Most every analyst and fan alike has had semi-legitimate concern over the status of the corner position. Omar Kelly has been the most vocal with his constant harping on the number of signings, "four in twelve practices." Let it go, that is the team's job - make every position as deep as possible.
However, when the lights were on and the game was live, most of the corners looked pretty good. Actually, they looked really good, given that they didn't nave the best pass rushers on the field. Great lines makes the DBs look better than they might otherwise be. Could it be that we may have some depth at that position. They may not be household names, but they seemed to press well, and coverage was relatively tight. Having said that, there is much room for improvement. Many of the balls were underthrown. Better passing may have shown what many of us fear - that we lack experience and depth at corner. On this night though, we looked pretty good. The corners covered and pressed well. They had good make-up spead. THEY TACKLED WELL. Frankly, they tackled better than the DL and LBs combined.
While this article is about the corners, the fact that we gave up over 150 yards rushing to the Giants is something to write about in the next article. Maybe I will wait for after the Dallas game. And, Omar, I do agree with one point you keep making. We don't work on the running game and tackling enough in practice. Kim Bokamper is found of saying 10 straight days of two-a-days is what got him prepared for the season. I couldn't agree more. We do have work to do on both sides of the ball, rushing and tackling.
One last thought, there was an analysis done in 2014. I can't remember who did it, but the gist of it was that if Tannehill had just .43 seconds more time to pass, which was still under the league average mind you, he was over a 75% completion passer. Let's hope Coach Gase finds a way to get consistent play out of the O-Line.
However, when the lights were on and the game was live, most of the corners looked pretty good. Actually, they looked really good, given that they didn't nave the best pass rushers on the field. Great lines makes the DBs look better than they might otherwise be. Could it be that we may have some depth at that position. They may not be household names, but they seemed to press well, and coverage was relatively tight. Having said that, there is much room for improvement. Many of the balls were underthrown. Better passing may have shown what many of us fear - that we lack experience and depth at corner. On this night though, we looked pretty good. The corners covered and pressed well. They had good make-up spead. THEY TACKLED WELL. Frankly, they tackled better than the DL and LBs combined.
While this article is about the corners, the fact that we gave up over 150 yards rushing to the Giants is something to write about in the next article. Maybe I will wait for after the Dallas game. And, Omar, I do agree with one point you keep making. We don't work on the running game and tackling enough in practice. Kim Bokamper is found of saying 10 straight days of two-a-days is what got him prepared for the season. I couldn't agree more. We do have work to do on both sides of the ball, rushing and tackling.
One last thought, there was an analysis done in 2014. I can't remember who did it, but the gist of it was that if Tannehill had just .43 seconds more time to pass, which was still under the league average mind you, he was over a 75% completion passer. Let's hope Coach Gase finds a way to get consistent play out of the O-Line.
8 comments
I'd feel better if they covered against Manning but for the most part they played well. They didn't tackle well in the first series.
I'd feel better if they covered against Manning but for the most part they played well. They didn't tackle well in the first series.
Meh...
I don't put much into preseason. Last preseason or maybe two years ago under the new and shiny Bill Lazor offense, Tanne and Co came out and marched down the field for a TD in which Tanne was razor sharp, look how that turned out. Until the starters are in, the game planning is in and until the bullets really start flying, none of this matters.
Yes Lawrence, but the big difference then was that as soon as our starters came out we folded like a paper bag. We appear to be much deeper which has been our biggest achilles heal for the last 10 years at least. Even the second string O-Line looked pretty good overall.
I've been saying for a long time that what the preseason shows you, primarily, is whether or not you have good, quality depth on your team, and I agree with The MadPhinsFan that the lack of depth has been a (major) Achilles heel for the 'fins for years. Is winning the first preseason game a good sign for us in that regard is one of the important questions?
@ chewee2k:
No, I do not believe winning the game matters. It does show a little depth which is great. Miami needs to give Laremy Tunsil first team OG reps already. Dallas Thomas just isn't cut out for the NFL, just like Jonathon Martin wasn't. The player I really want to see make the team is Jakeem Grant. The guy played his heart out and had an excellent outing. We all need to be patient and hope the coaches have the O line straightened out soon with whatever their plan is and Miami should be fine.
Lawrence, that was actually intended as a rhetorical question.
Lawrence, that was actually intended as a rhetorical question.