A Question about Blache and the Defense

[Oldfan]

I agree that Blache should press more, but i think the reason he doesn't press is to prevent teams from burning us. But, it does allow teams to dink and slant us to death.

(Bend but don't break)

Then, don't you think it would be smart to play bend-but-don't-break against big play teams that don't run or dink and dunk well, like the Eagles, but not against offenses unlike the Eagles?

[Oldfan]

I watched a few Titans games and i don't recall them blitzing much.

You're right. The Titans got pressure from their front four because:

-- they had Haynesworth

-- their front four was not positioned to play the run first on most downs as ours was

[darrelgreenie]

Then, don't you think it would be smart to play bend-but-don't-break against big play teams that don't run or dink and dunk well, like the Eagles, but not against offenses unlike the Eagles?

It depends on what you mean by bend but don't break, its a pretty loose definition.

If the front four can get pressure i'm partial to the Tampa 2.

Also, i think the Eagles are very good dink and dunk offense.

I can't recall the schemes Blache used against the Eagles last year, but whatever he did it worked.

[Skinsfan4life83]

If our defense is to be all that it can be, then Blache needs to go.

Thanks coach, i would be lost without your expert opinion:doh:

[darrelgreenie]

Thanks coach, i would be lost without your expert opinion:doh:

Well where is your expert opinion?

[Oldfan]

It depends on what you mean by bend but don't break, its a pretty loose definition.

You defined one in the quote I used. That one's fine with me.

Also, i think the Eagles are very good dink and dunk offense.

Name their possession receivers.

I can't recall the schemes Blache used against the Eagles last year, but whatever he did it worked.

As I said, the bend-but-don't-break approach makes sense against big play teams like the Eagles which aren't good at the dink and dunk.

[Going Commando]

It depends on what you mean by bend but don't break, its a pretty loose definition.

If the front four can get pressure i'm partial to the Tampa 2.

Also, i think the Eagles are very good dink and dunk offense.

I can't recall the schemes Blache used against the Eagles last year, but whatever he did it worked.

The Cover 2 is falling out of fashion for one reason or another. You don't really see too many teams running it as their base formation like you did 5 or 6 years ago. Maybe that's an issue with the available personnel since the safeties and linebackers you need to run it well are pretty rare. Plus I don't think it's a very good formation to stop the run from since it pulls guys out of the box and it really puts the onus on your ends and corners to hold up the edges of the field.

All this talk about press man coverage defense is nice in theory but would suck in practice because we don't have the personnel to run it. That's the scheme that Deangelo Hall struggled in at Oakland. He does best in cover 3, with a intermediate-deep zone that lets him watch the play unfold in front of him. If you let him sit back, diagnose the play and where the breaks are coming, and then let him use his elite athleticism to get to the spot where the ball is headed, he'll make interceptions and knock-downs for you.

Carlos is the guy who can handle press coverage and manning up on people. I think he's best in a cover 3 also, but he could play press man coverage at a pretty high level too if you asked him to.

If we want to stop those slants we need to disrupt the timing of the three step drops and have our linebackers get involved in the flats and intermediate spaces of the field. Maybe Orakpo will suck at that.

There are going to be flaws and seams in every single defense you run no matter what. Even if we had Champ Bailey and Nnamdi Asomugha starting, it's just impossible to cover the whole field. If our flaw is an occasional 6 yard slant gets open, then that's not too bad.

[darrelgreenie]

I do believe he's not shown anything but vanilla garbage for the preseason, so I'll wait for the Giants game.

Thoughts??

[skins2victory]

We will be all over QB's this year, and forcing many holding calls, false starts and turnovers. This defense is going to be fun to watch this season.

-Ya, as much as I hate to say it the giants have an excellent O line and even our very good D line had a heck of a time penetrating it. But these next couple of weeks I expect to see some good action from the boys up front!!!!

-Just to add the giants also have a great D line. We ran and ran and the ran some more and didnt get far. We lost the game in the trenches today, but hay there is always next week right!

[HA1LV1CT0RY]

Like I said before but this got merged and deleted my post, I felt like albert didn't make huge plays but he was demanding double teams, and I even saw him triple teamed at one point. For me thats good enough, if he's taking up 3/5 of their line our other guys need to open up and do something. But when they do **** like roll over their center, we need to bust through that gap.

Hall is playing scared and I dont like it. Blache needs us to press on people like we used to and have actual blitzs. I want to see the **** the giants pulled on us all game.

Look at the Ravens/Steelers blitzs. We need that intensity.

[darrelgreenie]

It depends on what you mean by bend but don't break, its a pretty loose definition.

You defined one in the quote I used. That one's fine with me.

You mean this:

I agree that Blache should press more, but i think the reason he doesn't press is to prevent teams from burning us.

But, it does allow teams to dink and slant us to death.

(Bend but don't break)

^^This was an explanation of why i think we or most teams don't press in a Cover 3 scheme.

But, i don't think the Cover 3 scheme is 'bend but don't break' at all imo.

Like i said earlier in the thread the Ravens and Steelers use an aggresive Cover 3 certainly not a bbdb defense.

Look at the Green Bay last night they looked like they were running alot of Cover 3.

Its the way we run our Cover 3 is what makes it a bend but don't break.

Name their possession receivers.-------

As I said, the bend-but-don't-break approach makes sense against big play teams like the Eagles which aren't good at the dink and dunk.

I don't know what naming their possession receivers has to do with them being dink and dunk or not but you could say that any of the Eagles receivers on a given play could be the 'possession' receiver. But, typically i would say its Kevin Curtis and whomever is at TE.

If you look at their passing average its 6.9 that is indicative of a dink and dunk short passing WCO.

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?archive=true&seasonType=REG&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&statisticCategory=PASSING&d-447263-s=PASSING_AVERAGE_YARDS&experience=null&d-447263-n=1&season=2008&Submit=Go&qualified=true&tabSeq=0&d-447263-p=1

[darrelgreenie]

The Cover 2 is falling out of fashion for one reason or another. You don't really see too many teams running it as their base formation like you did 5 or 6 years ago. Maybe that's an issue with the available personnel since the safeties and linebackers you need to run it well are pretty rare. Plus I don't think it's a very good formation to stop the run from since it pulls guys out of the box and it really puts the onus on your ends and corners to hold up the edges of the field.

I think most of the 4-3 team use some Cover 2 as a main cog in the defense like the Colts, Eagles, Titans, Tampa (not anymore) and the Bears, Giants (Spags), Marvin Lewis and Mike Zimmer typically run a Cover 2. (Marvin Lewis ran Cover 2 all the way to the SP w/ the Ravens)

The success of the different Cover 2 varies some are very good against the run; some play mostly man other zone, some use different blitzes i.e. zone, fire-dog, overload etc. Other don't blitz very often.

Wether they bring their SS into the box ala Bob Sanders.

Some Cover 2 teams are great against the run.

All this talk about press man coverage defense is nice in theory but would suck in practice because we don't have the personnel to run it. That's the scheme that Deangelo Hall struggled in at Oakland. He does best in cover 3, with a intermediate-deep zone that lets him watch the play unfold in front of him. If you let him sit back, diagnose the play and where the breaks are coming, and then let him use his elite athleticism to get to the spot where the ball is headed, he'll make interceptions and knock-downs for you......

Carlos is the guy who can handle press coverage and manning up on people. I think he's best in a cover 3 also, but he could play press man coverage at a pretty high level too if you asked him to.

I concur.

I think the fans that want to see us 'press' want us to use more Cover 2.

For example early in the game when Smoot? presses his man then sits on the route and tips the pass that Horton almost catches a interception.

That was Cover 2 zone.

Also in Cover 2 the CB have more freedom to press or sit back.

If Rogers wanted to press and Hall play off they can do that in a Cover 2.

In a Cover 2 one side can even play man under while the other side plays zone.

If we want to stop those slants we need to disrupt the timing of the three step drops and have our linebackers get involved in the flats and intermediate spaces of the field. Maybe Orakpo will suck at that.

That exactly what teams did to us.

Other Cover 3 teams run alot of different fire-dogs or zone-blitzes where the QB never knows who is covering the flat zone where a slant could be thrown against off coverage.

They drop safeties, LBs/DEs and even DTs into different zones to keep a QB off balance.

There are going to be flaws and seams in every single defense you run no matter what. Even if we had Champ Bailey and Nnamdi Asomugha starting, it's just impossible to cover the whole field. If our flaw is an occasional 6 yard slant gets open, then that's not too bad.

Giving up the occassional 6 yard slant doesn't bother me and i've written as much in this thread.

But giving up the slant is far from our defense's only flaw.

What bothers me is the lack of pressure, lack of sacks, inability to get off the field on 3rd and long and inability to get a stop when we need one.

[darrelgreenie]

"Quite candidly, in 2009, things go bad, somebody has got to go under the bus," Blache said. "Being the leader of this defense, I should be under the bus. I'll dive under it. If somebody wants to throw me, I'll dive under. Going under the bus, you get your feelings hurt a little bit, and at worst you might end up with skid marks on both sides of your shorts."

Why him?

"Because I'm the leader," he said. "And quite honestly, if the calls aren't that good, that's my fault. If the players don't play with detail, that's my fault-because it all comes back to coaching. If we didn't have talent, then you'd say, ‘Well, it's a talent issue.' We have talent."

Blache believes he has to be "a little bit more of a maverick; not necessarily a McCain-Palin maverick but a Bret or Bart Maverick." (aside: the second part of that is a TV reference I had to look up) Blache went on to say that he wants to take the approach of a "riverboat gambler."

I hope that this isn't more coach speak.

I hope the "riverboat gambler" means more aggressive blitzing hopefully zone blitzing which he did a couple of times during the Rams game.

C'mon Blache make me a beleiver again!

[darrelgreenie]

"Quite candidly, in 2009, things go bad, somebody has got to go under the bus," Blache said. "Being the leader of this defense, I should be under the bus. I'll dive under it. If somebody wants to throw me, I'll dive under. Going under the bus, you get your feelings hurt a little bit, and at worst you might end up with skid marks on both sides of your shorts."

Why him?

"Because I'm the leader," he said. "And quite honestly, if the calls aren't that good, that's my fault. If the players don't play with detail, that's my fault-because it all comes back to coaching. If we didn't have talent, then you'd say, ‘Well, it's a talent issue.' We have talent."

Blache believes he has to be "a little bit more of a maverick; not necessarily a McCain-Palin maverick but a Bret or Bart Maverick." (aside: the second part of that is a TV reference I had to look up) Blache went on to say that he wants to take the approach of a "riverboat gambler."

I hope that this isn't more coach speak.

I hope the "riverboat gambler" means more aggressive blitzing hopefully zone blitzing which he did a couple of times during the Rams game.

C'mon Blache make me a beleiver again!

Pure coachspeak