forums

Coach D better not have LBs covering WRs & DT's in coverage

I'm Hurt Dawg

I'm Hurt Dawg

Thunderdome
Joined
Aug 30, 2013
Messages
1,521
against FSU. Also why were our CBs not in press our closer to LOS against a noodle arm QB?
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
I'm Hurt Dawg said:
against FSU. Also why were our CBs not in press our closer to LOS against a noodle arm QB?
Click to expand...

I totally agree on this one... It was a NO brainier to put a dedicated CB on Campienro (#3 whatever his name is) and pop him at the LOS...
 
As I have said in other threads, I think we were outcoached on both sides of the ball. No one is perfect, and hopefully, both our coordinators learn.
 
Inexplicable that a LB would be on Campanero virtually the entire game. The amount of times we roll out 3 LBs to cover 4 WR sets is absolutely mind boggling at this point.
 
It was inexcusable that we didn't put a CB on #3 until midway through the 4th quarter. Coach D's philosophy is obviously bend don't break, and make teams execute. Well, against inferior teams that's a recipe for losses. Wake executed ex and kept our O off the field... They also shortened the game. Exactly what they wanted. The definition of outcoached.
 
Advertisement
I hope he get the job at uconn because that big 10 **** will work there.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
BigCaneAl said:
Against teams that aren't explosive there is no point in playing that passive D.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I watched the aggression that Stanford played with last night. That is what defense is supposed to look like. It sickened me to compare it to our passive *** D.
 
AtrainCane said:
DeadPoets said:
McGahee2TheHouse said:
Inexplicable that a LB would be on Campanero virtually the entire game. The amount of times we roll out 3 LBs to cover 4 WR sets is absolutely mind boggling at this point.
Click to expand...

At one point Wake went 5 wide and I paused it and counted 2 CBs on the field
Click to expand...

Our guys are put in a position to fail from the jump....
Click to expand...

It's not necessarily that they were in a position to fail, it's more like why are we playing the exact defense they want us to play. It's like the Wake OC was calling our D. Honestly I think the defense we played yesterday is most likely the defense (or similar) that we should employ against FSU. Them I want to make execute and limit explosive plays. Against Wake I want to tighten every window and make them create separation with inferior athletes.
 
Advertisement
We dropped Curtis Porter into coverage yesterday at one point.. He had a pass completed on him.

We dropped the kid who transferred from Wisconsin and almost quit football because of his foot into coverage... Pass completed in his area.

I have no idea what the **** is going on. We rushed 3 a few times and got no pressure. This was after struggling to sniff the QB when we sent 4. Our few blitzes we have are poorly disguised.

Yesterday was a nightmare effort by D'Onofrio.
 
Against a spread why not have Gilbert, Chick, Op and Porter as a front? Either AQM, Gilbert or Mcord should be in the game at all times, one of them . Just stay in nickel as your base.

It's crazy to see 3-4 lbs spread out on the field with no pass rushers, blows my mind . It's literally stealing for our opponents.
 
Last edited:
BigCaneAl said:
It was inexcusable that we didn't put a CB on #3 until midway through the 4th quarter. Coach D's philosophy is obviously bend don't break, and make teams execute. Well, against inferior teams that's a recipe for losses. Wake executed ex and kept our O off the field... They also shortened the game. Exactly what they wanted. The definition of outcoached.
Click to expand...

Yes... +1
 
Advertisement
DeadPoets said:
McGahee2TheHouse said:
Inexplicable that a LB would be on Campanero virtually the entire game. The amount of times we roll out 3 LBs to cover 4 WR sets is absolutely mind boggling at this point.
Click to expand...

At one point Wake went 5 wide and I paused it and counted 2 CBs on the field
Click to expand...

Take a look again, I'd bet it was not 5 actual WRs lined up but some combination of TEs, FBs, RBs and WRs.
 
I'm not happy with the defense from yesterday, but for the love of god people read up on the zone blitz before u make idiotic statements such as "Curtis Porter was in coverage". It's one of the most common plays in modern defense people! Learn the **** game, then comment.
 
Jax Cane said:
AtrainCane said:
DeadPoets said:
McGahee2TheHouse said:
Inexplicable that a LB would be on Campanero virtually the entire game. The amount of times we roll out 3 LBs to cover 4 WR sets is absolutely mind boggling at this point.
Click to expand...

At one point Wake went 5 wide and I paused it and counted 2 CBs on the field
Click to expand...

Our guys are put in a position to fail from the jump....
Click to expand...

7-0 is on line 1 for you!
Click to expand...

7-0 has nothing to do with lbs covering wrs on a regular basis. Ask yourself this. How many times have our lbs won this battle that u can remember?
 
Advertisement
Back
Top