Search results

I appreciate your detailed and well thought response. I get where you're coming from. I was just simplying to keep the conversation less complicated. My whole point was to play 6 DBs against 4 WR sets. Regardless of what the CBs do, the safties can split the field and just hawk the ball...

6 DBs on the field against 4 WR sets regardless down. That's all I was saying. This is what ISU does as a base defense against most sets not just 4 WRs. This their defense to spread teams. Clemson adopted it under Venables and ran it situatiinally.

Quarters is exactly what it says. It's dividing the field into quarters. Just like a zone coverage in basketball, you are responsible for the man that comes into your area. You are not assigned to a man presnap like man coverage. Secondly, I didn't say anything about downs. I simply said...

Maybe this will help you out and you can learn something. Look Mom, 4 WRs and 6 DBs in a base defense. As the YouTube poster says, it turns into a Dime on a pass play post snap. It hides the coverage. I didn't even suggest playing this as a base defense. I said play 2 safeties over the top...

I didn't say I know more than anyone. So, youn stop making **** up!! It just make you look like an ***!! You're moving the goal post to make yourself look good. The posts were specific to 4WRs. Then you started adding BS to and things I didn't say. I didn't ask for your 2 cents to begin...

You can play dime any time want. Yah, you may be venerable to the run, but you can do whatever you want. You don't have to line up in a 4-3 on 1st down. I explained playing nickel as a base with James in the box which is basically disguising a dime because you have the same personnel on the...

Quarters is NOT man to man genius!!! The DBs cover space. A section of the field. Man vs man is to cover a player wherever he goes all over the field.

No Phuking ****!!! You say impossible. What did I say? Dime and Quarters, but you say it can only be run in Dime which is what I said. Now, you're just being an *******!!!

Its basic football. Read the article. I made it simple. These are the formations where you can have 2 safeties over the top against 4 WRS. Yah, you can do all that other **** if you want to, but you don't have to. You can play nickel coverage with James in the box. On the hike of the ball...

That's not quite right. Yes, if you have 4 WRs and 4 CB, and 2 safeties, the safeties could only double 2 WRs leaving 2 CBs 1v1, but the safties playing zone are covering area not people. It's their job to be the last line of defense. They should be able to react and support where the ball is...

I don't agree. It's not Ivey's fault for getting beat on a GO route against a sub 4 4 150 LB WR with no safety help. I'll keep going back to the same reference. It's like asking a CB to cover Tyrique Hill with no safety help. Nobody would do that, but you expect our big corners to do that...

You can always have safety help. It depends on the defensive scheme you're playing. Zone over the top and man under. Listen to Mario’s press conference. He said they would look at the coverage schemes they played. He wasn't happy with the scheme. I think Steele took unnecessary risks...

They didn't play 1v1 without safety help against AtM. We were getting QB pressure on AtM with 4. There should he zero confidence of any DB on any team playing 1v1 without safety help when you have a discrepancy in speed. We have big physical corners. They run a 4.5 40 at best. You're never...

Like the NFL, you have to coach the players you have. Yes, they didn't recruit these guys, but they are their guys now. They also brought plenty of guys from the Portal. I think Mario has to lay down the law and only play guys that have bought into his culture. It looked like the team did...

Obviously, MTSU saw something on film where Steele was rotating his safeties up. Steele did that when MTSU was pinned deep. That’s when they took their shots. They went deep when they had 1 v 1 coverage against our CB with no safety help. That should never happen. Ivey and Stevenson are...