"Complex Scheme" vs "Simplified Defense"

[Mr. Scot]

Going back earlier in the season, when there was a discussion of why the defense was doing well against some well regarded offensive threats, players pointed to the defensive scheme being "simplified" so that they weren't required to "think as much" and could instead just react.

So, nothing fancy, just let your players play. You'd likely have little trouble finding other pro coaches and coordinators who would agree with that approach.

Here's the flipside.

One of the things about a "simple defense" is that it tends to mean your players don't necessarily have to do much adjustment. They just go to their assigned spot on the field and guard whoever they're supposed to guard.

The downside, of course, is that a smart opposing OC can line his players up in such a way that it allows them to "pick their matchups". And in football, matchups can be everything.

Any of that sound familiar? Say, perhaps, from a game you watched a little over a week ago?

The notion occurs to me that "aggressive" vs "passive" may not play as much into the real problem as "simple" vs "complex"? Could it be that running an oversimplified defense is allowing other teams to pick the best matchup for their offense and exploit it?

It's worth noting that a lot of the success of the Patriot defense has come from their practice of valuing smarter players over more athletically talented players. Of late, their defense has gotten a bit long in the tooth, but the principle itself is worthy of examination.

Could a chunk of the problem being attributed to the Panthers not having players with sufficient brain power to grasp the kind of defense Coach Fox would really prefer to run?

I may have to take some time and "think" on this one.

[magnus]

There's certainly the idea that "aggressive" is just something that people say when things aren't working. We blitz more in the last two years than we have in years (save the AZ game, so bad example, I guess).

They got young, their two signal callers had a total of 16 games experience coming in. They made some changes. I think that's all there is to it.

[rayzor]

so are you saying that fox's midseason tampering worked or didn't? i think i'm to tired to figure that out.

[Mr. Scot]

There's certainly the idea that "aggressive" is just something that people say when things aren't working. We blitz more in the last two years than we have in years (save the AZ game, so bad example, I guess).

They got young, their two signal callers had a total of 16 games experience coming in. They made some changes. I think that's all there is to it.

Philly tried the blitz, and the resultant one on one matchups were tailor-made for Warner and Fitzgerald. They got major mileage out of that.

In our case though, without Boldin on the other side, we could have put two, conceivably even three guys on Fitzgerald (though that's probably pushing it) or at least put Gamble in his hip pocket and pressured - or blitzed - the daylights out of Warner.

Ah, but that would have been complicated, wouldn't it?

I know Gamble is a guy that has a bit of a knock on him for brain power. I'm wondering what the intelligence level is like on some of our other guys.

[Mr. Scot]

so are you saying that fox's midseason tampering worked or didn't? i think i'm to tired to figure that out.

It'd help if I had an idea of whether Fox wanted to make the defense even simpler or perhaps preferred to mix some of the stuff that had been discarded back into the packages.

The eyeball test would suggest the former was what happened, but was that the preferred approach of Fox or Trgovac?

Not enough info to know right now, sadly.

[Ashor]

Like I've always said, exotic blitzes and defenses are the best. The most exotic comes from a 3-4 but since we don't have the luxury of another linebacker on the field, the biggest part of our defense, focal point, should be the defensive line.

[OneBadassCat]

Well if every player on the D could get the complex scheme down pat then we'd be solid. But that doesn't mean we can't blitz to bring pressure when necessary.

[Kevin Greene]

Early = free to attack the play.

Late - play 10 yards off.

[bleys]

That's not to say Trgo's defense wasn't all too simple. We won't know the extent of how simple or complex it was.

Referring back to Beason's comments to Trgo (through some interview this came up), Beason would tell Trgo what he learned in Miami, "Paralysis of Analysis".. Now Beason seems to have it all together (smarts). He came in and picked up the Mike position very quickly and did well that first year. If he comes in saying it's really complex, then I would think Trgo went above and beyond to make sure every angle was covered for a player. In turn, making it very complex...

The comment was referring to Trgo talkin to Beason saying, "watch out for the run, but if it's a pass, look out for this. If it's a run, look out for this."

That's why I would assume his defense was wayyyyy over-analytical.

But does that mean he went to the other extreme and made it too easy?

It worked the first half of the season...

As Mr. Scot pointed out, and makes sense to me, perhaps OC's on other teams picked up on how simple it was. After all, we never put one CB on a WR (Gamble -vs- Fitz all game).. It's like we kept it so simple, we never changed things up as the season went on. Which shows in our Yards allowed.

[rayzor]

It'd help if I had an idea of whether Fox wanted to make the defense even simpler or perhaps preferred to mix some of the stuff that had been discarded back into the packages.

The eyeball test would suggest the former was what happened, but was that the preferred approach of Fox or Trgovac?

Not enough info to know right now, sadly.

I was trying to get blindsite to give his opinion on that earlier but I don't think that he caught on (i was being too subtle, i guess).

one great way to find out whose desire it was to have the old stuff reintroduced is to use process of elimination which would have been simpler if one of them were being eliminated.

[rayzor]

That's not to say Trgo's defense wasn't all too simple. We won't know the extent of how simple or complex it was.

Referring back to Beason's comments to Trgo (through some interview this came up), Beason would tell Trgo what he learned in Miami, "Paralysis of Analysis".. Now Beason seems to have it all together (smarts). He came in and picked up the Mike position very quickly and did well that first year. If he comes in saying it's really complex, then I would think Trgo went above and beyond to make sure every angle was covered for a player. In turn, making it very complex...

The comment was referring to Trgo talkin to Beason saying, "watch out for the run, but if it's a pass, look out for this. If it's a run, look out for this."

That's why I would assume his defense was wayyyyy over-analytical.

But does that mean he went to the other extreme and made it too easy?

It worked the first half of the season...

As Mr. Scot pointed out, and makes sense to me, perhaps OC's on other teams picked up on how simple it was. After all, we never put one CB on a WR (Gamble -vs- Fitz all game).. It's like we kept it so simple, we never changed things up as the season went on. Which shows in our Yards allowed.

but if we were getting killed out there why didn't they try to change things? or at least change them sooner than they did? does it really need to take 160 yards to one receiver in one half for us to decide that we need to do something different?

if we are getting destroyed on yards game after game, why not try something different? It can only get worse if nothing is done. Just like we showed the rest of the league how to beat a monte kiffen run defense, the rest of the league learned how to beat our defense. once you get beat badly the secret is out how to do it and your losing is going to snowball.

the only big changes that i saw us making in that game was giving up the best thing that we had going for us.

[bleys]

but if we were getting killed out there why didn't they try to change things? or at least change them sooner than they did? does it really need to take 160 yards to one receiver in one half for us to decide that we need to do something different?

if we are getting destroyed on yards game after game, why not try something different? It can only get worse if nothing is done. Just like we showed the rest of the league how to beat a monte kiffen run defense, the rest of the league learned how to beat our defense. once you get beat badly the secret is out how to do it and your losing is going to snowball.

the only big changes that i saw us making in that game was giving up the best thing that we had going for us.

That is the question of the century. lol

And you're right... Once a team finds a weakness, other teams will expand on that.

It was reported that the Todd Haley designed a play on the plane ride over where Fitz caught the ball against Lucas and Godfrey (IIRC). It was said Todd Haley noticed a weakness and they never even practiced that play until they called it during the game.

Why didn't we change things up? You're guess is as good as mine......

[Mr. Scot]

In-game adjustments have been a longstanding issue with Fox.

Could part of the problem, though, stem from the possibility that some of our players don't have enough wattage in their noggin to successfully adjust on the fly?

[SCpanther]

There's certainly the idea that "aggressive" is just something that people say when things aren't working. We blitz more in the last two years than we have in years (save the AZ game, so bad example, I guess).

They got young, their two signal callers had a total of 16 games experience coming in. They made some changes. I think that's all there is to it.

True. I hate it when people always complain that the Panthers don't blitz enough. They blitz, just not effectively. I don't know if it's the players, or the blitz schemes themselves but it seemed we could hardly ever execute an effective blitz the last two seasons. One problem I've noticed is that our blitzes always seem to be obvious. Thus, the blockers usually pick up the blitzer(s).