Corey Chavous.....

[ktuck911]

was absolutely correct and right on point about our effort. We played too soft a zone, yet Cincy, playing man with inexperienced DB's, gave us fits all night. They had wide open looks. We had very few. We never used our big tight ends in the red zone. We tackled poorly. We wasted time when we needed all the minutes we could salvage.
Chavous was blunt and on point. It wasn't complimentary but it was absolutely correct. He was impressive as an analyst.

I hate playing zone coverage at the corners.. To me, it shows that opposing team that our CBs are weaker than their WRs.. Like we can't cover them... If that's the case, we definitely gotta recruit better at the position... and I'm all for bringing in a few JUCO's if necessary.. Or bring in a different coaching philosophy at the position. With our defense being the strong point of this team, that playing "not to lose" style is horrible. It may work well/decent against weaker opponents but it sucks against teams with a bunch of playmakers on the field, that simply play football and aren 't concerned about technique...

With an inconsistent offense, it spells disaster.. Shireffs tried to play Superman on Saturday.. Thank God he didn't get hurt... His liability is throwing the deep ball, but he's a warrior out there, which I respect. Love the kid's desire.

IMO, our LBers weren't very good either on Saturday

And the worst part about it all, open field tackling...

Sorry for rambling but all this stuff from Saturday is rushing back into my head right now. Cup is still half full for us.. but I see the light at the end of the tunnel...

 

[31GuardTrap]

was absolutely correct and right on point about our effort. We played too soft a zone, yet Cincy, playing man with inexperienced DB's, gave us fits all night. They had wide open looks. We had very few. We never used our big tight ends in the red zone. We tackled poorly. We wasted time when we needed all the minutes we could salvage.
Chavous was blunt and on point. It wasn't complimentary but it was absolutely correct. He was impressive as an analyst.

He is downright awful and needs to learn how to speak before he even analyzes games on TV. I had to put it on mute. I watched some games previously that he did and it was much of the same.

 

[Dooley]

Zone coverage, if played properly, can be effective. The problem with our zone coverage is that the zones begin way too far down the field. The layer of zone is 10 yards out, the second/third layer is 15-20+ yards out. Cincinnati knew this and ran dozens of short crossing routes to get the ball to their talented WRs in space. It's a guaranteed first down on just about every route run around 10 yards.

Another problem with zone coverage (for us) is that it relies on a pass rush to work more effectively. If we can't generate any pressure whatsoever...and we don't...then it allows receivers to find the pockets and sit in open areas of a zone. The QB can sit and wait for the receiver to clear coverage and sit then deliver a perfect, unpressured throw.

A third problem is that it is highly vulnerable to draws and delayed runs. Our second and third levels are backpedaling to their zone "spots" because they are reading pass. The receivers are now able to block further downfield so if a RB can get past the first level of D (like Cinci's RBs were able to do quite a bit on Saturday), then they can spin off HUGE runs.

If we're going to continue to play zone, I would prefer a "hard" zone where we jam receivers at the line and then drop back into coverage spots. First, it gives the QB a read that we're playing man. Second, it gives the receivers the same read where they are now not certain if they should find a pocket to sit down in or continue their route. Third, jamming receivers gives our front an extra valuable second to collapse the pocket. Fourth, it sets the zone up more upfield that would eliminate the incredibly easy drag and crossing routes that Cincinnati and others have run against us all year.

Finally, I would love to see a stunting LB be used on most downs to pressure the QB. This is an area that I think Vontae Diggs could really excel in doing. He's long, athletic and fast and can rush off either edge. Plus, he'd be able to stunt through open holes and has the quickness to get into the backfield in space.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

I hear you Tom but have to disagree. This isn't that dramatic a change. Our defensive players may not be stellar but it's clear our overall defensive philosophy isn't working. I'm sure you recall the definition of insanity. I'm afraid our coaches may have sadly reached that plateau. We need an intervention by a competent therapist.

Totally agree with this.

 

[ktuck911]

WE NEED A PASS RUSH... WE DON'T HAVE ONE. AN EDGE RUSHER WITH TREVARDO WILLIAMS TYPE ABILITY OFF THE EDGE WOULD HELP US TREMENDOUSLY...

 

[Jerry27]

Our safeties are BAD in man coverage. If they don't stay off 10 yards, they will undoubtedly get beat deep.

Every team that runs a spread will know this and take advantage. We don't just need to cover closer, but better overall. Pick your poison...give up 6 yards on a quick-out, or get blasted over the top for 40 yards (both have happened lately).

Chavous has no context for his comments. Of course we need to do a few things differently. We're 3-5 for crying out loud. If we didn't screw up every 15 seconds, we wouldn't be 3-5. He doesn't know that we don't have either the personnel, or the coaches to improve these things right now, and a change so drastic would have us losing by 50 instead of 20. I thought he made quite a few mistakes that came from lack of film study (like the praise for Levy early in the broadcast, and blasting Vechery for snap issues, of which he's had 2 that i can remember)....but maybe i'm just salty from my usual late October UCONN-based disappointment.

Damn it, i'm bummed right now. At 3-3 i thought we were pretty good and absolutely moving in the right direction. At 3-5 it's a very different story. Especially given that the last 2 games were just soul-crushing in the way they went down.

Actually he's called several of our games and always does his homework yes the Levy and Vechery calls were out of practice for him but you may have missed him correcting on the Levy statement later in the game, easy to miss when the game was as frustrating to watch as it was. Cory usually comes true on both teams in the game. You may not like what he says but he does know what he's talking about.

 

[microfich]

Chavous was quick, studied and on point most of the night. He needs to develop his speaking technique but with coaching and practice he could become a top tier analyst.