Re: How bad is our secondary?
 

I'm a pretty firm believer that an excellent pass rush can hide even the worst of secondaries, and I think what did us in yesterday was an excellent game plan on the 'Rams side combined with a lack of pass rush on our side. Their game plan was to get the ball out as quick as possible, and it seemed they were prepared for our zone coverages. Bradford never held the ball for long, and even when he did we didn't have a good enough pass rush to make it affect his throws. With Rak and Carriker now out for the season we really need to come up with an effective way to get a pass rush, whether it be unconventional blitzes or whatever, otherwise it will be a long season. If we can't get a rush on the other side of Kerrigan they will be able to double team him for the rest of the season and it will effectively neutralize our pass rush. It seems it's time for Has' to earn his money at d-coordinator, and I'm not terribly enthused given his lack of adjustments in the past.

Re: How bad is our secondary?
 

[quote=Chico23231;941606]Well you took a Center/Guard with your 3rd round pick who has been inactive the first 2 games of the season when we desperately needed a Right Tackle, Cornerback or Safety.

Should we just expect a complete zero from McRib, an early third round pick, this year? I cant get over the logic of that poor move.[/quote]

Drafting purely based on need is the best way to assemble a roster full of players that can't play. If they liked a CB or Safety best when their pick came up they would have drafted them. For the first time in a long time I trust the people making these decisions.

Re: How bad is our secondary?
 

[quote=celts32;942078]Drafting purely based on need is the best way to assemble a roster full of players that can't play. If they liked a CB or Safety best when their pick came up they would have drafted them. For the first time in a long time I trust the people making these decisions.[/quote]

Yeah I agree but its a still a balance, you take several needs and look at best play available. I dont think there was a great disparity McRib and others available at Tackle, CB, & Safety. Interesting in the preseason Gettis was chosen to get the start over McRib for Chester at Guard. Shanny likes versatility among with linemen, but why was that? There is nothing set in stone stating Gettis has to back up Chester. Gettis, a sixth round pick, was ahead of McRib and more nfl ready. Hey were building depth which is great, but there has been a SERIOUS lack of a plan at RT, Safety and Corner. I think Bruce and Shanny have made mistakes. To rely on Jamal Brown who has never been healthy with us or an undraft FA with Willie Smith is negligent. To let Carlos go and be a probowler with our issues at corner is negligent. M Williams and Merriweather are not long term answers at Safety, Atogwe was a similar type of pick up the year before. Its not fair im putting this on McRib, but more or less im making a point of its not hard to see why we have continous struggles at the same positions.

Re: How bad is our secondary?
 

[quote=mooby;941969]I'm a pretty firm believer that an excellent pass rush can hide even the worst of secondaries, and I think what did us in yesterday was an excellent game plan on the 'Rams side combined with a lack of pass rush on our side. Their game plan was to get the ball out as quick as possible, and it seemed they were prepared for our zone coverages. Bradford never held the ball for long, and even when he did we didn't have a good enough pass rush to make it affect his throws. With Rak and Carriker now out for the season we really need to come up with an effective way to get a pass rush, whether it be unconventional blitzes or whatever, otherwise it will be a long season. If we can't get a rush on the other side of Kerrigan they will be able to double team him for the rest of the season and it will effectively neutralize our pass rush. It seems it's time for Has' to earn his money at d-coordinator, and I'm not terribly enthused given his lack of adjustments in the past.[/quote]


The problem with the getting a pass rush right now is that the holding penalty goes unnoticed more with the substitute referees. Their backup offensive lineman looked liked pro bowlers on sunday.

I think that we knew going into the game that they would fear our pass rush and would focus on the short pass to move the ball -- which makes it even MORE mind boggling to me that the plan was to play a soft zone coverage as if we were afraid of getting beat deep. I wanted to see our DBs pressing more often in man coverage. ESPECIALLY after amendola's 5th or 6th catch in the first quarter.

Re: How bad is our secondary?
 

Our secondary is as good or bad as the gameplan and our pass rush allow them to be.

Re: How bad is our secondary?
 

hopefully we can come to terms w doug dutch. he's a deep sleeper to get the most defense ball gamer for pass throws in english

Re: How bad is our secondary?
 

[quote=Lotus;941948]Okie, I respectfully disagree. I consider Josh Wilson to be a serious baller. Every corner gets beat sometimes but for the most part Wilson is rock solid IMO.

BTW, you jinxed us by going to the game. :) I hope you had a good time anyway.[/quote]

Wilson is a solid #2 and borderline #1 corner IMO. His smallish size probably holds him back more than anything. His instincts and skill level are, as you point out, pretty darn solid.

Re: How bad is our secondary?
 

[quote=mooby;941969]I'm a pretty firm believer that an excellent pass rush can hide even the worst of secondaries, and I think what did us in yesterday was an excellent game plan on the 'Rams side combined with a lack of pass rush on our side. Their game plan was to get the ball out as quick as possible, and it seemed they were prepared for our zone coverages. Bradford never held the ball for long, and even when he did we didn't have a good enough pass rush to make it affect his throws. With Rak and Carriker now out for the season we really need to come up with an effective way to get a pass rush, whether it be unconventional blitzes or whatever, otherwise it will be a long season. If we can't get a rush on the other side of Kerrigan they will be able to double team him for the rest of the season and it will effectively neutralize our pass rush. It seems it's time for Has' to earn his money at d-coordinator, and I'm not terribly enthused given his lack of adjustments in the past.[/quote]

They never affected his timing, pushed the pocket in, or changed his throwing lanes. He was way too comfortable all game. I think that was the reason they didn't switch to man, we would have got beaten over the top.

Re: How bad is our secondary?
 

[quote=Evilgrin;942153]They never affected his timing, pushed the pocket in, or changed his throwing lanes. He was way too comfortable all game. I think that was the reason they didn't switch to man, we would have got beaten over the top.[/quote]

Possibly, but by staying in zone with no pass rush they were still able to effectively move the ball at will.

Re: How bad is our secondary?
 

One thing of note that I believe needs to be considered: This is basically a new secondary and it's going to take some time for them to gel. We have two new starting safties and Hall is now playing the slot in nickel situations. I don't think they're as bad as they looked on Sunday, but I have a feeling we'll struggle all season against the small speedy receivers unless we start to generate pressure consistently.

Re: How bad is our secondary?
 

Barnes is available now

Re: How bad is our secondary?
 

[quote=SmootSmack;942211]Barnes is available now[/quote]

So do we still get our pick from the Loins? Was the deal simply contingent on his being on their week 1 roster?

Re: How bad is our secondary?
 

^ No.

Re: How bad is our secondary?
 

I think the secondary can be good if they utilize matchups properly, and play more physical. Playing zone defense, by it's nature, is passive, whereas press-man is aggressive and physical. Getting beat deep is the major problem with press, which is why keeping the safeties back is paramount without shut-down corners.

What I like about C.Griffin is he is a big, physical corner. He matches up well against the big, physical receivers on their schedule like Green, Little, Nicks, Bryant, and Jones among others. Of course, he will need safety help deep as he can't stay with elite receivers, but he can physically handle them on the line. Disrupting patterns and throwing off timing are huge advantages for a defense.

I think Hall in the slot is good as he is able to make plays from there, and isn't tasked with covering #1's. Playing him near the line allows him to blitz or cover running backs when no slot is in.

Wilson is a good matchup for most receivers, except the physical ones, and is as close to a shut down corner as the team has. Why wasn't he on Amendola the whole game is mystifying. Crawford looks like he will be decent in the future, and should see more playing time as the season progresses.

Between Gomes and Meriweather, strong safety looks decent as either can play the run or pass effectively.

Free Safety is a weakness with Williams, but playing a press-man should not allow the free release that gives the offensive player an advantage. I think Williams would be better covering half the field in a cover 2 than playing centerfield. Free safety might be a high priority next year.

The secondary has issues for sure, but I think the coordinators could use them more effectively to achieve better results.

Re: How bad is our secondary?
 

^ Fantastic post jdc65. I've been wondering if Haslett and Morris both agreed on the ultra soft coverage we saw against STL? Or if Morris would have played it tight man coverage more like the NO game, and Haslett overruled him?