"Complex Scheme" vs "Simplified Defense"

[Mr. Scot]

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).

As a general rule, I'd much rather get pressure with four than blitz. But if you never blitz, that's not good either.

Moot point, of course, if you can't get pressure with just four.

[Snake]

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.

Its not as simple as that. You forget they had another 1,000 yard WR in Brestens. He would have def been a factor if we loaded up on Fitz and blitzed.

[rayzor]

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......

THIS needs to be bulletin board material for every coaches meeting.

[Snake]

As a general rule, I'd much rather get pressure with four than blitz. But if you never blitz, that's not good either.

Moot point, of course, if you can't get pressure with just four.

Funny as it is Good fundamentals do come into play when you rush 4 or blitz. If your guys can confuse there guys then thats a win for you. Not showing your hand is good fundamentals and we did that all season long and lots of times our guys were confused not confusing the offense.

[rayzor]

i'm confused.

[BlindSite]

After the bye week we went into oakland and played great defense. After that it was detroit and it was pretty so-so, but the offense really dominated.

Then we game to the greenbay game and Atlanta and things fell apart. Something happened during the bye week where there was some kind of alteration. While I don't think that necessarily it's a scheme issue, if its anything it was adjusted to become more complex, rather than less reactive.

Our pass rush and defensive line play dropped right off and I believe that if we get a bit of help at DT and find some form of serviceable pass rushing defensive end, we'll see an overall improvement, or atleast a continuation of the form we saw at the beginning of the year.

[Cyberjag]

If you're interested in now a good defense works, read up on Dick Lebeau's scheme in Pittsburgh. They use a series of floating triangles in the secondary to make sure that wherever the ball it's surrounded by three defenders. In theory it's really simple, but when you're on the field it takes a lot of practice to know exactly where you're supposed to be, especially when your team is lining up for blitzes from different places all the time.

You want a complex defense. If your defense is complex, then you can start out in constant vanilla looking sets and not tip your hand to the opposing quarterback until mid-play. But a complex defense depends on good play in the secondary, and as has been pointed out we're really young back there. Beason will be in his third year, Harris in his third, and Godfrey in his second. The Cornerbacks are on islands, and Gamble is as dumb as a box of rocks anyway.

When you hear about defensive problems, you don't often hear about poor scheming from the coaches or players. This past playoff game was an exception, and Fox admitted that they were trying the same old schemes against Fitzgerald because they had worked before. But you do hear about poor execution by the players. I've read that comment from Beason and Lucas before, and from the coaches several times. There could be a lot to that. Granted, part of it is making your plays simple enough to be executed by the players you have, but at some point they have to go make the plays themselves.

We could be much better next year, through nothing more than a better understanding of the system.

[Zod]

I'd like to point out that the Tampa 2, the most dominant defensive scheme in decades, was as simple as they come.

To be effective, however, it hinged on a front 4 with a non stop motor, swarming to the ball, and near perfect fundamentals.

I am not going to worry much about the Panthers scheme until they can muster those three basic things.

[pantherj]

There is no point in playing cover-2 without a front 4 that can consistantly pressure the QB. Without pressure, the opposing WRs just run to the soft spots in our zone.

[rayzor]

with peppers leaving we will be losing a great pass rusher, but not a consistent one. there was no chance that they were going to bench him if he didn't get consistent and there was no chance that he would become consistent.

i guess we have a chance now at getting someone with that nonstop motor. who knows, maybe they could be on the team right now or available. i don't know. i do know that we now have a chance to get someone who will apply constant pressure now so i am grateful for that.

would i be right to say that if we got these two things that we will see an improvement overall on defense from previous years?

1- a giant DT to play beside Kemo that would had that non-stop motor

2- a DE who isn't necessarily more talented than peppers but more consistent

[Murph]

Could be a simple answer to this. As teams watched more and more tape to prepare for our D, it became easier to figure out how to beat it.

[rayzor]

If you're interested in now a good defense works, read up on Dick Lebeau's scheme in Pittsburgh. They use a series of floating triangles in the secondary to make sure that wherever the ball it's surrounded by three defenders. In theory it's really simple, but when you're on the field it takes a lot of practice to know exactly where you're supposed to be, especially when your team is lining up for blitzes from different places all the time.

You want a complex defense. If your defense is complex, then you can start out in constant vanilla looking sets and not tip your hand to the opposing quarterback until mid-play. But a complex defense depends on good play in the secondary, and as has been pointed out we're really young back there. Beason will be in his third year, Harris in his third, and Godfrey in his second. The Cornerbacks are on islands, and Gamble is as dumb as a box of rocks anyway.

When you hear about defensive problems, you don't often hear about poor scheming from the coaches or players. This past playoff game was an exception, and Fox admitted that they were trying the same old schemes against Fitzgerald because they had worked before. But you do hear about poor execution by the players. I've read that comment from Beason and Lucas before, and from the coaches several times. There could be a lot to that. Granted, part of it is making your plays simple enough to be executed by the players you have, but at some point they have to go make the plays themselves.

We could be much better next year, through nothing more than a better understanding of the system.

i can agree about wanting to have a complex system but if our players can't handle it, is it the right thing for them?

if gamble is indeed dumb, he would constantly be the weak link, even though he may be the best corner we have.

would it not make more sense to design a scheme fitting the strength of our players rather than create a great complex scheme and hoe that our players eventually get it? another option could be to get rid of players who can't figure it out and bring ones in who can.

i guess familiarity with the scheme would come with another year under their belts and that familiarity could bring improvement. for the most part we have a really intelligent group of guys in that back 7. godfrey may end up being the smartest of the secondary bunch.

i was thinking about that pitt defense with the floating triangles. who would they have involved other than the back 4?

[Mr. Scot]

The things I'm hearing in these debates are leading me to believe the answer to the "do we need a star replacement for Peppers" question might be yes.