Defensive Coverage

[masterpanthera_t]

For most of the game I was caught up in the moment, and didn't really notice how we were defending. Not to mention I had to step out for a while and caught the game on the radio. Anyways, I know Steve Smith is good, especially after the catch, but was he really THAT good yesterday or did the Bengals not choose to double cover him and not give him a free release so that his after the catch running actually come into play.

If they double covered him and he still had 186 yards and 2 TDs, then a (Reluctant) hats off to him. Otherwise, if they played him man to man, they really ought to change this and figure out a way to double cover him all the time, considering he's pretty much the Ravens' only weapon, when they play next time at PBS. Some safety coverage over the top, some gunner like coverage the way the Saints played Calvin Johnson last year or before, etc., would probably cause Flacco to hold onto the ball and take sacks or throw it to one of their less heralded receivers who don't have the same ability to run after the catch.

Just a thought!

[GreenCornBengal]

(09-28-2015, 12:55 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: For most of the game I was caught up in the moment, and didn't really notice how we were defending.  Not to mention I had to step out for a while and caught the game on the radio.  Anyways, I know Steve Smith is good, especially after the catch, but was he really THAT good yesterday or did the Bengals not choose to double cover him and not give him a free release so that his after the catch running actually come into play.  

If they double covered him and he still had 186 yards and 2 TDs, then a (Reluctant) hats off to him.  Otherwise, if they played him man to man, they really ought to change this and figure out a way to double cover him all the time, considering he's pretty much the Ravens' only weapon, when they play next time at PBS.  Some safety coverage over the top, some gunner like coverage the way the Saints played Calvin Johnson last year or before, etc., would probably cause Flacco to hold onto the ball and take sacks or throw it to one of their less heralded receivers who don't have the same ability to run after the catch.  

Just a thought!

It surprised me they had Kirk shadow him instead of Adam Jones. Maybe they were looking to avoid some personal fouls... not sure.

Iloka whiffed big time on his 4th down TD, but otherwise this is what you typically see out of Steve Smith.

Guy is amazing, if if I hate his 8th grade attitude and stupid antics.

AJ Green vs Steve Smith might be one of the greatest WR battles I have seen in the AFCN. Fun stuff to watch.

[masterpanthera_t]

(09-28-2015, 12:57 PM)GreenCornBengal Wrote: It surprised me they had Kirk shadow him instead of Adam Jones. Maybe they were looking to avoid some personal fouls... not sure.

Iloka whiffed big time on his 4th down TD, but otherwise this is what you typically see out of Steve Smith.

Guy is amazing, if if I hate his 8th grade attitude and stupid antics.

AJ Green vs Steve Smith might be one of the greatest WR battles I have seen in the AFCN. Fun stuff to watch.

Yeah, as a general rule, you don't put a taller corner on a shorter receiver when they run quick short routes, because of the quickness disadvantage.  I believe Adam would have done a better job of containing Smith, but not sure if this was their decision or just the way Smith lined up.  But, I may have seen some crossing routes where a LB was expected to tackle Smith and a slower Reggie Nelson was expected to tackle Smith after the catch in space.  They could have made their lives so much easier if they had just double covered him the whole game and forced Flacco to look elsewhere, but as I said before, I don't know if this is what they did and Smith beat them anyway or not.  Looking for some comments from anyone who noticed this part of the game.

[GreenCornBengal]

(09-28-2015, 01:07 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: Yeah, as a general rule, you don't put a taller corner on a shorter receiver when they run quick short routes, because of the quickness disadvantage.  I believe Adam would have done a better job of containing Smith, but not sure if this was their decision or just the way Smith lined up.  But, I may have seen some crossing routes where a LB was expected to tackle Smith and a slower Reggie Nelson was expected to tackle Smith after the catch in space.  They could have made their lives so much easier if they had just double covered him the whole game and forced Flacco to look elsewhere, but as I said before, I don't know if this is what they did and Smith beat them anyway or not.  Looking for some comments from anyone who noticed this part of the game.

I think the defense had a plan to just stop the deep ball. Most the games Flacco wins is with a lucky deep ball or deep ball PI call. We just let them throw it short and hope we could make the tackle. It almost backfired because Smith is a beast, but technically we got the W so I cant complain. It's rare to watch a game where Flacco doesn't throw deep like he did yesterday. The Ravens really have issues without a deep threat, as that is Flaccos game.

[masterpanthera_t]

(09-28-2015, 01:10 PM)GreenCornBengal Wrote: I think the defense had a plan to just stop the deep ball. Most the games Flacco wins is with a lucky deep ball or deep ball PI call. We just let them throw it short and hope we could make the tackle. It almost backfired because Smith is a beast, but technically we got the W so I cant complain. It's rare to watch a game where Flacco doesn't throw deep like he did yesterday. The Ravens really have issues without a deep threat, as that is Flaccos game.

I understand what you're saying, but this Ravens team has no deep threat.  Torrey Smith used to be their deep threat.  So why not double cover Smith and take him out of the game?   I mean, IIRC, they had no sacks of Flacco yesterday.  I'm fairly confident if they doubled Smith, that Flacco would have been sacked atleast once or twice.  Unless, maybe that's what they did and Smith beat it anyway?

I also remember one play where Smith made a short catch on Leon Hall, and burned him on the tackle attempt. So, in the end, you have to give him credit (as much as I don't want to).

Maybe it was one of the worst tackling days for the Bengals defense, I don't know.

[GreenCornBengal]

(09-28-2015, 01:15 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: I understand what you're saying, but this Ravens team has no deep threat.  Torrey Smith used to be their deep threat.  So why not double cover Smith and take him out of the game?   I mean, IIRC, they had no sacks of Flacco yesterday.  I'm fairly confident if they doubled Smith, that Flacco would have been sacked atleast once or twice.  Unless, maybe that's what they did and Smith beat it anyway?

I also remember one play where Smith made a short catch on Leon Hall, and burned him on the tackle attempt.  So, in the end, you have to give him credit (as much as I don't want to).  

Maybe it was one of the worst tackling days for the Bengals defense, I don't know.

It seems the Ravens didn't double AJ either. Maybe the coaches made an oath to have no double coverage in the game?

I think both guys were doubled, just not in obvious ways. Both defenses looked slow cuz of these guys.

I think AJ beat his doubles before the ball got there, Smith beat his after he had the ball. Both guys had their way, but they were uncoverable no matter how you look at it

[XenoMorph]

(09-28-2015, 01:15 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: I understand what you're saying, but this Ravens team has no deep threat.  Torrey Smith used to be their deep threat.  So why not double cover Smith and take him out of the game?   I mean, IIRC, they had no sacks of Flacco yesterday.  I'm fairly confident if they doubled Smith, that Flacco would have been sacked atleast once or twice.  Unless, maybe that's what they did and Smith beat it anyway?

I also remember one play where Smith made a short catch on Leon Hall, and burned him on the tackle attempt. So, in the end, you have to give him credit (as much as I don't want to).

Maybe it was one of the worst tackling days for the Bengals defense, I don't know.

Steve smith is a little firestorm.... he makes plays and plays hard every snap...

[McC]

(09-28-2015, 01:10 PM)GreenCornBengal Wrote: I think the defense had a plan to just stop the deep ball. Most the games Flacco wins is with a lucky deep ball or deep ball PI call. We just let them throw it short and hope we could make the tackle. It almost backfired because Smith is a beast, but technically we got the W so I cant complain. It's rare to watch a game where Flacco doesn't throw deep like he did yesterday. The Ravens really have issues without a deep threat, as that is Flaccos game.

They also got nothing on  the ground, which kind of nullifies the PA game.

[jfkbengals]

(09-28-2015, 12:57 PM)GreenCornBengal Wrote: It surprised me they had Kirk shadow him instead of Adam Jones. Maybe they were looking to avoid some personal fouls... not sure.

Iloka whiffed big time on his 4th down TD, but otherwise this is what you typically see out of Steve Smith.

Guy is amazing, if if I hate his 8th grade attitude and stupid antics.

AJ Green vs Steve Smith might be one of the greatest WR battles I have seen in the AFCN. Fun stuff to watch.

The corners stayed on the same sides of the field the whole game.  No one followed Smith.  If he lined up on you, you got him.

[RoyleRedlegs]

(09-28-2015, 02:52 PM)jfkbengals Wrote: The corners stayed on the same sides of the field the whole game.  No one followed Smith.  If he lined up on you, you got him.

And they played a shit ton of zone

[mallorian69]

I just thought it was funny Smith was running his mouth to a fan after his last td and u could make out something to the effect of I was born to rule this division. So glad the Bengals made him have to eat his words. At 0-3 he isn't ruling anything.

[BengalChris]

(09-28-2015, 07:12 PM)mallorian69 Wrote: I just thought it was funny Smith was running his mouth to a fan after his last td and u could make out something to the effect of I was born to rule this division. So glad the Bengals made him have to eat his words. At 0-3 he isn't ruling anything.

He's ruling the sub-basement under the Browns.

[Derrick]

(09-28-2015, 01:07 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: Yeah, as a general rule, you don't put a taller corner on a shorter receiver when they run quick short routes, because of the quickness disadvantage.  I believe Adam would have done a better job of containing Smith, but not sure if this was their decision or just the way Smith lined up.  But, I may have seen some crossing routes where a LB was expected to tackle Smith and a slower Reggie Nelson was expected to tackle Smith after the catch in space.  They could have made their lives so much easier if they had just double covered him the whole game and forced Flacco to look elsewhere, but as I said before, I don't know if this is what they did and Smith beat them anyway or not.  Looking for some comments from anyone who noticed this part of the game.

I agree the coaches should have defended the Ravens' one-trick pony offense much better. Besides, Lamur was too slow, too late all day long. Hope to see some changes there SOON!

For the 300th time, why do the Bengals come out in the 3rd Q and play like shyt? Then I remember ML is the HC.   This was another example of the Bengals defense slacking off in the 4th Q. Hopefully you experts will correct my misconceptions.

[BigPapaKain]

Smith did zero damage when the Bengals were playing man-to-man. He did damage when the Bengals dropped off into zone and the Ravens had Smith running slants and drags. Honestly, they should've kept a man on Smith the whole game and let everyone else drop into zones.

[jj22]

We played the no tackle coverage.

[XenoMorph]

(09-28-2015, 12:55 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: For most of the game I was caught up in the moment, and didn't really notice how we were defending. Not to mention I had to step out for a while and caught the game on the radio. Anyways, I know Steve Smith is good, especially after the catch, but was he really THAT good yesterday or did the Bengals not choose to double cover him and not give him a free release so that his after the catch running actually come into play.

If they double covered him and he still had 186 yards and 2 TDs, then a (Reluctant) hats off to him. Otherwise, if they played him man to man, they really ought to change this and figure out a way to double cover him all the time, considering he's pretty much the Ravens' only weapon, when they play next time at PBS. Some safety coverage over the top, some gunner like coverage the way the Saints played Calvin Johnson last year or before, etc., would probably cause Flacco to hold onto the ball and take sacks or throw it to one of their less heralded receivers who don't have the same ability to run after the catch.

Just a thought!

more bad tackling than bad coverage.

[Speedy Thomas]

Smith did almost all his damage on crossing routes. You can't double crossing routes.

Give the guy credit. He is a hell of a player and he almost beat us by himself.

[Au165]

It had little to do with coverage, much more to do with tackling. He hurt us catching obviously but did far more damage after the catch.

[Fresno B]

(09-29-2015, 09:56 AM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Smith did zero damage when the Bengals were playing man-to-man. He did damage when the Bengals dropped off into zone and the Ravens had Smith running slants and drags. Honestly, they should've kept a man on Smith the whole game and let everyone else drop into zones.

Disagree. Smith obliterated every DB man or zone whenever he was targeted.

[BigPapaKain]

(09-29-2015, 10:39 AM)Fresno B Wrote: Disagree. Smith obliterated every DB man or zone whenever he was targeted.

Which is why his stat line was so sweet in the first half?

Right.