Scheming doesn't solve poor coverage/pass rush

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Brad34. Show Brad34's posts

    Re: Scheming doesn't solve poor coverage/pass rush

    In Response to Re: Scheming doesn't solve poor coverage/pass rush:
    [QUOTE]Your opinion is $H1t.  Your name says how you feel.  Go hump your beloved Jests.
    Posted by Davedsone[/QUOTE]

    So I take it you are happy at where the Patriots D is currently at? Too many people on this board jump all over other people who aren't subscribing to the BB knows best theory. Yes BB is a great coach and he has won 3 superbowls with the Pats but that is now almost ancient history. His current defense and the one he put out last year leave a lot to be desired.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from bchan89. Show bchan89's posts

    Re: Scheming doesn't solve poor coverage/pass rush

    In Response to Re: Scheming doesn't solve poor coverage/pass rush:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Scheming doesn't solve poor coverage/pass rush : So I take it you are happy at where the Patriots D is currently at? Too many people on this board jump all over other people who aren't subscribing to the BB knows best theory. Yes BB is a great coach and he has won 3 superbowls with the Pats but that is now almost ancient history. His current defense and the one he put out last year leave a lot to be desired.
    Posted by Brad34[/QUOTE]

    If you don't guzzel the kool-aid  and lick BB ballz your a troll, loser, dumb-azz. 

    What the die hard fans and message board kings don't seem to notice the defense is lacking in two areas.

    1.  third down defense
    2.  holding a fourth quarter lead

    i will add in whole team toughness as well but again us trolls and dumb azzes seem not to anything about football
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Pancakespwn. Show Pancakespwn's posts

    Re: Scheming doesn't solve poor coverage/pass rush

    Were not going to understand this team until we are 3-4 games in. That BYE week then we can have this discussion. For now we really cant. 
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Coolguy55220. Show Coolguy55220's posts

    Re: Scheming doesn't solve poor coverage/pass rush

    It is what it is... This is the defense... get used to it... One thing i can certainly say is that they wont be any worse than last year, and last year with an improved offense, they would have easily gone 12-4... 12-4 is a good team in the AFC and should contend in the playoffs.
    Now if they young guys develop then they can truly be superbowl contenders but we'll just have to wait and see...
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from YAMATO. Show YAMATO's posts

    Re: Scheming doesn't solve poor coverage/pass rush

     10 - 6 Patriots win the AFC East and lose in the 2nd round of the playoffs. The younger players gain valuable experience, the pretenders and has beens are weeded out. Next year, if there is no lockout, will be the year. Brady and Bill win their final Super Bowl together, but the Patriots remain dominant for the rest of the decade with a solid core of players from the 2010 team.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from carawaydj. Show carawaydj's posts

    Re: Scheming doesn't solve poor coverage/pass rush

    You are only half right.  Certainly there are one on one battles that should be won even without a scheme, but scheming absolutely impacts coverage and pass rush.  I mean, if it didn't, why would anyone do it?  Why would a new player have a difficult time learning the D?  Why would you have a game plan?  Are you saying that scheming impacts all but pass coverage and pass rush?

    I'm by no means an expert in football.  Some of the folks here can explain this much better than I.  Here is my nughead view of things:

    Pass Coverage: Without a scheme the QB's ability to read the D and get the right play called is trivial.  The QB is not confused, makes near perfect audibles, and thus far more likely to deliver a nice pass.  Without a scheme, coverages are not disguised.  QB's are not duped by disguised coverages.  They know where the coverage is and what type it is.

    Pass Rush: Scheming is about creating mismatches that can be taken advantage of.  When do you blitz?  From where do you blitz?  Who do you blitz?  You use complicated schemes in the hope of creating and exploiting a mismatch.  

    Look, I'm not saying it's all about scheming, but to imply that it will not help is simply wrong.  The only debate should be how much it will help.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts

    Re: Scheming doesn't solve poor coverage/pass rush

    Scheme or whatever you want to call it makes a big difference.  The plays will be specifically designed to take advantage of the opponents weaknesses.  In preseason the plays are designed to showcase the players ability so they can evaluate them. 

    In the real season they will study the tendencies of the other team and practice to specifically execute those plays.  If the opponent has a bad CB they will design plays to exploit that.  If they have a tendency to run to the right on a certain formation, they will be prepared for it. 

    That's why the preseason is never indicative of a teams success in the regular season.  The D is young, I expect some growing pains.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from ATJ. Show ATJ's posts

    Re: Scheming doesn't solve poor coverage/pass rush

    The orginal poster's post has no basis in fact.  BB has on numerous occasions made up for defensive secondary shortcomings with schemes that have shut down some of the best offenses in the game.  I agree with Pancakespwn; let's see a couple of weeks in.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from GadisRKO. Show GadisRKO's posts

    Re: Scheming doesn't solve poor coverage/pass rush

    You really can't say much about offense/defense until about a few weeks in. Just look at last year as an example. The New York Midgets started 5-0 with a dominant defense and almost unstopoble offense but look how they ended up? Horrible. So until about half way through, its going to be hard to judge, especially since we have so many young guys that might not have it yet but could potentially get it a little bit later into the season.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from can-pats-fan. Show can-pats-fan's posts

    Re: Scheming doesn't solve poor coverage/pass rush

    Almost every teams 1st team offence noved easily down the field, just as the Ravens did last year.  Until we get a PASS RUSH, this defence will be sub par and unable to stop any decent quarterback.  I have no I deas why we keep ignoring this key position.  Champ Bailey and Revis would look like crap in this Defence.  We need to speed the other teams QB up.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from PSRyan. Show PSRyan's posts

    Re: Scheming doesn't solve poor coverage/pass rush

    I guess you missed the entire point. Scheme is a difference maker, but talent is the requirement. You can scheme for one Earthwind Moreland when he's surrounded by more talented players - in short you can minimize the weakness because the overall talent is better. When you scheme for Ty Law he makes game changing plays - a strength becomes a game changer.

    Scheme will make this defense better, BB will minimize some weaknesses, no one is arguing that...but it will not make the defense more talented. They are not winning the critical one on one battles pass rusher vs lineman; DB vs wide receiver - the same battles they lost more than they won last year as well. No one can seriously say the defense stopped the run last night nor made the Giants significantly change anything they wanted to do on offense - that's what the defense is supposed to do - make the offense do things they're not prepared to.

    And BTW those that have the only defense of "you must be a Jets fan"? Wow. How intimidating.

    Constructive criticism leads to understanding of an issue. Once understanding takes place a solution can begin to be formed. 
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from carawaydj. Show carawaydj's posts

    Re: Scheming doesn't solve poor coverage/pass rush

    Just thought this thread deserved a bounce.  Although the OP's final stance was softer than the thread title, we definitely learned something about the positive impact scheming has.

    Oh, BTW, we just might have some talent too.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from LazarusintheSanatorium. Show LazarusintheSanatorium's posts

    Re: Scheming doesn't solve poor coverage/pass rush

    Is this thread honestly FOR REAL?  In the second half, there WERE some blown coverages-So chalk 1 up to your point, i.e. The Talent Factor. 

    Yet, Did you even notice whatsoever, that New England's OVERALL Defensive Scheme/Strategy in the 2nd Half, suddenly stopped being as aggressive in BOTH the pass-rush aspect (sending very often less guys @ the QB), AND the way NE's CBs were playing the wideouts (altogether stopping much of that successful man-press against the WRS-bump-and-run-Right at the LOS, and playing an extremely vanilla off-man, beginning their coverage 8 yards off the LOS).  So, Chalk this one right up to: Coaching...i.e. SCHEME.

    So what're We now? 1-1...let's see where else NE did on the Defensive Side...?

    Next, Did ya happen to notice that MANY oof NE's #2 players played in, and subbed more often within that 2nd Half, AFTER New England got up 31-3...?  31-3, In the 2nd Half of a game, This is what you're freakin' SUPPOSSED to do!!!  WhoTH cares, IF you win the game by 10 points or 20 points...the game is STILL outta reach.  You're thinkin', "31-3...NO Injuries, 1st game of 16 game season, and NOW let's get these #2's and secondary players, some added experience, in the very certain chance, that they might need this good game experience come 1st string injury, or when there time comes somewhere."  Within THIS (2nd string added play), comes a substantial drop-off in talent (along with that vanilla coaching scheming from above)...2nd Stringgers added in and NOW Playing against the likes of Ochocinco, Carson Palmer, T.O. AND Cedric Benson...SHEEZ!  This is NOT 1st string talent dropping the ball, This IS another coaching choice, AFTER the game is outta reach.  Chalk another one up against the "NE 'Talent' Factor...

    So what?  We're 1 of your points to 2 of the anti-talent point which you're attempting to make...Let's continue.

    Age...age, age, and AGE!  This has got to be (quite easily I'm sure), The YOUNGEST Patriots's Defense, since even PRE-2001.  I trully would wager a bet, That this NE Defense is the youngest in close to a Decade in a Half...1st year Players, 2nd year guys, and the "geezers" seem to be 4th, and possibly, maybe 1 or 2 5th year guys (I'm not even sure)...  And you're talking SCEME!?!  On a Defense in it's 1st game of the season, which is made up mostly by 1st and 2nd year players!?!  Good God...give'm a break.  They WILL get and develop SUPERIOR Belichick schemes, Just AS-They willl get and DEVELOP superior abilities in the talent-wise factor...

    It's like you just wrote this thread for the sheer sake of writing it, no matter what you saw in the game...  

    Now, This is NOT only
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from carawaydj. Show carawaydj's posts

    Re: Scheming doesn't solve poor coverage/pass rush

    Uh Laz, the OP created this thread 9/2/2010, after the last preseason game.  I bounced it simply because I thought we got some answers today to what was discussed here.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from LazarusintheSanatorium. Show LazarusintheSanatorium's posts

    Re: Scheming doesn't solve poor coverage/pass rush

    "Uh Laz, the OP created this thread 9/2/2010, after the last preseason game.  I bounced it simply because I thought we got some answers today to what was discussed here."

    --IGNORE carawaydj--

    Lala-I'm not listening-lalala (j/k)...Ate the sh#t with that last line, didn't I caraway?  I mean lol, It's like by adding it in there, I upped the "Laz sounds st#pid" Degree, up by like 1000%...man, I couldn't have even planned sounding like that.  So overall, I'm pretty impressed with my ignorance with that last paragraph alone...that's why I'm keepin' it in there for Allll ta see!   
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts

    Re: Scheming doesn't solve poor coverage/pass rush

    In Response to Re: Scheming doesn't solve poor coverage/pass rush:
    [QUOTE]" Uh Laz, the OP created this thread 9/2/2010, after the last preseason game.  I bounced it simply because I thought we got some answers today to what was discussed here ." --IGNORE carawaydj -- Lala-I'm not listening-lalala (j/k)...Ate the sh#t with that last line, didn't I caraway ?  I mean lol, It's like by adding it in there, I upped the "Laz sounds st#pid" Degree, up by like 1000%...man, I couldn't have even planned sounding like that.  So overall, I'm pretty impressed with my ignorance with that last paragraph alone...that's why I'm keepin' it in there for Allll ta see!    
    Posted by LazarusintheSanatorium[/QUOTE]
    "It's like you just wrote this thread for the sheer sake of writing it, no matter what you saw in the game... "

    This is actually pretty fun and the last quote seals it.  At least you just admitted you missed the time stamp instead of spending your evening trying to pretend you knew what was going on and arguing over the definition of irony, trope, and a bunch of other minutae to save face.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from JerrySpringer. Show JerrySpringer's posts

    Re: Scheming doesn't solve poor coverage/pass rush

    In Response to Re: Scheming doesn't solve poor coverage/pass rush:
    [QUOTE]" Uh Laz, the OP created this thread 9/2/2010, after the last preseason game.  I bounced it simply because I thought we got some answers today to what was discussed here ." --IGNORE carawaydj -- Lala-I'm not listening-lalala (j/k)...Ate the sh#t with that last line, didn't I caraway ?  I mean lol, It's like by adding it in there, I upped the "Laz sounds st#pid" Degree, up by like 1000%...man, I couldn't have even planned sounding like that.  So overall, I'm pretty impressed with my ignorance with that last paragraph alone...that's why I'm keepin' it in there for Allll ta see!    
    Posted by LazarusintheSanatorium[/QUOTE]
    Oh My Gawd LAZ he set you up lol...... KILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from PSRyan. Show PSRyan's posts

    Re: Scheming doesn't solve poor coverage/pass rush

    The change in scheme was obvious from first to second half; however the Bengals did make some adjustments as well. Those two factors combined to rack up some quick points in the third quarter for the Bengals, but by that time the game was out of reach as they were hammered in every single phase of the game in what could be termed "microbursts". If the BIG PLAY aspect of this defense remains - it will be a very good defense and THEN add what you know will be good to great scheme each week...nice.

    I'll touch on my original post as well, I am in agreement that we don't know what we truly have in this defense. I still believe my point to scheme as a difference maker, but not the key ingredient stands. What we learned is the speed and aggressiveness of this defense SEEMS to be much better than the past two years. The question now is can they be consistent?
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from rtuinila. Show rtuinila's posts

    Re: Scheming doesn't solve poor coverage/pass rush

    Another question should be how much of the poor defenses the last couple of years were due to Pees' coaching and how much was due to supposedly lack of talent. That is a question most people seem to ignore.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from jcour382. Show jcour382's posts

    Re: Scheming doesn't solve poor coverage/pass rush

    i can see why rusty got banned from these blogs when he tried to deal with some of this nonsense...in the way it should be dealt with....

    what this game tells me is this defense is gonna be damn good.... when we needed to get pressure we did...when we needed to cover we did... as the game went on coach mixed in all defensive players...so as he said..."EVERYONE PLAYED"....  but people will still continue to be less than well informed until we are the first seed in the afc on their way back to the SB
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from NoPinkHatPatsFans. Show NoPinkHatPatsFans's posts

    Re: Scheming doesn't solve poor coverage/pass rush

    In Response to Re: Scheming doesn't solve poor coverage/pass rush:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Scheming doesn't solve poor coverage/pass rush : So I take it you are happy at where the Patriots D is currently at? Too many people on this board jump all over other people who aren't subscribing to the BB knows best theory. Yes BB is a great coach and he has won 3 superbowls with the Pats but that is now almost ancient history. His current defense and the one he put out last year leave a lot to be desired.
    Posted by Brad34[/QUOTE]


    What planet are you two trolls on?

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from RSNS14. Show RSNS14's posts

    Re: Scheming doesn't solve poor coverage/pass rush

    The Patriots kept the Benglas exactly where the wanted them. Plain and simple. Who cares if the Benglas scored a few touchdowns? What.... it had to be a blowout for you hoopla heads to be happy? Please.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Paul_K. Show Paul_K's posts

    Re: Scheming doesn't solve poor coverage/pass rush

    In Response to Scheming doesn't solve poor coverage/pass rush:
    [QUOTE]  The three preseason games I've seen too many opposing players running WIDE open or going for BIG plays.

     The very same teams they'll have to beat this year to make that "14-2" number many here keep shouting from the rooftops. Trust me, I'll be the first to admit error if they make that number (and overjoyed to boot), but my heart takes a back seat to my head on this team...they will be around 9-11 wins.
    Posted by PSRyan[/QUOTE]

    I was saying 14-2, but I've backed down to 13-3 because of season-ending injuries to Ty Warren and Leigh Bodden.  My power rating for the Patriots is going to be around 12.8 out of 16, just barely below New Orleans who had to play a much tougher team this week in my opinion.

    I saw players getting wide open in preseason too, and I saw an insane helmet-to-helmet love tap on third and long against the Rams' quarterback.  I saw a flagrant offsides in a key situation.  I saw an insane attempt to hit Randy Moss 70 yards downfield, when Brady can only chuck the ball 60 yards.  I was saying to myself, is BB just saving everything up for the Cincinnati and Jets games?  Maybe he might also be deliberately leaving the barn door wide open for the St. Louis Rams receivers, simply because it takes the pressure off his team.  Preseason games don't actually count in the standings, so why try to win them?  Appearances don't actually count in the standings either.

    I saw more poor defensive play once the Patriots were ahead 31-3 versus Cincinnati.  The game was all but over, and another slow touchdown by Cincinnati wouldn't count for much.  I must admit that Cunningham played like a rusty rookie. 

    I conclude that when there's something to win, the defensive starters have been shutting down the New Orleans Saints, the Atlanta Falcons and now the Bengals, despite optimum weather for offenses.  Carson Palmer coughed up some really nice interception balls, so maybe the pass rush has been pretty good.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Evil2010. Show Evil2010's posts

    Re: Scheming doesn't solve poor coverage/pass rush

    In Response to Scheming doesn't solve poor coverage/pass rush:
    [QUOTE]The latest and greatest fad in explaining away this team's lack of front seven capabilities is "scheme".  Scheme is all well and good and I will concede that BB scheme's are often among the best in the game (with Shanahan the other very good "scheme" coach IMHO). That being said however, after now seeing the Falcons, Rams, and Giants games - schemes are not going to help this team that much. Scheme will gain you a few plays per game (which you hope are "critical" plays then creating turnovers or "big" plays on offense). Given the age of instant video, constant feedback and adjustments scheme does NOT work the entire game (see Rams in 2001 Super Bowl for example - they had adjusted to the Pats scheme on defense in the second half).  Now add talent to scheme - oooh, then you have something.  This team either doesn't have that talent (ex. Mike Wright - good sub, not a good starter) or it hasn't developed yet (the rookies are still unknowns, and havent shown dominance in the preseason either with the exception of Gronk).  The three preseason games I've seen too many opposing players running WIDE open or going for BIG plays. Vanilla D is supposed to STOP the big play (because the players don't have to think - merely react - which is helpful to rookies) running contrary to those counting on scheme to make everything all better. Add in long QB pocket times to players running wide open or for big plays and you have the EXACT same defensive weaknesses as last year. A year with nice looking statistics, but results that had that team lose an overwhelming majority of games against the cream of the NFL. The very same teams they'll have to beat this year to make that "14-2" number many here keep shouting from the rooftops. Trust me, I'll be the first to admit error if they make that number (and overjoyed to boot), but my heart takes a back seat to my head on this team...they will be around 9-11 wins depending on the defensive rookies maturing faster than usual and the offense exploding (which I haven't even touched on the return of "Stupid" O'Brien the past two preseason games after the first two games where I'd thought he'd figured the whole balance thing out).  
    Posted by PSRyan[/QUOTE]

    Sure Leon. We all should listen to a punk Jets fan who's nuts are so tiny he has to keep changing his name in a silly attempt to get people to take him seriously.

    NY Jets 42 years and counting!
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from PSRyan. Show PSRyan's posts

    Re: Scheming doesn't solve poor coverage/pass rush

    Ahh Evil, the old "I don't agree with you, you must be a troll" trick (insert Don Adams nasally voice here).

    Sorry, am not Leon. If you need to believe that I am for some kind of psychological need of yours...your dime.

    I am as pleased as anyone that the Defense dominated a half of football Sunday. Often it is only a taste like that that instills the confidence that will propel them to similar and a full game's worth of such play. Youth and confidence is a dangerous mix (for other teams that is). For example anyone that wants to disparage the McCourty pick would seem to be waiting for the Crow du Jour (served cold like gazpacho today) as the Bengals picked on the more experienced Butler most of the second half and stayed away from the rook. 

    None of that however changes the fact that questions do remain, and will remain for a few more games yet. If confidence is a young defense's elixir; consistency is it's bane. 

    Tape is now accumulating - and BB is not the only coach in the league that can break down a player's strengths and weaknesses. How this team's D handles the adjustments is the truest test. They answer THAT and your 14-2 prediction may well be soothsaying.




     

Share