Does Nick Scott have a pass breakup all year?

[Housh]

Not making this thread to pile on Nick Scott but CTB is tied for 2nd in the AFC with 9 pass breakups and Dax Hill is tied for 3rd with 8.




Now in the construction of this post i got curious and looked and Nick Scott literally has ZERO PBU’s.

This means he has broken up literally zero passes in coverage. He has been targeted 23 times in coverage and has broken up zero of those targets and had given up 13 receptions prior to the Houston game. To my knowledge he didn’t break up a pass against Houston so add more targets but no PBUs



This is BAD and in comparison Bates has 5 PBUs and factor in Bates is a main stay on the “Don’t throw in this guys area” list so he’s doing that with QBs weary of throwing in his direction.






I’m calling it right now and i HATE to do this because i actually like Scott’s physical skillset but there’s a reason the Rams let him go and there’s a reason there wasn’t competition for his services this offseason. But if we continue to start Nick Scott and play him as many snaps as we do, we will not get any better on D than we are right now.

There’s a reason he’s getting thrown at so much. Hes the 21st most targeted guy in the league and that doesn’t automatically mean he’s trash as Jessie Bates is 19th in the league at being targeted but what happens when you target Scott and Bates are totally different. When you target Bates he has 3 picks and 5 PBUs and has more tackles than Scott. This means Scott can’t cover AND doesn’t have the IQ to “feel” where the ball is going and get in on gang tackles.




I have a name for safeties that are physically there but don’t actually
Do much in coverage. Nick Scott is a ghost. He’s there and he scares you a little bit because he’s physically where you want to pass but he can’t touch you and he can’t actually harm you.

The trait we’ve all seen is his lack of confidence in coverage. That would be ok if behind that lack of confidence he had raw talent, but he doesn’t have that either. Our front 7 and corners got used to playing in front of safeties who had insane confidence and raw talent. So a lot of factors are leading to our defense being turnover or bust but to me the biggest issue is Nick Scott at FS.

We are putting too much pressure on Scott to be good when we should either not be playing him or not rotate him. Lou thinks we can rotate Scott and Hill at either safety spot on the fly and we just can’t. Dax can because he’s amazing but the weak link is Nick Scott. We’ve even rotated Hilton at safety alot which to me is in response to Scott being so ass because there wasn’t one word of doing that in the offseason.


Step 1 is to bench Scott and give Battle minutes. At the very least Battle is a better tackler. So if we gotta get killed in coverage at least have a guy who can tackle.

If you absolutely have to play Scott step 1 would be to stop
Rotating him and Dax at both safety spots. Nick Scott obviously can’t do the shit. Scott really doesn’t seem to be good at any one aspect. If he could do one thing well, then we’d have an idea of what to do but he below average tackling, below average in coverage and absolutely horrendous as a blitzer because he dies on blocks and even if he’s the free rusher he can’t make a tackle.

My heart is saying bench him but i have an idea he’s an ego signing and Lou basically has to play him to justify the decision to sign him.


If i were Lou right now id see if Scott can cover tight ends and if he couldn’t do that id bench him indefinitely. Hes brining absolutely nothing and atp hes actually losing us games. All the plays where dudes are wide open in zone are because our safeties get lost and tricked by route combos. That didn’t happen with Bates and Bell because they couldn’t be tricked in coverage. You send a crosser across their face and they were smart enough to know it was a distraction.


In summary, and i hate that i have to say this, but if Nick Scott continues to start and get the snaps he’s getting, the season is over.

[Housh]

If you don’t wanna read all that I’m basically saying Nick Scott is horrible and i think he needs to be benched to have a chance to field a good defense

[casear2727]

(11-13-2023, 02:01 PM)Housh Wrote: I’m calling it right now and i HATE to do this because i actually like Scott’s physical skillset but there’s a reason the Rams let him go and there’s a reason there wasn’t competition for his services this offseason. But if we continue to start Nick Scott and play him as many snaps as we do, we will not get any better on D than we are right now.


The trait we’ve all seen is his lack of confidence in coverage. That would be ok if behind that lack of confidence he had raw talent, but he doesn’t have that either. Our front 7 and corners got used to playing in front of safeties who had insane confidence and raw talent. So a lot of factors are leading to our defense being turnover or bust but to me the biggest issue is Nick Scott at FS.

We are putting too much pressure on Scott to be good when we should either not be playing him or not rotate him. Lou thinks we can rotate Scott and Hill at either safety spot on the fly and we just can’t. Dax can because he’s amazing but the weak link is Nick Scott. We’ve even rotated Hilton at safety alot which to me is in response to Scott being so ass because there wasn’t one word of doing that in the offseason.


Step 1 is to bench Scott and give Battle minutes. At the very least Battle is a better tackler. So if we gotta get killed in coverage at least have a guy who can tackle.

If you absolutely have to play Scott step 1 would be to stop
Rotating him and Dax at both safety spots. Nick Scott obviously can’t do the shit. Scott really doesn’t seem to be good at any one aspect. If he could do one thing well, then we’d have an idea of what to do but he below average tackling, below average in coverage and absolutely horrendous as a blitzer because he dies on blocks and even if he’s the free rusher he can’t make a tackle.

My heart is saying bench him but i have an idea he’s an ego signing and Lou basically has to play him to justify the decision to sign him.

So much here.... 

Players leave teams all the time, Bates, Bell, Hurst and Perine left us, did we want hem all gone?  Maybe there is a reason Battle isnt playing just as much as there is a reason the Rams let Scott walk?

How any fan watching TV can say that a defensive player's trait is "lack of confidence in coverage" is comical, at the least.  He may be bad, but lack of confidence in coverage? LOL

The speed of Hill and Scott allow for their versatility, we are extremely easy to read when only one can play high, which is what we get with Battle as he cannot play high.  

Questioning that Lou is playing guys due to his own ego is kinda insane as well.

The fact is, Scott is not good but he does fly to the ball.  Battle is too slow or he would already have Scott's position. Battle needs to improve his anticipation and game speed or he will never start.

[casear2727]

(11-13-2023, 02:12 PM)Housh Wrote: If you don’t wanna read all that I’m basically saying Nick Scott is horrible and i think he needs to be benched to have a chance to field a good defense

This would have been so much better.

[RegularGuy22]

Question about yesterday. It seemed like so many times Houston receivers were 5 yds in the clear with no Bengal DB close then they missed tackles after the catch. Is this a zone coverage problem, or missed assignments or what? They ate our DB coverage up all afternoon. Lou's 2nd half adjustments didn't seem to have an affect at all.

[masonbengals fan]

I'm all for Battle playing more minutes than Scott.

[Housh]

(11-13-2023, 02:14 PM)casear2727 Wrote: So much here.... 

Players leave teams all the time, Bates, Bell, Hurst and Perine left us, did we want hem all gone?  Maybe there is a reason Battle isnt playing just as much as there is a reason the Rams let Scott walk?

How any fan watching TV can say that a defensive player's trait is "lack of confidence in coverage" is comical, at the least.  He may be bad, but lack of confidence in coverage? LOL

The speed of Hill and Scott allow for their versatility, we are extremely easy to read when only one can play high, which is what we get with Battle as he cannot play high.  

Questioning that Lou is playing guys due to his own ego is kinda insane as well.

The fact is, Scott is not good but he does fly to the ball.  Battle is too slow or he would already have Scott's position. Battle needs to improve his anticipation and game speed or he will never start.

When you can see a crosser coming from 20 yards away and still allow the catch every time that means you don’t trust your eyes which means you aren’t confident in coverage.



Also you may be right about Battle. There’s likely a reason he hasn’t been given more snaps.

Your point about Lou is also valid. Usually guys who make more money get coaches to play them even where they are bad so it is unlikely that Scott’s money is affecting Lou’s decision to play him a lot but SOMETHING must be done.

We have a lot of posters who make excuses and are overly optimistic but i think the stats so far prove Scott isn’t good enough. He hasn’t been all year. In 9 games flipping Kincaid is the only thing he’s done.


That’s not good when you are the 21st most targeted guy in coverage.

[MasonDT70]

Only time Scott should see the field is 3 safety looks, and even then I'd rather have Hilton play safety in that situation. He's been bad. Battle can't be worse.

[Nicomo Cosca]

(11-13-2023, 02:20 PM)RegularGuy22 Wrote: Question about yesterday. It seemed like so many times Houston receivers were 5 yds in the clear with no Bengal DB close then they missed tackles after the catch. Is this a zone coverage problem, or missed assignments or what? They ate our DB coverage up all afternoon. Lou's 2nd half adjustments didn't seem to have an affect at all.

It seemed like Lou switched to playing some man later in the game and if was starting to frustrate Stroud a bit. Idk why he didn’t go to it earlier.

[Housh]

(11-13-2023, 02:28 PM)MasonDT70 Wrote: Only time Scott should see the field is 3 safety looks, and even then I'd rather have Hilton play safety in that situation. He's been bad. Battle can't be worse.

Stats tells me he shouldn’t even be playing


We should’ve kept Bell and rotated Hilton and Dax in the slot

Losing both guys essentially destroyed all our back end communication that won us games. Dax with either Bates or Bell would be insane

[casear2727]

(11-13-2023, 02:25 PM)Housh Wrote: When you can see a crosser coming from 20 yards away and still allow the catch every time that means you don’t trust your eyes which means you aren’t confident in coverage.

That may be your interpretation but I’ve NEVER heard that in my life. We play primarily zone, so it really doesn’t make much sense. Scott can be bad and confidence have nothing to do with it. They have so many reads, there could be multiple issues, NFL defensive backs lacking confidence usually isn’t one.

[casear2727]

(11-13-2023, 02:39 PM)Housh Wrote: Stats tells me he shouldn’t even be playing


We should’ve kept Bell and rotated Hilton and Dax in the slot

Losing both guys essentially destroyed all our back end communication that won us games. Dax with either Bates or Bell would be insane

Stats don’t mean anything if the guy behind him is not better.

The Bengals did not want to lose Bell, pretty sure we all knew that?

Lou does not rotate, and if we kept Bell Dax would still be playing safety.

[BengalYankee]

[*ochocincos*]

Scott really isn't a coverage guy.
He's a downhill defender, more of a traditional SS type.

Bengals should have done more to try to keep Vonn Bell.

[*PhilHos*]

(11-13-2023, 02:01 PM)Housh Wrote: and absolutely horrendous as a blitzer because he dies on blocks and even if he’s the free rusher he can’t make a tackle.

I think it was against the Bills but Scott was sent in as a blitzer and easily had a tackle for loss of yardage except the RB (or maybe it was Allen) did a small little juke and made Scott whiff tremendously. Dude then ran for a big chunk of yardage.

[Nicomo Cosca]

(11-13-2023, 03:39 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I think it was against the Bills but Scott was sent in as a blitzer and easily had a tackle for loss of yardage except the RB (or maybe it was Allen) did a small little juke and made Scott whiff tremendously. Dude then ran for a big chunk of yardage.

He made Drew Sample look athletic on that play.

[Nepa]

(11-13-2023, 02:01 PM)Housh Wrote: *
There’s a reason the Rams let him [Nick Scott] go and there’s a reason there wasn’t competition for his services this offseason. 
*

Nick Scott was not really "let go" by the Rams. Unless you're saying Bates and Bell were let go by the Bengals. The Rams were hoping to sign him.

And he was popular on the Rams. Here are some comments from a Ram's website, "Ramblin Fan," on the loss of Nick Scott:

"The anticipation of news about LA Rams free agent defensive back Nick Scott signing today was pretty unbearable."


" If the Rams lost Nick Scott to the Bengals, the defense would truly be a matter of significant concern in 2023."


"Thanks to his incredible ability to tackle in the NFL Playoffs after the 2021 NFL season, the Rams were able to win four consecutive postseason games to earn their first Lombardi Trophy for the city of Los Angeles. Some say that he was one of the key contributors."



He hasn't lived up to expectations in Cincinnati, but he wasn't "let go" by the Rams. The Bengals were desperate with the loss of Bell and Bates and sold a "young and a rapidly improving NFL defensive back" on signing with them.


https://ramblinfan.com/posts/popular-rams-db-nick-scott-trading-in-horn-for-stripes-01gvr1zag292

[Housh]

(11-13-2023, 04:24 PM)Nepa Wrote: Nick Scott was not really "let go" by the Rams. Unless you're saying Bates and Bell were let go by the Bengals. The Rams were hoping to sign him.

And he was popular on the Rams. Here are some comments from a Ram's website, "Ramblin Fan," on the loss of Nick Scott:

"The anticipation of news about LA Rams free agent defensive back Nick Scott signing today was pretty unbearable."


" If the Rams lost Nick Scott to the Bengals, the defense would truly be a matter of significant concern in 2023."


"Thanks to his incredible ability to tackle in the NFL Playoffs after the 2021 NFL season, the Rams were able to win four consecutive postseason games to earn their first Lombardi Trophy for the city of Los Angeles. Some say that he was one of the key contributors."



He hasn't lived up to expectations in Cincinnati, but he wasn't "let go" by the Rams. The Bengals were desperate with the loss of Bell and Bates and sold a "young and a rapidly improving NFL defensive back" on signing with them.


https://ramblinfan.com/posts/popular-rams-db-nick-scott-trading-in-horn-for-stripes-01gvr1zag292

Upon making this thread i saw a lot of stuff about Scott and even though his teammates like him his coverage was a topic of discussion for LA. Saw something where Richard Sherman made a comment because Scott was being criticized so much.

So Scott being on the hot seat isn’t new

[Joelist]

Having receivers always being wide open has been happening all season, and is not solely on Scott. It seems like the secondary is not diagnosing and reacting to what they see unfolding properly. Combine it with almost no pressure on the QB and the results were predictable.

[J24]

He has 1 pass breakup against Cleveland!