Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

What's your defensive philosophy?


dustinwhylee

Defensive Philosophy  

36 members have voted

  1. 1. What's your defensive philosophy?

    • Boom or bust
      26
    • Bend but don't break
      10


Recommended Posts

Thinking of the team we have (possibly an explosive offense and an aging defense), I'm partial to the boom or bust philosophy.  What about you?

 

Boom or Bust Pros

-Better chance of causing a turnover and 3 and out

-Pressures the opposing offense

-Gets our defense more rest on the sideline and gets our high powered offense back on the field sooner (even if we bust)

-We have the playmakers to do this! Hall, Amerson, Rambo, Phillips, Kerrigan, Orakpo, and Hatcher.  That's a lot of people that have a knack for getting sacks, interceptions, and fumbles

 

Boom or Bust Cons

-Potentially turns the game into a shootout, something we haven't yet proven we can win

-Can stifle the momentum the offense gained

-Pressures our offense to know that they have to perform, because our defense could very well give up 7 on any given possession

------------------------------------------------------------

 

Bend but Don't Break Pros

-We give up fewer points and with our offense, we shouldn't need too many to win

-It can better secure a lead late in the game

-We have a veteran defense that will maintain this philosophy

-It's comforting to know if our offense gives up a turnover, we still have a good chance of damage control

 

Bend but Don't Break Cons

-We haven't yet proven that we can bend without breaking

-We cause fewer turnovers

-Keeps our defense on the field (tired) and our offense on the sideline (cold)

-While we have a lot of vets that can maintain the philosophy, we also have a quite a few young and hungry players that may be tempted to "go get it"

-I personally prefer watching a shootout than a low scoring game

 

 

 

What do you guys prefer we use?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe in such a thing as bend but don't break defense. That basically means you suck in the NFL.

It means you give up a ton of yards but don't give up a lot of points. Sorta like how our defense played towards the end of 2012.

I'll have to vote for bend but don't break. I don't think our guys have proven to be playmakers in the NFL, and save for Dhall I don't see any established play makers on the back end. Fact is the secondary sucks and sucks badly and save for some terrific sophomore performances, we are going to give up a TON of yards. But I think we have enough talent on the front 7 to get some stops even after letting them drive down the field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It means you give up a ton of yards but don't give up a lot of points. Sorta like how our defense played towards the end of 2012.

I'll have to vote for bend but don't break. I don't think our guys have proven to be playmakers in the NFL, and save for Dhall I don't see any established play makers on the back end. Fact is the secondary sucks and sucks badly and save for some terrific sophomore performances, we are going to give up a TON of yards. But I think we have enough talent on the front 7 to get some stops even after letting them drive down the field.

 

I know what it means, it means you suck and wont win a title.  No thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know what it means, it means you suck and wont win a title. No thanks.

Hawks ranked 1st in 2013 Ravens defense ranked 17th in 2012, Giants defense ranked 27th in 2011, GB ranked 5th in 2010 and the Saints ranked 22nd in 2009. So only 2 of the last 5 SB winners have had top 10 defenses. This isn't 1970, you don't need a top 10 defense to win a title.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The purpose of defense is to keep the other team from scoring. Turnovers are great, and they are game changing plays.

But if you told me that the defense could limit teams to ~17 PPG, I really wouldn't care how' many yards they gave up in the process.

But to give up only 17ppg, you're going to have to get off the field and create turnovers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hawks ranked 1st in 2013 Ravens defense ranked 17th in 2012, Giants defense ranked 27th in 2011, GB ranked 5th in 2010 and the Saints ranked 22nd in 2009. So only 2 of the last 5 SB winners have had top 10 defenses. This isn't 1970, you don't need a top 10 defense to win a title.

 

I never mentioned top 10 defense.  Bend don't break is for losers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hawks ranked 1st in 2013 Ravens defense ranked 17th in 2012, Giants defense ranked 27th in 2011, GB ranked 5th in 2010 and the Saints ranked 22nd in 2009. So only 2 of the last 5 SB winners have had top 10 defenses. This isn't 1970, you don't need a top 10 defense to win a title.

 

No, but you almost certainly can't have a bottom five defense and win one either. 

btw, poll and philosophy is very limited for discussion purposes, at the least other should be a choice. fwiw. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keim posted an article yesterday regarding what to expect from the defense..  In it, he mentions others have told him it should be a bend-but-don't-break philosophy with an emphasis on red zone defense... From the article:

 

"One school of thought I've heard this offseason from a few people smarter than me is that they should focus more on bend-but-don’t-break and stress red zone defense more than anything."

Full Article Link: http://espn.go.com/blog/washington-redskins/post/_/id/8955/what-to-expect-redskins-defense
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Problem is, the best defensive philosophy has much to do with your team's offensive philosophy and its capability execute that strategy   on offense as well as defense.  It also is very much going to be influenced by the thinking and capabilities of the league in general.  You also don't give the philosophy used by several successful defenses: bend don't break between the 20's and bring the pain inside the 20's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"One school of thought I've heard this offseason from a few people smarter than me is that they should focus more on bend-but-don’t-break and stress red zone defense more than anything."

 

 

Translation:

 

Smart football people think the Redskins are too old on defense and haven't been very good on defense.  Teams will walk down the field just like they did last year.  Given teams will be in the red zone a lot, they should work on red zone defenses more than anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thinking of the team we have (possibly an explosive offense and an aging defense), I'm partial to the boom or bust philosophy.  What about you?

 

Boom or Bust Pros

Boom or Bust Cons

------------------------------------------------------------

Bend but Don't Break Pros

Bend but Don't Break Cons

 

What do you guys prefer we use?

I choose Bend but Don't Break.

 

I like the idea of this thread even though I don't agree with some of your parameters and pros/cons.

Or maybe I'm understanding it wrong.

 

To me w/ Boom or Bust D you are describing a defense that plays a high % of blitz +press man?

Like Cover-1, Cover-0

 

For Bend but Don't Break I'm not sure which defense fits? Cover-2/Tampa-2 Zone?

 

I want/expect our defense to be patterned after the Steelers and the Seahawks.

Both play a high % of Cover-3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I choose Bend but Don't Break.

 

I like the idea of this thread even though I don't agree with some of your parameters and pros/cons.

Or maybe I'm understanding it wrong.

 

To me w/ Boom or Bust D you are describing a defense that plays a high % of blitz +press man?

Like Cover-1, Cover-0

 

For Bend but Don't Break I'm not sure which defense fits? Cover-2/Tampa-2 Zone?

 

I want/expect our defense to be patterned after the Steelers and the Seahawks.

Both play a high % of Cover-3

I didn't go into detail about the scheme because it's open to interpretation.  It could be the scheme or the individiual plays.  Or it could be both.

 

For example, Boom or Bust could include high blitzing frequency, press coverage, emphasizing the sack rather the containment, jumping routes, trying to strip the ball rather than secure the tackle, instead of playing man with a safety playing over the top, how about that safety doubles the number 1 WR, etc.  I don't know how important the package is for Boom or Bust, but for Bend but Don't Break, they'd likely play more nickel packages to with 2 or 3 guys covering the top.  When I think of Bend but Don't Break, I think of Gregg Blache with Gibbs.  If we were up by the fourth quarter, we'd all of a sudden switch to prevent defense.  Letting the opposing team chip away at our defense and then score.  Then our offense would promptly follow with a 3 and out and the other team would finish off our tired defense for the win...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went with boom or bust, but for me it would be more situational than just the normal operating procedure for the D.   Rather than boom or bust, I like a D that is physically intimidating.....like the old bears D, the ravens or the seachickens from last season.  

 

I am just tired of seeing other offenses move the ball consistently against our D....even when our D holds at some point the field position is swapped, and now our offense may be pinned deep in our own territory. 

 

More pressure on the QB...and added emphasis on actually making a tackle and limiting yac....and maybe playing with more physicality on D...especially in the secondary.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I were building a defense I would really focus on the line of scrimmage and front 7. I would never pay top dollar for a cornerback complete waste if money. Safeties used to be had cheap but that has changed in the past few years

I would use first round picks on defensive line and linebackers and I would comb the mid rounds and free agency to build my secondary. I would only ask my secondary to play basic zones and man coverages and I would almost always rush four max five, the idea being that you could create pressure with your first round talent and drop 7 into coverage. You don't have to be very good when there are 7 of you covering for a few seconds. Ideally your secondary doesn't need to possess talent but will look great as they take advantage of pressure situations.

Basically very vanilla concepts with talent focus on the front 7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I choose Bend but Don't Break.

I like the idea of this thread even though I don't agree with some of your parameters and pros/cons.

Or maybe I'm understanding it wrong.

To me w/ Boom or Bust D you are describing a defense that plays a high % of blitz +press man?

Like Cover-1, Cover-0

For Bend but Don't Break I'm not sure which defense fits? Cover-2/Tampa-2 Zone?

I want/expect our defense to be patterned after the Steelers and the Seahawks.

Both play a high % of Cover-3

The cover two was in no way designed to be a bend but don't break scheme. Nor did it mirror one when executed properly. Tony Dungy's book is a decent read on the subject (and several other subjects)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, but you almost certainly can't have a bottom five defense and win one either.

btw, poll and philosophy is very limited for discussion purposes, at the least other should be a choice. fwiw.

Obviously not, but a majority of the recent Super Bowl winners have had mediocre to bad defenses and still managed to win. It's simply an offensive league now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Invest heavy on the ends (4-3) and get big fat boys to play in the as the DT(s).  Force teams to block with 6 or pay the price of leaving one of my ends 1-1. I invest heavy in my S also (1st round picks and/or FA) and get my LB's in the 3-4 rounds or vets in FA.  My corners are guys that know how to play press coverage and knock the WR at the line to screw up the timing.  I can walk my S into the box when an 8 man front is needed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't go into detail about the scheme because it's open to interpretation.  It could be the scheme or the individiual plays.  Or it could be both.

 

For example, Boom or Bust could include high blitzing frequency, press coverage, emphasizing the sack rather the containment, jumping routes, trying to strip the ball rather than secure the tackle, instead of playing man with a safety playing over the top, how about that safety doubles the number 1 WR, etc.  I don't know how important the package is for Boom or Bust, but for Bend but Don't Break, they'd likely play more nickel packages to with 2 or 3 guys covering the top.  When I think of Bend but Don't Break, I think of Gregg Blache with Gibbs. 

You don't have to go into detail about individual plays just give examples of what type of defenes fit into your categories.

Which defenses are  boom or bust which defenses are bend but don't break in your opinion?

What is Cover-1, Cover-2 man, Cover-2 zone, Zero, Cover 4 etc....

 

Or are you saying that any scheme can be boom or bust/bend but don't break?

Are you saying that Cover-1 (for example) could both either boom/bust or bend but don't break based on philosophy?

 

Why do you consider Blache bend but don't break?

He actually blitzed a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cover two was in no way designed to be a bend but don't break scheme. Nor did it mirror one when executed properly. Tony Dungy's book is a decent read on the subject (and several other subjects)

I think boom/bust or bend but don't break are too vague and too open to interpretation.

That's why I'm asking what defenses the OP considers to be boom/bust or bend but don't break.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I chose Boom or Bust.

 

My interpretation of that would be the 2009 Saints.  They weren't a very good defense but they were able to force a large number of turnovers which complimented their offense.  Maybe this is a better example of being opportunistic than Boom or Bust?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I were building a defense I would really focus on the line of scrimmage and front 7. I would never pay top dollar for a cornerback complete waste if money. Safeties used to be had cheap but that has changed in the past few years

I would use first round picks on defensive line and linebackers and I would comb the mid rounds and free agency to build my secondary. I would only ask my secondary to play basic zones and man coverages and I would almost always rush four max five, the idea being that you could create pressure with your first round talent and drop 7 into coverage. You don't have to be very good when there are 7 of you covering for a few seconds. Ideally your secondary doesn't need to possess talent but will look great as they take advantage of pressure situations.

Basically very vanilla concepts with talent focus on the front 7

In other words, Seattle's defense.

Also al of the Dick Labeau Steeler defenses, except they kindof mixed things up a bit more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...