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

JKool · 06-21-2004, 11:46 AM

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\".

06-21-2004, 11:46 AM	#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