Cowboys Claim RB Rod Smith from SEA

[superonyx]

Great pic....

It's not the Cowboys-Pats game, but it's a great pic. It's not where close to what I described in my post, either (Patriots playing 8, and on occasions 9 or 10, men within 5 yards of the line of scrimmage). Are they necessarily "in the box"? Not always, as it depended upon the number of TEs/wideouts being utilized by the Cowboy's offense.BUT, they were right there at the line, in prime position to play the run after reading their first key.

This shouldn't be so hard for you to understand. Defenders playing wide outs at the line are not in the box. They need to be inside the tackles or TE who is lined up on the end of the line. Corners playing press coverage are not in the box. What is this formation you speak of where they have 10 men in the box with only a singe high safety? Who is covering our WR's?

 

[xwalker]

This shouldn't be so hard for you to understand. Defenders playing wide outs at the line are not in the box. They need to be inside the tackles or TE who is lined up on the end of the line. Corners playing press coverage are not in the box. What is this formation you speak of where they have 10 men in the box with only a singe high safety? Who is covering our WR's?

It does improve run defense when they play zone and the CB stays in his area (if the CB is a good run defender).

Ronde Barber back in the day played zone and was very good in run defense.

 

[visionary]

I've been called a twice bankrupt poor man's brad pitt. So f yeah !!!

I think you mean a completely destitute, living on the street brad Pitt

 

[visionary]

What confuses me about this move and the trade for CMike is the question: was it not evident throughout camp that the RB position needed shoring up? Did the coaches not watch our current players closely enough at that time to realize that it might be a good idea to bring in some others for a tryout at the position? Yes, I know DMAC was injured.

I vote for @Idgit to answer this VERY legitimate question with a 5 page long excuse laden retort that will be completely non sensical

 

[Idgit]

I vote for @Idgit to answer this VERY legitimate question with a 5 page long excuse laden retort that will be completely non sensical

Just because you can't make sense of something, visionary, it doesn't mean it's non-sensical.

If it wasn't a ST signing, I have no idea why we signed this guy. CMike I think they brought in because they always knew there'd be a veteran RB available at cutdowns if they wanted one. There is every year, and teams like NE have been able to take advantage of it.

My suspicion is that they were expecting to have one of the backs they liked available in the middle rounds of the draft and were going to add a player there, but either those backs were gone, or they liked other players better, so they went thin at the position and just kept an eye on the cutdowns instead and ended up getting one inexpensively.

Even with Romo out most of the year, they're using the backs exactly the way some of us suggested they probably would when it was clear they were sticking with Dunbar/Randle/McFadden.

 

[Hoofbite]

I guess the team was technically right by assuming any back could run behind this OL.

Wrong in assuming they'd be able to find one who's effective, but anyone can run behind this OL.

 

[visionary]

I guess the team was technically right by assuming any back could run behind this OL.

Wrong in assuming they'd be able to find one who's effective, but anyone can run behind this OL.

Any back can, just not very far

 

[rpntex]

This shouldn't be so hard for you to understand. Defenders playing wide outs at the line are not in the box. They need to be inside the tackles or TE who is lined up on the end of the line. Corners playing press coverage are not in the box. What is this formation you speak of where they have 10 men in the box with only a singe high safety? Who is covering our WR's?

Once again, reading comprehension is your challenge. I didn't say there were 10 men in the box. I said there were 10 men within 5 yards pf tyhe line of scrimmage. Even if a couple of those guys were outside of the literal "box", they were in a great position to defend the run. A QB who was a true threat to throw downfield would have forced the LBers and DBs to play off somewhat, which would have loosened things up for the running game.

You're getting all caught up in semantics here. The truth is that the Pats had 10 guys who were playing run-first exclusively. Whether they were literally "in the box" is irrelevant. The effect is still the same.

 

[superonyx]

Once again, reading comprehension is your challenge. I didn't say there were 10 men in the box. I said there were 10 men within 5 yards pf tyhe line of scrimmage. Even if a couple of those guys were outside of the literal "box", they were in a great position to defend the run. A QB who was a true threat to throw downfield would have forced the LBers and DBs to play off somewhat, which would have loosened things up for the running game.

You're getting all caught up in semantics here. The truth is that the Pats had 10 guys who were playing run-first exclusively. Whether they were literally "in the box" is irrelevant. The effect is still the same.

No you said 10 in the box. Post #169.
I get you want to backtrack on the this statement. I would to. That or you really believe a corner playing within 5 yards of the LOS about 20 yards away from the play in man coverage is inside the box or playing run first. This corner is going to need to engage the WR and slow him down as his first priority. Plus since they are in single high safety there is a great chance that this corner has no help if the receiver gets a step on him so most likely this corner isn't even jamming the LOS since this puts him in a terrible position. By the time the Corner sheds the block and runs toward the line the runner will either be tackled by another player or will be gone in the end zone.

Your logic falls apart in several ways. You either misspoke and now are trying to cover it up or you are not fully understanding this concept of football.

Any corner playing on an island is not playing run first. It just doesn't make sense.

 

[SilverStarCowboy]

I'm sensing a single digit wonderlic... js

Which may be slightly higher than Christine Michael.

 

[rpntex]

No you said 10 in the box. Post #169.
I get you want to backtrack on the this statement. I would to. That or you really believe a corner playing within 5 yards of the LOS about 20 yards away from the play in man coverage is inside the box or playing run first. This corner is going to need to engage the WR and slow him down as his first priority. Plus since they are in single high safety there is a great chance that this corner has no help if the receiver gets a step on him so most likely this corner isn't even jamming the LOS since this puts him in a terrible position. By the time the Corner sheds the block and runs toward the line the runner will either be tackled by another player or will be gone in the end zone.

Your logic falls apart in several ways. You either misspoke and now are trying to cover it up or you are not fully understanding this concept of football.

Any corner playing on an island is not playing run first. It just doesn't make sense.

Actually, the post you referenced is where I first said that NE was playing 10 men within 5 yards of the LOS. That was my first statement, then I said they were EFFECTIVELY playing 10 men in the box at times. Call it a poor choice of words on my part...I can own that. Of course they weren't literally "in the box" but they were in prime position to defend the run.

I still disagree with your last statement. IMO, everybody on the NE Side of the ball was thinking run first, and adjusting if the need arose after the snap. I agree that under NORMAL circumstances a cornerback on an "island" can't play run first. I wouldn't call what was happening Sunday "normal circumstances", however. It was obvious that New England did not respect Brandon Weeden's ability to throw outside the numbers, or downfield. They approached the latter part of the second quarter, and all of the second half, as if they had a very small area to defend.

I'm not backtracking at all… In the first post I made on this thread, i stated that the Pats played 10 men within 5 yards of the line of scrimmage throughout much of the game, that's cutting drastically the area of the field they needed to defend. This in effect helped to clog up the running lanes Was it literally " 10 in the box"?… No. BUT...The effect was very much the same.

Watch the all 22 video… You'll see what I'm talking about.

 

[dallasdave]

I guess the team was technically right by assuming any back could run behind this OL.

Wrong in assuming they'd be able to find one who's effective, but anyone can run behind this OL.