Should R. Sherman play against the best wr?

Im sorry to bring back hurtful memories, but it was unwatchable during the Super Bowl what Edelman was doing to us on the other end of RS for about 3 quarters. It was just Brady and him connecting connecting like there was no defense. Why the hell didn't our coaches make an adjustment of putting RS on Edelman? I know Sherman has his weakness with shorter receivers, but he would have at least slowed Edelman's one man show.

So that brings me to an old discussion. Should Sherman call for or be ordered to cover a receiver that gets going against us like that again?! Especially since the other CB is unknown at the moment and no "disrespect" should be felt there now.

I think we need to utilize Sherman at times like that this year. I truly believe that if we had used Sherm on Edelman during the Superbowl, that game wouldn't have comedown to the dumbest play in the history of NFL!

Nope don't fix what's not broken. Earl was hurt, Kam was hurt, Sherm was hurt, Lane got a broken arm. If they were all healthy it would of been different, if Earl was 100 percent he would of been able to help on the other side but since he wasn't it made it easier for teams to pass on that side.

No. Also, think about how many DB's were hurt that game, and that if they weren't how different the outcome would have been in that game. And that isn't an excuse, just fact.

No, again.

To me it all depends on how effective our other corners are. With Maxwell and Browner, they were good enough where Sherman could stay on his side, where he has become an absolute perfectionist. He is the best LCB in football, but may not be the best RCB in football.

I also like how we see Sherman move inside on 3rd downs against Boldin/Fitz. It worked pretty well most of the time.

If Arizona is going to put Fitz almost exclusively on the other side to avoid Sherman, and Williams can't do anything to slow him down, you have to adjust. However, I like the approach of making teams beat you with it first, just because Sherman is so darn amazing on the left side, and hopefully we targeted Williams because of his good play on the right. Also, the guys practice almost exclusively on that side.

So to answer the OP, I would say no, unless an in-game adjustment dictates otherwise.

The thing I love about Sherman so much is that, teams knew he was hurt or even thought that Sherman was faking it so well that they still didn't want to throw it his way, that's major respect. I agree with Tical the only time to switch him up a bit is when the game really calls for it, but I'm hoping we don't have to as long as our backups can play at least up to par with how Maxwell or Lane had played. But if Earl is roaming the backfield 100% healthy I think we be ok with whoever is playing over there. My main concern is really the pass rush, we need that front 7 to start dominating like the 2013 team. When we did that secondary went to work INT everything.

I believe they have already done this on occasion. Obviously, they didn't feel they needed to in the SB, right or wrong.

I wouldn't do it every game, for sure. But if an opponent tries to take advantage of situations, I'm sure they would go to this as required.

Normally, as in 80% of cases or more, it's not necessary IMHO.

No. I saw him move into positions on the line on the right side. He was semi effective there but that was because they threw to that position where he was not ....the left off play action and he was not there. If he is not in that area, then they will use the lack of a defender as a selling point to go there. That was an exposure we did not need. To reiterate him moving against one player..........................................NO.

TBF ove time the Seahawks have already moved Sherman around a tad more, although he's still -much more so than any other top CB - relegated to one side of the field. He doesn't seem to have a problem with this either.

If Thomas misses time at the beginning of the season I think you'll see Sherman moved around more, but if Thomas is healthy and playing at his usual level, there's simply no reason for it.

The breakdown in the 2nd half in the Super Bowl happened because Brady is one of the best QBs of all time, he never got greedy and stayed underneat living and dying by YAC, and the Hawks couldn't generate a pass rush.

I'm in the minority here, but I say yes, depending on the situation. For example, against Dallas this year he shadowed Dez Bryant for parts of that game because maxwell got hurt.

Against Carolina in the playoffs, Kelvin Benjamin was tearing up Simon. In that situation, Sherman should've been used to shadow Benjamin because the Panthers didn't have another good receiver worth keeping Sherman on. I agree with the op, Sherman should've been shadowing Edelman with the championship on the line. Until they started using lafell to beat us that is

Ok......for those that say he should shadow the number 1 or 2 receiver, who do we place in that position where he is not covering? Do we have a realistic backup that can fill that role? My intentions are honorable. I would think Shead or Simon but not sure. :shock:

^^^^I don't really understand the question.

If Sherman was shadowing he and Williams would be flip-flopping sides of the field based on where the #1 was lining up.

FWIW, even in the Hawks Cover 3 scheme, I think there's benefits to Sherman staying put. Having Sherman on Chancellor's side (even in Cover 3) allows Thomas to shade on his deep 3rd to the non-Sherman side, and Sherman makes up for Kam's limitations in coverage.

I suppose they could flip the whole secondary based on where the #1 was lining up, but IMO Williams with Thomas shading a tad over top isn't really worse than Sherman alone on his island. I don't really see the point to it.

Popeyejones":1u7txkx4 said:

^^^^I don't really understand the question.

If Sherman was shadowing he and Williams would be flip-flopping sides of the field based on where the #1 was lining up.

FWIW, even in the Hawks Cover 3 scheme, I think there's benefits to Sherman staying put. Having Sherman on Chancellor's side (even in Cover 3) allows Thomas to shade on his deep 3rd to the non-Sherman side, and Sherman makes up for Kam's limitations in coverage.

I suppose they could flip the whole secondary based on where the #1 was lining up, but IMO Williams with Thomas shading a tad over top isn't really worse than Sherman alone on his island. I don't really see the point to it.

Click to expand...

Sounds like you understood it well. Just a juxtaposition of players. But if that happens and we lose because of a weakness in the knowledge level of the position according to position training and experience, we may lose a lot more than yardage.

On offense, sometimes your left tackle can not play the right tackle position because of the training and scheme. I think it may be just the same somewhat in defense in the backfield.

Just some thoughts.

Ah, okay, gotcha. Got thrown by the reference to Simon and Shead, but makes sense now. :th2thumbs:

I used to think he should but I think the team is right in taking away the right side of the field which forces the QB to throw to to places he is less comfortable throwing to. You're dictating where the other team is going to go most of the time and can game plan accordingly. Take the GB game early last year(or the playoff game to a lesser extent) You eliminated half the field for them. Pete and Co. are smart and if other teams had a weapon like Sherman where they could do that they would.

There are times because or injury or unique matchup where you can move him around but its not very often.

Injuries really were the key. If Sherman had been healthy when Lane went down, I bet we would have seen more of Sherman moving around. His injury limited some of his ability to use his length and make plays with his right arm, which would have been more necessary if he was following Edelman. Leaving him where he is most comfortable allowed him to make positional plays with his legs to eliminate the right side of the field for Brady. This kept it a game.

Maybe he wasn't quite as effective as a healthy Sherm taking away the #1, but with the injury he was most effective at doing what he does best.

- bsd

Add me to the "No" list.

Turn the question around the other way. If Sherman isn't the best, then why don't they challenge him more?

The other team's best receiver knows where Sherman is. If Sherman really isn't that great, then bring the other team's best receiver over to Sherman.

I don't think opposing QBs, opposing coaches, opposing coordinators, or opposing WR's will often do that - why is that? Because they know Sherman is going to make them pay.

Changing a team's playcall, making them plan for you.. that means you're one of the best, if not the best.

So many sports you do not change positions, you stick to your strategy and impose your will. Considering teams as a whole still have not figured the D out, I would stick to the plan.

Benefit 1: Leaving Sherman on the QBs right side forces the QB to look left the whole game, and creates a blind side rush for Avril & Bennett.

Benefit 2: QBs generally are more comfortable throwing to their strong handed side, When right handed QBs throw left it is more elongated, awkward and takes longer to come out.

Benefit 3: Disguises coverage better. Are they in Cover 3, or Man Free?

Benefit 4: Better anticipation for players in coverage. The ball isn't going to Sherman's side (Least Targeted), thus shrinking and compressing the field, combined with Thomas having the same effect deep makes it lethal. The QB is going left or short middle.

Benefit 5: Generically CBs can master their technique faster playing one side. Think like hitters in baseball batting left versus batting right, or batting switch.

CON: If the corner playing opposite of Sherman is garbage you can get exploited, but then again if you move him they will still go at the garbage corner regardless.

I would move Sherman when playing teams that only have 1 good receiver which isn't many, otherwise I would leave him where he is at.

Fade":1jb6212h said:

Benefit 1: Leaving Sherman on the QBs right side forces the QB to look left the whole game, and creates a blind side rush for Avril & Bennett.

Benefit 2: QBs generally are more comfortable throwing to their strong handed side, When right handed QBs throw left it is more elongated, awkward and takes longer to come out.

Benefit 3: Disguises coverage better. Are they in Cover 3, or Man Free?

Benefit 4: Better anticipation for players in coverage. The ball isn't going to Sherman's side (Least Targeted), thus shrinking and compressing the field, combined with Thomas having the same effect deep makes it lethal. The QB is going left or short middle.

Benefit 5: Generically CBs can master their technique faster playing one side. Think like hitters in baseball batting left versus batting right, or batting switch.

CON: If the corner playing opposite of Sherman is garbage you can get exploited, but then again if you move him they will still go at the garbage corner regardless.

I would move Sherman when playing teams that only have 1 good receiver which isn't many, otherwise I would leave him where he is at.

Click to expand...

All good points.

In sports when you don't have to switch sides like this, you can focus on your technique on one side. In this case, most people who are right handed I'd say would prefer to run down the right side on a route (or from right to left). Most right handed quarterbacks would prefer to throw to this side as well. It just goes with being right handed. The leg you jump off of, the way you extend, for QB's the visability you have. So Sherman is covering that side and focuses on technique for covering that side and works to take away the side most receivers are stronger on and most QBs are stronger on. And when Sherm focuses on his technique for playing that side of the field, the whole defense focuses on their technique of playing in their spot. Makes it a lot more effective for our defense to run how it currently does. Everyone has better familiarity with their spot

In baseball switching from right handed batter to left handed batter is an extreme example of the advantages of working on one side and staying on one side

Now, I'm not saying it wouldn't be fun to see Sherm switch once in awhile, almost like a trick play on special teams, when the opposing offense is so used to Sherm staying on his side - it would throw them for a bit of a loop every now and then and then they have to think about it after that even if Sherm only does it once (same reason why I'd love to see Kam and heck Jimmy Graham try that hurdler's PAT or Field Goal block every once in awhile)

Just saying I'd rather the norm stay as it is

He covers the sweet spot for most right handed quarterbacks.