Recommended Rewatched the First Half - Defensive Edition

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Question...

Do you think Garrett/Marinelli intentionally put their defensive personnel in a position not to succeed, or do you think it was negligence?

Sitting Melton and starting Coleman was deliberate. He had practiced every day.

You can talk about the nature of responsibility and putting a UDFA against Reinhart and Hardwick then calling him out unsolicited to the press.

It just seems so contrived.

I listed several examples of coaching decisions that were made that I felt were examples of this same type of thing.

Sitting 2 starters and replacing them with UDFA.

Playing Heath and Dixon in new positions, nickel and FS respectively. It should be obvious that they should have swapped. Again with Ryan Smith a college FS out of Auburn at the nickel and Dixon out in space.

Rotating the 3rd line in with the 2nd line every 3 downs starting in the 2nd quarter as soon as the 2s went in. The 3s against the San Diego 2s was a horrorshow.

I am not going to argue about overarching strategies that are unprovable. The above are examples I have presented. For the 4th time now.

 

[Zimmy Lives]

Sitting Melton and starting Coleman was deliberate. He had practiced every day.

You can talk about the nature of responsibility and putting a UDFA against Reinhart and Hardwick then calling him out unsolicited to the press.

It just seems so contrived.

I listed several examples of coaching decisions that were made that I felt were examples of this same type of thing.

Sitting 2 starters and replacing them with UDFA.

Playing Heath and Dixon in new positions, nickel and FS respectively. It should be obvious that they should have swapped. Again with Ryan Smith a college FS out of Auburn at the nickel and Dixon out in space.

Rotating the 3rd line in with the 2nd line every 3 downs starting in the 2nd quarter as soon as the 2s went in. The 3s against the San Diego 2s was a horrorshow.

I am not going to argue about overarching strategies that are unprovable. The above are examples I have presented. For the 4th time now.

I am not quite sure I understand your thought process concerning "overarching strategies." Can you explain it one more time?

Seriously, though, there are a lot of young players on defense and it would be wise to see what they can do when the games do not matter.

 

[peplaw06]

Sitting Melton and starting Coleman was deliberate. He had practiced every day.

You can talk about the nature of responsibility and putting a UDFA against Reinhart and Hardwick then calling him out unsolicited to the press.

It just seems so contrived.

I listed several examples of coaching decisions that were made that I felt were examples of this same type of thing.

Sitting 2 starters and replacing them with UDFA.

Playing Heath and Dixon in new positions, nickel and FS respectively. It should be obvious that they should have swapped. Again with Ryan Smith a college FS out of Auburn at the nickel and Dixon out in space.

Rotating the 3rd line in with the 2nd line every 3 downs starting in the 2nd quarter as soon as the 2s went in. The 3s against the San Diego 2s was a horrorshow.

I am not going to argue about overarching strategies that are unprovable. The above are examples I have presented. For the 4th time now.

The whole thing is unprovable. But even if I take your position at face value, it makes me think this coaching staff is either incompetent or completely lost.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The whole thing is unprovable. But even if I take your position at face value, it makes me think this coaching staff is either incompetent or completely lost.

No it's not. They did sit those guys. They did start those guys. They did play those guys out of position. They did rotate the line like that. Those circumstances meet the definition of 'disadvantageous circumstances.' I can prove all of that. This motivational method is cliche in NFL training camps frankly.

Other coaches have talked about it. It's sop to undermine the recruit in training for all branches of the military. I don't think Bill Parcells or the armed services are incompetent or completely lost for using this style.

 

[peplaw06]

No it's not. They did sit those guys. They did start those guys. They did play those guys out of position. They did rotate the line like that. Those circumstances meet the definition of 'disadvantageous circumstances.' I can prove all of that. This motivational method is cliche in NFL training camps frankly.

You can't prove that they didn't sit the guys for other reasons. You can't prove that they didn't legitimately think the guys were not out of position. Your definition of "disadvantageous circumstances" is subjective, so it, by definition, can't be proven.

Other coaches have talked about it. It's sop to undermine the recruit in training for all branches of the military. I don't think Bill Parcells or the armed services are incompetent or completely lost for using this style.

I've never heard of anything like this, on the scale you're alleging, occurring in the NFL.

 

[CCBoy]

You can't prove that they didn't sit the guys for other reasons. You can't prove that they didn't legitimately think the guys were not out of position. Your definition of "disadvantageous circumstances" is subjective, so it, by definition, can't be proven.

I've never heard of anything like this, on the scale you're alleging, occurring in the NFL.

Not at all, that's called football...breaking down an observable event to a very basic level. This allows one to see if that particular player is a prima dona or can get down, dirty, and fight it out.

Were you ever in an even in practice, called bull in the closet? One merely had to survive to get through...but that took scrapping and dealing with focused pressure upon yourself.

You then know just who wants to fight for a team, to win.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You can't prove that they didn't sit the guys for other reasons. You can't prove that they didn't legitimately think the guys were not out of position. Your definition of "disadvantageous circumstances" is subjective, so it, by definition, can't be proven.

I've never heard of anything like this, on the scale you're alleging, occurring in the NFL.

Then you're not paying attention because they do it in all training camps all across the NFL. Undermining the student both asserts your dominance and creates a sense of urgency. It's a training method. It is quite literally cliche too. You've never heard of Bear Bryant and the things he used to put his players through? You ever heard of boot camp?

I already said that I wasn't going to argue unprovable things like intent. You're boring me with the infinite regression thing frankly. I guess it didn't occur to you that I was anticipating your argument. I realize that I can only get you so far but you're trying to say I am not getting anywhere. That is not true. If you want to be a nihilist then have fun but that is besides the point I am making.

 

[xwalker]

You can't prove that they didn't sit the guys for other reasons. You can't prove that they didn't legitimately think the guys were not out of position. Your definition of "disadvantageous circumstances" is subjective, so it, by definition, can't be proven.

I've never heard of anything like this, on the scale you're alleging, occurring in the NFL.

It definitely has been done by other coaches. Parcells and Wade both talking about it.

As far as proof in this game, I don't know why it matters. He's posting his opinion for people to consider. If you don't believe it, just move on.

It was odd that they played Heath in the slot and a reporter (I think it was Fisher) confirmed that he has not practiced at that position. They played the 6-7, 267 pound DE Rayford at DT on short yardage.

 

[morasp]

Sitting Melton and starting Coleman was deliberate. He had practiced every day.

You can talk about the nature of responsibility and putting a UDFA against Reinhart and Hardwick then calling him out unsolicited to the press.

It just seems so contrived.

I listed several examples of coaching decisions that were made that I felt were examples of this same type of thing.

Sitting 2 starters and replacing them with UDFA.

Playing Heath and Dixon in new positions, nickel and FS respectively. It should be obvious that they should have swapped. Again with Ryan Smith a college FS out of Auburn at the nickel and Dixon out in space.

Rotating the 3rd line in with the 2nd line every 3 downs starting in the 2nd quarter as soon as the 2s went in. The 3s against the San Diego 2s was a horrorshow.

I am not going to argue about overarching strategies that are unprovable. The above are examples I have presented. For the 4th time now.

Did you notice if we ran any blitzes or stunts against the chargers? I don't remember any.

 

[peplaw06]

Then you're not paying attention because they do it in all training camps all across the NFL. Undermining the student both asserts your dominance and creates a sense of urgency. It's a training method. It is quite literally cliche too. You've never heard of Bear Bryant and the things he used to put his players through? You ever heard of boot camp?

I've heard of the methods... That's why I said I haven't heard of anything on this scale.

I already said that I wasn't going to argue unprovable things like intent. You're boring me with the infinite regression thing frankly. I guess it didn't occur to you that I was anticipating your argument. I realize that I can only get you so far but you're trying to say I am not getting anywhere. That is not true. If you want to be a nihilist then have fun but that is besides the point I am making.

You argue what you want to argue, whether it's unprovable or not. When people challenge you with things that you don't want to argue, you dodge and get all indignant. You prefer the echo chamber.

I've made my point.

 

[peplaw06]

It definitely has been done by other coaches. Parcells and Wade both talking about it.

I know it's been done by other coaches. I've already acknowledged that. I've also said there's a big difference between calling plays late and putting a player in a bad spot for a play or two and putting a player in a bad spot for an entire game and calling them out publicly for bad results. As I said, I've never heard of anything intentional being done on this scale.

As far as proof in this game, I don't know why it matters. He's posting his opinion for people to consider. If you don't believe it, just move on.

I don't know what I believe... I'm asking for the opinion to be fleshed out more than just making a couple of observations and coming to a conclusion. The only response I get is that he doesn't want to argue unprovable things. Why throw it out there then? He could very well be right... if so, this season is going to go worse than I thought. Our franchise worst defense is more concerned with testing players than it is in making them better? Wow.

It was odd that they played Heath in the slot and a reporter (I think it was Fisher) confirmed that he has not practiced at that position. They played the 6-7, 267 pound DE Rayford at DT on short yardage.

I think we would all agree that it's odd. But is the staff playing mind games with a fragile and unproven defense? That's a different question.

 

[xwalker]

I know it's been done by other coaches. I've already acknowledged that. I've also said there's a big difference between calling plays late and putting a player in a bad spot for a play or two and putting a player in a bad spot for an entire game and calling them out publicly for bad results. As I said, I've never heard of anything intentional being done on this scale.

So it's possible that they did it to some extent with some players but maybe not to the extent described in his post.

Garrett did talk about the concept in practice recently. He was talking about putting a specific player in a bad position to see if he made the correct decision.

I don't know what I believe... I'm asking for the opinion to be fleshed out more than just making a couple of observations and coming to a conclusion. The only response I get is that he doesn't want to argue unprovable things. Why throw it out there then? He could very well be right... if so, this season is going to go worse than I thought. Our franchise worst defense is more concerned with testing players than it is in making them better? Wow.

People should be able to throw out ideas without proving them beforehand.

I think we would all agree that it's odd. But is the staff playing mind games with a fragile and unproven defense? That's a different question.

I agree that it's a little odd, but it is possible that coaches do it based on known comments from multiple coaches.

They do need to do something to determine which young players are going to make the roster. Garrett does seem to focus on the mental size of players.

 

[peplaw06]

So it's possible that they did it to some extent with some players but maybe not to the extent described in his post.

Garrett did talk about the concept in practice recently. He was talking about putting a specific player in a bad position to see if he made the correct decision.

Sure, anything's that's been discussed here is possible I suppose. But you have to admit that there's a difference between putting a player in a bad position in practice to see if he makes the correct decision, and putting a player in a position that you know that they can't physically succeed in.

People should be able to throw out ideas without proving them beforehand.

I don't recall saying that people can't throw out ideas. Challenges to those ideas are part of the deal too though.

I agree that it's a little odd, but it is possible that coaches do it based on known comments from multiple coaches.

They do need to do something to determine which young players are going to make the roster. Garrett does seem to focus on the mental size of players.

Sure it's possible. I've admitted I don't know what they're doing. All I'm saying is that it seems at the least misguided. It would make more sense to me to get players who can physically play at the positions of need before you test them mentally on the scale that's being talked about here. Some of the guys being discussed here had never played a game against NFL competition before this. We have not seen that they can physically do what is required in that setting. But we're not concerned about that... let's put them in position to fail first and see how they deal with it. That would be totally bizarre.

 

[CCBoy]

Sure, anything's that's been discussed here is possible I suppose. But you have to admit that there's a difference between putting a player in a bad position in practice to see if he makes the correct decision, and putting a player in a position that you know that they can't physically succeed in.

I don't recall saying that people can't throw out ideas. Challenges to those ideas are part of the deal too though.

Sure it's possible. I've admitted I don't know what they're doing. All I'm saying is that it seems at the least misguided. It would make more sense to me to get players who can physically play at the positions of need before you test them mentally on the scale that's being talked about here. Some of the guys being discussed here had never played a game against NFL competition before this. We have not seen that they can physically do what is required in that setting. But we're not concerned about that... let's put them in position to fail first and see how they deal with it. That would be totally bizarre.

I get it, you're a lawyer... Just don't get carried away in abusing a client in front of a judge.