Today's post by NEInsider on ESPN board

[fourthandmiles]

Not that it happened but, say the CB is covering the X receiver and he does a slant. The Saftey is covering the slot and he runs a Fly. They are both on the same side of the field. But the Saftey does not pick up the slot on the fly route. The CB does as the ball is thrown and tries to cover but is too late. It looks like he got beat to hell. Pick that senario apart.

This is what I pictured the OP's senario to look like even though that is not what he came across as saying.

Also Reiss is one who often defended Hobbs as saying he should have had saftey help. He is rehashing.

 

[Ring 6]

Well, you didn't really address my question.

This whole discussion started with the situations where Hobb's gets beat deep - don't think there is any disagreement on this.

There also doesn't seem to be any disagreement that on many or most of the Hobb's plays that we are talking about that there is no safety even close to the play.

So what you seem to vehemently disagree with is Insider's assertion that the safety 'decided' to support the other corner - you seem to think that there is no way that the safety is supposed to ever make that kind of decision.

In the cases we (at least I) am talking about, there is no zone or seam. It's simply the receiver getting the ball over the top of Hobbs pretty much straight down the sideline.

So the question I was trying to get to:
Are you saying Hobbs is blowing those assignments and shouldn't have been expecting safety help ?
Or if not, what is it exactly you think the safety was doing such that he wasn't there to help ?

I am saying that there is not a defense where Hobbs is relying on safety help, but the safety has a choice to not give it.
Hobbs is going to cover the receiver in a different fashion and technique if he is relying on safety help, or if he just may possibly get it.
The original post absolved Hobbs from any responsbility because it says he RELIED on safety help, (you cant blame him for getting beaten deep when the saety is resposnible) but the safety help was only a 50/50 shot.

In other words, you will NEVER CALL A DEFENSE WHERE THE CORNER THINKS HE IS GUARTANTEED SAFETY HELP, BUT THE SAFETY PICKS WHICH CORNER TO GIVE IT TO.

That is all I am talking about. I am not talking about what happened, how it happened, what coverage we were in, anything like that.
I am saying for the 1000th time, that the original post is wrong.
There is zero possiblity that a corner thinks he is ASSURED of deep help (the original post said Hobbs is better than he looks, because he is playing with the certainty of deep help, but doesnt get it) but its only 50/50.
If Hobbs MIGHT get deep help that is a world of difference from ASSURED.

If we were in a cover one defense, which we rarely are, then Hobbs is not absolved as the op tries to say because help could have been there, he needs to cover as if the help is a bonus that he might not get.
If the help is supposed to be there, then Hobbs is supposed to cover like it will be. If it never comes, that is the safeties fault.
It is entirely contradictory to every principle of defensive football that you tell a corner to rely on deep help, but tell a safety to choose one side or the other. That is what the original poster suggested, and it just simply is wrong.

 

[arrellbee]

Well, you didn't really address my question.

This whole discussion started with the situations where Hobb's gets beat deep - don't think there is any disagreement on this.

There also doesn't seem to be any disagreement that on many or most of the Hobb's plays that we are talking about that there is no safety even close to the play.

So what you seem to vehemently disagree with is Insider's assertion that the safety 'decided' to support the other corner - you seem to think that there is no way that the safety is supposed to ever make that kind of decision.

In the cases we (at least I) am talking about, there is no zone or seam. It's simply the receiver getting the ball over the top of Hobbs pretty much straight down the sideline.

So the question I was trying to get to:
Are you saying Hobbs is blowing those assignments and shouldn't have been expecting safety help ?

Or if not, what is it exactly you think the safety was doing such that he wasn't there to help ?

I am saying that there is not a defense where Hobbs is relying on safety help, but the safety has a choice to not give it.
Hobbs is going to cover the receiver in a different fashion and technique if he is relying on safety help, or if he just may possibly get it.
The original post absolved Hobbs from any responsbility because it says he RELIED on safety help, (you cant blame him for getting beaten deep when the saety is resposnible) but the safety help was only a 50/50 shot.

In other words, you will NEVER CALL A DEFENSE WHERE THE CORNER THINKS HE IS GUARTANTEED SAFETY HELP, BUT THE SAFETY PICKS WHICH CORNER TO GIVE IT TO.

That is all I am talking about. I am not talking about what happened, how it happened, what coverage we were in, anything like that.
I am saying for the 1000th time, that the original post is wrong.
There is zero possiblity that a corner thinks he is ASSURED of deep help (the original post said Hobbs is better than he looks, because he is playing with the certainty of deep help, but doesnt get it) but its only 50/50.
If Hobbs MIGHT get deep help that is a world of difference from ASSURED.

If we were in a cover one defense, which we rarely are, then Hobbs is not absolved as the op tries to say because help could have been there, he needs to cover as if the help is a bonus that he might not get.
If the help is supposed to be there, then Hobbs is supposed to cover like it will be. If it never comes, that is the safeties fault.
It is entirely contradictory to every principle of defensive football that you tell a corner to rely on deep help, but tell a safety to choose one side or the other. That is what the original poster suggested, and it just simply is wrong.

Boy, Andy, it's really hard to get you to answer a simple question. Let me try a third time.

So the question I was trying to get to:
Are you saying Hobbs is blowing those assignments and shouldn't have been expecting safety help ?

Or if not, what is it exactly you think the safety was doing such that he wasn't there to help ?

 

[unoriginal]

Not that it happened but, say the CB is covering the X receiver and he does a slant. The Saftey is covering the slot and he runs a Fly. They are both on the same side of the field. But the Saftey does not pick up the slot on the fly route. The CB does as the ball is thrown and tries to cover but is too late. It looks like he got beat to hell. Pick that senario apart.

This is what I pictured the OP's senario to look like even though that is not what he came across as saying.

Also Reiss is one who often defended Hobbs as saying he should have had saftey help. He is rehashing.

If this is man free, the safety gets his ass reamed by the coaches. Defensive backs are usually taught not to switch men unless the routes cross close together, within 5-10 yards of the line of scrimmage. (Some coaches won't let them switch at all!) Slant/fly don't cross close to each other - the fly is long gone by the time the slant crosses underneath - so the corner has the slant and the safety has the fly.

If this were, say, a slant by the X and a fade by the slot, then the corner would likely get on the fade, and the safety jump the slant, because those routes cross at about 3-5 yards, depending on the splits. Basically they're trying not to get rubbed against each other by the crossing action. Another route combo you'll sometimes see switches on is post/flag.

 

[Ring 6]

Boy, Andy, it's really hard to get you to answer a simple question. Let me try a third time.

I cant really answer because this is all based on assumption that the defense described was called and it couldnt have been.

There are 2 choices. He had deep help or he didnt.
If he didnt have deep help and gets beaten deep, then he covered poorly.
If he did have deep help and got beaten deep, the safety is primarily to blame.
As to what the safety was doing, if he wasnt assigned as deep help, who cares, if he was, he was either slow getting there or playing the wrong defense.

 

[alvinnf]

I cant really answer because this is all based on assumption that the defense described was called and it couldnt have been.

There are 2 choices. He had deep help or he didnt.
If he didnt have deep help and gets beaten deep, then he covered poorly.
If he did have deep help and got beaten deep, the safety is primarily to blame.
As to what the safety was doing, if he wasnt assigned as deep help, who cares, if he was, he was either slow getting there or playing the wrong defense.

Are you in politics.

 

[TripleOption]

If this is man free, the safety gets his ass reamed by the coaches. Defensive backs are usually taught not to switch men unless the routes cross close together, within 5-10 yards of the line of scrimmage. (Some coaches won't let them switch at all!) Slant/fly don't cross close to each other - the fly is long gone by the time the slant crosses underneath - so the corner has the slant and the safety has the fly.

If this were, say, a slant by the X and a fade by the slot, then the corner would likely get on the fade, and the safety jump the slant, because those routes cross at about 3-5 yards, depending on the splits. Basically they're trying not to get rubbed against each other by the crossing action. Another route combo you'll sometimes see switches on is post/flag.

AH, but if it is Man Free, then the Safety isn't "Covering" the Slot. He's free. It's an invalid scenario.

If two receivers are aligned next to each other and cross, the DB's can "Banjo" the coverage and play inside/outside to avoid the pick/rub routes.

 

[TripleOption]

Are you in politics.

Don't bother. He's never coached a down of football, but feels comfortable teeling people that have what can or cannot be done.

It's like arguing with the "sports dads" who feel they have the knowledge of an NFL coach from watching on sundays.

 

[unoriginal]

AH, but if it is Man Free, then the Safety isn't "Covering" the Slot. He's free. It's an invalid scenario.

If two receivers are aligned next to each other and cross, the DB's can "Banjo" the coverage and play inside/outside to avoid the pick/rub routes.

I assumed he meant the Stud, or perhaps the Free is walked down on the slot, and the Stud is playing centerfield. The latter is probably the more common scenario.

Either way, a safety on a slot isn't rare, especially at lower levels of football where you don't always have sub packages, or the slot is a tailback motioned out.

 

[TripleOption]

I assumed he meant the Stud, or perhaps the Free is walked down on the slot, and the Stud is playing centerfield. The latter is probably the more common scenario.

Either way, a safety on a slot isn't rare, especially at lower levels of football where you don't always have sub packages, or the slot is a tailback motioned out.

We would always have the FS playing centerfield; personnel wise your SS is usually a bigger tougher kid.

We will walk a Safety onto a Slot but not in Cover 1. The rage these days is the stack defenses and you would walk out your "Stingers" onto #2. Either way, you can banjo the rub routes.

 

[alvinnf]

He said banjo the rub routes.....:yeahthat:

 

[Zeke_Mowatt]

Don't bother. He's never coached a down of football, but feels comfortable teeling people that have what can or cannot be done.

It's like arguing with the "sports dads" who feel they have the knowledge of an NFL coach from watching on sundays.

That's a pretty weak argument...sort of like suggesting that because BB didn't play LB he's not capable of coaching them. Just because Andy isn't a coach doesn't mean he hasn't researched as much (or more) than you have, and I find it arrogant of you to suggest that just because you have coached DBs at whatever level, you inherently have more understanding than he does. No offense, but I've met "professionals" at a variety of jobs who are morons, and who could be superseded by someone with only a rudimentary knowledge of the field, but a superior intelligence and a bit of study. Again, I'm not suggesting you're one of these people at all or that Andy is smarter than you, the converse could be true as well, but I find it ridiculously arrogant for you to simply assume that because you do it at some level, it invalidates Andy's ability to converse intelligently on the subject, or to challenge your "superior knowledge". In this case, being nothing more than an observer for all intents and purposes, I actually think that (despite some of his bluster) Andy is making a more valid point...you keep saying his point is invalid because he doesn't understand the position, but to my reading, you have yet to address his single solitary point. Maybe I'm just a 'dummy' who doesn't 'get it' because I'm a Sunday football 'sports dad' (less the kids) who never coached a down in my life (though I've played quite a few), but I'm pretty confident that I could put my Ivy League degree in English up against your grasp of the language for parsing all these posts and bet dollars to duckets I've got a better chance of reading them more accurately and taking more away from them than you do. FWIW, being as snarky as that last sentence required pained me a little, so to all else, sorry for how that reads, I'm not actually that arrogant, but felt it was necessary to emphasize the point.

 

[since67]

That's a pretty weak argument...sort of like suggesting that because BB didn't play LB he's not capable of coaching them. Just because Andy isn't a coach doesn't mean he hasn't researched as much (or more) than you have, and I find it arrogant of you to suggest that just because you have coached DBs at whatever level, you inherently have more understanding than he does. No offense, but I've met "professionals" at a variety of jobs who are morons, and who could be superseded by someone with only a rudimentary knowledge of the field, but a superior intelligence and a bit of study. Again, I'm not suggesting you're one of these people at all or that Andy is smarter than you, the converse could be true as well, but I find it ridiculously arrogant for you to simply assume that because you do it at some level, it invalidates Andy's ability to converse intelligently on the subject, or to challenge your "superior knowledge". In this case, being nothing more than an observer for all intents and purposes, I actually think that (despite some of his bluster) Andy is making a more valid point...you keep saying his point is invalid because he doesn't understand the position, but to my reading, you have yet to address his single solitary point. Maybe I'm just a 'dummy' who doesn't 'get it' because I'm a Sunday football 'sports dad' (less the kids) who never coached a down in my life (though I've played quite a few), but I'm pretty confident that I could put my Ivy League degree in English up against your grasp of the language for parsing all these posts and bet dollars to duckets I've got a better chance of reading them more accurately and taking more away from them than you do. FWIW, being as snarky as that last sentence required pained me a little, so to all else, sorry for how that reads, I'm not actually that arrogant, but felt it was necessary to emphasize the point.

Actually...I find your point of view to contain a lot of speculation.

 

[Zeke_Mowatt]

Actually...I find your point of view to contain a lot of speculation.

And that's an issue why?

 

[PatsFan37]

That's a pretty weak argument...sort of like suggesting that because BB didn't play LB he's not capable of coaching them. Just because Andy isn't a coach doesn't mean he hasn't researched as much (or more) than you have, and I find it arrogant of you to suggest that just because you have coached DBs at whatever level, you inherently have more understanding than he does. No offense, but I've met "professionals" at a variety of jobs who are morons, and who could be superseded by someone with only a rudimentary knowledge of the field, but a superior intelligence and a bit of study. Again, I'm not suggesting you're one of these people at all or that Andy is smarter than you, the converse could be true as well, but I find it ridiculously arrogant for you to simply assume that because you do it at some level, it invalidates Andy's ability to converse intelligently on the subject, or to challenge your "superior knowledge". In this case, being nothing more than an observer for all intents and purposes, I actually think that (despite some of his bluster) Andy is making a more valid point...you keep saying his point is invalid because he doesn't understand the position, but to my reading, you have yet to address his single solitary point. Maybe I'm just a 'dummy' who doesn't 'get it' because I'm a Sunday football 'sports dad' (less the kids) who never coached a down in my life (though I've played quite a few), but I'm pretty confident that I could put my Ivy League degree in English up against your grasp of the language for parsing all these posts and bet dollars to duckets I've got a better chance of reading them more accurately and taking more away from them than you do. FWIW, being as snarky as that last sentence required pained me a little, so to all else, sorry for how that reads, I'm not actually that arrogant, but felt it was necessary to emphasize the point.

A bit over the top are we? Arrogant is as arrogant does. "My Ivy League degree in English?" Well, whoop-de-freakin-doo.

Sorry, pal, I'll take these coaches any day. They seem to know what they're talking about.

 

[Zeke_Mowatt]

A bit over the top are we? Arrogant is as arrogant does. "My Ivy League degree in English?" Well, whoop-de-freakin-doo.

Sorry, pal, I'll take these coaches any day. They seem to know what they're talking about.

Jesus, you're sharp as a tack, huh? Maybe I should have used colorful pictures instead. Try reading my last sentence, over and over, until all those funny little characters start making sense. It's tongue in cheek, sparky, based on the juxtaposition of the fact that he's citing his "superior" skills and instantly debasing the other posters argument, sort of like I was doing to show how arrogant it sounds.

 

[unoriginal]

We would always have the FS playing centerfield; personnel wise your SS is usually a bigger tougher kid.

We will walk a Safety onto a Slot but not in Cover 1. The rage these days is the stack defenses and you would walk out your "Stingers" onto #2. Either way, you can banjo the rub routes.

Fair enough. Much of my experience is in Cover 2 based systems so the safeties were pretty balanced. Naturally when going man we'd try to keep the Stud playing run downhill if possible, and have the more agile free take the slot.

I presume by Stack you mean a balanced 3-3-5 and the stingers are rovers/safeties walked down real close? (My knowledge of the 3-3-5 is mostly from watching Tulsa play; I believe they were called rovers there.)

 

[arrellbee]

That's a pretty weak argument...sort of like suggesting that because BB didn't play LB he's not capable of coaching them. Just because Andy isn't a coach doesn't mean he hasn't researched as much (or more) than you have, and I find it arrogant of you to suggest that just because you have coached DBs at whatever level, you inherently have more understanding than he does. No offense, but I've met "professionals" at a variety of jobs who are morons, and who could be superseded by someone with only a rudimentary knowledge of the field, but a superior intelligence and a bit of study. Again, I'm not suggesting you're one of these people at all or that Andy is smarter than you, the converse could be true as well, but I find it ridiculously arrogant for you to simply assume that because you do it at some level, it invalidates Andy's ability to converse intelligently on the subject, or to challenge your "superior knowledge". In this case, being nothing more than an observer for all intents and purposes, I actually think that (despite some of his bluster) Andy is making a more valid point...you keep saying his point is invalid because he doesn't understand the position, but to my reading, you have yet to address his single solitary point. Maybe I'm just a 'dummy' who doesn't 'get it' because I'm a Sunday football 'sports dad' (less the kids) who never coached a down in my life (though I've played quite a few), but I'm pretty confident that I could put my Ivy League degree in English up against your grasp of the language for parsing all these posts and bet dollars to duckets I've got a better chance of reading them more accurately and taking more away from them than you do. FWIW, being as snarky as that last sentence required pained me a little, so to all else, sorry for how that reads, I'm not actually that arrogant, but felt it was necessary to emphasize the point.

I'd love to have you send this 'paragraph' to some of your Ivy League English professors and have them comment on your sentence 'structure'.

I tried 3 times to get Andy to tell me what the deep safety was doing such that he wasn't covering over the top on Hobb's receiver. You know what I finally got ? "If he did have deep help and got beaten deep, the safety is primarily to blame. As to what the safety was doing, if he wasnt assigned as deep help, who cares, if he was, he was either slow getting there or playing the wrong defense."

So all that Andy can say is that, after a season of practices, game play, film analysis, and coaching the only reason Hobbs didn't get the help is that the safety screwed up - the safety that Belichick is still letting play despite making these kind of 'mistakes'. Pardon me all to heck if I think that the deep safety (as well as every player on the field in a Belichick defense) is making reads of offensive keys and is making split-second decisions as to what DB or LB most needs support. And this, by the way, is pretty much what the Insider was saying in his original post. What Andy wants to claim is that (to quote his word) there is 'ZERO' chance that it is the other CB that the safety is allowed to decide to support. Again, pardon me all to heck if I think that Andy doesn't have a copy of the Patriots playbook where he can make that 'ZERO' claim so vehemently and caustically.

The Insider discussed only one type of other support (to the other CB). He didn't claim that this was the only decision that could take support away from Hobbs although he certainly didn't mention any other decisions either.

So the Insider gave one case of where Hobbs lack of support was due to a decision on the part of the deep safety. I was trying to get Andy to provide some information that would be of interest (at least to me) as to what decisions the deep safety might have been reasonably making that would leave Hobbs without deep support but came up empty. Thanks to all the other folks along the way who did provide some very interesting comments about what the deep safety's assignments and decisions might have been.

 

[Zeke_Mowatt]

I'd love to have you send this 'paragraph' to some of your Ivy League English professors and have them comment on your sentence 'structure'.

They would have lambasted me, but this is a message board, not an essay, emulating more natural speech than strict grammar. While I may correct someone who spells "genious" wrong in the course of commenting on another person's intelligence level (on the hypocrisy principle primarily), you won't find me complaining about contractions or slang because this is a message board, not a thesis. I'm pretty sure my German grammar has gone downhill in 10 years as well, but I don't feel bad about it when I comment on the fact that other people have horribly 'american' accents when they speak.

I tried 3 times to get Andy to tell me what the deep safety was doing such that he wasn't covering over the top on Hobb's receiver. You know what I finally got ? "If he did have deep help and got beaten deep, the safety is primarily to blame. As to what the safety was doing, if he wasnt assigned as deep help, who cares, if he was, he was either slow getting there or playing the wrong defense."

Pardon me all to heck if I think that the deep safety (as well as every player on the field in a Belichick defense) is making reads of offensive keys and is making split-second decisions as to what DB or LB most needs support. And this, by the way, is pretty much what the Insider was saying in his original post. What Andy wants to claim is that (to quote his word) there is 'ZERO' chance that it is the other CB that the safety is allowed to decide to support. Again, pardon me all to heck if I think that Andy doesn't have a copy of the Patriots playbook where he can make that 'ZERO' claim so vehemently and caustically.

See, here's what chaps my ***** about all the "know it alls" jumping on Andy - so far every one of you is missing what he's saying. Again, I realize his words aren't always elegant, and his grammar not always shining, but pardon me for not being impressed at any of your reading comprehension skills when he has stated, ad nauseum, that he is not in any way suggesting that the deep safety doesn't make choices about which CB to support. Nothing in any of his posts suggests that (to me at least).
[enjoy my paragraph, you won't get many more ]
What he does say, over and over and over until my head hurts, is that the deep safety is never put in a position where he is specifically supposed to support one CB and not the other, but chooses to go the other way, in a defense where the CB is specifically playing (read: like Asante was always rumored to be playing) as if he had over the top help.
[ok one more just for you]
It would be as if, instead of this all being about Hobbs and the Safety, NE Insider was actually talking about Samuel, who was (theoretically) schemed to be able to jump shorter routes because (as I've heard) they deliberately rolled the safety over to help him. My understanding of this is so that, if he jumps a route like say an out and up or any other pattern designed to take advantage of aggressive CBs, he isn't burned deep. In NE Insider's version, the safety assigned to provide Samuel over the top help could decide to roll to Hobbs instead, but Samuel would get blamed for jumping a route if he got burned deep. All of this, of course, without anyone telling Samuel, or there being something he should have picked up to figure out that his deep help was no longer assigned to him. But even if that happened, it would still make NE Insider wrong because it would be Samuel's (Hobbs') fault for not making that read. I'd love to hear Andy weigh in on this, if I'm misreading what he's saying I apologize, but that's how I saw it as you all went back and forth.

 

[TripleOption]

And that's an issue why?

Because Andy can "study" football all he wants, it amounts to a college professor who teaches Criminal Justice thinking he is a cop. If he has never coached he has no idea what coverages work or do not or what the coaching points are. He may have an idea, but he certainly should not argue in absolutes with people who have actually coached the coverages he so resolutely claims do not exist.