Texans @ Green Bay "Dont Get Hurt Bowl"

[MrBobGray]

2 minutes ago, Donzo said:

You’re mucking up the situation with technical jargon nonsense, meaningless stats and some paper Tiger arguments. Really, it’s just silly to even debate this topic. It’s like trying to say water isn’t wet.

But I’ll try a little bit. It’s simple, like I said, the Packers have had trouble getting receivers open ever since Jordy got hurt. This isn’t opinion, it’s fact. It’s been widely discussed in detail by many outlets. The reality that Rodgers could still generate big plays, with the help of some amazing protection at times, doesn’t change that fact.

Yes, the Packers have had a number of players on the roster since Jordy’s injury that were capable of taking the top off the defense. For a number of reasons, mostly because the player wasn’t ready to be a full-time contributor or had fringe NFL talent, they weren’t able to provide this benefit to the offense. Last year, Rodger’s health/accuracy issues also hurt MVS and Graham.

This is the point where I realize you don't know what facts are, and that this conversation probably isn't going anywhere constructive.

[Sasquatch]

I prefer "Vertical Threat" over "take the top off" myself.

[Uffdaswede]

She takes the top off, I go vertical. 

[Donzo]

11 minutes ago, MrBobGray said:

This is the point where I realize you don't know what facts.

And that this conversation probably isn't going anywhere constructive.

 

Well, you're completely wrong in the first sentence, and correct in the 2nd sentence. 

I’m thinking the people trying to question the validity of taking the top off a defense try to muddy the waters with semi technical nonsense and just never played much football. Taking the top off the defense is a common sense thing for those that played any organized football. Now, taking the top off the defense is recent terminology, but has been a real thing since the forward pass was legalized.

Myself, I played football until the 11^th grade. I was a grunt player at that level and was still pretty much going to be a grunt player my senior season. So, I got a job at Chilis and didn’t play my last year. From my limited experience, here’s my best example about someone taking the top off the defense.

In 10^th grade, I played a little safety. We played a school with the district 100-meter champ. He wasn’t much of a football player, but he was the fastest person in our district, and did play some WR. When he was on the field, he was our #1 concern. He only ran the vertical routes- fly, corner and post. He did run a flash sweep every now and then.  He got a TD on us on one, but anyway, the concern was not to let him get behind us. Just by being on the field, he took the top off our defense. This made things considerably easier for their better football players.

That’s a football 101 example of the benefits of taking the top off the defense.

In my best Forrest Gump voice: That all I got to say about that.

 

[Packer_ESP]

41 minutes ago, Donzo said:

 

Well, you're completely wrong in the first sentence, and correct in the 2nd sentence. 

I’m thinking the people trying to question the validity of taking the top off a defense try to muddy the waters with semi technical nonsense and just never played much football. Taking the top off the defense is a common sense thing for those that played any organized football. Now, taking the top off the defense is recent terminology, but has been a real thing since the forward pass was legalized.

Myself, I played football until the 11^th grade. I was a grunt player at that level and was still pretty much going to be a grunt player my senior season. So, I got a job at Chilis and didn’t play my last year. From my limited experience, here’s my best example about someone taking the top off the defense.

In 10^th grade, I played a little safety. We played a school with the district 100-meter champ. He wasn’t much of a football player, but he was the fastest person in our district, and did play some WR. When he was on the field, he was our #1 concern. He only ran the vertical routes- fly, corner and post. He did run a flash sweep every now and then.  He got a TD on us on one, but anyway, the concern was not to let him get behind us. Just by being on the field, he took the top off our defense. This made things considerably easier for their better football players.

That’s a football 101 example of the benefits of taking the top off the defense.

In my best Forrest Gump voice: That all I got to say about that.

 

Let's say instead of this champion there was a guy that ran the 100 meters one whole second slower. In a 30 yard route (generous distance) he takes an extra half a second (generous estimate accounting for release etc). Do you no longer need to cover that route? Will you let this guy non chalantly trot into the end zone while you stack your safeties in the box?

[Shanedorf]

Stay tuned for the next thrilling episode of "Ask Uncle Rico"

[AlexGreen#20]

1 hour ago, Donzo said:

 

Well, you're completely wrong in the first sentence, and correct in the 2nd sentence. 

I’m thinking the people trying to question the validity of taking the top off a defense try to muddy the waters with semi technical nonsense and just never played much football. Taking the top off the defense is a common sense thing for those that played any organized football. Now, taking the top off the defense is recent terminology, but has been a real thing since the forward pass was legalized.

Myself, I played football until the 11^th grade. I was a grunt player at that level and was still pretty much going to be a grunt player my senior season. So, I got a job at Chilis and didn’t play my last year. From my limited experience, here’s my best example about someone taking the top off the defense.

In 10^th grade, I played a little safety. We played a school with the district 100-meter champ. He wasn’t much of a football player, but he was the fastest person in our district, and did play some WR. When he was on the field, he was our #1 concern. He only ran the vertical routes- fly, corner and post. He did run a flash sweep every now and then.  He got a TD on us on one, but anyway, the concern was not to let him get behind us. Just by being on the field, he took the top off our defense. This made things considerably easier for their better football players.

That’s a football 101 example of the benefits of taking the top off the defense.

In my best Forrest Gump voice: That all I got to say about that.

 

Okay, we're making progress here.

What tactical or strategic changes to your defense, did you make to adjust for the sprinter?

[AlexGreen#20]

1 hour ago, Uffdaswede said:

I heard Elliot Wolf use it talking about Davis when he was drafted, and it made me think that Davis was HIS guy. It also makes me not that sad that E Wolf moved on to Cleveland.

We know what people mean when they use the phrase. But really, it’s the playcalling more than the receiver that puts vertical pressure on a defense—correct, or naw? I mean any 4.6 receiver has to be accounted for closely on a deep fly route. Whether it’s Julio Jones or Laquon Treadwell the coverage is the same, yes? Unless “taking the top off the defense” has more to do with shifting additional safety help to the elite receivers on deep routes. In that case the term may have some utility, even if it is too general to accurately describe all of the potential defensive responses to a feared receiver sent deep. 

What you're referring to, forcing the defense to change their safety alignments, not just coverages played necessarily, but also by leverage points is the one viable use of the phrase.

[MrBobGray]

4 hours ago, Uffdaswede said:

I heard Elliot Wolf use it talking about Davis when he was drafted, and it made me think that Davis was HIS guy. It also makes me not that sad that E Wolf moved on to Cleveland.

We know what people mean when they use the phrase. But really, it’s the playcalling more than the receiver that puts vertical pressure on a defense—correct, or naw? I mean any 4.6 receiver has to be accounted for closely on a deep fly route. Whether it’s Julio Jones or Laquon Treadwell the coverage is the same, yes? Unless “taking the top off the defense” has more to do with shifting additional safety help to the elite receivers on deep routes. In that case the term may have some utility, even if it is too general to accurately describe all of the potential defensive responses to a feared receiver sent deep. 

The thing is, it can actually mean a few different things, and often is used in a somewhat nonsensical fashion to mean "something about the deep passing game."  I've seen it used to describe the actually ability to score deep, the ability to force the safeties to play deeper to avoid a receiver scoring deep, and to just mean the general concept of vertical pressure in general.  The thing is, there's no reason to use euphemisms on a football forum to describe what you mean unless you don't know what you mean.  So many people use the phrase because they know it means something and therefore they think it gives legitimacy to their argument.

The other problem is this phrase isn't really applicable in the same way it used to be.  In today's NFL, the passing game reigns supreme; stopping the run is a distant second.  The idea of a very fast receiver stressing defenses in a special way comes from the previous NFL era, when most teams played 8 in the box and played to stop the run.  There was a lot more Cover-1 and Cover-0, because you just didn't see downfield passing attacks the same way you do now.  So if you have a team that wants to run the ball but also has a guy who can run 4.30 on the outside, the defense is now in a bind; there's no way a single high safety can reliably be asked to get over the top of that guy without playing so far back the entire middle of the field is open.  This meant having that kind of speed allowed you to dictate coverages that were inherently disadvantageous to the defense, but that they had to play because the risk of the big play was too high.  

But this is 2019; every team is expecting a downfield passing attack anyway.  They'd much rather run Cover-2 or Cover-3 even if your receivers are all slow because there's just no real danger to being beaten by the run anymore.  Almost all NFL defenses will give you the run if it means you don't get the pass.  So there's no ability to dictate coverages with speed like teams used to.

That being said, obviously speed is still valuable because there's still a lot of vertical pressure on the defense.  The CB and S still need to worry about not being beaten over the top, which means there's an effect on those specific players.  That's great, and can open some stuff up by manipulating the safety coverage.  But to stroke @AlexGreen#20's ego a little more, as he pointed out there's very, very few NFL receivers fast enough to reliably cause these kinds of problems who aren't also #1s.  The average receiver (and defensive back) is so fast nowadays, that to stand out you need to have truly generational speed.  A 4.40 guy might make a CB a little more cautious, but they aren't going to be up all night wondering how they'll stay on top of him either.  Sure, having a receiver who wins downfield like that can open up some individual great plays (as Jordy Nelson did in the past), but teams aren't playing significantly different coverages against Green Bay now than they did in 2009-2014 and there's not a lot of significant schematic advantages you can get from that kind of player.  There won't be a lot of extra room created, just a handful of (admittedly very, very important) big plays.

Still though, you don't need to be fast to get the same value there.  Adams won deep a lot last year, and he looks like he's about a 4.5 flat on the field these days.  

[vegas492]

On 8/15/2019 at 6:51 AM, AlexGreen#20 said:

Goodwin is very clearly their top guy and is a decent QB away from being widely recognized as one of the 15ish best receivers in the league.

In 3 fewer starts, Jackson only fell short of Alshon Jeffrey by 70 yards and 2 TDs. I'm not sure Jackson isn't the #1 receiver on the Eagles.

The Chiefs currently have Sammy Watkins as their #2. Most don't consider him a burner. They've got a fight for WR#3 going on right now between Demarcus Robinson (not a burner) and Mecole Hardman (raw rookie burner). Chris Conley you're thinking of is now on the Jaguars.

John Brown is probably a good example of a true burner fitting into a complimentary role in an offense but his line over the last three year average is: 34/510/3. And he's got the sickle cell trait.

I view Goodwin as a one trick pony.  That pony being speed.  I think they are higher on Pettis.  I think Goodwin is the perfect example of a take the top off a defense WR.  You gotta honor that speed.  

I'll ask you this, how many true #1 Wr's are in the league?  Every team starts 2 or 3 WR's, but how many are legit #1's?  I"m not sure that I know the answer, but I do know this.  Last year there were 21 guys who caught 80 passes or more.  If I throw out the non wide receivers, there are 14 WR's.  And that list excludes some guys who I feel are #1's, like Beckham, Cooper, Edelman...etc.

...Is Goodwin an 80 catch receiver?

DJax...played second fiddle to Evans last year.  He's a great #2.  But I get your point, he can produce like a first option.

Yes to Conley, he was the one I was thinking of.

I had a few more pop into my head.

Paul Richardson, when healthy is that type of threat.

Mike Wallace was that for a lot of his career.  Great #2 with deep speed.  Meh as a #1.  But solid.

There aren't a whole lot of guys who make it as that true "take the top off" WR.

And now after getting through the last two pages since I typed this response, I have regretted typing the phrase "take the top off".  Apologies!

Edited August 16, 2019 by vegas492