Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

The wide-9 de-manifesto
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Philadelphia Eagles
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Phire


Moderator
Joined: 12 Jan 2007
Posts: 48181
Location: #championchip #2012BirdsHoF #2012GoldStnd #YAKtoseIntolerant #Merica #TrollyRangers #Danes #BirdGang
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 1:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

killdawabbit wrote:
Phire wrote:
That's just it.
There is a huge coaching problem.
But there is also a wide-9 problem.

No, not a problem where a simple scheme or technique prevents anything.
It's a problem with the Jim Washburn wide-9 and the way it incorporated itself into our defense.

The Jim Washburn wide-9 was infused with the flaws of Washburn's personality. Is that coaching? Sure!

But the wide-9 also had problems.
If Jim Washburn were coaching a different system, it would still have the Washburn problem, but it wouldn't have problems specific to the wide-9.

It would be whatever else he was teaching being forced down everyone's throat.

The wide-9 asks our ends to do the same thing, for the whole game. And nothing else.

Even when it means teams are attacking the aggressive front.
Yes, a huge coaching problem exists. But it's not because our coordinators are fools, or simply don't want to adjust.

It's because they cannot. They can't ask their ends to do anything different because the wide-9 has specific goals, and therefore specific demands for the entirety of the game.

As I said before, you cannot respond to a team utilizing a heavy run attack to where our ends are supposed to be by asking Jason Babin to play more at the line to prevent it.

You cannot ask Jason Babin to play outside contain because the opposing QB is a runner.

You cannot ask it because it isn't his duty. It never is his responsibility. And that's the limitations of the Jim Washburn wide-9 that we've employed.

Basically, it says
"Well, we're rushing the passer. We don't care what happens after that, that's the rest of the defense's problem."

And it's incredibly stupid.


i actually agree with nearly all of this post. Except the part where you say the wide 9 demands something the entire game. The wide 9 demands nothing over a period longer than 1 play. Based on the information we have available, it's Jim Washburn that demands the wide 9 for the entire game. No matter how synonymous your personal feelings consider the two, it's not the same thing.


Then we are talking about two different things.
I clarified that before.

I am speaking of the wide-9 as a single entity with Washburn. That applies to our situation in Philadelphia.

The problems are specific to the wide-9 as a result. Washburn is also a problem.
But as I said... if Washburn was implementing the skinny-3 we would be discussing different issues associated with it.
_________________

theuntouchable wrote:
Think about this phire. I am the real chow.

RainbowCarebear wrote:
Only for the quick and lucky.

Danish proverb 3:69
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
killdawabbit


Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 5583
Location: Somewhere you're not.
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 1:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Phire wrote:
killdawabbit wrote:
Phire wrote:
That's just it.
There is a huge coaching problem.
But there is also a wide-9 problem.

No, not a problem where a simple scheme or technique prevents anything.
It's a problem with the Jim Washburn wide-9 and the way it incorporated itself into our defense.

The Jim Washburn wide-9 was infused with the flaws of Washburn's personality. Is that coaching? Sure!

But the wide-9 also had problems.
If Jim Washburn were coaching a different system, it would still have the Washburn problem, but it wouldn't have problems specific to the wide-9.

It would be whatever else he was teaching being forced down everyone's throat.

The wide-9 asks our ends to do the same thing, for the whole game. And nothing else.

Even when it means teams are attacking the aggressive front.
Yes, a huge coaching problem exists. But it's not because our coordinators are fools, or simply don't want to adjust.

It's because they cannot. They can't ask their ends to do anything different because the wide-9 has specific goals, and therefore specific demands for the entirety of the game.

As I said before, you cannot respond to a team utilizing a heavy run attack to where our ends are supposed to be by asking Jason Babin to play more at the line to prevent it.

You cannot ask Jason Babin to play outside contain because the opposing QB is a runner.

You cannot ask it because it isn't his duty. It never is his responsibility. And that's the limitations of the Jim Washburn wide-9 that we've employed.

Basically, it says
"Well, we're rushing the passer. We don't care what happens after that, that's the rest of the defense's problem."

And it's incredibly stupid.


i actually agree with nearly all of this post. Except the part where you say the wide 9 demands something the entire game. The wide 9 demands nothing over a period longer than 1 play. Based on the information we have available, it's Jim Washburn that demands the wide 9 for the entire game. No matter how synonymous your personal feelings consider the two, it's not the same thing.


Then we are talking about two different things.
I clarified that before.

I am speaking of the wide-9 as a single entity with Washburn. That applies to our situation in Philadelphia.

The problems are specific to the wide-9 as a result. Washburn is also a problem.
But as I said... if Washburn was implementing the skinny-3 we would be discussing different issues associated with it.


I already addressed this.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Phire


Moderator
Joined: 12 Jan 2007
Posts: 48181
Location: #championchip #2012BirdsHoF #2012GoldStnd #YAKtoseIntolerant #Merica #TrollyRangers #Danes #BirdGang
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 2:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

killdawabbit wrote:
Phire wrote:
killdawabbit wrote:
Phire wrote:
And there is a huge discrepancy between:

A wide-9 : the scheme/technique/alignment

and

THE WIDE-9 : the particular scheme employed by Jim Washburn in Philadelphia


And this is indeed the primary issue. You continue to blame the formation for a coach's unwillingness to adjust out of it when necessary. That difference you are trying to convey? It's not the formation, it's the coach. You just said it yourself right here in this post.


And I never said coaching wasn't a problem. That was one of my main points.
The emphasis on the problem that arose due to the implementation of such wide-9 has resulted in the other peculiar problems associated with our defense.

If Washburn coached something else... let's say the skinny-3 (making this up here). I'd have a different set of problems attributed to it.


Indeed, but look at what you're typing. Problems would be there regardless of the formation. They would simply be tailored to whatever the particular weakness of that formation was. Why? Because Jim Washburn is an inflexible [inappropriate/removed] who insists on only doing things one way. That is a pure coaching issue. Pure 100% coaching.


Yes, and that is an ASPECT of the defensive problems that I've outlined on the first page.

There is a slew of problems that stem from the wide-9 simply from being the wide-9. Those issues are not simply coaching issues.
_________________

theuntouchable wrote:
Think about this phire. I am the real chow.

RainbowCarebear wrote:
Only for the quick and lucky.

Danish proverb 3:69
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
killdawabbit


Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 5583
Location: Somewhere you're not.
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 7:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Phire wrote:
killdawabbit wrote:
Phire wrote:
killdawabbit wrote:
Phire wrote:
And there is a huge discrepancy between:

A wide-9 : the scheme/technique/alignment

and

THE WIDE-9 : the particular scheme employed by Jim Washburn in Philadelphia


And this is indeed the primary issue. You continue to blame the formation for a coach's unwillingness to adjust out of it when necessary. That difference you are trying to convey? It's not the formation, it's the coach. You just said it yourself right here in this post.


And I never said coaching wasn't a problem. That was one of my main points.
The emphasis on the problem that arose due to the implementation of such wide-9 has resulted in the other peculiar problems associated with our defense.

If Washburn coached something else... let's say the skinny-3 (making this up here). I'd have a different set of problems attributed to it.


Indeed, but look at what you're typing. Problems would be there regardless of the formation. They would simply be tailored to whatever the particular weakness of that formation was. Why? Because Jim Washburn is an inflexible [inappropriate/removed] who insists on only doing things one way. That is a pure coaching issue. Pure 100% coaching.


Yes, and that is an ASPECT of the defensive problems that I've outlined on the first page.

There is a slew of problems that stem from the wide-9 simply from being the wide-9. Those issues are not simply coaching issues.


How could they possibly not be coaching issues? This is the part that makes no sense. You've basically come out and said they were coaching issues, but then you change it up.

Does the wide 9 formation have weaknesses? Yes. All formations and schemes have weaknesses of some sort or another. Allowing opponents to continually exploit those weaknesses is a coaching failure, not a scheme/formation failure. A scheme literally cannot "require" a team to do anything without a coach's mind behind that requirement.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Phire


Moderator
Joined: 12 Jan 2007
Posts: 48181
Location: #championchip #2012BirdsHoF #2012GoldStnd #YAKtoseIntolerant #Merica #TrollyRangers #Danes #BirdGang
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 7:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

killdawabbit wrote:
Phire wrote:
killdawabbit wrote:
Phire wrote:
killdawabbit wrote:
Phire wrote:
And there is a huge discrepancy between:

A wide-9 : the scheme/technique/alignment

and

THE WIDE-9 : the particular scheme employed by Jim Washburn in Philadelphia


And this is indeed the primary issue. You continue to blame the formation for a coach's unwillingness to adjust out of it when necessary. That difference you are trying to convey? It's not the formation, it's the coach. You just said it yourself right here in this post.


And I never said coaching wasn't a problem. That was one of my main points.
The emphasis on the problem that arose due to the implementation of such wide-9 has resulted in the other peculiar problems associated with our defense.

If Washburn coached something else... let's say the skinny-3 (making this up here). I'd have a different set of problems attributed to it.


Indeed, but look at what you're typing. Problems would be there regardless of the formation. They would simply be tailored to whatever the particular weakness of that formation was. Why? Because Jim Washburn is an inflexible [inappropriate/removed] who insists on only doing things one way. That is a pure coaching issue. Pure 100% coaching.


Yes, and that is an ASPECT of the defensive problems that I've outlined on the first page.

There is a slew of problems that stem from the wide-9 simply from being the wide-9. Those issues are not simply coaching issues.


How could they possibly not be coaching issues? This is the part that makes no sense. You've basically come out and said they were coaching issues, but then you change it up.

Does the wide 9 formation have weaknesses? Yes. All formations and schemes have weaknesses of some sort or another. Allowing opponents to continually exploit those weaknesses is a coaching failure, not a scheme/formation failure. A scheme literally cannot "require" a team to do anything without a coach's mind behind that requirement.


The wide-9 has inherent deficiencies. By definition it sacrifices run responsibilities to get after the quarterback.

This is not a coaching issue. This is a wide-9 issue.

The fact that we never leave the wide-9 is a coaching issue, which is also part of my argument.

I cannot make this any clearer.
_________________

theuntouchable wrote:
Think about this phire. I am the real chow.

RainbowCarebear wrote:
Only for the quick and lucky.

Danish proverb 3:69
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
killdawabbit


Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 5583
Location: Somewhere you're not.
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 8:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Phire wrote:
killdawabbit wrote:
Phire wrote:
killdawabbit wrote:
Phire wrote:
killdawabbit wrote:
Phire wrote:
And there is a huge discrepancy between:

A wide-9 : the scheme/technique/alignment

and

THE WIDE-9 : the particular scheme employed by Jim Washburn in Philadelphia


And this is indeed the primary issue. You continue to blame the formation for a coach's unwillingness to adjust out of it when necessary. That difference you are trying to convey? It's not the formation, it's the coach. You just said it yourself right here in this post.


And I never said coaching wasn't a problem. That was one of my main points.
The emphasis on the problem that arose due to the implementation of such wide-9 has resulted in the other peculiar problems associated with our defense.

If Washburn coached something else... let's say the skinny-3 (making this up here). I'd have a different set of problems attributed to it.


Indeed, but look at what you're typing. Problems would be there regardless of the formation. They would simply be tailored to whatever the particular weakness of that formation was. Why? Because Jim Washburn is an inflexible [inappropriate/removed] who insists on only doing things one way. That is a pure coaching issue. Pure 100% coaching.


Yes, and that is an ASPECT of the defensive problems that I've outlined on the first page.

There is a slew of problems that stem from the wide-9 simply from being the wide-9. Those issues are not simply coaching issues.


How could they possibly not be coaching issues? This is the part that makes no sense. You've basically come out and said they were coaching issues, but then you change it up.

Does the wide 9 formation have weaknesses? Yes. All formations and schemes have weaknesses of some sort or another. Allowing opponents to continually exploit those weaknesses is a coaching failure, not a scheme/formation failure. A scheme literally cannot "require" a team to do anything without a coach's mind behind that requirement.


The wide-9 has inherent deficiencies. By definition it sacrifices run responsibilities to get after the quarterback.

This is not a coaching issue. This is a wide-9 issue.

The fact that we never leave the wide-9 is a coaching issue, which is also part of my argument.

I cannot make this any clearer.


Um, OK? Then what's with the whole primarily blaming the wide 9 thing then? Unless you believe there is a formation out there that has no weakness, you are piling blame on a formation that is [in the sense of having weaknesses] no different than any other.

If the wide 9 was inappropriate to use in a given situation is that not on the coaches if they use it anyway? It's not the formation's fault it has weaknesses, it was designed with a specific intent. Again, and I can't stress this enough, all formations have weaknesses. Do you blame them when they fail because an offense exploits them repeatedly or do you blame the coach for misusing the formation?
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Phire


Moderator
Joined: 12 Jan 2007
Posts: 48181
Location: #championchip #2012BirdsHoF #2012GoldStnd #YAKtoseIntolerant #Merica #TrollyRangers #Danes #BirdGang
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 8:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

killdawabbit wrote:
Phire wrote:
killdawabbit wrote:
Phire wrote:
killdawabbit wrote:
Phire wrote:
killdawabbit wrote:
Phire wrote:
And there is a huge discrepancy between:

A wide-9 : the scheme/technique/alignment

and

THE WIDE-9 : the particular scheme employed by Jim Washburn in Philadelphia


And this is indeed the primary issue. You continue to blame the formation for a coach's unwillingness to adjust out of it when necessary. That difference you are trying to convey? It's not the formation, it's the coach. You just said it yourself right here in this post.


And I never said coaching wasn't a problem. That was one of my main points.
The emphasis on the problem that arose due to the implementation of such wide-9 has resulted in the other peculiar problems associated with our defense.

If Washburn coached something else... let's say the skinny-3 (making this up here). I'd have a different set of problems attributed to it.


Indeed, but look at what you're typing. Problems would be there regardless of the formation. They would simply be tailored to whatever the particular weakness of that formation was. Why? Because Jim Washburn is an inflexible [inappropriate/removed] who insists on only doing things one way. That is a pure coaching issue. Pure 100% coaching.


Yes, and that is an ASPECT of the defensive problems that I've outlined on the first page.

There is a slew of problems that stem from the wide-9 simply from being the wide-9. Those issues are not simply coaching issues.


How could they possibly not be coaching issues? This is the part that makes no sense. You've basically come out and said they were coaching issues, but then you change it up.

Does the wide 9 formation have weaknesses? Yes. All formations and schemes have weaknesses of some sort or another. Allowing opponents to continually exploit those weaknesses is a coaching failure, not a scheme/formation failure. A scheme literally cannot "require" a team to do anything without a coach's mind behind that requirement.


The wide-9 has inherent deficiencies. By definition it sacrifices run responsibilities to get after the quarterback.

This is not a coaching issue. This is a wide-9 issue.

The fact that we never leave the wide-9 is a coaching issue, which is also part of my argument.

I cannot make this any clearer.


Um, OK? Then what's with the whole primarily blaming the wide 9 thing then? Unless you believe there is a formation out there that has no weakness, you are piling blame on a formation that is [in the sense of having weaknesses] no different than any other.

If the wide 9 was inappropriate to use in a given situation is that not on the coaches if they use it anyway? It's not the formation's fault it has weaknesses, it was designed with a specific intent. Again, and I can't stress this enough, all formations have weaknesses. Do you blame them when they fail because an offense exploits them repeatedly or do you blame the coach for misusing the formation?


There is no perfect scheme.
The post was to highlight the problems with the type, style, and system specific to the Philadelphia Eagles.

It's the same analysis we make of our players. No players are perfect, yet, we can critique them. I am critiquing the problems of the wide-9 and the problems we've encountered by its over-application and misuse.

You are taking my arguments as if they are necessarily one way or the other. It is clear from the very first words in my first post that the problems identified were not simply a schematic issue, but a culmination of all issues on defense INCLUDING COACHING.

This is a critique of the wide-9.

When I say "the wide-9" I am implying it is the Washburn wide-9 of the Philadelphia Eagles, not the wide-9 the technique.
_________________

theuntouchable wrote:
Think about this phire. I am the real chow.

RainbowCarebear wrote:
Only for the quick and lucky.

Danish proverb 3:69
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bednarik60


Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 32998
Location: Jortland, Oregon<3
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I blame Jim Washburns old hagg of a wife for always complaining and keeping him up all night and unfocused despite the 200,000 dollar credit line she built up at Saks Fifth Aevenue off Jimmy Da Burns Wide 9-Paycheck...



Noooo really....

Wide 9 has to be a all in scheme. All schemes start from the line and works back..You have to have a really "Blue Collar" defensive back 7 and a very "Blue Collar" Defensive Coordinator/or Head Coach to keep that back 7 of linebackers and defensive backs "Blue Collar". I think particularly at Safety/Corner/Linebacker you have to sacrifice some speed and ball skills for physicality-size-toughness with the critical needs for the 2 Safety and the NT position being the most physical players on the field for the defense..As stupid as the play calling on defense has been, the back 7 is in position to make plays, "but but but Babin bubbaaaressponssibilitiziezz!!", yeah the RB/TE/WR had the ball on first contact 7 yards from the first down marker and broke through/ran over 7 guys to get those 7 yards, then the next play he breaks those same 7 guys for 30 yards and etc... same 7 guys who cant tackle over and over again...Nose Tackle, Safety and Corners in Tennessee were so "Blue Collar" and i think that was the major major difference
_________________

Sig/Art by The Great Silo
#championCHIP #CHIPlife #Sparkles
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
NoHypeNeeded


Joined: 09 Jan 2008
Posts: 10546
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 6:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I just wanna say I agree with Phire's assertion that the wide 9 was pretty much for Wash to say "well we'll rush the passer, anything after that is on the rest of the defense". I felt the same way and it obviously severely limited/handicapped/effed our whole defense up.
_________________
Jroc04 wrote:
This is the Eagles forum; we woke up drinking.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
killdawabbit


Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 5583
Location: Somewhere you're not.
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 6:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NoHypeNeeded wrote:
I just wanna say I agree with Phire's assertion that the wide 9 was pretty much for Wash to say "well we'll rush the passer, anything after that is on the rest of the defense". I felt the same way and it obviously severely limited/handicapped/effed our whole defense up.


Which is a coaching issue, not a formation issue...
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NoHypeNeeded


Joined: 09 Jan 2008
Posts: 10546
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 6:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

killdawabbit wrote:
NoHypeNeeded wrote:
I just wanna say I agree with Phire's assertion that the wide 9 was pretty much for Wash to say "well we'll rush the passer, anything after that is on the rest of the defense". I felt the same way and it obviously severely limited/handicapped/effed our whole defense up.


Which is a coaching issue, not a formation issue...


Yeah, I think thats why I said "for Wash to say".. it was a coaching issue, but at the same time the general idea of that formation is pretty much to rush the passer and disregard anything else going on in the play. That much is obvious.
_________________
Jroc04 wrote:
This is the Eagles forum; we woke up drinking.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Phire


Moderator
Joined: 12 Jan 2007
Posts: 48181
Location: #championchip #2012BirdsHoF #2012GoldStnd #YAKtoseIntolerant #Merica #TrollyRangers #Danes #BirdGang
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 6:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nobody said it was not a coaching issue.
_________________

theuntouchable wrote:
Think about this phire. I am the real chow.

RainbowCarebear wrote:
Only for the quick and lucky.

Danish proverb 3:69
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
killdawabbit


Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 5583
Location: Somewhere you're not.
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 6:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NoHypeNeeded wrote:
killdawabbit wrote:
NoHypeNeeded wrote:
I just wanna say I agree with Phire's assertion that the wide 9 was pretty much for Wash to say "well we'll rush the passer, anything after that is on the rest of the defense". I felt the same way and it obviously severely limited/handicapped/effed our whole defense up.


Which is a coaching issue, not a formation issue...


Yeah, I think thats why I said "for Wash to say".. it was a coaching issue, but at the same time the general idea of that formation is pretty much to rush the passer and disregard anything else going on in the play. That much is obvious.


True enough. It's purpose built and it did what it was designed for well...at least for awhile (tons of DLine sacks last season). Then teams began to exploit the weaknesses of the formation and the Eagles failed to adjust out more often than not (to Castillo's credit he was able to install a minor adjustment last season that helped, but I don't know what happened to that).

Obviously we can't definitively point to who the issue was, but based on what we know it certainly appears to be Washburn's insistence on complete control of the defensive line and his lack of flexibility in working with the rest of the defense.

What I'm curious about though is the complete and utter failure the defense has become since the bye. We know there were players that questioned Castillo's ability. We also know that Bowles was (at least supposedly) well respected. We further know that Bowles was considered to be an well qualified candidate as a DC. Even considering the difficulties of taking over a unit mid-season, the team regressed significantly. It even appears that Juan was able to deal with the difficulties of having a portion of his defense dictated to him by a positional coach better. The players have seemed unmotivated and confused on the field much more often than even the beginning of last year (which was bad enough in its own right). Perhaps removing the Washburn "cancer" will help that. But that would appear point to an issue with Bowles ability to adjust [to the demands of the line] and/or to deal with difficult personalities. I think it's a distinct possibility that his time here could hurt his career moving forward. Or maybe the defense improves significantly over the next few games and he looks like a genius...
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Phire


Moderator
Joined: 12 Jan 2007
Posts: 48181
Location: #championchip #2012BirdsHoF #2012GoldStnd #YAKtoseIntolerant #Merica #TrollyRangers #Danes #BirdGang
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 8:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think any time you have a switch like that, it shakes things up.

Bowles was the DB coach, when he was promoted there was another guy who became the DB coach. We don't know how well he's coaching those guys.

Just a ill-timed swap. We know Washburn wasn't playing nicely.
That sucks because Andy wanted Bowles to "maximize" the defense. Which means he had to try something different.

Before his first game, Bowles promised they'd try to de-simplify things, only thing is... it was already a few weeks into the season.
_________________

theuntouchable wrote:
Think about this phire. I am the real chow.

RainbowCarebear wrote:
Only for the quick and lucky.

Danish proverb 3:69
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Phire


Moderator
Joined: 12 Jan 2007
Posts: 48181
Location: #championchip #2012BirdsHoF #2012GoldStnd #YAKtoseIntolerant #Merica #TrollyRangers #Danes #BirdGang
PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The jury is still out, but here are two things that jumped out immediately:

1. Limited DE responsibilities.

http://delcotimes.com/articles/2012/12/10/sports/doc50c545bf7bece246812070.txt

Quote:
“You know, it is more about technique with the new coach. Even though Coach Wash was, too, he was more about getting up field. The new coach is more about stopping the run. That’s what we did. That opened up the pass and everybody was hungry to get after them.”


Our linemen sharing responsibilities against the run helped make some plays on Doug Martin.

I think Fletcher Cox snuffed out a RB screen, in prior weeks he never would have seen it.

2. The safeties and secondary take the largest punishment

I think this one is important:
http://www.philadelphiaeagles.com/news/article-1/Allen-D-Line-Change-Made-Difference/d904c13d-2b56-47fa-a589-ba5e10e81dde

Quote:
"It was a lot different. As far as run fits, it kind of took a little pressure off of us back there as safeties," said Allen, who had five tackles on defense and two more on special teams. "It gives us time to see things as far as play-action fakes. You can just be patient with everything. That helps a lot because they were trying to hit us with the play-action and go over the top. I think we did a great job with that."


This is what I wrote in this thread a few weeks ago:
Phire wrote:
But I think the deeper problem is that the wide-9 simply asks too much of our safeties and both Nate Allen and Kurt Coleman, as bad as they've been, are being abused by the wide-9 and the defensive scheme.


This is what is being said this week:
PE.com wrote:
The Eagles have been plagued by breakdowns in pass coverage for most of the season. The stress that the Wide-9 technique placed on the safeties forced them to be out of position on pass plays. Opposing quarterbacks had been putting up record numbers against the Eagles.


Moving beyond the Jim Washburn/Wide-9 days will definitely result in a profound improvement for the future. It's just surprising we saw it taking shape immediately against a play-off caliber team.
_________________

theuntouchable wrote:
Think about this phire. I am the real chow.

RainbowCarebear wrote:
Only for the quick and lucky.

Danish proverb 3:69
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Philadelphia Eagles All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 6 of 7

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group