Using the Defensive Talent

[ddh33]

First of all, this is not intended to be a Mike Zimmer bashing thread. I have a hunch that is exactly what it may become though...

Anyway, while watching NFL Live just now I heard Salisbury, Schelerth, Wingo, and Michael Smith talking about great Shawne Merriman is. They talked about how his play has even had other fans questioning why they passed on him. They specifically mentioned Dallas. They used that to compare the two players. Actually, I was pleasantly surprised by the good things they had to say about Ware. They talked about how he does more things than Merriman on the field, how he covered Reggie Bush effectively in the preseason, how he is better in coverage, and maybe even better against the run. They did seem to give Merriman an edge in passrushing...

When they made a comparison of Merriman to LT, they brought in Michael Smith. Smith (who I really like) talked about how if anyone was capable of making that comparison it would be Bill Parcells, and Bill picked Ware instead of Merriman in that draft. He then went on to say that Merriman might not even be the best passrusher on his team (Shaun Phillips) before his mic but out and the segment ended...


Anyway, all of this got me to thinking, and I can't help but feel awfully bitter. Why don't the talented playmakers on this Dallas defense get turned loose more?

Demarcus Ware is blessed with all kinds of ability. He's already looking like a well-rounded linebacker, but his passrushing ability is what this team seems to desperately need. So why is he covering almost as much as he's rushing? I know you don't want to be too predictable and send the same people every time, but it kind of feels like a misallocation of talent. If Ware simply cursed by his own ability? I mean, you could probably argue that since he's one of the more athletic guys on this team that he is better suited to cover than other linebackers. Is he just spread so thin because he's already so good?

And what about Roy Williams? Every time I hear the gushing over Troy Polamalu I think about Roy Williams. Palumalu gets to roam around. He blitzes, and he's seldom left to cover downfield, yet no one talks about his shortcomings. Instead, he's glorified for all of the great things he can do on a field. Roy Williams get stuck in coverage quite a bit, which I understand is part of his job description, and he gets blasted for it - even though he's very solid in coverage. But do you ever wish you could see him turned loose more?

By the way, I am not a huge fan of reckless blitzing. I don't think it works. At the same time, I would like to see the playmakers here get some more opportunities to make plays.

 

[Crown Royal]

Something Parcells said a week or two ago has stuck with me. We currently play 'lane' defense, that is, that a defensive player is responsible for what is essentially two different gaps. I think the idea is that our DL are supposed to clog those lanes and allow the LBers to make plays.

The problem is, I don't think it's working. The Chargers and Pitt's defense, both very successful 3-4 defenses right now, are experts at disruption. They both rely on stunts, misdirection, disguizing and zone coverage schemes to confuse the offensive line and destroy the backfield.

Parcells, on the other hand, does not believe in this. He wants his guys to beat their guys straight up. I personally don't think this works anymore. It is too hard to assemble lineman who can constantly eat up the enormous OL of today and allow LBers to simply blitz their lines without disguise.

In a way, I actually think it is possible that the defensive philosophy of the game today has outdone Parcells. I just don't see him adjusting, either.

But what do I know, you know? I'm no hall of fame coach.

 

[Stautner]

I think the biggest reason the players aren't turned loose more is that they are young and learning and Parcells doesn't yet trust them to handle the more complicated and diverse aspects of the defense.

You have to remember that Merriman is playing with Pro-Bowl players and veterans who have been running the 3-4 for years. Same goes for Palumalu.

On the other hand, Roy, Ellis and Newman are the only starters on the defense that were starters 2 years ago, and Ellis is transitioning to a new position. James is the only other starter that was even on the team 2 years ago. On top of that, we have a rookie and 3 second year players starting. Finally, this is only our 2nd year in the 3-4.

I know it's hard, but we have to be patient. Maybe Parcells is being overly conservative, but it's always been clear that he has always been adamant about preventing mistakes and not beating yourself, and that is what he is trying to do with this defense while it matures.

That said, I hope he at least gradually starts allowing the defense to do more and more over time.

 

[wileedog]

The problem is, I don't think it's working. The Chargers and Pitt's defense, both very successful 3-4 defenses right now, are experts at disruption. They both rely on stunts, misdirection, disguizing and zone coverage schemes to confuse the offensive line and destroy the backfield.

We caused more turnovers than SD last year, and for all their "stunts, misdirection, disguizing and zone coverage schemes" Pittsburgh had the same number of INTs as us and 2 more FFs.

In fact, in the first year of the 3-4 with a couple of mediocre LBers we outperformed SD statistically in just about every single way, even with the Great Merriman. What good are all those stunts, misdirection, disguizing and zone coverage schemes if you don't produce?

I'm not saying we don't need to create more pressure, but if the game has passed Bill by, the numbers sure don't think so.

Pitts and SDs schemes are great and all, but what everyone forgets in their blitzing frenzy is that constant blitzing also leads to big plays for the other team too. And those lose ball games just as often as not blitzing enough.

 

[ddh33]

I don't think the game has passed Bill by, and I certainly understand the idea of playing straight up and winning your individual battles. I believe this defense has the makings of a great defense.

At the same time, I do get jealous because I wish some of the big playmakers here were turned loose more. Apparently it's not hurting anything though, and it's just a different way of doing things.

 

[Crown Royal]

We caused more turnovers than SD last year, and for all their "stunts, misdirection, disguizing and zone coverage schemes" Pittsburgh had the same number of INTs as us and 2 more FFs.

In fact, in the first year of the 3-4 with a couple of mediocre LBers we outperformed SD statistically in just about every single way, even with the Great Merriman. What good are all those stunts, misdirection, disguizing and zone coverage schemes if you don't produce?

I'm not saying we don't need to create more pressure, but if the game has passed Bill by, the numbers sure don't think so.

Pitts and SDs schemes are great and all, but what everyone forgets in their blitzing frenzy is that constant blitzing also leads to big plays for the other team too. And those lose ball games just as often as not blitzing enough.

See...the difference I see, and I acknowledge...it's the first game...but what I noticed is that both those defenses looked improved over what they were last year. We looked the same or worse.

 

[wileedog]

See...the difference I see, and I acknowledge...it's the first game...but what I noticed is that both those defenses looked improved over what they were last year. We looked the same or worse.

I'm sure we would have looked a lot better against the Raiders and Daunte "I Miss Randy" Culpepper too.

Jax couldn't move the ball *at all* against us for a quarter and a half, and if the stupid penalties and turnovers didn't start who knows if they ever would have. By the 3rd Q the defense was tiring, and Jax wiseley went to 3 step drops - all the blitzing in the world isn't going to beat a quick 3 step and a laser to a 6-4 receiver. Henry and TN have to step up in that situation.

I'm not saying I wouldn't mind seeing us open up a bit, but I think you have to be careful what you wish for. The Steelers have done a fantastic job over the years drafting players who fit their philosophy and have a veteran unit that knows what its doing. Most of our front 7 playmakers are still in their first or second year, either in the 3-4 or the league as a whole.

SD is a closer comparison as they are only one year ahead of us in the 3-4, but as I said we were a better defense last year, and I bet we will be again this year.

 

[THUMPER]

We caused more turnovers than SD last year, and for all their "stunts, misdirection, disguizing and zone coverage schemes" Pittsburgh had the same number of INTs as us and 2 more FFs.

In fact, in the first year of the 3-4 with a couple of mediocre LBers we outperformed SD statistically in just about every single way, even with the Great Merriman. What good are all those stunts, misdirection, disguizing and zone coverage schemes if you don't produce?

I'm not saying we don't need to create more pressure, but if the game has passed Bill by, the numbers sure don't think so.

Pitts and SDs schemes are great and all, but what everyone forgets in their blitzing frenzy is that constant blitzing also leads to big plays for the other team too. And those lose ball games just as often as not blitzing enough.

Here are the stats and rankings (from NFL.com) for each defense in question:

Dallas 37 sacks (#17), 26 turnovers = 15 INTs + 11 FF (#23)
Pittsburgh 47 sacks (#3), 30 turnovers = 15 INTs + 15 FF (#12)
San Diego 46 sacks (#5), 20 turnovers = 10 INTs + 10 FF (#27)

Dallas Pass #11, Run #15, Total #10, Points #12
Pittsburgh Pass #16, Run #3, Total #4, Points #3
San Diego Pass #28, Run #1, Total #13, Points #13

Not sure what that all says but I just wanted to get the facts out there accurately.

 

[wileedog]

Here are the stats and rankings (from NFL.com) for each defense in question:

Dallas 37 sacks (#17), 26 turnovers = 15 INTs + 11 FF (#23)
Pittsburgh 47 sacks (#3), 30 turnovers = 15 INTs + 15 FF (#12)
San Diego 46 sacks (#5), 20 turnovers = 10 INTs + 10 FF (#27)

Dallas Pass #11, Run #15, Total #10, Points #12
Pittsburgh Pass #16, Run #3, Total #4, Points #3
San Diego Pass #28, Run #1, Total #13, Points #13

Not sure what that all says but I just wanted to get the facts out there accurately.

It says Pittsburgh is well established already at what are trying to build, and it says SD had 9 more sacks than us yet was still the #28 ranked defense against the pass and created less turnovers. Which was my whole point.

 

[Cbz40]

Very simple maybe we do not have the coaches that can teach.

The way we seem to be approaching this change in scheme is that we better not put to much on the players all at once. Give me a dadgum break!!!! If High School & collegte coaches can teach new plays, schemes, and techniques in a week why can't the boyz defensive coaches.

We have been running the 3/4 for a year now and we have How many new players on D? TWO or THREE. I'm getting the impression here that some are trying to tell me our D players are not intelligent enough to grasp something new.


I'm also beginning to think we were sold a bill of goods......The change to the 3/4 D is just what the Doctor ordered. Fine! lets see it!!! and I mean the whole thing.

Convince me for heavens sake.

OK....thank you I needed to vent.

 

[Stautner]

See...the difference I see, and I acknowledge...it's the first game...but what I noticed is that both those defenses looked improved over what they were last year. We looked the same or worse.

THIS EXPLAINATION WAS IN MY POST AN HOUR AGO - you just aren't comparing apples to apples:

You have to remember that Merriman is playing with Pro-Bowl players and veterans who have been running the 3-4 for years. Same goes for Palumalu.

On the other hand, Roy, Ellis and Newman are the only starters on the defense that were starters 2 years ago, and Ellis is transitioning to a new position. James is the only other starter that was even on the team 2 years ago. On top of that, we have a rookie and 3 second year players starting. Finally, this is only our 2nd year in the 3-4.

I KNOW THAT ALL OF THAT DOESN'T APPLY TO YOUR POST, BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT COMPARED TO PITTSBURGH AND SAN DIEGO OUR DEFENSIVE PLAYERS ARE STILL WET BEHIND THE EARS AND PARCELLS DOESN'T FEEL COMFORTABLE TURNING THEM LOOSE YET.

 

[DipChit]

These players vs scheme arguments are always interesting.

Personally, rather than assume player(s) X or Y is really good before they ever actually do it on a consistent level, I just tend to assume the player(s) isnt that good. Especially when it comes to particular positions like say pass rushers. Everybody in the stadium knows that when it comes to the great ones, your tackle better be at his best, you're gonna have to give him help from time to time and the rusher is prolly still going to create at least some havoc.

I dont care how much other crap our guys might have to do. Theres going to be no shortage of time where all they have to do is beat the man in front of them to get to the QB or otherwise just totally disrupt the play.

Oh sure theres been some incredibly inept coaches in the league over the years. I just dont happen to think BP is one of them.

So until guys like Carver or Pittman or Ekuban or Ellis or even Ware if he should at some point move on, ever go to a different team and become a premier pass rusher I'll just have to assume they dont have it in them.

Yeah scheme might be the difference for some of those other guys where they got a couple sacks here and 6 or 8 somewhere else. Big deal. When we gonna get a guy thats capable of 18 and our coaches "hold him back" to the point where he gets "only" 14?

maybe Ware *is* going to be that guy. But I'm not just going to assume he is. I'm just hoping he is.

 

[Stautner]

These players vs scheme arguments are always interesting.

Personally, rather than assume player(s) X or Y is really good before they ever actually do it on a consistent level, I just tend to assume the player(s) isnt that good. Especially when it comes to particular positions like say pass rushers. Everybody in the stadium knows that when it comes to the great ones, your tackle better be at his best, you're gonna have to give him help from time to time and the rusher is prolly still going to create at least some havoc.

I dont care how much other crap our guys might have to do. Theres going to be no shortage of time where all they have to do is beat the man in front of them to get to the QB or otherwise just totally disrupt the play.

Oh sure theres been some incredibly inept coaches in the league over the years. I just dont happen to think BP is one of them.

So until guys like Carver or Pittman or Ekuban or Ellis or even Ware if he should at some point move on, ever go to a different team and become a premier pass rusher I'll just have to assume they dont have it in them.

Yeah scheme might be the difference for some of those other guys where they got a couple sacks here and 6 or 8 somewhere else. Big deal. When we gonna get a guy thats capable of 18 and our coaches "hold him back" to the point where he gets "only" 14?

maybe Ware *is* going to be that guy. But I'm not just going to assume he is. I'm just hoping he is.

This goes along with a point that I try to make all the time - something that is logical but not accepted by most because fans tend to throw logic out the window.

My point is always that many people too often take the words "talent" and "potential" and translate them to mean "guaranteed production". Obviously Ware has physical talent, but until that translates into consistent production on the field it means very little. Lots of "talented" guys with "potential" never pan out, while others who are less talented and have less potential sometimes do - like Bill Bates. "Talent" and "potential" are things to get excited about as fans, but not to count on - actual production is all that matters.

 

[DipChit]

Well ya, Staut.

Like Jimmy said about Haley the other day. It's about great players.

I imagine doods like him are more or less born, not coached.

If it was all about coaching and schemes to have a dominant pass rush(er) they wouldnt have had to take a flyer on that guy at the time. They could've just coached up Tolbert to be him and then someone else to be Tolbert.

Same with Leon Lett for a time at the tackle spot. I dont think he was coached into being a destroyer. How could he have been.. he was too stoned to be paying attention to what the coaches were saying anyways.

 

[Cbz40]

I guess happen to be one of those illogical fans. There have been talented players, with potential, that have been wasted by coaches that are so bull headed, that suffer from tunnel vision, and by simply coaches that cannot teach. One should coach to a player or players strengths not weaknesses.
99.9% 0f coaches that are successful do this.

There are also instances when a change in scheme, pedagogical techniques, and a different coach with a different coaching philosophy has jetisoned a player to reach his full potential.

If what I am saying isn't also logical I hereby throw logic out the window.

 

[DipChit]

There have been talented players, with potential, that have been wasted by coaches that are so bull headed, that suffer from tunnel vision, and by simply coaches that cannot teach. One should coach to a player or players strengths not weaknesses.
99.9% 0f coaches that are successful do this.

No I agree with that. Theres no arguing it. You could site all kinds of examples. Qb's that might only be able to succeed as WCO type guys but coaches might try it the other way. Backs who couldnt take the punishment of every down use but coaches do it. Coaches that insist on using 4 and 5 WR sets alot but dont have the depth at the position to truly pull it off.

Or vice versa in any of those cases.

But to assume that Bill isnt smart enough anymore to by in large understand what he has in most players.. if he had anything close to what he thought was the next LT he'd prolly use the guy that way.., is in my mind as inaccurate as saying what happened with Jimmy down in Miami proves that what he did here was a fluke.

But with Bill that actually could be true, who knows. It's just as one fan I tend to not think so. I'll give him more the benefit of the doubt to be good at what he does than I will to assume a kid is the next "real deal" by doing nothing more than putting his John Hancock on the dotted line of his signing bonus check or looking particularly good in pre-season.

When it comes to Ware, if he ever stopped rushing the passer altogether (yeah right) or becomes so good that suddenly he's double teamed a big percentage of the time, it would be understandable if he struggled. But like the other day when he started off pretty good and then tailed off in the 2nd half and his excuse was "Well I thought I had him set up to start trying some different moves".. um, quit thinking. Perhaps the coaches would tell him that too in a case like that.

Coaches need really good players. For the most part, but indeed not always, it's the player that has his own inbred limitations, not ones coaches are imparting on them. I have to believe thats true otherwise thered be alot more true superstars in this league as opposed to like a Top 5 at every position and then a whole bunch of guys that are all fairly equal before you get on down to the real stiffs.

 

[Cbz40]

No I agree with that. Theres no arguing it. You could site all kinds of examples. Qb's that might only be able to succeed as WCO type guys but coaches might try it the other way. Backs who couldnt take the punishment of every down use but coaches do it. Coaches that insist on using 4 and 5 WR sets alot but dont have the depth at the position to truly pull it off.

Or vice versa in any of those cases.

But to assume that Bill isnt smart enough anymore to by in large understand what he has in most players.. if he had anything close to what he thought was the next LT he'd prolly use the guy that way.., is in my mind as inaccurate as saying what happened with Jimmy down in Miami proves that what he did here was a fluke.

But with Bill that actually could be true, who knows. It's just as one fan I tend to not think so. I'll give him more the benefit of the doubt to be good at what he does than I will to assume a kid is the next "real deal" by doing nothing more than putting his John Hancock on the dotted line of his signing bonus check or looking particularly good in pre-season.

When it comes to Ware, if he ever stopped rushing the passer altogether (yeah right) or becomes so good that suddenly he's double teamed a big percentage of the time, it would be understandable if he struggled. But like the other day when he started off pretty good and then tailed off in the 2nd half and his excuse was "Well I thought I had him set up to start trying some different moves".. um, quit thinking. Perhaps the coaches would tell him that too in a case like that.

Coaches need really good players. For the most part, but indeed not always, it's the player that has his own inbred limitations, not ones coaches are imparting on them. I have to believe thats true otherwise thered be alot more true superstars in this league as opposed to like a Top 5 at every position and then a whole bunch of guys that are all fairly equal before you get on down to the real stiffs.

Very well said. I agree with almost everything that you are articulating to me.

I think in todays NFL it is almost impossible to assume you are going to have a Top 5 player at every position. You are going to be lucky to have players of that caliber in one or two positions..... That is unless you have been drafting in the top five consecutively for a few years.

Which brings me to my point. Those almost super star & marginal players become the blood & guts of your football team. The head coach and his staff must be able to get as much out of these people as possible. If that entails changing a scheme and introducing plays that are more suited to their talents, then do so. You must cater to them because those are the ones that will make you are break you.

As you said the Haleys & Letts will take care of themselves.......the others must be coached up.

Parcells is very fine Coach......but, and I'm not saying it has, sometimes the game passes you by.

Every coach must be willing and able to change with the times. What worked 30 years ago just might not work in todays game.






The "Ware" example I do agree with

 

[DipChit]

I hear ya!

And no matter what other things we may all disagree or agree on.. one thing is for sure. We all want Ware to become a truly premier guy no matter how he does it.. regardless of what any players on any other teams become. Ones we coulda had or ones we never had a shot at... doesnt matter. He's our guy.

 

[Cbz40]

I hear ya!

And no matter what other things we may all disagree or agree on.. one thing is for sure. We all want Ware to become a truly premier guy no matter how he does it.. regardless of what any players on any other teams become. Ones we coulda had or ones we never had a shot at... doesnt matter. He's our guy.

Exactly: I've enjoyed the dialogue Sir.

We must do it again sometime.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

And what about Roy Williams?

one position

Free Safety

that hasn't been solved yet, we're hoping Pat Watkins is the guy, but that position is causing Roy to play in coverage more than we would like, or his skills suggest, although he's hanging in there quite well