re: Is it verboten to point out that Whit Weeks was responsible for the 2 long TD runs?

quote:

---

The safeties actions were more egregious on both td runs.

---

Not on the RB run, Weeks committed inside early and got eaten up by a lineman. If he waits for the play to develop, he can seal that edge or plug the gap if the runner goes that direction (based on WR blocking, it looked like it was always going outside, though).

On the first QB run, everybody bit on the play action. Sage was moving toward where it looked like the QB was going but he cut back and Sage's momentum meant he had no chance at that point. He probably should have either slowed himself earlier so he could adjust. All that works itself out if the linebackers don't bite so hard on the fake handoff.

quote:

---

How can an inside linebacker be responsible for setting the edge and turning plays inside? You tackle inside out, using the sideline for leverage so you don’t get juked. Weeks was a little slow on his read, but outside contain isn’t his job ever from the inside.

---

On the Rocket Sanders run he wasn't lined up inside. He was line up on the slot and tightened with motion. The DE was sent on a stunt inside leaving Weeks to be the C gap player. He dipped into the B gap and left his gap unmanned. It is certainly possible the DE shoudn't have slanted into the B gap as well.

Edit to add- IMO the slant was called because the 1tech crossed the centers face into the opposite A making Penn resposible for the strong A. So looks like it was a DL slant on the right side leaving Penn for the A and Weeks for the C.

quote:

---

watch the tape. whit holds the outside then on a little shimy from rocket runs inside then trys to recover. also watch where the DE goes immediately and whit is lined up too fat outside for them to have a switch called.

---

I actually agree with you. I was just playing devil's advocate because for all we know the DE going inside was the mistake and Whit tried to do both his job and the DEs and ended up doing a bad job at both. I agree though that it looked like the DE was supposed to go in and whit was supposed to loop around and hold the edge.

quote:

---

And this may be some “cope,” but I’m almost happier that we pulled out a close win with a ton of mistakes than if we’d have gone out there and won comfortably like 31-13 or something. Sure, we’d feel better about the team, but I think a game like this can make us better in the long run.

---

I totally agree. I'm seeing an hearing a lot of - we were lucky to win, SC deserved to win, their QB got hurt, the refs screwed them....all that and yeah if I were an SC fan I'd be saying all that too.

But overcoming that early onslaught and making the adjustments - In that atmosphere - and also nutting up on that last drive - man that to me means something and if you saw those players after the game as I was there, it meant something to them. I think it is a very good thing to win that game the way we did.

I still think our talent on defense is not where we're used to it being or that is should be and there are several reasons but ultimately IMHO that falls on BK. But with our offense if we get some of these MA issues ironed out I think we can still compete and make something of this season.

As I am sure others have pointed out. This is such a terrible take. The QB run he did exactly as he should and it was not his play to take as he had to respect the motion and fake give. So not responsible at all.

The running back run, yeah it was a weird play and a good play against a defensive call. To me it looked as if the D-line may have slanted (or possibly a blitz for weeks but he did not go) but hard to tell. So yes he should have had cutback especially if the slanted away, but he also should not be on an island like that. The secondary may have been in man, so that is a very boom or bust call by Baker.