Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Defensive Scheme Changes in 2009


joethoma

Recommended Posts

First off, John Fox is a 4-3 Defensive Scheme Guy. Always has been, always will be. He's had a lot of success with it. He's drafted and developed guys for that system.

He helped make Michael Strahan a household name. He helped develop a raw Julius Peppers from a freakish athlete to a great pass rusher when he was motivated.

He put Dan Morgan in a great position to suceed when he was healthy. He's helping Jon Beason become the premier MLB in the league.

He probably has some arrogance in his system because it's worked when he's had the right personnel. His system works very, very good when he's had a defensive line that could pressure the QB. Fox puts a premium on defenisve linemen, but his system requires (and expects) them to excel.

He's probably pissed some guys off for pushing them to acheive their full talents. Those guys are probably the 2 most talented defenisve linemen to play for the Panthers. Kris Jenkins and Julius Peppers come to mind.

I believe him when he said he's never held his players back. Players on the defensive line are suppossed to pressure the QB for the most part. Coaches design stunts, twist, etc. to help free up guys on the defensive line.

Kris Jenkins didn't suceed here b/c he got fat and said Charlotte was too small town for him. He wanted a greener pasture and got it and did pretty well this year. His first half of the year was much better than the second half, though, and I think this was his best year.

Julius Peppers probably has more room for compliant. The Panthers should have in my opinion did more experimentation with moving him around before this year. That being said, though, Michael Strahan had 22.5 sacks in 2001 playing one position under Fox. Peppers has every bit as much ability as Strahan, but only had 14.5 sacks this year. I'm willing to bet heart had a lot to do with those additional 8 sacks.

Regardless, Peppers wants out of Carolina, and has earned the right. It does piss me off to hear him say he wants to be in a system that he can strive in, implying a 3-4 would be better for him. He had and would have had the opportunity to fulfill his potential here.

In short, I don't believe Fox should or will change from a 4-3 scheme. However, he (and Trgovac or whoever the DC is) have to accept that we don't have the personnel necessary to get pressure with only the Front 4 (and really haven't consistently since 2005), and we have to have develop a scheme that accounts for that.

Our back 7 is above average in my opinion, but they have to have the coaching to put them in position to succeed. Not that our coverage doesn't need work, but I believe we have the personnel to do it.

Thomas Davis is a great blitzer, and the other linebackers and defensive backs can learn to blitz effectively and make the coverage adjustments if we develop the right scheme to put them in to be successful.

Their are coordinators out there who can make this work. It is John Fox's responsibility to find someone who make it work, either himself or another coordinator. And I don't think Trgovac is the answer. His units has went backwards the past few years.

I think the expectations should still be high in 2009, even with losing Peppers. The playoffs should still be an expectation. We are going to have a good offense. If we don't have superior talent on defense, we create a scheme and COACH our players to be in position to overcome it as much as possible.

There are coaches out there to do this. John Fox needs to prove this, or I believe it will be time to look elsewhere in 2010.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In short, I don't believe Fox should or will change from a 4-3 scheme. However, he (and Trgovac or whoever the DC is) have to accept that we don't have the personnel necessary to get pressure with only the Front 4 (and really haven't consistently since 2005), and we have to have develop a scheme that accounts for that.

Bingo

Adjustments is the problem with Fox. Ability to change and know when to change. He need to fix that about himself

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Too late to edit above but the quote is from this Diane Russini article in the Athletic: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5941684/2024/11/23/russinis-what-im-hearing-the-day-the-jets-fell-apart-and-the-broncos-rallied-belichick-best-fits/ Okay.. there you have sorry I left that out the first post.  Also waivers keep the contract intact. That is the major difference in released and waived. It's all in that link from the other post.
    • Okay so I am reading something in The Athletic and it says that Jones had to pass through waivers. So I don't know. I looked this stuff up when we were number one there all offseason and I thought it said 4 years in the league got you vested, as they call it.  Vested gets you out of waivers as I understood it. I probably got something wrong, but when I think about the slack quality of journalism these days I wonder about that. So I went and looked, again. Well, well.  For everyone: "When a player has accrued at least four seasons in the NFL, they are considered a vested veteran. When these vested veterans get cut, they are released and their contract is terminated. When a vested veteran is released, they are an unrestricted free agent that can sign with any NFL team, and the team that released them doesn’t need to provide any additional compensation." It runs it all down here, where the quotes came from: https://www.profootballnetwork.com/waived-vs-released-nfl/ As far as Jones, the team turned down his 5th year option so I knew that meant he had 4 years in, because they re-signed him anyway, after turning down the much cheaper extra year.  The Athletic is owned by the New York Times so I shouldn't be surprised. That paper was an institution once upon a time but they let their standards go.
    • Well, we got our answer on Army today.
×
×
  • Create New...