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

[magnus]

Disagree. We were having trouble well before Kemo got hurt. We started to struggle against Detroit and it didn't get better. The scheme was very much the problem. We weren't getting pressure, teams were throwing on us with ease and we didn't use any press coverage. When team overloaded one side of the defense with multiple receivers,for example, we didn't shift our personnel and instead tried to cover 3 receivers with a corner, safety and linebacker while leaving the other corner doing nothing. We didn't adjust to the offensive shifts, Godfrey was frequently caught out of position and teams were able to dictate the secondary matchups by how they ran their plays and who for example lined up in the slot. That was all scheme and a poor one IMHO.

Yes, Lucas did start to break down in the second half. Yes, actually, teams coming to the line fast became a problem and we had more problem substituting. That's not scheme, though. Neither is Godfrey being a rookie.

[top dawg]

Magnus, this is like debating gray or grey, or soda or pop.

A scheme is not just a 4-3 vs a 3-4 (or any other established scheme), it can be a variation of either or a combination of both (or many). Furthermore, some teams may switch back and forth during the proces of the game. Zone, press, blitz, or cover, it's all a matter of scheme. Come on, man, I've said all that I can say. Movement, pressure, disguise, deception, trickery, press, man to man, zone...it's all a part of the scheme. Some teams excel at the schemes put before them, and some don't. It all has to do with coaching decisions and defensive philosophies, not to necessarily be changed because of changes in personnel. Of course defensive schemes do not have to be static either, unless they are proven to consistently work over time. Even then, it is good to have dynamic and ever evolving schemes in your back pocket when the opposition seems to get wise to what you are doing, and/or your personnel is not producing the desired result.

[panthers55]

Yes, Lucas did start to break down in the second half. Yes, actually, teams coming to the line fast became a problem and we had more problem substituting. That's not scheme, though. Neither is Godfrey being a rookie.

When the opposition runs the hurry up offense (which they have done all year) and we look like we have no idea how to adjust or what to do, what do you call it if not scheme.

If Godfrey is a rookie and we don't protect him somewhat and leave him one on one with a receiver deep I call that a poor scheme. What do you call it?

Sure you could call it poor execution, poor preparation or a number of other things but the bottom line teams with good coaches prepare, adjust, scheme and execute. They really are connected and something the Panthers haven't done well in years.

[magnus]

When the opposition runs the hurry up offense (which they have done all year) and we look like we have no idea how to adjust or what to do, what do you call it if not scheme.

awareness, surprise, and sure, I'll put some on the coaches for preparation.

You do realize that scheme isn't just a word you use when you're unhappy with something on the field, of course.

sure you could call it poor execution, poor preparation or a number of other things but the bottom line teams with good coaches prepare, adjust, scheme and execute. They really are connected and something the Panthers haven't done well in years.

Yeah, some of it late was execution. Some of it seemed to be a lack of confidence from some players to others - LBs overpursuing because they expected players in front of them to not get there. It happened a lot in 04, too. There's no "hey, you idiots need to keep gap integrity" scheme. There's no "Lucas, stop sucking" scheme. There's plenty to fix on this defense, but cover 3 and one-gap fronts aren't the problem. Playing man every down and sending 8 to the QB isn't going to change those problems.

[magnus]

Magnus, this is like debating gray or grey, or soda or pop.

A scheme is not just a 4-3 vs a 3-4 (or any other established scheme), it can be a variation of either or a combination of both (or many). Furthermore, some teams may switch back and forth during the proces of the game. Zone, press, blitz, or cover, it's all a matter of scheme. Come on, man, I've said all that I can say. Movement, pressure, disguise, deception, trickery, press, man to man, zone...it's all a part of the scheme. Some teams excel at the schemes put before them, and some don't. It all has to do with coaching decisions and defensive philosophies, not to necessarily be changed because of changes in personnel. Of course defensive schemes do not have to be static either, unless they are proven to consistently work over time. Even then, it is good to have dynamic and ever evolving schemes in your back pocket when the opposition seems to get wise to what you are doing, and/or your personnel is not producing the desired result.

I'm aware that you can call various fronts and coverages (I don't know why that was a question, honestly). Playcalling can be considered part of "scheme", I guess, but that's not what you're arguing. You're suggesting that emulating the Steelers instead of trying to be ourselves is what we need to be doing. Maybe there's a 3-4 thread out there that better sums this up.

[top dawg]

You're suggesting that emulating the Steelers instead of trying to be ourselves is what we need to be doing. Maybe there's a 3-4 thread out there that better sums this up.

Not especially, but what the Steelers are doing deserves to be scrutinized. Whether it's 3-4, 4-3, Nickel, Dime, Fox Fire 55 , or whatever is really immaterial. What I am arguing is that we need more movement, disguise and deception to get the maximum pressure on the QB while simultaneously having sufficient coverage down field. In short, some imagination and innovation may be in order, If I can sit on the couch and see that the opposition has little to fear, then something is wrong. If I can see a flinch for what it is, or a blitz for what it is, or know that the Panthers will never send Beason on a blitz, or Godfrey on a blitz with any regularity from my infinitesimal knowledge of defensive schemes, then an average Joe OC from the opposition will look like Albert Einstein against our Carolina Panthers.

Movement and deception work as can be seen by others' success, especially the success of the Steelers.

[panthers55]

awareness, surprise, and sure, I'll put some on the coaches for preparation.

You do realize that scheme isn't just a word you use when you're unhappy with something on the field, of course.

Scheme is what you employ in order to maximize your strengths ans minimize your weaknesses. Take advantage of your opponent by taking away their strengths and maximizing their weaknesses. Of course I realize what a scheme is and isn't. Apparently a lot more than you do.

Obviously execution and preparation are all important components but modifying your bases looks and coverages to adjust to what your opponent is doing or wants to do is scheming. Any one who has coached at any level knows thats.

Yeah, some of it late was execution. Some of it seemed to be a lack of confidence from some players to others - LBs overpursuing because they expected players in front of them to not get there. It happened a lot in 04, too. There's no "hey, you idiots need to keep gap integrity" scheme. There's no "Lucas, stop sucking" scheme. There's plenty to fix on this defense, but cover 3 and one-gap fronts aren't the problem. Playing man every down and sending 8 to the QB isn't going to change those problems.

Obviously you don't have much understanding of how to adjust your scheme or coverages to make up for weaknesses in your defense or to compensate for issues or you won't pass the above crap off as legitimate points or issues. And if you think that schemes are only about coverage or gap assignments then we are obviously on very different levels and no further conversation is needed. If and when you actually want to talk football or scheme rather than make simplistic statements let me know.

[magnus]

Obviously you don't have much understanding of how to adjust your scheme or coverages to make up for weaknesses in your defense or to compensate for issues or you won't pass the above crap off as legitimate points or issues. And if you think that schemes are only about coverage or gap assignments then we are obviously on very different levels and no further conversation is needed. If and when you actually want to talk football or scheme rather than make simplistic statements let me know.

Tell me all about how blitzing more from a cover 3 shell is supposed to make up for weaknesses at corner when you're already shielding a rookie safety, then, if you're tired of "simplistic statements". Since you suggest you know something I don't, bring that instead of just rank condescension and crying because we don't do something you expect us to.

[magnus]

What I am arguing is that we need more movement, disguise and deception

we disguise coverage all day. Deception could use some work, but it's never been what this defense has been about up front. And that's worked more than fine.

I don't think it's coincidental that over time, Trgovac blitzed more, y'all called for more than that, and we continued to get worse.

Playing zone is what this league does. Complaining about a little cushion or that we're in zone is something you'll be doing with 31 other teams when you watch them as well.

[top dawg]

we disguise coverage all day. Deception could use some work, but it's never been what this defense has been about up front. And that's worked more than fine.

I don't think it's coincidental that over time, Trgovac blitzed more, y'all called for more than that, and we continued to get worse.

Playing zone is what this league does. Complaining about a little cushion or that we're in zone is something you'll be doing with 31 other teams when you watch them as well.

Nah. We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I have watched other defenses, particularly those that I mentioned, and just like the opposing opposition, I am confused and surprised by what's coming and what's dropping into coverage. A zone can be effective if you have the players, particularly in the backfield, to pull it off, but it can also sink ships as well (especially with a semblance of pressure, and not the real thing). You have to have very smart and aware safeties and linebackers as well, to be aware of the passes underneath the coverage to mitigate big plays within, or emanating from, the second level on a consistent basis. The best defenses are a reflection of great coaching, as they know when and how to play a zone, etc. and when not to. The ability to adapt to game time situations is what's key. And, that's what I don't see enough in the Panthers' schemes (or whatever you want to call them).

[Fireball77]

From what I recall, weren't some things simplified on defense this year to allow the players to react more than to think and weren't those changes lauded by some of the players? I would call that adapting on the part of the staff.

And yeah, sucking at gap control is simply guys trying to do other guys' jobs usually because they don't believe those other guys WILL do their jobs, not scheme. It's what the Colts problem was in 2006 that they finally got fixed for the playoffs.

[Kurb]

If we are high than 12th I will be stunned.

[panthers55]

Tell me all about how blitzing more from a cover 3 shell is supposed to make up for weaknesses at corner when you're already shielding a rookie safety, then, if you're tired of "simplistic statements". Since you suggest you know something I don't, bring that instead of just rank condescension and crying because we don't do something you expect us to.

Taking your example for instance you have to look at your cover 3 shell to begin with. Given your personnel is this even the best scheme to employ? If you have a defensive predispostion to use cover 2 or cover 3 then you are essentially committing to fit your personnel into a system rather than employ the best system to fit your personnel. For example Gamble in my opinion is better as a man corner playing bump and run coverage. He is able to handle individual matchups and doesn't need a lot of help over the top. Lucas was a good man corner but seems to have lost a step and isn't as physical as he used to be. So rolling the coverage over to his side might be prudent. This doesn't take into account whether or not there are more receivers lined up on one side or the other, slot coverage etc.

But maybe a cover 3 for example didn't fit our personnel this year, and I think it didn't. Several of the wide open passes for example to Lucas's side were blown coverages often by Godfrey that Lucas realized was a problem and tried to make up for by essentially trying to cover two folks. So the premise that we should blitz more to make up for supposed deficits would be faulty logic in and of itself. Blitzing when the coverage is poor just exposed you more rather than less particularly when you bring a corner or safety rather than a linebacker at least half of the time. Add the fact that most of the time when we blitz we take poor angles and just as often as not we overrun the quarterback and fail to get pressure.

And I could go and on and a number of things. But clearly the scheme was faulty and executiion and preparation were poor. It all added up to a terrible defense in the second half as people had increased film on us and exposed our weaknesses.

[Fiz]

Your taking what I said way out of context and making it look like the Steelers had a ton of pro bowlers and didn't send anymore then us.

oh no, not the dreaded pro bowl argument!