7 Reasons I Opposed Ryan/Kiffin Transition

[T-RO]

Where was your criticism after the Rams game? I don't like how the D is playing either. But, lets not be hypocritical and start patting ourselves on the back now. I didn't read where you conceded that you may have been wrong about your 7 points after the Rams game. JMO

Right after the Rams game...when people were singing hallelujah...I started a thread with this name:
Wade>Ryan>Kiffin

I've never wavered or wilted on this.

 

[T-RO]

The person that should have been replaced was Garrett. I know some will argue with this. But Ryan should not have been blamed for the debacle on defense. At least they should have given him another year to prove his worth which they didn't.

Ryan was nothing more than a fall guy. They needed someone to blame and Ryan was it. Nothing more.

Let's not forget: He was a huge punching bag on this forum. It seems every coordinator is if the results aren't sublime. We so often lack the ability to look at the context a coach is working in.

 

[T-RO]

You have

You have some nice points but what has the 3-4 ever done for us ? Our trademark defense has always been the quick 4-3 and always should be .

If you are going to make that switch you have to plan 2-3 years ahead and draft appropriately.

 

[T-RO]

#8..Lets take our best linebacker and drop him down the middle of the field in zone coverage every play. What could go wrong?
#9...Spend a fortune on Carr? Trade up for Claiborne? Lets totally disregard this investment and play them in a contradictory system
#10.. Bruce Carter was starting to play way too well in the 3-4 before his injury, lets go ahead and pointless change for the sake of change


ooops see you touched on #9

Yep, your #8 sure stands out.

 

[jobberone]

I want to revisit a number of the arguments I invoked last January and why I was puzzled, miffed and appalled by the coaching change Jerry Jones wrought on our defense.

1. Kiffin is not only 73(!)...he was several years removed from the NFL...and the league has changed considerably.

2. Kiffin had been unsuccessful (very much so) as a defensive college coach in recent years, even with the luxury of coaching highly regarded USC talent. If he's such a genius and his system is easy...how does one explain those results?

3. Bend-but-don't-Break sucks. The shallow middle of the field is the heart of the field and this defense yields it up.

4. We lacked the proper personnel for this flavor of 4-3 Cover-Two...something even Tony Dungy said. On top of that we spent big money on Brandon Carr and a premium #1 pick on Claiborne...and these guys were borne to play man-to-man. Kiffin's move diminishes what those two do best.

5. Rob Ryan was not a reasonable scapegoat but in fact had done a remarkable job considering the near total wipe-out of the defensive roster by injury. This season Ryan is doing a stunning job in turning a Saint defense that was 32nd in the league last year.

6. Ryan is a very bright innovator and his players love going to war for him.

7. Ryan had turned the light on for several players, including Lee, Hatcher and Carter.

Bonus reason: When it fails...which I said it would...we'll be right back into yet another transition in 2014. This was just another massive miscalculation by Jerry Jones...the same GM who replaced epic Jimmy Johnson with buffoon Barry Switzer.

I liked your post because its well done and I agree with a lot of it.

I think there was a problem with turnovers or the lack of them and while I don't know this I believe there were irreconcilable differences with Garrett and Ryan. I'm talking personalities here but also some concrete stuff going on that has been documented here before. Not sure how much of this is reality though.

I made some of the same concerns you outlined. Like using Carr and Claiborne as zone corners. Carr definitely needs to play press although he's surprised me some playing this scheme. I'm thinking like you that Claiborne is better in man to man but I'm not certain we really know that yet.

I don't know how much the problem is with the LBs in coverage and I've not looked at much coaches film this year due to time constraints. I think it's difficult for the average fan to read NFL defenses period even with the tape. Someone threw up a still from one game that looked like a Cover three deep with rotation to the strong side but it could have been an inverted cover 2 yada. Having said that I am beginning to wonder if they aren't asking the near impossible from the LBs. If they hurry and drop deep they are vulnerable to the underneath stuff as well as having to play these speedy and big TEs down the middle. If they don't drop deep enough then they're really going to blow the intermediate passes down the middle esp the seams and soft spots as well as over the top. That's just the nature of playing this defense.

Church doesn't have a lot of experience and Wilcox has even less or almost none. I do think Wilcox is the right player for this system. Church is still a little slow for me in this scheme although I think he can do the job given time.

So in the end this isn't the easiest scheme despite supposing to be simple and it just may be fatally flawed in today's environment. Not ready to make that statement but I'm still concerned it could be true. Even if it is it doesn't have to stay 'just' a Tampa 2 defense. I said earlier in the year that if Kiffin ran a hybrid defense with multiple schemes he could make it work. But that's what a lot to teams do anyway. You have to put players in positions that go to their strengths. Which is what I think you were saying.

 

[kevm3]

Rob Ryan had a top ten defense BEFORE the injuries, and yes, we had significant injuries last year. We should have never fired him. With that said, just like we gave Rob at least 2 years, you have to give Kiffen at least another year for players to get acclimated to the scheme and for us to get players to fit the scheme.

 

[Pessimist_cowboy]

If you are going to make that switch you have to plan 2-3 years ahead and draft appropriately.

 

[NorthwestDallas40]

I posted an earlier thread: this is not about scheme, it is about lack of talent. Like it or not, we have high draft picks in the back 7, but they are not good. Carr is good, Scandrick is average, but Claiborne, Church, Wilcox, Allen are well below average in coverage. And Lee, while a leader, is not good in coverage either. Carter is just lost in coverage. No matter what front you throw out there -- 4-3 or 3-4 -- it will not succeed with poor coverage. On top of that, the front 4 has been decimated by injuries. You dont lose Crawford, Spencer, Ratliff and Bass and think you can easily replace them with street free agents. No pressure + poor coverage = bad pass defense, regardless of scheme.

 

[T-RO]

I liked your post because its well done and I agree with a lot of it.

I think there was a problem with turnovers or the lack of them and while I don't know this I believe there were irreconcilable differences with Garrett and Ryan. I'm talking personalities here but also some concrete stuff going on that has been documented here before. Not sure how much of this is reality though.

I made some of the same concerns you outlined. Like using Carr and Claiborne as zone corners. Carr definitely needs to play press although he's surprised me some playing this scheme. I'm thinking like you that Claiborne is better in man to man but I'm not certain we really know that yet.

Certainly very different personalities with different approaches. And the Ryan family coaches don't have a great history sometimes with supporting their superiors. Maybe Ryan was his own worst enemy.Very possibly. I do think sometimes a little friction can be a good thing.

I think it's difficult for the average fan to read NFL defenses period even with the tape. Someone threw up a still from one game that looked like a Cover three deep with rotation to the strong side but it could have been an inverted cover 2 yada. Having said that I am beginning to wonder if they aren't asking the near impossible from the LBs. If they hurry and drop deep they are vulnerable to the underneath stuff as well as having to play these speedy and big TEs down the middle. If they don't drop deep enough then they're really going to blow the intermediate passes down the middle esp the seams and soft spots as well as over the top. That's just the nature of playing this defense.

Our LBs seemed ok in coverage last year. Now a guy like Gates can embarrass a lot of linebackers in any scheme. I agree w/ your insight about average fans and I certainly don't put myself beyond the average category in identifying schemes and their nuances.

 

[T-RO]

...you have to give Kiffen at least another year for players to get acclimated to the scheme and for us to get players to fit the scheme.

I don't mean to be gloomy, but I don't think this sentiment will survive the season.

 

[T-RO]

I posted an earlier thread: this is not about scheme, it is about lack of talent. Like it or not, we have high draft picks in the back 7, but they are not good. Carr is good, Scandrick is average, but Claiborne, Church, Wilcox, Allen are well below average in coverage. And Lee, while a leader, is not good in coverage either. Carter is just lost in coverage. No matter what front you throw out there -- 4-3 or 3-4 -- it will not succeed with poor coverage. On top of that, the front 4 has been decimated by injuries. You dont lose Crawford, Spencer, Ratliff and Bass and think you can easily replace them with street free agents. No pressure + poor coverage = bad pass defense, regardless of scheme.

Both Ryan in '12 and Kiffin in '13 have had to manage a ton of injuries. No argument there. That's huge.

 

[jobberone]

Certainly very different personalities with different approaches. And the Ryan family coaches don't have a great history sometimes with supporting their superiors. Maybe Ryan was his own worst enemy.Very possibly. I do think sometimes a little friction can be a good thing.



Our LBs seemed ok in coverage last year. Now a guy like Gates can embarrass a lot of linebackers in any scheme. I agree w/ your insight about average fans and I certainly don't put myself beyond the average category in identifying schemes and their nuances.

Yes that may be true. I haven't looked at that. It is a little bit apples and oranges though. They have different roles a lot of the time in this defense although certainly there is crossover. You can certainly make a case that coverage is coverage but reading and reacting to things is very different for these guys in this D along with the responsibilities.

 

[T-RO]

Yes that may be true. I haven't looked at that. It is a little bit apples and oranges though. They have different roles a lot of the time in this defense although certainly there is crossover. You can certainly make a case that coverage is coverage but reading and reacting to things is very different for these guys in this D along with the responsibilities.

Maybe it will improve...but where could that improvement come from? A bit more familiarity with the system sure, some improvement by our young safeties seems inevitable...if Morris ever gets healthy that helps.

But I see a massive lack of confidence in what they are trying to do...and having street players along the front four hits at the very foundation.

 

[jobberone]

Maybe it will improve...but where could that improvement come from? A bit more familiarity with the system sure, some improvement by our young safeties seems inevitable...if Morris ever gets healthy that helps.

But I see a massive lack of confidence in what they are trying to do...and having street players along the front four hits at the very foundation.

I can't argue with the latter. I agree the lack of pressure compounds the lack of experience with the scheme and for some their position and one football in general. I do think with pressure and experience you will see a good bit of difference.

One thing that I haven't seen emphasized enough is the lack of tackling. You must make tackles in this defense. The other thing is I'm still seeing the effort and swarming to the ball but I'm not seeing them trying to strip the ball nearly enough now.

You can put some of the blame on having to play Denver and Peyton but the D still failed in that game.

 

[Zekeats]

I didnt mind JG wanting to go in a different direction than Rob philosophically, what I never understood was why go to a zone based scheme in todays NFL.

One of the biggest issues with playing mostly zone, is you cant hit WRs so the fear factor of going over the middle just isnt what it use to be. Not to mention that you are giving teams free releases down the field which doesnt do a whole lot to break up timing or allow your pressure to develop. Plus our bend dont break defense seems to be giving up BIG chunks of yards with what seems like little to no resistance.

The free release is what kills me.........It is so important to bump and jam a wr at the line to throw of time and timing

 

[jobberone]

The free release is what kills me.........It is so important to bump and jam a wr at the line to throw of time and timing

You don't do that in most zone coverages although I don't know why they aren't pressing some in appropriate circumstances.

 

[MyBad]

To the OP....waste of time..the change... it is done...just a post count pad.

 

[HanD]

2. Kiffin had been unsuccessful (very much so) as a defensive college coach in recent years, even with the luxury of coaching highly regarded USC talent. If he's such a genius and his system is easy...how does one explain those results?

curious. i don't know, just asking. was this during the ncaa sanctions when usc might have been impacted by transfers and limited scholarships?

 

[jobberone]

To the OP....waste of time..the change... it is done...just a post count pad.

Like a total waste of time that this post was???

 

[TimHortons]

I can't argue with the latter. I agree the lack of pressure compounds the lack of experience with the scheme and for some their position and one football in general. I do think with pressure and experience you will see a good bit of difference.

One thing that I haven't seen emphasized enough is the lack of tackling. You must make tackles in this defense. The other thing is I'm still seeing the effort and swarming to the ball but I'm not seeing them trying to strip the ball nearly enough now.

You can put some of the blame on having to play Denver and Peyton but the D still failed in that game.

I think that applies to every defense
I said when the switch was made that this was not a good idea, and I (along with others) got crucified. The problem is that we changed everything at once, we moved away from our strengths and highlighted our weaknesses by switching to this scheme. Our D line depth is an issue, and this is now highlighted by putting 4 of them on the field. Our LB's are a strength, and we take 1 off the field and limit Carter's playmaking ability by putting him as an OLB, whereas before he had the speed to be a perfect ILB. And finally, the strength of our corners are man coverage, so naturally we change to a zone heavy scheme.