Recommended Rewatched the First Half - Defensive Edition

[Idgit]

Nice way to ignore the whole point, which was you are not nearly as smart as you think you are and this sudden foray into "film analysis" is really not your forte.

I think it's pretty clear the vast majority disagrees with you inasmuch as this has been a *very* well received thread.

I'd encourage you to provide as much content on a subject rather than being so dismissive of another poster who did. And I say that knowing you don't have the time to actually constructively analyze anything worth debating.

And "film analysis" doesn't belong in quotes. You might disagree with Fuzzy. If you do, offer a rebuttal of substance the way Bluestang obviously did. What you're doing here isn't interesting or constructive.

And, thanks, Fuzzy, for a really good thread. Whether we all agree with your individual takes or not, this is the stuff that makes sports boards fun.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Nice way to ignore the whole point, which was you are not nearly as smart as you think you are and this sudden foray into "film analysis" is really not your forte.

Yay, the you're not that smart routine. Feel better?

 

[Alexander]

I think it's pretty clear the vast majority disagrees with you inasmuch as this has been a *very* well received thread.

I value what Bluestang and itsaboat contributed. They just did it in proper fashion and well, were accurate.

My point of contention originally was the "analysis" that went above and beyond the "film analysis" (I really mean to put those quote marks in bold) that talked about how the coaches meant to do that, but the next day come out and say they failed in the fundamentals.

It is a well received thread because apparently some people admire long but inaccurate posts that show the original poster put a lot of time into it so they do not have to, just like how those that post recaps and Twitter posts work hard.

I get that, not that I understand how trying hard but guessing or being completely wrong is admirable. If you are going to put that kind of work into it, at least try to keep it functional and accurate.

But thank you for the stern lecture. I need that to keep me straight.

 

[xwalker]

I think it's pretty clear the vast majority disagrees with you inasmuch as this has been a *very* well received thread.

I'd encourage you to provide as much content on a subject rather than being so dismissive of another poster who did. And I say that knowing you don't have the time to actually constructively analyze anything worth debating.

And "film analysis" doesn't belong in quotes. You might disagree with Fuzzy. If you do, offer a rebuttal of substance the way Bluestang obviously did. What you're doing here isn't interesting or constructive.

And, thanks, Fuzzy, for a really good thread. Whether we all agree with your individual takes or not, this is the stuff that makes sports boards fun.

I completely agree.

Multiple dismissive responses without any added information is just trolling. It's really getting old.

It's good to see the football debate between Fuzzy and Bluestang. I tend to believe that Fuzzy is correct, but it's interesting to see an alternate analysis by Bluestang.

There is no need for Alexander to jump in the middle with a bunch of useless drivel.

 

[Idgit]

I value what Bluestang and itsaboat contributed. They just did it in proper fashion and well, were accurate.

My point of contention originally was the "analysis" that went above and beyond the "film analysis" (I really mean to put those quote marks in bold) that talked about how the coaches meant to do that, but the next day come out and say they failed in the fundamentals.

It is a well received thread because apparently some people admire long but inaccurate posts that show the original poster put a lot of time into it so they do not have to, just like how those that post recaps and Twitter posts work hard.

I get that, not that I understand how trying hard but guessing or being completely wrong is admirable. If you are going to put that kind of work into it, at least try to keep it functional and accurate.

But thank you for the stern lecture. I need that to keep me straight.

Sorry. I didn't mean to imply that I was interested in what you *do* value. Why would I be? When you contribute a meaningful take on a topic that contains supporting evidence then your opinion will hold some weight. Opinions without support can simply be dismissed out of hand.

I wasn't so much lecturing you as I was defending Fuzzy re: your rude dismissal. Because I happen to love it when posters are willing to out opinions out there for debate. But, if the post is going to help keep you straight, well, that's a bonus for the rest of us.

 

[xwalker]

It's apparent that he got caught in no mans land Fuzz. He recognized the rb coming out into the flat and just as he starts to run up to that spot the ball goes over the cb's head. If it had been thrown to the rb, Dixon would have crushed him. I understand you wanting to stick to your guns. I can see why you might believe as you do but since no one of us knows the actual defense called, can you admit that my observation might be valid? If not, then we have to agree to disagree.

It's not apparent to me. The LB #53 is in the same area. Do they both need to cover the RB? There's nobody else there for the LB to cover.

 

[Idgit]

I completely agree.

Multiple dismissive responses without any added information is just trolling. It's really getting old.

It's good to see the football debate between Fuzzy and Bluestang. I tend to believe that Fuzzy is correct, but it's interesting to see an alternate analysis by Bluestang.

There is no need for Alexander to jump in the middle with a bunch of useless drivel.

Thank you. And I'm not surprised you feel this way, because you're another guy willing to put real content out there and to weather the flying dung that always accompanies real football discussion in the content-heavy threads.

 

[RS12]

Dixon's first game ever in the NFL and people are saying that his coverage is terrible. However, they failed to realize that Dallas runs a system where the FS and SS are interchangeable and you will have several confused players in the safety position on who does what. If thats the case than so be it. It can be fixed. Lets not rate him on one particular play who we ALL aren't sure if it was his fault or not. He had a great game and possibly will have a future here in Dallas.

Broaddus said he needs a lot of work in coverage.

 

[Alexander]

Broaddus said he needs a lot of work in coverage.

So has every other scouting report ever written about him.

That does not mean he cannot play. He has a role on a football team.

 

[Fla Cowpoke]

The original post and the responses from Buestang and a few others are what I enjoy about this site. Alexander's Simon Cowell impression is way tired.

 

[RS12]

So has every other scouting report ever written about him.

That does not mean he cannot play. He has a role on a football team.

What I take from it is he is not ready to start, nothing more. The problem I have is the league is trying to legislate intimidation out of the game. Could be a rough adjustment for him. Safety needs to be more of a good tackling corner now a days. That is not Dixon MO.

 

[Alexander]

What I take from it is he is not ready to start, nothing more. The problem I have is the league is trying to legislate intimidation out of the game. Could be a rough adjustment for him. Safety needs to be more of a good tackling corner now a days. That is not Dixon MO.

Sure it will.

It is also why Mitchell's grab habits make make it tough on him to make it without becoming the next Mario Edwards.

Still does not mean they are not good players that can make up part of a team.

These were seventh round choices showing good aggressive traits, you kind of want that.

Beats B.W. Webb playing soft or Heath mistiming every jump ball he ever faces.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I value what Bluestang and itsaboat contributed. They just did it in proper fashion and well, were accurate.

My point of contention originally was the "analysis" that went above and beyond the "film analysis" (I really mean to put those quote marks in bold) that talked about how the coaches meant to do that, but the next day come out and say they failed in the fundamentals.

It is a well received thread because apparently some people admire long but inaccurate posts that show the original poster put a lot of time into it so they do not have to, just like how those that post recaps and Twitter posts work hard.

I get that, not that I understand how trying hard but guessing or being completely wrong is admirable. If you are going to put that kind of work into it, at least try to keep it functional and accurate.

But thank you for the stern lecture. I need that to keep me straight.

Ahh so now you finally want to argue a point that I actually had. I do love your bias in choosing what Garrett statements you think are meaningful. Especially in light of how i know that you feel about him and his press conferences. I get it. You see this as me 'making excuses' and you blamed Garrett long ago.

I laid out my explanation for thinking that the coaches put the players in disadvantageous circumstances repeatedly. I will lay them out here again. You don't even address them and are mostly just angry. People can be their own judge.

They sat Scandrick, Selvie, and Melton when they knew that the Chargers had no one on offense on the injury report. In their place they started two UDFA.

They made Heath play that short zone repeatedly which as I pointed out I had never seen him play. They continued playing him short even when they took out Wilcox in the second quarter and put in Dixon. Dixon in his own right struggles playing up high as you yourself says everyone knows.

They rotated the 2nd and 3rd defensive lines every few downs when it was obvious that the 3rd line was exceptionally pourous. That with the constant free first downs from the officials made it impossible for that second front to establish anything. Boatright was pretty good as a run defender but the row of Rayford Ojomo and Wilson was run over repeatedly. They were in against the Chargers 2's in the second quarter.

So at least in those three particular ways i think the coaches intentionally put their players in disadvantageous circumstances.

 

[Risen Star]

Sure it will.

It is also why Mitchell's grab habits make make it tough on him to make it without becoming the next Mario Edwards.

Still does not mean they are not good players that can make up part of a team.

These were seventh round choices showing good aggressive traits, you kind of want that.

Beats B.W. Webb playing soft or Heath mistiming every jump ball he ever faces.

I still can't believe Webb has looked so awful as a pro.

 

[Alexander]

I still can't believe Webb has looked so awful as a pro.

He just seems to be suffering from the shock of not being the big shot. He came from a small school and still appears overwhelmed. He plays tentative. Cannot do that at corner.

 

[Risen Star]

He just seems to be suffering from the shock of not being the big shot. He came from a small school and still appears overwhelmed. He plays tentative. Cannot do that at corner.

Yeah but he thrived at the Senior Bowl. That's what has me disappointed.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

When I see that the coaches did those things and then come out the next day call the players out I think that you miss the point.

My selective bias remembers Garrett talking about how he thinks back to all the coaches that sympathized for the players and it made him mad because they didn't help him become the best he could ever be. I think about him taking the team to see the Navy Seals and how military training involves putting soldiers in the absolute worst possible circumstances. "Improvise, adapt, overcome."

So anyway you can discount those things they did in the game as meaningless. I don't.

 

[xwalker]

Thank you. And I'm not surprised you feel this way, because you're another guy willing to put real content out there and to weather the flying dung that always accompanies real football discussion in the content-heavy threads.

There are 2 people (well 2 IDs) on this site that every post that I've seen that they've posted is just what I consider trolling with no substance.

This was a terrific original post and it turned into an interesting debate between Fuzzy and Bluestang. It's a great way for people to learn details about football. There is Zero need for somebody popping in to tell somebody that they're not as smart as they thing they are.

It takes lot of time to create a post like what Fuzzy did in the OP. I think he's doing it to share free information with others for their enjoyment. I find it to be terrific. It's also terrific that Bluestang presented his viewpoint with some details to backup his opinion.

There have been other people that shared excellent information in the past, but were eventually so beaten down that they stopped posting (couchscout, Adam, etc..).

 

[ConstantReboot]

Broaddus said he needs a lot of work in coverage.

Never said he can cover. I said what he needs to work on needs work - that includes coverage.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I completely agree.

Multiple dismissive responses without any added information is just trolling. It's really getting old.

It's good to see the football debate between Fuzzy and Bluestang. I tend to believe that Fuzzy is correct, but it's interesting to see an alternate analysis by Bluestang.

There is no need for Alexander to jump in the middle with a bunch of useless drivel.

I can see what they are saying the WR are supposed to have the deep thirds and Smith is running to the middle. If you want to say that intermediate zone to take away any breaks inside for example that the WR may take is what he was in there for then fine but i don't see how that makes much difference. He pretty obviously does not recognize that Lindsey had been beat and was in trail position pretty much right from the snap. I get that he is looking for the run but he doesn't recognize it at 5 yards or even 10 yards when the WR is going by him at his spot about 12 yards deep.

I'm fine with him not having deep responsibility if that is what you want to say. I can see the argument. At the same time he is undoubtedly supposed to react in some way to what the WR is doing and it appears at least to me that he starts to see the WR out of the corner of his eye when he drifts those two steps to the sideline but that is about the extent of it before its over. it's pretty obvious he didn't see the route much less adjust to it. You see him do it repeatedly throughout the game.

As Alex so eloquently pointed out, it's a widely known issue, i just think people need to tap the brakes a little bit regarding expectations for Dixon.