Is it realistic to expect the defense to improve even a little this year?

[SorthNarolina]

Depending on how much talent/experience we bring to the defensive line will determine my expectations.

I think meeks can do very well here, we just need to give him a good D-line. We can't ignore it like last year and expect to do so well.

[magnus]

Making it to the Playoffs has nothing to do with me thinking we will not improve defensively. It's as simple as that. If we don't change the scheme we will have the same defense. How hard is that to understand? If you think the scheme works wonders, more power to ya.

yes, if we don't change the scheme we won't have a scheme change. Killer observation here.

Again, the scheme isn't holding us back. Bringing 11 to the quarterback won't change whether we're playing sound defense under our new coordinator.

[top dawg]

yes, if we don't change the scheme we won't have a scheme change. Killer observation here.

Again, the scheme isn't holding us back. Bringing 11 to the quarterback won't change whether we're playing sound defense under our new coordinator.

All I know is that if all things are equal, then you get the same result.

So, something is going to have to change for the D' to improve.

[magnus]

All I know is that if all things are equal, then you get the same result.

So, something is going to have to change for the D' to improve.

Of course, new coaches, new draft picks, and I'm certain a few free agents won't be "same", but allright. That's not logical.

Nor is "demanding" that the team go away from a scheme they're suited for, so they can be like ________________ (insert convoluted team name that we must copy, or else). I guess this is what we have to resort to, given that the 3-4 threads get ridiculed so easily, so instead just be pissy about "scheme" and drop the Steeler name.

[top dawg]

Of course, new coaches, new draft picks, and I'm certain a few free agents won't be "same", but allright. That's not logical.

Nor is "demanding" that the team go away from a scheme they're suited for, so they can be like ________________ (insert convoluted team name that we must copy, or else). I guess this is what we have to resort to, given that the 3-4 threads get ridiculed so easily, so instead just be pissy about "scheme" and drop the Steeler name.

Technically, you're right. That's why I said "if all things are equal...." Arguing about semantics or splitting hairs is useless. In reality you can run the same schemes with the same types of coaches and personnel and get a very similar result---particularly if the personnel is basically the same that you had before, and the coaches are teaching the same techniques and philosophies that they have in the past.

Since you mention the Steelers, think of Dick LeBeau. He is by all accounts a defensive mastermind. He is the creator of the zone blitz, and what makes his defenses so great are the schemes---particularly because you don't know who is coming from where...when...and who is dropping into coverage...when. Lebeau has a successful system. He has a philosophy that works year after year. The results are not the "same", per se, but they are very similar, and make for a successful defense. Disguises and deception is the hallmark of his schemes, and Jim Johnson of the Eagles and Rex Ryan of the Ravens have that same mentality.

Now, if your argument is that the Panthers have consistent successful schematics and/or philosophies on defense, then fine for you. That's debatable and comes down to a person's standards. In my opinion, especially after looking at the stats, observation, and anecdotal evidence is that perhaps we should change our scheme(s), by developing a formula/system that consistently gets the results that we want, and last year's mid-season Jekyll and Hyde type of defense is not going to get us to where we want to be.

I will leave you with a site to peruse defensive rankings that may give you some insight into what I am saying. Look at the consistency of the Steelers defense over the Lebeau years (and really over the long haul). Pretty impressive.

[Fiz]

lol of course not

[Snake]

If I have learned anything about the NFL its you dont have to have superstars to win. The Steelers are a great example of that. There Defense dose not have a whole lot of big names on it but they make plays and have a solid Defense. Alot of that comes from coaching. Im not gonna crown Meeks and our new coaches before I see what they can do but im not gonna shoot them down ether.

[Fiz]

If I have learned anything about the NFL its you dont have to have superstars to win. The Steelers are a great example of that.

one of the best safeties in the league, two very good corners, one of the best NT in the league, one of the best 3-4 DE in the league, dmvp, two ILB that almost anyone would be able to name.

[guyinchesapeake]

"Is it realistic to expect the defense to improve even a little this year?"

In response to that question, I reply "Yes". We went 12-4 with a defense that seemed to get worse with each week in the second half of the season. We were lucky to have a relatively weak schedule, and a running attack that came to the fore in a big way. We were giving up 30 plus points and 300 plus yards even in victories! I think our offense will be OK, I like to think that our defense can do nothing BUT get better! Hopefully Meeks will instill the fire that seemed to be lacking under Trgo.

[Snake]

one of the best safeties in the league, two very good corners, one of the best NT in the league, one of the best 3-4 DE in the league, dmvp, two ILB that almost anyone would be able to name.

Come on there CBs are not well known..... Good yes but not well known and there DEs while good are not great. They have good players but great one they do not have except for Palamalu.

[Fiz]

Come on there CBs are not well known..... Good yes but not well known and there DEs while good are not great. They have good players but great one they do not have except for Palamalu.

reggie bush is a super star. terrell owens is a super star. bret favre is a super star.

i don't really care how well known they are. "well known" is completely an extension of a lot of things, with actual skill being one small part. Ken Hamlin is more known than Chris Harris because he plays in Dallas. Last year Urlacher was better known than Beason because Jon was a rookie.

Many of Pittsburgh's defensive players are at or near the top of their positions in terms of skill and output.

also aaron smith is one of the best 3-4 DEs in the game what are you talking about?

[magnus]

Technically, you're right. That's why I said "if all things are equal...." Arguing about semantics or splitting hairs is useless. In reality you can run the same schemes with the same types of coaches and personnel and get a very similar result---particularly if the personnel is basically the same that you had before, and the coaches are teaching the same techniques and philosophies that they have in the past.

Things are never equal one year to another. Guys get better, worse, older. Different opponents. Any one game can go a number of ways if you held most things constant (which you can't). So, sure, if you hold everything constant and never improve, sure, things will tend toward looking worse. I don't see how that's anything but semantic.

Since you mention the Steelers, think of Dick LeBeau. He is by all accounts a defensive mastermind. He is the creator of the zone blitz, and what makes his defenses so great are the schemes---particularly because you don't know who is coming from where...when...and who is dropping into coverage...when. Lebeau has a successful system. He has a philosophy that works year after year. The results are not the "same", per se, but they are very similar, and make for a successful defense. Disguises and deception is the hallmark of his schemes, and Jim Johnson of the Eagles and Rex Ryan of the Ravens have that same mentality.

3-4, 46, two-gap 4-3, Tampa 2, it doesn't matter. If you execute it right, it works. If you have talent, it will show. Don't forget, Mike Tomlin's a Tampa 2 coach. He's helping make that 3-4 work. Don't mistake a little flashy scheme and hype and forget that they're playing good defense first, and worrying about being flashy with their blitzes much later.

Now, if your argument is that the Panthers have consistent successful schematics and/or philosophies on defense, then fine for you.

Yes. The defense has been fairly consistently good over the last seven years. Failure in 2004 came from injury; failure in late 2008 came from both injury and personnel. It wasn't that suddenly, after seven years, teams "figured out" our zone ideals or that suddenly the cover 3 disguise defense is a fad that's been worn out.

Scheme isn't what "failed" us.

[bleys]

How many playoff games have we won since we switched OC's?

Have many QBs have started since we have had a new OC?

I think that's a much more appropriate question than the one you asked....

Are you seriously trying to compare the 5 years Henning was here to the 2 years, currently, Davidson has been here? Seriously? lmfao... okay then.

[Fox007]

I think it is realistic to expect our defense to not suck ass.

We supposedly have a defensive minded team with a run the ball attitude, and a defensive head coach.

The realistic thing is to expect that team to not be terrible on defense.

If you equate that with stats, rankings, or whatever I don't know.

But what happened after the bye and in the playoffs should not be tolerated by anyone associated with the Panthers.