PDA

View Full Version : Question abouth the D



billsburgh
10-01-2007, 11:37 AM
what is it about this defensive scheme that allows running backs to be uncovered when they come out of the backfield as receivers? I would bet that close to half of Pennington's completions were to backs and they were good for 7-10 yards each time because nobody was around them when they caught the ball. It just seems as though nobody accounts for a back coming out of the backfield.

Mahdi
10-01-2007, 11:52 AM
what is it about this defensive scheme that allows running backs to be uncovered when they come out of the backfield as receivers? I would bet that close to half of Pennington's completions were to backs and they were good for 7-10 yards each time because nobody was around them when they caught the ball. It just seems as though nobody accounts for a back coming out of the backfield.
The goal of the Cover 2 is to keep everything in front of you. Rather than having LBs chasing Rbs out of the backfield the LBs sit 7-8 yards off the LOS so they can read and react to wherever the throw is made. When Ellison returns and the LBs get more comfortable they should improve at making those tackles closer to the LOS.

billsburgh
10-01-2007, 12:15 PM
thanks for the explanation. on a couple of plays that I tried to focus on the LBs (mostly DiGeorgio) on these types of plays, it looked like when he recognized pass he would just turn and run to his drop zone, not paying any attention to what was happening right in fron to him.

jdbillsfan
10-01-2007, 12:22 PM
thanks for the explanation. on a couple of plays that I tried to focus on the LBs (mostly DiGeorgio) on these types of plays, it looked like when he recognized pass he would just turn and run to his drop zone, not paying any attention to what was happening right in fron to him.

I noticed the same thing the week before. He runs backwards, into the deeper zone, even though no one is there and there is a running back that runs to the spot he left for an easy 7 yard gain.

I guess it happened this week too. I dont understand.

Philagape
10-01-2007, 12:29 PM
That's what zone D is all about. You cover a zone, whether someone's there or not.

EDS
10-01-2007, 12:33 PM
That's what zone D is all about. You cover a zone, whether someone's there or not.

And it is why it is a guaranteed way to give up big yardage without a top notch pass rush.

billsburgh
10-01-2007, 12:37 PM
That's what zone D is all about. You cover a zone, whether someone's there or not.
well nobody is covering the short middle zone and it was killing them yesterday. maybe that was Kyle Williams or Jason Jefferson's repsonsibility when they were dropping back into coverage.

Philagape
10-01-2007, 12:39 PM
And it is why it is a guaranteed way to give up big yardage without a top notch pass rush.

yup.

And by locking up Schobel and Kelsay, the Bills will have the status quo for the next several years.

justasportsfan
10-01-2007, 01:12 PM
thanks for the explanation. on a couple of plays that I tried to focus on the LBs (mostly DiGeorgio) on these types of plays, it looked like when he recognized pass he would just turn and run to his drop zone, not paying any attention to what was happening right in fron to him.
thats as bare bones as it gets. With all the injuries to our team our D was being conservative. Let them have the checkdowns but don't give up the big play. Even though they were getting the checkdowns Chad still went to the sidelines becuase the checkdowns weren't enough. If you risk DiG getting closer to the LOS during a passing play, Chad could've burned us up the middle. Chad barely if he even threw up the middle 10-30 yards deep because the MLB had it covered.

EDS
10-01-2007, 03:16 PM
well nobody is covering the short middle zone and it was killing them yesterday. maybe that was Kyle Williams or Jason Jefferson's repsonsibility when they were dropping back into coverage.

No defensive tackle should be dropping back into coverage, particularly guys like Jefferson and Williams. That is a badly designed defense if it is intentional.