Today's post by NEInsider on ESPN board

[TripleOption]

Of course your answer starts by being a jerk, and continues by refusing to answer the question.

Now you have pretty much reached the point of lying.
One more time.
2 scenarios.

1) I call a defense where my corner has a safety ASSIGNED as deep help. That is the safeties ASSIGNMENT
2) I have one safety deep to cover the entire deep field.

Are you trying to tell me that you expect a cornerback to cover exactly the same in both scenarios?

While you are answering that, how about you also fill on in on your sparkiling coaching resume.

LYING? You are unbelievable. You compound your stubbornness and lack of knowledge with outright bullsh*t.

Just because a Safety is SUPPOSED to be over the top doesn't mean he'll be there. It doesn't mean he'll make a play, and it doesn't mean that if something breaks he will make the tackle. Yes, CB's cover as if they have deep help. HOWEVER, they must be cognizant of the fact that the help may be late or not there at all. If you don't believe me, and you live in world where Safeties always arrive in the nick of time or in the correct area then I don't know what to tell you.

This is why I say that reading a book and watching football on TV don't equal coaching it. You see these things happen and you know them to be true. In the world of the "it looks great on paper" crowd, the Safety always gets there and all is well.

2 scenarios.

1) I call a defense where my corner has a safety ASSIGNED as deep help. That is the safeties ASSIGNMEN T
2) I have one safety deep to cover the entire deep field.

That is exactly the same scenario. If you have a FS deep to cover the entire field, he is ASSIGNED to be the deep help on pass and the bonus player vs run.

You are degrading into an utter joke. My resume? 8 total years of coaching, 5 with varsity DB's and 4 years as a varsity Offensive Coordinator at a large High School. You?

 

[Lloyd_Christmas]

Wow! This p!ssing match is still in progress? Let me go pop some more popcorn...

 

[alvinnf]

I finally realized what this thread is for, we really just want Adam Seward.

 

[Ring 6]

LYING? You are unbelievable. You compound your stubbornness and lack of knowledge with outright bullsh*t.

Just because a Safety is SUPPOSED to be over the top doesn't mean he'll be there. It doesn't mean he'll make a play, and it doesn't mean that if something breaks he will make the tackle. Yes, CB's cover as if they have deep help. HOWEVER, they must be cognizant of the fact that the help may be late or not there at all. If you don't believe me, and you live in world where Safeties always arrive in the nick of time or in the correct area then I don't know what to tell you.

This is why I say that reading a book and watching football on TV don't equal coaching it. You see these things happen and you know them to be true. In the world of the "it looks great on paper" crowd, the Safety always gets there and all is well.

You are degrading into an utter joke. My resume? 8 total years of coaching, 5 with varsity DB's and 4 years as a varsity Offensive Coordinator at a large High School. You?

Why do you insist on answering a different question than was asked.

What I have been saying ALL ALONG, no deviaiton at any point is:
The original post tried to absolve Hobbs from blame because he was covering as if he had help, but the systme dictated he did not have help.
THE ONLY POINT I HAVE BEEN MAKING is that no sane football call, system or coverage would exist where a corner believes he has dedicated help, but does not.

None of my discussion has had anything to do with what different types of help exist in different coverages, the strengths or weakneses of any coverages, or the fact that a coverage will or will not be played properly.

At no point did I even begin to imply that having safety help means the safety will always be there.

I made one point throughout this thread, and you are finally beginning to recognize that, and that there is no possible way I can be wrong. That point is:

To say Hobbs is better than he looks because the call told him he had deep help (so he therefore covered as if he did) but the safety choses to give help elsewhere, cannot be accurate becuase NO ONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD TELL THE CORNER THE COVERAGE GIVES HIM DEEP HELP-COVER AS IF YOU HAVE IT-THEN TELL THE SAFETY TO BE DEEP HELP ON ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER AS HE CHOOSES.
This isn't even a question of football knowledge its common sense.
You would never say: Hobbs dont worry about the deep ball Harrison is your deep help. Then Harrison pick which side of the field you think you are most needed on.
That defense does not but create confusion and MISLEAD players to what their resposnisibility is.
As far as anything else you have posted about defense, coverage or anything else, I havent agreed, disagreed or commented otherwise except with respect to how it applies to what I have just posted here, which was the ENTIRE ARGUMENT TO ME.

If you read back, I never said there was no such defense as anything you described, I simply said there was no such defense where you tell the corner the safety has a certain responsibility then tell the safety his responsibilitiy is different than what you told the corner it was going to be.

Maybe if i said it that way 50 posts ago, this all could have been avoided.

 

[Ring 6]

LYING? You are unbelievable. You compound your stubbornness and lack of knowledge with outright bullsh*t.

Just because a Safety is SUPPOSED to be over the top doesn't mean he'll be there. It doesn't mean he'll make a play, and it doesn't mean that if something breaks he will make the tackle. Yes, CB's cover as if they have deep help. HOWEVER, they must be cognizant of the fact that the help may be late or not there at all. If you don't believe me, and you live in world where Safeties always arrive in the nick of time or in the correct area then I don't know what to tell you.

This is why I say that reading a book and watching football on TV don't equal coaching it. You see these things happen and you know them to be true. In the world of the "it looks great on paper" crowd, the Safety always gets there and all is well.



That is exactly the same scenario. If you have a FS deep to cover the entire field, he is ASSIGNED to be the deep help on pass and the bonus player vs run.

You are degrading into an utter joke. My resume? 8 total years of coaching, 5 with varsity DB's and 4 years as a varsity Offensive Coordinator at a large High School. You?

IT is not the same scenario.
The first is as a corner I have a safety assigned as MY DEEP HELP ON MY SIDE OF THE FIELD.
In the second, the safety has the entire field, and may or may not come to my side.

In the first, I know I have a safety over the top, in the second he has dual resposnsiblities which are equally as likely to take him away from me as to support my side of the field.

 

[alvinnf]

Why do you insist on answering a different question than was asked.

What I have been saying ALL ALONG, no deviaiton at any point is:
The original post tried to absolve Hobbs from blame because he was covering as if he had help, but the systme dictated he did not have help.
THE ONLY POINT I HAVE BEEN MAKING is that no sane football call, system or coverage would exist where a corner believes he has dedicated help, but does not.

None of my discussion has had anything to do with what different types of help exist in different coverages, the strengths or weakneses of any coverages, or the fact that a coverage will or will not be played properly.

At no point did I even begin to imply that having safety help means the safety will always be there.

I made one point throughout this thread, and you are finally beginning to recognize that, and that there is no possible way I can be wrong. That point is:

To say Hobbs is better than he looks because the call told him he had deep help (so he therefore covered as if he did) but the safety choses to give help elsewhere, cannot be accurate becuase NO ONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD TELL THE CORNER THE COVERAGE GIVES HIM DEEP HELP-COVER AS IF YOU HAVE IT-THEN TELL THE SAFETY TO BE DEEP HELP ON ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER AS HE CHOOSES.
This isn't even a question of football knowledge its common sense.
You would never say: Hobbs dont worry about the deep ball Harrison is your deep help. Then Harrison pick which side of the field you think you are most needed on.
That defense does not but create confusion and MISLEAD players to what their resposnisibility is.
As far as anything else you have posted about defense, coverage or anything else, I havent agreed, disagreed or commented otherwise except with respect to how it applies to what I have just posted here, which was the ENTIRE ARGUMENT TO ME.

If you read back, I never said there was no such defense as anything you described, I simply said there was no such defense where you tell the corner the safety has a certain responsibility then tell the safety his responsibilitiy is different than what you told the corner it was going to be.

Maybe if i said it that way 50 posts ago, this all could have been avoided.

Cue the eveready BUNNY....

 

[apple strudel]

LOL at so much in this thread.

 

[emoney_33]

Are we saying the CB is playing man? What if his receiver runs accross to the other side of the field?

 

[unoriginal]

Are we saying the CB is playing man? What if his receiver runs accross to the other side of the field?

The CB follows him. You are usually in man coverage to bring extra rushers at the QB, so you try to cover tight for 3 seconds and hope you get pressure by then. Crosses and drags take awhile.

 

[TripleOption]

IT is not the same scenario.
The first is as a corner I have a safety assigned as MY DEEP HELP ON MY SIDE OF THE FIELD.
In the second, the safety has the entire field, and may or may not come to my side.

The first scenario is Cover 2. The second is Cover 1. In both scenarios, the Safety may or may not be there. The coverage the "insider" was describing albeit poorly, was Cover One, which is what every sane person was trying to tell you 10 pages ago. You apparently don't know the difference and keep referring back to a Cover 2 scenario.

Is there a coverage where the CB expects deep help but it may not be there? Sure, it's called Cover One.

 

[TripleOption]

Are we saying the CB is playing man? What if his receiver runs accross to the other side of the field?

If it's man, the old adage is that if he heads runs in to use the bathroom, you should be there to wipe his a**.

In theory, of course.

 

[emoney_33]

Ok I have solved the problem between Andy vs. Triple... Ok maybe not solved it, but maybe I can put it in a different way for both sides? Here goes.


Triple is talking about a single safety deep zone (cover 1) where the safety's job is the deep zone and both corners know this. However the safety may not be there. They adjust their coverage based on deep help. The cover 1 schemes REQUIRES quick pressure in order to be successful. One of the reasons for this is because without pressure the offense can simply send both receivers on a deep out route and one will be guaranteed 1 on 1 coverage, with a vulnerability to the deep zone.


Andy's point that he has tried to get accross is that there is not a scheme that tells the CB to play inside, releasing the WR to the deep zone (without playing him tight deep), while there is not a safety assigned to that deep zone.


Now I am in no way shape or form a football guru or X's and O's guy, but it seems to me the stopgap between the two sides here is corner back technique.

After parsing through it all, I believe I have broken down the true question to... Is a CB coached to use the same technique in man cover 2 as he is in man cover 1?? Even if a CB is coached to change technique based on a receiver's route, let's assume the receiver is going on a deep route (no cross, slant etc..)


Andy's stance is the CB technique is different depending on whether there is one or two deep safeties (cover 1 vs cover 2). I'm not sure what Triple's stance is on the CB technique in cover 1 vs cover 2. So there goes... answer this question and the big argument is almost solved!

 

[unoriginal]

After parsing through it all, I believe I have broken down the true question to... Is a CB coached to use the same technique in man cover 2 as he is in man cover 1?? Even if a CB is coached to change technique based on a receiver's route, let's assume the receiver is going on a deep route (no cross, slant etc..)

Andy's stance is the CB technique is different depending on whether there is one or two deep safeties (cover 1 vs cover 2). I'm not sure what Triple's stance is on the CB technique in cover 1 vs cover 2. So there goes... answer this question and the big argument is almost solved!

Cover 2 CB technique is to line up on the outside shoulder of the receiver, and deny outside release. Typically this is an outside-in "bump" at 5 yards. Because in Cover 2 each safety is responsible for half the field beyond 15 yards, and each safety starts more or less at the hash, a receiver getting a clean outside release can catch a fade along the deep sideline before the safety can get over. If the receiver is running an inside route, such as a slant, its the responsibility of the hook/curl zone defender (the OLB) to disrupt the passing lane or separate the receiver from the ball.

Cover 1 CB technique is a little more variable; usually the CB lines up on the inside shoulder of the receiver and denies inside releases. Without deep zone help, inside position allows the corner to use the sideline as an extra defender on fades and puts him in good position to cut off passes on outs. Staying inside the receiver also puts the CB in excellent position to defend in routes like crosses and slants, which are generally the easiest passes to complete in 1-on-1 coverage. A CB playing off and to the outside of a receiver in Man is in very poor position to defend a quick slant; if the pass is in stride the receiver can just keep running away from him.

 

[TripleOption]

Unoriginal is dead on; in Cover 2 you play outside and "funnel" #1 to the Safety, then if you have no threat try to get your hips turned and get into the "turkey hole" between the Flat and Safety. C/2 you are a flats and run force defender.

In Cover One you are locked up with FS help over the top...maybe.

C/2 Lock you are locked up with 2 deep to help.

 

[arrellbee]

Emoney 33 - good perception on trying to sort out where the disagreement is. That solicited some really good info from Unoriginal and Triple Option. That was great.

Andy's last post had triggered a similar thought for me, altho slightly different. I'll mention it, altho yours and Unoriginal and Triple Option are probably better.

My thought was that Insider's original post had the premise that Hobb's was performing his coverage acceptably according to how the Patriots coaches wanted him to play. And that acceptable technique could still result in the receptions if the deep safety had made a decision also according to how he was coached such that Hobbs didn't get the safety help over the top. And pundits also sometimes made comments that Hobbs was 'expecting' safety help.

I'm pretty sure that Andy also assumes that Hobbs was playing a technique according to how he was coached and the cases weren't ones where Hobbs covered 'incorrectly' for the defensive call. But here is where Andy makes a rather sizable assumption. Having assumed that Hobbs is playing the cover the way he was supposed to according to the defense called, Andy then ASSUMES that this type of coverage Hobbs was playing means that the defense called REQUIRED the safety to GUARANTEE that he gave Hobbs deep coverage. He then therefore totally disagrees with Insider that the safety had ANY discretion to decide to do anything else.

I have no idea if Insider knows about how the Patriots coach coverage technique like that by Hobbs versus whether the safety has options or whether he can ONLY support Hobbs. He seems to think that is a possibility.

But pardon me for expressing my opinion, but I really don't think that Andy can possibly know that with the type of coverage that Hobbs was doing that the Patriot defense does not allow the safety some options in addition to giving Hobbs deep support. 'Common sense' or Andy's opinion that this is a 'ZERO' possibility just don't cut it no matter how intensely he feels about it. Especially since it is so widely held that the Patriots have one of the most complex set of key reads and options for their defense. More or less mentioned also is the possibility that the Patriots may indeed have defenses called that take a CHANCE on how the CB is asked to play versus non-guaranteed safety help (with various expectations on type of pressure, etc.)

While I am prepared to believe that Andy may be correct, it bugs the heck out of me that he declares that he is unconditionally correct when he can't possibly do that unless he knows intimately what the coaching and playbook are - and as far as I know, he doesn't.

Aside from the repetitive disagreement, it has been a very very interesting thread and all of the descriptions of corner and safety play have been fascinating - thanks to all who have provided that information.

 

[Ring 6]

The first scenario is Cover 2. The second is Cover 1. In both scenarios, the Safety may or may not be there. The coverage the "insider" was describing albeit poorly, was Cover One, which is what every sane person was trying to tell you 10 pages ago. You apparently don't know the difference and keep referring back to a Cover 2 scenario.

Is there a coverage where the CB expects deep help but it may not be there? Sure, it's called Cover One.

What he was describing was ASPECTS of cover1, but he was descrbing in as "The Patriots System". We can at least agree the Patriots System is not cover 1.
Again, he could have given a textbook description of Cover 1 BUT included the fact that Hobbs 'is better than he looks because he was relying on deep help and didnt get it' and it makes the entire post wrong.
One more time.
If its cover2 and the corner plays aggressively under the WR and the WR gets behind him that is partly a function of the call, and what the corner is SUPPOSED TO DO, because he is supposed to rely on the help. (In this scenario the safety isnt likely to abandon because he has to cover the other side of the field)
If it cover 1, what I just described above is not how Hobbs should cover, because he must play as if he is the only deep coverage. He cannot rely on the one-deep safetry.

Perhaps this is the best way I can say it:
The original post describes Hobbs playing cover2 and the safety playing cover1.
I will restate my comment from beofre. NO TEAM ANYWHERE AT ANY LEVEL PLAYS A DEFENSE WHERE THE CORNER IS PLAYING COVER2 BUT THE SAFETIES ARE PLAYING COVER 1.

 

[Ring 6]

Emoney 33 - good perception on trying to sort out where the disagreement is. That solicited some really good info from Unoriginal and Triple Option. That was great.

Andy's last post had triggered a similar thought for me, altho slightly different. I'll mention it, altho yours and Unoriginal and Triple Option are probably better.

My thought was that Insider's original post had the premise that Hobb's was performing his coverage acceptably according to how the Patriots coaches wanted him to play. And that acceptable technique could still result in the receptions if the deep safety had made a decision also according to how he was coached such that Hobbs didn't get the safety help over the top. And pundits also sometimes made comments that Hobbs was 'expecting' safety help.

I'm pretty sure that Andy also assumes that Hobbs was playing a technique according to how he was coached and the cases weren't ones where Hobbs covered 'incorrectly' for the defensive call. But here is where Andy makes a rather sizable assumption. Having assumed that Hobbs is playing the cover the way he was supposed to according to the defense called, Andy then ASSUMES that this type of coverage Hobbs was playing means that the defense called REQUIRED the safety to GUARANTEE that he gave Hobbs deep coverage. He then therefore totally disagrees with Insider that the safety had ANY discretion to decide to do anything else.

I have no idea if Insider knows about how the Patriots coach coverage technique like that by Hobbs versus whether the safety has options or whether he can ONLY support Hobbs. He seems to think that is a possibility.

But pardon me for expressing my opinion, but I really don't think that Andy can possibly know that with the type of coverage that Hobbs was doing that the Patriot defense does not allow the safety some options in addition to giving Hobbs deep support. 'Common sense' or Andy's opinion that this is a 'ZERO' possibility just don't cut it no matter how intensely he feels about it. Especially since it is so widely held that the Patriots have one of the most complex set of key reads and options for their defense. More or less mentioned also is the possibility that the Patriots may indeed have defenses called that take a CHANCE on how the CB is asked to play versus non-guaranteed safety help (with various expectations on type of pressure, etc.)

While I am prepared to believe that Andy may be correct, it bugs the heck out of me that he declares that he is unconditionally correct when he can't possibly do that unless he knows intimately what the coaching and playbook are - and as far as I know, he doesn't.

Aside from the repetitive disagreement, it has been a very very interesting thread and all of the descriptions of corner and safety play have been fascinating - thanks to all who have provided that information.

The reason I am saying I cant be wrong is that what I dispute is that a defense is called that has Hobbs expecting one type of coverage and the safety playing another. There is no way a defensive call would nopt have all 11 players running the same play.

I'm not really assuming anything beyond what was in the post.
I'm not assessing a specific play, who played it right or wrong, etc.

The post called it the "Patritots system' not just a coverage.

The post absolved Hobbs from blame because he was covering as if he knew he had deep help.
The post said he doesnt get it a lot because the safety has to choose deep help on one side or the other.

I say with certainty it can't be because:
-If Hobbs MIGHT have deep help, he has to play as if he won't, and cant be absolved from blame on a deep ball because he might have.
-If Hobbs is correct that he had deep help and it never got there, it couldnt be for the reasons posted, because if Hobbs is right that responsibility was assinged to the safety, not the option of that responsibility.

I say I am unconditionally right for 1 simple reason. I am arguing that it is impossible that a defense would call a coverage (much less run a system) where the assignment the corner thinks the safety has and the assignment the safety thinks he has are different.

If it were cover 1, then Hobbs isn't 'better than he looks' because the deep ball was his job.
If it were cover 2, then the safety would not be looking at the other side of the field, as stated.

In any coverage, it is either the safeties job to be over top of Hobbs or it isnt. The original post is saying that Hobbs thinks its the safeties job to be over the top, but the safety thinks his job is to be deep help for whichever corner he chooses. No defense is ever called where 2 players think the coverage is different, or play as if it is.

 

[Ring 6]

Unoriginal is dead on; in Cover 2 you play outside and "funnel" #1 to the Safety, then if you have no threat try to get your hips turned and get into the "turkey hole" between the Flat and Safety. C/2 you are a flats and run force defender.

In Cover One you are locked up with FS help over the top...maybe.

C/2 Lock you are locked up with 2 deep to help.

My point: The original post says Hobbs is in cover 2 aqnd the safety is in cover 1, and you cant blame Hobbs because he is doing his job.
I think we can agree you would not have a corner playing cover 2 and your safeties playing cover 1.
That was my issue all along that I obviously explained poorly.The 'system' described in the original post had 2 players playing different coverages that conflict with each other.

Can we agree there is no such defense as 10 players play cover1 and a corner plays cover2?

 

[Ring 6]

Emoney 33 - good perception on trying to sort out where the disagreement is. That solicited some really good info from Unoriginal and Triple Option. That was great.

Andy's last post had triggered a similar thought for me, altho slightly different. I'll mention it, altho yours and Unoriginal and Triple Option are probably better.

My thought was that Insider's original post had the premise that Hobb's was performing his coverage acceptably according to how the Patriots coaches wanted him to play. And that acceptable technique could still result in the receptions if the deep safety had made a decision also according to how he was coached such that Hobbs didn't get the safety help over the top. And pundits also sometimes made comments that Hobbs was 'expecting' safety help.

I'm pretty sure that Andy also assumes that Hobbs was playing a technique according to how he was coached and the cases weren't ones where Hobbs covered 'incorrectly' for the defensive call. But here is where Andy makes a rather sizable assumption. Having assumed that Hobbs is playing the cover the way he was supposed to according to the defense called, Andy then ASSUMES that this type of coverage Hobbs was playing means that the defense called REQUIRED the safety to GUARANTEE that he gave Hobbs deep coverage. He then therefore totally disagrees with Insider that the safety had ANY discretion to decide to do anything else.

I have no idea if Insider knows about how the Patriots coach coverage technique like that by Hobbs versus whether the safety has options or whether he can ONLY support Hobbs. He seems to think that is a possibility.

But pardon me for expressing my opinion, but I really don't think that Andy can possibly know that with the type of coverage that Hobbs was doing that the Patriot defense does not allow the safety some options in addition to giving Hobbs deep support. 'Common sense' or Andy's opinion that this is a 'ZERO' possibility just don't cut it no matter how intensely he feels about it. Especially since it is so widely held that the Patriots have one of the most complex set of key reads and options for their defense. More or less mentioned also is the possibility that the Patriots may indeed have defenses called that take a CHANCE on how the CB is asked to play versus non-guaranteed safety help (with various expectations on type of pressure, etc.)

While I am prepared to believe that Andy may be correct, it bugs the heck out of me that he declares that he is unconditionally correct when he can't possibly do that unless he knows intimately what the coaching and playbook are - and as far as I know, he doesn't.

Aside from the repetitive disagreement, it has been a very very interesting thread and all of the descriptions of corner and safety play have been fascinating - thanks to all who have provided that information.

The other thing to remember is the original post described this as the Patriots system.
So while I could understand a miscommunication, breakdown, or even a player taking a chance and ignoring the call sometimes, the original post implied that on basically every play Hobbs is playing cover2 and the safeties are playing cover 1.
Its like calling a pass play and telling the right side of your Ol its a run.
There is no possible logic to do it, and you are doomed if you do.

Think about saying Hobbs is great but you cant see it because they dont like to tell him what the coverage is, he has to guess, and hey, how can you expect him to guess right if they refuse to tell him.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Where's that 'dead horse' picture? I need to post it.