Defensive back technique

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
There was actually a fair bit of good content embedded in that thread and I think its probably the best place to continue debate over broad DB technique rather than play an uninteresting game of he said/she said in this thread.
 

H78

Fists of Millennial Fury!
SoSH Member
Jul 22, 2009
4,613
Yes, I did back read the thread an hour or so ago and soxfan is actually right. No one said the BEST defensive back technique - period - is to play the receiver.

What people said is if the DB is already burned it's best to play the receiver. Which, in retrospect, really is sort of a nonsensical topic to even discuss, because if you're thoroughly beat, of course you have no other option than to play the receiver.

Which would mean, of course, if you're regularly being put in that position (to play the receiver), then you probably have no chance of playing the ball all that often anyways, which means you're probably not a very good NFL cornerback (which means your GM shouldn't have signed you to a fairly big money deal given your abilities).

But as I said in that thread, if we're talking about technique when the cornerback is in decent position and not relying on post-burned "oh shit, what do I do now?" technique, if the coverage is fairly close I think it's generally best to look for the ball.

And I think that's something that can be taught to a millionaire professional athlete; or, at least, it SHOULD be possible when, in a down year for cornerback deals (2013) a player who fits this profile was given a fairly high end contract.

And for those of you saying "oh you want everyone to be Revis, idiot?!", I think you need to stop exaggerating my point because there are cornerbacks in the league not named Revis or Sherman that often find themselves in position to play the ball and not have to regularly rely on a last ditch effort to jar a ball loose.

I think all of this really stems from whether you think average-and-above average NFL cornerbacks should be expected to regularly stay close to their man. If you don't, then the "playing the receiver" technique fairly often makes sense to you; if you do think average and better DBs should be able to stay close, then you're probably one of the people who scream "play the ball!" fairly often. I don't think you have to be Revis to be the latter, and I think that's where my opinion of proper technique branches off from some other people.
 

SeoulSoxFan

I Want to Hit the World with Rocket Punch
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2006
22,089
A Scud Away from Hell
Stitch01 said:
There was actually a fair bit of good content embedded in that thread and I think its probably the best place to continue debate over broad DB technique rather than play an uninteresting game of he said/she said in this thread.
 
Agreed and thanks for linking the thread. 
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
H78 said:
Yes, I did back read the thread an hour or so ago and soxfan is actually right. No one said the BEST defensive back technique - period - is to play the receiver.

What people said is if the DB is already burned it's best to play the receiver. Which, in retrospect, really is sort of a nonsensical topic to even discuss, because if you're thoroughly beat, of course you have no other option than to play the receiver.
I think this is right - generally speaking, looking back for the ball isn't the issue, it's getting beaten earlier in the play that's the issue.
 
H78 said:
I think all of this really stems from whether you think average-and-above average NFL cornerbacks should be expected to regularly stay close to their man. If you don't, then the "playing the receiver" technique fairly often makes sense to you; if you do think average and better DBs should be able to stay close, then you're probably one of the people who scream "play the ball!" fairly often. I don't think you have to be Revis to be the latter, and I think that's where my opinion of proper technique branches off from some other people.
I think the other point of contention is what "regularly" means in this context. The other team's WRs are getting paid to get open, and over the course of the 30-40 pass routes in a game they're going to win at times and the CB is going to look bad. Even Pedro gave up HR on occasion. Without some sort of framework (scouting and/or statistical) for evaluating CB play, what is your baseline for determining whether a player is "regularly" staying with his man or not? Even with such a framework, it's difficult - for example, there's always contention over the PFF numbers.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,026
Super Nomario said:
I think this is right - generally speaking, looking back for the ball isn't the issue, it's getting beaten earlier in the play that's the issue.
 
I think the other point of contention is what "regularly" means in this context. The other team's WRs are getting paid to get open, and over the course of the 30-40 pass routes in a game they're going to win at times and the CB is going to look bad. Even Pedro gave up HR on occasion. Without some sort of framework (scouting and/or statistical) for evaluating CB play, what is your baseline for determining whether a player is "regularly" staying with his man or not? Even with such a framework, it's difficult - for example, there's always contention over the PFF numbers.
 
This seems like a huge issue with respect to the All 22 v. TV angle as well, in that the TV camera is going to follow a disproportionate number of passes to receivers that the QB think has his CB beat. In other words, unless we're looking at the All 22, we're looking at an incredibly skewed sample of CB play.