Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

The competent thing to do.


1of10Charnatives
 Share

Recommended Posts

Pop quiz:

When facing Tom Brady on his home turf in a game that is the season for both teams and with a depleted secondary, the competent thing to do is:

A) Only rush 3 and drop everyone else into coverage, telling yourself that although this has spelled disaster for every team that's tried it against Brady for 20 years, this time it will work for you, because you might be conservative, but gosh darn it, you've got character.

B) Do literally anything else predicated on the understanding that as sure as the sky is blue, water is wet and women have secrets, if you don't get to Brady, he will pick your young secondary of limited physical abilities apart throwing to his Pro Bowl receivers. Blitz or die.

  • Pie 6
  • The D 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mr. Scot said:

Blitz him and he'll find the open spot and pick you apart anyway, though.

The best way to deal with Brady tends to be to generate pressure with four rushers if you can.

If you can't, it's likely just gonna be a "pick your poison" thing.

 

I'm not saying the odds are great with either option. 

I'm saying there is 20 years worth of tape that a competent coaching staff would be aware of demonstrating that sitting back and hoping you can get there when it didn't happen in the first half has a mathematical probably of success difficult to distinguish from zero.

Most of the time I agree he's going to find the open spot and pick you apart, but to anyone who doesn't believe in magic pixie dust and Santa Clause, it's the only chance you've got.

  • Pie 4
  • The D 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, 1of10Charnatives said:

I'm not saying the odds are great with either option. 

I'm saying there is 20 years worth of tape that a competent coaching staff would be aware of demonstrating that sitting back and hoping you can get there when it didn't happen in the first half has a mathematical probably of success difficult to distinguish from zero.

Most of the time I agree he's going to find the open spot and pick you apart, but to anyone who doesn't believe in magic pixie dust and Santa Clause, it's the only chance you've got.

After which you've got people screaming "Why did we blitz when we knew Brady would dissect us like that? We should have kept more guys in coverage!"

It's just a no-win situation.

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mr. Scot said:

After which you've got people screaming "Why did we blitz when we knew Brady would dissect us like that? We should have kept more guys in coverage!"

It's just a no-win situation.

Disagree.

it's a no chance of success vs a small chance of success decision. Two of TB's best olinemen are just working back in after lengthy injury.  Can your edge rushers win their one on one matchups with their tackles? If the answer in the first half is no, how do you tell yourself if you're competent, that sitting back in the second half in a close game when your run game isn't able to keep Brady off the field will work out for you in the end.

You had one chance and one chance only, keep bringing the heat and hope doing so was able to generate one or two game changing turnovers.

Tell me I'm wrong when your other option was hope Taylor would be able to keep Mike Evans in check while your 3 man rush gave Brady time to order a pizza and eat it before throwing.

 

This is one of the core problems with conservative coaches. They almost never recognize when the small percentage gambit is still their best option, and retreat into tried and true zero percentage moves because they're "safe".

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate brady. I think I've hinted around at that in here.

But he's the goat for a reason. When he's on, you can't stop him. Few have been able to. He's not on as much as he used to be, but he's shown several times this season that when it's clicking for him, he's still the goat.

Sunday it was clicking at it was on and we were down a couple necessary parts from being able to hope to stop him. It was just a bad day to have it click on for him again.

  • Pie 2
  • Beer 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Khyber53 said:

And possibly double cover Mike Evans in every game. Don't stick a slow third string DB on him.

Just saying.

We lost that game, in the end, because of Jaycee Horn's injury. 

That’s how good that kid is, just think if he still had Gilmore. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Mr. Scot said:

Blitz him and he'll find the open spot and pick you apart anyway, though.

The best way to deal with Brady tends to be to generate pressure with four rushers if you can.

If you can't, it's likely just gonna be a "pick your poison" thing.

 

Rush hard and fast at the start.  He seems to get flustered.  But, TB has some big linemen to go through.  Brady needs to retire and have a good life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Here is how Morgan is strategic-He re-signs Scott because he was not going S in round 1--he had the chance, and he did not.  He saw the top of the draft at T and knew none of them would be ready to start day 1, so he signs a veteran to a one-year deal, giving his tackle selection a chance to learn and prepare for what might be LT or RT.  Those two moves suggested, perhaps ironically because they contradict each other, what he was going to do, based on the talent pool.  He never brought in a Robinson replacement at DE/NT, and then moves up to draft one.   I almost wonder if the intent was to draft DT/DE all along at some point, maybe with a trade back, but then Freeling dropped to them.   Of course, we felt that they were looking WR, and wonder if the plan was to draft a WR in round 2 if you traded back in round 1.  However, when Freeling was there, the trade back fell apart.  Then we traded up for Hunter.  We could stick with XL and hope Metchie steps up, so we sat still in round three and took Brazell II, a 1000 yard speedster and perfect Z WR.  What a break. At that time, CB and Center were our biggest needs, and with several possible centers on the board and a good fit for our defense at CB, we grabbed Will Lee III.  Lee and Thornton have people in front of them, but I think Morgan knew we needed a guy who can play the outside and press--and probably step in as Jackson's replacement in 2027.    After making trades to get back into the fifth round, where we grabbed one of the best centers in the draft.  This is significant because we signed Fortner to a one-year deal; maybe Morgan saw what some of us saw--the center position is strong in this draft--on day 3, and day 3 players need a year, in most cases.  Moments later, a safety they had been talking to whose skill set matched what we are looking for in a FS.  As stated, Scott was signed,  but the fact that the Panthers were talking to Wheatley and not Theiemann means that they might have known they were not going FS early, but would need a developmental FS later--which explains why we signed Scott.  So if you pay attention to the one-year, vet deals, you can tell where we planned to sign later-round, developmental players.  What positions did we draft early that did not have 1-year veterans signed in front of them:  DL (Hunter) and WR (I don't count Metchie because I count starting-level players). I would not be surprised to learn later that the plan was DT and WR in rounds 1 and 2--then Freeling fell.  Notice that Freeling--from Mt Pleasant SC, did not come in for a visit.  Most of the other OT candidates had short arms or were certain to be gone. I don't think Freeling was in their plans.  I think a trade back and Hunter and maybe Boston was the vision.  I am guessing that CB was also high on their list.   So in this draft, we got 
    • This is one area I think that is not getting enough exposure in the midst of all the optimism. I like Chuba a great deal from a personal standpoint but he has largely proven nothing on a consistent basis yet. He's had the one season of production but before that most people pegged us as moving on. And last year injuries or not he just did not have that juice. The rest of the guys are completely unproven. I don't see anyone among the group having a game or a handful of games worth of high level production the way Rico Dowdle did last year. And yeah he dropped off and yeah he got an attitude about our incompetent handling of the touches which was honestly justified on his part and he moved on but he did legitimately save our season. That's what it is going to take to seize control of the NFC South. We all know that we will not be passing all over defenses. It is what it is. So who amongst this RB group is capable of doing that? And if we are struggling to run the ball AND pass are we going to revert to making excuses for our coach and QB again? That is definitely getting old.
×
×
  • Create New...