How many 3rd/4th and longs did we give up?

[sebastian91]

U

But we have speed rushers off the edge running right past him. Speed kills! Who the **** needs containment and breaking down anyway when you can just pin your ears back and run right past your target?

Are you insinuating it's "play contain" or "pin your ears back and run right past your target" as the only alternatives?

I'm insinuating that having fast players coming off the edge is meaningless if all they do is run right past the QB. They still have to be under control if they want to get a mobile guy like Armstrong. They have to play with brains.

So it's better to have slow guys coming off the edge?

Um, I didn't say that.

 

[sebastian91]

But we have speed rushers off the edge running right past him. Speed kills! Who the **** needs containment and breaking down anyway when you can just pin your ears back and run right past your target?

Are you insinuating it's "play contain" or "pin your ears back and run right past your target" as the only alternatives?

I'm insinuating that having fast players coming off the edge is meaningless if all they do is run right past the QB. They still have to be under control if they want to get a mobile guy like Armstrong. They have to play with brains.

As someone who once tried to blame our defensive struggles on the offense (as opposed to defensive scheme and playcalling) and implied it was caused by Stephen Morris (the common denominator), I think your post reads like another [passive] attack on aggressive defense.

Anyone who's watched the Canes for the past 15 years knows that you can't just fly upfield and lose your lane - regardless of scheme. When we had Jerome Mcdougal freelancing his **** off during our successful times, people noted that flaw just the same.

I don't think anyone would disagree that "having fast players coming off the edge is meaningless if all they do is run right past the QB." I think most people are asking to move away from contain as a default, but can accept lane responsibility is critical against basically all running QBs.

Well, you're wrong, as usual. I have nothing against an aggressive defense now or then, and you'd be a fool to believe that your offense going 3 and out over and over doesn't have an effect on your defense, regardless of the scheme (which was my point in the past that you're dredging up). So, you're saying that contain isn't a default for every defense against a mobile QB? I'd be pretty shocked if that's true, but I don't know. I'm not a coach (or a corch).

 

[Al Foil]

How many cheesburgers is that?

 

[LuCane]

But we have speed rushers off the edge running right past him. Speed kills! Who the **** needs containment and breaking down anyway when you can just pin your ears back and run right past your target?

Are you insinuating it's "play contain" or "pin your ears back and run right past your target" as the only alternatives?

I'm insinuating that having fast players coming off the edge is meaningless if all they do is run right past the QB. They still have to be under control if they want to get a mobile guy like Armstrong. They have to play with brains.

As someone who once tried to blame our defensive struggles on the offense (as opposed to defensive scheme and playcalling) and implied it was caused by Stephen Morris (the common denominator), I think your post reads like another [passive] attack on aggressive defense.

Anyone who's watched the Canes for the past 15 years knows that you can't just fly upfield and lose your lane - regardless of scheme. When we had Jerome Mcdougal freelancing his **** off during our successful times, people noted that flaw just the same.

I don't think anyone would disagree that "having fast players coming off the edge is meaningless if all they do is run right past the QB." I think most people are asking to move away from contain as a default, but can accept lane responsibility is critical against basically all running QBs.

Well, you're wrong, as usual. I have nothing against an aggressive defense now or then, and you'd be a fool to believe that your offense going 3 and out over and over doesn't have an effect on your defense, regardless of the scheme (which was my point in the past that you're dredging up). So, you're saying that contain isn't a default for every defense against a mobile QB? I'd be pretty shocked if that's true, but I don't know. I'm not a coach (or a corch).

Ha @ wrong as usual. We can go back to many old posts - especially between us - if you'd like to check for whose perspective is more often faulty. The rest is your usual passive aggressive approach to most situations. I've never said the offense doesn't affect the defense (if you can show where, I'll ban myself for a month - otherwise, typical you).

Have a good one.

 

[sebastian91]

Lulz. No, you have a good one.