What we saw after Game 1
-
I'd like to add that you really got me thinking here. Doesn't Braylon play the Z? What are you trying to say here?
Maybe I'm just too far out of the loop since moving to Arizona. Choppy Sopcast feeds that work only 30% of the time are no way to get my Browns fix.
-Al, who is definitely getting the Sunday Ticket this year.
Edwards has been working primarily at the X. I'm not sure why. I speculated that it might be in order to dictate some match-ups. I mean, Edwards is more than physical enough to play on the line, it's just unusual that you'd have a clear #1 and play him to your QB's off-hand side. But that seems to be the case. Of course they move the TE's around quite a bit, and you use a lot of 2 TE sets against the 3-4... so the X/Z stuff is a bit fluid
-jj
Edwards has been working primarily at the X. I'm not sure why. I speculated that it might be in order to dictate some match-ups. I mean, Edwards is more than physical enough to play on the line, it's just unusual that you'd have a clear #1 and play him to your QB's off-hand side. But that seems to be the case. Of course they move the TE's around quite a bit, and you use a lot of 2 TE sets against the 3-4... so the X/Z stuff is a bit fluid
If the plan coming in was to have a rookie be the #2 receiver, wouldn't it make sense to have him play off the line (at the Z)? That'd be especially true for Robiskie, who - as you said - needs an extra step or two to get to full speed.
-
Edwards has been working primarily at the X. I'm not sure why. I speculated that it might be in order to dictate some match-ups. I mean, Edwards is more than physical enough to play on the line, it's just unusual that you'd have a clear #1 and play him to your QB's off-hand side. But that seems to be the case. Of course they move the TE's around quite a bit, and you use a lot of 2 TE sets against the 3-4... so the X/Z stuff is a bit fluid
If the plan coming in was to have a rookie be the #2 receiver, wouldn't it make sense to have him play off the line (at the Z)? That'd be especially true for Robiskie, who - as you said - needs an extra step or two to get to full speed.
Aloysius said:
If the plan coming in was to have a rookie be the #2 receiver, wouldn't it make sense to have him play off the line (at the Z)? That'd be especially true for Robiskie, who - as you said - needs an extra step or two to get to full speed.Typically, you wouldn't take anything away from your number 1 receiver, even if it's just the yard of space on the strong side of the formation. Not to mention, QB's tend to throw more to their "handed" side. Generally, you'd want to get your ace over there.
It's not unprecedented, but it is rare.
-jj
-
What I don't know is how Titus Brown managed to get the start Saturday night. He's just not ready. He's consistently soft on the corner, he reacts late, slow in coverage, he's a real liability out there. Watch the touchdown toss at the goal line. He's got bad leverage, can't set the edge, bad body position, get's too square on the blocker... it's patently awful. I don't think we ever saw David Bowens... but we will. And I'm reasonably sure that Saturday was Titus' last start of the preseason.
I too was underwhelmed by Brown's play. Mangini does have a history of throwing a young guy to the wolves to see if he can step up: when Pete Kendall got traded, he moved Jacob Bender, a late round small school tackle, into the starting LG spot. I think that lasted a week of practices and maybe one preseason game.
I'm guessing he was doing the same thing with Brown. Bowens has some sort of nagging injury, so Mangini gave the young guy a shot. Unfortunately, he didn't step up.
@jason-j said:
Wimbley looked good (Nice bullrush a couple of times, little in and out move, and pursuing everything downfield)How do you think he looked against the run?
It seemed to me like he struggled a bit. On the 14 yard run, the Packers motioned a receiver in, who (along with the RT) locked Kenyon Coleman inside. Wimbley could've stopped the play by beating TE Donald Lee, but instead got stood up and pushed back.
If he can't hold up against tight ends, I don't know how he'll survive as a strongside OLB, which seems to be the plan for him.
Aloysius said:
I too was underwhelmed by Brown's play. Mangini does have a history of throwing a young guy to the wolves to see if he can step up: when Pete Kendall got traded, he moved Jacob Bender, a late round small school tackle, into the starting LG spot. I think that lasted a week of practices and maybe one preseason game.I'm guessing he was doing the same thing with Brown. Bowens has some sort of nagging injury, so Mangini gave the young guy a shot. Unfortunately, he didn't step up.
How do you think he looked against the run?
It seemed to me like he struggled a bit. On the 14 yard run, the Packers motioned a receiver in, who (along with the RT) locked Kenyon Coleman inside. Wimbley could've stopped the play by beating TE Donald Lee, but instead got stood up and pushed back.
If he can't hold up against tight ends, I don't know how he'll survive as a strongside OLB, which seems to be the plan for him.
I really don't put much stock in run defense in preseason games - particularly if this is a 3-4 from the Parcells tree. They run it almost straight up. No subs, very few positional shifts. They may blitz, but it will be a straight show blitz, or open overload. It's just not the same defense that you'll see in the regular season.
I'm not sure that Wimbley will be playing a straight 9 technique all that often. If he does, it'll take him some time to be consistently effective. But, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised with the number of free running defenders in Mangini/Ryan's actual gameday defense.
-jj
-
yeah jason i think your right the D we saw was a very basic one. We wont show what we have until maybe game 3. So who here is excited about game 2? I am stoked to see quinn out there again. He might not be able to hit the long ball consistently but he can hit the intermediate passing great.
-
Jason & Al, can you start your own thread, and just call it "Class" or "School"
Is anybody else enjoying their conversation as much as I am?
-
Jason & Al, can you start your own thread, and just call it "Class" or "School"
Is anybody else enjoying their conversation as much as I am?
Jason & Al, can you start your own thread, and just call it "Class" or "School"
I'm still trying to figure out how much sucking up I need to do to get an A.
Professor J, do you need someone to pick up your dry cleaning?
-
Aloysius said:
I too was underwhelmed by Brown's play. Mangini does have a history of throwing a young guy to the wolves to see if he can step up: when Pete Kendall got traded, he moved Jacob Bender, a late round small school tackle, into the starting LG spot. I think that lasted a week of practices and maybe one preseason game.I'm guessing he was doing the same thing with Brown. Bowens has some sort of nagging injury, so Mangini gave the young guy a shot. Unfortunately, he didn't step up.
How do you think he looked against the run?
It seemed to me like he struggled a bit. On the 14 yard run, the Packers motioned a receiver in, who (along with the RT) locked Kenyon Coleman inside. Wimbley could've stopped the play by beating TE Donald Lee, but instead got stood up and pushed back.
If he can't hold up against tight ends, I don't know how he'll survive as a strongside OLB, which seems to be the plan for him.
I really don't put much stock in run defense in preseason games - particularly if this is a 3-4 from the Parcells tree. They run it almost straight up. No subs, very few positional shifts. They may blitz, but it will be a straight show blitz, or open overload. It's just not the same defense that you'll see in the regular season.
I'm not sure that Wimbley will be playing a straight 9 technique all that often. If he does, it'll take him some time to be consistently effective. But, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised with the number of free running defenders in Mangini/Ryan's actual gameday defense.
-jj
I really don't put much stock in run defense in preseason games - particularly if this is a 3-4 from the Parcells tree. They run it almost straight up. No subs, very few positional shifts. They may blitz, but it will be a straight show blitz, or open overload. It's just not the same defense that you'll see in the regular season.
I'm not sure that Wimbley will be playing a straight 9 technique all that often. If he does, it'll take him some time to be consistently effective. But, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised with the number of free running defenders in Mangini/Ryan's actual gameday defense.
-jj
Good points JJ.
I remembered Parcells saying something along these lines: "it took Carl Banks about 3 years to really GET it; but when the light finally went on there was nobody better." I say such a thing because I see Wimbley's 11 sacks as a wide eyed rookie as untapped talent awaiting the right coach. Think about it, the Giants were loaded with LBers at the time so if Carl Banks had the WRONG coach - they could have easily given up on him prematurely. I'm hoping that light goes on with Wimbley and I'm guessing that gets easier if the talent around him gets better.
The other night, I wasn't too worried about the preseason schemes or even the game plan for that matter. However, I thought the tackling looked atrocious. There were a few occasions where guys were in the right place but they just couldn't make the tackle. For example, there was a play where #97 (Santonio Thomas) beat the block and had a clean shot at the RB in the backfield. This became just the opposite of a text book tackle. First, he was too high. Second, as he made contact there was no attempt to wrap. End result, the ballcarrier bounced off, reversed his field and made a decent gain.
Defenses are usually light years ahead of offenses this early on so I was unpleasantly surprised by it all. I know there's a reluctance to tackle in practice because we don't want to get too many guys injured. That said, when you don't ever do any tackling - you can't expect to look sharp at doing so simply because it's game day all of a sudden. I guess this is one of those skills where you say you play like you practice.
- Tom F.
-
I really don't put much stock in run defense in preseason games - particularly if this is a 3-4 from the Parcells tree. They run it almost straight up. No subs, very few positional shifts. They may blitz, but it will be a straight show blitz, or open overload. It's just not the same defense that you'll see in the regular season.
I'm not sure that Wimbley will be playing a straight 9 technique all that often. If he does, it'll take him some time to be consistently effective. But, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised with the number of free running defenders in Mangini/Ryan's actual gameday defense.
-jj
Good points JJ.
I remembered Parcells saying something along these lines: "it took Carl Banks about 3 years to really GET it; but when the light finally went on there was nobody better." I say such a thing because I see Wimbley's 11 sacks as a wide eyed rookie as untapped talent awaiting the right coach. Think about it, the Giants were loaded with LBers at the time so if Carl Banks had the WRONG coach - they could have easily given up on him prematurely. I'm hoping that light goes on with Wimbley and I'm guessing that gets easier if the talent around him gets better.
The other night, I wasn't too worried about the preseason schemes or even the game plan for that matter. However, I thought the tackling looked atrocious. There were a few occasions where guys were in the right place but they just couldn't make the tackle. For example, there was a play where #97 (Santonio Thomas) beat the block and had a clean shot at the RB in the backfield. This became just the opposite of a text book tackle. First, he was too high. Second, as he made contact there was no attempt to wrap. End result, the ballcarrier bounced off, reversed his field and made a decent gain.
Defenses are usually light years ahead of offenses this early on so I was unpleasantly surprised by it all. I know there's a reluctance to tackle in practice because we don't want to get too many guys injured. That said, when you don't ever do any tackling - you can't expect to look sharp at doing so simply because it's game day all of a sudden. I guess this is one of those skills where you say you play like you practice.
- Tom F.
Good points JJ.
I remembered Parcells saying something along these lines: "it took Carl Banks about 3 years to really GET it; but when the light finally went on there was nobody better." I say such a thing because I see Wimbley's 11 sacks as a wide eyed rookie as untapped talent awaiting the right coach. Think about it, the Giants were loaded with LBers at the time so if Carl Banks had the WRONG coach - they could have easily given up on him prematurely. I'm hoping that light goes on with Wimbley and I'm guessing that gets easier if the talent around him gets better.
The other night, I wasn't too worried about the preseason schemes or even the game plan for that matter. However, I thought the tackling looked atrocious. There were a few occasions where guys were in the right place but they just couldn't make the tackle. For example, there was a play where #97 (Santonio Thomas) beat the block and had a clean shot at the RB in the backfield. This became just the opposite of a text book tackle. First, he was too high. Second, as he made contact there was no attempt to wrap. End result, the ballcarrier bounced off, reversed his field and made a decent gain.
Defenses are usually light years ahead of offenses this early on so I was unpleasantly surprised by it all. I know there's a reluctance to tackle in practice because we don't want to get too many guys injured. That said, when you don't ever do any tackling - you can't expect to look sharp at doing so simply because it's game day all of a sudden. I guess this is one of those skills where you say you play like you practice.
- Tom F.
I'll agree with you there. The tackling was atrocious. That's a matter of coach/player relationship. Are they selling out for you? Tackling (while technique is important) is far more about will. Do you want to do it?
But as far as defensive scheme goes, Mangini is not going to show much in a meaningless preseason game. If you remember last preseason, the Browns 1's (the 2008 Browns... you know, those guys) carved up the Jets defense. They scored on two of three drives, and should have scored on a third (actually the second), if not for an interception deep in Jets territory, that skipped off the hands of Syndric Steptoe and floated to Eric Barton. They moved the ball at will against what was going to be a Top 10 run defense.
I get the impression that Mangini is not flexing his coaching muscles in the preseason, but he is testing the will of the guys in the orange helmets.
-jj
-
Jason & Al, can you start your own thread, and just call it "Class" or "School"
I'm still trying to figure out how much sucking up I need to do to get an A.
Professor J, do you need someone to pick up your dry cleaning?
Aloysius said:
I'm still trying to figure out how much sucking up I need to do to get an A.Professor J, do you need someone to pick up your dry cleaning?
If I were a Mod I would put you and Jason into a thread with about 4-5 other posters I respect, and lock everyone else the f*ck out.
Good stuff.
-
Jason & Al, can you start your own thread, and just call it "Class" or "School"
I'm still trying to figure out how much sucking up I need to do to get an A.
Professor J, do you need someone to pick up your dry cleaning?
-
I was in Mexico...so I didn't see the game...but looking at the stories and the stats...and the play by plays I come away with this:
Quinn and DA each had 2 series:
Quinn got the offense in scoring position on both...
DA had 3 and outs on both...
Quinn had a FG nullified by a penalty (he was not on the field for the penalty) and a TD pass dropped (yes, the 2nd pass was an INT) in the 2 minute drill...
DA had one of 2 passes INT'd (he had a 3rd incomplete nullified by a defensive penalty), and that on a long ball...
Now, 2 series in the first pre-season game doesn't say much...but when it is that lopsided it is 'something'.
Right now, DA needs to step up and step up big in the Detroit game...or Quinn has to have a melt-down for the 'competition' to go past the Detroit game.
IMHO
-
As I stated in another thread, I saw the same players of last year making the same mistakes this year...
I saw players thinking rather than reacting and playing football....
On the defense, which I'll somewhat give a pass since Rogers wasn't in there, I didn't see any intensity or attitude... I saw a very slow team...
Other than the hit by Francies, I saw passive tackels and missed tackels, nothing to write home about....
The offensive line, which I was pretty high on, is not playing as a unit and not creating the holes needed to support our running game... Mangini needs to pick the 7 guys (right, wrong or indifferent) and allow them to play together as a unit so they can jell...
This team needs an identity and they need it fast...
Peace
T.Dawg
-
After reading through this thread, I agree that Jason and Al really need their own thread. More of an "Ask the experts" type of deal. If you have a question, ask them. Mods could delete any Retarded posts. Keep it strictly to inteligent questions for these two. I am really enjoying the conversation. Learning a bit too.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login