Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut
Because we have some very real problems with how we disguise/mix up our coverage looks.
That problem is that we....don't. Ever.
I still laugh at the "Bob's complicated scheme" narrative because there was absolutely nothing complicated about it and it took Tony Romo barking out what we were doing before every play before folks went "hey, wait a minute...."
Sutton's schemes lacked any sort of wrinkle to them. And yet somehow that bumble**** Scandrick still didn't know where to stand but I digress.
If we can get someone in here who does with our coverages what Reid is able to do with route combinations, etc... we would be goddamn unbeatable. Now defense isn't as open to tinkering so that's not going to work quite as well, but even a little bit of advancement there could be huge.
Besides, I think Houston will be excellent with his hand on the ground and frankly the only way to extract any value at all from Speaks or K-pass is to put them in-line as well.
A 4-3 transition should absolutely be considered and frankly I would prefer it. Then again, I don't know that Richard is likely to be married to ANY sort of alignment on his front; he's a coverage guru first who is likely to simply fit his fronts to his talent.
|
I have heard of certain coaches having complex schemes that are also easy for the quarterback to decipher. Complicated responsibilities for the players but smart quarterbacks can figure it out.
Sometimes teams defenses appear simple on TV but then after the DC gets fired we learn the scheme was too “complex.”
Not always like this and I don’t have any concrete examples right now but I’ve seen heard this before