Parcells' defensive philosophy

VACowboy

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,023
Reaction score
3,915
I think it was Clayton who said a few weeks ago that with the Cowboys being in their second year of their transition to the 3-4 that they'd run a lot more stunts. Interestingly enough, Parcells mentioned in his last presser that he's really not big on stunts and prefers to let his guys play one-on-one. This philosophy differs greatly from the philosophy being employed so successfully in Pittsburgh. We all thought that the vanilla defense we saw last year was a consequence of youth in the lineup, but maybe we were wrong. I'm not going to question Parcells' coaching, but I don't understand his reluctance to stunt, mix up blitzes and create a little havok. Anyone care to explain?
 
I think stunts are a gamble just like a blitz is a gamble and Bill Parcells is not a gambling coach. He'd rather beat you straight up. All he said in the PC was that once the players understand how to run the stunt it puts pressure on the DC on when to call it, but it takes two years for the players to really get it.

I expect to see more (that is, any) stunts this year.
 
PArcellls is about match ups, he more wants to move palyers aroudn and give his palyers an advnadtage whether than blitzing or dfoing stunts, that maight cost your team a big play.
 
When it comes to gameday strategy Bill Parcells is cut from the same cloth as Tom Landry, that is what most fans fail to see.

Parcells will only show the absolute minimum of his playbook to win games during the season. He believes in playing close to the vest while keeping large percentages of his offense and defense under wraps, saving the element of surprise for the games late in the season which generally determine the division championships.

This strategy is as old as football itself. Most fans can't understand why Parcells coached teams play "conservative" football but in reality he is following a strategy based upon the entire season trying to keep some fresh material so teams have to expect the un-expected.

When the season is on the line Parcells will throw the playbook at the opposition just as Landry did and many other successful coaches have done during their careers.
 
VACowboy said:
I think it was Clayton who said a few weeks ago that with the Cowboys being in their second year of their transition to the 3-4 that they'd run a lot more stunts. Interestingly enough, Parcells mentioned in his last presser that he's really not big on stunts and prefers to let his guys play one-on-one. This philosophy differs greatly from the philosophy being employed so successfully in Pittsburgh. We all thought that the vanilla defense we saw last year was a consequence of youth in the lineup, but maybe we were wrong. I'm not going to question Parcells' coaching, but I don't understand his reluctance to stunt, mix up blitzes and create a little havok. Anyone care to explain?

His scheme has won 5 Super Bowls.
 
VACowboy said:
I think it was Clayton who said a few weeks ago that with the Cowboys being in their second year of their transition to the 3-4 that they'd run a lot more stunts. Interestingly enough, Parcells mentioned in his last presser that he's really not big on stunts and prefers to let his guys play one-on-one. This philosophy differs greatly from the philosophy being employed so successfully in Pittsburgh. We all thought that the vanilla defense we saw last year was a consequence of youth in the lineup, but maybe we were wrong. I'm not going to question Parcells' coaching, but I don't understand his reluctance to stunt, mix up blitzes and create a little havok. Anyone care to explain?
This caught my ear too during Parcells' press conference. He seemed to leave the door open for more stunting than last year, but he clearly stated his preference for a more vanilla reliance on winning one-on-one matchups.

I assume the philosophy is that if you have the ability to win the one-on-one matchups routinely, there isn't much point in gambling.

Side note: People who think Zimmer is too conservative might want to redirect their criticism.
 
I just want the Cowboys defense to consistently pressure the QB any way they can so our opponents offense is disrupted. If we have the talent on this team to play straight up and get the pressure while stopping the run w/o use/risk of stunts/blitzes, seems like a no brainer to me. Of course what Parcells/Zimmer does on defense will be determined by how well our players adjust to their 2nd year in the 3-4.
 
VACowboy said:
We all thought that the vanilla defense we saw last year was a consequence of youth in the lineup, but maybe we were wrong. I'm not going to question Parcells' coaching, but I don't understand his reluctance to stunt, mix up blitzes and create a little havok. Anyone care to explain?

It was also attributed to Zimmer. So just add another thing to blame on Coach Parcells. I am sure many won't have any problem doing that.

But to clarify, he responded to that question and then followed up by saying he would use stunts and so forth to create negative plays. I think his initial response was that on a regular basis, you would not see exotic movement and so on and if you are familiar with his defenses, they never have been complex like Pittsburgh. It still comes down to execution, regardless of how fancy it looks. If he has the right players to go one on one, it looks better and makes more sense, especially to the players.

Keep it simple, stupid.
 
Next_years_Champs said:
When it comes to gameday strategy Bill Parcells is cut from the same cloth as Tom Landry, that is what most fans fail to see.

Parcells will only show the absolute minimum of his playbook to win games during the season. He believes in playing close to the vest while keeping large percentages of his offense and defense under wraps, saving the element of surprise for the games late in the season which generally determine the division championships.

This strategy is as old as football itself. Most fans can't understand why Parcells coached teams play "conservative" football but in reality he is following a strategy based upon the entire season trying to keep some fresh material so teams have to expect the un-expected.

When the season is on the line Parcells will throw the playbook at the opposition just as Landry did and many other successful coaches have done during their careers.
good post. landry & tuna saw/see football as at 12/16 game chess MATCH then the playoffs.

unfortunately most fans (and many coaches/owners) are shortsighted.

our D was "vanilla" because we had a new system and no real playmakers. we all expect that to dramatically change this year and in the future starting with pressuring the quarterback REGULARLY not just with stunts and the blitz.
 
Alexander said:
Keep it simple, stupid.

This is it in a nutshell. Why gamble with a blitz or stunt when you can win toe-to-toe?

If you stunt, you might confuse the oponents' pass blocking but you leave yourself greatly vulnerable to their draw plays. When you blitz, you had better succeed or else your pass defense will be very vulnerable.

With all of these front seven games and blitzes comes the risk of being out of position. The safest positions on defense are the ones you line up in normally. When you are moving around you are robbing Peter to pay Paul, guessing that Paul is going to be making the play. If you guess wrong, you get burned.

Parcells would rather not guess.
 
I think some have assumed that because Dick LeBeau and Wade Philips are 3-4 coaches and they run tricky schemes, that Parcells necessarily would, too. But I think they are going to be disappointed. Parcells has always wanted to make football as simple as possible. He's a disciple of Lombardi, remeber. And you can see it in things like Parcells' emphasis on offseason conditioning and his comment that the most overrated thing in football is playcalling while the most underrated is execution.

But the simpler things are, the less likely you are to beat yourself. The more complex things you run, the more likely you are to have a miscommunication, leave something wide open, and give up big plays. Remember the Giants game last year where someone missed a call from the sidelines and Shockey made that big play on us? That's less likely to happen when things are simple and straightforward.

That's why I think everyone blaming Zimmer for things like Ware not moving around a lot last year are wrong. Parcells' vaunted Giants defenses, at least as I remember, were always very simple: An odd front defense and lots of cover-2 zone. Yes, LT moved around some, but that was more because he was such an incredible player that Pacells made an exception for him and let him freelance a little. But for the most part, that defense won because it had physically superior players that executed well.

That's not to say that Parcells won't let a coordinator who has earned his trust call different things, like he did with Belicheck. But that isn't his personal preference. He'd rather beat you up with bigger, stronger, better conditioned players than outsmart you.
 

Staff online

Forum statistics

Threads
465,015
Messages
13,842,610
Members
23,783
Latest member
Dstar69
Back
Top