On the decline
by Broncs55 on Jul 30, 2010 10:21 AM MDT
Email
Print
Shortly after the draft in someone else's fanpost, I had said that I think the Chargers are on the decline, and even if they win the division this year, they will still struggle. Several people told me I was naive as the Chargers are still fielding a pretty good team.
The Chargers have 3 key holdouts in V. Jackson, S. Merriman and McNeill. McNeill has been protecting Rivers' blindside, and does a great job at it. Instead of resigning a key man on the line, they went out through free agency and brought in another left tackle. Says a lot about how they view McNeill
Jackson has been one of the best wideouts in the league, yet they opted not to give him an extension either. And Merriman just claims he wants to know he wont be on the chopping block 3 weeks into the season. Obviously is wanting an extension as well.
They also traded away a key defensive back to New York, let their nose tackle go to none other than our beloved Broncos, and let L.T. go as well.
It appears that they have decided to rebuild, or retool their team while they still have a tool leading their offense in Rivers. Rivers is a tool. Take that how you would like it. lol
Yet the MSM and many others are still saying that the division is theirs. While it appears initially that Denver, Kansas City and Oakland all drafted well, it is only a matter of time when we know how the draft will pan out. Players don't always transition to the pro's. Some of the biggest names fail. Look at Jabba the Hut for a prime example, or Ryan Leaf.
Our schedule on paper is not as hard this year as it was this time last year. Last year we had a horrible schedule, probably one of toughest in the league, and we did great out of the starting gate. We have gotten veterans through the free agency, and picked many players through the draft that I have heard people called "steals". In fact, almost every player we picked in the draft was called "the steal of the draft".
All in all, I see the Chargers going down this year and continuing to follow that path giving the Broncos, Kansas City and the Raiders.... well.... maybe not the Raiders, emerging in the AFC West.
This is a Fan-Created Comment on MileHighReport.com. The opinion here is not necessarily shared by the editorial staff of MHR
60 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Will they struggle? Yes.
Will they probably still win the division? Yes. Therefore, not much of a struggle.
They have a good shot at the division
although the holdouts could really affect them…especially if Matthews holds out, we all saw what happened to Moreno by holding out.
agreed that they are on the decline though
by black_knight101 on Jul 30, 2010 10:43 AM MDT reply actions
Good point on Mathews
23-1. Determination. That which cannont be taught. The reult of finding yourself through adversity.
Will struggle, but by not much
They were too good for the division last year and the gap between them and the rest of AFC West was too wide. They mostly dropped old players that do not produce much anyway. LT is a pale shadow of himself. Jamal, I’m sorry, is almost in retirement as well. Holdouts will be resolved in due time – it is just the starting of camp and there is so much time to resign them. Michael Strahan missed all off-season his last year and came back to lead Giants defense to obliterating NE in the SB.
All in all, I see SD dropping off some, but still winning the division easily in 2010. After that, nobody knows.
Losing Williams won't hurt them because he hardly played in the last two seasons
Losing L.T. won’t hurt as much as people think considering he only averaged 3.3 ypc last season and they brought in a younger back in Mathews. Losing McNeill will hurt, but like you said, if they don’t think he’s up to the challenge, and the brought in someone else, maybe they’ll be fine. Merriman wasn’t much of a force last season, and his absesnse won’t be to missed. Jackson might be the biggest loss, but they do have the deepest receiving corp in the league.
Yes they will struggle, but they had injuries last season as well and people said they’d struggle then too, yet they went 13-3. So I don’t expect that good, but I still see them winning 10+ games.
I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.
Idk about deepest...
I’d put the Pats, Saints, Packers and Colts ahead of them…
But even if the production (or lack thereof) isn’t the missed issue, there are ALOT of things going on with the Chargers, and there is a decent chance that it’ll prove to be a distraction at some point. Players are going to take sides on the Gates getting paid early vs Jackson and McNeil not getting paid at all, there has already been some back and forth on L.T. branching out eg. tatoo removal, “this team that team” comments, etc. and Phillip Rivers haircut. I think they’re a 10 win team, plus or minus 2. Just depends if coaches/players can step up and be positive influences on the team
by Warren Todd on Jul 30, 2010 11:08 AM MDT up reply actions
I agree
San Diego’s ways are probably going to cause some major locker room problems, which sometimes (not always) but in cases like this I can see – can transfer to the field.
daaayuuuuum! you gonna take that KB?!? lol -Broncs55
Absolutely not. KB is a function of aggression and rage, the derivative of which can be traced back to my childhood.-KentuckyBronco
PS3 ID: KoRnHo|ed
In the division, not the league or conference
My mistake. As for distractions, some coaches actually know how to deal with them, some don’t, I guess we’ll see if Turner can handle it.
I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.
by Topher Doll on Jul 30, 2010 11:43 AM MDT up reply actions
This is their WR core without V.J.
Wide Receiver 1 Malcom Floyd Buster Davis Gary Banks Richard Goodman
Wide Receiver 2 Legedu Naanee Josh Reed Ernest Smith
That’s not going to win you more than 10 IMO.
by CPT.Caveman on Jul 30, 2010 12:04 PM MDT up reply actions
I'd say so
Especially if they manage to improve with Cam at NT, Mathews is an improvement over LT in my opinion and they still have Rivers. Teams have won with less mind you.
I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.
by Topher Doll on Jul 30, 2010 12:14 PM MDT up reply actions
The key word is "IF"
Cam although he might be good in the future is young, and has alot to learn. The same thing can be said for Mathews, but he has never had a full year were he stayed healthy. Also something to think about D.McCluster had more reps at 225 than he did:P
by CPT.Caveman on Jul 30, 2010 12:35 PM MDT up reply actions
There are "ifs" on any team
You should respect that more then anyone, same with Bronco fans, there are so many “ifs” in both our teams it’s more then a little risky. They have far fewer questions going into TC then either of our teams. They will struggle, but a struggling season for SD is still good enough to win the division.
I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.
Losing Williams won’t hurt them because he hardly played in the last two seasons
He played in all 16 games for them in 2008. It was only 2009 where he was out. And yes, it hurt them badly. In 2008, their run-defense ranked 11th in the league at 4.0 YPC. In 2009 (without J-Will), their run-defense ranked 20th at 4.5 YPC.
I agree that Mathews is an upgrade over LT.
Other than that, I don’t think it can be overstated how badly it will hurt the team and the team’s morale if they do indeed have three of their top stars holding out, crying and complainng. If those guys hold out, the Chargers won’t be the Chargers.
23-1. Determination. That which cannont be taught. The reult of finding yourself through adversity.
It hurt their defense, yes
They struggled last season, yes, and look how well they did. People forget all the injuries they had last season, they struggled last season, and still earned 13-3.
I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.
Williams opened the door for Ian Scott who is also gone. Cam Thomas is the NT (rookie 6th round)
Now how is that not a drop off?
Maybe 10 wins with the schedule, but 9 if one injury happens.
So we are going to start a guy quite a bit past 30
Who was injured all last season, and they get a young rookie who actually is going to be at camp, and their the ones in trouble at NT? I think Williams is a great anchor for our line, and an improvement, but he’s hardly a Pro Bowler anymore.
I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.
by Topher Doll on Jul 31, 2010 11:04 AM MDT up reply actions
Brandon Dombrowski is probably a better bet than Tra Thomas
Thomas had been out of football for a year. Dombrowski did a nice job of filling in last year – he’s a more likely candidate in case McNeill does what he is threatening and holds out for all but the last 6 games, thereby using up a year of NFL eligibility and permitting him to end his contract and move on. I’m not sure that Merriman will be the same after the knee injury and without the meds he was apparently caught using. He many not be a huge factor. Rock Cartwright was a nice addition and he should help. Marcus Mason is a talented rookie and Shawnbey McNeal. has come through a rough time as a person, and spent much of the past couple of years helping out his mother, who is ill (he transfered to Southern Methodist for a year to care for her. The NCAA gave him a hardship waiver so that he didn’t have ot lose a year of eligibility. That whole story is worth a Tales, and one will be out soon.
V. Jackson has threatened to do what McNeill claims to be doing. He would be a huge loss – Chambers was uneven, but he did a nice job of backing up Jackson. Floyd is better than many people know, and Naanee is a very good young talent. Sadly, they’ll probably be fine.
Gnothi Seauton
I love it!
Sadly, they’ll probably be fine.
But I do agree, their passing game won’t be quite as good, but they do still have the best TE in the division, the best quarterback, and a solid WR corp, even without Jackson. Couldn’t say it better, sadly, they’ll be fine.
I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.
by Topher Doll on Jul 31, 2010 11:05 AM MDT up reply actions
Sadly...
The Chargers have been so far and away the better team in the AFC West, that some regression from them and even some slight progression from us should still keep them in the catbird seat in the AFC West…
MileHighReport.com member since 02/06/07, promoted to "Position Coach" (i.e. new staff writer) on 02/16/10!
They have to rebuild, don't they.
The Chargers are getting long in the tooth, and with all the other teams rebuilding and adding youth, they don’t want to fall off in a big way, like the Chiefs have over the last 4 years.
Decline is an overstatement
I think it’s more accurate to say they are a team in transition. On defense I think they are trying to move away from the 3-4 to more of a Tampa-2 type defense. Hence JW is no longer essential and Cromartie became a liability.
On offense they have been steadily moving away from the run first LT lead team to a pass-first Rivers lead team. Remember Turner is a disciple of Coryell.
I’m not sure the loss of VJ is that great. While he was their #1 receiver, Floyd had very comparable per reception stats and Nanee has looked good at times.
The bigger question is how well they can replace McNeil if he does hold out. Cast off left tackles were usually cast off for a reason.
I hear that about Floyd a lot, but I don’t buy it. I don’t buy that Floyd can produce so greatly without Jackson to take the attention and the double teams.
I do agree, though, that McNeil is more of an issue than people make it out to be.
23-1. Determination. That which cannont be taught. The reult of finding yourself through adversity.
How can anyone expect our passing attack to succeed
When we don’t think Floyd, whose likely better then any of our receivers, can catch. If Floyd isn’t good enough to be a #1, we are even more screwed.
I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.
I do expect us to have a hard time without BM until D. Thomas gets the respect to garner a defense’s attention. I’ve always said we will miss BM at the start of the season.
I’m not sure I understand your point. Are you suggesting we won’t be hurt having lost Brandon Marshall, or are you suggesting that Malcolm Floyd as a #1 won’t be negatively affected by having the extra attention due to VJ’s action?
23-1. Determination. That which cannont be taught. The reult of finding yourself through adversity.
I think
He meant that Floyd was a better reciever than anyone we have on our roster, which isn’t too far off at any case. Obviously I think the celiling <—(always had problems spelling that…) is much much higher on 3 of our current recievers, that being Royal, Thomas and Decker. If they step up and play to their potential we’ll be fine, but if one or none of them make any strides then I think we will have serious problems.
Royal, Thomas and Decker?
Somehow folks always talk first about rookies, while coaches usually lead with experience. McKinley may have trouble making this team, but Gaffney won’t. Brandon Lloyd may fight it out with McKinley, Stokes may or may not make it, but I kind of doubt, for what it’s worth, that on opening day, our WRs will be 2 rookies and a guy with troubles last year, no matter how good I think that they can be over time.
As far as double teams go, to touch on SWG’s comment below, a lot of that is probably camera angles. If the shot is from behind the QB, you can see players on the various zone levels. If the angle is just right, it can look like double or even triple teams if one guy is handing off a receiver to another. SWG is right – the double team almost never happens, but the angles of the camera work can make it look that way.
Similarly, when a receiver makes a good catch, over or past the CB and the safety comes in and immediately makes the tackle, a lot of announcers will say that the safety got there ‘just a little late’. That’s also nonsense – it’s the cornerback’s job to prevent the catch or make the tackle while the safety is there to make sure that the receiver has no chance for YAC or a TD. A quick, well done tackle takes care of that.
Sorry to move into your comment thread, WT – I was just making a comment on the opening day players. I tend to think that people are pushing rookies up ahead in their minds. Today, McDaniels made a comment that not one rookie (including the one that arrived today) is ready to play pro ball. I understand that someone might be after camp, but I tend to look at rookies with very low expectations. It’s great if they do well, but statistically, they don’t play that much or that well. It’s nice to hope for better (and I do, believe me) but historically, you just don’t know.
Gnothi Seauton
Good points
I also want to say that I wasn’t meaning to insult you or call you a name in anyway. I love reading your posts, and have respect for your opinions, so please believe me when i say it wasn’t meant as a insult at all, and I’m sorry you took it that way:P If there’s one thing i can contribute to our Blogs it’s the end of the name calling, so for you to think i did so just defeats my purpose in being here.
by CPT.Caveman on Jul 30, 2010 10:31 PM MDT up reply actions
We have no problems
We got off to a bad start, but that’s in the past. No worries, my friend
Gnothi Seauton
Well I’m not prepared to call Floyd better than Royal, but the point is taken.
The point behind the original comment and reply related to Floyd’s production beig comparable to VJ’s and the idea that San Diego wouldn’t miss Jackson as much as a result. I, however, hold the notion that without Jackson for teams to worry about, Floyd won’t get the same numbers.
23-1. Determination. That which cannont be taught. The reult of finding yourself through adversity.
That's what I was saying, thanks for clearing it up
And I do think we have high ceilings for our young guys, but potential doesn’t win games now, heck it doesn’t always win games ever. As of now, Gaffney is probably our best receiver, and he’s pretty decent, and should start at #1 or #2. But that being said, on almost any other team, he would never be higher then #2 or #3. I’m a big Gaffney fan, like what he did last season, but I don’t think he’s enough to carry us if Royal struggles again and while we wait for Thomas and Decker to step up.
I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.
by Topher Doll on Jul 31, 2010 11:10 AM MDT up reply actions
I think we will miss Marshall, or at least miss not having a true #1
I do think they will hurt in losing Jackson, but I think Floyd is good enough to be a decent #1, and with Gates lining up at TE and Naanee is a pretty solid young guy. They won’t be the same without Jackson, but they will still lead the division in passing yards and touchdowns.
I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.
by Topher Doll on Jul 31, 2010 11:07 AM MDT up reply actions
Double teams
I cannot remember the last time I saw a double team in the NFL. I don’t know where all this crap about taking double teams is coming from.
Just because the flat/curl defender releases a receiver to the safety does not constitute a double team. That’s called a zone defense and every team uses it against every receiver in the league. I challenge anyone to show me an NFL play involving a double team.
by SlowWhiteGuy on Jul 30, 2010 5:25 PM MDT up reply actions
People use the term “double team” to describe a team attempting to take away a receiver and dictate that the offense go somewhere else with the ball. Now you can call that what you want, but although it’s not the literal definition… I’ll always call it a double team or doubling a receiver.
Again though, whatever you personally like to call it, it doesn’t really matter or affect the point, does it? Guys like Vincent Jackson and Brandon Marshall are game planned around, schemed around, safeties stay back and cheat to their side which means someone else is going to have less help covering Floyd and Royal.
23-1. Determination. That which cannont be taught. The reult of finding yourself through adversity.
sounds good in Madden
but that’s not what the better NFL defenses do. Look at how teams defended Marshall toward the end of the season (NYG being an exception)?
Go watch how the Steelers defended against Fitz in the SB. They actually brought Palomalu up the the line on Fitz’s side of the ball.
The fact is, with a very few exceptions, it’s not WRs who give DCs nightmares; it’s elite TEs like Gates or Witten. It’s the TE who can burn you badly if you stack the box. It’s the TE who can freeze the safety isolating the CB. It’s the TE who can put the deep coverage in an inside-out stretch.
As long as Gates continues to play the way he has, almost anyone who lines up outside him is going to get some good deep looks.
by SlowWhiteGuy on Jul 31, 2010 12:22 PM MDT up reply actions
Partly true
And I know you coach, but from what I’ve seen, played and studied, a number of teams, depending on who they are playing, what their secondary looks like and what offensive weapons they are facing, will put two players in man on the same receiver. You are right that a receiving TE can cause huge troubles, especially when matched against a LB, and I do agree that Gates will likely be fine, but it isn’t a rare occasion to see a safety and a corner playing man on a receiver.
I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.
I see the confusing
in the scenario that you are describing they aren’t really playing man. They are playing combo coverage – sort of a hybrid between zone & man. It can be done inside-out, or high-low. In a combo each of the defenders will take the receiver in man coverage if he comes into their zone and the other will continue to play zone.
but combo coverage isn’t used to take away a single receiver so much as it is a technique to deal with difficult formations like bunch and stack. It can also be used against teams that like to use a lot of picks and rubs.
by SlowWhiteGuy on Jul 31, 2010 2:04 PM MDT up reply actions
If you say so
But just from my understanding, and from what I’ve seen, I’ve seen more man played then I think people are willing to admit. I know a number of teams run a strong zone defense, but those with skilled shutdown corners run a lot of man. And when you have a skilled cover corner, teams are able to line him up against a single receiver. Each coach is different, but I still see a number of safeties being used in man coverage. I do appreciate you adding your insight, and I could see how certain man alignments could be views as, what you call, combo coverage, but thanks for the thoughts.
I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.
There is also a coverage
known as pattern zone that looks like man. In it the defender covers a receiver man-man while that receiver is in the zone. It’s the football version of a match-up zone.
announcers often break coverage down into either zone or man, but there is much more diversity than that.
In addition, NFL defenses work very hard to make man coverage look like zone and zone coverage to look like man. Any defense can be beaten, easily, if you know what is going to be run.
by SlowWhiteGuy on Jul 31, 2010 4:16 PM MDT up reply actions
I think you just don't want to admit there's man coverage
I am not the smartest when it comes to football, but I do have an understanding that there is more to defense then just man or zone, and you can play man in a zone, or just watch your zone, there are multiple options, but I do know for a fact, that teams will put a safety in man coverage. Just to be sure, I called my friend who played football at UNLV, Jason Beauchamp, he played ILB and SS and was picked up by the Saints as a UDFA this past off-season. Now he says that at the rookie camp, he played SS and more then once practiced man coverage against the FB or RB. Now he said that is was even more common for the FS he was with to play man then he did.
I’m not saying how often it’s used, and defenses obviously disguise their coverages, but once the play starts, and players start moving, you see what those players are going to do. I’m not trying to be confrentational, but I have heard, seen and learned that players use man coverage to double cover a WR, or they will move a zone to cover him, but if you have to adjust a player to help cover a receiver, either by having him play man to man or by moving a zone to cover him, I’d call that double teaming.
I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.
Man coverage wasn't the issue
there certainly is man coverage and all teams use various man schemes, especially with pressure packages. But the topic was double coverage.
In Man-0 (or Cover-0) there are 4 or 5 defenders in coverage with no safety help over the top. This is used with 6 or 7 man pressure packages. There’s no double coverage in Man-0.
In Man-1 (or Cover-1) there is a single high safety. This is used with 6 man pressure and in run situations where the D wants to keep 8 in the box. Teams don’t use double-coverage in Cover-1, but, based on tendencies of the offense, the deep safety will likely shade to one side or the other. In 2006 both the Chargers and the Giants had success taking away Randy Moss using Cover-1 and sending 5 pass rushers.
In Man-2 there are two high safeties. Teams often run Man-2 because it looks very much like Zone-2 pre-snap. I think a lot of fans confuse Man-2 with double coverage. In Man-2 the corner trails the receiver counting on safety help over the top.
There is also Cover-3 Cloud which can look like a double. In Cloud coverage the CB on one side stays underneath while the safeties roll to that side and the opposite CB retreats to a deep 1/3 or 1/4.
Another package that can look like double is Cover-4. In Cover-4 the CBs and safeties each take 1/4 of the field. Depending on what the other receivers do, a defense can get inside-out coverage on a receiver.
Finally, as I noted above, teams can run combo coverage when confronted with bunch or stack alignments.
To summarize: Man coverage is used, particularly with pressure package. Double coverage however is extremely rare.
by SlowWhiteGuy on Jul 31, 2010 7:26 PM MDT up reply actions
And that is where I guess we'll disagree
I acknowledge that your breakdown of the different styles of defense are thorough, but from what I know from talking to my friend and watching the game, it’s pretty clear cut when they are to have two people covering a player, either with moving a zone to compensate, or by having two players playing man on him, one in bump and run, the other playing lose coverage on that player. Now this part came from my friend with the Saints, he said that while it is true that they will mask man as zone and zone as man, it isn’t rare for them to show zone, but they are really covering the receiver in man, along with the corner. That may just be in the Saints and at UNLV, and I agree that it may been seen as zone, or zone may be just man, but from what he’s told me, as a player, that his team runs double teams, either in zone or man, and they will bring two players to cover that receiver.
I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.
showing zone playing man
all teams do this and that’s why DCs like Cover-2 so much. They can show a 2 high look without giving away whether it’s zone or man. typically you look to the corners to read. Usually they will be in press for the zone and off for the man. But NFL CBs are such good athletes that they can show press and then drop off at the snap, they can run bump and bail, or they can start off, then creep up and run press at the snap.
Also, they can run Cover-4 from a 2-high look. The other way defenses run man while looking like a zone is the use of pattern zones which I described above. If your buddy is playing with the Saints he is paying for one of the most creative DCs in the game right now.
I’m not saying that defenses never have two guys covering one receiver. that’s the whole notion of safety play. But the fundamental difference between safety, whether it is over the top, or to the inside, is that the safety is playing an assignment, not a player. A safety with deep 1/2 responsibility will play the first player who goes deep to his side – whether that is the so called deep threat or not. In a double team the safety stays on the doubled receiver.
The point is, in HS and college the difference between the best and second best receiver on the field is huge. Defenses can afford to concentrate on taking away the #1 receiver. In the NFL the drop-off between the best receiver and the worst receiver is much less. If teams focus on taking away one receiver with a double team they become way too exposed to the other receivers.
I will caveat this. Teams do sometimes shadow one receiver while zoning the rest of the field. I guess you could call that a double team of sorts. But that is usually used for backs and TEs.
BTW
I’m going but what I see, but I could be wrong. Why don’t you ask your buddy how much NFL defenses, or at least the Saints, actually use true double teams.
A zone doesn’t count as a double team btw.
So he said from the playbook he has
And from the limited practices he’s been to, there are a number of plays where a safety is brought in to help against a specific player. Now he wasn’t sure how often they were used in game, and he is going to talk with some of the veterans about that, but he did make the point that during some practices the DC called from him to shift his zone to take away a deep route from a specific WR, and he did say that is wasn’t exactly double teaming, it was the same principle, sending a second player to help control the player. So I guess it’s semantics when we say zone-alignment isn’t double teaming, but from his limited NFL experience, it is pretty much the same thing.
I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.
Interesting
some of this is semantics, but it is still interesting.
I’d be interested in finding out if they are doing this from a cover-2 or a cover-3 shell. In particular if they are doing it from cover-3 are they shading the safety from 1/3s or are they going to 1/2-1/4-1/4.
I may know a bit about football but there’s a reason I am not, and never will be, an NFL coach.
by SlowWhiteGuy on Aug 1, 2010 10:19 AM MDT up reply actions
The next time I call my friend
I’ll see what more I can find out. I have appreciated talking about this though, so thanks for the thoughts.
I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.
Well, I don’t disagree on the TEs.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on the WRs, though. I can’t foresee ever changing my mind that a great receiver garners extra attention from the defense – that it takes additional help to keep him in check and out of the end-zone.
An additional point on our original premise that not having VJ will hurt Floyd’s production and numbers is the guy who covers him. For example, when we play the Chargers, Champ Bailey covers Jackson. Without Jackson, Champ will be mainly matched up against Floyd. Now I realize that not all NFL teams put their best corner on the best receiver as often as we do, but the point remains that Floyd won’t have as easy of a time catching balls when he’s largely covered by guys like Champ, Asomugha (sp?), and Revis instead of those teams’ #2 CBs.
The overall contention here being that Floyd won’t be as effective without Vincent Jackson to take the #1 CB and the extra safety help.
23-1. Determination. That which cannont be taught. The reult of finding yourself through adversity.
I understand your point
but I think it has more to do with who is lined up next to Gates, than the individual receiver. If Floyd is lined up next to Gates, instead of on the weakside, then the CB on that side likely does not get as much safety help over the top because of Gates. Floyd’s production probably goes up since most teams do not have a Bailey over there.
The bigger question for SD is whether Nanee can pick up the slack on the weakside for Floyd.
by SlowWhiteGuy on Jul 31, 2010 7:31 PM MDT up reply actions
By double team
I mean that they won’t bring the safety into the box on his side, that they won’t leave just the corner covering his side of the field. On a player like Fitz or Andre Johnson, the safety is going to stay back, because of these players ability to beat corners. And with the change to the Cover two system of safety play, one covering half the field, a number of teams still bring a safety to help cover a specific player. The zone defense is used a lot, but a safety playing man defense is still used a lot.
I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.
by Topher Doll on Jul 31, 2010 11:13 AM MDT up reply actions
Nice post, I pretty much already shot my wad on the thoughts I had
23-1. Determination. That which cannont be taught. The reult of finding yourself through adversity.
As with Alex, many of my thoughts went in the comments.
My last thought, who cares what the Chargers, Chiefs, and Raiders are doing?
I hope for the two rookie OL to make us the top OL next year.
And that the 2009 drafts flourish in their second year.
And that we have 3-4 2010 rookies that ‘show up’ and are immediate contributors.
And if we end up with more than 8 wins then the year was BLUE & ORANGE
by DLMyers on Jul 30, 2010 5:12 PM MDT reply actions 1 recs
haha i wouldnt call tebow the steal of the draft
i like him alot and all and im going to get his jersey with my next paycheck but i feel like he coulda stayed until the 2nd rd at least
Those guys are part of a movement.
It’s not really in any of their individual best interests to hold out like this… but the fact that they’re all doing it together at the same time SHOULD be noted. Its no mystery that AJ Smith as played harball with his players over there for some time now. These players are tired of it and making a stand together. (All for one, and One for all). They’re sending a messege that a change needs to be made. They don’t like the way AJ Smith is handling their situations (for whatever reasons, whether justifyable or not) and they’re making it known to the organization. When one guy holds out, hey, it happens. Two guys, coincidental circumstances, but three,,, well that’s setting a precidence there. I understand that the CBA plays in to a lot of this, but there’s got to be something deeper. I mean think about it… 3 star players (and core players to boot) holding out for new contracts (when the chances are they WILL eventually get one anyways – because they are still young and productive) they’re sending a messege and I think there’s more than just 3 amigos over there that are tired of the regime (or at least AJ Smith’s part in it).
"I have no right, by anything I do or say, to demean a human being in his own eyes. What matters is not what I think of him; it is what he thinks of himself." - Antoine de Exupery
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Getting Social With MHR
Web Stuff
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
