Am I overreacting to say we need an entire secondary change?

[Peppers90 NC]

3 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

I definitely think scheme change had a lot to do with it and Wilks probably put more on his young CBs than what they were ready for. I also think (hope) that Coleman was hampered by injury most of the season. It's either that or he prematurely got old overnight. 

Coleman had one decent season, based on interceptions many which fell in his lap. He has been a liability the last two years. I say if we can somehow get a good FS we will get better. And of course if we upgraded over 24 or 26 in some way we would improve too, but something tells me I think they can work out. But we just got eliminated from the playoffs so everything is under a microscope right now by ridiculous fans.

[CPcavedweller]

1 minute ago, Peppers90 NC said:

no, no he doesnt.

Lets rephrase the OP, "Do we need to replace Beaston, and all of his alt-usernames, posts, and otherwise? Given the quality of this single post in reaction to a loss to the NFC favorite for the Super Bowl, I think we should."

[beastson]

2 minutes ago, CPcavedweller said:

Do you understand anything about football? Schemes? Game plans? Match-ups? Anything? At all? Buehler?

Wilks sent 5 rushers on almost every play last night to force the Saints to throw the ball to beat us. It was known that we would probably get beat deep but the Saints also wouldn't be able to limit our offensive touches. As a result, you saw our offense have many more opportunities than they otherwise would've had. 

Should we have replaced Norman after his second year on the team? Think of that. No rational person would answer yes to that question.

So what you're saying is they don't need to be replaced?

Our game plan of stopping the Saints run has nothing to do with our players individual performances this season. Our cover scheme has always been give up underneath and don't get beat deep. However even if Worley and Bradberry could play press, they would get beat deep.

[CPcavedweller]

Just now, Peppers90 NC said:

Coleman had one decent season, based on interceptions many which fell in his lap. He has been a liability the last two years. I say if we can somehow get a good FS we will get better. And of course if we upgraded over 24 or 26 in some way we would improve too, but something tells me I think they can work out. But we just got eliminated from the playoffs so everything is under a microscope right now by ridiculous fans.

Coleman is a quality starter. This is like a Dynasty fantasy league rather than like Madden where you can have guys with 65 overalls and still win by 30 each week. 

I like Coleman and I hope Adams is brought back. However, I saw nothing from Captain Munnerlyn this season that makes me think he should return to his starting position. We have to have other guys on the roster who can perform more adeptly when asked than Captain does. I was glad we brought him back, but every time he is targeted I cringe. 

[Peppers90 NC]

1 minute ago, CPcavedweller said:

Coleman is a quality starter. This is like a Dynasty fantasy league rather than like Madden where you can have guys with 65 overalls and still win by 30 each week. 

I like Coleman and I hope Adams is brought back. However, I saw nothing from Captain Munnerlyn this season that makes me think he should return to his starting position. We have to have other guys on the roster who can perform more adeptly when asked than Captain does. I was glad we brought him back, but every time he is targeted I cringe. 

I'd be lying if I said I knew the assignments of each player each play. I dont spend time watching all-22 because overall it isnt that important to me. Coleman has been toasted a few time this year, he was responsible for that Julio drop in the first Atlanta game. I know we played cover 3 on the Ginn play he got inside on 24 and behind on Coleman who bit on another route for a split second but thats all it takes. Munnerlyn was not impressive this year but i didnt consider him a liability like Coleman was. Maybe you looked more into it and have a better argument but we both agree overhauling the entire secondary is a joke.

[ncfan]

Safties need to be blown up

Adams was brought in partially due to vet presence.  But his awareness like that int, just makes me cringe as him being the vet of the DB group.

[Wolfcop]

TJ Ward? Didn't I read that he couldn't even get on the field for TB?

[CPcavedweller]

1 minute ago, beastson said:

So what you're saying is they don't need to be replaced?

Our game plan of stopping the Saints run has nothing to do with our players individual performances this season. Our cover scheme has always been give up underneath and don't get beat deep. However even if Worley and Bradberry could play press, they would get beat deep.

In your opinion, was Bradberry beat deep on the Ginn TD? According to both Ginn and Brees, Coleman read the route tree correctly. Ginn was running a clear out to take the safety out of the play for a ball to Thomas; Coleman read the play and reacted correctly to what he was seeing. The only problem is that Brees isn't your run of the mill quarterback who still throws it to his target, and he knew Ginns route would be clear so he went to read two. Bradberry may have been 0.05 seconds too late to break from the OPPOSITE HASH or else he would have intercepted that pass with ease. 

I didn't see any play yesterday where a guy lined up one on one and was beat deep. Most if not every play, the corners read the quarterbacks eyes and by then it is too late. The idea is to shrink the windows and force the QB to be precise with his throws; in other words, challenge the QB to beat us because we know we aren't giving up the run. The problem that the Saints pose is that they can rely on whichever method they feel is optimal with equal effectiveness.

As for the rest of the season you mention. The corners performed well. Wilks needs to adjust his defensive play calling when he sees our pass rush is getting tired out rather than continue to call the same pressures once they become ineffective.

Lastly, your comment on Worley and Bradberry getting beat deep if they play press is ridiculous considering you don't know that for sure. It really doesn't matter who the corner is, they are going to get beat from time to time. But what you see as getting beat, I see as playing underneath. If there is a corner underneath and a safety overtop, the corner wasn't beat, he was playing his responsibility. If a receiver is in front of a corner and a safety isn't there, the safety f'ed up. I didn't see many times this season, if ever, where Bradberry was simply beat when he was asked to man up. He is ahead of where Norman was in Wilks coaching room at this point in his career and I expect that trend to continue.

Sit back, have a beer. 

[SOJA]

At the safety position I can agree. 

But we simply do not have the capital to completely replace our CBs and to be frank they weren't the problem yesterday our scheme was. 

[CPcavedweller]

4 minutes ago, Peppers90 NC said:

I'd be lying if I said I knew the assignments of each player each play. I dont spend time watching all-22 because overall it isnt that important to me. Coleman has been toasted a few time this year, he was responsible for that Julio drop in the first Atlanta game. I know we played cover 3 on the Ginn play he got inside on 24 and behind on Coleman who bit on another route for a split second but thats all it takes. Munnerlyn was not impressive this year but i didnt consider him a liability like Coleman was. Maybe you looked more into it and have a better argument but we both agree overhauling the entire secondary is a joke.

Read my follow up. Coleman read the play perfectly as Ginn's route was a decoy (clear out) to keep the safety off of Coleman. When Coleman broke on Thomas, Brees saw that and knew there was a void where Coleman vacated to cover the correct route. Bradberry broke probably half of one second too late or else he would've been in a position to pick it off. I consider that far more impressive considering Bradberry saw that from the opposite hash and was able to catch up to Ginn right when the ball came down. 

In summary: Coleman made the right read and against any other quarterback not named Brees, Rodgers, or Brady that would've been a good defensive play; it still was almost a good defensive play except Ginn managed to hang on to the ball when Bradberry punched it, something no Panther fan can recall seeing more than once or twice in Ginns two stints here. 

[CPcavedweller]

1 minute ago, SOJA said:

At the safety position I can agree. 

But we simply do not have the capital to completely replace our CBs and to be frank they weren't the problem yesterday our scheme was. 

Question: If Ingram and Kamara had run for 175, would you still be complaining about our scheme? Personally, I feel we blitz too much under Wilks, but with the Saints, it truly is pick your poison. I believe our defensive game plan was made to give the offense more opportunities. 

[SOJA]

1 minute ago, CPcavedweller said:

Question: If Ingram and Kamara had run for 175, would you still be complaining about our scheme? Personally, I feel we blitz too much under Wilks, but with the Saints, it truly is pick your poison. I believe our defensive game plan was made to give the offense more opportunities. 

That's fair but on both the Ginn TD and the wide open TD to the random white TE blitzing was the issue

[Peppers90 NC]

2 minutes ago, SOJA said:

At the safety position I can agree. 

But we simply do not have the capital to completely replace our CBs and to be frank they weren't the problem yesterday our scheme was. 

Maybe we overcompensated on taking out the run, but if they ran all over us can you imagine how unbearable this place would be? I think our game plan was good but like most of the year, we blitzed a handful too many times. We were in position to win this game and no one would be talking about the scheme had we been able to get a score on that last drive.

[SOJA]

Just now, Peppers90 NC said:

Maybe we overcompensated on taking out the run, but if they ran all over us can you imagine how unbearable this place would be? I think our game plan was good but like most of the year, we blitzed a handful too many times. We were in position to win this game and no one would be talking about the scheme had we been able to get a score on that last drive.

again that's fair, but I still don't think our CBs are bad enough to be replaced I think they were put in a tough position