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!

     

Luvu & Chinn


shaq
 Share

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, SmokinwithWilly said:

Because after nearly winning DROY, and he should have realistically, the coaching staff decided to move him out of the position he was dominating. Opposing offenses couldn't neutralize him, so our coaching staff did it for them. 

The closer he is to the LOS, the better he becomes. To me, he's a Robber or WLB. Lining him up at FS is beyond dumb. 

  • Pie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kungfoodude said:

Fair but we also can tailor our entire scheme around a player that really is not an elite player at an elite position.

I love Chinn but he didn't fit what we were doing and our plans for him didn't work out. It just is what it is.

I agree, you take the entire group and tailor the style to that groups talents.  But if we couldn't figure out a way to use him, probably should have traded much earlier.  

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, SmokinwithWilly said:

Because after nearly winning DROY, and he should have realistically, the coaching staff decided to move him out of the position he was dominating. Opposing offenses couldn't neutralize him, so our coaching staff did it for them. 

The constant changing of coaching staffs probably didn't help much.  

  • Beer 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, outlaw4 said:

We seemingly couldn't figure out how to use Chinn here. 

We tried keeping Luvu but he chose Washington over us.

 

Not we, Evero. 

Chinn showed all the promise in the world as a ''box'' defender, but since Evero tends to play a lot of 2 deep shells, Cov 2, 4, 6, and 9 (this is aside from personnel is why we struggle with the run at times because the safeties are typically both back) it limits Chinn's ability as a utility piece, and playing him as a F/T nickel was not something he could do fool time. 

Chinn is a chess piece you move around each game to attack an offense, blitz, run defense, coverage, not sit off the ball 20 yards. 

Dude is 6'3 220, he needed to be deployed near the LOS. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Dave Gettleman's Shorts said:

instead they tried to reinvent the wheel and play him like he was Earl Thomas

they should have went the Thomas Davis route and bulked Chinn 10-15 pounds and convert him full time into a OLB, but obviously Chinn wouldn't work in Evero's 3-4

A slightly heavier Chinn would have been a GREAT Will LB in a 4-3.  Free to chase the ball?  He'd be a monster in the run game, and good enough to cover most RB's out of the backfield.  I'm glad he's finding success now in Washington, he's a good dude.

  • Beer 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Navy_football said:

I don't think he was too small. He was about 220 and they played him there alot his rookie year when he was 2nd place DROY. Maybe another 10 pounds would have helped, but not absolutely necessary. 

TD was a tweener that got pretty bulky. Chinn probably could be the same. 

It will be interesting to watch his career.

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

7 hours ago, BrianS said:

A slightly heavier Chinn would have been a GREAT Will LB in a 4-3.  Free to chase the ball?  He'd be a monster in the run game, and good enough to cover most RB's out of the backfield.  I'm glad he's finding success now in Washington, he's a good dude.

if Marty hurney and a 4-3 defensive coordinator was here, Chinn would still be here 

  • Pie 1
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

    • It's honestly pretty interesting just seeing this pairing play out. Canales’ offenses (Seattle, Tampa) are run-first, under-center, play-action systems built around defined reads and intermediate/deep timing throws. That structure worked when he had QBs like Baker Mayfield or Russell Wilson in a system that created clear launch points and sightlines. His success has always been tied to a credible run game + play-action gravity. You can see that with the Panthers team building philosophy as well. Coker and TMac both are bigger receivers that won't get the best YAC production but thrive as possession receivers in contested scenarios. They're not the best in space and creating additional yardage in such, and would likely fair better systematically with a stronger armed QB who can create better opportunities on those boundary 1v1 matchups with stronger throws. Bryce, on the other hand, is a spread-native QB. His strengths are rhythm, spacing, quick processing, and off-script creation. Asking him to live in condensed formations with long-developing play-action concepts just hasn't been his forte. And well, his boundary throws are limited in velocity which takes a big chunk of the playbook off. And I mean a QB like Bryce can still work, it's just Dave's offensive philosophy and foundation is very much at odds with Young's physical limits and his own experience. So it's certainly still a learning experience for Dave to figure out how he can mesh his offensive philosophy with Young's strengths. He's very inexperienced with maximizing Bryce's strengths with his system. Would love to see us bring in an OC with spread experience and adaptability to implement a cohesive system with Dave to allow Bryce to thrive, as it's obvious we're sticking with him for a bit longer.   
    • Only thing I really agreed with is questioning why we didn’t take any timeouts on their last drive.  I know hindsight is 20/20, but I think it would’ve saved clock bc they were desperate to score as soon as the opportunity presented itself, but I also think it could’ve helped the defense regroup and maybe give us a better chance to stop them.
×
×
  • Create New...