If Jack comes up to stop the TE, the WR coming over the middle in the end zone is open. If Jack comes up, the RB is wide open in the flat because the CB couldn't come up quickly. Jack stayed back in his zone to take away those 2 easy TDs but couldn't come up quick enough for the tackle.

It wasn't his fault, the play was setup to fail 3 ways.

Sent from my SM-T820 using Tapatalk

^^^

Someone gets it

^^^  Someone doesn't.

---

This is a results-oriented business.  There are no trophies or titles given for "moral victories" or for "winning the draft".  Our record with DC is 37-86.  6-10 is our 2nd best season in 8 years of Caldwell leadership.  These are the FACTS.

Please go back and watch that play again. Jack had no chance because of the stupid zone coverage.

Jack had to stay in that space. If Jack comes up to stop the TE, the WR coming over the middle in the end zone is open. If Jack comes up, the RB is wide open in the flat because the CB couldn't come up quickly. Jack stayed back in his zone to take away those 2 easy TDs but couldn't come up quick enough for the tackle.

It wasn't his fault, the play was setup to fail 3 ways.

Sent from my SM-T820 using Tapatalk

You're wrong.  Its Football 101 red zone Cover 2:  The safety has the WR on an inside route.  The CB has the RB in the flat after he forces inside release of WR (granted, he played it poorly).  The weakside hook-curl player (Jack) needs to recognize the crosser.  He didn't even look.  That's on him.  Football 101 man.

---

^^^

Someone gets it

^^^  Someone doesn't.

I get what is supposed to happen when you draw the play up in your mind. Then there is the real world and what happens on the play never matches what you drew up.

The CB has to stay with the WR into the end zone because the safety can't get out there quick enough, it's not humanly possible without abandoning the middle of the field. Jack saw the crosser but can't come up until after the ball is thrown.

The playcall was going to be beat no matter what the players did. Even if they played it exactly like Wash wanted them to, it still gets beat 1 of 3 ways and that doesn't even mention what was happening on the right side of the play.

The defense is design to sit back and what for the other team to make a mistake without giving up a big play. Without pressure mistakes do not happen. The defensive scheme is garbage.

Sent from my SM-T820 using Tapatalk

---

You're wrong.  Its Football 101 red zone Cover 2:  The safety has the WR on an inside route.  The CB has the RB in the flat after he forces inside release of WR (granted, he played it poorly).  The weakside hook-curl player (Jack) needs to recognize the crosser.  He didn't even look.  That's on him.  Football 101 man.

---

^^^  Someone doesn't.

I get what is supposed to happen when you draw the play up in your mind. Then there is the real world and what happens on the play never matches what you drew up.

The CB has to stay with the WR into the end zone because the safety can't get out there quick enough, it's not humanly possible without abandoning the middle of the field. Jack saw the crosser but can't come up until after the ball is thrown.

The playcall was going to be beat no matter what the players did. Even if they played it exactly like Wash wanted them to, it still gets beat 1 of 3 ways and that doesn't even mention what was happening on the right side of the play.

The defense is design to sit back and what for the other team to make a mistake without giving up a big play. Without pressure mistakes do not happen. The defensive scheme is garbage.

Sent from my SM-T820 using Tapatalk

Wrong.  Wrong on pretty much every detail you just said.  What's the Patriot's motto?  DO YOUR JOB.  Where was the ball caught?  Hook-Curl.  Who was the defender?  Jack.  

The wide out was covered inside by the safety, he was right there.  The CB was lazy after passing off the inside release to get to the flat, but that is his man.  Jack was not even looking for the crosser... he was undisciplined staring at the back in the flat.  His head should have come around immediately to the TE when the RB flared out.  Obviously you never played the game, or you would know this.  Sorry man, but its clear as day.

---

This is a results-oriented business.  There are no trophies or titles given for "moral victories" or for "winning the draft".  Our record with DC is 37-86.  6-10 is our 2nd best season in 8 years of Caldwell leadership.  These are the FACTS.

I'm done trying to help you guys understand defense... your fan emotions are blinding your logic.  If you want to learn more about basic Cover 2 principles, knock yourselves out here:

http://breakdownsports.blogspot.com/2016...fense.html

If you don't want to read the whole thing, scroll down to RED 2 for what we are talking about in this clip for the red zone.

---

This is a results-oriented business.  There are no trophies or titles given for "moral victories" or for "winning the draft".  Our record with DC is 37-86.  6-10 is our 2nd best season in 8 years of Caldwell leadership.  These are the FACTS.

I'm done trying to help you guys understand defense... your fan emotions are blinding your logic.  If you want to learn more about basic Cover 2 principles, knock yourselves out here:

http://breakdownsports.blogspot.com/2016...fense.html

If you don't want to read the whole thing, scroll down to RED 2 for what we are talking about in this clip for the red zone.

Now show me play that has the DT dropping back.

---

"Before you criticize a man, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, if he gets angry, he's a mile away and barefoot."

I'm done trying to help you guys understand defense... your fan emotions are blinding your logic.  If you want to learn more about basic Cover 2 principles, knock yourselves out here:

http://breakdownsports.blogspot.com/2016...fense.html

If you don't want to read the whole thing, scroll down to RED 2 for what we are talking about in this clip for the red zone.

Now show me play that has the DT dropping back.

Is this the first time you've seen an interior lineman drop into coverage?  Maybe in your 2nd weekend of ever watching NFL football, you will see it again.

First hit of many on a quick google search... here you go:

https://www.ninersnation.com/2017/11/30/...bert-saleh

---

This is a results-oriented business.  There are no trophies or titles given for "moral victories" or for "winning the draft".  Our record with DC is 37-86.  6-10 is our 2nd best season in 8 years of Caldwell leadership.  These are the FACTS.

Now show me play that has the DT dropping back.

Is this the first time you've seen an interior lineman drop into coverage?  Maybe in your 2nd weekend of ever watching NFL football, you will see it again.

First hit of many on a quick google search... here you go:

https://www.ninersnation.com/2017/11/30/...bert-saleh

Robert Saleh...sounds familiar

https://twitter.com/betterrivals/status/...49152?s=21

Looks familiar too 

Also from the article:

For the most part, defensive linemen dropping into coverage can serve two purpose. One, when they’re trying to bring an overload to one side to overload a protection. And then the second part is when you’re trying to rush three, and just kind of plug the middle of the field to eliminate any crossers or any low holes, because in our natural three-deep defense, there’s a void in the middle. And to be able to plug that part of the field on occasion. So that’s basically what the main purposes are.

---

"Before you criticize a man, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, if he gets angry, he's a mile away and barefoot."

Is this the first time you've seen an interior lineman drop into coverage?  Maybe in your 2nd weekend of ever watching NFL football, you will see it again.

First hit of many on a quick google search... here you go:

https://www.ninersnation.com/2017/11/30/...bert-saleh

Robert Saleh...sounds familiar

https://twitter.com/betterrivals/status/...49152?s=21

Looks familiar too 

Yeah... only one of the top DC's in the League is doing it.  A guy with the best defense in the League last year, who will likely be a head coach in a year or two.

75% of the defenses in the League do this... its not new.  Just pay attention during games dude.  Like anything else, its great when it works.  And like anything else, fans whine and complain when it doesn't.

---

This is a results-oriented business.  There are no trophies or titles given for "moral victories" or for "winning the draft".  Our record with DC is 37-86.  6-10 is our 2nd best season in 8 years of Caldwell leadership.  These are the FACTS.

For the most part, defensive linemen dropping into coverage can serve two purpose. One, when they’re trying to bring an overload to one side to overload a protection. And then the second part is when you’re trying to rush three, and just kind of plug the middle of the field to eliminate any crossers or any low holes, because in our natural three-deep defense, there’s a void in the middle. And to be able to plug that part of the field on occasion. So that’s basically what the main purposes are.

This is exactly what I said the purposes of doing it were in earlier posts.  Most fans will say "why would you drop a 300 lb guy in coverage", but the majority of teams do.  I do not like the call in midfield, but adding on to the coverage to tighten even smaller windows in a Cover 2 red zone on 3rd and Goal from the 5 makes sense.  Fans want "innovative", but complain when it doesn't work. I will accept your apology now.  

---

This is a results-oriented business.  There are no trophies or titles given for "moral victories" or for "winning the draft".  Our record with DC is 37-86.  6-10 is our 2nd best season in 8 years of Caldwell leadership.  These are the FACTS.