bluv Posted September 10, 2006 Share Posted September 10, 2006 I agree as well. Whitner is a rather small safety and does look like a rookie. He has to learn the techniques needed to ignore his small size and still make plays. Teams are going to try to isolate him one on one with tight ends for the rest of the season and he has to learn how to use his quickness and speed as a way of beating them. Ko Simpson on the other hand was great at stopping ball carriers after they made the catch or they were already down field. I have no doubt in Simpson's ability as a player, but the pass to Rache Caldwell was clearly his fault. He was supposed to have inside support on that play after the corner was beat and he was late on the coverage. Ultimately made the stop, but late on the coverage. I hope that these two get starts down the road, but this team is not ready for four defensive starters this early in the season. I could see starting Whitner because Coy just sucks, but you have to keep the experience of Troy Vincent in there for a few more weeks until someone else (Whitner) learns how to be the leader in the secondary. 768087[/snapback] So what; one or 2 plays they missed. You can't make every play; it's not like they gave up a game winning TD catch or missed a 4th down tackle and should have made a game winning play. While they can improve, they looked pretty good for their 1st action. They might stink it up the rest of the season but today they played OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted September 10, 2006 Share Posted September 10, 2006 Well there was 2 long and one mid range pass to the TE's. The incomplete in the endzone to Graham was also bad coverage. Finally Simpson had the inside on the long pass to Caldwell. Otherall in the second half that was 5 of the key plays and our Safeties chocked on all of them. In addition, they were non-existant in run support, so overall 1 pick and a poor game otherwise. 768097[/snapback] You're a pud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted September 10, 2006 Share Posted September 10, 2006 You're a pud. 768103[/snapback] You're an idiot. Do you feel better now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoondckCL Posted September 10, 2006 Share Posted September 10, 2006 So what; one or 2 plays they missed. You can't make every play; it's not like they gave up a game winning TD catch or missed a 4th down tackle and should have made a game winning play. While they can improve, they looked pretty good for their 1st action. They might stink it up the rest of the season but today they played OK. 768099[/snapback] Did i say that they looked bad. If you read again i say that it is simply too early to have them in there at the same time because of their leadership abilities. You need to have one take on the roll of leader before you take out Vincent and slam a rookie in there. I said nothing about them playing poorly, i pointed out where they made rookie mistakes. Don't take my words out of context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluv Posted September 10, 2006 Share Posted September 10, 2006 Well there was 2 long and one mid range pass to the TE's. The incomplete in the endzone to Graham was also bad coverage. Finally Simpson had the inside on the long pass to Caldwell. Otherall in the second half that was 5 of the key plays and our Safeties chocked on all of them. In addition, they were non-existant in run support, so overall 1 pick and a poor game otherwise. 768097[/snapback] I see it now; you just want to point to a few plays to prove a point that he never should have been drafted. It's like those KH fans putting JP under a microscope. If the run D does its job, Brady was held in check the whole game and most of his successful throws came against poor LB coverage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted September 10, 2006 Share Posted September 10, 2006 I see it now; you just want to point to a few plays to prove a point that he never should have been drafted. It's like those KH fans putting JP under a microscope. If the run D does its job, Brady was held in check the whole game and most of his successful throws came against poor LB coverage. 768113[/snapback] No, we needed safeties. I have no issue with the selection. Not sure but what screwed up logic you came up with that. But Witner and Simpson played like rookies. And no as bad as the LBers were today, those 5 plays were on the safeties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluv Posted September 10, 2006 Share Posted September 10, 2006 Did i say that they looked bad. If you read again i say that it is simply too early to have them in there at the same time because of their leadership abilities. You need to have one take on the roll of leader before you take out Vincent and slam a rookie in there. I said nothing about them playing poorly, i pointed out where they made rookie mistakes. Don't take my words out of context. 768108[/snapback] I never said that stated that they played poorly. All I'm saying, to pick on these guys is nitpicking for overall they did a good job holding an elite QB in check. And the guys they replaced wouldn't have done a much better job. Now if Wire makes those mistakes it would be pointed out as he is always under a microscope. But if Vincent made the exact same mistakes it wouldn't be noticed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoondckCL Posted September 10, 2006 Share Posted September 10, 2006 I never said that stated that they played poorly. All I'm saying, to pick on these guys is nitpicking for overall they did a good job holding an elite QB in check. And the guys they replaced wouldn't have done a much better job. Now if Wire makes those mistakes it would be pointed out as he is always under a microscope. But if Vincent made the exact same mistakes it wouldn't be noticed. 768119[/snapback] Are you aying that Vincent doesn't catch heat on this board? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluv Posted September 10, 2006 Share Posted September 10, 2006 No, we needed safeties. I have no issue with the selection. Not sure but what screwed up logic you came up with that. But Witner and Simpson played like rookies. And no as bad as the LBers were today, those 5 plays were on the safeties. 768115[/snapback] 5 plays is being nitpicking when they overall held Brady in check. And of those 5 plays you point out, 2 of them were just seam plays that are normally completed at least a few times a game against a known weakness in a Cover 2 scheme over the middle when a QB gets time in the pocket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bills#23Iowa Posted September 10, 2006 Share Posted September 10, 2006 Who has the #20 Jersey for sale? He is a stud! He is going to be a star!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluv Posted September 10, 2006 Share Posted September 10, 2006 Are you aying that Vincent doesn't catch heat on this board? 768122[/snapback] He's not under the same microscope some of our favorite whipping boys are in that we noticed every mishap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted September 10, 2006 Share Posted September 10, 2006 5 plays is being nitpicking when they overall held Brady in check. And of those 5 plays you point out, 2 of them were just seam plays that are normally completed at least a few times a game against a known weakness in a Cover 2 scheme over the middle when a QB gets time in the pocket. 768131[/snapback] 5 plays that they blew on a total on 8 passing plays in the second half isn't nitpicky. But Witner did have the one good coverage. Again, what did they do that was so great? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted September 10, 2006 Share Posted September 10, 2006 You're an idiot. Do you feel better now? 768105[/snapback] Our safeties (sans wire) produced well, i thought. and you're still a pud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted September 10, 2006 Share Posted September 10, 2006 Our safeties (sans wire) produced well, i thought. and you're still a pud. 768146[/snapback] I ask you again, they didn't support the run at all. They got scorched on 5 plays and only a bad pass saved the TD. What did they do that was so great? They had one pick on a nice play, but otherwise were non-existant? How is that great? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluv Posted September 10, 2006 Share Posted September 10, 2006 5 plays that they blew on a total on 8 passing plays in the second half isn't nitpicky. But Witner did have the one good coverage. Again, what did they do that was so great? 768142[/snapback] Who said they played great? Some just said they played OK for their first action and then some of you guys make it seem like they have to play flawless. If we had won that game no one would even mention our few bad secondary plays. Now the run D; that would still be questioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swift Sylvan Posted September 10, 2006 Share Posted September 10, 2006 He's not under the same microscope some of our favorite whipping boys are in that we noticed every mishap. 768140[/snapback] You obviously did not view our scapegoat rankings...the only reason we're not bashing Vincent is because he got hurt before he could do something else wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted September 10, 2006 Share Posted September 10, 2006 You obviously did not view our scapegoat rankings...the only reason we're not bashing Vincent is because he got hurt before he could do something else wrong. 768167[/snapback] I'll still bash Grampa... what a waste of a roster spot. Even with the mistakes, I'd still play Ko next week & the rest of the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swift Sylvan Posted September 10, 2006 Share Posted September 10, 2006 I'll still bash Grampa... what a waste of a roster spot. 768170[/snapback] That's the type of attitude I like to hear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted September 10, 2006 Share Posted September 10, 2006 I ask you again, they didn't support the run at all. They got scorched on 5 plays and only a bad pass saved the TD. What did they do that was so great? They had one pick on a nice play, but otherwise were non-existant? How is that great? 768151[/snapback] Uh, simpson nearly KILLED maroney on more than one run play. Better check the tape. In Cover Two, the safeties aren't supposed to be up in run suport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted September 10, 2006 Share Posted September 10, 2006 It was nice to see Witner get the pick. But overall they got worked by the TE's and were a non-factor in run support. Overall they looked like rookies and have a long way to go. 767842[/snapback] A few of them were just terrible play calls where we got pwned by BB. Also yes some were bad plays by our safeties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts