I'm predicting...

[Future]

We have an O-line, no disgruntled RBs

 

[dougonthebench]

I'm gonna wait until they put on the pads and play a preseason game or two before I "predict" the outcome of this season.What about you?

 

[blindzebra]

Get real - He never sent LT? It was too aggressive because his Safeties and RCB sucked in COVERAGE.

We have addressed that - Bellicheck and Parcells run same defense and there is aggressive elements, they put MENTAL stress on an offense. We were so predictable last year it was PATHETIC.

LT was a playmaker, that would be what I meant when I said, "He wants better players in position to make plays."

It was too aggressive because the secondary sucked, I guess that is what Parcells meant when he said, "I HATE TO BLITZ."

 

[Mike 1967]

LT was a playmaker, that would be what I meant when I said, "He wants better players in position to make plays."

It was too aggressive because the secondary sucked, I guess that is what Parcells meant when he said, "I HATE TO BLITZ."

But I thought that Parcells said that he hated to have to resort to the Blitz to apply pressure. That he preferred to apply pressure with the front 7 ?

If this is true then you could make the argument that his statement is evidence that he prefers to "attack". Because he will sacrifice on something that he does not like (blitz when he does not really want to) to gains that which he ultimately prefers (put pressure on the opposing offense)

I cannot give specific evidence...but my obervations so far lead me to believe that Parcells is a believer in pressuring the QB. That pressuring the QB ultimately results in poor decisions that ultimately results in Turnovers which ultimately results in wins. So I do believe that attacking/pressure from the defense is a huge part of his philosophy.

But at the same time...he is not a gambler. He prefers to play the odds. Which is why he does not like the blitz and why he does not like QB's who make risky decisions.

 

[Mike 1967]

I'm gonna wait until they put on the pads and play a preseason game or two before I "predict" the outcome of this season.What about you?

Personally, I like to make predictions.

Otherwise I don't think I would be spending time on this forum in the off-season ? Not much to talk about

 

[blindzebra]

But I thought that Parcells said that he hated to have to resort to the Blitz to apply pressure. That he preferred to apply pressure with the front 7 ?

If this is true then you could make the argument that his statement is evidence that he prefers to "attack". Because he will sacrifice on something that he does not like (blitz when he does not really want to) to gains that which he ultimately prefers (put pressure on the opposing offense)

I cannot give specific evidence...but my obervations so far lead me to believe that Parcells is a believer in pressuring the QB. That pressuring the QB ultimately results in poor decisions that ultimately results in Turnovers which ultimately results in wins. So I do believe that attacking/pressure from the defense is a huge part of his philosophy.

But at the same time...he is not a gambler. He prefers to play the odds. Which is why he does not like the blitz and why he does not like QB's who make risky decisions.

He wants players making plays without risking big plays doing it. Pretty simple.

Zimmer did not have those players. We might have some players now that can do that, they just have never played a down in the NFL.

It's not the scheme, it's the personnel. My 11 will smash your 11 in the face, and we don't have to get cute to do it. That's the Tuna way.

 

[Mike 1967]

He wants players making plays without risking big plays doing it. Pretty simple. .

I agree with that statement.

But I don't believe that this translates into a non-attack philosophy.

You can attack without taking risks.

Zimmer did not have those players. We might have some players now that can do that, they just have never played a down in the NFL. .

Agreed

I have hopes because I believe in 3 things.....(1) Parcells has the ability to evaluate talent... (2) Parcells knows the 3-4 well enough to know what types of players will excel best in the scheme. (3) Jones won't dictate to PArcells who he should or should not draft.

So I have great hope....but this may simply be from Homerism. Only time will tell.

It's not the scheme, it's the personnel. My 11 will smash your 11 in the face, and we don't have to get cute to do it. That's the Tuna way.

I don't agree. It is both. If your scheme is lousy then you can lose even if you have the best personnel.

Also, the best personnel in the world does not mean much if you have them in the wrong scheme.

It's the scheme and the personnel. You need both to succeed.

 

[blindzebra]

I don't agree. It is both. If your scheme is lousy then you can lose even if you have the best personnel.

Also, the best personnel in the world does not mean much if you have them in the wrong scheme.

Isn't that the same thing? Saying the same thing twice, with a slight variation, is cheating in a debate Mike.

Bad scheme, wrong scheme, by definition wouldn't a bad scheme be the wrong scheme for your personnel?

It still always comes back to the players. Great players can carry an average scheme/coach...see Switzer 1995.

Those same great players, making mistakes, won't...see Switzer 1994.

 

[ravidubey]

Unfortunately every division win will be hard fought because each NFC East team tat was 6-10 last year will be much tougher in 2005. Carolina, Atlanta, and Philadelphia will be a bit overrated. New Orleans. Tampa Bay, and Minnesota are underrated. Green Bay is in severe decline.

But with the coaching and talent this team has they will go far. The way I see it, the age risk to health (OL, WR, QB) is our biggest concern.

 

[Mike 1967]

Isn't that the same thing? Saying the same thing twice, with a slight variation, is cheating in a debate Mike.

Bad scheme, wrong scheme, by definition wouldn't a bad scheme be the wrong scheme for your personnel?

It still always comes back to the players. Great players can carry an average scheme/coach...see Switzer 1995.

Those same great players, making mistakes, won't...see Switzer 1994.

Those great players under 1994 also played in good schemes that were implemented by previous coaches

Have you read that recent Ring of Honor article on the triplest. All 3 of them stated that Norv was a key piece to the SB's. I think Aikman even said that they would not have won without Norm. And Norm = Scheme.

In my opinion a bad scheme could be either of the following:
(1) Bad X's and O's (i.e. bad strategy)
(2) Good X's and O's...but does not match the existing personnel.

I would also say that a good scheme should only have the wrong personnel when it is being newly implemented (i.e. coach or coordinator is inheriting pre-existing personnel.) Otherwise, you have a situation whereby organization is not selecting the correct personnel.

So....three things are actually important. (In order of importance)

(1) Good Personnel
(2) Scheme fits the personnel (organization selects the correct players)
(3) Scheme is a sound one

I do agree that if given the option to choose 1 of the 3...that good personnel would be the one to choose. But...the odds favor the team that has all 3.

A.K.A. - New England Patriots

 

[RCowboyFan]

..... a rough year.

Our defense is simply to young and we are installing a brand new scheme.

The defense perfomance will be up and down this year.

Although I think we do have a good chance to finish above 500 and possibly make the playoffs.

IMO....next year is the year that things really start to turn around.

Count me one of those, who thinks Defense can be bad at times this year. I just don't see whole thing coming together quick enough for D to be real good.

Especially with the Veterans not being too happy about the switch etc. and Zimmer not being that familiar with 3-4 adds to that.

Third I just don't think Bledsoe will be good or atleast consistant game by game basis. I am not talking about a Stinker here and there, but that I just see him being that dependable to give a consistant performance every week. I hope I am wrong on that, but we'll see about that.

 

[jksmith269]

Buffalo started out 0-4 last year, but finished strong beating up on weak teams, yet still didn't make the playoffs because of Bledsoe. How do you get 10-12 wins out of that?

Damn and I thought this was a team game! Where have I been? Bledsoe by himself lost enough games for the bills to keep them out of the playoffs, just out of spite I would guess.

But you know what we are NOT the Bills. we have a better O line, just as good RB's, They have the edge in WR's as for threat but we have the possesion WR they didn't have, we have better TE's, and we have a better coach.

Get off Drew B's "sack" if you catch my drift. You make it sound like he sucks when in fact he is a good QB, whom most think is over the hill but in fact should still be in his prime end of it but still his prime.

I hate that **** "Because of Bledsoe" that is a crock of Crap. Get over it already. He is better than what we had or have in reserve at this point, and the best pick out of what was available.

 

[Mike 1967]

Isn't that the same thing? Saying the same thing twice, with a slight variation, is cheating in a debate Mike.

Bad scheme, wrong scheme, by definition wouldn't a bad scheme be the wrong scheme for your personnel?

It still always comes back to the players. Great players can carry an average scheme/coach...see Switzer 1995.

Those same great players, making mistakes, won't...see Switzer 1994.

I also think that a bad scheme could be one that has "unrealistic" personnel demands.

I would use Shaq as an analogy. You could have a coach come up with the very best scheme for Shaq....and this would be a good scheme so long as Shaq were on your team.

But...in the long run it would prove to be a bad scheme because Shaq is a very rare commodity.

This is why I am sold on the 3-4.

I read an article a few years back regarding the rarity and expense of a good prototype DE for the 4-3. These types of DE are in short supply and hence very expensive (if you can get one). On the other hand, the prototypical OLB in a 3-4 is in much higher supply and much cheaper.

(You can understand my excitement on this topic following our continued failure to find a DE gamebreaker to replace the departure of Haley.)

I think that Dieon is another good example. We had arguably the best Cover Corner in the history of the game...and we built a scheme around him. But the scheme struggled after the player was lost....because Dieon is a once in a century type of player....like Shaq.

 

[Cbz40]

Sorry jks I'm not sold on Bledsoe either..........he should be better than Vinny.....at least I hope so.. I hope he proves to be a good fit but I need to be shown.


I also think it will take at least a half of a season for the D to really start clicking.

 

[Mike 1967]

Sorry jks I'm not sold on Bledsoe either..........he should be better than Vinny.....at least I hope so.. I hope he proves to be a good fit but I need to be shown.


I also think it will take at least a half of a season for the D to really start clicking.

Henson and stong D in 2006 ?

The only big question area would be the wideouts....but Glenn and Key may still have a couple of good years in the tank...

I think we will be drafting WR next year.

 

[Cbz40]

Henson and stong D in 2006 ?

The only big question area would be the wideouts....but Glenn and Key may still have a couple of good years in the tank...

I think we will be drafting WR next year.

WR must be the first priority in the 2006 draft.

I'm confident the D will be very good by the end of this season and steller in 2006.........Henson must be the future or we are in trouble.

 

[Kilyin]

Look at any team that has one or more players with double digit sacks. I guarantee you they play an aggressive defense. This engage and occupy, sit back and wait for something to happen crap needs to go, now.

If Parcells is really reluctant to blitz (And this is the first I've heard of that) that gives me one more reason to doubt him, especially with Zimmer at DC. I thought one of the main supposed 'benefits' of using the 3-4 was the ability to disguise plays and blitz more effectively from different positions.

 

[Fletch]

I am predicting a 10-6 to 11-5 season from a rather surprising and upstart Dallas Cowboys team. A split between the Iggles and another sweep of the Deadskins.

We will make the playoffs!

 

[blindzebra]

I also think that a bad scheme could be one that has "unrealistic" personnel demands.

I would use Shaq as an analogy. You could have a coach come up with the very best scheme for Shaq....and this would be a good scheme so long as Shaq were on your team.

But...in the long run it would prove to be a bad scheme because Shaq is a very rare commodity.

This is why I am sold on the 3-4.

I read an article a few years back regarding the rarity and expense of a good prototype DE for the 4-3. These types of DE are in short supply and hence very expensive (if you can get one). On the other hand, the prototypical OLB in a 3-4 is in much higher supply and much cheaper.

(You can understand my excitement on this topic following our continued failure to find a DE gamebreaker to replace the departure of Haley.)

I think that Dieon is another good example. We had arguably the best Cover Corner in the history of the game...and we built a scheme around him. But the scheme struggled after the player was lost....because Dieon is a once in a century type of player....like Shaq.

The key to not having a Haley is to have 4 solid players across the line and adequate depth behind them. In fact Haley was Haley because of that depth.

If the 3-4 was the end-all and so easy to aquire the proper personnel, why isn't it the common defense in the NFL?

Because the position even harder to fill than 4-3 DE is dominate NT and without one, teams will run the ball all day long.

That is actually what will be our problem, we will have a VERY SMALL 3-4. Ferguson is not a big NT and Glover is even smaller, Ellis is small and Canty is basically the same size at this point. Burnett and Singleton are smaller than Parcells likes, Shanle and Dat are both 240.

As we stand right now Spears and Ware are the only ideal-sized 3-4 players likely to start.

It's hard to be aggressive and get after the QB, when teams are running it down your throat.

 

[Mike 1967]

The key to not having a Haley is to have 4 solid players across the line and adequate depth behind them. In fact Haley was Haley because of that depth.

If the 3-4 was the end-all and so easy to aquire the proper personnel, why isn't it the common defense in the NFL?

Because the position even harder to fill than 4-3 DE is dominate NT and without one, teams will run the ball all day long.

That is actually what will be our problem, we will have a VERY SMALL 3-4. Ferguson is not a big NT and Glover is even smaller, Ellis is small and Canty is basically the same size at this point. Burnett and Singleton are smaller than Parcells likes, Shanle and Dat are both 240.

As we stand right now Spears and Ware are the only ideal-sized 3-4 players likely to start.

It's hard to be aggressive and get after the QB, when teams are running it down your throat.

hmmm

If you are correct on the difficulty of filling the NT position....then I will no longer be a fan of the 3-4

At the end of the day I would much rather be passed on than run on. There is nothing more painful than being run on because it kills the clock. At least if you are getting beat by the pass you have a hope of matching the score with your own offense.

I hope you are wrong on the NT. But I don't have enough information to have an opinion either way. Time will have to tell on that one.

But I do have confidence in Furgeson. By all accounts he plays bigger than his size. But...if he goes down....then we are in trouble. There is no way that Glover can be an effective NT in the 3-4 on a consistent basis on running downs.