BDL 2022 Week 1 - Seoul Dragons @ Greenland Polar Bears

[Pickle Rick]

40 minutes ago, Blue said:

I’m amazed that so many of you are focusing on the FA on the defensive line and not the fact that Greenland can’t even line up and play without moving a corner over to safety, a position none of these guys have played AFAIK, or using Cover 1/Cover 0 all game.

Peak “how hard can it be?” mentality there, I guess.

Not sure what you read but I don't remember a CB being listed at Safety 

[Blue]

43 minutes ago, Pickle Rick said:

Not sure what you read but I don't remember a CB being listed at Safety 

so you’re just straight up not playing with a safety

[Pickle Rick]

4 minutes ago, Blue said:

so you’re just straight up not playing with a safety

You really are showing you didn't read at all.  How many safeties are listed lmao

[Blue]

Just now, Pickle Rick said:

You really are showing you didn't read at all.  How many safeties are listed lmao

One. Which means you are playing without a (one) safety because a starting lineup has two.

[bcb1213]

22 minutes ago, Blue said:

One. Which means you are playing without a (one) safety because a starting lineup has two.

I mean there's no rules that you have to use a safety at all.  He's running a blitz heavy cover zero by the looks of of his it.  I don't know how a safety instead a corner on kelce helps all that much via the passing game.  It certainly hurts the run defense on the second level to be fair 

[Jlash]

2 hours ago, Blue said:

One. Which means you are playing without a (one) safety because a starting lineup has two.

 

2 hours ago, bcb1213 said:

I mean there's no rules that you have to use a safety at all.  He's running a blitz heavy cover zero by the looks of of his it.  I don't know how a safety instead a corner on kelce helps all that much via the passing game.  It certainly hurts the run defense on the second level to be fair 

From what I understand the safety is the guy "over the top" of Kelce, which with Seoul planning on moving Kelce and Muth around a bunch it's going to give Russ incredibly clear ideas on which part of the field will be devoid of a safety on the back end.

I thought Greenland could have walked away with this game but the defensive strategy is awful. Although I'm pretty sure this is the squad last year that planned to run nickel/dime defense all game with only 3 healthy DB's all game or something at one point so maybe strategizing isn't their thing.

[Blue]

2 hours ago, bcb1213 said:

I mean there's no rules that you have to use a safety at all.  He's running a blitz heavy cover zero by the looks of of his it.  I don't know how a safety instead a corner on kelce helps all that much via the passing game.  It certainly hurts the run defense on the second level to be fair 

If you have zero intention of covering the back end of your defense, sure, there's no reason to have any safeties at all.

But there's a reason teams play with two safeties in all but the most specific, situational personnel groupings, and part of that reason is that even bad quarterbacks in the NFL are still capable of finding a single-covered receiver deep if there is no safety over the top to help, which is exactly what Greenland is explicitly doing by bracketing Kelce.

[bcb1213]

2 minutes ago, Blue said:

If you have zero intention of covering the back end of your defense, sure, there's no reason to have any safeties at all.

But there's a reason teams play with two safeties in all but the most specific, situational personnel groupings, and part of that reason is that even bad quarterbacks in the NFL are still capable of finding a single-covered receiver deep if there is no safety over the top to help, which is exactly what Greenland is explicitly doing by bracketing Kelce.

I'm not saying I disagree, more that you're arguing things you don't think he should be doing.  He doesn't persay have to start two safeties.   Especially if he's running a heavy cover three defense or a ton of cover one depending on the talent obviously 

[bcb1213]

5 minutes ago, Jlash said:

 

From what I understand the safety is the guy "over the top" of Kelce, which with Seoul planning on moving Kelce and Muth around a bunch it's going to give Russ incredibly clear ideas on which part of the field will be devoid of a safety on the back end.

I thought Greenland could have walked away with this game but the defensive strategy is awful. Although I'm pretty sure this is the squad last year that planned to run nickel/dime defense all game with only 3 healthy DB's all game or something at one point so maybe strategizing isn't their thing.

Oh I'm not saying it's smart. Moreso for the defense he's trying tp play, it makes more sense to to have a third corner than a second safety 

[Blue]

1 minute ago, bcb1213 said:

I'm not saying I disagree, more that you're arguing things you don't think he should be doing.  He doesn't persay have to start two safeties.   Especially if he's running a heavy cover three defense or a ton of cover one depending on the talent obviously 

Stop being pedantic.

[Ragnarok]

I can't vote for a team that has 4 active defensive linemen with literally no deep safety help.  Those DL will be beyond gassed so Russ will have all day to let plays develop.

The Greenland offense is incredible though.  Too bad they'll barely be on the field.

[MD4L]

I think Greenland matches up very well against Seoul. I like Tua’s options when he throws and I think they can get some stops against Russell. Not a big fan of JPP at 5T but I’ll take the home team.

[rackcs]

Yeah I just can't vote for a team with an defense as thin as this. One safety, no DL depth. And the gameplan is confusing as well. Seoul has much more growing to do to win consistently but I think they get this one fairly easily.

[LAOJoe]

lol Ruskie voted to break it right when time ran out.