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

[panthers55]

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.

What I didn't see was playing continuing to laud the changes or whether they were effective or not. There seemed to be a distinct shift between the first and second half of the season. It almost seemed that in the first half we played with more aggression and speed. In the second half we were more reactive and passive. We had several opponents use the hurry up on us and we seemed totally out of position and confused. We rarely if ever knocked balls aways from receivers, were unable to stop teams on critical third and fourth downs like we did for example against Chicago, and allowed more than a few big plays.

I wonder if we became more complicated during the break when we installed a number of elements as usual.

As for gap control not being a scheme, I agree. But for example in the Giants game we are getting rolled by them in the ground game and both Kemo and Lewis are out. We just put in a rookie and a practice squad player expecting them to do the job. If this were another team I suspect they may have done something very different like bring in five linemen, bring in the safety and put the corners in man coverage and dare Manning to beat us in the air at this point. Instead we continue a weak zone shell with a four man fron which is weak up the gut and get rolled over the middle. And that is now adjusting the scheme to prevent getting burned repeatedly. Something Trgo didn't do.

Similar to refusing to change the sides of the field that Gamble and Lucas played on regardless of who we played. It allowed Arizona for example to get favorable match-ups by moving receivers like Fitzgerald in the slot to routinely abuse Marshall.

Those are not purely execution issues but scheme issues as well where the match-up favors the opposition and we need to adjust the scheme to compensate.

[Fireball77]

What I didn't see was playing continuing to laud the changes or whether they were effective or not. There seemed to be a distinct shift between the first and second half of the season. It almost seemed that in the first half we played with more aggression and speed. In the second half we were more reactive and passive. We had several opponents use the hurry up on us and we seemed totally out of position and confused. We rarely if ever knocked balls aways from receivers, were unable to stop teams on critical third and fourth downs like we did for example against Chicago, and allowed more than a few big plays.

That is very true. What we heard from the players when it went downhill was mostly WE NEED TO STEP IT UP AND GET IT CORRECTED.

How much of the slide was due to being unable to correct things as far as playing their responsibilities and teams simply being able to attack the weaknesses they saw after viewing 8 weeks of film and/or not being able to react to that with counter moves/adjustments, I am not sure.

With the NYG game, wasn't the big issue said to be the lack of ability to stop the nickel runs (at the end of the game)? In other words since they were playing more of a pass coverage by subbing a DB in for a LB, the NYG were reacting with those shotgun runs to attack the weakness of playing more towards the pass on D? Beason pretty much said they allowed those yards rather than the NYG earning them. That could be a combo of poor gap control and not a good adjustment.

[panthers55]

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.

You are wrong. Our defense hadn't worked for us since 2006. Our defense was predicated on an overpowering front four that would physically dominate the opppsition and create pressure in and of itself.

When that didn't work because we lost players like Buckner, then Rucker, Jenkins and now Peppers we had no scheme to fall back on. Instead of changing the fundamental assignments for example to use more stunts, overloads, and more misdirection we simply would line up in a blitz package and just bring it straight forward. Again we assumed we could just overpower them with it.

The problem is that we don't have dominant personnel anymore. How do you get the most out of who you have? Employ a scheme which allows your average guys to have an advantage. How? Misdirection, disguised looks, stunts, overloads, etc.

I am sure that the primary reason that Trgo blitzed more was because the fans called for it. How ignorant is that. He saw what anyone could see. We weren't getting pressure. What Trgo still failed to do, which is why his blitzing didn't work, was to disguise the blitz so God and everyone didn't easily see where it was coming from. Any team can pick up the blitz when they know where it is coming from. Trgo's blitzes were just like his line calls, unimaginative, vanilla and ultimately unsuccessful.

As for zone versus man, good teams mix things up and do both. I have no problem with a cover 2 if we play like Tampa does. They are aggressive and use it to pressure the offense. We use ours much like a prevent defense and we seem to have as much success as most prevent defenses. They prevent you from stopping the other team.

[panthers55]

That is very true. What we heard from the players when it went downhill was mostly WE NEED TO STEP IT UP AND GET IT CORRECTED.

How much of the slide was due to being unable to correct things as far as playing their responsibilities and teams simply being able to attack the weaknesses they saw after viewing 8 weeks of film and/or not being able to react to that with counter moves/adjustments, I am not sure.

With the NYG game, wasn't the big issue said to be the lack of ability to stop the nickel runs (at the end of the game)? In other words since they were playing more of a pass coverage by subbing a DB in for a LB, the NYG were reacting with those shotgun runs to attack the weakness of playing more towards the pass on D? Beason pretty much said they allowed those yards rather than the NYG earning them. That could be a combo of poor gap control and not a good adjustment.

You are right that in watching film after the fact the players saw that they had poor run fits and were out of position. But during the game in the middle of the battle you have to adjust the scheme, if you can, to immediately shore up the defense. And that would be to put more guys on the line shift out of pass coverage and try to once again dictate what the offense is doing rather than reacting. It wasn't as if they had one or 2 runs against us, they pounded the ball continuously in the four quarter and overtime.

Ultimately every successful play on offense shows an execution lapse on the part of someone on the defense. The issue is not what should we do after the fact when it is generally irrelevant and unlikely to impact you unless you play them again later in the year, but what to do in the middle of the fray to shore things up. And that is where I think that Trgo, Fox whatever do a poor job in adjusting on the run.

[magnus]

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?

yes. We had great c2 personnel early in the Fox tenure, and so we rode that for two years. Then we got good corners and our safety play was crap.

With Harris' play style, C3 is best. With two big, lanky corners who can play man technique on deep drops, or that can play the drop corner and sit in the more shallow end under a sideline safety, it's the best way to go. It also gives us the option of playing a c1 type c3 shell with Harris underneath (which is our most typical blitz style pickup, in that it shows blitz and man, which is logical, and doesn't give it, which leaves doubt in the passer's mind).

Granted, every bit of this is simplistic; it's giving a broad thought on something that changes every play.

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.

No, not really. It's really not that tough to switch from one to the other. You don't have to have rigid Tampa 2 personnel to play a cover two.

For example Gamble in my opinion is better as a man corner playing bump and run coverage.

He's good in matchups but he's a zone guy. Playing man-technique C3 is more sound than having him in cover 2/man and then losing his ability to a short zone.

If you need to go to matchup, he's your guy. Of course, AZ is a bad example of literally anything, but sure, that's a place we should've adjusted our playcall and our matchup (but not the scheme). Ironically, in the earlier AZ game, what we did worked just fine. In the one before that, 05 (the Luke McCown game), we had problems beating the Boldin/Fitzgerald pair until we moved our matchups (in favor of Lucas, not Gamble).

Fitzgerald was beating us with a deep cross (notice, not a shallow) that essentially just has him work inside formation under the WLB and over the MLB that allows him to just keep working toward the sidelines until he finds a nice spot. Old Rams play. The only thing that stops it is straight man, and he beat us with that too. Plus, don't get confused that if we'd simply run zone backside and man on Fitzgerald like we did, that we just succeed all game. The man adjustment was a desperation move. You don't go to that in a tie game.

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.

This is what I've been trying to say. You blitz, you don't blitz, you still have to play sound defense. We weren't doing that. The scheme wasn't failing.

And I could go and on and a number of things. But clearly the scheme was faulty and executiion and preparation were poor.

That's the thing. After telling me that you knew scheme and I didn't, you haven't bothered to go into c3 at all and you never said "this is how you fix it." But you're agreeing that execution wasn't good and that we obviously weren't prepared against AZ. Whether we were prepared in games prior to that or not, we weren't executing at all.

[magnus]

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.

Being confused by the pre-snap and showing confusion after the snap are two different things. No, we don't show a ton of looks pre-snap. That's not a flaw. Not doing exactly what the Steelers do, isn't a flaw either.

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 can adapt a zone to most things, but if you're expecting exotic blitzing, you're expecting man. So now you need to be exceptional at literally everything. That's not a lot to ask, right? Especially when you're not stopping the run well or staying in your gap.

[panthers55]

yes. We had great c2 personnel early in the Fox tenure, and so we rode that for two years. Then we got good corners and our safety play was crap.

With Harris' play style, C3 is best. With two big, lanky corners who can play man technique on deep drops, or that can play the drop corner and sit in the more shallow end under a sideline safety, it's the best way to go. It also gives us the option of playing a c1 type c3 shell with Harris underneath (which is our most typical blitz style pickup, in that it shows blitz and man, which is logical, and doesn't give it, which leaves doubt in the passer's mind).

Granted, every bit of this is simplistic; it's giving a broad thought on something that changes every play.

Are you thinking we should play zone because Harris is not good in coverage and not very fast either. I could agree with that.

As for Gamble and Lucas I would not call them big Lanky corners. Gamble is 6-1 and Lucas is 6-0. Not bad but not tall enough to cover a lot of big physical receivers these days who are 6-3 or 6-4 with good leaping ability.

As for cover 3 being best I don't necessarily agree it is a great shell. Either we are putting both safeties deep (when neither of them can actually cover deep) and dropping a linebacker or corner, or as the Panthers do, we are dropping our corners putting Godfrey deep and bringing Harris inside. Problem is that you are covering your underneath zones with linebackers or if you blitz one, a defensive linemen or harris if he slides out. You are essentially giving the other team short timed passes especially to the outside and it is very easy to diagnose and exploit by opposing quarterbacks. Since the first step of the corner is back and they typically play at least 5 yards or more behind the line, they rarely blitz and it makes it much easier to see what the defense is doing. This cover is the worst to blitz from not the best as it puts your edge guys away from the line of scrimmage and those that remain are easy to pick up. You have eight in the box but all easily within the line of the sight of the quarterback. Your blitz rarely comes off the edges and is largely up the middle which is easier to pick up. Quarterbacks can easily see who is coming and will just dump the ball into the vacated zone with ease. The only guy without an assigned zone is the strong safety who will be pointed out on every play. It is fairly good against the run as it puts 8 guys in the box. But is is terrible against ball control short passing offenses.

Cover 2 is a good compromise but it does require good safeties who can cover in pass protection and bring the wood. Godfrey could do it but Harris is not great in coverage although he makes up for some of it by being a big hitter. We typically wouldn't play Beason back in a Tampa 2 preferring to keep him closer to the line of scrimmage to protect against the run. But it does allow for the corners to play man or zone although it is a bend don't break philosophy I really don't like. It is not as good against the run putting only seven guys in the box but is susceptible to the dreaded tight end over the middle. It also isn't great against a blitz and requires you get a lot of pressure with your front 4 which won't likely be us in 2009.

I prefer a cover 1 with man underneath. It puts Godfrey on top who admittedly still has trouble recognizing some defenses but with a year of experience should improve a lot. Plus it allows more pressure on the receivers and is a more aggressive coverage. There are weaknesses though which are that Godfrey has a lot of ground to cover and has to make quick reads which he may not do well yet and if a corner gets beat by a more talented receiver it will be a long completion.

But as Philly runs it (who I think has the best 4-3 scheme in the game) you can blitz more readily out of this formation as up to 8 guys are within a few yards of the line of scrimmage. It allows more aggressive blitzing, more misdirection and better coverage of short and intermediate passes. If pressure gets to the quarterback it is very effective. Plus it is a good run defense as more guys are at the line of scrimmage. Yes you get burned occassionally but you also get more turnovers and pick sixes. With a defense that averaged over 26 points a game I think we could afford to be a little more aggressive. Bottom line is in the second half of the year we gave up over 30 points using a defense that is supposedly good against the pass and run. Didn't work worth a damn from what I saw.

And yes I think that Lucas and Gamble could run this scheme. Godfrey would be the weak link but as a corner in college should have good skills as well. Marshall is a wide card as he often looked lost in man and zone coverage. Of all the DBs he was the most disappointing this year.

He's good in matchups but he's a zone guy. Playing man-technique C3 is more sound than having him in cover 2/man and then losing his ability to a short zone.

Why would it be more sound to put him in man coverage 10 yards down the field than it would off the line of scrimmage. He is very vulnerable to a quick slant, smoke route or quick drag across the middle. If the OLB goes inside to cover it leaves a back all alone in the flat.

In a cover 2 man you can just as easily keep him on the receiver occasionally instead of handing him off to the safety and have him continue to cover deep with the safety as a double and move the OLB into the vacated zone by the corner. Essentailly playing a modified cover 2 when he lines up with their best receiver. You could still use the LBs covering thirds underneath in a zone.

But if it is me, I would play man anyway. But then I am a Jim Johnson kind of guy.

If you need to go to matchup, he's your guy. Of course, AZ is a bad example of literally anything, but sure, that's a place we should've adjusted our playcall and our matchup (but not the scheme). Ironically, in the earlier AZ game, what we did worked just fine. In the one before that, 05 (the Luke McCown game), we had problems beating the Boldin/Fitzgerald pair until we moved our matchups (in favor of Lucas, not Gamble).

We didn't do better the first time against Arizona. They beat us like a drum all day on the pass. The fact that we thought we did fine because we won , was the reason we didn't adjust and got drubbed the second time. Except for a goal line stop and some miscues on their part in the red zone, they would have won both the games.

And yes our scheme was the problem. If we had gone to a cover 1 with man on Fitz and the safety rolled to Fitz's side all game essentially doubling him he would not gone crazy as he did. Cover 3 sucks against a short precision passing team with short routes and good YAC. What was Arizona? Just what a cover 3 is poor against. With Boldin out the second game they essentially beat us with Fitz and Brestin- 2 guys. sad really.

Fitzgerald was beating us with a deep cross (notice, not a shallow) that essentially just has him work inside formation under the WLB and over the MLB that allows him to just keep working toward the sidelines until he finds a nice spot. Old Rams play. The only thing that stops it is straight man, and he beat us with that too. Plus, don't get confused that if we'd simply run zone backside and man on Fitzgerald like we did, that we just succeed all game. The man adjustment was a desperation move. You don't go to that in a tie game.

Man is not a desperation move it is a very good aggressive style of play that helps control physical receivers like Fitzgerald especially with man help over the top as well. it is what most teams use to stop Steve Smith often successfully.

And Fitz was dictating his matchups and beating us on both sides of the field, short, deep etc. Not because of matchups or execution but a faulty scheme which allowed the offense to dictate to us instead of the other way around. He caught ball on both sides of the feild on all kind of crossing routes. And yes the only way to contain crossing routes are to put a guy on him wherever he goes and double as he enters a new zone. Something we should have done all game for sure, both times. You need to add some additional diagrams to account for all of Fitz's 155 yards in the first half of the second game. He got over a 100 yards the first game as well.

That's the thing. After telling me that you knew scheme and I didn't, you haven't bothered to go into c3 at all and you never said "this is how you fix it." But you're agreeing that execution wasn't good and that we obviously weren't prepared against AZ. Whether we were prepared in games prior to that or not, we weren't executing at all.

This is still very simplistic but explains a few things. I suspect it is likely pretty boring to most folks so I don't go into that many details as this isn't a technique forum but general discussion. I have asked Zod for perhaps a forum where we could discuss these type of things and may be even have a player or ex-player serve as an expert commentator.

Your turn.

[magnus]

Are you thinking we should play zone because Harris is not good in coverage and not very fast either. I could agree with that.

I think we should play c3 because Harris lacks range, and for tons of other reasons as well. I think we should play zone because it's the only realistic form of defense to play on a consistent basis - no one plays that much man. No one.

As for Gamble and Lucas I would not call them big Lanky corners. Gamble is 6-1 and Lucas is 6-0. Not bad but not tall enough to cover a lot of big physical receivers these days who are 6-3 or 6-4 with good leaping ability.

Completely disagree. They're well-built, physical, and you don't find typical corners that are 6'2 or above.

Problem is that you are covering your underneath zones with linebackers

yes.

And we have two of the best, most rangy cover linebackers in the league.

I'm OK with that.

This cover is the worst to blitz from not the best as it puts your edge guys away from the line of scrimmage and those that remain are easy to pick up. You have eight in the box but all easily within the line of the sight of the quarterback.

You don't need a linebacker on the edge of formation to blitz well. And no, we're not moving to a 3-4. Granted, we're not a great blitzing team, no. And while sure, all 8 are within sight of the QB, offenses don't just let guys disappear. Effective disguises include misdirection including stunts and blitzing behind, delay blitzes, zone drops for DL, and so on, but you're never going to just consistently get a QB to lose a guy in the box.

I prefer a cover 1 with man underneath. It puts Godfrey on top who admittedly still has trouble recognizing some defenses but with a year of experience should improve a lot. Plus it allows more pressure on the receivers and is a more aggressive coverage. There are weaknesses though which are that Godfrey has a lot of ground to cover and has to make quick reads which he may not do well yet and if a corner gets beat by a more talented receiver it will be a long completion.

This isn't something that's run in the NFL much at all. There's a reason why - unlike college, you don't just have superior talent aginst the other team. DBs have no advantage at all in the NFL, so putting every player on an island and leaving one safety deep is suicidal.

Why would it be more sound to put him in man coverage 10 yards down the field than it would off the line of scrimmage. He is very vulnerable to a quick slant, smoke route or quick drag across the middle. If the OLB goes inside to cover it leaves a back all alone in the flat.

Gamble is able to play either well. Him having a little cushion means nothing to playing the route if he's reacting right.

And let's get another thing straight here - in the event a guy does have to face a receiver in man, he's not often chucking him at the line. Chucking more often comes in short zones or double double zones.

But if it is me, I would play man anyway. But then I am a Jim Johnson kind of guy.

The Eagles use almost exclusively zone blitz philosophies. They run the same c3 shell we do.

Cover 3 sucks against a short precision passing team with short routes and good YAC. What was Arizona?

Agree on the first part. Arizona isn't a short precision passing team - look at their pass distribution. Receiver, receiver, receiver. They don't dump the ball off, they're an intermediate to deep posession, timing scheme.

Man is not a desperation move it is a very good aggressive style of play that helps control physical receivers like Fitzgerald especially with man help over the top as well. it is what most teams use to stop Steve Smith often successfully.

They double Smith. They don't play him in man, there's not a team in this league dumb enough to put Steve Smith on one man.

And Fitz was dictating his matchups and beating us on both sides of the field, short, deep etc. Not because of matchups or execution but a faulty scheme

See, here we go again. We're not doing our jobs, so it's scheme. Scheme is a catch-all way of blaming coaches for screwups by players. It's a shame, last post you were at least admitting it was execution, talent, preparation, but then still wanted to draw a line to scheme. It was a positive step, still.

Scheme isn't our freaking problem. Us playing one coverage versus another isn't the concern. Us blitzing enough or not isn't the concern. It's not what failed us. And honestly, other than a bunch of "I wish we did this instead" sniffling I've yet to see an actual post stating where the scheme failed.

[top dawg]

Scheme isn't our freaking problem. Us playing one coverage versus another isn't the concern. Us blitzing enough or not isn't the concern. It's not what failed us. And honestly, other than a bunch of "I wish we did this instead" sniffling I've yet to see an actual post stating where the scheme failed.

Well, you've said that schemes aren't the problem, what coverage that is played is not the problem, not blitzing enough is not the problem, and all these things are a logical extension of what comes directly from the sidelines (i.e., the coaching). So, the burden falls on the execution of the players, huh? Never mind the fact that different schemes are more appropriate for whatever play that the coaches/players thinks is coming next, which brings me back to being dynamic and adaptable. Being dynamic and adaptable to certain situations isn't the concern either, huh,Magnus? Pre-snap and post-snap movement and/or disguise is just not worth much in your play book either, it would appear. Never mind the fact that the most storied and elite defenses of the league during the last decade have employed such tactics. Can't you at least admit that?

Anyone who saw Fitz rip us to shreds can see that the coaches should have adapted the play calling to account for him. The same can be said for Ward running through us in the Giants Stadium. It was not ALL poor execution. And, even when you do witness poor execution, you're not just going to repeatedly let one or two guys whip you (or at least you shouldn't), you're going to change it up.

If you keep punching Kurb in the mouth, don't you think he'll have sense enough to at least block it?

[panthers55]

I think we should play c3 because Harris lacks range, and for tons of other reasons as well. I think we should play zone because it's the only realistic form of defense to play on a consistent basis - no one plays that much man. No one.

Completely disagree. They're well-built, physical, and you don't find typical corners that are 6'2 or above.

yes.

And we have two of the best, most rangy cover linebackers in the league.

I'm OK with that.

Lets review. Cover 3 is surely popular in the NFL so i can't say it isn't effective when run well. Personally I don't think we run it very well. Maybe Meeks can change that.

Beason and Davis are both 6 feet tall and 240 or less. That isn't big and rangy but I like them both so it is probably sematics and they are both pretty quick..

You don't need a linebacker on the edge of formation to blitz well. And no, we're not moving to a 3-4. Granted, we're not a great blitzing team, no. And while sure, all 8 are within sight of the QB, offenses don't just let guys disappear. Effective disguises include misdirection including stunts and blitzing behind, delay blitzes, zone drops for DL, and so on, but you're never going to just consistently get a QB to lose a guy in the box.

You don't need a linebacker on the corner to blitz well, you need a corner on the corner to blitz well especially from the blind side. Or a safety playing the slot to blitz well. One of my complaints about a cover 3, it puts corners well off the line of scrimmage.

You forgot to mention overloading one side of the line or faking an over load on one side and pulling back while blitzing from the other side like Philly in a 4-3 or Baltimore/Pittsburgh do with a 3-4. Probably because you have never seen us do it. And the point is not just to get the quarterback to lose a man in coverage so much as confuse the offensive line into poor blitz pickups and come in fast enough to keep the QB from finding the hot read or dumping it into the vacated zone.

This isn't something that's run in the NFL much at all. There's a reason why - unlike college, you don't just have superior talent aginst the other team. DBs have no advantage at all in the NFL, so putting every player on an island and leaving one safety deep is suicidal.

No defense is run all the time as any quarterback and team can beat any defense if they know what it is you will run. But yes the eagles who had the 3rd best defense run a cover 1 much of the time when they blitz. And they blitz about 65% of the time on third down and inside the redzone. And interestingly they are very good in the redzone and on stopping third downs conversions. Everyone knows on third and long they will bring the house. But it works just the same.

And the eagles run 60%-40% man to zone schemes. More accurately they frequently mix zone covers over the top with man underneath. They rarely go pure zone. When they did against Dallas earlier this year they got torched for 300 yards, 3 Tds and had no sacks. When they blitz it is usually 80% to 20% man to zone. Of course you don't use man all the time as quarterbacks being blitzed would just chuck it up most of the time. And as I mentioned most teams use hybrid looks mixing man and zone on the same play. Still you are very wrong if you think they do zone almost exclusively. Difference is unlike us they actually generate a pass rush. What do you think Oakland ran against Steve Smith all day. Man coverage with help overtop. What did Washington and Philly run to take TO out of the game? Man press coverage with a safety deep.

Gamble is able to play either well. Him having a little cushion means nothing to playing the route if he's reacting right.

And let's get another thing straight here - in the event a guy does have to face a receiver in man, he's not often chucking him at the line. Chucking more often comes in short zones or double double zones.

Over generalization like usual. Man press coverage or bump and run is chucking or disrupting him at the line. Guys covering in short zones are often playing essentially tight man coverage but in a contained zone instead of all over the field. Many zone defenses still play man underneath.

Agree on the first part. Arizona isn't a short precision passing team - look at their pass distribution. Receiver, receiver, receiver. They don't dump the ball off, they're an intermediate to deep posession, timing scheme.

They use their receivers like we use our running backs. Most all west coast offenses are short precision passing teams and Arizona is surely that. Until Hightower and James got running late they had no running attack at all. And guys like Boldin were almost exclusively dump passes and quick drags across the middle that he took for big yards.

They double Smith. They don't play him in man, there's not a team in this league dumb enough to put Steve Smith on one man.

What did I say? They put man coverage on him with safety help over the top. That is MAN COVERAGE short with a double over the top in usually a cover 2 or cover 1 formation. And you are wrong that teams don't ever cover Smith in man coverage. Atlanta would put DeAngelo Hall frequently one on one with Smith. So did Oakland with Asomugha on short to medium passes and a safety over the top.

See, here we go again. We're not doing our jobs, so it's scheme. Scheme is a catch-all way of blaming coaches for screwups by players. It's a shame, last post you were at least admitting it was execution, talent, preparation, but then still wanted to draw a line to scheme. It was a positive step, still.

And there you go again failing to understand that scheme is what you do when your talent doesn't matchup well with the opposition. Scheme is what you do to confuse the opposition. Scheme is the equalizing factor when you aren't executing well or have to replace a more capable player with a more capable one due to injury. Unfortunately you arent seeming to get it so no positive kudos this time.

Scheme isn't our freaking problem. Us playing one coverage versus another isn't the concern. Us blitzing enough or not isn't the concern. It's not what failed us. And honestly, other than a bunch of "I wish we did this instead" sniffling I've yet to see an actual post stating where the scheme failed.

Since you refuse to acknowledge that scheme could be a factor despite plenty of evidence to show otherwise I am not surprised you don't see it. You won't find what you are unwilling to explore or even acknowledge, grasshopper.

You must work for the Panthers. They have that same stubborn streak that doesn't allow them to see what is clearly plain to everyone else who takes the time to look. Is that you John??????

[Mr. Scot]

I think we should play c3 because Harris lacks range, and for tons of other reasons as well. I think we should play zone because it's the only realistic form of defense to play on a consistent basis - no one plays that much man. No one.

Completely disagree. They're well-built, physical, and you don't find typical corners that are 6'2 or above.

yes.

And we have two of the best, most rangy cover linebackers in the league.

I'm OK with that.

You don't need a linebacker on the edge of formation to blitz well. And no, we're not moving to a 3-4. Granted, we're not a great blitzing team, no. And while sure, all 8 are within sight of the QB, offenses don't just let guys disappear. Effective disguises include misdirection including stunts and blitzing behind, delay blitzes, zone drops for DL, and so on, but you're never going to just consistently get a QB to lose a guy in the box.

This isn't something that's run in the NFL much at all. There's a reason why - unlike college, you don't just have superior talent aginst the other team. DBs have no advantage at all in the NFL, so putting every player on an island and leaving one safety deep is suicidal.

Gamble is able to play either well. Him having a little cushion means nothing to playing the route if he's reacting right.

And let's get another thing straight here - in the event a guy does have to face a receiver in man, he's not often chucking him at the line. Chucking more often comes in short zones or double double zones.

The Eagles use almost exclusively zone blitz philosophies. They run the same c3 shell we do.

Agree on the first part. Arizona isn't a short precision passing team - look at their pass distribution. Receiver, receiver, receiver. They don't dump the ball off, they're an intermediate to deep posession, timing scheme.

They double Smith. They don't play him in man, there's not a team in this league dumb enough to put Steve Smith on one man.

See, here we go again. We're not doing our jobs, so it's scheme. Scheme is a catch-all way of blaming coaches for screwups by players. It's a shame, last post you were at least admitting it was execution, talent, preparation, but then still wanted to draw a line to scheme. It was a positive step, still.

Scheme isn't our freaking problem. Us playing one coverage versus another isn't the concern. Us blitzing enough or not isn't the concern. It's not what failed us. And honestly, other than a bunch of "I wish we did this instead" sniffling I've yet to see an actual post stating where the scheme failed.

Lets review. Cover 3 is surely popular in the NFL so i can't say it isn't effective when run well. Personally I don't think we run it very well. Maybe Meeks can change that.

Beason and Davis are both 6 feet tall and 240 or less. That isn't big and rangy but I like them both so it is probably sematics and they are both pretty quick..

You don't need a linebacker on the corner to blitz well, you need a corner on the corner to blitz well especially from the blind side. Or a safety playing the slot to blitz well. One of my complaints about a cover 3, it puts corners well off the line of scrimmage.

You forgot to mention overloading one side of the line or faking an over load on one side and pulling back while blitzing from the other side like Philly in a 4-3 or Baltimore/Pittsburgh do with a 3-4. Probably because you have never seen us do it. And the point is not just to get the quarterback to lose a man in coverage so much as confuse the offensive line into poor blitz pickups and come in fast enough to keep the QB from finding the hot read or dumping it into the vacated zone.

No defense is run all the time as any quarterback and team can beat any defense if they know what it is you will run. But yes the eagles who had the 3rd best defense run a cover 1 much of the time when they blitz. And they blitz about 65% of the time on third down and inside the redzone. And interestingly they are very good in the redzone and on stopping third downs conversions. Everyone knows on third and long they will bring the house. But it works just the same.

And the eagles run 60%-40% man to zone schemes. More accurately they frequently mix zone covers over the top with man underneath. They rarely go pure zone. When they did against Dallas earlier this year they got torched for 300 yards, 3 Tds and had no sacks. When they blitz it is usually 80% to 20% man to zone. Of course you don't use man all the time as quarterbacks being blitzed would just chuck it up most of the time. And as I mentioned most teams use hybrid looks mixing man and zone on the same play. Still you are very wrong if you think they do zone almost exclusively. Difference is unlike us they actually generate a pass rush. What do you think Oakland ran against Steve Smith all day. Man coverage with help overtop. What did Washington and Philly run to take TO out of the game? Man press coverage with a safety deep.

Over generalization like usual. Man press coverage or bump and run is chucking or disrupting him at the line. Guys covering in short zones are often playing essentially tight man coverage but in a contained zone instead of all over the field. Many zone defenses still play man underneath.

They use their receivers like we use our running backs. Most all west coast offenses are short precision passing teams and Arizona is surely that. Until Hightower and James got running late they had no running attack at all. And guys like Boldin were almost exclusively dump passes and quick drags across the middle that he took for big yards.

What did I say? They put man coverage on him with safety help over the top. That is MAN COVERAGE short with a double over the top in usually a cover 2 or cover 1 formation. And you are wrong that teams don't ever cover Smith in man coverage. Atlanta would put DeAngelo Hall frequently one on one with Smith. So did Oakland with Asomugha on short to medium passes and a safety over the top.

And there you go again failing to understand that scheme is what you do when your talent doesn't matchup well with the opposition. Scheme is what you do to confuse the opposition. Scheme is the equalizing factor when you aren't executing well or have to replace a more capable player with a more capable one due to injury. Unfortunately you arent seeming to get it so no positive kudos this time.

Since you refuse to acknowledge that scheme could be a factor despite plenty of evidence to show otherwise I am not surprised you don't see it. You won't find what you are unwilling to explore or even acknowledge, grasshopper.

You must work for the Panthers. They have that same stubborn streak that doesn't allow them to see what is clearly plain to everyone else who takes the time to look. Is that you John??????

:smilielol5:

55, let me be clear. I am not in any way laughing at the content of your post. Honestly, you'd have no reason to know why I'm laughing right now, but I'm sure Magnus does.

Mags, I swear, P55 is one of the good guys. It's not the same.

55, I'd tell you the same thing about Magnus. Trust me, you guys have plenty of common ground.

I don't suppose I could convince you fellas to shake hands and agree to disagree? :boxing_smiley:

[panthers55]

:smilielol5:

55, let me be clear. I am not in any way laughing at the content of your post. Honestly, you'd have no reason to know why I'm laughing right now, but I'm sure Magnus does.

Mags, I swear, P55 is one of the good guys. It's not the same.

55, I'd tell you the same thing about Magnus. Trust me, you guys have plenty of common ground.

I don't suppose I could convince you fellas to shake hands and agree to disagree? :boxing_smiley:

Mr Scot,

Honestly I don't have a problem with what Magnus says or believes to be the case. It is obvious he knows football and honestly it is actually nice to debate with someone who actually knows of what he speaks instead of a guy who just says things sucked and fire Fox.

In my mind what we disagree about is that I believe scheme is every bit as important as personnel and execution. In fact schemes in my mind often make up for and hide deficits in personnel. Execution obviously will make any scheme look good or poor. The best laid gameplan can be easily undone by poor execution.

I also am not sold on a cover 3 defense as we run it. I prefer more of an attacking cover 1 style with frequent man by the corners and in the slot (when we play nickel) and the linebackers playing a short to intermediate zone where they read and react to the run first and don't take big drops. I like the strong safety in the box to pick up one of the zones if the linebacker blitzes or to blitz himself. It isn't really that different than the cover 3 man under he proposed a few posts back but does differ in some key areas.

You know that I am a big proponent of a Jim Johnson type of defense which takes average guys and make them better. Sure you need a very physically talented safety and two corners who can play man coverage as well as a nickel who can do the same. Frankly with our linebackers, Harris at safety and with our DBs I think we could play it as well as they do.

I could change my mind if Meeks comes in and teaches our defense how to actually play zone well. But since Minter retired our secondary and our safety play has been abysmal and our lack of defensive line pressure has contributed to a defense which is a shell of its former self. I think it is way beyond tweaks in execution or one of two player acquisitions. And I obviously recognize that no team plays man exclusively and that all teams have to change weekly to exploit matchups or guard against times when the opposing offense has better personnel

In the end what I say on here won't mean a hill of beans and Fox and Meeks will do what they do.

As for Magnus perhaps we will meet at a tailgate this fall and have a beer and talk defenses. As for continuing on and on in these threads, I figure folks are bored already and I doubt either of us will change our minds that much. Besides I am writing this now instead of doing the 10 things piled on my desk. A short respite from work.

[Fan4life]

Now that's football 101

[Mr. Scot]

Mr Scot,

Honestly I don't have a problem with what Magnus says or believes to be the case. It is obvious he knows football and honestly it is actually nice to debate with someone who actually knows of what he speaks instead of a guy who just says things sucked and fire Fox.

In my mind what we disagree about is that I believe scheme is every bit as important as personnel and execution. In fact schemes in my mind often make up for and hide deficits in personnel. Execution obviously will make any scheme look good or poor. The best laid gameplan can be easily undone by poor execution.

I also am not sold on a cover 3 defense as we run it. I prefer more of an attacking cover 1 style with frequent man by the corners and in the slot (when we play nickel) and the linebackers playing a short to intermediate zone where they read and react to the run first and don't take big drops. I like the strong safety in the box to pick up one of the zones if the linebacker blitzes or to blitz himself. It isn't really that different than the cover 3 man under he proposed a few posts back but does differ in some key areas.

You know that I am a big proponent of a Jim Johnson type of defense which takes average guys and make them better. Sure you need a very physically talented safety and two corners who can play man coverage as well as a nickel who can do the same. Frankly with our linebackers, Harris at safety and with our DBs I think we could play it as well as they do.

I could change my mind if Meeks comes in and teaches our defense how to actually play zone well. But since Minter retired our secondary and our safety play has been abysmal and our lack of defensive line pressure has contributed to a defense which is a shell of its former self. I think it is way beyond tweaks in execution or one of two player acquisitions. And I obviously recognize that no team plays man exclusively and that all teams have to change weekly to exploit matchups or guard against times when the opposing offense has better personnel

In the end what I say on here won't mean a hill of beans and Fox and Meeks will do what they do.

As for Magnus perhaps we will meet at a tailgate this fall and have a beer and talk defenses. As for continuing on and on in these threads, I figure folks are bored already and I doubt either of us will change our minds that much. Besides I am writing this now instead of doing the 10 things piled on my desk. A short respite from work.

Understood, and I know both you guys are good, smart people. And realistically, neither you nor anyone else would have to justify themselves to me.

My laughter is born out of a "deja vu" sort of thing. I've seen this before