Bucs DC invites fans to advise him on using Revis...

[Brady6]

I think Revis is decent in the zone. I think he struggles with zone responsibilities at times. I don't think he is anything special in the zone.

I do realize it is a different argument, but it is a real discussion point when discussing how the Bucs are utilizing Revis and the flack they are getting for not making him a stud player.

I completely agree with you, without question that Revis can play and play well in a zone coverage scheme. That said why Tampa would pay $16 mil a year for a shutdown corner if they’re not going use it makes no sense, in my opinion great coaches build their schemes to put their players in the optimal position to succeed and the Tampa’s staff seem more concerned with upholding their defensive scheme than they do with that.

Beyond Revis they have several players who would likely better suited for a man coverage scheme; Goldson, Banks and Barron.

 

[Ring 6]

I think Revis is decent in the zone. I think he struggles with zone responsibilities at times. I don't think he is anything special in the zone.

I do realize it is a different argument, but it is a real discussion point when discussing how the Bucs are utilizing Revis and the flack they are getting for not making him a stud player.

You are selling him way short as a zone defender.

I dint think the argument is how they use him. Using one player in his best role is not necessarily what is best for a team.

The argument really is why they would pay him more than he deserves in his most impactful role if that role doesn't fit their personnel.
His contract is bad if you use him to shut down #1s by himself and much worse if his role in your defense is less impactful.

 

[jmt57]

There's a lot wrong with Tampa Bay's defense, and it goes way beyond how Revis is being utilized.

Up front they are not getting much of any pass rush. At one end there is Adrian Clayborn, who is okay but is not the same as he was before tearing his ACL last year. On the other end Da'Quan Bowers played his way out of a starting job and has been a non-factor, and his replacement, Daniel Te'o-Nesheim has done nothing. Gerald McCoy is pretty good in the middle, but they never replaced Michael Bennett from last year. So in order to get pressure they have to blitz, and that leaves fewer defenders in the backfield to cover all the potential receivers.

A couple other comments on Revis: on the TD to DeSean Jackson when Revis was covering him, that was not on Revis; Mark Barron should have been there, but was way out of position and way late. Any fan of the Patriots that has watched the team for more than a year knows how important the play of safeties is, and how their being late or out of position can make any cornerback look bad. Secondly, I can distinctly recall many times when Revis had safety help over the top with the Jets.

In retrospect what Tampa Bay should have done is taken the money that they used to pay Revis and spread it around a bit. Instead of allocating that much to one player they could have signed John Abraham, Cliff Avril and Brent Grimes in free agency, and it would have cost them the same amount of money - plus they would have retained the draft picks that they traded away.

 

[supafly]

Playing man because you have one great man player is poor coaching. Man is only as good as you worst coverage guy.

Giving up a first round pick and paying top CB money for an elite CB and not have the defense to use him correctly is poor general managing. If you don't have the players to run a man defense at least say 30% of the time, you don't mortgage the farm on an elite man cover CB.

In more pure zone scheme, they would have been better off going cheap and getting Asante Samuel who has the skill set to be a good zone cover CB. I know Samuel is not the player he once was, but he wouldn't be any worse in zone as Revis has so far this season. Revis is not really built for the zone.

Giving up a 1st round pick to pay someone 16 million dollars a year (when the market stated that 5-6 million was the top level) is completely stupid if you're not going to take advantage of their best traits, and there's no way that anyone is going to convince me otherwise.

I hear what you're saying Andy, but as Rob mentioned there were likely many other options aside from shelling out 250% of the market value--which I think you may have pointed out in another post yourself IIRC.

Giving up a 1st round pick to do this just makes it that much stranger, considering the choice to utilize him in that manner.

 

[supafly]

In retrospect what Tampa Bay should have done is taken the money that they used to pay Revis and spread it around a bit. Instead of allocating that much to one player they could have signed John Abraham, Cliff Avril and Brent Grimes in free agency, and it would have cost them the same amount of money - plus they would have retained the draft picks that they traded away.

Yes, I think this would have been a much better choice to utilize their resources.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

I find the Schiano decent into madness and oblivion depressing.
Unlike the JETS where I revel in each and every fiasco, I don't like seeing others self-destruct.

 

[supafly]

I find the Schiano decent into madness and oblivion depressing.
Unlike the JETS where I revel in each and every fiasco, I don't like seeing others self-destruct.

Agreed. Sometimes certain situations happen where a good coach can be perceived as poor, when in all reality he's simply having a bad season or early start in the rebuilding process.

We've seen it before with guys like Nick Saban, and even Bill Belichick.

One season a career does not make, and Schiano may end up being successful in the long run. I thought that he had them playing tough at times last year.

 

[Ring 6]

Giving up a 1st round pick to pay someone 16 million dollars a year (when the market stated that 5-6 million was the top level) is completely stupid if you're not going to take advantage of their best traits, and there's no way that anyone is going to convince me otherwise.

I hear what you're saying Andy, but as Rob mentioned there were likely many other options aside from shelling out 250% of the market value--which I think you may have pointed out in another post yourself IIRC.

Giving up a 1st round pick to do this just makes it that much stranger, considering the choice to utilize him in that manner.

I agree it was a bad move. But the topic was that the DC was stupid not to play the defense that is best for Revis, and I disagree.

 

[supafly]

I agree it was a bad move. But the topic was that the DC was stupid not to play the defense that is best for Revis, and I disagree.

I think you make a good point that we'd have to take into account all of the players in the secondary. As you said, man coverage is only as good as your weakest link due to other teams likely focusing on that player/matchup.

Personally, I don't know enough about all of the other players on the roster aside from Revis and Goldson--(maybe a little re: rookie Jonathan Banks), so I can't really have much of an opinion one way or another as to what their strengths and weaknesses are in terms of zone vs man. I'm assuming that your point is likely that many probably don't know the specifics either, so they should hold off on judgement of the Tampa Bay DC and his decisions.

 

[ausbacker]

I agree it was a bad move. But the topic was that the DC was stupid not to play the defense that is best for Revis, and I disagree.

I don't know about that Andy. It makes slim to no sense to play Brady in the pistol offense and ask him to consistently run with the ball. That's what you're effectively doing to Revis. You've taken away your best player's strength.

Barron and Goldson are both strong man players. Really, I have no idea what Tampa is trying to achieve.

 

[supafly]

Personally, I don't know enough about all of the other players on the roster aside from Revis and Goldson--(maybe a little re: rookie Jonathan Banks), so I can't really have much of an opinion one way or another as to what their strengths and weaknesses are in terms of zone vs man. I'm assuming that your point is likely that many probably don't know the specifics either, so they should hold off on judgement of the Tampa Bay DC and his decisions.

I don't know about that Andy. It makes slim to no sense to play Brady in the pistol offense and ask him to consistently run with the ball. That's what you're effectively doing to Revis. You've taken away your best player's strength.

Barron and Goldson are both strong man players. Really, I have no idea what Tampa is trying to achieve.

Ah, Mark Barron--how could I have forgotten about him? That makes a bit of a difference.

Revis, Banks, Barron, Goldson.

 

[Ring 6]

I don't know about that Andy. It makes slim to no sense to play Brady in the pistol offense and ask him to consistently run with the ball. That's what you're effectively doing to Revis. You've taken away your best player's strength.

That is a terrible analogy. It would be analogous to playing Revis at NT not as a corner in a zone.

Barron and Goldson are both strong man players. Really, I have no idea what Tampa is trying to achieve.

They are trying to play the defense that stops the opponent. Goldston a good man defender? Seriously? What are you basing that on? Just because they are known as good players doesn't mean their strength is whatever the topic is.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree that I think the HC and DC of the team has the best assessment of what his players are capable of and you think you have a better one. That is fine.

 

[Rob0729]

I agree it was a bad move. But the topic was that the DC was stupid not to play the defense that is best for Revis, and I disagree.

The thing is Schiano is a zone defense guy. You don't get a Revis and pay the king's ransom for him if you are going to run a zone scheme. I agree you don't gear the defense around one player, but you don't get an elite man coverage CB, give up a first round pick, and make him the highest paid CB in the league if you are running a defense that doesn't maximize his skills.

I think the Bucs have the horses to run a lot more man-to-man. They have a very talented secondary. It is scheme preference on Schiano's part more than he is maximizing the talent of his players.

 

[Rob0729]

You are selling him way short as a zone defender.

I dint think the argument is how they use him. Using one player in his best role is not necessarily what is best for a team.

The argument really is why they would pay him more than he deserves in his most impactful role if that role doesn't fit their personnel.
His contract is bad if you use him to shut down #1s by himself and much worse if his role in your defense is less impactful.

It all depends on his zone responsibilities. He is still great at play press zone. But when they ask him to play 5-10 yards off the line and play more of a read and react zone, he is far more ordinary.

 

[Ring 6]

The thing is Schiano is a zone defense guy. You don't get a Revis and pay the king's ransom for him if you are going to run a zone scheme. I agree you don't gear the defense around one player, but you don't get an elite man coverage CB, give up a first round pick, and make him the highest paid CB in the league if you are running a defense that doesn't maximize his skills.

I think the Bucs have the horses to run a lot more man-to-man. They have a very talented secondary. It is scheme preference on Schiano's part more than he is maximizing the talent of his players.

Again, you are combining two different things. If we accept it was a bad trade, that doesnt mean the coaching staff should play the wrong defense to make the trade look better.
Again, as I said, I think the Bucs coaches are the best suited to determine their players strengths and what defense works best for them. If you think you are more qualified than them to assess that, you should take the DC up on his tongue in cheek offer, and we should just agree to disagree.

The 0-5 Bucs have allowed less than 19 points in 3 of their 5 losses and less than 24 in 4 of them and are currently top 10 in points allowed. I don't think what coverages they are playing is why they are 0-5 when they are 31st in offensive yards and points, scoring less than 13 points a game.
The issue here isn't the defense, but Revis complaining about the defense because he wants the focus and limelight.

 

[ausbacker]

That is a terrible analogy. It would be analogous to playing Revis at NT not as a corner in a zone.


They are trying to play the defense that stops the opponent. Goldston a good man defender? Seriously? What are you basing that on? Just because they are known as good players doesn't mean their strength is whatever the topic is.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree that I think the HC and DC of the team has the best assessment of what his players are capable of and you think you have a better one. That is fine.

No Andy, it is not a terrible analogy. In fact, it is a spot on analogy. Your analogy is the terrible one. If we hold your opinion to be true, you're asking Revis to switch positions. That means Brady would be switching positions not just playing a different scheme/system.

And yes Andy, both Barron and Goldson are strong players one on one.

 

[Ring 6]

It all depends on his zone responsibilities. He is still great at play press zone. But when they ask him to play 5-10 yards off the line and play more of a read and react zone, he is far more ordinary.

I think you are mixing up him being good at what he is asked to do and him being asked to do something that has a greater or lesser impact.

 

[Ring 6]

No Andy, it is not a terrible analogy. In fact, it is a spot on analogy. Your analogy is the terrible one. If we hold your opinion to be true, you're asking Revis to switch positions. That means Brady would be switching positions not just playing a different scheme/system.

And yes Andy, both Barron and Goldson are strong players one on one.

Come on. Brady in the pistol as a running QB IS changing positions.
You really think that the decision to run a Pistol offense and have Brady be a running QB is the same thing as deciding your defense is best in a zone even though you have one great man defender?
I know you are trying to defend your point, but you really cannot believe that is a realistic comparison. No more realistic that playing Revis at a position he is totally incapable of playing, which is NOT zone coverage.

Lets put it another way, and eliminate the hyperbole.

You have often (I believe, feel free to correct me if I am wrong) been one of the posters who want the Patriots to be more run oriented.
Why in the world would you be more run oriented when you have the GOAT at QB? What is the sense of wasting the GOAT by running the ball, that would be like having a really good corner and lessening his impact by playing zone instead of man.

 

[Ring 6]

And yes Andy, both Barron and Goldson are strong players one on one.

As far as this, IMO, you are simply wrong. You are entitled to your opinion and as I said we will agree to disagree that I think the Buc defensive coaches are the best equipped to make that assessment and you think you are.
You certainly can think that, and I certainly disagree.

 

[ausbacker]

Come on. Brady in the pistol as a running QB IS changing positions.
You really think that the decision to run a Pistol offense and have Brady be a running QB is the same thing as deciding your defense is best in a zone even though you have one great man defender?
I know you are trying to defend your point, but you really cannot believe that is a realistic comparison. No more realistic that playing Revis at a position he is totally incapable of playing, which is NOT zone coverage.

Lets put it another way, and eliminate the hyperbole.

You have often (I believe, feel free to correct me if I am wrong) been one of the posters who want the Patriots to be more run oriented.
Why in the world would you be more run oriented when you have the GOAT at QB? What is the sense of wasting the GOAT by running the ball, that would be like having a really good corner and lessening his impact by playing zone instead of man.

No, no, just no. You've taken this conversation and warped it way beyond the initial intention.