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

Coaching Failure - Not Using Players Correctly
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL General
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Fire Dom?
Yes, he is dumb.
37%
 37%  [ 6 ]
No, over reaciton
62%
 62%  [ 10 ]
Total Votes : 16

Author Message
x0x


Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 15418
Location: Ontario, Canada
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 11:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yeah when I was coaching football, and really any team sport, it takes me maybe 2-3 games to assess the strength of my players and what roles they need to play.


The fact paid professionals don't get it is mind blowing to say the least.
_________________
Legends Never Die. They Breathe Through The New Generation.
100 Greatest Quarterbacks of All Time
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fraziafraze07


Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 9154
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 11:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

khodder wrote:
fraziafraze07 wrote:
Chudzinski calls a pass play against the Seahawks...Newton had a man open and threw it in the dirt, but that doesn't change the fact that it was a bad call.


A play that would have worked if it had been executed properly cannot be called a bad play call, that is bad player execution. Was it the best play call in that situation, maybe not, but it is not "bad" if it results in a touchdown with correct execution.


I acknowledged Newton should have made the play. And while it would not have been a "bad" call by that criteria, the fact remains that it is still a worse call relative to running the QB sneak there. A coach's job is to put their players in the best position to win. Running the sneak is gives the team the highest probability of scoring there.

It's just frustrating to see a coach over think this stuff, even if what they do had the chance to turn out OK.
_________________


Rich7sena wrote:
Someone's going HAM on the button in Buffalo Wild Wings.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Chiefer


Joined: 20 Nov 2009
Posts: 11162
Location: Somewhere in an Arizona Desert...
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 11:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Crennel not utilizing Eric Berrys coverage skills by keeping him in the box and playing Abram Elam like a free safety instead.
_________________
Andy Reid on Tommy Bahama Shirts wrote:
You wear them and you can hide cheeseburgers underneath and no one will ever know.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jakuvious


Joined: 06 Sep 2010
Posts: 8759
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 12:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Chiefer wrote:
Crennel not utilizing Eric Berrys coverage skills by keeping him in the box and playing Abram Elam like a free safety instead.


Even worse is having him in one-on-one man coverage against all-pro TEs.

At least have the guy in some kind of zone coverage where he can actually read the play, even if you want him closer in the box.
_________________

Adopt-a-Chief: Travis Kelce
Pre-Season: 5 receptions, 132 yards, 2 TDs
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Timothy67


Joined: 22 Nov 2011
Posts: 1030
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 1:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

JaguarCrazy2832 wrote:
What the hell?

That cant be right, why are they even playing zone that much more than man?


I am no expert but is it even plausable to play nothing but man to man?

I would expect that man to man is much more tiring for the secondary. In a zone you dump off your assignment when the receiver moves on. So you run less and dont wear down as much as when your forced play after play to stay in stride in man coverage.

What would a defense look like by the late 3rd and into the 4th quarter if they ran nothing but man to man or a majority of man to man?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lomaxgr


Joined: 30 Dec 2006
Posts: 21033
Location: Manchester, England
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 4:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jack Del Rio got absolutely abused by The Patriots Offense from a personnel stand point in the 1st half of our game this past Sunday. The Patriots came out on one drive with their Ace Personnel (2 WR, 2 TE, 1 RB) and for some reason we decided to match this with our Nickel Defense. Joe Mays was out of the game with an injury at the time, and our LB's were 230lbs Wesley Woodyard (a below average LB against the run) and 232lbs Danny Trevathan, a Rookie who had played no more than 10 NFL snaps before the game.

The Patriots simply lined up with both of their TE's (Gronk and Fells) inline and pounded the ball at us with a no huddle Offense so we couldn't sub more weight into the lineup. The Patriots ran the ball 6 times in 8 plays for a total of 38 yards on the ground (another 17 through the air), and eventually scored a TD on that drive.

I know it seems minimalistic, but against a quality Offense you have to put your Defense in a position to succeed. Del Rio clearly didn't do this at times this past Sunday.
_________________


MUFC OK
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Russell2Bailey


Joined: 20 Mar 2008
Posts: 12905
Location: Where I will, I'll roam.
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 4:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whenever I hear about a coach's scheme/use of a player screwing up that player/players, I think of Herschel Walker after he was a Cowgirl.
_________________
[quote="Reggie Nelson#1"] Radio-"Peyton give the ball to Ball. Ball drops the ball & Ball scoops it up! He's going downfield, TOUCHDOWN! Ball pats him on the back for when he lost the ball."[/quote]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
RainbowCarebear


Joined: 31 Aug 2011
Posts: 34603
Location: "Are you hungry, child?" Yes, she thought, but not for food.
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 7:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Eagles_808 wrote:
JaguarCrazy2832 wrote:
What the hell?

That cant be right, why are they even playing zone that much more than man?


This is the exact question Eagles fans ask of DC Juan Castillo. It makes no sense with the current roster to play zone more than 5-10% of the time, if that.


And blitz a little more. But yeah, Juan forces the zone a bit too much to try and help create turnovers.
_________________

"Do you imagine Whoresbane loves you any better? If you did not hold the ..., he would pull out your entrails and make you eat them"
"In return, we swore that we should always be their men"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MNPackfan32


Joined: 22 Sep 2010
Posts: 7864
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Timothy67 wrote:
JaguarCrazy2832 wrote:
What the hell?

That cant be right, why are they even playing zone that much more than man?


I am no expert but is it even plausable to play nothing but man to man?

I would expect that man to man is much more tiring for the secondary. In a zone you dump off your assignment when the receiver moves on. So you run less and dont wear down as much as when your forced play after play to stay in stride in man coverage.

What would a defense look like by the late 3rd and into the 4th quarter if they ran nothing but man to man or a majority of man to man?
Its not like every play the offense is going 5 wide and running all 9 routes. Its just as tiring for the WR's to run their routes. Plus you add in run plays that aren't twards a corner they get a small breather. I wouldn't say that we should never play zone, but not more than 5% of our defensive snaps IMO.
_________________



Duff Man wrote:
MNPackfan32 wrote:
Josh Sitton, Mike Daniels

Average at best
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RAVINGMADD


Joined: 15 Jan 2009
Posts: 2514
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 12:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MNPackfan32 wrote:
Timothy67 wrote:
JaguarCrazy2832 wrote:
What the hell?

That cant be right, why are they even playing zone that much more than man?


I am no expert but is it even plausable to play nothing but man to man?

I would expect that man to man is much more tiring for the secondary. In a zone you dump off your assignment when the receiver moves on. So you run less and dont wear down as much as when your forced play after play to stay in stride in man coverage.

What would a defense look like by the late 3rd and into the 4th quarter if they ran nothing but man to man or a majority of man to man?
Its not like every play the offense is going 5 wide and running all 9 routes. Its just as tiring for the WR's to run their routes. Plus you add in run plays that aren't twards a corner they get a small breather. I wouldn't say that we should never play zone, but not more than 5% of our defensive snaps IMO.

That's not true. It's usually easier to run away from someone, than it is chase someone. The defense is going to tire down faster than the offense, whether it be in zone or man coverage. And playing a lot of man coverage would definitely tire you down faster than zone.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL General All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
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