Davie?

[onlyHskrfaninIL]

No hes not good

[knapplc]

He's better than he's shown. He's been routinely torched this year, and I don't know why. But he has skills. "Not good" is not an apt description. "Not playing well," that's a great description.

[Eric the Red]

More often than not he is right there and it seems to be a perfect pass.

[bale]

he has skills. "Not good" is not an apt description. "Not playing well," that's a great description.

Wait, how are these different? How do you define 'good' besides 'playing well'? Am I missing something?

[knapplc]

He has played well in the past. That he isn't now is a bigger mystery than that he did before.

 

Did people forget 2014? Davie wasn't some chump out there getting burned game in and game out. That's the same dude out there. The results are different, but it's the same guy.

[bale]

He has played well in the past. That he isn't now is a bigger mystery than that he did before.

 

Did people forget 2014? Davie wasn't some chump out there getting burned game in and game out. That's the same dude out there. The results are different, but it's the same guy.

 

The schemes are vastly different. You can't compare a dude's coverage from last year to this year because they simply aren't playing the same defense.

 

Davie might be a good player in some schemes - but he certainly looks awful in this scheme.

[knapplc]

 

He has played well in the past. That he isn't now is a bigger mystery than that he did before.

 

Did people forget 2014? Davie wasn't some chump out there getting burned game in and game out. That's the same dude out there. The results are different, but it's the same guy.

The schemes are vastly different. You can't compare a dude's coverage from last year to this year because they simply aren't playing the same defense.

 

Davie might be a good player in some schemes - but he certainly looks awful in this scheme.

 

But that doesn't mean he doesn't have talent. He does. It may not match this scheme (I think it does, but we'll see), but that's a very different thing than not having talent.

[admo]

Maybe last year he played up to his full potential. He had a lot of help back there last season. This year he looks like he lost confidence - and a step.

[Redux]

Having been good at one time, does not make him a good player now. Regression is possible. He has not been good this year.

[SouthLincoln Husker]

Davie can cover, he just does not finish plays. He needs to look for the ball and make his hands active.

[HuskerfaninOkieland]

Maybe last year he played up to his full potential. He had a lot of help back there last season. This year he looks like he lost confidence - and a step.

Maybe obvious, but I wonder if he's uncomfortable being out there on an island and is overthinking?

[knapplc]

Davie can cover, he just does not finish plays. He needs to look for the ball and make his hands active.

This. He's been in position. He could have made plays on the ball if he'd have looked. He's been skilled up to a point - the point where the ball contacts the receiver's hands. Then he seems to be unskilled.

 

It takes a lot of skill to get to that position. Finishing from there is what makes a player great. We need him to be great.

[Mavric]

It's mostly scheme. It was perfectly illustrated by Kaaya today. Miami motioned from two receivers on each side to trips to the wide side of the field, Kaaya's right-hand side and thus the easier side to read and throw to. From the motion, he could tell that he had man coverage on all three receivers. He audibled to the play he wanted and then all he had to do was find one of those three receivers who beat their coverage. That particular play ended up being an incomplete pass iirc, but it's extremely unlikely that all three guys having to play man coverage with 2/3 of the field to cover are all going have good enough coverage to prevent a throw. They have to defend deep and short, inside and outside. That's simply asking too much.

[zoogs]

#MavricForDCoord.

 

Seriously. If it'll fix things. The jury is out on Banker in most people's minds. What we saw in that first quarter was not good. And it should have us legitimately worried about how many more teams are going to take advantage of it. Let's see.

[Mavric]

Honestly, I'm not as bothered by the deep throws. As a few have pointed out, the coverage hasn't been THAT bad, just the throws have been right on the money. Unfortunately after three games and four different quarterbacks, it's more of a trend than a fluke. But we're bound to get some stops - and we did break up a couple as the game went on today.

 

My bigger problem is we give up way to many "easy" throws. Plays where they can run down the field and run some sort of a curl/out at about 10 yards and get a completion that does not require nearly as good of a throw from the QB. Those are the play that will still be easy to complete even if the QBs/WRs we're playing aren't as good. But when the DB has to cover the receiver anywhere on the field, he can't help but try to play off and try not to get beat deep but that opens up the sort stuff.

 

To me, you have to give more help so that the DBs don't have to cover every route. If you have a safety over the top on the wide side of the field, those DBs know they can play more aggressive on the shorter routes. And play a LB in the flat on the short side. The LB can take away the shorter throws with the corner handling the deep stuff. That seems quite do-able without a large change in scheme. But despite what people though they saw in the second half against BYU or what the coaches have been saying, so far we don't seem willing to make changes. What I saw today - which is just a first impression - is that the only reason we were able to come back today was that Miami went completely away from their offense after going up 27-3 early in the second half. Instead of attacking down the field with a fast paced offense, they slowed everything down and ran more "safe" plays. They still threw the ball, but didn't stretch the field very much.