IntheBullseye.com  

Go Back   IntheBullseye.com > Hot Reads ...In the Bullseye > The Texans
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-26-2009, 07:06 PM
Big Texas Big Texas is offline
Pro Bowler
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,469
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nconroe View Post
Yep, and I think he said in second half they didn't let up on offense or defense either. just that some guys didn't execute properly on offense, motion penalties, foolish penalties, so on, and were out of position on those passes to TE Davis for TD's on SF side of things. so, perhaps it is correctable before we get to Buffalo.
From what I saw, it looked as though Demeco was covering underneath while Pollard was over the top. However Pollard kept drifting to Reeves rather than helping over Vernon Davis.

The plan was simple...beat Reeves on several short patterns...force Pollard to help over the top...which then leaves Demeco 1-on-1 with Vernon Davis. Come on vDavis runs a 4.4 - 40.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-27-2009, 11:33 AM
idymoe idymoe is offline
Veteran Depth
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Boise, ID
Posts: 158
Default

Why would allowing completions on short patterns force safety help over the top?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-27-2009, 05:49 PM
Big Texas Big Texas is offline
Pro Bowler
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,469
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by idymoe View Post
Why would allowing completions on short patterns force safety help over the top?
That is actually a good question. The purpose behind the comment was that there was no reason for Pollard to help over the top of Reeves. Although I do understand his reasoning. Reeves had been beaten on several occasions. Maybe he thought that Reeves would need help with tackling.

However, he was inadvertently leaving the seam vulnerable. After the 1st TD it was clear that Pollard or Any safety should have been helping out over VDavis.

The Texans were running a two deep zone (as if either Bruce or Crabtree had breakaway speed) which in turn leaves the seam vulnerable. That coupled with no pressure equals 3 TDs.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-28-2009, 12:17 AM
painekiller painekiller is offline
All-Pro
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Near the Galleria
Posts: 2,852
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Texas View Post

The Texans were running a two deep zone (as if either Bruce or Crabtree had breakaway speed) which in turn leaves the seam vulnerable. That coupled with no pressure equals 3 TDs.
Funny Kubiak said they were in quarters, which is 4 deep.
__________________
There is no failure, only feedback.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-28-2009, 09:02 AM
papabear papabear is offline
Regular Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Houston
Posts: 838
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by painekiller View Post
Funny Kubiak said they were in quarters, which is 4 deep.
Yep.......
__________________
"Well, at least our players kept their helmets on, so that showed some intelligence"-BobMcNair
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-28-2009, 03:11 PM
Big Texas Big Texas is offline
Pro Bowler
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,469
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by painekiller View Post
Funny Kubiak said they were in quarters, which is 4 deep.
Maybe that's what he wanted run. However, that is not what they were doing. Quarters covers all four areas deep. Reeves was playing extremely too tight to be playing quarters. Unless this was some sort of (hybrid quarter) maybe man quarter, IDK. What I do know was that if they were indeed running quarters VDavis would not have been NAKED up the seam.

Maybe they called quarters and Pollard decided to do something else. What I do know is that there were only two deep at that time. And both were outta position. Demeco was the closest Texan to VDavis.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-28-2009, 05:17 PM
papabear papabear is offline
Regular Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Houston
Posts: 838
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Texas View Post
Maybe that's what he wanted run. However, that is not what they were doing. Quarters covers all four areas deep. Reeves was playing extremely too tight to be playing quarters.
Just because the play call is quarters doesn't mean that the CB's turn and sprint to their deep quarter regardless of what the play call is. With no other threats to his area of responsibility Reeve's stayed with the threat underneath (maybe incorrectly). I'm going to go ahead and trust what the head coach says as far as the play they were supposed to be running. It appears that Pollard cheated for some unknown reason and perhaps Demeco didn't get deep enough in his drop, but again I don't know what his responsibilities were on that play.
__________________
"Well, at least our players kept their helmets on, so that showed some intelligence"-BobMcNair
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-28-2009, 05:32 PM
barrett barrett is offline
All-Pro
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,902
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by papabear View Post
Just because the play call is quarters doesn't mean that the CB's turn and sprint to their deep quarter regardless of what the play call is. With no other threats to his area of responsibility Reeve's stayed with the threat underneath (maybe incorrectly). I'm going to go ahead and trust what the head coach says as far as the play they were supposed to be running. It appears that Pollard cheated for some unknown reason and perhaps Demeco didn't get deep enough in his drop, but again I don't know what his responsibilities were on that play.
You are correct here.

Reeves has quarter responsibility. That means his quarter of the field from back to front. If there is nothing in Back then he plays accordingly. Especially against a team like the 49ers who don't have any speed on the outside.

Ryans doesn't need a deep drop in quarters. The safeties are both in the middle of the field so he is playing underneath. He is not responsible for a route down the seem.

It falls %100 on Pollard if they are playing quarters. He cheated toward the sidelines for no reason. SF had no success outside in the passing game and Smith doesn't have the arm to really threaten the boundary anyways. Pollard should have played his coverage and we would have been fine.

Of course it happened 3Xs and I don't know if Kubiak said that was the coverage all three times. So it is very possible that the blame can be spread around all over for the 3 TDs.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-28-2009, 09:00 PM
painekiller painekiller is offline
All-Pro
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Near the Galleria
Posts: 2,852
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by papabear View Post
Just because the play call is quarters doesn't mean that the CB's turn and sprint to their deep quarter regardless of what the play call is. With no other threats to his area of responsibility Reeve's stayed with the threat underneath (maybe incorrectly). I'm going to go ahead and trust what the head coach says as far as the play they were supposed to be running. It appears that Pollard cheated for some unknown reason and perhaps Demeco didn't get deep enough in his drop, but again I don't know what his responsibilities were on that play.
Demeco was supposed to force the TE to a more outside path, but if you do not hit Davis at the line, he is gone from any LB in the league. And yes Pollard was cheated to the outside, much more than he should have been. Both players made small mistakes which cost the team.
__________________
There is no failure, only feedback.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-28-2009, 04:32 PM
NBT NBT is offline
Pro Bowler
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: S.E. Texas Coast
Posts: 1,836
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by painekiller View Post
Funny Kubiak said they were in quarters, which is 4 deep.
OK, I ain't a coach ( we could argue about the scout, as in draft talent), but I saw what I saw, and Kubiak doesn't always do what he says. So maybe I stand halfway corrected on this one PK.
__________________
NBT - Elder statesman. Wisdom comes with age - Now if i could remember what it was!
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 10-28-2009, 08:57 PM
painekiller painekiller is offline
All-Pro
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Near the Galleria
Posts: 2,852
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NBT View Post
OK, I ain't a coach ( we could argue about the scout, as in draft talent), but I saw what I saw, and Kubiak doesn't always do what he says. So maybe I stand halfway corrected on this one PK.
I thought I gave you credit for being half right? Everybody has an opinion, and opinions are what brings all of us to these boards.

NBT your opinion is one I like to read, we do not always agree, but I respect your opinions. So I apologize if I crossed a line.
__________________
There is no failure, only feedback.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.