He undercut the route but just turned around and looked back and watched Whitley try to play Jeffries. I didn't get what he was doing.
Question - what was Broomfield doing on the TD pass to Jeffries?...
- Thread starter dawgstudent
- Start date
He undercut the route but just turned around and looked back and watched Whitley try to play Jeffries. I didn't get what he was doing.
We all know he should have never been put in that position. Banks cover him the whole series, then that play and the one before they didn't switch sides like they were doing before. Didn't understand that . Call a time out and get your best corner on him. That was the game if stopped, or at least a huge game changer if made to get 3
Serious question for anyone regarding that play. Why in the world would any CB or safety have their back turned to the QB on a 3rd down and goal play from the 6 yard line? I mean, how in the hell does that even happen? Of course, the better question is why he was on the same side of the field with Jeffrey in that crucial situation. Unbelievable.
Only thing I can figure out... we were trying to bait them into throwing that way & hoped Whitley could pick it off. That would have nearly sealed the game for us. No reason in the world to not have Banks covering him in the first place.<div>
</div><div>I know it's a dumb theory, but it's not as dumb as having Broomfield covering Jeffrey instead of Banks.</div>
</div><div>I know it's a dumb theory, but it's not as dumb as having Broomfield covering Jeffrey instead of Banks.</div>
Mullen tore into Wilson. But you bring up a point that I did not even think about, he did just stand there and watch him come down with it. After thinking about that I am even more impressed with Whitley. He obviously was there to protect the back corner route and was therefore not in a great position to make the play. However, he gave it all that he had and tried to rip the ball free. In doing so, he ripped Jeffrey's helmet off. I am glad he finally got the start today and I wish Bonner had still gotten the start instead of Mitchell.
It looked like the call was to double Jeffries by Broomfield playing underneath to protect the slantand Whitley playing over the top. We blitzed Mitchell off the inside receiver to bring pressure from that sideand into the view of the QB. Actually, it looks like a pretty good play call by Wilson. Jeffries was just to big and the ball was thrown well (to high for Broomfield to knock down). The play happens so fast you can notfault Broomfieldor Whitley for their position on the field. It is easy for us to say now Broomfield should have playedtighter because we knownow Jeffries didn't run a slant.
We're saying broomfield's scrawny *** should have been clear across the f'n field defending USCe's scrawny *** receiver. BANKS should have been on Jeffrey. And I guaran - damn - tee you this is what our f'n yankee was screaming at wilson about.
[and for the record, Wilson should have throat punched mullens for having the audacity to complain about a defensive blunder].
[and for the record, Wilson should have throat punched mullens for having the audacity to complain about a defensive blunder].
He played inside to stop the slant and when they threw the jumpball, instead of jumping also and trying to rip through the receivers hands, he sat and waited to play the tip drill for an INT. When it didnt get tipped, he tried to punch it out at the last minute.
Give them a first and goal from the 2 and take your chances. Especially with Lattimore out of the game. That would have given us time to adjust and put Banks back on Jeffries. Then who knows? We rarely make the heady type football plays for whatever reason.
Well,that was notthe original question of this thread.
Banks is the short side CB. Broomfield is the wide side. That is why.
</p>
Banks is the short side CB. Broomfield is the wide side. That is why.
</p>
do you not think it is 17ing stupid to have our best corner not covering the most area or best receiver on the other team?
Anyway I call ******** on your assessment because Banks was definitely covering the wide side of the field earlier in the game. One time that I am positive is on the Whitley interception at the pylon. Banks had the coverage, had position and got his hands on the ball and tipped it to Whitley who got the interception. So try again thinking Banks only covers the short side of the field.
Anyway I call ******** on your assessment because Banks was definitely covering the wide side of the field earlier in the game. One time that I am positive is on the Whitley interception at the pylon. Banks had the coverage, had position and got his hands on the ball and tipped it to Whitley who got the interception. So try again thinking Banks only covers the short side of the field.
WRONG! Banks was playing the short side then too.
Look, Banks is the boundary corner.That isthe reason he wasn't lined up on Jeffries on that play. I know that doesn't help explainthe coverage to some of y'all butthis isn't backyard football. It is alot more complicated than saying, "hey Banks,cover#1."
Your best corner plays boundary. Because often he is left in one on one situations because the safety is helping on the wide side. Also, you want your boundary corner to begood in run support because he is closer to theball.
Look, Banks is the boundary corner.That isthe reason he wasn't lined up on Jeffries on that play. I know that doesn't help explainthe coverage to some of y'all butthis isn't backyard football. It is alot more complicated than saying, "hey Banks,cover#1."
Your best corner plays boundary. Because often he is left in one on one situations because the safety is helping on the wide side. Also, you want your boundary corner to begood in run support because he is closer to theball.
Who gave up the TD vs SC. DS, do you have that picture?
I have noticed several times this year our DBs, specifically Banks and Broomfield, after the receiver gets both hands on the ball, making a fist and trying to punch up and through the ball as the WR brings it in. I think Broomfield wanted to do this, and whiffed (and a piss poor effort to boot).
It was pathetic defense. No way around it.
I have noticed several times this year our DBs, specifically Banks and Broomfield, after the receiver gets both hands on the ball, making a fist and trying to punch up and through the ball as the WR brings it in. I think Broomfield wanted to do this, and whiffed (and a piss poor effort to boot).
It was pathetic defense. No way around it.
Actually, that's pretty close to what should have been said yesterday. Not sure what your point of reference is, but that stuff happens all the time.MaroonedNdaRock said:
that gave up that TD.
I just thought that Roberson's effort was better than Broomfield's. At least at the time.
It's debatable for sure.
I just thought that Roberson's effort was better than Broomfield's. At least at the time.
It's debatable for sure.
and Banks may normally be the boundary CB, but he for damn sure was playing the wide side some in that game. Most of the game, playing the short side of the field coincided with him covering Alshon Jeffery because offenses know that the shortside of the field gets their star receiver more single coverage. If it was ok to line him up on the wide side earlier in the game, then why would it not make sense when the game is on the line to put him against their go-to receiver who has done what he did to other teams many times? When backed up to the endzone the situation changes because that shortside corner does not have to cover nearly as much ground.
Like I said, the offense's gameplan is to create mismatches and Spurrier got a big 17ing mismatch with Jeffery vs. Broomfield. You don't always have to put Banks on Jeffery the entire game, but in those situations you would be an idiot not to.
Here I looked the game up online and flipped over to the end to find the touchdown. I went back about 3 or 4 plays and I'd be damned if Banks was not lined up on the wide side of the field. I even took a nice little screenshot for you, so don't feed me any ******** about him never playing the wide side of the field. At first he was lined up as the outside guy but SC audibled and he changed over to the slot receiver.
Like I said, the offense's gameplan is to create mismatches and Spurrier got a big 17ing mismatch with Jeffery vs. Broomfield. You don't always have to put Banks on Jeffery the entire game, but in those situations you would be an idiot not to.
Here I looked the game up online and flipped over to the end to find the touchdown. I went back about 3 or 4 plays and I'd be damned if Banks was not lined up on the wide side of the field. I even took a nice little screenshot for you, so don't feed me any ******** about him never playing the wide side of the field. At first he was lined up as the outside guy but SC audibled and he changed over to the slot receiver.
Dude, I can't explain every play and our secondary coverage to you. But I'll simply say, again, Where Banks lines up and on who depends on not only the placement of the ball but what the offense shows as well. In this screen shot they have only two wideouts that happen to be on the wide side. Therefore Banks slides over to cover a receiver. On the TD pass, they had three receivers. 2 wide, 1 short side.
Now y'all can argue that the coaches should have called timeout and called man to man in the secondary and put Banks on Jeffries but hindsight is 20/20. On the tipped pass earlier in the game, when Banks got the INT in the endzone, From what I remember that was the same play and formation as the TD pass. Except, the ball was on the left hash. Therefore their two receivers were short side and one receiver was wide side. Also Jeffries was in the slot instead of outside, guess who was NOT covering Jeffries on that play but instead covering the outside receiver???
Anyway.....this is probably all pointless.
Now y'all can argue that the coaches should have called timeout and called man to man in the secondary and put Banks on Jeffries but hindsight is 20/20. On the tipped pass earlier in the game, when Banks got the INT in the endzone, From what I remember that was the same play and formation as the TD pass. Except, the ball was on the left hash. Therefore their two receivers were short side and one receiver was wide side. Also Jeffries was in the slot instead of outside, guess who was NOT covering Jeffries on that play but instead covering the outside receiver???
Anyway.....this is probably all pointless.
I am saying that it is ******** that Banks would have been out of place to go to the wide side and cover the outside receiver. I am not saying he should always be there, I am not saying he doesn't play boundary corner most of the time throughout a game. The simple fact is that South Carolina set up a mismatch and our coaches did not account for it. I think you were trying to say that yourself in between all your hoopla about what Banks normally does.
I was not saying that Banks should cover Jeffery the entire game, only that his position as the boundary corner puts him in the position to usually cover the best WR and have the hardest job up until the defense gets backed up to the endzone. At that point, the entire game changes because you basically have an extra defender with the back of the endzone in lockdown on deep coverage. When the game is on the line, 3rd and Goal to go, with one of the best WRs in the country that has pulled down the jump ball for TD several times, why would the defensive coaches allow such a mismatch with one of our worst cover corners who is 5-10? Football is not some magic that only a genius can figure out. Spurrier could see the mismatch and called the play to exploit it, our coaches had every opportunity to adjust to it but they did not.
Your example from the pick only furthers my point that Banks would not have been out of place to cover the outside receiver in that formation. Once the defense is backed up to the goaline, the short side of the field is actually a disadvantage to the offense because of the back of the endzone and sideline, therefore making it easier for the defense to put their liability on that side.
Anyway I think you are right, it is pointless and we must agree to disagree that Banks could have and should have been in Broomfields position.
I was not saying that Banks should cover Jeffery the entire game, only that his position as the boundary corner puts him in the position to usually cover the best WR and have the hardest job up until the defense gets backed up to the endzone. At that point, the entire game changes because you basically have an extra defender with the back of the endzone in lockdown on deep coverage. When the game is on the line, 3rd and Goal to go, with one of the best WRs in the country that has pulled down the jump ball for TD several times, why would the defensive coaches allow such a mismatch with one of our worst cover corners who is 5-10? Football is not some magic that only a genius can figure out. Spurrier could see the mismatch and called the play to exploit it, our coaches had every opportunity to adjust to it but they did not.
Your example from the pick only furthers my point that Banks would not have been out of place to cover the outside receiver in that formation. Once the defense is backed up to the goaline, the short side of the field is actually a disadvantage to the offense because of the back of the endzone and sideline, therefore making it easier for the defense to put their liability on that side.
Anyway I think you are right, it is pointless and we must agree to disagree that Banks could have and should have been in Broomfields position.