Originally Posted by Megatron96:
Nearly every passing snap. They tried HB screens in Clark's direction just 2-3 times, which he defended perfectly, and then they gave up on that as well. He also pretty much took away Baker's roll out to the left, which has been his bread-and-butter for the season since about week 10.
The Browns fans were saying the offense was only right side because of the LT. I've been a Clark supporter. But I was hoping for more pressure yesterday. They may have been doubling up on Frank. Want to rewatch the game. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Megatron96:
Nearly every passing snap. They tried HB screens in Clark's direction just 2-3 times, which he defended perfectly, and then they gave up on that as well. He also pretty much took away Baker's roll out to the left, which has been his bread-and-butter for the season since about week 10.
Against effective run heavy teams like cleveland, where the bulk of their downfield attack is built off heavy play action and waggle, the emlos has a lot of pressure to be able to scrape the line on zone runs away while still having to defend the waggle. Clark played the role well, both ends had more of a 'mush rush' strategy to be able to defend screens or disengage if Baker was able to break the pocket. The rush primary came from 1/3 techs and blitzing where they could get +1 free. Overall Spags gameplan yesterday was spot on. Ward still seems lost sometimes when he's playing 1/3rd's. [Reply]
Originally Posted by jerryaldini:
The Browns fans were saying the offense was only right side because of the LT. I've been a Clark supporter. But I was hoping for more pressure yesterday. They may have been doubling up on Frank. Want to rewatch the game.
Well, they basically didn't run at Clark when he was on the field, and I also figured it had something to do with the back-up LT in there. Made sense to run behind the strength of you OL anyway.
But I even posted my observation about them doubling/chipping Frank during the gdt, after I watched them do it 3-4 times in a row.
Of course, it wasn't surprising that Stefanski would do that to Frank. And it sure looked like Spags game-planned with that in mind.
And since no one else seems to have caught on to it, the other thing forcing CLE to chip Frank with Hunt or Chubb did was ruin the timing of their backs coming out of the backfield. Frank ran wide and upfield a lot, forcing their backs to have to actually retreat several yards to get outside leverage to execute their chips. That added at least an extra 1.5-2 seconds to their eventual routes. I had to go back and watch some of the highlight clips on YT last night because Frank's route to Baker seemed extra circuitous, compared to his normal rush.
Some of them appeared to be simply to take away the roll out to the left, but then I noticed just how far Hunt had to run just to get his chip on Frank twice in a row in the 3rd quarter, iirc. He had to run at least 5 yards behind where he started, and it probably added an extra 15 yards total to his route.
I'm pretty sure those extra wide rushes were pre-planned by Spags/Daly. Frank's never tried to rush from 7 yards wide and basically straight downfield before to my knowledge, so why would he suddenly do it last night? Unless it was scripted, like the simulated rush to take away the roll out. Becaue he for damned sure doesn't have the raw speed to cover that much ground against Baker, who we all knew was going to try and get rid of the ball in under 3 seconds. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Aspengc8:
Against effective run heavy teams like cleveland, where the bulk of their downfield attack is built off heavy play action and waggle, the emlos has a lot of pressure to be able to scrape the line on zone runs away while still having to defend the waggle. Clark played the role well, both ends had more of a 'mush rush' strategy to be able to defend screens or disengage if Baker was able to break the pocket. The rush primary came from 1/3 techs and blitzing where they could get +1 free. Overall Spags gameplan yesterday was spot on. Ward still seems lost sometimes when he's playing 1/3rd's.
Don't know what an 'emlo' is.
But yeah. I noticed that most of the edge rushes looked like 'mush-rushes,' which makes sense after watching PIT's DL not only not get any real consistent pressure on Baker, but also allowed him to escape behind the rush multiple times. Seemed obvious that Spags had decided to skip the real edge rush thing for the most part, and just make sure Baker couldn't actually repeat that performance against us. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Hammock Parties:
chris jones doing his job
This is the play I was referencing. I believe this was the final 3rd down stop.
Sorenson is flat-footed and Neimann is working more toward the sideline. Mathieu had already committed to defending the short curl so the entire middle of the field was open. If Baker has even 1 more second to hang in the pocket, they probably convert there.
Total game-changing pressure from Jones there and you wouldn't really think much of it. [Reply]
Originally Posted by ThaVirus:
Someone in another thread said he was responsible for one of the incomplete screens to Chubb later in the game.
I haven’t confirmed but that’s the sort of thing that won’t show up in the stat sheet but certainly goes a long way toward winning such a tight ball game.
He wasn’t ‘responsible’ per se, as Spagz had him drop into short zone coverage as a CB blitzed. Mayfield didn’t recognize it and had to throw the ball at Chubb’s feet.
Great call by Spagz. Perfect execution by Clark and the D. [Reply]
probably not what Clark was doing. Probably you possess little if any analytical skills. That's kind of a mental coinflip at this point. But probably almost definitely you're trolling.
But you're not interesting about it anymore, so probably not going to continue responding to your trolling efforts until you become interesting again.:-) [Reply]
