Making the defense simple...

[firstdayfan]

When did this become the company line? Last year with Turgo they preached during the offseason about simplifying the defense and letting guys just react. The defense fell apart late in the season. Now this year with a new coordinator they are saying even MORE simplification of the defense so guys can just run to the ball. I don't freakin get why it is a good thing to have a simple defense. I know a lot about football and I know teams like the Ravens and Steelers don't run a "simple" defense. They change their coverages and bring blitzes from everywhere. Hell even the Giants tried to confuse the QB's last night with a couple of different looks. I know that if the players don't spend as much time thinking about the play rather than reacting that it can be affective but I could have called the defensive plays last night (yes I know, its preseason). I know they throw in a few wrinkles here and there but we really need to change our philosophy on defense, if they want to pressure the QB then freakin bring some pressure. This isn't just about last night but about the idea of making a defense simple that I just don't care for!

[Mother Grabber]

I say we make it super simple, just one word. Tackle!

[CharlotteBeer.com]

We have a very young secondary.

Not only that, but we're playing to certain player's strengths. Harris, for example, is pretty bad in coverage. He excels in laying huge hits and forcing the turnovers.

But I'll agree that we've heard all of this before. I would like to see more disguised blitzes, and we may under Meeks.

[CRA]

We have a very young secondary.

Not only that, but we're playing to certain player's strengths. Harris, for example, is pretty bad in coverage. He excels in laying huge hits and forcing the turnovers.

But I'll agree that we've heard all of this before. I would like to see more disguised blitzes, and we may under Meeks.

So we have a weak DL...and we are suppose to rely on them for front 4 pressure. We also have a secondary who weaknesses are mainly coverage.......I'm not expert but I don't see this working out well. Harris isn't good in coverage. Godfrey was bad last year. Marshall is an unknown. Gamble has good days and bad days.

Fox just needs to grow a pair and implement a defensive scheme that tries to make plays instead of trying to prevent things from occuring and hoping to cash in on opponent errors.

[firstdayfan]

So we have a weak DL...and we are suppose to rely on them for front 4 pressure. We also have a secondary who weaknesses are mainly coverage.......I'm not expert but I don't see this working out well. Harris isn't good in coverage. Godfrey was bad last year. Marshall is an unknown. Gamble has good days and bad days.

Fox just needs to grow a pair and implement a defensive scheme that tries to make plays instead of trying to prevent things from occuring and hoping to cash in on opponent errors.

Exactly! Those type of defenses are best when you don't have weaknesses on your defense. Agreesive schemes help mask weaknesses. If you have a poor secondary you bring pressure to force the QB to make mistakes. If you have a poor DL then you change up coverages in order to confuse the QB and make him hold onto it longer. If you have poor linebackers you blitz them or move them around and put them in the best chance to make a play.

[firstdayfan]

QUOTE=King;2133631]Meeks wouldn't blitz to save a drowning puppy.