Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kirwan: Buying into latest myth can get teams burned

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Kirwan: Buying into latest myth can get teams burned

    Buying into latest myth can get teams burned
    By Pat Kirwan
    NFL.com
    Posted: 16 hours 1 minutes ago

    PALM BEACH, Fla. -- Every so often, an apparent new trend pops up in the NFL that gets its legs for some unfounded reason. And it usually involves a concept that teams can get by with inferior players at a certain position.

    As one GM said to me at the owners' meetings this week, "I hope the latest myth floating around here lasts until after the draft, because I want a certain position to fall to me." Another GM looked at me and laughed when I asked him what he thought of the latest myth.

    I expect five players to be drafted in the first round at the position some people with a straight face now claim isn't that important -- cornerback. If teams pass on them because they buy into the new myth, they might regret it.

    Before we get to the new concept floating around The Breakers hotel this week, here are two other ridiculous myths that have circulated around the NFL in recent years:

    Myth No. 1: Just manage the game. After Trent Dilfer led the Baltimore Ravens to a Super Bowl championship the idea that a team really didn't need a great quarterback to win it all started circulating. The myth said that a QB who could manage the game was good enough as long as the defense was above par. That myth caused a few teams to skip on quarterbacks like Drew Brees and Ben Roethlisberger. The fact is, the quarterback position is the most important one on the field. Sooner or later, every offense is going to have to run a two-minute drill to pull out a win and no manage-the-game guy can do that consistently in the heat of battle.

    Myth No. 2: Don't waste a first-round pick on a running back. The Broncos had great success with their running game with late-round backs like Terrell Davis and Mike Anderson, to name a few over the years. The prevailing thought was that other teams should be able to succeed with late-round picks, too. How do you think the six teams that passed on Adrian Peterson feel about that concept? The Broncos' offensive line was pretty darn good and maybe, just maybe, teams made a mistake on their evaluation of Terrell Davis.

    Those two examples lead me to the myth of 2008:

    Cornerbacks are only as good as the pass rush: The Giants' Super Bowl victory has led some teams to conclude it was exclusively the pass rush with a bunch of average guys behind them in coverage that helped New York shut down the vaunted Patriots' passing attack. This myth should fade quickly, but a number of people came up to me this week and tried to make a case for downgrading corners.

    I made a few points as I heard the corner situation unfold in front of me:

    1. You can't play Cover 2 all day and have corners play the flat area every down. All an offense has to do is put trips (three receivers) to one side and the opposite corner is all alone. As for the pass rush, a three-step drop and a ball directed at the receiver who is being single-covered takes the pass rush out of the equation.

    2. Down in the red zone, the fade route to a tall receiver really means the corner has to make a play on the ball and the rush will not be a factor before the fade is thrown.

    3. Sometimes it's the jam of the corner on the receivers that sets up the pass rush.

    4. Corey Webster is one of the Giants' corners who supposedly is just average. I asked Giants GM Jerry Reese about Webster and his first comment was, "Did you see the interception against the Packers?" Pass rush and corner play work hand in hand, just like an offensive line and a running back or a QB and his receivers.

    I wonder who actually starts these myths. Is it the team that wants a corner to fall to them? Is it an outside observer who never coached or watched film? Or does someone actually believe you can get by with average guys?

    Don't get me wrong, pass rush is a critical component to any football team, and the Giants' pass rush was great in Super Bowl XLII. But passing on a first-round corner later this month and reaching for a lower-graded pass rusher instead is dangerous business.

    Chris Long (Virginia) and Vernon Gholston (Ohio State) will both be drafted before the first cornerback is taken because they are excellent football players. But soon after they come off the board, we will hear cornerbacks Leodis McKelvin, Aqib Talib, Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie and Michael Jenkins called. Unless, of course, this latest myth has become a reality.

    I doubt it.


  • #2
    Re: Kirwan: Buying into latest myth can get teams burned

    1. You can't play Cover 2 all day and have corners play the flat area every down. All an offense has to do is put trips (three receivers) to one side and the opposite corner is all alone. As for the pass rush, a three-step drop and a ball directed at the receiver who is being single-covered takes the pass rush out of the equation.
    Just as a defense can't set back in Cover 2 all day, a pass offense can not rely on 3-step drops in man coverage all day either.
    2. Down in the red zone, the fade route to a tall receiver really means the corner has to make a play on the ball and the rush will not be a factor before the fade is thrown.
    Very true, but you got to get to the red zone first.
    3. Sometimes it's the jam of the corner on the receivers that sets up the pass rush.
    That's true.......sometimes.
    4. Corey Webster is one of the Giants' corners who supposedly is just average.
    Says who? Personally, I think the Giants had a pretty solid secondary in their own right.
    Cornerbacks are only as good as the pass rush:
    But that's not exactly the argument you are making. Will average corners be adequate in a good pass rush defense? Maybe, maybe not.....but it's certainly not a given. Here we'd agree. However, where I think Kirwan misses the boat is by not recognizing the other end of the spectrum. That is to say, highly skilled corners can look mortal without a pass rush.

    That one seems pretty simple. Give a QB all the time he wants, and a good corner can be beaten.
    The more things change, the more they stay the same.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Kirwan: Buying into latest myth can get teams burned

      Ugh. I hate it when people have no understanding of logic.

      PROPOSITION #1: It is important to have good CBs.
      PROPOSITION #2: A team's pass rush will significantly impact the performance of its CBs.

      These propositions are not mutually exclusive. Therefore, the decision to draft a CB or a pass rusher is difficult.

      I will say one thing, though. It is far more common for a good pass rush to cover up mediocre coverage than it is for good coverage to allow a bad rush to get to the QB.

      Comment

      Related Topics

      Collapse

      • MauiRam
        Memo To the St. Louis Rams: How Enemy DCs Will Destroy Your WCO In 2010
        by MauiRam
        By David Leon

        The West Coast Offense is not my favorite offensive scheme, not by a long shot. I greatly prefer the Gilman-Coryell-Martz approach. I would also prefer the Spread, and the K-Gun, two very similar offenses. The WCO would rank just above the Erhardt-Perkins and Lombardi-Shula schemes. That's pretty low on my list of favorites.

        So why do I dislike the WCO? It's pretty easy to beat these days, that's why. Nobody plays it in the pure form that Walsh did back in 1981. The reason is simple: They can't. The pure system doesn't really work anymore. Let me give you a little history lesson about it.

        Back in the year 1981, everyone was deathly afraid of the bomb. Not the atomic bomb, the long pass. The 1978 rule changes had been in effect for three full years prior to the 49er eruption.

        Teams like the Steelers and Raiders had used the bomb with devastating effect on route to Super Bowl championships. The Cowboys were playing bombs-away also. Even the Rams, with Vince Ferragamo, were throwing the football deep.

        In those days, most defenses would concede a four yard pass and think nothing of it. They would not contest those short routes much at all.

        If you added some sophistication to your short passing game, running combination routes to produce rub-offs and so forth, you could really move the chains. You could sustain a drive for 9-12 plays, keep your defense off the field, build your QB's passer rating, and score touchdowns.

        Bill Walsh knew and understood this. He organized his entire offense around the precept that defensive coordinators would give him his short yardage, practically for free. This was especially true in the final two minutes of the game when everybody (and I mean everybody) played the prevent defense.

        The 49er offense was revolutionary for the time. Frankly, I always knew it could be stopped. I used to chastise our Ram defensive coordinators, like Fritz Shurmur, for ordering our corners to cover the 49er WRs as they ran endlessly down the field on eight and nine routes to no avail. Joe would seldom throw the football deep. Truth be told, he had a 40 yard arm. He couldn't fling it that deep with any consistency of accuracy.

        Well, it took awhile, but a defensive coordinator arose who had the nuts to play a realistic defense against the WCO. I regret to say this, but the man's name is Bill Belichick. At the time, he was the defensive coordinator for the New York Giants under Bill Parcells.

        If you will check the historical record, you will find the New York Giants were the team that most consistently vexed the 49er dynasty. They laid a devastating 49-3 route on ***** on route to their first Super Bowl victory in 1986-87.

        Jim Burk sent Joe Montana out on a stretcher in that game. They terminated the ***** shot at a three-pete in 1990-91....
        -05-14-2010, 08:20 AM
      • MauiRam
        The Evolution of the Zone Blitz ..
        by MauiRam
        By Greg Cosell

        Don Coryell and Bill Walsh were two pioneering and aggressive innovators who greatly expanded how people approached the NFL offense. As I wrote in a recent piece about the evolution of the offense, both men challenged standard beliefs and conventional wisdom, helping to gradually transform the run-dominated league that Vince Lombardi ruled in the 1960s into the pass-heavy NFL we know today. More than 30 years after Coryell and Walsh first advanced their strategic views, their influence remains as strong and pervasive as ever.

        But how did defenses react to these historic changes in offense? Remember that, for years, defensive coaches had been trying to stop offensive formations that almost exclusively featured two backs, two wide receivers and a tight end aligned on the line of scrimmage right next to the tackle. Passing was predominantly a long-yardage tactic, focused on deep, seven-step drops and long-developing routes. The defensive template was fairly well-established, consisting of 4-3 fronts that rarely blitzed, minimal coverage schemes that highlighted man-to-man with deep safety help and basic zone concepts that did not incorporate route progressions or pattern reading. When teams did blitz — and a blitz back then was always defined as sending five or more rushers — they played man coverage, working without a deep safety in the middle of the field most of the time. The rewards could be great, but so were the risks.

        Unless they had great talent, defenses of that era (and in the early 1980s) were not strategically equipped to effectively respond to the expansion of the passing game, with its innovative emphasis on quick timing throws, three-receiver sets and tight ends that could align outside the formation. Thanks to Air Coryell, Bill Walsh and the proliferation of the West Coast offense, offenses were usually a step ahead. Teams needed to make a parallel change in defensive philosophy. As quarterbacks became increasingly important to their offenses, stopping them became increasingly important to defenses. The challenge was to exert pressure on the quarterback without placing too many demands on the coverage. Conventional thinking about blitzing held that pure man coverage be used. Cornerbacks had no help; they were exposed, liable to give up big plays and touchdowns if they were beaten on the outside.

        Dick LeBeau, the defensive backfield coach for the Cincinnati Bengals from 1980 to 1983, recognized this significant shift. He intuitively understood that the objective was to impact the quarterback without sacrificing bodies in coverage. It was a numbers game: Teams had to rush with fewer defenders while forcing offenses to keep more blockers in pass protection, including eligible receivers like running backs and tight ends. The goal was to have more defenders available to cover fewer receivers. LeBeau addressed the need to bring pressure by attacking specific...
        -07-26-2012, 10:58 AM
      • Rambos
        Coach breaks down the rematch with the *****
        by Rambos
        By Rick Venturi

        For the past three years, I’ve enjoyed writing this column as much as anything I’ve done. It has allowed me to “stay in the game”, study teams and schemes, and to literally “coach” my readers on the nuances of the NFL game. I’ve never dumbed it down - because I have too much respect for NFL fans in St. Louis and throughout the country.

        This will be my last column for a while, as my hip replacement can wait no longer. The good news is that I’ll be like new soon, and though I won’t be a part of your daily morning radio, I hope to be a significant part of 101’s football coverage for years to come. The Coach simply needs to get well, spend more time with the grandchildren in Indianapolis, and hang out on the beach in Florida in those cold winter months. 44 years of hard work give me some liberty here. Three years ago I promised you preparation, insights, and passion, and I hope I’ve delivered.

        This past Sunday, the Rams finally put some demons to rest. They won on the road, got a bunch of turnovers, and, finally, finished off a team in the fourth quarter. After a poor first half, Fisher regrouped the troops, and aided with Arizona coach Whisenhunt’s decision to go with rookie quarterback Ryan Lindley, the Rams got the gifts they needed to get a win. The Rams ended up with a fine total 2nd half performance and a long sought road victory.

        On the positive side, Amendola gutted it out, and got the Rams a big play, and an emotional lift. Givens continues to establish himself as a big play guy. I was glad to see Kendricks make a “big time” play, and I did think Bradford did a solid job. He continues to throw the deep ball better. Jackson continues to run possessed and validates the two back system.

        The best story for many in 2012 has been the development of the offensive line. They had a superb performance again, and the return of Wells was visible. If there is an assistant coach of the year award - it should go to offensive line coach Paul Boudreaux for transforming a liability into a real strength. I haven’t seen a transition as great as this one in a long time. These guys have blocked the hell out of the ***** and Cards, two really good defenses.

        On the defensive side of it, after another unaggressive first half the Rams, led by rookie corner Janoris Jenkins, turned rookie Lindley in to a turnover machine. I certainly commend Jenkins for two game changing plays, but the game was certainly gift wrapped. I’m not sure where the defense is at this point, as it continues to exhibit a containing, bend but don’t break philosophy. I would like to see Jenkins become a consistent player, and I would like to see Brockers show improvement as a rusher as this season winds down.

        The 49er’s haven’t changed dramatically on offense, but with Kaepernick at quarterback, the Rams face a much tougher tactical problem. Smith has played well, and was good enough...
        -11-30-2012, 01:43 PM
      • RamWraith
        You're about to witness NFL history this season.-FOXs Sportss
        by RamWraith
        Remember how Peyton Manning mangled the Chiefs' defense in last January's playoff game? Chew on this: That offensive deluge could be repeated on a weekly basis this fall against almost any team — and could even be generated by quarterbacks not named Manning. If you like your Sundays filled with gobs of passing yards and chunks of points, then you'll think you've died and gone to football heaven.

        Prepare yourself for perhaps the greatest outpouring of throwing and scoring ever. Ravens coach Brian Billick already has warned his players to brace for the oncoming revolution. "It will have as much effect on the game as anything we've done in the past five to 10 years," he told them. For sure, we haven't seen this NFL since the mid-1990s, the last time the league said wait a Dan Marino, these defensive folks are pushing the rules too far and disrupting what is designed to be an offense-dominated sport.

        The culprit — or hero, depending on your football preference — behind this change? Redskins cornerback Shawn Springs knows. "Thank you, Ty Law," he says with disgust. Because it was Law and his fellow Patriots maulers who beat up those delicate Colts receivers in last season's AFC title game, igniting the flames that led to this potentially high-octane result.

        A review of the final Colts possession reveals at least six downfield penalties that should have been called on New England but weren't. Even Mike Holmgren's daughters, who are casual fans, thought somebody was naughty. After witnessing how rudely the Patriots treated Manning's favorite targets, they asked, "Can they do that?"

        The answer from the NFL is no, they can't. The rulebook outlaws chucking after 5 yards, the grabbing of uniforms downfield and the hooking and redirecting of receivers in the secondary. But dastardly defensive coaches have been pushing the rules for the last half-decade, teaching their players to grab a little material here, chuck and push beyond 5 yards there, maybe hook an opponent just slightly if he has you beaten by a step. Some of this hasn't been subtle. And much of it has not been penalized.

        The Dolphins are even more prolific practitioners of rules manhandling than the Patriots; hardly anyone within the league who doesn't work in South Florida disagrees with Holmgren's assessment that "the last few years you could call holding on Miami's defensive backs almost every play."

        Receivers have become players within a real-life pinball machine, bounced around in the secondary instead of running free, which is what they are supposed to be doing thanks to the league's decision in the late 1970s to outlaw downfield chucks. Last winter, the NFL's competition committee reviewed passing and total yardage statistics from the past 14 years and didn't like the numbers. In 2003, the league produced 400.9 passing yards per game, down almost 24 from the previous...
        -08-31-2004, 03:10 PM
      • chiguy
        Most disappointing unit?
        by chiguy
        I've been a Sam supporter since he was drafted, but even I'm starting to have doubts that he can be the QB we want. But if we're talking about team performance, I still don't see how he can be seen as the "problem." This made me think about the following question -- which are the units that are not progressing/playing well, as that is probably where the "problems" are. My shot at listing them is below:

        1. Offensive line. The most experienced group on the roster and one of the most highly paid. But there is no push in the running game and save the first two games, they haven't done much in pass protection either. JLong looked terrible last game...like REALLY terrible.

        2. Linebackers. This was tough for me as WRs and CBs haven't performed up to snuff, but this group isn't getting the job done in the run or pass game. The d-line seems like they're doing what they're supposed to, but the LBs overrun the play and are susceptible to the cut-back. They don't shed tacklers. And, the coverage has been mediocre. JL hasn't looked good until the ***** game; Alex has been a bright spot, though he makes some rookie mistakes.

        3. Running backs. Do we have any, or they victim of play calling and woeful blocking? I'm going with "all of the above."

        4. Coaches. The unwillingness to adjust in game is perplexing. And at point are we going to emphasize 1) not running out of the end zone on kickoffs and 2) proper blocking. Seriously, the refs are not getting it wrong; we are. And why are our corners playing so soft? And so.

        5. Special teams. K/P are fine. I'm sure everyone else is tired of starting drives behind the 10 yard line.

        6. Secondary. Jenkins has been decent and so has Johnson. Everyone else? Meh. TJ and McCleod brings some wallop, but they also have issues with positioning. And Finnegan? He's been just terrible. And that was being generous.

        7. WRs/TEs. There are good moments, but not enough. Given the youth of the unit, its somewhat understandable. But there are too many drops and an inability to get free.

        8. Quarterback. He was fine the first two weeks, mediocre the third, and awful in the fourth. Most importantly, he's starting to look like he's losing confidence. Think Bugler at the end...its starting to look like that to me. Starting to.

        9. Defensive line. We need more push, but they aren't the problem per se.
        -09-29-2013, 07:41 AM
      Working...
      X