Grizz: Saints game redux

[superpunk]

An entire article about how the players crapped the bed, and out of it we take "Parcells was out of touch." Years of effective coaching had gone by, countless showdowns with assistants more renowned than Payton - but apparently all it took to expose 20 years of coaching was a single showdown with Sean Payton.

All it took for the style to become relevent again was a playoff berth.

How convenient.

It's the players, people. The entire article was about our players playing crap-*** football. They stopped executing, and we stopped winning. It wasn't any magical Sean Payton voodoo exposure. Clearly he outcoached Parcells that day. Clearly he had his squad more prepared than Parcells did.

Our defensive "scheme" wasn't "exposed". That's loser talk. Our players inability to execute was exposed. And no matter how much we changed things up from New Orleans to Detroit, the players couldn't get it right. Whether we're talking about the defense, or Julius Jones, it was the players screwing up on the field - not the coaches. That's what the whole article is about.

 

[Stash]

An entire article about how the players crapped the bed, and out of it we take "Parcells was out of touch." Years of effective coaching had gone by, countless showdowns with assistants more renowned than Payton - but apparently all it took to expose 20 years of coaching was a single showdown with Sean Payton.

All it took for the style to become relevent again was a playoff berth.

How convenient.

It's the players, people. The entire article was about our players playing crap-*** football. They stopped executing, and we stopped winning. It wasn't any magical Sean Payton voodoo exposure. Clearly he outcoached Parcells that day. Clearly he had his squad more prepared than Parcells did.

Our defensive "scheme" wasn't "exposed". That's loser talk. Our players inability to execute was exposed. And no matter how much we changed things up from New Orleans to Detroit, the players couldn't get it right. Whether we're talking about the defense, or Julius Jones, it was the players screwing up on the field - not the coaches. That's what the whole article is about.

Do everybody a favor.

Learn the difference between fact and opinion.

Thanks in advance.

 

[superpunk]

Do everybody a favor.

Learn the difference between fact and opinion.

Thanks in advance.

Done and done.

 

[Stash]

Done and done.

Thank you!

:toast2:

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Based on...?

How do you know the coaching staff didn't tell Ware repeatedly to watch backside containment only for Ware to not do so? Repeatedly, Parcells said a couple of guys blew coverage on the FB TD passes. Keith Davis sucking....I am pretty sure Parcells didnt tell him to be out of position. Of course, you could argue we should have had Watkins in there....

Did the players under-perform? You bet.

But by that point of the season our whole offensive and defensive philosophy were "had" by our opponents.

It's obvious that Peyton schemed us better than we schemed NO.

And that's the coaching staff's responsibility.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

An entire article about how the players crapped the bed, and out of it we take "Parcells was out of touch." Years of effective coaching had gone by, countless showdowns with assistants more renowned than Payton - but apparently all it took to expose 20 years of coaching was a single showdown with Sean Payton.

All it took for the style to become relevent again was a playoff berth.

How convenient.

It's the players, people. The entire article was about our players playing crap-*** football. They stopped executing, and we stopped winning. It wasn't any magical Sean Payton voodoo exposure. Clearly he outcoached Parcells that day. Clearly he had his squad more prepared than Parcells did.

Our defensive "scheme" wasn't "exposed". That's loser talk. Our players inability to execute was exposed. And no matter how much we changed things up from New Orleans to Detroit, the players couldn't get it right. Whether we're talking about the defense, or Julius Jones, it was the players screwing up on the field - not the coaches. That's what the whole article is about.

If our defensive scheme didn't have vast amounts of "suckage" why were we in such a hurry to change it this offseason?

And why is virtually everyone saying the scheme sucked? Including the former defensive coordinator who had nothing to gain by tossing Parcell's under the bus. By that point Zimmer already had his job with Atlanta.

Not too mention many of the players have said the same thing.

Plus any scheme that has Roy covering a deep zone in cover-2 is fricked up from the get-go. If that doesn't scream "bad scheme" to you I don't know what does.

If you would like just admit you've been owned and move on. I'd hate to give you any more beatings today...

 

[Vintage]

Did the players under-perform? You bet.

But by that point of the season our whole offensive and defensive philosophy had be "had" by our opponents.

It's obvious that Peyton schemed us better than we schemed NO.

And that's the coaching staff's responsibility.

You mean "had" as in the win over Arizona, the win at home against Indi, the killing of Tampa, the road win in NY------ that led up to N.O.?

We just held Tampa to 10 points, Indianapolis to 14, the Giants to 20, and Arizona to 10?

Yeah, our defense was really "had" at that point...

http://www.dallascowboys.com/schedule_2006.cfm




Edit to include your edited post

Plus any scheme that has Roy covering a deep zone in cover-2 is fricked up from the get-go. If that doesn't scream "bad scheme" to you I don't know what does.

If you would like just admit you've been owned and move on. I'd hate to give you any more beatings today...

Except, that scheme, despite it not playing to Roy's strengths...

Had done what I just posted above.

Players stopped executing. Yeah, we were outcoached. But the players sucked.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

You mean "had" as in the win over Arizona, the win at home against Indi, the killing of Tampa, the road win in NY------ that led up to N.O.?

We just held Tampa to 10 points, Indianapolis to 14, the Giants to 20, and Arizona to 10?

Yeah, our defense was really "had" at that point...

http://www.dallascowboys.com/schedule_2006.cfm

Earth to Vinage...


Please add up the number of points the D gave up from NO on and divide by the number of games-- I think you'll come away less than impressed.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

You mean "had" as in the win over Arizona, the win at home against Indi, the killing of Tampa, the road win in NY------ that led up to N.O.?

We just held Tampa to 10 points, Indianapolis to 14, the Giants to 20, and Arizona to 10?

Yeah, our defense was really "had" at that point...

http://www.dallascowboys.com/schedule_2006.cfm




Edit to include your edited post



Except, that scheme, despite it not playing to Roy's strengths...

Had done what I just posted above.

Players stopped executing. Yeah, we were outcoached. But the players sucked.

Vintage-- just compare the talent on the '03 defense with what was there in '06.

That's show you how much difference a proper scheme can make.

 

[Vintage]

Earth to Vinage...


Please add up the number of points the D gave up from NO on and divide by the number of games-- I think you'll come away less than impressed.

You said by that point of the season, our defense was 'had.'

I am saying, if you looked what happened up until the New Orleans game, it was clear it wasn't 'had.' Far from it.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

You said by that point of the season, our defense was 'had.'

I am saying, if you looked what happened up until the New Orleans game, it was clear it wasn't 'had.' Far from it.

OK, let me make myself clearer.

From NO's on every team knew how to attack this defense.

And what did we do? Nothing until the Detroit game.

Week after week the defense took an arsewhipping.

Did some players suck? You bet.

But any scheme that has Roy playing the deep on the cover-2 and Ware covering people is flawed.

 

[Vintage]

OK, let me make myself clearer.

From NO's on every team knew how to attack this defense.

And what did we do? Nothing until the Detroit game.

Week after week the defense took an arsewhipping.

Did some players suck? You bet.

But any scheme that has Roy playing the deep on the cover-2 and Ware covering people is flawed.

Yet, that flawed, same scheme took us to 8-4, including holding the Colts to 14 points.

Amazing how it tanked when players stopped producing....and how it worked when they did produce.

 

[Stash]

Yet, that flawed, same scheme took us to 8-4, including holding the Colts to 14 points.

Amazing how it tanked when players stopped producing....and how it worked when they did produce.

So, since the 2007 defense will be manned by essentially these same 'non-productive' players, will it suck too?

Sorry, but I couldn't disagree more.

Payton and the Saints gave the rest of the league the blueprint for how to beat Parcells' defense. The numbers bear that out. The defensive meltdown can be directly traced back to that game.

 

[Vintage]

So, since the 2007 defense will be manned by essentially these same 'non-productive' players, will it suck too?

Sorry, but I couldn't disagree more.

Payton and the Saints gave the rest of the league the blueprint for how to beat Parcells' defense. The numbers bear that out. The defensive meltdown can be directly traced back to that game.

If they play like they did the first 12 games of the season, we should be fine.

If they play like they did the last 4 games, then yeah, we'll suck.

And seeing as how I said that when they produced, we were good....I am not sure how you arrived to the conclusion you did (of what I was saying)...

See:

and how it worked when they did produce

Hell, you even quoted it....

 

[Stash]

If they play like they did the first 12 games of the season, we should be fine.

If they play like they did the last 4 games, then yeah, we'll suck.

That's a great theory considering it requires no proof whatsoever.

Numbers show a direct link between the Saints game and the defensive meltdown.

'Players forgetting how to play' sounds like an easy, ill-conceived excuse.

Anybody who continues to put Roy Williams in deep Cover 2 is an idiot.

Considering they won't be playing '3-4 for dummies' anymore, we should be fine with the same players.

 

[Stash]

If they play like they did the first 12 games of the season, we should be fine.

If they play like they did the last 4 games, then yeah, we'll suck.

And seeing as how I said that when they produced, we were good....I am not sure how you arrived to the conclusion you did (of what I was saying)...

See:



Hell, you even quoted it....

So these players will suddenly remember how to play, right?

Nonsense.

If they succeed, it will be because the scheme isn't stifling them and isn't easy for opposing offenses to figure out.

The only thing changing is scheme, not the players.

When the results change, it will be because of scheme, not players.

 

[Vintage]

So these players will suddenly remember how to play, right?

Nonsense.

If they succeed, it will be because the scheme isn't stifling them and isn't easy for opposing offenses to figure out.

The only thing changing is scheme, not the players.

When the results change, it will be because of scheme, not players.

Player's cant progress?

 

[Stash]

Player's cant progress?

So why didn't they 'progress' last year?

According to you, they regressed?

Which is it?

Whichever suits your weak point I guess......

 

[Vintage]

That's a great theory considering it requires no proof whatsoever.

Numbers show a direct link between the Saints game and the defensive meltdown.

'Players forgetting how to play' sounds like an easy, ill-conceived excuse.

Anybody who continues to put Roy Williams in deep Cover 2 is an idiot.

Considering they won't be playing '3-4 for dummies' anymore, we should be fine with the same players.

The "numbers" don't show anything other than a defense getting worse.

So telling me to go look at the numbers is pointless. It doesn't state why the defense got worse.

You are saying it took coaches 12 weeks to figure out our scheme? How dumb are they, if we are playing a '3-4 for dummies' and they cant figure out how to expose our scheme. Especially when we have geniuses here who were pointing out the flaws, like Roy Williams in coverage.

Makes no sense.

 

[Vintage]

So why didn't they 'progress' last year?

According to you, they regressed?

Which is it?

Whichever suits your weak point I guess......

You said the only thing changing was the scheme. I merely pointed out the obvious. I should have added that there will be potentially two new starters (SOLB, FS). That would put your 'only thing changing is the scheme' to rest as well.

If our scheme was so simple '3-4 for dummies' how come it took until the Saints to expose them, when sooooooo many people here new the weaknesses of the defense way back then?