weswelker#83

You are right we won the game , a win is a win , and i never heard about this cimini guy before .
I just tought it was interesting to analyse his article .

bradmahn

Two at the line of scrimmage, but eight, nine in the box. Blitzes do as much to stuff a run as they do to pressure the quarterback.

__________________
I don't like Dungy and that's because he [was] the head coach of the Colts. Period. End of question. The degree to which I like a player or coach is predicated solely on the color of the laundry they wear on Sunday. When fans admit this and stop bashing players and coaches for any other reason, the world of sports will be infinitely improved.

jays52

Right, but this becomes irrelevent when you consider your front 7 guys as defenders and not group them as linemen and linebackers. 3-4 personell are stout by definition. Linemen are required to 2-gap, backers are required to be pass rushers and stout inside against the run. As opposed to schemes such as Dungy's brand of cover-2 where linebackers run around blockers, 3-4 backers have to run through blocks. They're big, strong guys who can engage blockers. Defending the run is all about technique. Backers playing with good technique should win a head-on collision with a guy 50 to 60 pounds bigger than them. Beating a guard is chapter one of linebacker 101.

Within that personell grouping, you have long, strong 2-technique guys who can eat up blockers at set a hard LOS. So, you have two down-linemen who when read run play the 2-technique and eat up some blockers. The backers then play run within their respective roles. They crash and/or slide the LOS and clog up the running lanes. The number of guys with their hand down is irrelevent to how well a scheme can defend the run.

sebman2112

Cimini's a well known mediot, who generally writes BS articles about the Patriots, especially if the article also involves the Jets.

Again, the Jets were crashing the LOS with extra men on a number of plays. Maroney's still being able to pick up 4, 5, 8, and even 11 yards on some carries, and end the game with over 100 yards was a good rushing performance.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

weswelker#83

Exactly , they did clog up the running lanes .

RayClay

Every strategy he uses is a Belichick strategy.

__________________

Born_a_Patriot

TRUE............

__________________
Tonight A Dynasty Is Born

Fixit

Oh, look! Another losing blueprint!

NE39

The article conveniently omits that the other half of that Belichick game plan was the Giant's offense controlling the ball. They held the ball almost 40 minutes in that game, which they won by a point.

The Pats had a big TOP advantage yesterday. If teams want to employ that strategy, the Pats are fully capable of putting together long drives. They have done so quite a bit this year, and they have shown the ability to score in the Red Zone once they get down there. They aren't a one-dimensional team that relies on big plays, they are a team that can do a lot of different things, but happens to be real good in the passing game.

The article is silly on a number of levels, and isn't anything to be concerned about. The only thing yesterday's game showed is if you hope to slow down the Pats offense, pray for a blizzard.

Keegs

I hope that in all the remaining games the pats play this year, the opposing coach will "use Belichick's strategy against him".

I have no problem with the Pats winning all of their remaining games by exactly 10 points.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.