Nipsey Posted September 18, 2006 Posted September 18, 2006 what does this say about Nate? Why was our #1 CB not covering their #1 WR? and Big ups to McGee for keeping chambers in check all day.
Like A Mofo Posted September 18, 2006 Posted September 18, 2006 what does this say about Nate? Why was our #1 CB not covering their #1 WR?and Big ups to McGee for keeping chambers in check all day. 777650[/snapback] If I am not mistaken, does the Belichek defensive scheme include putting the #1 CB on the 2nd WR instead of the #1?
MadBuffaloDisease Posted September 18, 2006 Posted September 18, 2006 There was mention made of it that in previous years, Clements would have been matched-up on Chambers all day, but this year it wouldn't necessarily be that way.
Simon Posted September 18, 2006 Posted September 18, 2006 There was mention made of it that in previous years, Clements would have been matched-up on Chambers all day, And whoever mentioned that would have been incorrect. As for the orignal question: "Why was our #1 CB not covering their #1 WR?" Here is your answer.
MadBuffaloDisease Posted September 18, 2006 Posted September 18, 2006 And whoever mentioned that would have been incorrect. I can't remember who it was. It might have been Chris Brown, which is why I believed it.
MartyBall4Buffalo Posted September 18, 2006 Posted September 18, 2006 Personally I much prefer mcgee over chambers and clements over booker. Not because Mcgee is a better cb, but because I believe its a better matchup. While Clements is plenty fast, mcgee has the extra burst to cover deep routes, where as clements a more physical corner has better short range quickness then mcgee and is better suited to cover the bigger booker. I think a lot of you still look at this as, well chambers is the #1 so the #1 corner covers him. We're a zone team now, not man to man
East Brady Posted September 18, 2006 Posted September 18, 2006 And whoever mentioned that would have been incorrect. As for the orignal question: "Why was our #1 CB not covering their #1 WR?" Here is your answer. 778178[/snapback] Hmmmm.thats pretty funny because I thought I heard Kelso state on the game broadcast that in the past the bills would have Nate on Chambers allday but this D does not work that way and each corner would stay on their side of the field or in otherwords no flip flopping ........I'll take his word for it sense he actually played the game and hangs with the Bills prior to the game....... He's actually been a very good upgrade over the last few color analyst ..give it a try.....
destro32 Posted September 18, 2006 Posted September 18, 2006 Don't we play cover 2..... Making it a zone defense?
Simon Posted September 18, 2006 Posted September 18, 2006 Hmmmm.thats pretty funny because I thought I heard Kelso state on the game broadcast that in the past the bills would have Nate on Chambers allday but this D does not work that way and each corner would stay on their side of the field or in otherwords no flip flopping ........I'll take his word for it sense he actually played the game and hangs with the Bills prior to the game.......He's actually been a very good upgrade over the last few color analyst ..give it a try..... 778217[/snapback] Bully for Mr Kelso. But he's still wrong. In the recent past the Bills have not made a habit of flipping corners or having their # corner chase a certain match-up. If you'd like evidence of this feel free to check out teh last time we played miami when Chambers went off for 230+. Only about 90 of those yards came against Clements, which means that he he almost 150yards worth of catches on a corner other than Clements. But yeah the Bills were flipping corners and Clements was chasing Chambers because some guy on TV or radio said so. Don't we play cover 2..... Making it a zone defense? You still gotta cover a guy when he's in your zone.
East Brady Posted September 18, 2006 Posted September 18, 2006 Bully for Mr Kelso.But he's still wrong. In the recent past the Bills have not made a habit of flipping corners or having their # corner chase a certain match-up. If you'd like evidence of this feel free to check out teh last time we played miami when Chambers went off for 230+. Only about 90 of those yards came against Clements, which means that he he almost 150yards worth of catches on a corner other than Clements. But yeah the Bills were flipping corners and Clements was chasing Chambers because some guy on TV or radio said so. You still gotta cover a guy when he's in your zone. 778300[/snapback] Well that "some guy on tv radio" actually Played in 4 superbowls ......His opin has more weight than yours especially since he actually played for the BILLS.........oh well I guess your right again ....... have another cookie you earned it ............
Simon Posted September 18, 2006 Posted September 18, 2006 Well that "some guy on tv radio" actually Played in 4 superbowls ......His opin has more weight than yours especially since he actually played for the BILLS.........oh well I guess your right again .......have another cookie you earned it ............ 778320[/snapback] I don't care who said what. The evidence is on the tape; go look at it. Or else continue blindly believeing what somebody else said.
Recommended Posts