Worried about this defense

[jobberone]

Hatcher is a quality player but no one will confuse him with Randy White or even Russell Maryland. I do beleive that between he and Hayden, they can get the job done at DT until Rat comes back.

I agree with this completely. I'd love to draft a DT next year who can penetrate and give us and up the middle pass rush. I also agree with the decision to draft more offense this year. Last year the D failed the team but that was an anomaly if you look at the points given up over the last few. It's the offense and the lack of a run game and RZ and TD% that have hurt us the worse since the end of 2007. In fact with the exception of 12 games in 2007 and a few in 2009 the offense has failed this club for years.

 

[Idgit]

To the OP, I was worried about exactly this when we named Kiffin coordinator. From Sunday, though, I wasn't nearly as concerned. First off, we took the ball away 6 times and scored twice defensively. That's a lot of pig-lipstick right there. More to your point, though, the coverage is actually *supposed* to limit the big play. The breakdowns we had were not scheme-related. They were related to the mechanics of not getting a play in quickly enough and then not calling a timeout when we should have, and, as was pointed out by Sturm in another thread on the front page, related to the LBs filling too quickly on play action. Both of those are the sorts of things you really have to expect to see some of early in the season.

I chalk up the rest to Cowboys v. Giants. Those games right now are always going to be 30+ efforts for both teams.

It's definitely something that needs to be addressed. If we see a trend in these breakdowns in the secondary, it'll be an issue eventually. For now, though, I'm more pleased with the taking the ball away than I am worried about Kiffin not fixing recognition and communication problems.

 

[jnday]

First off, let me preface any further comments by saying 'Yes!', I am very happy with the win on Sunday night. Tons of positives to be sure.

But having said that, I am very much concerned about this team's defense and their prospects moving forward.

I am wondering if we may not be playing an outdated scheme taught by a coach who the game has passed by?

While the NFL continues to create new and more innovative offenses, we seem to be playing a straight-forward, more-predictable, 'bend-but-don't-break' defense.

A defense most recently carved-up at the college level.

In watching Sunday night's game, I saw a defense and specifically a pass defense, carved up by a one-dimensional pass-only attack.

We had made the Giants completely and utterly one-dimensional, to the extreme of getting their starting running back benched! Complete domination in that area, which is to be applauded by he way.

However, despite facing a one-dimensional attack, we allowed the opponent to pass for 450 yards?

We allowed not one, not two, but three 100 yard receivers?

We allowed Victor Cruz to score not one, not two, but three touchdowns?

The pass defense that I saw this week has me greatly concerned, especially given the quality of quarterbacks we will face this season.

Hopefully, this is a bump in the road and the result of players still learning the system, otherwise, I fear this may not be corrected and we may be looking at a long season full of offensive shoot outs where we would have to hope to out score our opponents of force 5 or more turnovers every week.

As is said, I am very happy with a week one win, but what I saw from this pass defense has me seriously concerned. Hopefully, it's just in my nature to worry.

Stash, I agree with every single one of the points you made and the concerns you have. The defense is not going to get turnovers every game like they did against a very sloppy Giants offense. There is nothing about 450 yards of passing against this defense that can be considered positive. I worry about an outdated system with an outdated coach just as much as you do. If you remember, the team said to look at the Seahawks defense as a model of the type of defense that Dallas would run. I didn't see anything that resembled the Seahawk's defense in this first game. If it hadn't been for the giants RB failing to stop and causing the INT, the game would have been lost. The Giants were moving the ball at will. It was a very bad pass defense that couldn't make adjustments, that made the game that close. You made a good post with some valid concerns. If these concerns are not addressed, it is going to be a long season. The defense didn't impress me at all other than the players swarming to the ball with more effort than I have seen from this team in years.

 

[Rockport]

To the OP, I was worried about exactly this when we named Kiffin coordinator. From Sunday, though, I wasn't nearly as concerned. First off, we took the ball away 6 times and scored twice defensively. That's a lot of pig-lipstick right there. More to your point, though, the coverage is actually *supposed* to limit the big play. The breakdowns we had were not scheme-related. They were related to the mechanics of not getting a play in quickly enough and then not calling a timeout when we should have, and, as was pointed out by Sturm in another thread on the front page, related to the LBs filling too quickly on play action. Both of those are the sorts of things you really have to expect to see some of early in the season.

I chalk up the rest to Cowboys v. Giants. Those games right now are always going to be 30+ efforts for both teams.

It's definitely something that needs to be addressed. If we see a trend in these breakdowns in the secondary, it'll be an issue eventually. For now, though, I'm more pleased with the taking the ball away than I am worried about Kiffin not fixing recognition and communication problems.

That only accounts for 1 of the 7 plays over 20 yards.

 

[RS12]

Worried about this defense

I am with you stash. Dont like the yards, points, and 3rd down coversions given up on Sunday. Also too many patches on the DL. Winning turnovers is huge but everything else troubling.

 

[Nova]

The Seahawks are bigger and more nasty....

What huge difference do you see? I see both teams that attack, and play pretty basic coverage...with times mixed in exotic coverage's

Seattle runs a really weird base defense that I can best classify as a 3-4 defense.

They categorize it as a 4-3 under-hybrid, but it's got more in common with a traditional 3-4 than it does a true 4-3.

The biggest difference between traditional 3-4 and 4-3 (other than alignment) are gap assignments-- 1 gap scheme (4-3) vs 2 gap (3-4).

Seattle's assignments (And in Bryant's case, assignment, alignment, and prototypical size) are the same as 3-4 defense, except for McDaniel who is a 1 gap player most of the time, but also will pull 2 gap duty.

Clemmons is the weakside DE (Elephant/Leo/whatever you want to call it) with his hand on the ground, but he really doesn't have different duties than a typical 3-4 weakside OLB-- except he probably rushes the passer at a higher percentage of snaps. And the SAM for their defense has similar duties as a strong side OLB in a 3-4, although he's undersized for versatility in other schemes.

TL/DR; version:
Cowboys base 4-3 under is a 1 gap scheme.
Seahawks 4-3 under-hybrid is largely a two gap scheme (again McDaniel is 1 gap most of the time).

 

[Idgit]

That only accounts for 1 of the 7 plays over 20 yards.

That play, and the obvious breakdown on the long touchdown were the two plays I'd point to as the sorts of things that have to be cleaned up. I don't know that I remember each of the other 5 big plays, but that sort of production is par for the course if you strangle the run, have Manning down two-three scores, and throwing to Nicks, Cruz, and Randle. The same goes for us. If we're behind and throwing, we're going to move the ball, even against good defenses.

 

[jnday]

Playing ONE game in transitioning from a 3-4 to a 4-3 cover 2 had no impact? I'm sure it contributed to the lack of communication. I would say team chemistry is probably not there either considering how many starters on defense were hurt last year. 6 or 7 quarters of preseason football won't fix that.

Missing Ratliff and Spencer had no impact? The guys we replaced them with were basically street free agents. Yes, they did do a good job, but Spencer and Ratliff would clearly be harder for offenses to handle.

You may have a point that Spencer will be an improvement when he returns but I don't think Ratliff is going to have much of an impact at this stage of his career. This defense was made for him, but the change needed to have taken place five years ago. With his injuries and attitude, the sooner Ratliff is gone, the better off the team will be.

 

[Nova]

You may have a point that Spencer will be an improvement when he returns but I don't think Ratliff is going to have much of an impact at this stage of his career. This defense was made for him, but the change needed to have taken place five years ago. With his injuries and attitude, the sooner Ratliff is gone, the better off the team will be.

I'm hoping he'll be an improvement. Selvie looked pretty good out there and we haven't seen Spencer take one snap from the position.

 

[theebs]

You may have a point that Spencer will be an improvement when he returns but I don't think Ratliff is going to have much of an impact at this stage of his career. This defense was made for him, but the change needed to have taken place five years ago. With his injuries and attitude, the sooner Ratliff is gone, the better off the team will be.

What attitude?

The guy wants to play. He was out there on the field with the team helping the young guys Sunday going through warmup drills. He was right there with marinelli and the two of them were getting the guys ready.

He will have an impact.

 

[Rockport]

That play, and the obvious breakdown on the long touchdown were the two plays I'd point to as the sorts of things that have to be cleaned up. I don't know that I remember each of the other 5 big plays, but that sort of production is par for the course if you strangle the run, have Manning down two-three scores, and throwing to Nicks, Cruz, and Randle. The same goes for us. If we're behind and throwing, we're going to move the ball, even against good defenses.

We can move the ball at will most of the time but when we get inside the 20, we usually bog down. Lack of running game.

 

[Idgit]

What attitude?

The guy wants to play. He was out there on the field with the team helping the young guys Sunday going through warmup drills. He was right there with marinelli and the two of them were getting the guys ready.

He will have an impact.

He will, if these soft tissue injuries ever let him. He had a significant impact on plays when he was in even last year, in his very limited time. It's hard to have any confidence he's ever going to be healthy enough again, though.

 

[jnday]

What attitude?

The guy wants to play. He was out there on the field with the team helping the young guys Sunday going through warmup drills. He was right there with marinelli and the two of them were getting the guys ready.

He will have an impact.

. If he has an impact, I would consider him breaking a three year drought in which he hasn't been anything more than an average player at best. An average player with injury problems. When it comes to attitude, I think his behavior over the last couple of seasons is public knowledge. If this was in his prime, I think he could have had a HOF type career in the 4-3. But those days are long gone. His best playing days was behind him when Jerry signed him to his last contract which was one of the worst decisions in recent memory.

 

[Idgit]

We can move the ball at will most of the time but when we get inside the 20, we usually bog down. Lack of running game.

This discussion doesn't really need to bleed into every topic we both post in, does it? I mean, you and I can talk about, say, our defense, without going back to the fact that running the ball more effectively than the other guys does not help teams win games? I hope so, because I generally like trading posts with you, Amber, and you've got a lot of good things to say on any number of topics.

 

[Cowboy4ever]

. If he has an impact, I would consider him breaking a three year drought in which he hasn't been anything more than an average player at best. An average player with injury problems. When it comes to attitude, I think his behavior over the last couple of seasons is public knowledge. If this was in his prime, I think he could have had a HOF type career in the 4-3. But those days are long gone. His best playing days was behind him when Jerry signed him to his last contract which was one of the worst decisions in recent memory.

Last year was the only time in Rats career he didn't play most if not all the games of the Season and at a very high level. He might not have had all the sacks he got his first couple of years but he was still a force. If you go watch the games, watch how he was schemed by the OL, that will tell you all you need to know about how productive he was when he was in there. If he can get healthy this year, he will have a major impact. He is still our best DL. As far as his attitude goes, are you kidding me? He had some beef with Jones. It happens, ever disagreed with your boss? He works hard, he shows up on Sundays when healthy and he goes all out. He helps this team and I can't wait for him to get back out there.

 

[Corso]

I thought that talent in the trenches looked pretty good when the Giants had first and goal at the 2 and failed to score a TD.

Once Spencer gets healthy, I really like our front to be honest. Hatcher looks outstanding, Hayden looked strong and Selvie seems like a good rotational guy..

So you don't agree with Risen Star calling our DL an "embarrassment"?

Huh...

 

[Idgit]

So you don't agree with Risen Star calling our DL an "embarrassment"?

Huh...

Risen Star doesn't even agree with Risen Star on the DL. He's just pivoted since the OL has been addressed more aggressively recently to the next obvious area where we're both depleted due to injuries and where the players' contracts are obviously such that we're going to be addressing those position next in the draft and FA. There's always going to be some position next in line to be addressed, and that's the one you proclaim is embarrassing if you're interested in looking both cynical and ahead of the game. The more emphatic you are, the more impressive the magic trick appears to be.

 

[dallasdave]

1) The players are still learning this scheme. It will take some time. Most teams wont have the fire power at WR that NYG does.

2) Getting Spencer back should help provide some additional pass rush.

3) They are probably 2 players away (DT/S) from becoming a consistent top 10 type defense.

Good points, and I think each week the defense will improve.

 

[jobberone]

Seattle runs a really weird base defense that I can best classify as a 3-4 defense.

They categorize it as a 4-3 under-hybrid, but it's got more in common with a traditional 3-4 than it does a true 4-3.

The biggest difference between traditional 3-4 and 4-3 (other than alignment) are gap assignments-- 1 gap scheme (4-3) vs 2 gap (3-4).

Seattle's assignments (And in Bryant's case, assignment, alignment, and prototypical size) are the same as 3-4 defense, except for McDaniel who is a 1 gap player most of the time, but also will pull 2 gap duty.

Clemmons is the weakside DE (Elephant/Leo/whatever you want to call it) with his hand on the ground, but he really doesn't have different duties than a typical 3-4 weakside OLB-- except he probably rushes the passer at a higher percentage of snaps. And the SAM for their defense has similar duties as a strong side OLB in a 3-4, although he's undersized for versatility in other schemes.

TL/DR; version:
Cowboys base 4-3 under is a 1 gap scheme.
Seahawks 4-3 under-hybrid is largely a two gap scheme (again McDaniel is 1 gap most of the time).

There are many variations of the 3-4 and 4-3. Most teams don't play a st8 up base defense anymore. You'll see '3-4' teams in 4-3 looks and vice versa. You'll also see many other looks from most teams. So I don't see many teams running a base defense the majority of the time. The Steelers play a traditional 3-4 a good bit but not all the time.

Seattle runs a variation of the 4-3 Tampa 2 using combinations of personnel and gap responsibilities like 'grab and hold' as much as shooting the gaps. Carroll's own definition of their defense is "Our defense is a 4-3 scheme with 3-4 personnel". That's a gross simplification though.

Again the terms "4-3" and "3-4" is not an adequate explanation of the defenses used now in the NFL. Defenses are moving and using unique players all over the field so much that there isn't a base defense a team uses a majority of the time. I will say that the use of hurry up offenses is forcing teams to go to more generic defenses at times. However, the league has made it clear that teams aren't going to be allowed to snap the ball until the defense is ready. Clearly that isn't being done universally as the Giants snapped the ball a couple of times against us before the defense was ready.

Edit: BTW, I forgot to say I liked your post. Wasn't clear how they were using Bryant as I thought they were shooting the gaps at times, holding the gaps, and playing a std 1 and 2 gap.

 

[Oh_Canada]

Stash, I agree with every single one of the points you made and the concerns you have. The defense is not going to get turnovers every game like they did against a very sloppy Giants offense. There is nothing about 450 yards of passing against this defense that can be considered positive. I worry about an outdated system with an outdated coach just as much as you do. If you remember, the team said to look at the Seahawks defense as a model of the type of defense that Dallas would run. I didn't see anything that resembled the Seahawk's defense in this first game. If it hadn't been for the giants RB failing to stop and causing the INT, the game would have been lost. The Giants were moving the ball at will. It was a very bad pass defense that couldn't make adjustments, that made the game that close. You made a good post with some valid concerns. If these concerns are not addressed, it is going to be a long season. The defense didn't impress me at all other than the players swarming to the ball with more effort than I have seen from this team in years.

They had TWO sustained drivers of 80 yds or more, one long pass as a result of a busted coverage and another while Dallas was playing prevent, can we stop with the hyperbol? They did NOT move the ball at will.
Funny how it's a fluke that Dallas got a bunch of turnovers, but Cruz running free down the middle of field because everyone was confused isn't.