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

[Fireball77]

Mr Scot,

As for continuing on and on in these threads, I figure folks are bored already

Not this "folk". I love this type of discussion. I will be the first to admit that my X & O knowledge isn't great probably partly because I never played at any level (except powderpuff..lol). I love to learn about all that stuff.

[cookinbrak]

"Logic is wasted on the illogical" - Mr Spock

"Look at the cans on that green bitch!" - James T Kirk

[Mr. Scot]

Not this "folk". I love this type of discussion. I will be the first to admit that my X & O knowledge isn't great probably partly because I never played at any level (except powderpuff..lol). I love to learn about all that stuff.

I also like a good X and O discussion. When it degenerates to insults and one-upmanship, that's when it gets weak.

(not saying that happened here, but I've seen it before)

[Fireball77]

I know exactly what you are talking about, Mr S.

[Mr. Scot]

I know exactly what you are talking about, Mr S.

Ah yes. You've seen that for yourself, haven't you?

[Brandon]

I do not like Cover 1 in the NFL, too many receivers and RB's are being asked to produce more YAC, and that is one of the main weaknesses of the Cover 1. All it takes is one slant pass and one missed tackle, and you have a touchdown. It works great on some plays as a changeup from your base defense, but it is not something you can put into practice time and time again and expect to stop good offenses. It's also extremely vulnerable to screens and motion, which is something that a lot of our NFC South and NFC rivals like to use. It would be suicide to implement this as our base defense. It works for the Eagles because they have one of the best secondaries in the league, but we just don't have that kind of secondary.

Our personnel is much more suited to a Cover 2 style of defense but definitely not Tampa 2, as I feel more physical offenses tend to have their way with them. A Cover 2 with zone blitzing is the optimal way to provide aggressive defense without being a typical "bend but don't break" defense. With our extremely fast linebackers and quick DE's we can rotate our coverage and allow overloads without giving up any big holes before our defenders can create pressure. The key is to constantly attack from different angles and force offenses to show their hand, all while still providing adequate protection against short plays which have typically been our downfall.

[top dawg]

. With our extremely fast linebackers and quick DE's we can rotate our coverage and allow overloads without giving up any big holes before our defenders can create pressure. The key is to constantly attack from different angles and force offenses to show their hand, all while still providing adequate protection against short plays which have typically been our downfall.

Not discounting the rest of your post, at all, but your analysis seems very astute.

[panthers55]

I do not like Cover 1 in the NFL, too many receivers and RB's are being asked to produce more YAC, and that is one of the main weaknesses of the Cover 1. All it takes is one slant pass and one missed tackle, and you have a touchdown. It works great on some plays as a changeup from your base defense, but it is not something you can put into practice time and time again and expect to stop good offenses. It's also extremely vulnerable to screens and motion, which is something that a lot of our NFC South and NFC rivals like to use. It would be suicide to implement this as our base defense. It works for the Eagles because they have one of the best secondaries in the league, but we just don't have that kind of secondary.

Our personnel is much more suited to a Cover 2 style of defense but definitely not Tampa 2, as I feel more physical offenses tend to have their way with them. A Cover 2 with zone blitzing is the optimal way to provide aggressive defense without being a typical "bend but don't break" defense. With our extremely fast linebackers and quick DE's we can rotate our coverage and allow overloads without giving up any big holes before our defenders can create pressure. The key is to constantly attack from different angles and force offenses to show their hand, all while still providing adequate protection against short plays which have typically been our downfall.

THe cover 1 does require good corners and a very good safety to play deep. But it is not much more vulnerable to a long pass than a cover 2 is with a missed tackle or assignment. We routinely gave up big plays when we ran it in 2005 particularly to the tight end over the middle.

As for screens, remember that I said using a zone coverage by the linebackers underneath, which is to prevent screens, draws, and dump passes in the flat. And our personnel matchs up well with the eagles personnel.

The cover 2 is the ultimate bend don't break defense. It is not aggressive nor does it prevent the short pass as you suggest. In fact the way to attack the cover 2 is to throw underneath (short pass) and to try and get yards after the catch. You beat it by throwing in the seams, throwing the out route, and between the deep safeties which is why the Tampa 2 uses the middle linebacker deep to prevent that. The cover 2 requires safeties who are physical with strong cover skills. Harris is physical but has poor cover skills and Godfrey has good cover skills but is frequently out of place and makes poor reads. The reason we went to a cover 3 this year using the corners to bookmark Godfrey rather than using the safeties deep and a linebacker in the miiddle as some teams do is because we had relatively weak safety play this year. So the cover 2 is definitely not the right defense to run right now. Harris is much better in the box and Godfrey needs experience before he can handle the cover 2 at a high level.

[Seamonk]

Scheme is not the problem. We lacked fundamentals second half of the season. Seemed like the guys were worn out with complicated schemes.. they no longer were just playing and making their own moves. Too much thinking. A scheme has a library of plays.. we were just calling the wrong ones. Scheme has worked.

I think, like with Henning, (tbh we're not really all that different on offense now..) people figured out his tendencies. Fitzgerald said he pretty much knew what kind of coverages we had. It's pretty much a cycle of mixing it up. We get rid of tendencies that Trgo had and people will naturally have to start poking at us and making mistakes before they figure out our new guy.

[magnus]

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.

Which is execution. I'm glad you agree that isn't scheme.

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..

it isn't big, but rangy has nothing to do with size. I've expressed concern for our lack of size at the position but it's never hurt us.

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.

Corner blitzes aren't going ot generate what you're looking for. If you're blitzing a corner more than a few times a year you're probably screwing yourself with a stainless pole.

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.

We've overloaded, but sure, we could do more. We're not a great blitz team, and we kinda suck when we do it, so suggesting it more isn't necessarily the way. Nor is "this team does it so we should". Getting better blitz personnel might be an effective ideal, but that's not scheme.

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.

The Eagles aren't playing that much c1 at all as far as I've seen. That's not zone and they're a specific zone team, hence Johnson's zone blitzes. They're c3 much of the time. As you note as well as I already have, c3 is a better blitz D. At any rate, "team x does this" isn't a reason to do "this". The Eagles aren't us and we aren't them.

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.

With Asomugha? They ran c2 with Asumugha playing man. That doesn't mean the defense in general was man, and trust me when I say teams aren't playing man that much. Sure, corners are playing man technique, and that's because they have help. They're not going to leave Smith single covered.

Over generalization like usual.

Usual? Crap, I have like 50 posts.

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 don't dump off. They're not WCO. Trust me, I broke down tape of them for two games this year, they're not a dumpoff team and Warner is not a dumpoff QB. I've shown that they deal in a lot of zone-busting ideals, and sometimes Warner's reads are as simple as MOFC/MOFO.

Granted, again, you're 100% right. Our defense is susceptible to dumps first, tight end second. We've decided these are things you can allow, given that the deep pass is covered and sound defense produces a tackle. If the tackle is missed, that's not scheme. It's error.

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.

Doubling receiver, including c2 and c3 concepts in a double-double zone ideal, means the corner is going to sell man concepts. That doesn't mean the corner's in man, it means he's playing trailing techniques and outside leverage. Man defense, you're not bumping a guy and trailing him looking for underneath routes.

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.

I'm saying I don't believe it to be an issue, that there are things that we need to work on, including adjustments in talent, in technique, in trust (both in corners trusting the safety, and linebackers trusting to fill instead of attack).

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??????

actually, by name it looks like I was just hired to the Cardinals. Oh well. I don't even think Mr. Scot will get that one, though.

[magnus]

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.

Scheme is as important, obviously. We're just applying different thoughts on that matter. I think you're on the right track, just stating "scheme" when you're seeing other things. I see that easily further down in this post when you say:

I could change my mind if Meeks comes in and teaches our defense how to actually play zone well.

you know you've seen "good" zone play from Trgovac. Me, personally, I'm tired of seeing "zone" being trashed here and everywhere else as if the way we played against AZ, NO, or NYG are "the way zone is supposed to be played" or as if the way that we drew things up was the problem.

I'm not ready to say "coaching" wasn't - I read a lot of burnout in Trgovac's description of the last half of the year. I read failure in his words. I don't know if Fox was being too loyal - something he gets consistently accused of - but too often he gets blasted for being the cause of the defensive problems when I don't believe it's so.

[magnus]

: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:

No worries. A little bravado and doubt of the opponent is certainly 10x better than the "idiot, coward, liar" nonsense you know I know. I've taken much worse without giving back, and while I've allowed myself a little more leeway here, I have no doubts to the only solution to that other issue.

[Mr. Scot]

You saw the Chiefs got Krumrie, right?

[Brandon]

THe cover 1 does require good corners and a very good safety to play deep. But it is not much more vulnerable to a long pass than a cover 2 is with a missed tackle or assignment. We routinely gave up big plays when we ran it in 2005 particularly to the tight end over the middle.

With Cover 1 the major weakness is the go route, that's football 101. Not only do you leave yourself vulnerable to the deep pass, if you use two go routes against it that means if your blitz is picked up you are going to get burned for a 30+ yard pass. This is why no team in the NFL uses one as their base defense and instead only uses them mixed in with other packages. Cover 1 is also vulnerable to short passes because if you can get behind the shell on a slant or post, you are almost guaranteed a touchdown with an elite WR. Why do you think teams quickly learn not to use Cover 1 against us?

Cover 2 doesn't give up big plays if you execute properly. In fact it's been designed exclusively to prevent them. Yes the TE and RB dumpoffs are a typical weakness of the Cover 2 system but I'll explain why what I'm talking about is different here in a second.

As for screens, remember that I said using a zone coverage by the linebackers underneath, which is to prevent screens, draws, and dump passes in the flat. And our personnel matchs up well with the eagles personnel.

Zone coverage doesn't stop screens, it just makes them less likely to be dangerous, but in Cover 1 you're looking at basically turning the LBers and CB's into having gap assignments and with screens you're overloading two gaps in the Cover 1 with blockers and it's very dangerous if you have a blitz called, which you more than likely will in Cover 1. This is why when teams like the Eagles use it they're almost forced to RB spy, which is dangerous if your blitz doesn't reach the QB and also why the Eagles' defense isn't all that attractive to me.

The cover 2 is the ultimate bend don't break defense. It is not aggressive nor does it prevent the short pass as you suggest. In fact the way to attack the cover 2 is to throw underneath (short pass) and to try and get yards after the catch. You beat it by throwing in the seams, throwing the out route, and between the deep safeties which is why the Tampa 2 uses the middle linebacker deep to prevent that. The cover 2 requires safeties who are physical with strong cover skills. Harris is physical but has poor cover skills and Godfrey has good cover skills but is frequently out of place and makes poor reads. The reason we went to a cover 3 this year using the corners to bookmark Godfrey rather than using the safeties deep and a linebacker in the miiddle as some teams do is because we had relatively weak safety play this year. So the cover 2 is definitely not the right defense to run right now. Harris is much better in the box and Godfrey needs experience before he can handle the cover 2 at a high level.

Using the zone-blitzing Cover 2 variation like the Steelers do is the best option. This is different from the base Cover 2 in fairly obvious ways, but still allows every assignment to remain fairly similar with only small changes. If you need convincing about why the zone blitz is the optimal blitzing strategy just look at Pittsburgh, who have made it into an art form. Hell just look at our best years on defense and we used it quite a bit. It may put more responsibility on the DL but I feel with our personnel we could pull it off.

You mention safety play and in a Cover 2 safety play is much less important than it is in Cover 1. If you think a bad read on Cover 2 is bad, imagine when you have ONE safety to take care of all deep routes and you've just now said that neither is particularly reliable as an option in coverage. I disagree slightly but your own point is counter-intuitive to your previous statements.

Cover 3 I shouldn't need to get into, because I'm sure you're fairly aware of how terrible it is against the run.