The one play we couldnt stop that the redskins had success on..

[crankdatfalcon]

The 5 yard slant to the inside..I never understood why our corners play 10 yard off the reciever to leave this play wide open. The slant that santana moss caught would have been a TD if campbell would have put it in a spot that moss could of caught the ball and ran with it instead moss has to kinda slow down to catch it. Just think, steve smith and delhommo are masters of the short slants. He throws it, and steve does the rest. I hope BVG plays some bump and run against the panthers or that short dump off play and screen play will work all the time against our defense.

[ATLFalcon36]

For whatever reason Slants have always killed our defense. I can't recall ever seeing us consistently or even inconsistently defend the slant

[schwarzenegger321]

Wrote a post on this earlier. No one responded. I think our coaches didnt want to give up the big play so they were playing soft. We shut that route down the entire first half and then we go conservative. I understand playing back a little bit, but they ran that play 4 times during the first drive after the 3 quarter started and got 3 first downs on it. If we wanted to play back (which we should have probably done) we should have had a safety or LB jump the route and try for a INT.

[ConnFalcon]

Wrote a post on this earlier. No one responded. I think our coaches didnt want to give up the big play so they were playing soft. We shut that route down the entire first half and then we go conservative. I understand playing back a little bit, but they ran that play 4 times during the first drive after the 3 quarter started and got 3 first downs on it. If we wanted to play back (which we should have probably done) we should have had a safety or LB jump the route and try for a INT.

Seems to happen alot. There are good, insightful posts that noone reads. The posts that get the most recognition are 'MATT RYAN SUCKS' or 'FIRE MIKE SMITH'. We let the trolls win because we keep fueling their fire.

[crankdatfalcon]

Wrote a post on this earlier. No one responded. I think our coaches didnt want to give up the big play so they were playing soft. We shut that route down the entire first half and then we go conservative. I understand playing back a little bit, but they ran that play 4 times during the first drive after the 3 quarter started and got 3 first downs on it. If we wanted to play back (which we should have probably done) we should have had a safety or LB jump the route and try for a INT.

yea thats what im saying. If not that, then abe or ja98 should drop back into coverage and prevent that from happening so much. It seems like whoever the offensive coordinator from washington realized that BVG wasnt gonna adjust to it so they kept running the same play.

[AF89]

Seems to happen alot. There are good, insightful posts that noone reads. The posts that get the most recognition are 'MATT RYAN SUCKS' or 'FIRE MIKE SMITH'. We let the trolls win because we keep fueling their fire.

It's eaisier to read PhatRyan's topic and berrate him for 2 hours :P

Edited November 9, 2009 by atl falcon 89

[ConnFalcon]

It's eaisier to read PhatRyan's topic and berrate him for 2 hours :P

Yeaaa, I must admit it is a little fun.

[schwarzenegger321]

Yeah, I totally buy into the ball control and making the other team work for first downs, but we have to trust our corners enough to let them play up some when we have the lead. Dropping a DE right off the snap would have absolutely been a good idea. JA98 is what 6'6". He would have at least knocked the ball down or tipped it for one of our corners to make a pick. Moss and Randle El are dangerous WR, but I just don't think you can keep playing back when you have the lead, especially by two TD's.

Oh, did you see how far the FS was playing? Around 20 yards when washington came out with 2 or more WR. We were really spread thin behind the LB's.

[Norwood all the way!]

this happens even when the first down marker is like 3 yards away. we give the receivers 10 yrds cushion sometimes and all they need is 3 or 4 yards. i dont get it

[BirdzEyeView]

The slant is a hard play to defend for most DBs, especially if they're defending a skilled receiver who can create separation from the line of scrimmage.

Add that to the fact that our DBs are not that great to begin and that provides even more evidence as why they must play 10 yards off the ball the majority of the game. Drives me absolutely crazy, too!

Edited November 9, 2009 by BirdzEyeView

[Jaymadd]

I dont like the fact that our CB play off alot, especially Houston 4 some reason, I wish we could do a better job of getting a good jam at the line of scrimmage on the WR.

[nobkowski]

I suppose we are near the bottom on stopping 3rd downs.

Lately, we haven't been making 3rd downs on 0 very well either.

But hey, we got a winning record.

If we want to get to the play offs, we have to get better in both departments.

If we want to advance in the play offs, we will have to improve immensely in those two areas.

[Lofton50]

Also the stretch run play seem to get us all the time.....

[Rock Howard]

Also the stretch run play seem to get us all the time.....

To say nothing about screen passes.

[juraitwaluzka]

I suppose we are near the bottom on stopping 3rd downs.

I believe on the radio broadcast they said we were 31st.

[GeorgiaDomeFalcon]

Passes into the flats were also very effective against us...

[free lunch]

ya that's a tough play

[crankdatfalcon]

I believe on the radio broadcast they said we were 31st.

wow..not surprised but to actually see it is crazy.

[muskokas finest ©]

If you watched MNF, you noticed the Broncos were killing the Steelers with the slant, but

Pittsburgh adjusted.

[crankdatfalcon]

If you watched MNF, you noticed the Broncos were killing the Steelers with the slant, but

Pittsburgh adjusted.

keywords...they adjusted. Why wont BVG do the same???

[Voice of Reason]

Slant passes are not usually the responsibility of the CB. In our scheme it falls on the OLBs.

CBs can't play to prevent the slant or the receiver has an easy outside release. This puts the receiver away from the safety help over the top that our cover-2 scheme employs. Not a good thing when you have receivers that like to attack downfield every so often like the Redskins do with their guys.

Our CBs are responsible for forcing the WRs inside towards the safety help by staying on the outside shoulders of the WRs. But this gives the WRs a free release for slants. It's the job of the OLBs to jump those routes since usually the QBs throw slants on a 3-step drop and are virtually blind (not enough time to diagnose the OLB's movements). Think about Peterson's pick opening day, or better yet, Harrison in the Superbowl. These are examples of the OLB jumping the slant and the QB blindly throwing the ball right to them.

The problem here is that we were sending our OLBs on blitzes much of the game to generate more pressure on the QB. When we do this, we essentially give up the slant route unless we try to drop our DEs back in a zone blitz concept. But our DEs have been getting torched the past few weeks doing this.

My point, our CBs are not the problem with regards to these slant routes. Our line not consistantly getting pressure with the front 4, forcing us to supplement the rush with our OLBs is the real reason for the success of those slant routes.

[Jaymadd]

Slant passes are not usually the responsibility of the CB. In our scheme it falls on the OLBs.

CBs can't play to prevent the slant or the receiver has an easy outside release. This puts the receiver away from the safety help over the top that our cover-2 scheme employs. Not a good thing when you have receivers that like to attack downfield every so often like the Redskins do with their guys.

Our CBs are responsible for forcing the WRs inside towards the safety help by staying on the outside shoulders of the WRs. But this gives the WRs a free release for slants. It's the job of the OLBs to jump those routes since usually the QBs throw slants on a 3-step drop and are virtually blind (not enough time to diagnose the OLB's movements). Think about Peterson's pick opening day, or better yet, Harrison in the Superbowl. These are examples of the OLB jumping the slant and the QB blindly throwing the ball right to them.

The problem here is that we were sending our OLBs on blitzes much of the game to generate more pressure on the QB. When we do this, we essentially give up the slant route unless we try to drop our DEs back in a zone blitz concept. But our DEs have been getting torched the past few weeks doing this.

My point, our CBs are not the problem with regards to these slant routes. Our line not consistantly getting pressure with the front 4, forcing us to supplement the rush with our OLBs is the real reason for the success of those slant routes.

I can agree with that, the Slants plays are a counter for blitzes and because we cant get consistent pressure with our front 4 we find ourselves blitzing more, but i also think that our CB's giving the WR a larger than normal cushing, i.e Houston then that gives more room for the slant play

[Voice of Reason]

I can agree with that, the Slants plays are a counter for blitzes and because we cant get consistent pressure with our front 4 we find ourselves blitzing more, but i also think that our CB's giving the WR a larger than normal cushing, i.e Houston then that gives more room for the slant play

This is true. I'm not a huge fan of the soft cushion. A hard jam by the CB, throwing off the receiver's timing is a great way to slow down the slant route.

But with this said, notice when our CBs fall back and give that cushion, we are usually bringing our safety up to help with the run (or sometimes even to rush the QB). This changes our defense from a cover-2 to a cover-3 (or thirds defense) with the two CBs and the remaining safety responsible for a third of the field each.

In those situations, our CBs are no longer in a man responsibility. They have to drop deep and patrol their zones. So, playing soft is understood. As a corner, you absolutely can't let the WR get behind you in a cover-3 or else it's a quick 6.

Edited November 10, 2009 by Voice of Reason