darrelgreenie Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 The issue is not what his assignment was supposed to be. It's whether or not Buchanon KNEW his assignment. What was said on that? Dude, forget it i can see where this is going. You said Buchanon was in zone. Just letting you know that he was in man, and its not according to me that's from Hall, Haslett and Greg Cosell. No big deal. HTTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 Dude, forget it.You said Buchanon was in zone. Just letting you know that he was in man, and its not according to me that's from Hall, Haslett and Greg Cosell. You are having a hard time keeping up here. Let's give it one more try.You are mistaken. I never said that Buchanon was in zone coverage. I said Buchanon SEEMED TO THINK he was in zone coverage when he broke off his man and turned him over to the safety -- indicating confusion over his assignment. I read comments by Haslett and Hall which only tell us that he was SUPPOSED TO BE in man coverage. Those comments don't help us here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrelgreenie Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 You are having a hard time keeping up here. Let's give it one more try.You are mistaken. I never said that Buchanon was in zone coverage. I said Buchanon SEEMED TO THINK he was in zone coverage when he broke off his man and turned him over to the safety -- indicating confusion over his assignment. I read comments by Haslett and Hall which only tell us that he was SUPPOSED TO BE in man coverage. Those comments don't help us here. LoL, i'm having a hard time keeping up? If you agreed that he was in zone then we're in agreement. Based on your post below it seemed like you thought he blew a zone assignment. You might recall that I was very critical in the past of Greg Blache, however, I have been wondering about zone versus man coverage. Blache played more man coverage than Haslett which requires less experience and less intelligence than zone. With more zone, we can expect to see more blown coverages such as Buchanon's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSO Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 You're likely exxagerating to prove your point, but although we didn't play a lot of zone last year we still managed to blow a lot of zone coverages especially 2 deep zone and Cover 4. Imo from traking it closely offenses focused on exploiting players assignements within our zone coverages. assignments. (I had a thread that basically kept track of it, especially the last few pages: http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?300185-Rams-Receivers-open-on-last-play/page6 ) Yeah, I did exaggerate there, lol. Still, I think the point remains valid as you seem to agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSO Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 My issue with Buchanon is simple. If he was in straight man, then how does the receiver "drift" from you? He stopped, okay, so you expect the ball to come. But common practice is to leave a hand out there to try to feel the receiver to see if he bailed out or not. He was no where NEAR Johnson and the play didn't take that long to develop. Great points, and that's exactly where I take issue with Buchanon. In my mind, even if he was in zone, isn't there some point where you should just slightly break out of your zone if no one is in it, the play is breaking down and you know there's another WR who just passed from within your zone is the only guy around? Don't coaches tell them that common sense should prevail there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 Based on your post below it seemed like you thought he blew a zone assignment.Yes, I can understand how my Post #12 might have confused you. Did you miss my Post #22 where I clarified the point for you?EDIT: I see that you quoted #22 subsequently, so evidently the clarification didn't do the trick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSO Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 Right. Biting on a double-move is a man-to-man coverage mistake.I agree. That's why I thought it was weak of Haslett to lay the failure solely on the player. I don't think it was so much Haslett blaming one player more than it was him defending Doughty. Doughty shouldn't have been hung out to dry there, just look at what anger has been spewed towards him on the board since that play, lol. Who knows, but right now I like the accountability. It's definitely not good when we're losing consistently to point out specific player's failures, but while the season is still young and they're trying to be the dominant team they hoped to be it doesn't seem out of malice, you know? It's more like "we're going to fix this and we're going to be better for it" and not "yeah, he sucks, this team sucks because of him". Ultimately, it should not be hard to out-scheme Blache. However, I'd hate to waste a McNabb season (not knowing how many he has left) with a defense comprised of misfit players learning a new scheme. Definitely agree... let's hope that either Mcnabb lasts longer than we think or this D gets it together fast. I'm already finding it a 100 times more enjoyable to watch than in previous years at least. I think we're going to have fun against Bradford. With Blache, we had exactly the kind of Defense that a young QB would love, where little question and doubt is involved. We lined up and you got what you saw. I think we'll finally get to exploit a young football mind for once, lol. Mike says the same thing, but the players you have limit the way you can attack a defense. Currently, we're not adept at attacking the teams that can take away the deep threat and give us the dink and dunk, run, ball control game. Well, I hope that "currently" becomes past tense soon. Besides, it's only been two games and while you're not wrong to draw that conclusion based off our inability to dink and dunk against Dallas who took our deep stuff away vs. our intermediary to deep passing field day we had against the Texans, I think it's difficult to say that with authority. It's possible the Texans were trying to take away the deep stuff just like Dallas but we simply executed better. Unless you noticed something they were doing on defense totally different than Dallas... I'll be honest, I didn't really pay attention to their defensive strategy though I know we attacked their young CB Kareem Jackson, I believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 Great points, and that's exactly where I take issue with Buchanon. In my mind, even if he was in zone, isn't there some point where you should just slightly break out of your zone if no one is in it, the play is breaking down and you know there's another WR who just passed from within your zone is the only guy around? Don't coaches tell them that common sense should prevail there?Sure, what you suggest could be what Buchanon did if he thought he had deep zone responsibility, but it was too late. If he knew he was supposed to be in man coverage, the coverage was incredibly poor as KDawg suggests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 Well, I hope that "currently" becomes past tense soon. Besides, it's only been two games and while you're not wrong to draw that conclusion based off our inability to dink and dunk against Dallas who took our deep stuff away vs. our intermediary to deep passing field day we had against the Texans, I think it's difficult to say that with authority. It's possible the Texans were trying to take away the deep stuff just like Dallas but we simply executed better. Unless you noticed something they were doing on defense totally different than Dallas... I'll be honest, I didn't really pay attention to their defensive strategy though I know we attacked their young CB Kareem Jackson, I believe. My comment wasn't based on a two-game sample. McNabb is great as a deep passer but not so hot when the aim is to dink and dunk your way down the field for ball control and field position. Moreover, the ZBS is not ideal for ball control. It breaks long runs more often, but power blocking is better when the aim is just to move the chains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSO Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 My comment wasn't based on a two-game sample. McNabb is great as a deep passer but not so hot when the aim is to dink and dunk your way down the field for ball control and field position. Moreover, the ZBS is not ideal for ball control. It breaks long runs more often, but power blocking is better when the aim is just to move the chains. Ahhh, I see, I should've figured that's what you meant, lol! Well, I'm not going to argue against the fact that Mcnabb has had accuracy issues with the short throws... but he didn't against the Texans, wouldn't you agree? We came out the first drive almost throwing nothing but quick passes, including screen passes to Moss and hitting Sellers in the flat a couple times. We came back to it late in the game as well, and Mcnabb was still pretty accurate especially hitting Keiland out of the backfield. Now, that's not implying Mcnabb will consistently be accurate from here on out on those type of throws, but it was nice to see and there's the slight possibility that he's actually improved there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 Well, I'm not going to argue against the fact that Mcnabb has had accuracy issues with the short throws... but he didn't against the Texans, wouldn't you agree?Donovan looked very sharp against the Texans. We saw the Good McNabb. Now, that's not implying Mcnabb will consistently be accurate from here on out on those type of throws, but it was nice to see and there's the slight possibility that he's actually improved there.Only a homer would see a chance for improvement for a QB now into his 12th season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Est.1974 Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 The issue is not what his assignment was supposed to be. It's whether or not Buchanon KNEW his assignment. What was said on that? Oldfan, Haslett simply said that Buchanon stopped on the play. Nothing to do with assignments at all. He thought the play was dead & didn't realise the QB was still on the move. Thats why he ended up just stood there 5 yards off the receiver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 Oldfan' date=' Haslett simply said that Buchanon stopped on the play. Nothing to do with assignments at all. He thought the play was dead & didn't realise the QB was still on the move. Thats why he ended up just stood there 5 yards off the receiver.[/quote']Wow... That's even dumber than confusing an assignment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Est.1974 Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 Wow... That's even dumber than confusing an assignment. Yep, per Haslett "We had two guys on him, it just happened that the one guy thought the play was over and he didn't finish the play"..."We shoulda had two guys on him" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.