PDA

View Full Version : Gunther in the 4th Q


irishjayhawk
11-06-2005, 06:15 PM
I've been reading alot of people saying how he backed off. Am I the only one that disagrees? Heres my thoughts:

First, it seemed like we blitzed a lot even with our mediocre lead. Then comes the Larry Nemmers horrendous call and the Allen/Vermiel unsportsman-like penalty. That event(s) shifted all momentum into their favor.

We hold them on first and second on the 10ish yard line. Then on third down, Gunther makes his first, in my opinion, mishap. (The Porter TD was blown coverage by our defense, thier first real mishap of the game) He didn't guard the corners of the endzone when the other team has Randy Moss. Fades, anyone? Where was the safety help. Granted he hadn't caught a pass, it still means he has to be covered.

Anyway, even on those TDs, especially the moss one, we seemed to have rushed many people. On the moss one, we sent 8 I think but everyone got blocked.

In my opinion, gunther called the absolute best game this year. He returned to his old form.

Kudos to Kawika, DJ and especially Dwayne Washington for some outstanding play!

Do you agree with the notion he held off in the fourth quarter?

petegz28
11-06-2005, 06:17 PM
We dropped into a 3 and 4 man rush scheme to flippin early!

HemiEd
11-06-2005, 06:22 PM
I am no X and O guy, but it reminded me of the old "prevent (the win) defense."

Logical
11-06-2005, 06:23 PM
It was more the coverages than the rush the QB schemes that has me saying yes.

irishjayhawk
11-06-2005, 06:25 PM
It was more the coverages than the rush the QB schemes that has me saying yes.
Coverages as in, playing off the recievers or reverting to a zone or what?

cdcox
11-06-2005, 06:29 PM
Before the penalty on Allen we had gone to the nickle w/soft zone, allowing them easy plays for 10+ yds. Our lead was not big enough for that kind of defense.

JBucc
11-06-2005, 06:30 PM
Just like he did against Philly which cost us that game and almost this one too.

milkman
11-06-2005, 06:31 PM
I am no X and O guy, but it reminded me of the old "prevent (the win) defense."

Irishjayhawk is right in that Gun still blitzed.

But he also softened up the secondary, which allowed the Traider receivers to find seams and and make catches virtually unmolested.

Earlier, for the first time, the corners were lining up tight and getting in the face of the receivers, and disrupting the timing.

It wasn't a full on prevent.

It was a semi-prevent.

irishjayhawk
11-06-2005, 06:33 PM
Just like he did against Philly which cost us that game and almost this one too.
Not to disagree, but in the Philly game I thought it was more the lack or conservativeness of the offense that killed us more. That said, you can't NOT cover TO.

And I agree with SideWinder's analysis.

milkman
11-06-2005, 06:35 PM
Not to disagree, but in the Philly game I thought it was more the lack or conservativeness of the offense that killed us more. That said, you can't NOT cover TO.

And I agree with SideWinder's analysis.

That Philly loss was the result of a combination of factors.

INTS, fumbles, and Gun's defensive scheme.

Logical
11-06-2005, 06:37 PM
Coverages as in, playing off the recievers or reverting to a zone or what?Mainly not playing tight coverage, I think they were in zone most of the day anyway.