Jump to content

McDermott calling the D: what'd ya think?


Success

Recommended Posts

Sorry for the non-Josh Allen thread.

 

All offseason, we wondered how the D would be without Frazier, and w/ McD making the calls.  I've never been an x's & o's guy, but what I saw was pretty encouraging..  We were all over the passer, and our line was in the backfield all day.   The corners seemed to be playing a bit more press, and for the most part, locked it down. The only issue was giving up some big runs - but there were just a few of those lapses.

 

I think our personnel is better, so it's hard to gauge (Groot is clearly taking a next step, Oliver looks better, Floyd is a great addition, etc.).   There is also the consideration that the Jets O-line isn't good.

 

What did everyone think overall?

 

  • Like (+1) 3
  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not the best game to judge him on because of the offense we ended up having to play.  I will say this.....Rodgers was in for 4 plays, but if he was in longer, I think we would have sacked him a ton.  He can't move much anymore and our line would have been after him all night.  Not saying he wouldn't have made the Jets offense better.  We'll never know.  But the way the game started and the way our line was playing, I wasn't overly worried about what the Jets were doing.  More concerned about the way our offense played.

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Agree 2
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the D played pretty good minus the one run and couple Wilson catches (not the TD, that was good D, special catch).  
 

Leonard Floyd and Rousseau stood out on the DL, while I thought Ed played a very solid games. Watching Milano was a treat.  
 

I’m extremely worried about the S duo though.  Once the heart and soul of the team, they might now be a detriment.  🙏🏻 that’s not the case 

  • Like (+1) 3
  • Agree 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I normally hate when people say, “well, it was against ________ .”

 

But it was against an offense led by what’s his name.

 

They shut down an offense that they should have shut down.  
 

That’s a good thing. 

  • Like (+1) 3
  • Agree 2
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Cheektowaga Chad said:

The aggressiveness was awesome to see

 

But I think week one is tough to judge against a team that didn't have a QB and really couldn't do much

 

 

 

We had a defensive game plan to stop and NFL offense led by a future HOF QB. I think we were better prepared for that than the 14 OLinemen and a single WR we ended up facing. I liked our early pressure, but I don’t know what to make of the rest of that. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

We had a defensive game plan to stop and NFL offense led by a future HOF QB. I think we were better prepared for that than the 14 OLinemen and a single WR we ended up facing. I liked our early pressure, but I don’t know what to make of the rest of that. 

 

 

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, NewEra said:

I thought the D played pretty good minus the one run and couple Wilson catches (not the TD, that was good D, special catch).  
 

Leonard Floyd and Rousseau stood out on the DL, while I thought Ed played a very solid games. Watching Milano was a treat.  
 

I’m extremely worried about the S duo though.  Once the heart and soul of the team, they might now be a detriment.  🙏🏻 that’s not the case 

This is my worry with the defense, more than even MLB. 

 

Hyde seemed ok. Didn't notice him a ton good or bad which isn't always a bad thing. But Poyer was not at his best Monday. The lack of speed on our back end is really going to present an issue against Miami IMO. 

 

Overall, I thought the defense was solid. Milano was his normal self...plus some personality. The DL got a lot of pressure. And Benford held his own on the outside. Looking forward to seeing what McDermott has dialed up to stop a Raider team with lower speed but a lot of physical players on offense.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

We had a defensive game plan to stop and NFL offense led by a future HOF QB. I think we were better prepared for that than the 14 OLinemen and a single WR we ended up facing. I liked our early pressure, but I don’t know what to make of the rest of that. 

 

Clearly Nathaniel Hackett is better coach than we gave him credit for with many calling him a pawn of Doug Marrone especially when he got job with Jaguars.

Personally I thought he was at least as good as coach as Ronnie Jones,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought Game 1 went well.  Had to adjust the entire defensive plan after four snaps. 

 

I think that if it was Wilson behind center a week prior to the game, they would have shut down the run game and make Wilson win it with his arm.  

 

 

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Give up long runs ... check

Giving up numerous 3rd and 10+ yards ... check

 

It was nice seeing them being more aggressive rushing the QB and all, but in the end, they couldn't hold a 10 point lead vs Zach Wilson. Of course that job was made more difficult by our QB playing Santa Claus for the night.

 

It was only one game, lets see what they've got vs the Raiders tomorrow.

  • Disagree 2
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RiotAct said:

our offense turned the ball over 4X, and yet our D still managed to only give up 13 “quality” points.

 

 

The Jets’ O ain’t the Dolphins, but still… I’d say our defense definitely did its job and then some

I agree. The defense more than held their own. They did enough to win the game. 

 

The pass rush was very good. Can't give up huge runs like that. Despite that the D held them to 3 points. I was pleasantly surprised by Bernard. I thought he held his own.

 

Like others said hard to really gauge the D vs a back up QB and poor oline. But they did what they had to do. 

 

There are bigger tests ahead for the D. I'm interested in seeing how they stop or contain Jacobs and Adams. 

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is OLD. A NEW topic should be started unless there is a very specific reason to revive this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...