Grizz: Saints game redux

[Stash]

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.

More sense than 'the guys forgot how to play' nonsense you're trying to sell.

I guess we should all hope they remember how this year, huh?

:laugh2:

 

[ZeroClub]

I wish I could forget that game....

 

[Stash]

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.

An 'obvious' point which blew a nice hole in your 'forgot how to play' theory. Nice going.

Two 'potential' starters?

I guess when the defense improves, it will be because of those two 'potential starters' then and not the other 9 guys on the field.

Unless they 'remember' how to play again.......

 

[Vintage]

More sense than 'the guys forgot how to play' nonsense you're trying to sell.

I guess we should all hope they remember how this year, huh?

:laugh2:

Except, I said they just stopped producing. It has nothing to with remembering. Players stop producing for various reasons.

But yeah, the Saints and Sean Payton had to expose the '3-4 defense for dummies' and all of the simplicities that were involved with it before any other team could (and continued to do so).....

 

[Stash]

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?

How come the team could hold Manning to 14 points and then Vick throws for 4 TD's?

They forgot how to play?

Pffttt.

That's the lamest 'theory' I've ever heard.

They went from giving up 17 points a game in the first 12 weeks to giving up 33 in the last 4.

Because Payton showed the rest of the league how to beat their defense - because he knew the players strengths and weaknesses, and because he knew exactly what their vanilla defense would run. He gave the league the blueprint and they ran with it.

He did a good enough job that guys like Vick and Kitna were able to feast on it.

The Cowboys players didn't suddenly have 'selective amnesia' and forget how to play......

 

[Vintage]

How come the team could hold Manning to 14 points and then Vick throws for 4 TD's?

They forgot how to play?

Pffttt.

That's the lamest 'theory' I've ever heard.

They went from giving up 17 points a game in the first 12 weeks to giving up 33 in the last 4.

Because Payton showed the rest of the league how to beat their defense - because he knew the players strengths and weaknesses, and because he knew exactly what their vanilla defense would run. He gave the league the blueprint and they ran with it.

He did a good enough job that guys like Vick and Kitna were able to feast on it.

The Cowboys players didn't suddenly have 'selective amnesia' and forget how to play......

Odd. I don't recall saying they forgot how to play. I did say they did stop producing.

 

[Stash]

Except, I said they just stopped producing. It has nothing to with remembering. Players stop producing for various reasons.

But yeah, the Saints and Sean Payton had to expose the '3-4 defense for dummies' and all of the simplicities that were involved with it before any other team could (and continued to do so).....

I'd love to hear those 'various reasons'. And make sure you give me 11 - one for each guy that 'stopped producing'.

Who knew Parcells, the Cowboys and their players better than Payton?

Nobody.

 

[Stash]

Odd. I don't recall saying they forgot how to play. I did say they did stop producing.

Yeah, and you also said nothing to support such a vague, thoughtless statement.

I'd love to hear the rest of this cockamamie theory though.....

 

[Smashmouth24]

Is it really '3-4 defense for dummies' if it took the NFL, including the Superbowl Champions, 12 weeks to beat it so soundly?

 

[superpunk]

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

Are you seriously asking this question?

The head coach left. This isn't rocket surgery.

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.

Don't make things up, winky. It gives you AIDs.

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.

Yet it worked just fine for almost the entire year, aside from when "Pet Cat" Watkins was cutting his crappy teeth. The mistake was thinking we could get b with Watkins and Davis, instead of making a move for a real FS (like SOMEONE advocated last offseason, specifically mentioning a player while the Watkins lovers wailed...own that )

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

Keep dreaming mikey. Maybe eventually you'll be able to separate your emotions regarding the people on the sideline from the cold hard facts staring you in the face regarding the actual play on the field.

But I doubt it. I certainly won't be holding my breath for a realistic analysis of our problems that goes any further intellectually than "Parcells sucks."

 

[Cowboy4ever]

If you want to know why we sucked after the Saints game, it had nothing to do with the scheme or the coachs. It had to do with the players. After the loss to the saints, you could tell the players lost confidence in the scheme. They lost confidence in the coachs. Thus, they lost games. If the players would have played with the same level of confidence in the last games at the first 12.. we would have been fine. There could be a number of reasons as to why the players felt like they did..but its their job to play their heart out every play and there is no way anyone can say the players on D did that the last 4 games of the regular season.. i do think they did in the playoff game.

 

[gbrittain]

Our players came up small too.

The blame goes around, plenty.

If you by the groceries...you get the credit/blame.

Time will only tell if he put together an average team or his coaching was average.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Are you seriously asking this question?

The head coach left. This isn't rocket surgery.

Don't make things up, winky. It gives you AIDs.

Yet it worked just fine for almost the entire year, aside from when "Pet Cat" Watkins was cutting his crappy teeth. The mistake was thinking we could get b with Watkins and Davis, instead of making a move for a real FS (like SOMEONE advocated last offseason, specifically mentioning a player while the Watkins lovers wailed...own that )

Keep dreaming mikey. Maybe eventually you'll be able to separate your emotions regarding the people on the sideline from the cold hard facts staring you in the face regarding the actual play on the field.

But I doubt it. I certainly won't be holding my breath for a realistic analysis of our problems that goes any further intellectually than "Parcells sucks."

I was going to respond more thoroughly but once I read your reply and found how little substance was there... I lost interest.


Sorry.

 

[superpunk]

I was going to respond more thoroughly but once I read your reply and found how little substance was there... I lost interest.


Sorry.

A copout. And not even an interesting one, after you played the role of braggart?

Poorly played, Michael. Noone begged you to respond, just so you could tell me how "un"-thoroughly you intended to respond.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

A copout. And not even an interesting one, after you played the role of braggart?

Poorly played, Michael. Noone begged you to respond, just so you could tell me how "un"-thoroughly you intended to respond.

Yawn.

 

[cowboyz]

this is the beauty of sports. we will find out.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Our defensive "scheme" wasn't "exposed". That's loser talk.

It may indeed be loser talk; unfortunately, it's also the truth. A defensive scheme can be exposed when...

a) ...it's antiquated.

b) ...it fails to place players in the best position to succeed.

c) ...it combines a and b in some manner.

"c" is the circumstance most applicable to the 2006 Dallas Cowboys. It is true that opponents required 12 games to solve the Zimmer/Parcells puzzle, but it was solved, undeniably, and Dallas' coaching staff had absolutely no effective counter.

Do you think it's just coincidence that Parcells' Cowboys were the only team still utilizing a pure 2 gap scheme? Or that every team after the Saints exploited Dallas in precisely the same manner? Or that Mike Holmgrem was able to force Demarcus Ware into coverage so consistently during Dallas' playoff loss?

Do you really think that, after 12 games, the players suddenly decided proper execution was too bothersome even though it was the difference between winning and losing?

 

[superpunk]

"c" is the circumstance that is most applicable to the 2006 Dallas Cowboys. It is true that opponents required 12 games to solve the Zimmer/Parcells puzzle, but it was undeniably solved and Dallas' coaching staff had absolutely no effective counter.

Until the playoffs, of course, when our defense held stout while our passing game floundered. I guess Seattle didn't get the "This is how to beat them" memo, as Bobby Carpenter came up huge, Newman made game-changing plays and our run defense held?

Do you really think that, after 12 games, the players suddenly decided proper execution was too bothersome even though it was the difference between winning and losing?

Don't be shallow. Of course they didn't decide to stop executing. They were just incapable. They were in a slump. That doesn't mean they will always be incapable, as shown against Seattle, save for some terrible play from Roy Williams - it just means for four games, they got their ***** handed to them.

Indy and Philly experienced similar slumps with their woeful run defense, before they managed to stop the bleeding for the playoff run. Their defensive scheme didn't go from useless, to functional - it remained the same. The players just executed.

 

[Vintage]

It may indeed be loser talk; unfortunately, it's also the truth. A defensive scheme can be exposed when...

a) ...it's antiquated.

b) ...it fails to place players in the best position to succeed.

c) ...it combines a and b in some manner.

"c" is the circumstance that is most applicable to the 2006 Dallas Cowboys. It is true that opponents required 12 games to solve the Zimmer/Parcells puzzle, but it was undeniably solved and Dallas' coaching staff had absolutely no effective counter.

Do you think it's just coincidence that Parcells' Cowboys were the only team still utilizing a pure 2 gap scheme? Or that every team after the Saints exploited Dallas in precisely the same manner? Or that Mike Holmgrem was able to force Demarcus Ware into coverage so consistently during Dallas' playoff loss?

Do you really think that, after 12 games, the players suddenly decided proper execution was too bothersome even though it was the difference between winning and losing?

And that same old antiquated scheme nearly beat Seattle.

Had Romo not dropped that snap on that chip shot field goal, we would have beaten (or at least been in great position) to beat Seattle.

So was Holmgrem just to dumb to figure out our scheme even though Jim Mora Jr, Sean Payton, Rod Marinelli, etc were 'smart enough' to figure it out?

And in a playoff game, no less....

 

[Stash]

And that same old antiquated scheme nearly beat Seattle.

Had Romo not dropped that snap on that chip shot field goal, we would have beaten (or at least been in great position) to beat Seattle.

So was Holmgrem just to dumb to figure out our scheme even though Jim Mora Jr, Sean Payton, Rod Marinelli, etc were 'smart enough' to figure it out?

And in a playoff game, no less....

Maybe those 'unproductive' players just magically remembered how to play the game?