Haz on Tebucky..........

BlackandBlue · 07-20-2003, 12:48 PM

Who Dat. you nailed it! If we had Tampa\'s or Miami\'s front seven, Knight would still be here. He\'ll do good in Miami because their front seven won\'t give their opponents time to expose his weaknesses.

Actually, there\'s a window. From the snap of the ball, the QB has on average 3-5 seconds to deliver the ball to the reciever before the play breaks down. After that initial 3-5 seonds, there\'s another 3-5 seconds for the defense to reach the QB and/or cause a sack, imcompletion or turnover, because the coverage was tight. This is normally the time you see the front seven reach the QB. But, if the QB has good protection, the offensive players will realize that the play has broken down, and the recievers will break off their routes and get open. You give the recievers enough time, and they will find a way to get open, doesn\'t matter who is in the secondary. So, that\'s a little misleading.

tweeky · 07-20-2003, 09:13 PM

Who Dat. you nailed it! If we had Tampa\'s or Miami\'s front seven, Knight would still be here. He\'ll do good in Miami because their front seven won\'t give their opponents time to expose his weaknesses.

Actually, there\'s a window. From the snap of the ball, the QB has on average 3-5 seconds to deliver the ball to the reciever before the play breaks down. After that initial 3-5 seonds, there\'s another 3-5 seconds for the defense to reach the QB and/or cause a sack, imcompletion or turnover, because the coverage was tight. This is normally the time you see the front seven reach the QB. But, if the QB has good protection, the offensive players will realize that the play has broken down, and the recievers will break off their routes and get open.
You give the recievers enough time, and they will find a way to get open, doesn\'t matter who is in the secondary. So, that\'s a little misleading.

I\'m confused on what you think is misleading. You actually proved my point with the window example. On the Saints that window was about 3 seconds longer than Miami\'s. That extra 3 seconds we gave other teams allowed Knight to be exploited. Miami won\'t allow enough time to exploit him so he should do well with his instincts. Maybe I just mis-read your post.

If your front 4 is unproven, you better have a secondary that can cover that extra few seconds or you\'ll be standing there as Randy Moss scores behind you while you wonder WTF happened?

BillyCarpenter1 · 07-20-2003, 11:34 PM

Actually, there\'s a window. From the snap of the ball, the QB has on average 3-5 seconds to deliver the ball to the reciever before the play breaks down

.

This is true.

After that initial 3-5 seonds, there\'s another 3-5 seconds for the defense to reach the QB and/or cause a sack, imcompletion or turnover, because the coverage was tight. This is normally the time you see the front seven reach the QB.

This is true.

[/quote:039b28c0e2]But, if the QB has good protection, the offensive players will realize that the play has broken down, and the recievers will break off their routes and get open. You give the recievers enough time, and they will find a way to get open, doesn\'t matter who is in the secondary. So, that\'s a little misleading. [/quote:039b28c0e2]

So, what\'s the point here? I\'m sure you could put Grady Jackson in at receiver and sooner or later he would get open but what\'s that got to do with having speed at the safety positon?

BlackandBlue · 07-21-2003, 08:40 AM

My point is not to point the finger at Sammy. If your front seven gives the QB/WR enough time, they will complete a pass, I don\'t care if you have Jesus Christ in the secondary, the reciever is going to get open. But the coaching staff would have you believe that the big problem with the defense last year was our DT\'s and how slow our safeties were. I\'m not buying it, as I don\'t always believe everything I\'m told.

BillyCarpenter1 · 07-21-2003, 08:53 AM

[ quote]My point is not to point the finger at Sammy

I\'ve said this time and time again, that it\'s very hard to tell when a safety screws up. I do know that an offensive coordinator looks for match-ups to exploit. Usually a slow safety or linebacker matched up on a fast receiver. Savy will only get you so far. Tebucky runs a 4.3/40.

.

If your front seven gives the QB/WR enough time, they will complete a pass, I don\'t care if you have Jesus Christ in the secondary, the reciever is going to get open.

No arguements here. Our D-line played terrible last year.

But the coaching staff would have you believe that the big problem with the defense last year was our DT\'s and how slow our safeties were. I\'m not buying it, as I don\'t always believe everything I\'m told.

I don\'t know that they think Knight was the big problem last year. I think they see Tebucky as a big improvement though. I think if you asked most experts they would say the same thing.

[Edited on 21/7/2003 by BillyCarpenter1]

07-20-2003, 12:48 PM	#31
BlackandBlue Kinder, gentler Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: dirty south Posts: 3,889	Haz on Tebucky.......... Who Dat. you nailed it! If we had Tampa\'s or Miami\'s front seven, Knight would still be here. He\'ll do good in Miami because their front seven won\'t give their opponents time to expose his weaknesses. Actually, there\'s a window. From the snap of the ball, the QB has on average 3-5 seconds to deliver the ball to the reciever before the play breaks down. After that initial 3-5 seonds, there\'s another 3-5 seconds for the defense to reach the QB and/or cause a sack, imcompletion or turnover, because the coverage was tight. This is normally the time you see the front seven reach the QB. But, if the QB has good protection, the offensive players will realize that the play has broken down, and the recievers will break off their routes and get open. You give the recievers enough time, and they will find a way to get open, doesn\'t matter who is in the secondary. So, that\'s a little misleading.
	The waiting drove me mad.... I don't want to hear from those that know... Everything has changed, absolutely nothing's changed Eddie is a....draftnik?

07-20-2003, 09:13 PM	#32
tweeky 500th Post Join Date: May 2003 Location: South Alabama Posts: 779	Haz on Tebucky.......... Who Dat. you nailed it! If we had Tampa\'s or Miami\'s front seven, Knight would still be here. He\'ll do good in Miami because their front seven won\'t give their opponents time to expose his weaknesses. Actually, there\'s a window. From the snap of the ball, the QB has on average 3-5 seconds to deliver the ball to the reciever before the play breaks down. After that initial 3-5 seonds, there\'s another 3-5 seconds for the defense to reach the QB and/or cause a sack, imcompletion or turnover, because the coverage was tight. This is normally the time you see the front seven reach the QB. But, if the QB has good protection, the offensive players will realize that the play has broken down, and the recievers will break off their routes and get open. You give the recievers enough time, and they will find a way to get open, doesn\'t matter who is in the secondary. So, that\'s a little misleading. I\'m confused on what you think is misleading. You actually proved my point with the window example. On the Saints that window was about 3 seconds longer than Miami\'s. That extra 3 seconds we gave other teams allowed Knight to be exploited. Miami won\'t allow enough time to exploit him so he should do well with his instincts. Maybe I just mis-read your post. If your front 4 is unproven, you better have a secondary that can cover that extra few seconds or you\'ll be standing there as Randy Moss scores behind you while you wonder WTF happened?
	Whether we agree or disagree; its all for Him.

07-20-2003, 11:34 PM	#33
BillyCarpenter1 Banned Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 2,209	Haz on Tebucky.......... Actually, there\'s a window. From the snap of the ball, the QB has on average 3-5 seconds to deliver the ball to the reciever before the play breaks down . This is true. After that initial 3-5 seonds, there\'s another 3-5 seconds for the defense to reach the QB and/or cause a sack, imcompletion or turnover, because the coverage was tight. This is normally the time you see the front seven reach the QB. This is true. [/quote:039b28c0e2]But, if the QB has good protection, the offensive players will realize that the play has broken down, and the recievers will break off their routes and get open. You give the recievers enough time, and they will find a way to get open, doesn\'t matter who is in the secondary. So, that\'s a little misleading. [/quote:039b28c0e2] So, what\'s the point here? I\'m sure you could put Grady Jackson in at receiver and sooner or later he would get open but what\'s that got to do with having speed at the safety positon?
BillyCarpenter1 Banned Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 2,209

07-21-2003, 08:40 AM	#34
BlackandBlue Kinder, gentler Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: dirty south Posts: 3,889	Haz on Tebucky.......... My point is not to point the finger at Sammy. If your front seven gives the QB/WR enough time, they will complete a pass, I don\'t care if you have Jesus Christ in the secondary, the reciever is going to get open. But the coaching staff would have you believe that the big problem with the defense last year was our DT\'s and how slow our safeties were. I\'m not buying it, as I don\'t always believe everything I\'m told.

07-21-2003, 08:53 AM	#35
BillyCarpenter1 Banned Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 2,209	Haz on Tebucky.......... [ quote]My point is not to point the finger at Sammy I\'ve said this time and time again, that it\'s very hard to tell when a safety screws up. I do know that an offensive coordinator looks for match-ups to exploit. Usually a slow safety or linebacker matched up on a fast receiver. Savy will only get you so far. Tebucky runs a 4.3/40. . If your front seven gives the QB/WR enough time, they will complete a pass, I don\'t care if you have Jesus Christ in the secondary, the reciever is going to get open. No arguements here. Our D-line played terrible last year. But the coaching staff would have you believe that the big problem with the defense last year was our DT\'s and how slow our safeties were. I\'m not buying it, as I don\'t always believe everything I\'m told. I don\'t know that they think Knight was the big problem last year. I think they see Tebucky as a big improvement though. I think if you asked most experts they would say the same thing. [Edited on 21/7/2003 by BillyCarpenter1]
BillyCarpenter1 Banned Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 2,209

Latest Blogs
2023 New Orleans Saints: Training Camp Last Blog: 08-01-2023 By: MarchingOn Puck the Fro Browl! Last Blog: 02-05-2023 By: neugey CFP: "Just Keep Doing What You're Doing" Last Blog: 12-08-2022 By: neugey