What the heck is a "Shut Down Corner"? (A bit of a repeat)

JKool · 06-21-2004, 12:46 PM

Wow! This thread has turned out pretty well.

(1) St.Shrume - Awesome post! I agree.
(2) FF,

The whole problem with our \"serviceable\" corners is that it limits what we can do on defense. Offensive Coordinators spend all day looking at where they think your defense is going to be in a given situation. They plan their game accordingly. Our lack of \"quality depth\" at CB puts us in predictable situations. Being predictable makes us exploitable; an inexcusable condition considering how much cap room we had during the off-season.

With just one corner who can man-up with another team\'s number 1 WR and hold him in check, we would have so many other options on defense. You can then play to your strengths rather than being stuck in cover 2 all day long because that\'s your only prayer of stopping the bad guys\' passing game.

Awesome! I totally agree. Where were you when I was trying to argue this earlier! You put it so well.

(3) Pak, I did hit the hay, but I\'m still pretty tired today - I think I\'m comin\' down with somethin\'. And in the summer no less! Bah!

(4) Billy, as always, well argued. Two things:

(a) So the Cover 2 is what I thought, and I don\'t see why that would make you vulnerable to the run - is that because there are no run blitzes in the basic scheme?

(b) I think we all may be disagreeing about the meaning of \"more important\". You correctly analyzed what I said earlier, so I guess I did say that players are the key to scheming - in one sense that makes them more important. The sense of more important that I had in mind (and I\'d guess StShrume - cool name btw - and FF too) was this: without the scheme the players - no matter how great - would be seriously hampered. In fact, with a bad scheme they could look like pretty poor players even when they\'re not (WhoDat, I think, suggested that this may have accounted for Knight looking so bad two years ago). Thus, the schemes are what allow the great players to be great (rather than just fine physical specimens). Thus, the scheme is, in the sense of putting your best players in the right place to make plays, \"more important.\"

Think of it this way, if Darren Howard were to run back every play to try and make an interception in the deep hook zone (even if he got one) would not be as great a player as he is - in fact, most people would think he was an idiot (and he probably would be for doing this evey play). The point is, great players don\'t get to do WHATEVER they want, they get to do what is possible within the scheme.

Thus it is my hunch that, as usual, we agree. It is merely a verbal dispute at this point over what constitutes \"more important\".

GumboBC · 06-21-2004, 01:06 PM

(b) I think we all may be disagreeing about the meaning of \"more important\". You correctly analyzed what I said earlier, so I guess I did say that players are the key to scheming - in one sense that makes them more important. The sense of more important that I had in mind (and I\'d guess StShrume - cool name btw - and FF too) was this: without the scheme the players - no matter how great - would be seriously hampered. In fact, with a bad scheme they could look like pretty poor players even when they\'re not (WhoDat, I think, suggested that this may have accounted for Knight looking so bad two years ago). Thus, the schemes are what allow the great players to be great (rather than just fine physical specimens). Thus, the scheme is, in the sense of putting your best players in the right place to make plays, \"more important.\"

Think of it this way, if Darren Howard were to run back every play to try and make an interception in the deep hook zone (even if he got one) would not be as great a player as he is - in fact, most people would think he was an idiot (and he probably would be for doing this evey play). The point is, great players don\'t get to do WHATEVER they want, they get to do what is possible within the scheme.

Thus it is my hunch that, as usual, we agree. It is merely a verbal dispute at this point over what constitutes \"more important\".

I don\'t think we\'re disagree on what the \"meaning\" of \"more important\" is. I think we have a fundamental difference on which is more important. Scheme or Players.

Of course you always want to have the scheme that best fits your players. That\'s a given. But, schemes don\'t make players BETTER. Schemes just help prevent a player(s) weakness from being exposed as much. And also schemes are figured out and are defeated much easier than you stop a great players.

Lastly, as I said earlier, cooridinators are limited to what they can do scheme-wise depending on the players they have. Everything is dictated by the avalible talent on hand. Thus, players are always more important than the scheme.

I do get what some of you guys are saying. And I agree that the scheme is VERY important. Just NEVER more important than the players.

Also, using Darren Howard dropping back in coverage was a bad example...

As was playing Sammy Knight at a postioin where speed is critical. That was just a bad coaching decision and really had nothing to do with the scheme.......

bjd9044 · 06-21-2004, 01:54 PM

How about someone we would feel confident in if it was 4th and goal from the 9 yard line. Who will they pick on is what I think now. Someone that can be physical enough to jam one of the big 6\'4 WR. Both starters are 5\'10 and 180-185, they just get pushed around. Not a shut-down corner needed, just a big, physical, smart one with decent speed.

BlackandBlue · 06-21-2004, 04:24 PM

If you can\'t see that McAlister and Surtain can for the most part shut down their side of the field, you might want to go back and watch some reruns on the NFL network. You\'re not going to find a player that will completely shut down the best receivers in the land, not going to happen, but if you can find a guy that can do it 80% of the time, then you have a shut down corner. But that is my viewpoint, and is by no means considered the definitive definition. I threw Law in the mix cause he has proven that he can do it in the big games, on more than one occasion.

lumm0x · 06-21-2004, 06:40 PM

I don\'t want to get too big into a scheme/player discussion, and that being said, I\'m sure we can all admit that they interact in every facet of the game and rely upon each other for the success of any team. The 3rd factor of importance is coaching. The three must find a synchronicity. It\'s one thing to be a great athlete and be poorly coached in a scheme that plays against your strength, it\'s the exact same to be a poor athlete and there be a great scheme that hides your weakness, but the coaching does not allow you success within the scheme. All three factors need to be present. Without them, you are asking players to perform strictly on instincts and experience. Not many units will find cohesion in just that.

We have problems in all areas and if I had the true answer I would be making too much money to be here. I don\'t think every player we have is good enough to play consistently at the highest level required. I don\'t think our scheme is suited to every player we have, nor it is effective against every team/coach we face, and I don\'t think our team is coached well enough to be elite. Exactly what fixes are required? I could speculate all day and probably not be correct. My one line opinion.....we are not aggressive enough. I\'d rather live and die by the sword than try to beat an opponent to death with a wiffle bat. I don\'t think I\'ve ever heard a defensive player say that they are too aggressive. All I ever hear is that they don\'t get unleashed enough. These guys want to make plays not react to plays. Go out punching rather than hoping to sneak a shot in between turtling.

GumboBC · 06-21-2004, 09:06 PM

lumm0x --

First let me say I wasn\'t trying to call you out on any statement that was made in the past. And just because I feel players are more important than the scheme doesn\'t mean I\'m right. That\'s just the way I feel.

Anyway, the whole reason I brought up players vs. scheme is because I truly beleive our CB\'s are good enough to play in a cover 2 scheme and us have a good all around defense. Of course, I\'m depending on a VERY strong pass rush and an ability to effectively shut down the run.

Now, I know some of the better passing teams are going to get the best of our secondary at times. But, I don\'t think our CB\'s are that bad and I don\'t think they\'re are going to be the big downfall of this defense.

With that said, you bring up the ONE thing that scares me more than anything. And that\'s coaching. I\'m not sold on these chumps, but I\'m optimisitc.

Peace

lumm0x · 06-21-2004, 09:31 PM

I know you weren\'t unflapping the holsters. That\'s as dead a horse as we have seen. The zone coverage schemes also rely on another weak point of last year....tackling. Out of our guys last year only Thomas (with the club) and Bellamy were respectable in our back 7.

JKool · 06-22-2004, 05:30 AM

(1) Billy I guess we do disagree on the importance of schemes versus players (at least where the emphasis on \"most\" goes). Oh well. I think I\'ve said my peace, and you\'ve said yours on this one. Perhaps one of us will come up with a good example

- then we may rejoin this debate.

(2) Cover 2 doesn\'t ask the corners to do too much, unless you roll the cover (a S comes down and a CB slides to the deep half). Thus, I\'m sure they\'re good enough to do that. However, Cover 2 isn\'t an option you can employ every down (usually it is most effective on first or second and 4-7 - otherwise you\'re gonna need a different scheme). I also think with Mitchell healthy this is a reasonable scheme for our \"most downs\" defense - but only if the linebackers turn out to be ok (otherwise you\'ll see nickle on many 2nd and 3rd downs).

(3) BnB, I agree.

GumboBC · 06-22-2004, 09:11 AM

JKool --

I\'m not REAL sure how important you think \"schemes\" are in comparison to \"players.\" But, I\'m going to say this:

I\'ve thought long and hard on the subject and I can\'t think of any time where schemes are MORE important than players. I think schemes can maximize the talent a team has. I think certain schemes are harder to stop than others. But, I think schemes are only as good as the players executing them and the coaches calling the schemes. (I think coaches need to be able to call the correct schemes at the correct times.)

Furthermore, I think teams are using the \"same\" schemes for the most part.

What I think seperates the \"good\" and \"bad\" teams are:

a.) coaching
b.) execution
c. ) talent

Let\'s leave \"talent\" out of the equasion and let\'s say we have 2 teams with about the same talent level.

I don\'t think \"schemes\" would be the \"deciding factor\" in which of the 2 teams would be the \"best\". Unless you have a coach that is incompetant and uses schemes that don\'t use his personell correctly. But, that\'s more of a coaching issue than a scheme issue. As I stated before, I just don\'t think there are any magical schemes that are so unique that it\'s going to make that much of a difference.

I think what\'s really going to be the deciding factor on which team would be the best is the same \"factors\" I listed before:

a.) coaching
b.) execution

Coaching for so many reasons:

A. Coaches need to call the correct schemes at the correct times.
B. Coaches need to be able to call the correct plays at the correct times.
C. Coaches need to know the weaknesses of the opponents and be able to exploit them
D. Coaches need to be able to call the best sub packages to take advantage of certain down and distance situations. ( I think scouting an opponent\'s tendancies allows the good coaches to take adavatage of certain situations.)

And then there\'s execution. I don\'t think I need to go into that. Execution is a given. That is if a team is going to have any chance of being successful.

Some where in all of that mess I just typed is where the Saints problems have been. What do you think has been our biggest problem?

1. Schemes ?
2. Coaching ?
3. Talent ?

Feel free to elaborate on all 3 or by all means tell us if the problems are in another area. I always like hearing others view....

[Edited on 22/6/2004 by GumboBC]

[Edited on 22/6/2004 by GumboBC]

SaintFanInATLHELL · 06-22-2004, 11:07 AM

This \"cornerback\" subject has been analyzed from every different angle and the only conclusion I can come up with is we\'re going to have to rely on a combination of scheme and pass rush to be a truly effective defense.

And can we get an AMEN! from the congregation?!!

AMEN!

SFIAH

06-21-2004, 12:46 PM	#21
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	What the heck is a "Shut Down Corner"? (A bit of a repeat) Wow! This thread has turned out pretty well. (1) St.Shrume - Awesome post! I agree. (2) FF, The whole problem with our \"serviceable\" corners is that it limits what we can do on defense. Offensive Coordinators spend all day looking at where they think your defense is going to be in a given situation. They plan their game accordingly. Our lack of \"quality depth\" at CB puts us in predictable situations. Being predictable makes us exploitable; an inexcusable condition considering how much cap room we had during the off-season. With just one corner who can man-up with another team\'s number 1 WR and hold him in check, we would have so many other options on defense. You can then play to your strengths rather than being stuck in cover 2 all day long because that\'s your only prayer of stopping the bad guys\' passing game. Awesome! I totally agree. Where were you when I was trying to argue this earlier! You put it so well. (3) Pak, I did hit the hay, but I\'m still pretty tired today - I think I\'m comin\' down with somethin\'. And in the summer no less! Bah! (4) Billy, as always, well argued. Two things: (a) So the Cover 2 is what I thought, and I don\'t see why that would make you vulnerable to the run - is that because there are no run blitzes in the basic scheme? (b) I think we all may be disagreeing about the meaning of \"more important\". You correctly analyzed what I said earlier, so I guess I did say that players are the key to scheming - in one sense that makes them more important. The sense of more important that I had in mind (and I\'d guess StShrume - cool name btw - and FF too) was this: without the scheme the players - no matter how great - would be seriously hampered. In fact, with a bad scheme they could look like pretty poor players even when they\'re not (WhoDat, I think, suggested that this may have accounted for Knight looking so bad two years ago). Thus, the schemes are what allow the great players to be great (rather than just fine physical specimens). Thus, the scheme is, in the sense of putting your best players in the right place to make plays, \"more important.\" Think of it this way, if Darren Howard were to run back every play to try and make an interception in the deep hook zone (even if he got one) would not be as great a player as he is - in fact, most people would think he was an idiot (and he probably would be for doing this evey play). The point is, great players don\'t get to do WHATEVER they want, they get to do what is possible within the scheme. Thus it is my hunch that, as usual, we agree. It is merely a verbal dispute at this point over what constitutes \"more important\".
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

06-21-2004, 01:06 PM	#22
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616	What the heck is a "Shut Down Corner"? (A bit of a repeat) (b) I think we all may be disagreeing about the meaning of \"more important\". You correctly analyzed what I said earlier, so I guess I did say that players are the key to scheming - in one sense that makes them more important. The sense of more important that I had in mind (and I\'d guess StShrume - cool name btw - and FF too) was this: without the scheme the players - no matter how great - would be seriously hampered. In fact, with a bad scheme they could look like pretty poor players even when they\'re not (WhoDat, I think, suggested that this may have accounted for Knight looking so bad two years ago). Thus, the schemes are what allow the great players to be great (rather than just fine physical specimens). Thus, the scheme is, in the sense of putting your best players in the right place to make plays, \"more important.\" Think of it this way, if Darren Howard were to run back every play to try and make an interception in the deep hook zone (even if he got one) would not be as great a player as he is - in fact, most people would think he was an idiot (and he probably would be for doing this evey play). The point is, great players don\'t get to do WHATEVER they want, they get to do what is possible within the scheme. Thus it is my hunch that, as usual, we agree. It is merely a verbal dispute at this point over what constitutes \"more important\". I don\'t think we\'re disagree on what the \"meaning\" of \"more important\" is. I think we have a fundamental difference on which is more important. Scheme or Players. Of course you always want to have the scheme that best fits your players. That\'s a given. But, schemes don\'t make players BETTER. Schemes just help prevent a player(s) weakness from being exposed as much. And also schemes are figured out and are defeated much easier than you stop a great players. Lastly, as I said earlier, cooridinators are limited to what they can do scheme-wise depending on the players they have. Everything is dictated by the avalible talent on hand. Thus, players are always more important than the scheme. I do get what some of you guys are saying. And I agree that the scheme is VERY important. Just NEVER more important than the players. Also, using Darren Howard dropping back in coverage was a bad example... As was playing Sammy Knight at a postioin where speed is critical. That was just a bad coaching decision and really had nothing to do with the scheme.......
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616

06-21-2004, 01:54 PM	#23
bjd9044 Rookie Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Lake Charles, La Posts: 21	What the heck is a "Shut Down Corner"? (A bit of a repeat) How about someone we would feel confident in if it was 4th and goal from the 9 yard line. Who will they pick on is what I think now. Someone that can be physical enough to jam one of the big 6\'4 WR. Both starters are 5\'10 and 180-185, they just get pushed around. Not a shut-down corner needed, just a big, physical, smart one with decent speed.

06-21-2004, 04:24 PM	#24
BlackandBlue Kinder, gentler Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: dirty south Posts: 3,889	What the heck is a "Shut Down Corner"? (A bit of a repeat) If you can\'t see that McAlister and Surtain can for the most part shut down their side of the field, you might want to go back and watch some reruns on the NFL network. You\'re not going to find a player that will completely shut down the best receivers in the land, not going to happen, but if you can find a guy that can do it 80% of the time, then you have a shut down corner. But that is my viewpoint, and is by no means considered the definitive definition. I threw Law in the mix cause he has proven that he can do it in the big games, on more than one occasion.
	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?

06-21-2004, 06:40 PM	#25
lumm0x Resident antediluvian Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,026	What the heck is a "Shut Down Corner"? (A bit of a repeat) I don\'t want to get too big into a scheme/player discussion, and that being said, I\'m sure we can all admit that they interact in every facet of the game and rely upon each other for the success of any team. The 3rd factor of importance is coaching. The three must find a synchronicity. It\'s one thing to be a great athlete and be poorly coached in a scheme that plays against your strength, it\'s the exact same to be a poor athlete and there be a great scheme that hides your weakness, but the coaching does not allow you success within the scheme. All three factors need to be present. Without them, you are asking players to perform strictly on instincts and experience. Not many units will find cohesion in just that. We have problems in all areas and if I had the true answer I would be making too much money to be here. I don\'t think every player we have is good enough to play consistently at the highest level required. I don\'t think our scheme is suited to every player we have, nor it is effective against every team/coach we face, and I don\'t think our team is coached well enough to be elite. Exactly what fixes are required? I could speculate all day and probably not be correct. My one line opinion.....we are not aggressive enough. I\'d rather live and die by the sword than try to beat an opponent to death with a wiffle bat. I don\'t think I\'ve ever heard a defensive player say that they are too aggressive. All I ever hear is that they don\'t get unleashed enough. These guys want to make plays not react to plays. Go out punching rather than hoping to sneak a shot in between turtling.

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

06-21-2004, 09:06 PM	#26
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616	What the heck is a "Shut Down Corner"? (A bit of a repeat) lumm0x -- First let me say I wasn\'t trying to call you out on any statement that was made in the past. And just because I feel players are more important than the scheme doesn\'t mean I\'m right. That\'s just the way I feel. Anyway, the whole reason I brought up players vs. scheme is because I truly beleive our CB\'s are good enough to play in a cover 2 scheme and us have a good all around defense. Of course, I\'m depending on a VERY strong pass rush and an ability to effectively shut down the run. Now, I know some of the better passing teams are going to get the best of our secondary at times. But, I don\'t think our CB\'s are that bad and I don\'t think they\'re are going to be the big downfall of this defense. With that said, you bring up the ONE thing that scares me more than anything. And that\'s coaching. I\'m not sold on these chumps, but I\'m optimisitc. Peace
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616

06-21-2004, 09:31 PM	#27
lumm0x Resident antediluvian Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,026	What the heck is a "Shut Down Corner"? (A bit of a repeat) I know you weren\'t unflapping the holsters. That\'s as dead a horse as we have seen. The zone coverage schemes also rely on another weak point of last year....tackling. Out of our guys last year only Thomas (with the club) and Bellamy were respectable in our back 7.

06-22-2004, 05:30 AM	#28
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	What the heck is a "Shut Down Corner"? (A bit of a repeat) (1) Billy I guess we do disagree on the importance of schemes versus players (at least where the emphasis on \"most\" goes). Oh well. I think I\'ve said my peace, and you\'ve said yours on this one. Perhaps one of us will come up with a good example - then we may rejoin this debate. (2) Cover 2 doesn\'t ask the corners to do too much, unless you roll the cover (a S comes down and a CB slides to the deep half). Thus, I\'m sure they\'re good enough to do that. However, Cover 2 isn\'t an option you can employ every down (usually it is most effective on first or second and 4-7 - otherwise you\'re gonna need a different scheme). I also think with Mitchell healthy this is a reasonable scheme for our \"most downs\" defense - but only if the linebackers turn out to be ok (otherwise you\'ll see nickle on many 2nd and 3rd downs). (3) BnB, I agree.
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

06-22-2004, 09:11 AM	#29
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616	What the heck is a "Shut Down Corner"? (A bit of a repeat) JKool -- I\'m not REAL sure how important you think \"schemes\" are in comparison to \"players.\" But, I\'m going to say this: I\'ve thought long and hard on the subject and I can\'t think of any time where schemes are MORE important than players. I think schemes can maximize the talent a team has. I think certain schemes are harder to stop than others. But, I think schemes are only as good as the players executing them and the coaches calling the schemes. (I think coaches need to be able to call the correct schemes at the correct times.) Furthermore, I think teams are using the \"same\" schemes for the most part. What I think seperates the \"good\" and \"bad\" teams are: a.) coaching b.) execution c. ) talent Let\'s leave \"talent\" out of the equasion and let\'s say we have 2 teams with about the same talent level. I don\'t think \"schemes\" would be the \"deciding factor\" in which of the 2 teams would be the \"best\". Unless you have a coach that is incompetant and uses schemes that don\'t use his personell correctly. But, that\'s more of a coaching issue than a scheme issue. As I stated before, I just don\'t think there are any magical schemes that are so unique that it\'s going to make that much of a difference. I think what\'s really going to be the deciding factor on which team would be the best is the same \"factors\" I listed before: a.) coaching b.) execution Coaching for so many reasons: A. Coaches need to call the correct schemes at the correct times. B. Coaches need to be able to call the correct plays at the correct times. C. Coaches need to know the weaknesses of the opponents and be able to exploit them D. Coaches need to be able to call the best sub packages to take advantage of certain down and distance situations. ( I think scouting an opponent\'s tendancies allows the good coaches to take adavatage of certain situations.) And then there\'s execution. I don\'t think I need to go into that. Execution is a given. That is if a team is going to have any chance of being successful. Some where in all of that mess I just typed is where the Saints problems have been. What do you think has been our biggest problem? 1. Schemes ? 2. Coaching ? 3. Talent ? Feel free to elaborate on all 3 or by all means tell us if the problems are in another area. I always like hearing others view.... [Edited on 22/6/2004 by GumboBC] [Edited on 22/6/2004 by GumboBC]
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616

06-22-2004, 11:07 AM	#30
SaintFanInATLHELL The Professor Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Lithonia, GA Posts: 2,773	What the heck is a "Shut Down Corner"? (A bit of a repeat) This \"cornerback\" subject has been analyzed from every different angle and the only conclusion I can come up with is we\'re going to have to rely on a combination of scheme and pass rush to be a truly effective defense. And can we get an AMEN! from the congregation?!! AMEN! SFIAH