week 5 NYG coaches film analysis thread

Originally posted by jonnydel:
I guess I'm a little confused as to how we saw it differently - cause I definitely saw it as a busted first zone(mentioned that in the post). I guess the only thing we might disagree on is if Brock was biting on the play action or just confused as to the playcall?

My bad didn't notice that you mentioned the busted coverage. But yeah I don't think Brock bit on the playaction. Not his job to play the inside run. He either blew his assignment as deep 1/3 or he completely freelanced and read the playaction when his primary key needs to be the WR lined up across from him. If you are correct that he bit on the playaction that is a horrible mistake. Can't have eyes in the backfield, biting on playaction, when lined up across from someone as dangerous as OBJ.

Thanks for this thread jd. I read it all the way through win or lose. I look forward to your comments regarding 0 for 51 sacks.

Is that a record?

Thanks Jonny and Thl for starting these threads for actually talking football! I'm learning a lot!

A couple of observations--

Defense

• Tartt spying on Vareen is a bit much for a rookie, might have been better to use Ward or Johnson.
• Would really like to see Purcell in the middle to see if his ability to penetrate was just a preseason success.
• Any apologies to Mangini for the hysteria after the game?
• DBs still seem to be playing hesitantly...not comfortable yet...but getting better.

Offense:

• The OL seemed to be playing better with rotating Tiller and Devey.
• Kaepernick had a very good game but against an iffy defensive backfield. Some excellent passes dropping the ball into place--releasing it before the receiver had turned to look for it...nice to see!
• Miller as mentioned. I would like to see him receive the passes thrown to McDonald...who doesn't have the ability to gain much after the catch.

Here's another example of pattern-match with a busted assignment from Reaser. 8:02 2nd QTR


Here, we're going to run a true "dime" package with both Ward and Reaser in. We align like we're in man-coverage and Reaser trails a motioning receiver across the field.


You see the safeties split, one down, one up, one key element to the pattern-match(not the only one, I know :)) you see the corners open their hips, like zone coverage. Ward jams his man.


Ward passes off the inside release to reaser and takes the outside release. Also, Bowman see's he outside release and takes that, as the safety is responsible for anything from a vertical release or a crosser.


The yellow shows a zone coverage. It looks like a defense in the Fangio years. Reaser should pass his shallow cross off to Bethea, but trails the receiver, opening up a hole for the short post/deepslant.





Reaser should've passed his man off in this particular call, it appears.


This is how it should've been executed, with Reaser as the LB to the 2 receiver side

Originally posted by jonnydel:
Some of the defensive breakdowns will probably be fairly long since there's a lot to discuss when talking about pattern matching, and more specifically, fails in pattern matching.

jonnydel, this part esp. stood out to me. After you are done with your film review/postings, can you touch on your theory as to why such a well-versed pattern match defense is suddenly, playing like they've never played it before?

We're talking about players that have been in this system for Fangio's entire tenure. Even if they weren't on the field, d/t injury, they are all still very well versed in this system esp. the vets.

I'd expect some confusion still at times with Ward and esp. Acker and I'd expect some confusion on DIME/NICKEL with Tartt, Reaser and Johnson as well but I would not expect that from players such as Wilhoite, Bowman, Brock, Reid, Bethea or the OLB's when they drop back in zone at times.

Originally posted by jonnydel:
Here was another example, of what I think is, pattern matching. Again, I'm not an NFL coach, but, from what I see, it looks like a pattern match cover 3 "sky". One thing about pattern-matching, is that it's meant to disguise if it's actually zone or man-coverage. It's supposed to be difficult for NFL QB's to determine, so, it's tough for to determine sometimes. I'll point out why I think it's a pattern-match. 13:53 2nd QTR.



To me, I think this is a cover 3 "sky" zone. The "sky" is where you keep the receiver on the TE side in flat coverage. Your SS has deep 3rd on that side.


Both Acker and Brock open up their hips at the snap(Acker is trailing the receiver though, so it could go either way). As far as I've seen, when in "sky" if there is a vertical release from the TE, the outside corner has to pick up and trail the receiver across the field. Bow see's a vertical release from the slot, so he heads to the flat. In pattern matching, the outside defender(Ward) trails the vertical release, then passes him off and looks for either an underneath crosser or a DIG. NY runs a "dagger" concept on this play. With an inside streak and a DIG coming behind. This is a key play, it's 3rd and 9.


You see Wilhoite playing with inside technique on the TE, expecting that outside zone from the safety, also, you see Ward pass off the vertical release to Reid - that's the part that tells me it's pattern-match, along with the other guys looing like man-coverage.


We've trailed all receivers going through zones, except for Ward, who passed his off - based off the releases, that's how it should go, if it's cover 3 "sky" with a pattern match. For some reason though, as Eli steps up in the pocket, Ward then starts to drift back, which opens up the DIG for Beckham.


You see the DIG get open and Eli hits it for a key first down. Also, note how Brock covers Beckham, if he was playing a spot drop, he would've dropped back for a possible "corner" route. If he was playing man, he always takes inside leverage - another reason I think it's a pattern-match zone.

I won't rule out that it is pattern matching, but I will say that it is nothing like how Fangio did it. Asking for Bow to follow the RB to the flat like that, as well as Acker running with his WR across the formation is something Fangio's defense never did when pattern matching. It's not using the defender on the field, that is in the best position on the field, to match a route. This looks like man coverage with some sort of bait being set on the strongside of the formation.

When the RB runs to the flat, Bow having to run hard to cover it doesn't seem to achieve what pattern matching sets out to achieve. That is, waiting for the WR to commit to a break, then using the best suited defender on the field, in terms of physical positioning on the field, to cover that WR. Bow is partially picked here and that's what pattern matching sets out to nullify - pick plays.

I see what you mean about Ward and how he passes off the coverage of the slot WR over to Reid.

Originally posted by NCommand:
jonnydel, this part esp. stood out to me. After you are done with your film review/postings, can you touch on your theory as to why such a well-versed pattern match defense is suddenly, playing like they've never played it before?

We're talking about players that have been in this system for Fangio's entire tenure. Even if they weren't on the field, d/t injury, they are all still very well versed in this system esp. the vets.

I'd expect some confusion still at times with Ward and esp. Acker and I'd expect some confusion on DIME/NICKEL with Tartt, Reaser and Johnson as well but I would not expect that from players such as Wilhoite, Bowman, Brock, Reid, Bethea or the OLB's when they drop back in zone at times.

I think the problems came from all over the field. I didn't see Bow blowing a bunch of the pattern-match, the pattern-match fails came from the young guys, mostly. I think some of it too, is that, like Thl noted, we're not running our quarters shell look pre-snap. It seems that Mangini likes to disguise his coverage pre-snap with more pressed coverage. Whereas Fangio showed the shell. The shell allowed the DB's an extra second for reading the play, so I think that may have helped, but, like many of us saw during those years, left us susceptible to the short completions. However, we see some of the trade-off. Also, it wasn't just the fails in pattern-match or in our fire-zones, we blew a lot of man-coverage. Which was quite disappointing.

Originally posted by thl408:
I won't rule out that it is pattern matching, but I will say that it is nothing like how Fangio did it. Asking for Bow to follow the RB to the flat like that, as well as Acker running with his WR across the formation is something Fangio's defense never did when pattern matching. It's not using the defender on the field, that is in the best position on the field, to match a route. This looks like man coverage with some sort of bait being set on the strongside of the formation.

When the RB runs to the flat, Bow having to run hard to cover it doesn't seem to achieve what pattern matching sets out to achieve. That is, waiting for the WR to commit to a break, then using the best suited defender on the field, in terms of physical positioning on the field, to cover that WR. Bow is partially picked here and that's what pattern matching sets out to nullify - pick plays.

I see what you mean about Ward and how he passes off the coverage of the slot WR over to Reid.

Yeah, like I said, it's real tough to tell for sure. We also never saw Fangio run any cover 3 "sky"(or "cloud" as some call it, Jon Gruden called it "cloud"). So, it will look quite a bit different. Notice also, how Bow keeps checking into the backfield, like he's in zone. It was also how Brock plays it, to me. I don't recall seeing him take outside leverage on man-coverage hardly ever.

Originally posted by jonnydel:
I think the problems came from all over the field. I didn't see Bow blowing a bunch of the pattern-match, the pattern-match fails came from the young guys, mostly. I think some of it too, is that, like Thl noted, we're not running our quarters shell look pre-snap. It seems that Mangini likes to disguise his coverage pre-snap with more pressed coverage. Whereas Fangio showed the shell. The shell allowed the DB's an extra second for reading the play, so I think that may have helped, but, like many of us saw during those years, left us susceptible to the short completions. However, we see some of the trade-off. Also, it wasn't just the fails in pattern-match or in our fire-zones, we blew a lot of man-coverage. Which was quite disappointing.

Thanks for such a prompt response. I'm just blown away at how this #5 defense dropped to #31 in just 5 games (not like we had premium talent last year) but this is just a total collapse and the players all seem to be constantly in trail-mode, lost, confused, slow to react, adjust, tentative, etc.

I agree, Brooks out certainly hurt and not having any rush at all besides Lynch (which is what you'd expect) is painful but so many of these balls were out with the first read just wide wide wide open with just simple pitch-and-catch.

Something schematically is very very wrong here.

Maybe you guys have some suggestions?

Originally posted by jonnydel:

Originally posted by NCommand:
jonnydel, this part esp. stood out to me. After you are done with your film review/postings, can you touch on your theory as to why such a well-versed pattern match defense is suddenly, playing like they've never played it before?

We're talking about players that have been in this system for Fangio's entire tenure. Even if they weren't on the field, d/t injury, they are all still very well versed in this system esp. the vets.

I'd expect some confusion still at times with Ward and esp. Acker and I'd expect some confusion on DIME/NICKEL with Tartt, Reaser and Johnson as well but I would not expect that from players such as Wilhoite, Bowman, Brock, Reid, Bethea or the OLB's when they drop back in zone at times.

I think the problems came from all over the field. I didn't see Bow blowing a bunch of the pattern-match, the pattern-match fails came from the young guys, mostly. I think some of it too, is that, like Thl noted, we're not running our quarters shell look pre-snap. It seems that Mangini likes to disguise his coverage pre-snap with more pressed coverage. Whereas Fangio showed the shell. The shell allowed the DB's an extra second for reading the play, so I think that may have helped, but, like many of us saw during those years, left us susceptible to the short completions. However, we see some of the trade-off. Also, it wasn't just the fails in pattern-match or in our fire-zones, we blew a lot of man-coverage. Which was quite disappointing.

The bolded is another big difference with this season's defense. The CBs are in press alignment on most snaps. This is asking for more out of the CBs and does not lend well to pattern matching for the reasons you stated - less time and a less clear view of the adjacent WR, which can help the DB identify route combos. When in off coverage alignment, they can see the play develop because they are standing further back. Cully was the only CB in press alignment, and when he was, he played press man coverage as a backside CB.

I wonder how much the inexperience of the CBs has to do with what Mangini is calling. Generally, it's the safeties that play a more important role when pattern matching as they make the pre-snap audibles, and we know the safeties are well versed with PMing. I wish I had footage from Mangini's days in CLE and NYJ to see what coverages he ran there. To see if what we are seeing is it, or if he's holding back.

Originally posted by NCommand:
Thanks for such a prompt response. I'm just blown away at how this #5 defense dropped to #31 in just 5 games (not like we had premium talent last year) but this is just a total collapse and the players all seem to be constantly in trail-mode, lost, confused, slow to react, adjust, tentative, etc.

I agree, Brooks out certainly hurt and not having any rush at all besides Lynch (which is what you'd expect) is painful but so many of these balls were out with the first read just wide wide wide open with just simple pitch-and-catch.

Something schematically is very very wrong here.

Maybe you guys have some suggestions?

yeah, but these are also just 3 of many, many completions. Pattern-matching only works for the first 3 seconds, after that, it can break down. Spot dropping is supposed to give the pass rush an extra second to get the QB, because you're taking away the landmark throws. but, again, after that, it can be beat conceptually. Man-coverage is only as good as how many moves the defenders is forced to cover. Too many, and you're done. Also, it makes you more susceptible to mismatches. I think sometimes, too, the threat of pass rush forced the issue for passers just as much as a real rush. Because we had guys who were known to get to the QB and who legitimately scared QB's that they could defeat their 1-1's sped things up for QB's. Right now, it's like they're all willing to stand in there because they aren't afraid of a potential rush.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by jonnydel:
I think the problems came from all over the field. I didn't see Bow blowing a bunch of the pattern-match, the pattern-match fails came from the young guys, mostly. I think some of it too, is that, like Thl noted, we're not running our quarters shell look pre-snap. It seems that Mangini likes to disguise his coverage pre-snap with more pressed coverage. Whereas Fangio showed the shell. The shell allowed the DB's an extra second for reading the play, so I think that may have helped, but, like many of us saw during those years, left us susceptible to the short completions. However, we see some of the trade-off. Also, it wasn't just the fails in pattern-match or in our fire-zones, we blew a lot of man-coverage. Which was quite disappointing.

Thanks for such a prompt response. I'm just blown away at how this #5 defense dropped to #31 in just 5 games (not like we had premium talent last year) but this is just a total collapse and the players all seem to be constantly in trail-mode, lost, confused, slow to react, adjust, tentative, etc.

I agree, Brooks out certainly hurt and not having any rush at all besides Lynch (which is what you'd expect) is painful but so many of these balls were out with the first read just wide wide wide open with just simple pitch-and-catch.

Something schematically is very very wrong here.

Maybe you guys have some suggestions?

Just my 2cents. It doesnt seem like schematically an issue. In theory, these open players should be covered. It seems like an execution issue and the fact that we have so much youth on the field. Plus some key changes in what we do conceptually, as Thl, or jonny said? cant remember which one, but the fact that they arent running a shell but instead running more press man.

One thing that I think can also get over-looked, is how, since the Pitt game, a lot of teams have been going "no huddle" against us. So, that's another thing to consider when trying to look at schematic problems. If the offense is in a no-huddle, the DC doesn't have a chance to call the defense.

here's a snapshot of one of NY's drives, you can see how much no-huddle they used. the first play, 8:02 was the pattern match called by Mangini. After that, they ran - either spot zone or pattern match - there wasn't enough information to know, then man-coverage or it was a run.

Originally posted by jonnydel:
One thing that I think can also get over-looked, is how, since the Pitt game, a lot of teams have been going "no huddle" against us. So, that's another thing to consider when trying to look at schematic problems. If the offense is in a no-huddle, the DC doesn't have a chance to call the defense.

here's a snapshot of one of NY's drives, you can see how much no-huddle they used. the first play, 8:02 was the pattern match called by Mangini. After that, they ran - either spot zone or pattern match - there wasn't enough information to know, then man-coverage or it was a run.

Really good point...I noted that as well. Mangini was thought of really liking personnel matchups and sub packages and teams caught on and started catching us in base defenses (Brooks on a WR) or 12 men on the field trying to run everyone on and off the field. Good point.

Here was a case where our man-coverage got beat, conceptually. .43 2nd QTR


here, we're going to run man-coverage and NY either sniffed it out or anticipated it. This play is designed to go to Vereen, they're going to clear out the 2 receiver side and run a "mesh" concept of double shallow crossers.


Our outside corners take inside leverage - Acker tries to press, doesnt' do a great job of it.


Tartt crosses over with his man, the RB then releases out on his short crosser and Bow is now in a real tough spot. He has to fight through the TE, Tartt and the referee...


It's too much for anyone(think of the TD that Revis gave up in the SB, same exact kinda play).


It's actually surprising, and a testament to Bow, that Vereen only gains 12 yards.

Man-coverage busted...