Cyclops Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Number one you are building a straw man. Number two you have a homer outlook on out personnel. San Fran runs the most vanilla defense in the NFL. The Tampa Two under Dungy was even more basic than that. I would encourage you to read his book he spends some time on his defensive philosophy and why talent matters so much How is Monte Kiffin doing in Dallas btw? How many times did you hear 'rare blitz from Fangio' during the NFC championship last week? These are all clues That's why I changed my mind on the HC hires from SF and SEA. I was originally a Bevell fan but after reading more into it all 4 of them run very bland O's and D's pretty much letting their talent do most of the playing. Not saying they don't put their players in the best position to do well but its not hard to have people like Aldon Smith rushing the passer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrelgreenie Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 That's why I changed my mind on the HC hires from SF and SEA. I was originally a Bevell fan but after reading more into it all 4 of them run very bland O's and D's pretty much letting their talent do most of the playing. Not saying they don't put their players in the best position to do well but its not hard to have people like Aldon Smith rushing the passer. Its a moot point now, but the Seahawks aren't talented enough on offense that they can just rely on having superior talent. Bevell's scheme and playcalling deserve a lot of credit for their success on offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paloosa Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 I guess it comes to no surprise that a Jim Haslett defense could be this bad. Why in the world would anyone be so blind to the numbers he produces as a DC? Where does Gruden, Shanahan, Allen, Snyder, and anyone else who hired him or had them on his staff would think he was a great defensive mind? The numbers that Keim has shown is a typical picture of how Haslett's defenses are. They rank low in every category but people still hire him. We can't do anything about him this year but if he doesn't produce a good defense this next year then he won't be their next year. All this talk about Shanahan handcuffing Haslett this year is a bunch of crap. So who was responsible for his previous DC woes at New Orleans and St. Louis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puma Kane Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Well Greg Williams certainly didn't have the talented players in his tenure here and was very successful. Although you need good players to run 'vanilla' defenses, it's been proven that you can be successful with sub par talent on defense. A good coach can scheme it up and not all bad coaches wish they had good GMs.lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justice98 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Its a moot point now, but the Seahawks aren't talented enough on offense that they can just rely on having superior talent. Bevell's scheme and playcalling deserve a lot of credit for their success on offense. I think it's underrated how average the talent level is for the Seahawks on offense. Especially now, minus Harvin and Rice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclops Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Well Greg Williams certainly didn't have the talented players in his tenure here and was very successful. I don't know how GG gets the Rep that he does here. He was mediocre in his tenure here. Yes he was good in yards against but his defenses never produced sacks or turnovers. Those plays change games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justice98 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 I'm still curious what Haz will do differently or if the "talent upgrade" will cure all his defense's woes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormy Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 It's 100 percent personnel at this level. See Nolan, Mike That's why a coaching change without any significant personnel moves can catapult a team like the Eagles from last place to first place in a single season or the addition of Rob Ryan can move the Saints defense 20 spots up the food chain in a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsGuy Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 That's why a coaching change without any significant personnel moves can catapult a team like the Eagles from last place to first place in a single season? Well, part of the reason for the Eagles' worst to first success is because the rest of the NFC East (especially the Giants and Redskins) completely fell apart in 2013. It isn't hard in a race to get to first if your competition is either standing still or rolling backwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclops Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 I think it's underrated how average the talent level is for the Seahawks on offense. Especially now, minus Harvin and Rice. Their WRs still go up and makes plays for them. RW has great scrambling ability but any WR can get open with 4 seconds to run around. Its nearly impossible to cover that long. They still have their best player in Lynch which everything begins and ends with him. They run a very similar scheme to Shanny in terms of WCO and but Seattle is more Power Oline vs outside zone with Shanny. I still think RW inability to consistently hit intermediate routes without improve hinders SEA offense. We'll see how the offense goes when Lynch hits his wall coming soon. Hits 2k career touches next year. The magical wall where RBs start to decline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justice98 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 I don't know how GG gets the Rep that he does here. He was mediocre in his tenure here. Yes he was good in yards against but his defenses never produced sacks or turnovers. Those plays change games. They were good in yards against, but also good in points against, which is the ultimate stat. So if you don't give up yards and don't give up points, you're holding up your end of the bargain. The offenses in his tenure were nothing to write home about. WIlliams defenses kept you in the game and almost always gave you a chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puma Kane Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 I don't know how GG gets the Rep that he does here. He was mediocre in his tenure here. Yes he was good in yards against but his defenses never produced sacks or turnovers. Those plays change games. Yeah he didn't get to the QB as much and I'm sure he didn't have the players he wanted, what he had were schemes that forced the opposition to get rid of the ball before they wanted and his schemes forced them to call out their special teams to give our offense the ball back. You don't need sacks to be successful on defense. Sacks are fan material. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 I don't know. Sacks may be overrated, but changing field position matters. 3rd and 15 should be harder than 3rd and 5. Likewise, turnovers matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclops Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Yeah he didn't get to the QB as much and I'm sure he didn't have the players he wanted, what he had were schemes that forced the opposition to get rid of the ball before they wanted and his schemes forced them to call out their special teams to give our offense the ball back. You don't need sacks to be successful on defense. Sacks are fan material. Personally im a fan of emotion being part of the game. The thought of "where are they coming from this time?" inspire fear. QBs start getting happy feet, Ocoordinators being forced to keep TEs into block (Romo sits to pee was yelling at garrett to keep Witten into block in the 2012 week 17) RBs easily confused with blocking reads, hurried throws, and shorter pass patterns are all increased from a pass rush and the fear of sacks. Sure you will get burned sometimes but sacks lead to turnovers and better field position for your offense. Id rather win a game 24-17 then 17-14. The league is moving each year towards more and more offense. There is a reason that 75% of teams in their respective conference championship the last 4 years have been in the top 10 (a lot of times top 5) in sacks or TOs and roughly 50% of those teams are top 10 in both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrelgreenie Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 I think it's underrated how average the talent level is for the Seahawks on offense. Especially now, minus Harvin and Rice. Right now is the healthiest they've been all season and they're still down their top 2 receivers in Harvin and Rice. They played musical chairs on the OL because both starting OTs missed a large chunk of the season. They're basically a 2 man team Wilson and Lynch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclops Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 changing field position matters. And as we saw this year with our own team its HARD to consistently drive 70+ yards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Heck, it was nearly a miracle if we started on the 30. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrelgreenie Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Its a good sign that the Haslett and Burney are down at the senior bowl and the only person down there on offense is Forrester. It could mean nothing. But it could be a sign that defense will be focus come draft time. With a good draft and smart moves via FA we should be able to overhual We have enough cap space to add 2-3 pieces on defense We need starters at: DE, ILB, FS We could stand upgrades: SS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsGuy Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 I don't know. Sacks may be overrated, but changing field position matters. 3rd and 15 should be harder than 3rd and 5. Likewise, turnovers matter. Turnovers matter more than sacks, and sacks are important. However, sacks are overvalued on this board, IMHO, since they usually only make up 2 to 4 plays in a game. Those can be important plays certainly, but not always. It seems too often on this board that you can have a defense that is top 3 in points allowed and top 3 in yards allowed, but if it is, say, 15th in sacks, well as far as many are concerned, the defense sucks. I'm not saying I don't want an emphasis on getting pressure, which can lead to sacks, but if the defense is stopping the opposing team from moving down the field and scoring, I not going to cry if the team is middle of the road in sacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclops Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Its a good sign that the Haslett and Burney are down at the senior bowl and the only person down there on offense is Forrester. It could mean nothing. But it could be a sign that defense will be focus come draft time. With a good draft and smart moves via FA we should be able to overhual We have enough cap space to add 2-3 pieces on defense We need starters at: DE, ILB, FS We could stand upgrades: SS Id add NT and take away DE. Coefield isn't a true 34 nose but would be a perfect 34 end Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puma Kane Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Personally im a fan of emotion being part of the game. The thought of "where are they coming from this time?" inspire fear. QBs start getting happy feet, Ocoordinators being forced to keep TEs into block (Romo sits to pee was yelling at garrett to keep Witten into block in the 2012 week 17) RBs easily confused with blocking reads, hurried throws, and shorter pass patterns are all increased from a pass rush and the fear of sacks. Sure you will get burned sometimes but sacks lead to turnovers and better field position for your offense. Id rather win a game 24-17 then 17-14. The league is moving each year towards more and more offense. There is a reason that 75% of teams in their respective conference championship the last 4 years have been in the top 10 (a lot of times top 5) in sacks or TOs and roughly 50% of those teams are top 10 in both. I'm a fan of all things football, but although sacks are nice, hurries is what forces the opposition into bad decisions. Teams tend to get hurried more per snap then sacks or else teams would be footing 8-10 sacks a game. Sacks are nice, but they are just a part of the puzzle. Anyways Greg Williams defense got off the field from stops abd was at the top of the league doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan since a Fetus Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 I just can't get on the talent is more important than coaching bandwagon. It seems like that has become a quite popular line of thinking the past couple of weeks. All you have to do is get talent like X team or Z team. Who knew it was that easy? Owners should start paying coaches a minimum wage salary and their sole jobs are to make sure the players show up. Dude, save some money! What the players do from there is totally up to them. In my opinion it has to be a nice mesh. It is not an either or proposition. But, good scheming can hide a lot of deficiencies in your team. If you have good scheming and talent, then you end up with a Defense like Seattle. We'll see how the offense goes when Lynch hits his wall coming soon. Hits 2k career touches next year. The magical wall where RBs start to decline. It will be fine because Christine Michaels is going to step in and they won't miss a beat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 i think if u look at it when our d goes into zone...alot of times when the field is longer...we get eaten alive esp inside the hash marks...but when we man up with a shorter field we played better...since haslett is staying ...I hope and PRAY that he stops trying to confuse opposing offenses with his "zone coverages" and notice that our guys r 10000x better in man than zone...and play as such... and i think the way he defends Romo sits to pee and the cowboys...is prob one of the biggest reasons they kept haslett around You do realize our defensive red zone performance slipped big time? While we gave up a lot of long drives, our problem was as often in the short area as not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RG3Hunna Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 We need athletic thuggish players, the most feared defenses have athletic thuggish players. The bill romanowski, Richard Sherman, Sean Taylor, JJ Watt types!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Well Greg Williams certainly didn't have the talented players in his tenure here and was very successful. Although you need good players to run 'vanilla' defenses, it's been proven that you can be successful with sub par talent on defense. A good coach can scheme it up and not all bad coaches wish they had good GMs.lol In 2004, Greg Williams had Taylor, Pierce and Griffin up the middle. He also built good talent about them with guys like Springs, Smoot, Clark . The big drop off in 2006 defense was the loss of Pierce before the 2005 season, the injury to Marshall in 2005, the bad decision to let Clark go in favor of Archuleta, the injury riddled year for Springs and the failure to create depth. The resurgence in 2007 had much to do with adding Landry and Fletcher. While the defense was not great, it was well above average in 2008 and 2009. Meanwhile, Greg Williams defense in New Orleans was below average every year except in year 2. BTW, slamming the talent a DC has IS slamming the DC. While good OCs can scheme it up to an extent, a DC is ALWAYS at the mercy of his talent (though his schemes can make talented guys look untalented). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.