Jacobs Draft hype

1987alum · Post by **1987alum** » Mon Feb 14, 2005 4:11 pm

BelieveNBG wrote:Not over protective, not snitty, but some have been over critical about JJ. Just my observation, but there are 10 other defenders on the field and none have received his criticism. I can think of many defenders that have not done a "great" job, but no one else gets called out. The defense as a unit made mistakes. Sometimes a corner stands out more than others because if they make a mistake it can end up being a touchdown. If a linebacker misses a tackle, there are several other lines of defense to make the play and prevent the touchdown. Does getting beat on a few plays mean a player is not draft worthy? I think not. I don't know of any DB at any level that has never been beat. As far as the ball coming his way alot, its the soft coverage we play. If they are going to line him up 10 yds. off the receiver, any half decent team should be smart enough to throw his way and take it. I just hope next season we don't line our DBs up 10 yards off the receiver and allow them to make plays. As for Keon, his position puts him in a position to make those plays. A good athelete with a nose for the ball will make those plays. It doesn't take a great cover man to do it. I too have seen the games and I too have seen Keon make mistakes and get beat too. Teams have not had any fear in throwing towards Keon in one on one coverages. Ask Memphis.

Believe:

I agree that our entire defense deserves scrutiny and I think I've been among several who have been critical of them as a unit, as has hammb.

Jelani's blown coverages are not what makes him a non-factor in the draft. Just look at it this way - is he as good as Patten? Nope, no way. And Patten didn't get drafted.

As for Keon, I'm in the camp that believes he was a safety playing way out of position at corner. That led to him getting burned more than you'd like from a corner.

hammb · Post by **hammb** » Mon Feb 14, 2005 4:18 pm

Look, this argument is tired. I think our defense sucked. I think Jelani Jordan was part of the reason it sucked. A CB with NFL talent in the MAC shouldn't need help. Say what you will, but I watched Dwight Smith play at Akron and the opposition only threw his way about 8 times all SEASON! He went I think in the 3rd round, not exactly superstar material at the NFL level.

I don't think the defense's problems are solely Jelani's fault. My point is that if he is thought of as NFL calibre he should be part of the solution, when I don't believe he is. NFL CBs SHOULD be able to lock down on a MAC WR without that over the top safety help. Defenses use over the top safety help solely because they KNOW that their CB will NOT be able to handle the load one on one. The Cover-2 is en vogue in large part because there are very few CBs in the NFL that can lock that guy down. Deion Sanders, Darryl Green, and Champ Baily don't/didn't have safety help over the top...they didn't need it.

If Jelani was anything special he wouldn't need safety help against MAC WRs. But he isn't good enough to guard them one on one, so they gave him help. At times that help didn't help him all that much and perhaps made him look even worse. Either way its obvious to me that he is not an NFL caliber talent.

As for our coaches' abilities to evaluate our corners I'll refrain on comment. Just suffice to say that I don't think too highly of our defensive coaching staff, and I think everyone 'round these parts knows that.

1987alum · Post by **1987alum** » Mon Feb 14, 2005 4:24 pm

As usual, you've cut through my chatter and made the point clear. Thanks!

RossfordFalcon · Post by **RossfordFalcon** » Mon Feb 14, 2005 4:48 pm

1987alum wrote:
Jelani's blown coverages are not what makes him a non-factor in the draft. Just look at it this way - is he as good as Patten? Nope, no way. And Patten didn't get drafted.
.

Patton not Patten.

Germainfitch1 · Post by **Germainfitch1** » Mon Feb 14, 2005 10:04 pm

[quote="hammb"]
I don't think the defense's problems are solely Jelani's fault. My point is that if he is thought of as NFL calibre he should be part of the solution, when I don't believe he is. NFL CBs SHOULD be able to lock down on a MAC WR without that over the top safety help. Defenses use over the top safety help solely because they KNOW that their CB will NOT be able to handle the load one on one. The Cover-2 is en vogue in large part because there are very few CBs in the NFL that can lock that guy down. Deion Sanders, Darryl Green, and Champ Baily don't/didn't have safety help over the top...they didn't need it.
quote]

You are part right and part wrong.
1-The shut down corner is dissapearing because it is almost impossible to be a shut down corner now that htey dont allow any touching beyond 5 yards. Teams are making a shift to more zone coverage. Great coverage skills still matter. But not nearly as much.
2-Cant shut down MAC Wide Receivers? I would love to see someone shutdown Dante Ridgeway and Lance Moore. Seems like you are belittling the MAC Wideouts a little too much. WE have become a passing conference.

BelieveNBG · Post by **BelieveNBG** » Tue Feb 15, 2005 9:00 am

1. Thank you about MAC receivers. Look at our own Steve Sanders and Charles Sharon. A "Great" corner may lock them down on a few plays, but not every play. It's impossible. That and a line that protecting the quarterback allowing him to pick his poison...sorry...that corner just may get eaten for lunch.

2.

Defenses use over the top safety help solely because they KNOW that their CB will NOT be able to handle the load one on one. The Cover-2 is en vogue in large part because there are very few CBs in the NFL that can lock that guy down.

This is so false that it doesn't deserve a response. Go do your football homework. As far as Champ Bailey, Chad Johnson ate him alive and yes, he needed more than just help over top. And you think Deion Sanders and Darryl Green never played cover 2 and never had a safety come over and knock the taste out of a guys mouth that went up over them for a reception. Pulease.... You think they never played zone. Sometimes you play a zone to be able to do more than just one on one coverage. If a team does not have any great receivers that will make a big difference in the outcome of the game, you don't put your corners in man to man putting all that focus on one individual that's not gonna do anything anyway. You let them force receivers to safety help, be able to come up on the run to help tackle, be able to sit back in position and bait a throw to get a pick, etc.

hammb · Post by **hammb** » Tue Feb 15, 2005 10:10 am

Champ Bailey did get torched by Chad Johnson. He was beaten all day, and he didn't have safety help on a lot of those plays.

I never said that those star CBs NEVER played Cover-2 or never played a zone. Of course they mixed their coverages up. You have to mix coverages up to keep the offense guessing.

That said, a LARGE part of their defense is the rest of their unit having the confidence that they can lock onto a WR and shut him down when need be. Ever hear of a safety blitz? Ever see safeties walk down up to the line of scrimmage in run support? Ever see a safety bite on a play fake? If you have a good CB you don't have to RELY on safety over the top. Sure you still do it as the situation warrants, whether it be a 3rd & long and playing safe, or just mixing your coverages. With Jelani we RELY on that safety being there.

As for MAC WRs, they are not that good. Our receivers are pretty good, but they are that special on the college football landscape. There are a couple that have gone on to play well on the next level (McCareins, Moss), but for the most part they are just good. The MAC is a passing league not because of the play of the WRs, but because of the complex offensive sets and good QB play.

Again, Dwight Smith at Akron was 1-on-1 90% of the time with the opposition's best WR. He was thrown at something like 10 times all season long his Senior year. He was a 3rd round pick. He had no problem shutting down MAC WRs, and was still not seen as an elite CB for the NFL.

It may sound like I'm belittling the MAC, but if you truly have a good CB he should be able to shut down most MAC WRs without relying on a safety on every play. Jelani is not in that class, end of story.

You can keep insulting my football knowledge if you want, I don't really care. I know that I watch a ton of football. I talk a lot of football. I'm not going to claim to be an expert, but I sure as hell am no fool either.

BelieveNBG · Post by **BelieveNBG** » Tue Feb 15, 2005 10:21 am

I guess Dante Ridgeway is just not that good. I guess Steve Sanders and Charles Sharon just aren't that good. Sometimes you can't play the corners in one on one coverage because they need to help the linebackers. Our linebackers did not do a great job at stopping the short underneath passes. They did not get back quick enough. Sometimes it's because the line can't put enough pressure on the QB to make him give the ball up quickly. Gradkowski had all day. NO CORNER can cover any decent receiver all day. It's impossible. There are many reasons, not just one, as to why a corner does not play man to man. Sometimes it's not his ability, but it's whats the best scheme for the defense overall.

Dayons_Den · Post by **Dayons_Den** » Tue Feb 15, 2005 10:28 am

BelieveNBG wrote:I guess Dante Ridgeway is just not that good. I guess Steve Sanders and Charles Sharon just aren't that good.

I'll chime in here and point out that I don't have any idea on football strategy and despite my unbelievable ability to propel Bowling Green to the national spotlight on my Playstation I mostly just guess what defenses look good.

But, I will use my linguistic skills to point out that Hammb did not state that Ridgeway, Sharon, Sanders, MAC recievers et. al. are not good.

I believe Hammb stated that, at best, they are Good. And only once in a while does that MAC have Great receivers.

Ok back to guessing whether a 5-3 or a nickel package will stop USC on this next drive. .. .

BelieveNBG · Post by **BelieveNBG** » Tue Feb 15, 2005 10:36 am

I will take it a step further and say they are better than good. Most D-1 receivers are good. That's what it takes to go to any D-1 school. To make the NFL, you have to be better than good, I don't care what round you go in. You have to be one of the best. That's why they call them professionals. They are the best at what they do.

Dayons_Den · Post by **Dayons_Den** » Tue Feb 15, 2005 10:56 am

BelieveNBG wrote:I will take it a step further and say they are better than good. Most D-1 receivers are good. That's what it takes to go to any D-1 school. To make the NFL, you have to be better than good, I don't care what round you go in. You have to be one of the best. That's why they call them professionals. They are the best at what they do.

Well I guess that is all relative, right? "Most D-1 recievers are good, thats why the get to the D-1 level." Ok, yes they are good compared to the other 17 and 18 year olds they play with in high school. Then, when they are taken from the pool of h.s. receivers, where they are all at least good they are dumped into a pool of only good recievers- collegiate recievers. Then, again, the cream rises and the duds(by collegiate standards) sink to the bottom. They are all Good because they got to D-1, but you can go ahead and re-evaluate the pool and come up with new connotations of decent, good, and great receivers.

hammb · Post by **hammb** » Tue Feb 15, 2005 10:57 am

BelieveNBG wrote:I will take it a step further and say they are better than good. Most D-1 receivers are good. That's what it takes to go to any D-1 school. To make the NFL, you have to be better than good, I don't care what round you go in. You have to be one of the best. That's why they call them professionals. They are the best at what they do.

Yes, if you're comparing those guys to the overall population of the country, yes they're better than good. Clearly they're still in the upper echelon of HS WRs. I'm going further. I don't care about that. I'm comparing them to the overall wealth of NCAA WRs, and I don't think they're better than Good.

Randy Moss is the only MAC WR that I thought was on the elite level as far as college football goes. Those other guys are good, and they could contribute on any team in the country, but I don't think any of our WRs would be elite on any other team.

I'm not trying to degrade the MAC or anything like that. I'm just saying that I don't think any of the WRs in the MAC are so great that a good CB couldn't lock up on them, at the very least sometimes. Our CBs couldn't lock onto any of the WRs with any consistency at all. To me that says our CBs aren't very good.

BelieveNBG · Post by **BelieveNBG** » Tue Feb 15, 2005 11:06 am

We will obviously have to agree to disagree. I have seen our corners lock up on receivers when they were put in the defense to do so. I have seen them get no help over top when they were playing that darn cover two. Line them up on the receiver in press coverage, not 7 yards off, and let them get physical and play. Then if they don't cover, yeah, you are right, but I haven't seen it and I watch every game. You watch that UT game and then you watch that stupid defensive scheme and just puke. ::puke:: They look bad because they were put in a no win situation. Have they ever made a mistake or had a miscue? You tell me who hasn't.

hammb · Post by **hammb** » Tue Feb 15, 2005 11:15 am

BelieveNBG wrote:They look bad because they were put in a no win situation. Have they ever made a mistake or had a miscue? You tell me who hasn't.

I've been saying that about our defensive coaching staff for months now. They continually put players in a position to fail, when their job is to do the exact opposite.

BelieveNBG · Post by **BelieveNBG** » Tue Feb 15, 2005 11:27 am

Classic example of why debates are good. Even within the biggest disputes, there is usually a core common thread that all parties believe to be true. You hit it right on.

I've been saying that about our defensive coaching staff for months now. They continually put players in a position to fail, when their job is to do the exact opposite.