Re: Interesting read on our secondary philosophy
 

[quote=53Fan;590681]....[B]since you apparently know what you're talking about[/B], great posts by the way[/quote]Thanks. Too bad I can't get my wife and kid to believe this. :)

[quote]The article says Pittsburgh only uses play off-man coverage, why such a big difference in their results and ours? Is it because they disguise better and mix things up a lttle more?[/quote]Yes. But they use some press at times also. The key is disguise and mixing thiings up. Here is some info from wiki on Dick LeBeau, Jim Johnson and Spags:



[SIZE=2]“[/SIZE][SIZE=2]It was a thought process kind of born out of necessity. It was basically an outcropping of the run-and-shoot [offense] that was becoming pretty prevalent in the league back then. We were in the same division as Houston, and they were tremendous at it with [/SIZE][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Moon"][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0000ff]Moon[/COLOR][/SIZE][/URL][SIZE=2] and Co. Then the [/SIZE][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Coast_offense"][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0000ff]West Coast offense[/COLOR][/SIZE][/URL][SIZE=2] was spreading throughout the league. Those were all quick-rhythm, get-the-ball-out-of-your-hands-and-cut-up-the-defense types of passing games. We were just looking for ways to get pressure without exposing our defensive backs to have to cover the whole field all of the time.[/SIZE][SIZE=2]”[/SIZE][RIGHT]—Dick LeBeau, on the origin of the ‘zone blitz’.[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_LeBeau#cite_note-Domowitch-0"][COLOR=#0000ff][1][/COLOR][/URL][/RIGHT]







As an assistant coach he is credited with inventing the "Fire Zone" or "zone blitz" defense, which employs unpredictable pass rushes and pass coverage from various players.[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_LeBeau#cite_note-6"][COLOR=#0000ff][7][/COLOR][/URL] His defenses typically employ [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_football_strategy#3-4"][COLOR=#0000ff]3-4 sets[/COLOR][/URL], with any of the 4 linebackers and frequently a defensive back among the pass rushers, while defensive linemen may drop back into short pass coverage zones to compensate for the pass rush coming from other positions. [B]The design is intended to confuse the opposition's quarterback and frustrate its blocking schemes, as the offense may be unsure on each play of which defenders will rush the passer and which will drop into coverage.[/B] While often described as a "blitzing" scheme (implying more than the typical number of four pass rushers used by most defenses), the call on any particular "zone blitz" play may involve only three or four pass rushers but from [B]unpredictable positions and angles.[/B] Although widely considered a defensive innovator, his stint as the head coach of the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnati_Bengals"][COLOR=#0000ff]Cincinnati Bengals[/COLOR][/URL] was unsuccessful[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_LeBeau#cite_note-7"][COLOR=#0000ff][8][/COLOR][/URL].

[B]Jim Johnson.....[/B]Widely regarded as one of the best defensive coordinators in the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Football_League"][COLOR=#0000ff]National Football League (NFL)[/COLOR][/URL], he was especially known for being a master architect of [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitz_(American_football)"][COLOR=#0000ff]blitzes[/COLOR][/URL], [B]disguising them skillfully and keeping offenses constantly off-balance[/B].[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Johnson_(American_football)#cite_note-0"][COLOR=#0000ff][1][/COLOR][/URL]

Spagnuolo learned under [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_Eagles"][COLOR=#0000ff]Philadelphia[/COLOR][/URL] coach [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Johnson_(football_coach)"][COLOR=#0000ff]Jim Johnson[/COLOR][/URL], and shares the same aggressive, blitz-heavy approach as his mentor. Spagnuolo uses a [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_football_strategy#4-3"][COLOR=#0000ff]4-3 base[/COLOR][/URL] defense with a heavy emphasis on multiple blitz packages, including corner and safety blitzes. While defensive coordinator of the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Giants"][COLOR=#0000ff]New York Giants[/COLOR][/URL], he often used a smaller defensive line, with three or even four defensive ends to further pressure the quarterback.
This philosophy proved successful, with the Giants leading the NFL in sacks in 2007. During [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XLII"][COLOR=#0000ff]Super Bowl XLII[/COLOR][/URL], Spagnuolo's defense sacked [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Brady"][COLOR=#0000ff]Tom Brady[/COLOR][/URL] five times, the most times he had been sacked in any game that season.

The Steelers run a 3-4, the Giants, Eagles run a 4-3. The technical aspects of what coverage to run or what base D is better 3-4 or 4-3 isn't as important as the philosophy of confusion and keeping the O off-balance. All three teams do this very well and have been historically successful on defense due to that type of philosophy. It isn't just that they have better players than anyone else.

I'm not throwing the season out the window or throwing Blache completely under the bus for the season. But from the Giants game the defensive philosophy is the same as last season. In the Giants game we had similar problems; can't get off the field on 3rd down, opponent picking apart the defense. We did manage (2) turnovers, the fumble came from exactly the type of blitz I'm talking about, and the pick was a great play by Landry while Manning was hurried (can't recall if it was a blitz play or great effort by the DL on the hurry).

My point is we have imporved our talent level on the D, to receive the maximum benefit from the over $ 70M invested in the D this off-season, the coaching staff must make the philosophical adjustment to be more aggressive, create confusion, and keep the O off-balance. If Blache does this we will see the same kind of defensive success as the Steelers, Giants and Eagles. If not, we'll still fare statistically well in yds & points but 3rd down %, turnovers, and most importantly coming up with stops in key situations, we will still struggle.

Re: Interesting read on our secondary philosophy
 

[quote=Mattyk72;590721]I would go with that too.

Everyone (not pointing you out) seems to want all these answers after just one game, and really it's just not that cut and dry. We still have 15 games left, alot can and will happen over the course of the season. I think too many people are taking the results of one game, putting it under the microscope, and assuming that's how the rest of the year will go.[/quote]


Have to agree with you, i'm as mad as the next Die Hard Skin Fan of the result against the giants but i tell myself it's one game relax we will right the ship.

HTTR.

Re: Interesting read on our secondary philosophy
 

I am in debt to you Sammy! This kind of info is [B]greatly appreciated[/B]! :food-smil

Hopefully, "You can't teach an old dog new tricks" doesn't apply to Blache. Changing the way you think about things doesn't mean you were a failure, just that you're intelligent enough to do better.

Re: Interesting read on our secondary philosophy
 

[quote=GoSkins!;590738]Got to agree with you here.

Unless I'm missing something, the Giants, who won 12 games last year, scored 16 offensive points and our defense caused 1 interception and 1 fumble.

I'm not sure I'm ready to throw the defense under the bus yet.[/quote]

[B]And wasn't our Defense on the field for like 80% of the first half? I would say we did an impressive job against the Giants on Defense for being fucked on the field so long because our offense didn't substain drives.[/B]

Re: Interesting read on our secondary philosophy
 

[quote=Paintrain;590633]
I hope this gives more context and insight rather than saying "XXXX sucks!!" although it didn't give any as to why Rogers can't catch. Just sayin. :confused:[/quote]

Great article!
But Hall got beatdown playing the coverage he is best at. No excuses for him.

They just need to get the job done.

Also, We need to get enough pressure so the QB can't take a 7 step drop.
We need to force them to dump it on the first cut so our CBs can jump routes and make some picks.

Re: Interesting read on our secondary philosophy
 

[quote=GoSkins!;590738]Got to agree with you here.

Unless I'm missing something, the Giants, who won 12 games last year, scored 16 offensive points and our defense caused 1 interception and 1 fumble.

I'm not sure I'm ready to throw the defense under the bus yet.[/quote]

Here here, as frustrating as it is to lose to the Giants on opening day, and see guys not play as expected, it was one game. The first game at that. We'll bounce back!

Re: Interesting read on our secondary philosophy
 

Carlos Rogers need to learn how to catch and the Offense needs to score more points. The Defense ain't the problem.

Re: Interesting read on our secondary philosophy
 

I don't think anyone is saying the defense sucks and the offense is great, not at all, but if you can improve them both why not? Doe's anyone think the defense couldn't be better? Trying to improve the defense is not an endorsement of the offense.

Re: Interesting read on our secondary philosophy
 

The missed pick 6 by Rogers is my only beef. And any half-way decent QB is going to pick apart any Defense if he's allowed to camp out in the pocket all day, whether the DBs press or not. The pressure needs to improve. The other stuff - Landry whiffing on tackles, D Hall, the missed tackles, will work itself out. I worry that the lack of pressure may be chronic (when I was hoping it would be "The Chronic").

Re: Interesting read on our secondary philosophy
 

My question is sort of smart-elic ,but how many times a year do the Redskins and Giants play?How many games have they played since Portis,Cooley,Moss,ETC.ETC.This was a division rival in one of the toughest divisions(if not the toughest)in the league.I wanted a win also,but you can watch film on a team over and over,but until you play them over and over your still behind.The giants are ahead of the curve on the Skins.Dallas,and the Eagles are going to be tough games also.So lets not give Zorn the rope just yet,give him the next next 5 games to let it loose and secure his job.

Re: Interesting read on our secondary philosophy
 

Yeah I took that article to really say there's nothing wrong w/ the basic tenets of our secondary scheme (off-man) but it's extremely important our players execute properly but don't let the QB recognize what we're doing. I mean Los was a shutdown corner on Sunday so obviously the scheme can work. Los is talented no doubt but he's not some kind of phenomenon...so basically it's on Hall to improve markedly. Hall just had a bad day...I bet he comes out ballin' this Sunday cuz the dude wants to succeed here and sure as hell doesn't want to be outplayed every game by the opposite starter.