LVE's performance last night

Do you realize that Micah has #30? and LVE has #35 the TE?

Both did their job on Video #1

Micah missed the tackle and created a big hole by going backdoor on Video #2

These threads are great for exposing those who don't know a damn thing about
the game. X's and O's are nothing but tic-tac-toe to some of the most frequent posters
here. And don't bother trying to teach them. They have no interest in learning.
 
Cox could easily replace LVE this year if given the chance. He isn't as fast as Parson. But certainly faster than LVE. His play recognition is as good as Parsons. And he takes good angles.

Unfortunate he got injured.
You have no idea if this is true. If the coaches were comfortable with Cox on the field, he would have had more than 9 defensive snaps all year. The team is not tied to LVE beyond this season, so why would they not give the rookie more snaps if he "could easily replace LVE?" The answer should be clear. Cox was a 4th round draft pick that isn't ready to take on a larger role with the defense. Therefore we keep trotting out LVE every week.
 
Did we make the smart decision not to pick up his option year?
yes if he stays around it will be low ball vet deal..

hes playing solid its just our defense on whole got so much faster and athletic he looks slow now but hes not bad player at a low cost..

now that smith is gone and cox is hurt hes more valuable right now..
 
These threads are great for exposing those who don't know a damn thing about
the game. X's and O's are nothing but tic-tac-toe to some of the most frequent posters
here. And don't bother trying to teach them. They have no interest in learning.

It unreal how many people fell for this thread
 
Seems LVE paused to cover #35 who was his responsibility. Hard to be certain but sure looks like we were in base D.

That is what I see originally. #35 is TE Luke Stocker who was on the PS. Although, it would have made more sense to have LVE on the FB #30 Ham and Parsons on the TE Stocker based on location of LBs.

Need to know which player LVE and Parsons were responsible for. But, it doesn’t look good for LVE since he really did not cover #35 well either and never got close to him. Looks like Parsons made a good play either way.

In short, LVE did nothing well on that play. Parsons did everything well especially well if the FB Ham was not his responsibility.

The Vikes #35 was horrible and needs to go back to the PS. He did nothing right on that play.
 
yes if he stays around it will be low ball vet deal..

hes playing solid its just our defense on whole got so much faster and athletic he looks slow now but hes not bad player at a low cost..

now that smith is gone and cox is hurt hes more valuable right now..
Thanks. Glad the front office made the right call.
 
That is what I see originally. #35 is TE Luke Stocker who was on the PS. Although, it would have made more sense to have LVE on the FB #30 Ham and Parsons on the TE Stocker based on location of LBs.

Need to know which player LVE and Parsons were responsible for. But, it doesn’t look good for LVE since he really did not cover #35 well either and never got close to him. Looks like Parsons made a good play either way.

In short, LVE did nothing well on that play. Parsons did everything well especially well if the FB Ham was not his responsibility.

The Vikes #35 was horrible and needs to go back to the PS. He did nothing right on that play.

LVE had the tight end, Parsons had the RB, that's it period. LVE did his job on the play and Parsons did his.
 
LVE had the tight end, Parsons had the RB, that's it period. LVE did his job on the play and Parsons did his.

Hopefully, the next time LVE covers the TE he will actually get a lot closer to the TE and maybe even jam him at the line and impede his route.
 
Do you have any idea what you're talking about? That was his man..LVE was playing the TE #35...re-watch the play...these people are idiots
Looking at it again from that perspective, I see your point. I still think LVE was a little slow to react, but not nearly as much as it appeared at first look.
 

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
474,003
Messages
14,505,799
Members
24,207
Latest member
TomGiantsfan
Back
Top