Best NFL cornerback versus each route type - Dre Kirkpatrick

[jj22]

Hopefully we re-sign Dre. I think we will The secondary even if we cut Jones (which I hope we will) has potential to still be dominant. Had some questioning Coyle, but he got them together and cleaned things up as the season went on. Coached Dre up to where the Jungle is worried about losing him.

I'd be shocked if we let Dre walk. But with this franchise I've been shocked before.

[*SHRacerX*]

(02-22-2017, 02:29 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: From my perspective, it seems we've always played off the WRs...even under Zimmer. They've always seemed to put priority on stopping big plays. They'll give you the short stuff, but they rely on sound tackling by the CBs to stop those short passes from gaining any YAC.

Keep in mind that Guenther came up under Zimmer and Zim wanted him as DC for the Vikings. Of course, Marv always has his say with our defense as well. I don't think the defense has changed much from the Zimmer days, and it's still highly effective. Btw...Coyle was the secondary coach for most of Zimmer's tenure.

I know that about Coyle, and maybe it was largely Joseph that did such a better job of this compared to Coyle, but it drove me nuts to see them give rookie QBs easy short passes all day long and never adapt.  

[Shake n Blake]

(02-23-2017, 10:41 AM)SHRacerX Wrote: I know that about Coyle, and maybe it was largely Joseph that did such a better job of this compared to Coyle, but it drove me nuts to see them give rookie QBs easy short passes all day long and never adapt.  

I guess I just look at the overall picture. The defense - and secondary in particular - took awhile to gel last season (new/old coach + lost Nelson), but did a fine job overall, IMO.

I just don't get the overwhelming Joseph love or the Coyle hate. Coyle was highly regarded in his last stint as our DB coach.

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(02-20-2017, 06:47 PM)lone bengal Wrote: Agreed and if Dennard plays well this season we're in the same boat we were in this current offseason with Kirkpatrick. A player playing well in his contract year and the team wondering if the player is worth extending based of a small sample size of production. Thats where I'm at with Fisher going into next year. I'd rather find out if he can play right tackle or not this season vs. singing at vet RT and having Fisher sit on the bench for 3 plus years not knowing if he can play. If he dosent play well unit year 4 we would have another guy in a contract year with one season of productivity. I understand bringing back Whit because Ced was such a liability. The Obueghi situation will be interesting going forward. Let's say the Bengals sign Whit for one year and Obueghi sits on the bench all next year in his 3rd season. The following year would be his 4th season. Let's say by some miracle Obueghi starts at left tackle in year 4 and plays decent but not great. The Bengals would have to make a big decision on picking up his 5 year option and a bigger one the following year when he's a free  agent based off a hypothetical 1 1/2 of good play. I'd sign Dre and cut that aging thug corner pacman. It will open up the door to seeing if Jackson III can play as well as the other young corners.

Sure would be nice to have coaches that brought players around quickly especially if we value the draft so much..

[Bengal Dude]

(02-23-2017, 12:16 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I guess I just look at the overall picture. The defense - and secondary in particular - took awhile to gel last season (new/old coach + lost Nelson), but did a fine job overall, IMO.

I just don't get the overwhelming Joseph love or the Coyle hate. Coyle was highly regarded in his last stint as our DB coach.

I think the Joseph love comes from the media. When he signed here, we were told that he was a hot up-and-comer in the coaching ranks. Our secondary looked good and the players talked highly of him. That was something we weren't hearing about Carrier. The Broncos tried to get him for the DC job and we blocked it. Then his contract is up and Miami quickly snags him. Now he's head coach with GM that will do whatever it takes to get the team a championship.

The hate for Coyle comes from his exit in Miami. He was basically victim of a font office that was all about signing a name player instead of a guy who could fit into the team and help. Then you have a spineless jellyfish named Joe Philbin who none of the players respected. That usually trickles down to resentment towards other coaches. Along with Suh's craziness, it would be hard for most DCs to corral that. He just happens to be a victim by proxy.

I think it's crazy when people complain about Coyle when the CBs are lined up 7 yards off a WR when it's 3rd and 2. He's not the one calling the defensive plays.

[*SHRacerX*]

(02-23-2017, 12:16 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I guess I just look at the overall picture. The defense - and secondary in particular - took awhile to gel last season (new/old coach + lost Nelson), but did a fine job overall, IMO.

I just don't get the overwhelming Joseph love or the Coyle hate. Coyle was highly regarded in his last stint as our DB coach.

Mine (although I wouldn't call criticism hate) stemmed from an interview with Eric Thomas where he described a lackadaisical approach in practices during the OTAs and early practices where they were using poor techniques and not being overly concerned with defending the passes thrown.  Thomas was quick to point out that it was a very different look from that coached by Vance Joseph, and that prior season I though the secondary was one of the best and Adam Jones should have been in the Pro Bowl (as a CB).  

That is what frustrates me most, and that interview was before the Bengals played a game.  Yes, there was a new piece in Williams, but he had also played a lot of snaps the year before with good results.  Early in the season, that secondary was awful.  They did improve, but it was too late. 

[Au165]

(02-23-2017, 05:31 PM)Bengal Dude Wrote: I think it's crazy when people complain about Coyle when the CBs are lined up 7 yards off a WR when it's 3rd and 2. He's not the one calling the defensive plays.

This is true the play dictates how they line up, but the distance off the line is more indicative of the coverage than it is the situation. If it is cover 3 for example the CB has to be a bit further off the line because he has the deep third responsibility, but even if the offense checks to a smoke route he can break on it and stop them. Even if they line up in a cover shell 2 look the CBs are going to cheat back because of that responsibility. If you want to put someone on the line in that situation your probably looking man or cover 2. Man on 3rd and short is dangerous because it is classic slant territory and very hard to stop against big bodied WRs. You could run a cover two but based on WR alignment that is going to leave a huge gape behind the corner on a smash/flood concept.

Basically, football (especially defense) isn't nearly as simple as people watching at home like to think it is. Simply saying because it is 3rd and short they should crowd the line is an over simplification of a very complex and cerebral game.

[Bengal Dude]

(02-24-2017, 10:20 AM)Au165 Wrote: This is true the play dictates how they line up, but the distance off the line is more indicative of the coverage than it is the situation. If it is cover 3 for example the CB has to be a bit further off the line because he has the deep third responsibility, but even if the offense checks to a smoke route he can break on it and stop them. Even if they line up in a cover shell 2 look the CBs are going to cheat back because of that responsibility. If you want to put someone on the line in that situation your probably looking man or cover 2. Man on 3rd and short is dangerous because it is classic slant territory and very hard to stop against big bodied WRs. You could run a cover two but based on WR alignment that is going to leave a huge gape behind the corner on a smash/flood concept.

Basically, football (especially defense) isn't nearly as simple as people watching at home like to think it is. Simply saying because it is 3rd and short they should crowd the line is an over simplification of a very complex and cerebral game.

I understand that, but I think back to the Monday Night game in 2006 against Indy. Chuck had the secondary play far off the WRs so Manning just nickle and dimed us the whole game. You can't keep playing off in a lot of 3rd and shorts.