This isn't to say that aggressiveness produces good pressure. Often that's not the case. Before the Atlanta game, we kept getting torched because we'd send five- and six-man rushes that failed to get pressure and thereby left our secondary exposed to big plays. When Atlanta came here, we backed off and relied primarily on less aggressive three- and four-man rushes. And that didn't work because we got almost no pressure out of those sets, and the extra coverage guys weren't enough to stop Ryan & Co.
We got turnovers against Minnesota because we relied on confusion over aggression. We frequently used bizzare zone-blitz looks to catch the OL off-guard and lure Ponder into bad decisions. That's why Alexander was lining up all over the place--hell, I remember one play in which we lined him up in a two-point stance at nose tackle. Especially on Williams' pick, it worked; all he had to do was sit back in a zone and watch for an errant pass. Same with Hall, who was in perfect position in a zone on the goal line to make a play on the ball. So we got turnovers not because we took big risks on D, but instead because we played it safe in the secondary and used creative rush schemes to confuse the QB.
Considering who we have playing in the secondary, they are doing OK. DHall is the only legitimate DB we have.
I'm not saying that Haslett isn't part of the problem, because I think he is. But, the overwhelming lack of talent and depth in the secondary is the number one issue. Period.
Considering our woeful situation at safety, I would like to see how LeBeau would make us a top ten defense. In my opinion, we don't have the talent back there to get it done, no matter who's dialing up the poorly timed blitzes.
red: conservative play, take minimal risk (lead to protect)
amber: take well-calculated risks
green: take more risks (opponent has the lead)
Ordinarily, I'd start the game in amber mode, then switch to green or red depending upon whether ahead or behind on the score board.
If I were up against a more talented opponent on their field, I might start the game in green mode and, for example, go for the first down on fourth and two in plus territory. If my gamble was successful and I ended up with a 7-point lead, then I would switch to amber mode.
Last edited by Oldfan; October-15th-2012 at 02:09 PM.
Last edited by darrelgreenie; October-15th-2012 at 02:09 PM.
We play way to soft when our CB's cover their WR's. We need to hit them on the goal line to mess up their timing. Then our pass rush and blitz packages
should work. As it stands now we play a soft zone and their receivers always find the open area in the center of the field or the side line. This prevents the deep ball but that 8 to 10 yard pass to the TE or WR is almost a given. However, with the players we have now this may be the best we can do. Bend but not break. I would like to see Haslett mix things up a bit.more.
Is it wrong to try to maintain competitive advantage in the face of safety?
One metric I would insist on having for defenders would somehow account for the number of tackle opportunities vs the numbers of tackles made..maybe a missed tackle %
I would also want to know a % of false steps or bad angles and a % of times bit on play action or otherwise out of position against their total snaps, I would also want to % of blocks shed vs times blocked out of play. I bet colleges and I know some NFL teams already record stats like these.
Last edited by darrelgreenie; October-15th-2012 at 02:21 PM.
Firstly I would argue that players going for hits rather tackling and wrapping up leads to broken tackles and big plays - how many time did we see Landry trying to crush a receiver bouncing off and the receiver getting additional yards, or a DB drop his head and whiff rather using proper technique. I'm nt sure it is a competitive advantage. Then of course the rule applies to all teams and players - or not. So whether the rule is changed or not I don't see a competitive advantage argument.
It would significantly reduce concussions and also shoulder injuries and stingers.
NO Pressure, No Diamonds, KNOW Pressure, Know Diamonds!
Griffin said that he was going to watch the game with his family and that he will never attend a Super Bowl if he needs a ticket to get in.
I don't think Haslett is a good D coordinator. I don't think he's a bad one, though. Just middle of the pack. And when you marry "middle of the pack" in terms of scheming and play calls with poor talent at any given position you get the D we have right now.
If we had a great D Coordinator we'd be able to mask the issues better. The Pats, Colts, Saints, Steelers, Packers and Giants all have been to/won Superbowls with average to poor secondaries (Steelers' is arguable, I know) because their defensive coordinators game plan and adjust better.
Last edited by thesubmittedone; October-15th-2012 at 02:47 PM.
Originally Posted by Mike Shanahan
I have no idea why the Vikings didn't try to exploit our weak secondary yesterday. Manning will be gunning for them in a big way.
Hence my question: Is it wrong to try to maintain competitive advantage in the face of safety?
Last edited by darrelgreenie; October-15th-2012 at 02:56 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)