The Good, The Bad, and The Future
The Good, The Bad, and The Future
CokeGreaterThanPepsi is back to give you knuckleheads some perspective and spare you from needing to take a walk on the beach to gain said perspective.
Comments
-
Nice job pointing out that Stanford played a lot of two deep. Some have commented that Stanford stacked the box and dared UW to throw, but that wasn't accurate. They didn't do anything fancy. They just beat us up front.
-
We often had six guys blocking four in pass protection and couldn't get the job done.RoadDawg55 said:Nice job pointing out that Stanford played a lot of two deep. Some have commented that Stanford stacked the box and dared UW to throw, but that wasn't accurate. They didn't do anything fancy. They just beat us up front.
-
Yeah, it really was amazing to see. Even when we would do our trips formation they would send out an extra defender and had three/four guys out on the trips side (Where we throw our bubble screens). That meant you could not throw the ball out there and we still couldn't run the ball with an advantage in the box. That was painful to watch.
-
Fuck perspective.
-
I agree. I agree that cocaine is better than Pepsi.
-
Stanford relies on disciplined play by their defense. It's why they have been successful against Oregon as of late. Their coaches put them in position to make plays and their players stick to the script. Peterman will get us to that level of mindful play but it will take more than five games.
-
Anybody else catch how much tufunga played over Atoe? Wonder if that made a difference or not
-
Cover 2 can be attacked with out routes and short passes, neither of which Cyler wss able to complete for lack of arm strength and accurracy respectively. Of course he'll face more of it until he shows he can complete the 15 yard out and seam routes.
-
I saw that and wondered what the fuck Tufunga was doing in the game...kh83 said:Anybody else catch how much tufunga played over Atoe? Wonder if that made a difference or not
-
No one has answered why Peters didn't play on defense in the first quarter.
-
the crudDerekJohnson said:No one has answered why Peters didn't play on defense in the first quarter.
-
Petersen said he needed to clean up some details. I'd assume he broke a rule. He's not Petersen's favorite guy. I'm just hoping he makes it through the season because we are screwed without him. He is a really good player and as good of a corner I can remember playing at UW. I think he's better than Trufant, although Tru was really good his senior year.DerekJohnson said:No one has answered why Peters didn't play on defense in the first quarter.
-
The dude is a straight gangster and we need him like Ty needed the NAACP and Shaun Alexander. He's really fun to watch.RoadDawg55 said:
Petersen said he needed to clean up some details. I'd assume he broke a rule. He's not Petersen's favorite guy. I'm just hoping he makes it through the season because we are screwed without him. He is a really good player and as good of a corner I can remember playing at UW. I think he's better than Trufant, although Tru was really good his senior year.DerekJohnson said:No one has answered why Peters didn't play on defense in the first quarter.
-
The UW offensive line needs to take a walk on the fucking beach and get some much need perspective. If you get beat that bad, you have to seriously question what you're doing in life.DerekJohnson said:
We often had six guys blocking four in pass protection and couldn't get the job done.RoadDawg55 said:Nice job pointing out that Stanford played a lot of two deep. Some have commented that Stanford stacked the box and dared UW to throw, but that wasn't accurate. They didn't do anything fancy. They just beat us up front.
If only UW had a offensive line coach at some point who would get in their faces and scream at them. -
School just started the week of the Stanford game..... I would guess it had something to do with school, like skipping class.DerekJohnson said:No one has answered why Peters didn't play on defense in the first quarter.
-
Actually, the Cover 2 D was developed in the early 80's to stop / slow down Bill Walsh's West Coast offense which was predicated on the short and medium passing game.
The best ways to beat a Cover 2 D are:
1. Running them out of a Cover 2 and forcing them to put an extra guy towards the LOS
2. Hitting pass-catchers (typically TEs or taller slot WRs) on seam routes, skinny posts, or whatever route they use to get behind the ILB but in front of the two deep safeties since ILB's don't run as well as OLBs and corners.
3. Flooding a particular area of a Cover 2 zone so that 1 or 2 defenders have to cover 3 receivers.
4. Clearing out zone defenders with 1 receiver and then having a 2nd sit in that zone soon after.
5. Using that sort of "Z" route that the "Greatest Show On Turf" used where a WR would do a type of in to enter one zone and get into the zone defenders' line of sight and then reversing course and drift towards the sideline.
6. Call a delayed QB run where the QB / OL give the pass-defenders enough time to drop deeper into their zones while also letting the DEs get far upfield. An OT can push his DE upfield and then go on to the second level to block an LB (two for one!!!!1!!@!!!!).
7. When all else fails, try the fumblerooski.doogsinparadise said:Cover 2 can be attacked with out routes and short passes, neither of which Cyler wss able to complete for lack of arm strength and accurracy respectively. Of course he'll face more of it until he shows he can complete the 15 yard out and seam routes.
-
There is one sure fire way to defeat cover 2. Run the ball.
-
I know Peters was sick mid-week before the game. Might have missed some classes na dpractices.
-
Welcome to the bored!predator said:I know Peters was sick mid-week before the game. Might have missed some classes na dpractices.
Now LEAVE!!! -
I'm thinking it's time for the AIR RAID!
