EPTNFL 2012 Season - Page 241
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
Zdrastochye
Ivory Coast6262 Posts
| ||
|
TwoToneTerran
United States8841 Posts
| ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On January 14 2013 16:41 ShadowDrgn wrote: How about the Seahawks? At any rate, at best you can argue that we don't really know how well the Falcons stack up against the 49ers. It doesn't make any sense to assume that they can't win because they haven't played anyone that good. I think the 49ers are the better team, but the odds are pretty close and give the Falcons at least a 40% chance of winning the game. They beat the Broncos in week 2 or 3 (and good teams aren't "good teams" at the beginning of the season; early season wins like this don't mean much) and, if anything, they should've trounced the Seahawks. The Seahawks are an extremely young wild card team that had to travel coast-to-coast two weekends in a row and gave them a 20-0 lead by half-time. The only thing that the Falcons' close win over the Seahawks says is that the Falcons are unstable. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
ZapRoffo
United States5544 Posts
On January 15 2013 02:16 xDaunt wrote: For any football gurus out there, can someone explain this for me: In the SF/GB game, why didn't GB drop man coverage and move to a zone scheme instead? Wouldn't that have helped bottle up Kaepernick? Because Dom Capers/Mike McCarthy aren't actually great coaches? That's my take at least. It looked like they forgot to plan that they were actually playing against a good running qb. Also Baltimore getting so many points seems too obvious, what's the catch? I guess it's just that NE is just a phenomenal team right now and Baltimore is only a pretty good team that also sometimes runs cold. | ||
Teoita
Italy12246 Posts
On January 15 2013 02:16 xDaunt wrote: For any football gurus out there, can someone explain this for me: In the SF/GB game, why didn't GB drop man coverage and move to a zone scheme instead? Wouldn't that have helped bottle up Kaepernick? I didn't watch the game closely enough to tell, but it might have been that the route combinations used by SF had the GB defense stretched too thin, so they preferred to use man coverage and rely on their D line to contain Kaepernick (not that it worked). Say you are in cover 2, there's a corner covering the flat, a safety covering the top and a linebacker/nickel back in the intermediate zones. The middle linebacker is in the middle of the field so pretty much out of the play. If the offense has 3 routes in that area, say a Go/Deep Cross/Flat like this, if you add the QB rolling/scrambling on top of that the defense is still outnumbered 4-3 so Kaep will either find an open guy (probably in the flat as the CB comes up to tackle him) or room to run. | ||
|
ZapRoffo
United States5544 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On January 15 2013 02:36 Teoita wrote: I didn't watch the game closely enough to tell, but it might have been that the route combinations used by SF had the GB defense stretched too thin, so they preferred to use man coverage and rely on their D line to contain Kaepernick (not that it worked). Say you are in cover 2, there's a corner covering the flat, a safety covering the top and a linebacker/nickel back in the intermediate zones. The middle linebacker is in the middle of the field so pretty much out of the play. If the offense has 3 routes in that area, say a Go/Deep Cross/Flat like this, if you add the QB rolling/scrambling on top of that the defense is still outnumbered 4-3 so Kaep will either find an open guy (probably in the flat as the CB comes up to tackle him) or room to run. Good explanation, thanks. | ||
|
Damiani
United States514 Posts
On January 15 2013 02:16 xDaunt wrote: For any football gurus out there, can someone explain this for me: In the SF/GB game, why didn't GB drop man coverage and move to a zone scheme instead? Wouldn't that have helped bottle up Kaepernick? That was how the Packers played the 49ers in week one and the 49ers racked up 186 yrds rushing and Alex Smith went 20-26 passing. They had to do something different. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On January 15 2013 09:24 Damiani wrote: That was how the Packers played the 49ers in week one and the 49ers racked up 186 yrds rushing and Alex Smith went 20-26 passing. They had to do something different. They like the bears apparently kaep is the man against man coverage. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On January 15 2013 09:44 semantics wrote: They like the bears apparently kaep is the man against man coverage. I don't understand why you would do a lot of man coverage against a young QB. I would think that you would do a lot better showing lots of exotic zone coverages. If nothing else, you gotta be prepared to mix it up. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On January 15 2013 09:56 xDaunt wrote: I don't understand why you would do a lot of man coverage against a young QB. I would think that you would do a lot better showing lots of exotic zone coverages. If nothing else, you gotta be prepared to mix it up. It's not a young QB thing i just don't get doing that against a read option offense. | ||
|
Intact
Sweden634 Posts
On a similar note, are all coaches idiots when it comes to icing kickers? Why give a pratice kick lol and it's been proven the chances to make the kick increases after being iced. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On January 15 2013 10:05 Intact wrote: Well, playing man versus a running QB is always stupid since you cant stop him when all the coverage guys have their backs turned. On a similar note, are all coaches idiots when it comes to icing kickers? Why give a pratice kick lol and it's been proven the chances to make the kick increases after being iced. Is it even against the rules for the center one he hears a whistle just to snap it anyways to give the kicker a practice kick. | ||
|
ZapRoffo
United States5544 Posts
| ||
|
BloodNinja
United States2791 Posts
On January 15 2013 10:25 semantics wrote: Is it even against the rules for the center one he hears a whistle just to snap it anyways to give the kicker a practice kick. I imagine if it was extremely delayed and you went through with everything (snap, hold, kick) you could get a penalty. I don't think its like the NBA where everyone stops and they still take the shot 99% of the time. Although once the whistles start going it seems like most lineman let off and the D pours through. I would think its more likely you could get a kicker's practice blocked. That seems potentially more damaging given how kickers seem to come off as head cases often times. All that said, it never seems to happen so I have no idea. You would probably have to go directly to the rule book and even then it might depend on who is calling the game and the situation at hand. | ||
|
tuho12345
4482 Posts
![[image loading]](https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/408411_10151186629711875_494967735_n.jpg) damn | ||
|
JDub
United States976 Posts
On January 11 2013 08:24 QuanticHawk wrote: That evening, after the Ravens beat them but before you crawl into bed in your Peyton jersey to tearfully jerk yourself off to sleep, kindly take a moment to come to your computer and say 'Why yes, QuanticHawk, you were indeed correct abotu your predictions. Hahaha, SweetLemons it's time!! | ||
|
ZasZ.
United States2911 Posts
One could make the case that the Broncos, not the Ravens, beat the Broncos. Frankly I found it amazing the game went to 2 OT's with the combination of mistakes coming from Peyton Manning and the Denver secondary, especially when the Ravens comparably made few mistakes, Flacco's fumble being the only one I can really think of. But that's playoff football, and both Peyton Manning and Champ Bailey should know better by now. | ||
| ||
