Colin Kaepernick Thread

Originally posted by valrod33:
Im here for the circle jerk

You're not helping...well...actually...you made me smile so...never mind!

Originally posted by valrod33:
Im here to be a jerk

in season form already I see.

Originally posted by jonnydel:

The hybrid defense that Seattle runs is designed to do just what you're saying. They give man-man overtop coverage on the backside receiver or the "SE" or "X" - whatever you want to call him, while playing a cover 3 zone elsewhere. This means that your backside receiver - in theory, if the CB is doing his job, won't let himself get beat deep. Then, you're 2 1/3 zone defenders cover Davis deep on any seam, streak, corner or post routes. If he attempts to threaten the deep 1/3 on the single receiver side, he has to cross the formation infront of the FS, where the FS will be able to cover that deep 1/3. This then leaves 4 defenders underneath for the crossing, short ins, mid-ins, spot, stick, curls - all of this from a base personnel grouping that will be able to defend the run as well.

To throw deep to any receivers against that hybrid defense, you have to have established a strong run game and be able to play off of that. But, to establish a strong run game your best options are to either have quick, zone blocking lineman with a 3 receiver set to spread out the defense, or go with 2 TE or a FB in other sets to give you an advantage in the run game if you have bigger power run lineman. So, I'm not convinced that the combo of Hyde and Bush in the backfield is a good compliment to our lineman - Boone or Davis - both have slower feet.

Some of your best options on those types of plays are horizontal stretching plays. One play I like against Sea's D is a TE stick. But, the QB HAS to look off the outside defender and get the ball out on time. It was a Stick concept that CK threw that pick at the goal line against Sea in his first game against them. He was trying to hit VD but stared him down and got the ball out just a fraction late. But, that play is open against them.

I like the idea of trying to use Hyde as FB type lead runner for outside runs against Sea and then being able to play a "texas" concept off of it.

That, or I'd like to see us split Bush out wide from that personnel grouping and use a verticals attack on them, like a 3 or 4 verts - it's risky and kind of an all or nothing play, but, would give us a good deep horizontal stretch against their 3 deep defense. Bush has the speed to threaten downfield, so it gives you 3 viable deep threats on a verts concept.

Why don't more teams run Seattle defense?

Originally posted by jeepzilla:
Why don't more teams run Seattle defense?

no other team has earl thomas

Originally posted by jonnydel:
The hybrid defense that Seattle runs is designed to do just what you're saying. They give man-man overtop coverage on the backside receiver or the "SE" or "X" - whatever you want to call him, while playing a cover 3 zone elsewhere. This means that your backside receiver - in theory, if the CB is doing his job, won't let himself get beat deep. Then, you're 2 1/3 zone defenders cover Davis deep on any seam, streak, corner or post routes. If he attempts to threaten the deep 1/3 on the single receiver side, he has to cross the formation infront of the FS, where the FS will be able to cover that deep 1/3. This then leaves 4 defenders underneath for the crossing, short ins, mid-ins, spot, stick, curls - all of this from a base personnel grouping that will be able to defend the run as well.

To throw deep to any receivers against that hybrid defense, you have to have established a strong run game and be able to play off of that. But, to establish a strong run game your best options are to either have quick, zone blocking lineman with a 3 receiver set to spread out the defense, or go with 2 TE or a FB in other sets to give you an advantage in the run game if you have bigger power run lineman. So, I'm not convinced that the combo of Hyde and Bush in the backfield is a good compliment to our lineman - Boone or Davis - both have slower feet.

Some of your best options on those types of plays are horizontal stretching plays. One play I like against Sea's D is a TE stick. But, the QB HAS to look off the outside defender and get the ball out on time. It was a Stick concept that CK threw that pick at the goal line against Sea in his first game against them. He was trying to hit VD but stared him down and got the ball out just a fraction late. But, that play is open against them.

I like the idea of trying to use Hyde as FB type lead runner for outside runs against Sea and then being able to play a "texas" concept off of it.

That, or I'd like to see us split Bush out wide from that personnel grouping and use a verticals attack on them, like a 3 or 4 verts - it's risky and kind of an all or nothing play, but, would give us a good deep horizontal stretch against their 3 deep defense. Bush has the speed to threaten downfield, so it gives you 3 viable deep threats on a verts concept.

Originally posted by jeepzilla:

Originally posted by jonnydel:
The hybrid defense that Seattle runs is designed to do just what you're saying. They give man-man overtop coverage on the backside receiver or the "SE" or "X" - whatever you want to call him, while playing a cover 3 zone elsewhere. This means that your backside receiver - in theory, if the CB is doing his job, won't let himself get beat deep. Then, you're 2 1/3 zone defenders cover Davis deep on any seam, streak, corner or post routes. If he attempts to threaten the deep 1/3 on the single receiver side, he has to cross the formation infront of the FS, where the FS will be able to cover that deep 1/3. This then leaves 4 defenders underneath for the crossing, short ins, mid-ins, spot, stick, curls - all of this from a base personnel grouping that will be able to defend the run as well.

To throw deep to any receivers against that hybrid defense, you have to have established a strong run game and be able to play off of that. But, to establish a strong run game your best options are to either have quick, zone blocking lineman with a 3 receiver set to spread out the defense, or go with 2 TE or a FB in other sets to give you an advantage in the run game if you have bigger power run lineman. So, I'm not convinced that the combo of Hyde and Bush in the backfield is a good compliment to our lineman - Boone or Davis - both have slower feet.

Some of your best options on those types of plays are horizontal stretching plays. One play I like against Sea's D is a TE stick. But, the QB HAS to look off the outside defender and get the ball out on time. It was a Stick concept that CK threw that pick at the goal line against Sea in his first game against them. He was trying to hit VD but stared him down and got the ball out just a fraction late. But, that play is open against them.

I like the idea of trying to use Hyde as FB type lead runner for outside runs against Sea and then being able to play a "texas" concept off of it.

That, or I'd like to see us split Bush out wide from that personnel grouping and use a verticals attack on them, like a 3 or 4 verts - it's risky and kind of an all or nothing play, but, would give us a good deep horizontal stretch against their 3 deep defense. Bush has the speed to threaten downfield, so it gives you 3 viable deep threats on a verts concept.

Why don't more teams run Seattle defense?

I actually saw quite a few teams run Seattle's defense against us last year. The Raiders did it a lot. It's like quite a few teams saw the script on how to beat CK from Seattle and tried to do the same thing.

Originally posted by frenchmov:

Originally posted by jeepzilla:
Why don't more teams run Seattle defense?

no other team has earl thomas

That is a good point. Earl Thomas - to me, makes the secondary run. You could replace Sherman or Chancellor and still have quite a good coverage unit. The way they play puts a lot of pressure on that FS - you have to have a guy with very good range and instincts.

Other teams have sprinkled in dosages of the type of coverage Seattle plays - which isn't new by any means, it's been around for a while. George Seifert used to run it actually. But, not many teams use it as their main course meal.

Originally posted by jonnydel:
I actually saw quite a few teams run Seattle's defense against us last year. The Raiders did it a lot. It's like quite a few teams saw the script on how to beat CK from Seattle and tried to do the same thing.

hence the "copy cat" league for many reasons

Originally posted by defenderDX:

Originally posted by jonnydel:
I actually saw quite a few teams run Seattle's defense against us last year. The Raiders did it a lot. It's like quite a few teams saw the script on how to beat CK from Seattle and tried to do the same thing.

hence the "copy cat" league for many reasons

it works because we dont adjust from doing the same long developing routes and the same run plays

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by defenderDX:

Originally posted by jonnydel:
I actually saw quite a few teams run Seattle's defense against us last year. The Raiders did it a lot. It's like quite a few teams saw the script on how to beat CK from Seattle and tried to do the same thing.

hence the "copy cat" league for many reasons

it works because we dont adjust from doing the same long developing routes and the same run plays

no it "worked" because VD wasn't a threat at all last year and all of our receivers were molded from the same type.

Originally posted by defenderDX:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by defenderDX:

Originally posted by jonnydel:
I actually saw quite a few teams run Seattle's defense against us last year. The Raiders did it a lot. It's like quite a few teams saw the script on how to beat CK from Seattle and tried to do the same thing.

hence the "copy cat" league for many reasons

it works because we dont adjust from doing the same long developing routes and the same run plays

no it "worked" because VD wasn't a threat at all last year and all of our receivers were molded from the same type.

VD never shows up against Seattle, and we didnt even try to use the TE's/RBs at all

Originally posted by jonnydel:
That is a good point. Earl Thomas - to me, makes the secondary run. You could replace Sherman or Chancellor and still have quite a good coverage unit. The way they play puts a lot of pressure on that FS - you have to have a guy with very good range and instincts.

Other teams have sprinkled in dosages of the type of coverage Seattle plays - which isn't new by any means, it's been around for a while. George Seifert used to run it actually. But, not many teams use it as their main course meal.

And Pete Carroll worked for George Seifert.

Originally posted by defenderDX:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by defenderDX:

Originally posted by jonnydel:
I actually saw quite a few teams run Seattle's defense against us last year. The Raiders did it a lot. It's like quite a few teams saw the script on how to beat CK from Seattle and tried to do the same thing.

hence the "copy cat" league for many reasons

it works because we dont adjust from doing the same long developing routes and the same run plays

no it "worked" because VD wasn't a threat at all last year and all of our receivers were molded from the same type.

Well, what I see on film, is that your best best against that particular coverage is getting a RB into the concept side flat, but not as part of the concept. For example, a levels concept or trail concept where the defenders to that side will move towards where CK will be looking at the concept and then hitting the RB in the flat. Brady did that a number of times against them in the SB. But, you have to get decent protection from your line to do that and have a QB who's patient enough to make that throw. We had RB's open in the flats many, many times against them, we just didn't throw the ball to them. Now, that information can be taken different ways - depending on your bias, you'll put that on the QB or on the coach. To me, it's both, ebut more on your QB coach who's supposed to be the guy who talks to his QB on the sideline to alert him to those sorts of things.

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by defenderDX:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by defenderDX:

Originally posted by jonnydel:
I actually saw quite a few teams run Seattle's defense against us last year. The Raiders did it a lot. It's like quite a few teams saw the script on how to beat CK from Seattle and tried to do the same thing.

hence the "copy cat" league for many reasons

it works because we dont adjust from doing the same long developing routes and the same run plays

no it "worked" because VD wasn't a threat at all last year and all of our receivers were molded from the same type.

VD never shows up against Seattle, and we didnt even try to use the TE's/RBs at all

im talking about against the teams that COPIED Seattle. and stating we ran "long developing routes" and ran the "same" plays is different than the personnel we failed to utilized. the passing concepts we ran were just fine but we were limited in several other ways despite that. (read what jonydel said in the post before me)

Originally posted by defenderDX:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by defenderDX:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by defenderDX:

Originally posted by jonnydel:
I actually saw quite a few teams run Seattle's defense against us last year. The Raiders did it a lot. It's like quite a few teams saw the script on how to beat CK from Seattle and tried to do the same thing.

hence the "copy cat" league for many reasons

it works because we dont adjust from doing the same long developing routes and the same run plays

no it "worked" because VD wasn't a threat at all last year and all of our receivers were molded from the same type.

VD never shows up against Seattle, and we didnt even try to use the TE's/RBs at all

im talking about against the teams that COPIED Seattle. and stating we ran "long developing routes" and ran the "same" plays is different than the personnel we failed to utilized. the passing concepts we ran were just fine but we were limited in several other ways despite that. (read what jonydel said in the post before me)

thats my point also, teams just let the DL crash the line, then play zone ..because our routes took time to develope...which wasn't enought time for kaep to do anything...teams saw it and mimiced it.