Chalk Talk Discussion Topic: What's the issue with our defense?

[Saqs]

Are you planning to do a defensive break down for the Vikings game LL? It looked like we did some different things out there that didn't look as basic as they have been.

[artmonkforHOF]

Fixing the D is simple: find a guy like RG3 who plays defense, RG4. Problem solved.

I would like to take credit for that idea, but I stole it from Mike Shannahan's scouting notes for 2013. After I stole his notebook, I planned to copy it for an hour or so, to make sure I didn't miss anything, but it turned out that was the only note in it, followed by page after page of stylized RG4 logos, sketches of 3 Lombardi trophies and few crudely scribbled "Suck it Al Davis"'s thrown in for good measure.

to be honest, I haven't seen a game since the opener in New Orleans (caught part of the last drive vs TB when they gave bonus coverage from a game that ended early), I have no idea what is wrong with the Defense, all I ever see is the RG3 highlight reel and man does that look good! I did not expect much from the D this year, and then expected even less when Rak went down, but do agree man to man coverage has been a problem for a while now. I dont think much can be done in season, unless the corners jsut all of a sudden decide to improve their play, so put cover corner on the list of draft & FA needs for next year.

[Brotherz]

Kdawg,

Always love your analysis. I have actually been meaning to ask you a question about something similar - Is there any intention to any of this? What I mean is do you think that there is actually a plan in place here to be more of a scoring defense, a defense with high risk'/reward so get turnovers and short fields for our new offense?

We are scoring more on defense and we are getting some turnovers. At the same time we are maddeningly unable to really stop anyone. We have slowed some teams down like Atlanta and NO however. Is it possible we aren't really trying to be a 3 n out defense? It may sound silly but is there a style of play that is intended to allow a team a lot of plays, to move down the field to limi big plays and to "bait" opponents into a costly turnover or two per game?

It seems like there is a style of defense around the NFL (think New Orleans during their superbowl year for example and even New England last year) that corresponds to the new offensive philosophy and rules where defense isn't pitching shutouts or limiting teams to under 200 total yards etc like back in the day and instead they are focusing on big plays on defense and trying to score an extra possession of two for their potent offense. Do you see anything that appears to be intentionally different over the past few years like this?

[Lavarleap56]

Are you planning to do a defensive break down for the Vikings game LL? It looked like we did some different things out there that didn't look as basic as they have been.

Yeah I will do some.. I saw some changes like I was calling for last week with was encouraging.

[Mahons21]

Brothers, I agree with your notion whole heartedly. In a previous post, I describe it as an aggressive version of bend don't break defense.

[NLC1054]

Brothers, I agree with your notion whole heartedly. In a previous post, I describe it as an aggressive version of bend don't break defense.

An "aggressive version of the bend don't break defense" is an oxymoron.

Either you're aggressive, or you're bend don't break. Usually, you're "bend don't break" because you're not aggressive and you're just hoping to keep everything in front of you and prevent the big play. When you play an aggressive defense you risk giving up the big play by sending the blitz and hoping it gets there.


I'll give you this; for the first few weeks, Jim Haslett was trying to run an "aggressive bend-don't break" defense, and he got smoked because the two philosophies don't fit one another.

[Shabby]

You know, before last sunday, I would have said it was London Fletcher is beginning to show his age, and that we absolutely have no secondary whatsoever. But after last week I cant say Fletcher is showing age, dude came out to play and was all over the field. hopefully he can keep that up. The secondary is still garbage. But our biggest problem is our pass rush. I watch other teams who send 3, 4 or 5 guys, and get tremendous amount of pressure, and im like okay cool, we can do that too. But then when i see our team send 6, 7 or 8 guys, and get NO pressure AT ALL, im just like seriously?? RK91 is a beast, i like him a lot, but the other dudes cant seem to get any pressure, they seem to run towards the block rather than getting around it.

[Airyx]

I agree with most of this:

Here are my reasons the D gives up too many long passes.

1. Except for Doughty, neither of the guys at the safety position plays smart. They have gotten better, but they are the primary problem. Most offenses have the QB read the reaction of the safeties, and ours give away too much...or, in the case of Doughty, he's too slow to make a difference.

2. Perhaps because he has so much speed in the secondary, Haslett calls too many zone rotations. He's trying to disguise the coverages, and it DOES produce turnovers (the Williams pick is a perfect example), but it also has your guys start the play out of position. For example, he runs a lot of cover-1 man, which is easy for a QB to read pre-snap, and that's fine. Then he uses that established tendency to try to create QB errors post snap. He does this by running cover-2 or 3 zone out of a pre-snap alignment that LOOKS like a Cover-1. Consider that, you have one or two guys that have to sprint back to deep zone coverages as the ball snaps. If the QB recognizes it quickly, you have big holes for him to hit, but if he's still thinking cover-1, then you have a good chance at a pick.

3. The OLBs are not good in coverage.

---------- Post added October-16th-2012 at 04:05 PM ----------

You know, before last sunday, I would have said it was London Fletcher is beginning to show his age, and that we absolutely have no secondary whatsoever. But after last week I cant say Fletcher is showing age, dude came out to play and was all over the field. hopefully he can keep that up. The secondary is still garbage. But our biggest problem is our pass rush. I watch other teams who send 3, 4 or 5 guys, and get tremendous amount of pressure, and im like okay cool, we can do that too. But then when i see our team send 6, 7 or 8 guys, and get NO pressure AT ALL, im just like seriously?? RK91 is a beast, i like him a lot, but the other dudes cant seem to get any pressure, they seem to run towards the block rather than getting around it.

They are moving Kerrigan around, but he is doubled wherever he lines up.

Jackson doesn't keep his feet moving. As soon as he makes contact, he stands still. Not a good pass rusher.

Without Orakpo drawing attention also, the inside guys, who are fine pass rushers for 3-4 D-Linemen, aren't able to get space.

They need to delay Kerrigan, and bring him around on stunts to keep him away from double teams.

[Mahons21]

http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/reds...rticle/2510843

Good article from John keim concerning the defense.

[Lavarleap56]

about to poke massive holes in this "debate"...

[KDawg]

Kdawg,

Always love your analysis. I have actually been meaning to ask you a question about something similar - Is there any intention to any of this? What I mean is do you think that there is actually a plan in place here to be more of a scoring defense, a defense with high risk'/reward so get turnovers and short fields for our new offense?

If there is intention, it's been a flawed strategy. We've lost three of the games that we've scored defensive touchdowns in.

We are scoring more on defense and we are getting some turnovers. At the same time we are maddeningly unable to really stop anyone. We have slowed some teams down like Atlanta and NO however. Is it possible we aren't really trying to be a 3 n out defense? It may sound silly but is there a style of play that is intended to allow a team a lot of plays, to move down the field to limi big plays and to "bait" opponents into a costly turnover or two per game?

It's a fairly natural assumption that the more plays you run, the more prone to turnovers you are. That said, if we intentionally went in to the season saying, "hey, they're going to move the ball, but lets limit the huge plays and just let them chunk the ball down the field" then it's a pretty poor plan. We're decent in third down conversions allowed, but still not good. Regardless of the defense you run I think you need to be very sound on third downs and in the red zone.

It seems like there is a style of defense around the NFL (think New Orleans during their superbowl year for example and even New England last year) that corresponds to the new offensive philosophy and rules where defense isn't pitching shutouts or limiting teams to under 200 total yards etc like back in the day and instead they are focusing on big plays on defense and trying to score an extra possession of two for their potent offense. Do you see anything that appears to be intentionally different over the past few years like this?

There could be some sort of trend, but I'm not sure it's a smart one. Creating a turnover isn't creating an extra possession for the offense. It's simply giving the ball back to them at an unwanted time for the opposition and eliminating the possibility to score points on their end.

If we're talking a perfect world, I'd like a 2000 Baltimore Ravens defense to pair with our offense. I don't think we're a quick strike offense in a nutshell. I think we're a take it as they give it kind of offense. It's a potent unit, for sure. But other than Garcon vs. New Orleans and RG3 vs. Minnesota, I'd say we move the ball very methodically. And they're certainly always a threat. But I'd just assume get a good amount of turnovers and a great 3rd down and red zone defense and limit opponent yards.

To answer your question, I think there could be intention, but I don't think that's the case here. LeBeau's Steelers defenses were never based on that premise and he had some phenomenal defenses in his career, even in terms of yards and points while still getting a good amount of turnovers.

[darrelgreenie]

CB Chad Scott

I raced Chad Scott and Exree Hipp when I was in college and beat them both, true story.

Haslett is an average DC.

[Darth Tater]

If there is intention, it's been a flawed strategy. We've lost three of the games that we've scored defensive touchdowns in.

When Williams was headed to end zone I was screaming for someone to stop him!

[Lavarleap56]

Working on the defensive film and write ups for tomorrow. I think some people would like to know the secondary comes out looking good, film does not lie..I will also be going over some other reasons why you cant sit at home watching TV and judge secondary play accurately. A lot more is in play on a per down basis than the normal fan probably even realizes.

[Mahons21]

LeBeau was the DC until the end of the 96 season. In 1997 he became the defensive coordinator for the Cincinnati Bengals.

In the year 2000, Haslett moved on to New Orleans.

Keep in mind, the numbers you credited to Haslett in 1996 were really LeBeau's. As was 1995.

I see, my mistake.

Looking at statistics it looks like the majority of his starters played 15 or 16 games in 1999. Chad Scott played in 13 and Joel Steed played in 14. So it doesn't look like there were any significant injuries. Just a drop in production.

I think the large fall was indicative of Haslett's finger print.

Haha, I know you do. While I agree that it's possible, I just don't find it plausible. A man comes in, improves the defense DVOA year 1, regresses his 2nd year, but only the the 6th overall ranking, and then the next year he drops to 22nd? It just doesn't seem likely that a.) it would take the league over 2 years to figure out Haslett if he's so simplistic b.) he'd get a head coaching gig (albeit a shabby one), if the league perception of him was so poor.

I believe there has to be some other explanation what it is, I don't know, but I just can't buy that Haslett is THAT bad. The team regressed back to the mean the year after Haslett left, ranking 8th overall in DVOA, which supports your point, but a DC would have to be historically bad to be the cause of a dominant defense regressing to below average. Furthermore, said coach likely would be fired, not promoted.