Sure, I'll play along. Go look up the Panthers Dolphins game from 2014. Breakdown every pass and tell me what you see.
Absolutely ****ing not. I'm not wasting that kind of time on you. Pick a play or a few. *And another game. We didn't play Carolina in '14. Also, maybe pick something you have access to. That way you can follow along to know Im not BS'ing you that you dont need a team's playbook to break down their plays. **Would be interesting to see what you think you're seeing to, if you're not afraid to post it.
2013. I do have access to it. Feel free to gift me with your uncanny knowledge of each play. I'm sure it will be impressive stuff.
GTFO. I'm not breaking down the entire game for you. Are you dense? Pick one or a few from here: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201311240mia.htm#all_pbp
@Fin-O Here's the jist of it; picture it this way: You've just been hired to coach your high school alma mater. How are you going prepare for your opponents in your upcoming rookie year? Ask them for their playbooks? (please be saying "no" at this point. . . or maybe watch and chart as many games as you can? There are only so many route concepts, coverages, etc, etc. and most have been the same for decades. Your name for them might be different from what they call them but they're all essentially the same with probably a few wrinkles and few adjustments here and/or there (that may or may not work well) depending on the coaches preferences for packaging them, and/or personnel strengths. You don't need a team's playbook to understand what they do or what they are trying to accomplish.
Wait, your supposed to somehow debunk my opinion that Ryan (in the games I listed) did not have issues going to his second read, and did not miss open guy’s??? And again, if I watch film of Tom Brady, I’m sure I could nitpick who he “should’ve” thrown the ball too. You have a big enough issue with this to come on here and proclaim I have no idea what I’m talking about, so why don’t you do the leg work. It’s your battle, you initiated it.
Y'all? There's one person being unreasonable here. One person is throwing out accusations and refusing to back them up. Another poster is asking for him to just pick one or two plays, and that person refuses to do it. Which is fine, but if he's so scared he's going to get shown up that he won't pick a couple of plays, then maybe he should stop antagonizing people all the time.
We have some real tools on this board. You guy’s do not even understand what he is saying, you see “arguing with FinO, he must be right” because you are mental midgets. I wouldn’t expect you to have the aptitude to understand that his attempt to break anything down is a poor attempt at trying to discredit my points. But you simply do not know any better, so I guess I’m not surprised. But to then ask ME for evidence when he was the one making a poor generalization based on my comments? Never mind, I’m not dealing with rational adults I’m dealing with a couple of internet trolls who really have no idea about the game of football, but just enjoy logging on everyday to argue with someone. You don’t get it, and you don’t get that you don’t get it. Sums it up, really.
It’s interesting because it is me. These are the types of posters that have dragged the mains down. They have no idea what the argument is or the basis of it, so they just assume. When was the last time either of these guy’s made a post relevant to the thread? But somehow we see other guy’s being punished, and those 2 left to just continue sucking at posting. It’s a mystery to me why it is allowed, and kind of makes me want to spend time elsewhere. Seriously.
He's asking you to pick a couple of plays. Considering your assertions and boasts, that shouldn't be difficult.
This is where you guy’s fail. If it was anyone else breaking down why a random play was a great read, and someone were to challenge THAT poster to break down the “route concepts” because they don’t know what they were talking about.....you would go ape ****. When you base your posts on other posters only, you are not being a good member at the The Phins.Com. Then again, why should you start now?
Just stop. You were asked multiple times to give a couple of plays from any game 2011-up. You REPEATEDLY refused to do it. You can sling whatever accusations you want, but the simple fact of the matter is that you are not backing up anything you said and are trying to circumvent getting tore up. Me and resnor thanking a post, has nothing to do with you losing this argument with Carmen.
I don’t think Fin O has to break plays down because of what he was saying unless I’m missing something..
THEY aren't breaking down. One person is willing to, the other is refusing to do anything but hurl insults. Breaking down Thill's play is precisely the kind of thing this thread should be about. WADR, if that isn't interesting to you, why are you reading this thread?
You are missing something. He was asked multiple times to provide some plays for Carmen to break down. Even if Fin-O was being asked to breakdown film, it is legit to ask that of him since he's acting like an expert and insulting everyone else.
Because I think it became more of a one on one thing, and as I read the thread I didn’t see Fin O insulting people..maybe I missed a post but the one you told me to read was in response to something else.. Anyways.. How bout we start over and try to be nice to each other..why is that so hard ?
I did what Cbrad asked, I have my opinion. If someone wants to attack that opinion then it is one them to prove why. Another life tip. If you don’t understand the argument? Why would u chime in? Furthermore, someone else’s interpretation of the concept on any given route, has ZERO to do with my evaluation. Trolls gonna troll.
It's "you're", and you've already done that for the board. You admitted a few things. One, you actually think you need a team specific playbook to know their schemes and what they are doing; which is absolutely false. Two, since this is your line of understanding, then you're also admitting to not knowing about routes, their packaging within concepts, how they're used to attack certain coverages, coverages, etc., etc., and therefore are unfit to analyze and grade a QB's performance within the system; let alone claim that the QB struggles with his 2nd reads, when you don't even know what the **** they are in the first place. Oh yeah, and pick some plays from that Carolina game while you're at it.
You don’t think you can watch tape and easily decipher when a QB throws to his first read? I think that is silly personally, but carry on.
Seriously? Again, I played your game, watching the Cleveland highlights, and you pulled half a sentence out and argued that, because you couldn't argue the rest. Now you're flinging insults, per usual, and saying I should be banned? You made a claim that Tannehill is bad getting past his first read, but provided no evidence. Another poster asks for evidence, you refuse. He asked for a couple plays, and agreed to break them down if you would also do it. You refused. But I'm the troll?
It's dependent what the route or concept is vs the coverage. If you don't understand those types of things, you don't have a ****ing clue what you are seeing. Here's a simple one: 2x2, 11 personnel. You're running a smash concept weak to the fieldside. Presnap you ID a cover 2 shell with no sign of a blitz, where are you going with the ball and who's your first read? Postsnap, the defense rotates to a Cover 3 and let's assume it's the SS that rocks down, now who is your primary read and why?
It was just an example, and an easy one at that. I'm not wasting my time trying to find a play that fits the example.
I'm no film guru...but, isn't primary read based on the defense? Like, it's already figured, on this play, if we see cover 2, receiver X is my first read, Y is second, Z is third. If it's Cover 3, receiver Z is primary, X is second, Y is third. The play is designed to beat certain coverage in different ways, so you already know who you are looking for based on the defense. I'd imagine the smash concept above is designed for a particular receiver to be primary based on cover 2, but that changes when the defense goes to Cover 3, and I don't think you need to see the actual play if you know offensive scheme. Please note, the above example is simply an example, not me attempting to answer the original question.
No?? So you came in to this thread acting Lombardi like, tossing around insults, yet won’t go to the lengths to prove it? Why?
Yep. You've got the philosophy behind it correct. In the example I gave, within the smash concept, you have a simple two read progression of a 12-15 yard corner (the yardage is the stem not the route depth) on the inside, and 6-8 yd hitch on the outside. Vs C2 with little to no pressure, you have the time to wait for the corner route to develop behind the CB and outside the S about 15-20 yards down the sideline (aka "honey hole"). Postsnap when the defense rotates into a Cover 3 (and assuming the SS rocked down on the strongside of your formation, thus having the CB now bail into the deep 1/3 and the OLB coming inside-out to the Curl/Flat zones) your primary is now the hitch in that vacated area left by the CB. So, like you noted, you don't need any film to answer questions like they one I posted earlier.
My comment that he is attempting to debunk is this. Ryan is very good in rythm....but when the first read is taken away, he gets shaky. This is t groundbreaking stuff, pre snap has zero to do with it, actually. But it’s cool, because he is @fino...
What I think he's asking, is for you to give actual proof, not make a statement. Further, if you're making the statement, are you qualified to understand what you're seeing? I know I'm not. I'm not saying you are or aren't, btw.
