Who does Asomugha Cover?

[TheReverend]

Can we get something out of the way in case someone is unclear on some basics in the receiving game?

X Y Z
Your X is your split end, who will line up on the line of scrimmage opposite of the TE. (Notice how it's called "split", while the other on the line of scrimmage right in with the line is "tight")

Your Z is your flanker, who line's up one yard off and on the side of the tight end.

Y is the TE, and when he lines up in the slot it's called Y-open.

Coaches preference dictates whether or not you want your bigger, possession receiver fighting the jam at SE, or whether or not you want him at flanker to work the extra cushion over for smoother release on intermediate catches.

The majority, including Mike Shanahan, play their best, and biggest at SE to beat the jam, and have more open field to work with, that also allows their generally quicker flanker to abuse that extra cushion with their route running.

"Number 1" and "Number 2" receiver isn't a reality outside of specific plays and the primary and checkdown reads.

What we usually call the "number 1" is usually lined up as a split end on the majority of the plays, though.

[bronco militia]

x,y,z ...left to right like you read it

it's not rocket science

[TheReverend]

Originally Posted by bronco militia

x,y,z ...left to right like you read it

it's not rocket science

Not really...

[bronco militia]

Originally Posted by TheReverend

Not really...

generally speaking, with a right handed QB, yes really

[TheReverend]

Originally Posted by bronco militia

generally speaking, with a right handed QB, yes really

:facepalm:

I'm done with this. Greg Camarillo was Miami's "#1 receiver", and the x y and z receivers are so simple and cut and dry that you just read them from left to right. You're exactly right.

[bronco militia]

Originally Posted by TheReverend

:facepalm:

I'm done with this. Greg Camarillo was Miami's "#1 receiver", and the x y and z receivers are so simple and cut and dry that you just read them from left to right. You're exactly right.

in general ****ing terms yes! in the nfl it doesn't matter who the **** lines up where just get the ball to the guy who gives you the best match up!

god damn dude!

[Rock Chalk]

Calm down fellas.

You can argue who is #1 receiver on what team and/or what constitutes the #1 guy.

For me, its the guy the other teams most fear.

For us, Marshall is that receiver.

For Miami, Ted Ginn Jr is that receiver.

That doesnt necessarily mean that receiver has the most yards or receptions or both, it just means teams generally put their best cover guy on that guy.

Before we played Miami, I didnt know who Camarillo was. Never heard of the dude. Now I know who he is but for me, Ginn is going to be the more serious threat on that team so he is still in my mind, the #1 receiver.

Semantics be damned.

Back to the topic thanks.

[Bladerunner]

great thread, until the semantic arguement about #1 receiver anyhow...I agree with Alec...you have to put safety help on Marshall, if for no other reason than to control the YAC...Royal is ab**** to cover so Aso on him in general is a good plan...

I expect that the Raiders will mostly play halves like we do, but safety help will likely flow to Marshall...he's just too dangerous to leave one on one...Randy Moss doesn't get the amount of action that Welker does, but it's because it's too dangerous to put him alone with a corner...I see the same thing with Denver's team right now...If we can run at all against Oakland, I think we'll be in good shape.

[Inkana7]

Whoever's on the left.

[Inkana7]

Denver's pass offense cannot be shut down. Mike will make sure of it.

[Rock Chalk]

Let me rephrase:

If you were the coach where would you have Asomugha play?

[Inkana7]

Marshall. Marshall in single coverage against anyone but the elite equals a big play or TD.

[Flex Gunmetal]

Marshalls hoping it will be him
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/new...ders-asomugha/

[Willynowei]

As far as I understand it;

Split end is weakside & on the line. Slot is weakside & off the line. Tight end is strong side & on the line. Flanker is strong side & off the line.

The strong side is the side with the tightend on an unbalanced formation. None of the terminology matters when the formation is balanced (2 tightend, singleback for example)

Each side has to have 1 guy on the line and one guy off the line. Generally the split end and the flanker are the widest receivers.

As a coach you have to choose two receivers that line up on the line and then any additional receivers can line up off the line. If you choose an unbalanced formation you can have more than one receiver that is off the line (harder to jam).

However, when you bunch guys up it also makes it easier for the defense to disguise coverages or play combination coverages.

Therefore, the general rule is, when you have only one really good receiver like Carolina with Steve Smith, you like to bunch things up and make it hard to jam or double him.

If you have a bunch of good wideoutes like us, you like to spread it out and target the open non-doubled receiver. Obviously, there are exceptions - Indy likes to bunch guys up, New England - even when they had ****ty receivers like to spread guys out. Its all preference.

You can play you're #1 receiver anywhere.

[Willynowei]

Originally Posted by Rock Chalk

Let me rephrase:

If you were the coach where would you have Asomugha play?

If I was Oakland, I would double Royal and Marshall if they are lined up wide, and single cover stokely or Scheffler or Nate Jackson with Asmougha.

Very unorthodox but if I'm overmatched against an offense like the broncos thats what I would do as coach. Of course, I don't know how good Oakland's other corners are or how good Aso is in the slot. If they can't slow down ROyla and Marshall with doubling (w/o Aso) then I would try maybe a cover 3.

In anycase - gameplan would be to force Cutler to throw short and over the middle and bank on our receivers dropping balls or Cutler throwing a pick.

[cutthemdown]

If it were up to me I would have Asomugha shadow Marshall and try to get him frustrated. When that happens marshall sometimes pouts a little and it disrupts the broncos.

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by Willynowei

If I was Oakland, I would double Royal and Marshall if they are lined up wide, and single cover the slot man (stokley) or our tightend Scheffler or Nate Jackson with Asmougha.

Very unorthodox but if I'm overmatched against an offense like the broncos thats what I would do as coach.

Wow you would give up a lot of points.

[Willynowei]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

Wow you would give up a lot of points.

I don't thinkso, thats what we did against SD (3?) years ago on our short lived playoff run. We put champ on Gates.

[Doggcow]

Originally Posted by Willynowei

I don't thinkso, thats what we did against SD (3?) years ago on our short lived playoff run. We put champ on Gates.

Thats different. Champ counts as double coverage, while only using one body. I personally would prefer our defense to play something along the lines of Champ on their #2 WR (if he's worth a **** at all) and double cover their number one. This essentially shuts down passing games other than TE's and slots which are covered normally.

[cutthemdown]

you can't double cover both wr, you can play a cover 2 on them where both safety's play back and pretty much each talk half the field protecting the deep middle and deep outside. If they actually went and double covered the WR from the snap to the finish of the play it would leave the middle to exposed as you would have only backers to do it.

If you have backers play the short zone and corners take over after that you are weak vs the run.

Best thing for Raiders to do is put both corners right up in the face of the WR and play physical. Keep safety's in a cover 1 and put on saftey on Sheffler and have the backers chuck him as he leaves the LOS.

After that I would say they have to generate some sort of pass rush or Cutler will just pick them apart. I don't think they can do it rushing 4 or even 5. IMO they will have to blitz 6 sometimes and put safety's in a cover 2. That IMO means it will be up to the Broncos TE to make big plays in that situation.

[TonyR]

Broncos coach Mike Shanahan doesn’t exactly have warm, fuzzy feelings for the Raiders after his experience in Al Davis’ world. That makes praise for an Oakland guy that comes from his mouth particularly meaningful.

And Shanahan did nothing short of gush about Raiders cornerback Nnamdi Asomugha. Per the NFL Network’s Adam Schefter, Shanahan has practically appointed himself Asomugha’s Pro Bowl campaign manager.

“He is the most underrated football player in the history of the game,” Shanahan said of Asomugha. “I can’t believe this guy hasn’t been to the Pro Bowl or people don’t talk about him all the time. He is off the charts and as good as it gets. He doesn’t get the attention for the way he plays consistently. He is the most underrated football player that I have ever seen in my coaching career.”

Of course, Shanahan could also be attempting to motivate Denver receiver Brandon Marshall via the media.

http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/...story-of-game/

[Willynowei]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

you can't double cover both wr, you can play a cover 2 on them where both safety's play back and pretty much each talk half the field protecting the deep middle and deep outside. If they actually went and double covered the WR from the snap to the finish of the play it would leave the middle to exposed as you would have only backers to do it.

If you have backers play the short zone and corners take over after that you are weak vs the run.

Best thing for Raiders to do is put both corners right up in the face of the WR and play physical. Keep safety's in a cover 1 and put on saftey on Sheffler and have the backers chuck him as he leaves the LOS.

After that I would say they have to generate some sort of pass rush or Cutler will just pick them apart. I don't think they can do it rushing 4 or even 5. IMO they will have to blitz 6 sometimes and put safety's in a cover 2. That IMO means it will be up to the Broncos TE to make big plays in that situation.

Yes you certainly can double both receivers, and of course the Safety gets the deepest man if the doubled receiver doesn't go deep. So the only time you'll have linebackers going 1 on 1 w/ the tigthends is if more than 2 guys are going deep.

In a Cover 2 buc you would essentially be doubling both receivers.

I wouldn't blitz the Broncos at all. Would you seriously try to jam Brandon Marshall in a Cover 1? Hell i would only try that if I had Reggie White on the D-line. Thats suicide. Teams don't try that with Marshall because TO proved years ago that when you try to jam big receivers you fall on your ass.

Cutler's rating against the blitz is the league's best i believe. We are insane vs. the blitz. I'd rather make the young QB prove he can stay patient for 60 min.

[Willynowei]

Originally Posted by TonyR

Broncos coach Mike Shanahan doesn’t exactly have warm, fuzzy feelings for the Raiders after his experience in Al Davis’ world. That makes praise for an Oakland guy that comes from his mouth particularly meaningful.

And Shanahan did nothing short of gush about Raiders cornerback Nnamdi Asomugha. Per the NFL Network’s Adam Schefter, Shanahan has practically appointed himself Asomugha’s Pro Bowl campaign manager.

“He is the most underrated football player in the history of the game,” Shanahan said of Asomugha. “I can’t believe this guy hasn’t been to the Pro Bowl or people don’t talk about him all the time. He is off the charts and as good as it gets. He doesn’t get the attention for the way he plays consistently. He is the most underrated football player that I have ever seen in my coaching career.”

Of course, Shanahan could also be attempting to motivate Denver receiver Brandon Marshall via the media.

http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/...story-of-game/

This quote means that we have him targeted for Sunday.

Will be a fun battle to watch.

[cutthemdown]

Besides Broncos will probably run a bunch of bunch sets again because Raiders seem bad at covering that. That mean 3 wr and a TE with a single back. If you double 2 WR, cover the 3rdwr and the TE with some sort of zone that takes 2 backers and the nickel back, that leaves 4 player to play the whole oline, cutler, and our RB out of the back field.

With todays multiple spread formations you just don't have the resources to really ever double both WR outside because it would leave you open in the middle to the other 2-3 options the QB has.

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by Willynowei

Yes you certainly can double both receivers, and of course the Safety gets the deepest man if the doubled receiver doesn't go deep. So the only time you'll have linebackers going 1 on 1 w/ the tigthends is if more than 2 guys are going deep.

In a Cover 2 buc you would essentially be doubling both receivers.

I wouldn't blitz the Broncos at all. Would you seriously try to jam Brandon Marshall in a Cover 1? Hell i would only try that if I had Reggie White on the D-line. Thats suicide. Teams don't try that with Marshall because TO proved years ago that when you try to jam big receivers you fall on your ass.

Cutler's rating against the blitz is the league's best i believe. We are insane vs. the blitz. I'd rather make the young QB prove he can stay patient for 60 min.

In a cover 2 the safety's are in effect playing a zone defense. They read the play and then decide what there responsibility will be. It can be a TE going down the seam, or a WR going deep. Raiders may play a cover 2 but really that is only a double team if the WR goes deep. It won't help them on drags, digs, small outs, slants, comebacks. It only defends go patterns, flag routes, 9 routes and posts, you know the big plays. Cover 2 is designed for that.


It's not IMO accurate to say a cover 2 is a system that doubles the WR, it doesn't. It only splits the field in half for each safety and the defend that portion of the field regardless of what offensive player comes into it. They read the play, the qb, and make decision. That isn't man to man.