JC JACKSON!

[TexasCane90]

We might need to start a new JC thread...

This one might need a new headline "corn: bash or not to bash "

 

[brock]

We might need to start a new JC thread...

This one might need a new headline "corn: bash or not to bash "

For sure Smfh

 

[Zbrod95]

Go watch the cincy game late in the 4th. Watch corn matched up in man coverage outside and look at what happens to him.

Now that you should have a little bit more knowledge about how schemes work. You go back and break down that series and see if the defense was using the best scheme schematically to defend against those plays? If you can do that then you will see why Corn was or was not successful in defending that play. Dummy.

View attachment 35670

It’s 2nd down and 7, 8:38 in the 4th, MIA is down by 4. Do you see the coverage? What’s wrong with the coverage? Where are your safety’s lined up? You have one lined up on the far hash and the other inside the box playing the run. Is this by design or is this a blown coverage?

View attachment 35671

The first thing you notice is the safety playing play side is still playing the run while the ball is already in the air. Where is the help to the CB play side? Is this by design or blown coverage?

View attachment 35672

The WR is 18 yrds down the field before the safety play side realizes he should be helping the CB over the top. Is this by design or a blown coverage?

View attachment 35673

The WR is out of bounds inside the 25 before any safety comes in range to help the CB. Is this by design or a blown coverage?

See you Dummy's don't know a **** thing about football. Just stay at home and watch the game and cheer with your ol lady when we score.

Don't know football? Lol. There was no blown coverage. You don't always get help over the top in man coverage. That's why they call it being on a island.

Corn was destroyed off the line of scrimmage. That has nothing to do with safety help. If he can't man up with some below average wr without help then that is a big problem.

So you're saying that this coverage was by design. Well, the WR had an option to run a post or a slant on this same play. My question is would the results have been the same had the WR ran a slant instead of the post? The point is either way the CB could not defend either route successfully because the coverage schematically was all wrong for the down, distance and situation. DUMMY.

I believe your Granny could have been successful running either route against that coverage.

As I said, you don't know sh** about football.

Also, it's not that we don't have CBs that can play, but rather, this is a classic example of the DC not putting his players in the best position to be successful.

a slant? Don't you mean an option of running a post or a go route since you're a football genius ? A slant and post don't go together because you have to break down and cut at a 45 degree angle on both routes it's essentially the same route with a ten yard difference, so what would've been his options would've been a slant and a sluggo route. He was running a post with the option of a go route if he beat his man which he did. Yes it was a blown coverage because the low safety didn't break to his zone but you too have no idea what you're talking about

 

[Cubana]

Now that you should have a little bit more knowledge about how schemes work. You go back and break down that series and see if the defense was using the best scheme schematically to defend against those plays? If you can do that then you will see why Corn was or was not successful in defending that play. Dummy.

View attachment 35670

It’s 2nd down and 7, 8:38 in the 4th, MIA is down by 4. Do you see the coverage? What’s wrong with the coverage? Where are your safety’s lined up? You have one lined up on the far hash and the other inside the box playing the run. Is this by design or is this a blown coverage?

View attachment 35671

The first thing you notice is the safety playing play side is still playing the run while the ball is already in the air. Where is the help to the CB play side? Is this by design or blown coverage?

View attachment 35672

The WR is 18 yrds down the field before the safety play side realizes he should be helping the CB over the top. Is this by design or a blown coverage?

View attachment 35673

The WR is out of bounds inside the 25 before any safety comes in range to help the CB. Is this by design or a blown coverage?

See you Dummy's don't know a **** thing about football. Just stay at home and watch the game and cheer with your ol lady when we score.

Don't know football? Lol. There was no blown coverage. You don't always get help over the top in man coverage. That's why they call it being on a island.

Corn was destroyed off the line of scrimmage. That has nothing to do with safety help. If he can't man up with some below average wr without help then that is a big problem.

So you're saying that this coverage was by design. Well, the WR had an option to run a post or a slant on this same play. My question is would the results have been the same had the WR ran a slant instead of the post? The point is either way the CB could not defend either route successfully because the coverage schematically was all wrong for the down, distance and situation. DUMMY.

I believe your Granny could have been successful running either route against that coverage.

As I said, you don't know sh** about football.

Also, it's not that we don't have CBs that can play, but rather, this is a classic example of the DC not putting his players in the best position to be successful.

a slant? Don't you mean an option of running a post or a go route since you're a football genius ? A slant and post don't go together because you have to break down and cut at a 45 degree angle on both routes it's essentially the same route with a ten yard difference, so what would've been his options would've been a slant and a sluggo route. He was running a post with the option of a go route if he beat his man which he did. Yes it was a blown coverage because the low safety didn't break to his zone but you too have no idea what you're talking about

Look DUMMY #2 - Your slow learning *** missed the entire point. DUMMY#1 stated that this defense was by design. So I gave an example of two routes the WR had to choose from that were designed to beat that particular coverage but he actually could have beat him on any of the 8 routes because he had no help play side. In this case, he actually got beat on the 9 Fade route as depicted in the screen shot below.



When you step up to save a H** be careful of the Pimp Hand B***

You cain't win... I'm an expert at breaking down this sh**

 

[Zbrod95]

View attachment 35670

It’s 2nd down and 7, 8:38 in the 4th, MIA is down by 4. Do you see the coverage? What’s wrong with the coverage? Where are your safety’s lined up? You have one lined up on the far hash and the other inside the box playing the run. Is this by design or is this a blown coverage?

View attachment 35671

The first thing you notice is the safety playing play side is still playing the run while the ball is already in the air. Where is the help to the CB play side? Is this by design or blown coverage?

View attachment 35672

The WR is 18 yrds down the field before the safety play side realizes he should be helping the CB over the top. Is this by design or a blown coverage?

View attachment 35673

The WR is out of bounds inside the 25 before any safety comes in range to help the CB. Is this by design or a blown coverage?

See you Dummy's don't know a **** thing about football. Just stay at home and watch the game and cheer with your ol lady when we score.

Don't know football? Lol. There was no blown coverage. You don't always get help over the top in man coverage. That's why they call it being on a island.

Corn was destroyed off the line of scrimmage. That has nothing to do with safety help. If he can't man up with some below average wr without help then that is a big problem.

So you're saying that this coverage was by design. Well, the WR had an option to run a post or a slant on this same play. My question is would the results have been the same had the WR ran a slant instead of the post? The point is either way the CB could not defend either route successfully because the coverage schematically was all wrong for the down, distance and situation. DUMMY.

I believe your Granny could have been successful running either route against that coverage.

As I said, you don't know sh** about football.

Also, it's not that we don't have CBs that can play, but rather, this is a classic example of the DC not putting his players in the best position to be successful.

a slant? Don't you mean an option of running a post or a go route since you're a football genius ? A slant and post don't go together because you have to break down and cut at a 45 degree angle on both routes it's essentially the same route with a ten yard difference, so what would've been his options would've been a slant and a sluggo route. He was running a post with the option of a go route if he beat his man which he did. Yes it was a blown coverage because the low safety didn't break to his zone but you too have no idea what you're talking about

Look DUMMY #2 - Your slow learning *** missed the entire point. DUMMY#1 stated that this defense was by design. So I gave an example of two routes the WR had to choose from that were designed to beat that particular coverage but he actually could have beat him on any of the 8 routes because he had no help play side. In this case, he actually got beat on the 9 Fade route as depicted in the screen shot below.

View attachment 35733

When you step up to save a H** be careful of the Pimp Hand B***

You cain't win... I'm an expert at breaking down this sh**

lol no you're not I'll eat the **** alive if you wanna talk football juevon. My dads been an NFL scout for 21 years, I've been around football since I could walk you don't know a tenth of what I know. You just look **** up, oh btw in college they don't run those kind of option routes because not everyone is Calvin Johnson. I'm getting absolutely tired of you internet head coaches

 

[Zbrod95]

I bet you don't even know what coverage they were in do you Mr. Football [MENTION=13930]Cubana[/MENTION]

 

[Cubana]

Don't know football? Lol. There was no blown coverage. You don't always get help over the top in man coverage. That's why they call it being on a island.

Corn was destroyed off the line of scrimmage. That has nothing to do with safety help. If he can't man up with some below average wr without help then that is a big problem.

So you're saying that this coverage was by design. Well, the WR had an option to run a post or a slant on this same play. My question is would the results have been the same had the WR ran a slant instead of the post? The point is either way the CB could not defend either route successfully because the coverage schematically was all wrong for the down, distance and situation. DUMMY.

I believe your Granny could have been successful running either route against that coverage.

As I said, you don't know sh** about football.

Also, it's not that we don't have CBs that can play, but rather, this is a classic example of the DC not putting his players in the best position to be successful.

a slant? Don't you mean an option of running a post or a go route since you're a football genius ? A slant and post don't go together because you have to break down and cut at a 45 degree angle on both routes it's essentially the same route with a ten yard difference, so what would've been his options would've been a slant and a sluggo route. He was running a post with the option of a go route if he beat his man which he did. Yes it was a blown coverage because the low safety didn't break to his zone but you too have no idea what you're talking about

Look DUMMY #2 - Your slow learning *** missed the entire point. DUMMY#1 stated that this defense was by design. So I gave an example of two routes the WR had to choose from that were designed to beat that particular coverage but he actually could have beat him on any of the 8 routes because he had no help play side. In this case, he actually got beat on the 9 Fade route as depicted in the screen shot below.

View attachment 35733

When you step up to save a H** be careful of the Pimp Hand B***

You cain't win... I'm an expert at breaking down this sh**

lol no you're not I'll eat the **** alive if you wanna talk football juevon. My dads been an NFL scout for 21 years, I've been around football since I could walk you don't know a tenth of what I know. You just look **** up, oh btw in college they don't run those kind of option routes because not everyone is Calvin Johnson. I'm getting absolutely tired of you internet head coaches

Well go get your Daddy and I'll Pimp Slap his *** too! And don't tell me what your Daddy been doing for 21 yrs. As you can see its not in your DNA cause you still don't know sh** about football. I beileve I just gave you more knowledge about breaking down defenses than your Daddy gave you your entire life. Tell him he owe me one.

Another H** checked... I'm taking these rookies to school...

 

[Zbrod95]

So you're saying that this coverage was by design. Well, the WR had an option to run a post or a slant on this same play. My question is would the results have been the same had the WR ran a slant instead of the post? The point is either way the CB could not defend either route successfully because the coverage schematically was all wrong for the down, distance and situation. DUMMY.

I believe your Granny could have been successful running either route against that coverage.

As I said, you don't know sh** about football.

Also, it's not that we don't have CBs that can play, but rather, this is a classic example of the DC not putting his players in the best position to be successful.

a slant? Don't you mean an option of running a post or a go route since you're a football genius ? A slant and post don't go together because you have to break down and cut at a 45 degree angle on both routes it's essentially the same route with a ten yard difference, so what would've been his options would've been a slant and a sluggo route. He was running a post with the option of a go route if he beat his man which he did. Yes it was a blown coverage because the low safety didn't break to his zone but you too have no idea what you're talking about

Look DUMMY #2 - Your slow learning *** missed the entire point. DUMMY#1 stated that this defense was by design. So I gave an example of two routes the WR had to choose from that were designed to beat that particular coverage but he actually could have beat him on any of the 8 routes because he had no help play side. In this case, he actually got beat on the 9 Fade route as depicted in the screen shot below.

View attachment 35733

When you step up to save a H** be careful of the Pimp Hand B***

You cain't win... I'm an expert at breaking down this sh**

lol no you're not I'll eat the **** alive if you wanna talk football juevon. My dads been an NFL scout for 21 years, I've been around football since I could walk you don't know a tenth of what I know. You just look **** up, oh btw in college they don't run those kind of option routes because not everyone is Calvin Johnson. I'm getting absolutely tired of you internet head coaches

Well go get your Daddy and I'll Pimp Slap his *** too!

Another H** checked... I'm taking these rookies to school...

you didn't school anyone smart *** lmfao..you still haven't answered my question you, What coverage were they in

 

[B.B.B]

for all the dumbasses ****ting on Corn, there's one irrefutable truth....... He is our best CB and most explosive returner

 

[umhurricane2511]

This is horrible

 

[Cubana]

a slant? Don't you mean an option of running a post or a go route since you're a football genius ? A slant and post don't go together because you have to break down and cut at a 45 degree angle on both routes it's essentially the same route with a ten yard difference, so what would've been his options would've been a slant and a sluggo route. He was running a post with the option of a go route if he beat his man which he did. Yes it was a blown coverage because the low safety didn't break to his zone but you too have no idea what you're talking about

Look DUMMY #2 - Your slow learning *** missed the entire point. DUMMY#1 stated that this defense was by design. So I gave an example of two routes the WR had to choose from that were designed to beat that particular coverage but he actually could have beat him on any of the 8 routes because he had no help play side. In this case, he actually got beat on the 9 Fade route as depicted in the screen shot below.

View attachment 35733

When you step up to save a H** be careful of the Pimp Hand B***

You cain't win... I'm an expert at breaking down this sh**

lol no you're not I'll eat the **** alive if you wanna talk football juevon. My dads been an NFL scout for 21 years, I've been around football since I could walk you don't know a tenth of what I know. You just look **** up, oh btw in college they don't run those kind of option routes because not everyone is Calvin Johnson. I'm getting absolutely tired of you internet head coaches

Well go get your Daddy and I'll Pimp Slap his *** too!

Another H** checked... I'm taking these rookies to school...

you didn't school anyone smart *** lmfao..you still haven't answered my question you, What coverage were they in

For you Rookies that don't know this is a 4-3 with a single high cover 1.

Checkmate B**

When will you Dummys learn that you cain't f** with Cubana...

 

[Zbrod95]

Look DUMMY #2 - Your slow learning *** missed the entire point. DUMMY#1 stated that this defense was by design. So I gave an example of two routes the WR had to choose from that were designed to beat that particular coverage but he actually could have beat him on any of the 8 routes because he had no help play side. In this case, he actually got beat on the 9 Fade route as depicted in the screen shot below.

View attachment 35733

When you step up to save a H** be careful of the Pimp Hand B***

You cain't win... I'm an expert at breaking down this sh**

lol no you're not I'll eat the **** alive if you wanna talk football juevon. My dads been an NFL scout for 21 years, I've been around football since I could walk you don't know a tenth of what I know. You just look **** up, oh btw in college they don't run those kind of option routes because not everyone is Calvin Johnson. I'm getting absolutely tired of you internet head coaches

Well go get your Daddy and I'll Pimp Slap his *** too!

Another H** checked... I'm taking these rookies to school...

you didn't school anyone smart *** lmfao..you still haven't answered my question you, What coverage were they in

For you Rookies that don't know this is 4-3 with a single high cover 1 defense.

Checkmate B**

lmfao, first it's cover 1 robber you dumb**** and secondly I'm pretty sure Miami ran 3-4 okie with 2 gap responsibilities. Congratulations you just proved to every body you don't know ****

 

[Cubana]

lol no you're not I'll eat the **** alive if you wanna talk football juevon. My dads been an NFL scout for 21 years, I've been around football since I could walk you don't know a tenth of what I know. You just look **** up, oh btw in college they don't run those kind of option routes because not everyone is Calvin Johnson. I'm getting absolutely tired of you internet head coaches

Well go get your Daddy and I'll Pimp Slap his *** too!

Another H** checked... I'm taking these rookies to school...

you didn't school anyone smart *** lmfao..you still haven't answered my question you, What coverage were they in

For you Rookies that don't know this is 4-3 with a single high cover 1 defense.

Checkmate B**

lmfao, first it's cover 1 robber you dumb**** and secondly I'm pretty sure Miami ran 3-4 okie with 2 gap responsibilities. Congratulations you just proved to every body you don't know ****

Dummy #1 Do you even realize that my answer was to the question about the Dallas defense? Not to mention that you also agreed on the coverage (cover 1)?

Also, If you look at the snapshot that I gave your Dumb ***, it shows Mia defense in the same package 4-3 cover 1. Except schematically, they F*** it up because the safety on the far hash was out of position. He should have been between the Hashes High.

Pimp Slapped him again... Man down, isl 3...

[video=youtube;PYBoH68cVoY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYBoH68cVoY[/video]

****, you B*** really don't know SHIOT!!!!

 

[Zbrod95]

Well go get your Daddy and I'll Pimp Slap his *** too!

Another H** checked... I'm taking these rookies to school...

you didn't school anyone smart *** lmfao..you still haven't answered my question you, What coverage were they in

For you Rookies that don't know this is 4-3 with a single high cover 1 defense.

Checkmate B**

lmfao, first it's cover 1 robber you dumb**** and secondly I'm pretty sure Miami ran 3-4 okie with 2 gap responsibilities. Congratulations you just proved to every body you don't know ****

Dummy #3 Do you even realize that my answer was to the question about the Detroit defense? Not to mention that you also agreed on the coverage (cover 1)?

Also, If you look at the snapshot that I gave your Dumb ***, it shows Mia defense in the same package 4-3 cover 1. Except schematically, they F*** it up because the safety on the far hash was out of position. He should have been between the Hashes High.

****, you B*** really don't know SHIOT!!!!

one, if you looked when I asked you you would see that it was after you posted the pic talking about how you beat that coverage MIAMI was in, apparently you can't read. Two it's called cover one robber not single high cover 1, so you're wrong because it's not called that, go back to madden and learn your terminology. Three you literally just said Miami ran 4-3, you're absolutely retarted because Mark D'onofrio ran Traditional 3-4 okie as a base and variations of 4-2-5, and if you go look at your attachments Miami was playing 4-2-5, again you're proving that you're a ******* idiot because 4-2-5 means they were in either cover 2, cover 3, or cover 5. Now with that being said Miami was in 4-2-5 Cover 2 robber , do you wanna know how I know this?? Because in cover one robber the high safety lines up in the center of the field now tell me is Deon bush in the center of the field 10 yards away from the MLB?? No he's not. Now are you done?? Because I want to go to sleep

 

[Cubana]

you didn't school anyone smart *** lmfao..you still haven't answered my question you, What coverage were they in

For you Rookies that don't know this is 4-3 with a single high cover 1 defense.

Checkmate B**

lmfao, first it's cover 1 robber you dumb**** and secondly I'm pretty sure Miami ran 3-4 okie with 2 gap responsibilities. Congratulations you just proved to every body you don't know ****

Dummy #3 Do you even realize that my answer was to the question about the Detroit defense? Not to mention that you also agreed on the coverage (cover 1)?

Also, If you look at the snapshot that I gave your Dumb ***, it shows Mia defense in the same package 4-3 cover 1. Except schematically, they F*** it up because the safety on the far hash was out of position. He should have been between the Hashes High.

****, you B*** really don't know SHIOT!!!!

one, if you looked when I asked you you would see that it was after you posted the pic talking about how you beat that coverage MIAMI was in, apparently you can't read. Two it's called cover one robber not single high cover 1, so you're wrong because it's not called that, go back to madden and learn your terminology. Three you literally just said Miami ran 4-3, you're absolutely retarted because Mark D'onofrio ran Traditional 3-4 okie as a base and variations of 4-2-5, and if you go look at your attachments Miami was playing 4-2-5, again you're proving that you're a ****ing idiot because 4-2-5 means they were in either cover 2, cover 3, or cover 5. Now with that being said Miami was in 4-2-5 Cover 2 robber , do you wanna know how I know this?? Because in cover one robber the high safety lines up in the center of the field now tell me is Deon bush in the center of the field 10 yards away from the MLB?? No he's not. Now are you done?? Because I want to go to sleep

**** you are an idiot... Did you just ask me to go look at Madden to learn the terminology and the scheme? So your knowledge of football comes from a video game. That explains why you are an idiot. Nuff said. Also, you just said that MIA was playing a 4-2-5 cover 2, well show me the two safeties playing cover 2? I'll wait?



**** you're Dumb.... Stick with the video games... Never mind you prolly suck at that too.

 

[Zbrod95]

For you Rookies that don't know this is 4-3 with a single high cover 1 defense.

Checkmate B**

lmfao, first it's cover 1 robber you dumb**** and secondly I'm pretty sure Miami ran 3-4 okie with 2 gap responsibilities. Congratulations you just proved to every body you don't know ****

Dummy #3 Do you even realize that my answer was to the question about the Detroit defense? Not to mention that you also agreed on the coverage (cover 1)?

Also, If you look at the snapshot that I gave your Dumb ***, it shows Mia defense in the same package 4-3 cover 1. Except schematically, they F*** it up because the safety on the far hash was out of position. He should have been between the Hashes High.

****, you B*** really don't know SHIOT!!!!

one, if you looked when I asked you you would see that it was after you posted the pic talking about how you beat that coverage MIAMI was in, apparently you can't read. Two it's called cover one robber not single high cover 1, so you're wrong because it's not called that, go back to madden and learn your terminology. Three you literally just said Miami ran 4-3, you're absolutely retarted because Mark D'onofrio ran Traditional 3-4 okie as a base and variations of 4-2-5, and if you go look at your attachments Miami was playing 4-2-5, again you're proving that you're a ****ing idiot because 4-2-5 means they were in either cover 2, cover 3, or cover 5. Now with that being said Miami was in 4-2-5 Cover 2 robber , do you wanna know how I know this?? Because in cover one robber the high safety lines up in the center of the field now tell me is Deon bush in the center of the field 10 yards away from the MLB?? No he's not. Now are you done?? Because I want to go to sleep

**** your are an idiot... Did you just ask me to go look at Madden to learn the terminology and the scheme? So your knowledge of football comes from a video game. That explains why you are an idiot. Nuff said. Also, you just said that MIA was playing a 4-2-5 cover 2, well show me the two safeties playing cover 2? I'll wait?

View attachment 35737

**** your Dumb.... Stick with the video games... Never mind you prolly suck at that too.

Hard Knocks: Playing Defense With TCU?s Gary Patterson « educate yourself, good night. Oh btw I said 4-2-5 cover 2 ROBBER not cover 2 and the madden references was to where you get your knowledge from apparently you don't know what an insult is either

 

[Cubana]

lmfao, first it's cover 1 robber you dumb**** and secondly I'm pretty sure Miami ran 3-4 okie with 2 gap responsibilities. Congratulations you just proved to every body you don't know ****

Dummy #3 Do you even realize that my answer was to the question about the Detroit defense? Not to mention that you also agreed on the coverage (cover 1)?

Also, If you look at the snapshot that I gave your Dumb ***, it shows Mia defense in the same package 4-3 cover 1. Except schematically, they F*** it up because the safety on the far hash was out of position. He should have been between the Hashes High.

****, you B*** really don't know SHIOT!!!!

one, if you looked when I asked you you would see that it was after you posted the pic talking about how you beat that coverage MIAMI was in, apparently you can't read. Two it's called cover one robber not single high cover 1, so you're wrong because it's not called that, go back to madden and learn your terminology. Three you literally just said Miami ran 4-3, you're absolutely retarted because Mark D'onofrio ran Traditional 3-4 okie as a base and variations of 4-2-5, and if you go look at your attachments Miami was playing 4-2-5, again you're proving that you're a ****ing idiot because 4-2-5 means they were in either cover 2, cover 3, or cover 5. Now with that being said Miami was in 4-2-5 Cover 2 robber , do you wanna know how I know this?? Because in cover one robber the high safety lines up in the center of the field now tell me is Deon bush in the center of the field 10 yards away from the MLB?? No he's not. Now are you done?? Because I want to go to sleep

**** your are an idiot... Did you just ask me to go look at Madden to learn the terminology and the scheme? So your knowledge of football comes from a video game. That explains why you are an idiot. Nuff said. Also, you just said that MIA was playing a 4-2-5 cover 2, well show me the two safeties playing cover 2? I'll wait?

View attachment 35737

**** your Dumb.... Stick with the video games... Never mind you prolly suck at that too.

Hard Knocks: Playing Defense With TCU?s Gary Patterson « educate yourself, good night. Oh btw I said 4-2-5 cover 2 ROBBER not cover 2

Remember this is your evidence to show what a 4-2-5 cover 2 is suppose to look like. Now tell me what's wrong with what MIA actually ran and what TCU says the scheme is suppose to look like? And if there is any difference was MIA defense schematically wrong? I'll wait.

 

[Zbrod95]

Dummy #3 Do you even realize that my answer was to the question about the Detroit defense? Not to mention that you also agreed on the coverage (cover 1)?

Also, If you look at the snapshot that I gave your Dumb ***, it shows Mia defense in the same package 4-3 cover 1. Except schematically, they F*** it up because the safety on the far hash was out of position. He should have been between the Hashes High.

****, you B*** really don't know SHIOT!!!!

one, if you looked when I asked you you would see that it was after you posted the pic talking about how you beat that coverage MIAMI was in, apparently you can't read. Two it's called cover one robber not single high cover 1, so you're wrong because it's not called that, go back to madden and learn your terminology. Three you literally just said Miami ran 4-3, you're absolutely retarted because Mark D'onofrio ran Traditional 3-4 okie as a base and variations of 4-2-5, and if you go look at your attachments Miami was playing 4-2-5, again you're proving that you're a ****ing idiot because 4-2-5 means they were in either cover 2, cover 3, or cover 5. Now with that being said Miami was in 4-2-5 Cover 2 robber , do you wanna know how I know this?? Because in cover one robber the high safety lines up in the center of the field now tell me is Deon bush in the center of the field 10 yards away from the MLB?? No he's not. Now are you done?? Because I want to go to sleep

**** your are an idiot... Did you just ask me to go look at Madden to learn the terminology and the scheme? So your knowledge of football comes from a video game. That explains why you are an idiot. Nuff said. Also, you just said that MIA was playing a 4-2-5 cover 2, well show me the two safeties playing cover 2? I'll wait?

View attachment 35737

**** your Dumb.... Stick with the video games... Never mind you prolly suck at that too.

Hard Knocks: Playing Defense With TCU?s Gary Patterson « educate yourself, good night. Oh btw I said 4-2-5 cover 2 ROBBER not cover 2

Remember this is your evidence to show what a 4-2-5 cover 2 is suppose to look like. Now tell me what's wrong with what MIA actually ran and what TCU says the scheme is suppose to look like? And if there is any difference was MIA defense schematically wrong? I'll wait.

View attachment 35739

View attachment 35740

https://espngrantland.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/robber-bronco-a.png try this one bud

 

[Cubana]

one, if you looked when I asked you you would see that it was after you posted the pic talking about how you beat that coverage MIAMI was in, apparently you can't read. Two it's called cover one robber not single high cover 1, so you're wrong because it's not called that, go back to madden and learn your terminology. Three you literally just said Miami ran 4-3, you're absolutely retarted because Mark D'onofrio ran Traditional 3-4 okie as a base and variations of 4-2-5, and if you go look at your attachments Miami was playing 4-2-5, again you're proving that you're a ****ing idiot because 4-2-5 means they were in either cover 2, cover 3, or cover 5. Now with that being said Miami was in 4-2-5 Cover 2 robber , do you wanna know how I know this?? Because in cover one robber the high safety lines up in the center of the field now tell me is Deon bush in the center of the field 10 yards away from the MLB?? No he's not. Now are you done?? Because I want to go to sleep

**** your are an idiot... Did you just ask me to go look at Madden to learn the terminology and the scheme? So your knowledge of football comes from a video game. That explains why you are an idiot. Nuff said. Also, you just said that MIA was playing a 4-2-5 cover 2, well show me the two safeties playing cover 2? I'll wait?

View attachment 35737

**** your Dumb.... Stick with the video games... Never mind you prolly suck at that too.

Hard Knocks: Playing Defense With TCU?s Gary Patterson « educate yourself, good night. Oh btw I said 4-2-5 cover 2 ROBBER not cover 2

Remember this is your evidence to show what a 4-2-5 cover 2 is suppose to look like. Now tell me what's wrong with what MIA actually ran and what TCU says the scheme is suppose to look like? And if there is any difference was MIA defense schematically wrong? I'll wait.

View attachment 35739

View attachment 35740

https://espngrantland.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/robber-bronco-a.png try this one bud

Ok. So for the record your first piece of evidence didn't work for you and you would now like to allow another piece of evidence in so that you can prove your case. Ok, the court will allow it in.

Now looking at this its the same BS. So again the court will ask you to do the following: Now tell me what's wrong with what MIA actually ran and what TCU or in this case espn grantland files wordpres says the scheme is suppose to look like? And if there is any difference was MIAs defense schematically wrong? And please point out the two safety's in MIA defense that's playing cover 2? I'll wait.





U know U Done F*** up Don't You? You know that right?

[video=youtube;K2v-8ctq5x4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2v-8ctq5x4[/video]

Gotem!!!!
[video=youtube;8tOsQv-rrEE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tOsQv-rrEE[/video]

 

[Marcelo2988]

Funniest thing is watching 2 people argue on the internet........