Coaching vs Execution

[nfoligno]

As far as stunting goes, this season I have seen us use a Tex stunt (DT works outside and the DE goes underneath to the inside). But probably not as much as you would like. Stunting is like blitzing where it is a gamble because you will have people out of position.

 

"not as much as I would like" There's an understatement.

 

The best defenses are the ones were you can just line up and play ball. By blitzing and stunting you are trying to basically "cheat" to help a deficient area (in this case the D Line which is part of the problem ), and by doing so you are making another area of you defense weak. Personally, I am not a fan of alot of blitzing or blitzing just to change it up. You may disagree with that, but it doesn't make it a bad scheme. Just different philosiphies.

Every coach has a certain scheme or style. Its how they get their players to play in that scheme that makes it work.

 

Yea, we disagree. I don't view blitzing as "cheating". Yes, I know what you mean by cheating. To me, blitzing is no more like cheating than press coverage as opposed to soft.

 

Let me ask you this. I know that every coach has a certain scheme or style. Is everyone good? If one fails, is that just because the players have not made it work, whether due to coaching or not. IMHO, there are bad coaches and bad coaching. There are bad schemes and styles too. Just because the scheme is at the NFL level doesn't mean it is good.

 

I think that while the cover two "may" be a good scheme in general, the way Lovie runs it, it is simply not good. Maybe, his scheme is good on paper. Maybe in a perfect world he would have an elite player that fits perfect for every position. But in the real world, it just doesn't work. It is predictable and weak. Frankly, I never felt his scheme was all that in Stl either.

 

And in the NFL, everyone pretty much knows what everyone else is going to run (besides the occasional gimmick ala Dolphins this week). Shoot in high school we watch a ton of film on our opponents. Like this week, our opponent runs what called the Markum Wing. That school has been running it since it started. What we have to do this week is get our kids ready for a good running quarterback and running back. We will have to make sure our kids maintain their responsibilities so the integrity of our defense remains sound. Sounds easy, but extremely hard to accomplish.

 

Man do I disagree here. Watch any Phily games lately. It is obvious the offense rarely knows where Phily's blitz is going to come from. Other teams have plenty of aspects to their units that prevent predictability. Frankly, I question why you would even say this. You can watch film, and gain an aspect of probabilities, but that doesn't mean you know what they will run. Case in point. Two years ago we are playing NO in the playoffs. We are a zone coverage defense, but played a man coverage D that day. Brees talked at length about how shocked they were when we came out playing man, and how they struggled to adjust. That was all Rivera. That was a coach tweaking the defense, not totally changing it, to prevent the D from being too preditable.

 

Same with the Bears. It doesn't matter what defense they come out in, it matters if they maintain their individual responsibilities for the integrity of the defense.

 

Everyone can hold their responsibilities, but that doesn't mean we pressure the QB. Sorry, but not every scheme is good. Even if every player does it right, if the other team knows what to expect, it can be countered.

[azbearsfan]

"not as much as I would like" There's an understatement.

 

lol

 

 

Yea, we disagree. I don't view blitzing as "cheating". Yes, I know what you mean by cheating. To me, blitzing is no more like cheating than press coverage as opposed to soft.

 

Let me ask you this. I know that every coach has a certain scheme or style. Is everyone good? If one fails, is that just because the players have not made it work, whether due to coaching or not. IMHO, there are bad coaches and bad coaching. There are bad schemes and styles too. Just because the scheme is at the NFL level doesn't mean it is good.

 

I think that while the cover two "may" be a good scheme in general, the way Lovie runs it, it is simply not good. Maybe, his scheme is good on paper. Maybe in a perfect world he would have an elite player that fits perfect for every position. But in the real world, it just doesn't work. It is predictable and weak. Frankly, I never felt his scheme was all that in Stl either.

 

Everyone can be good. Depends on if the coach can get the players to do what they need to.

 

Why is our defense not playing well this year? Its not the scheme, or cause we dont blitz a ton, or stunt, or whatever. The problem is our interior linemen are not creating pass rush. Because of this we are forced to cheat our linebackers into pass rush. When it gets picked up there is less help in pass coverage. The quarterback sees where the blitz is coming from and throws the slants or to one on one coverage.

 

There is nothing wrong with the scheme. The coaches are failing to get the players the handle their responsibilities.

 

Man do I disagree here. Watch any Phily games lately. It is obvious the offense rarely knows where Phily's blitz is going to come from. Other teams have plenty of aspects to their units that prevent predictability. Frankly, I question why you would even say this. You can watch film, and gain an aspect of probabilities, but that doesn't mean you know what they will run. Case in point. Two years ago we are playing NO in the playoffs. We are a zone coverage defense, but played a man coverage D that day. Brees talked at length about how shocked they were when we came out playing man, and how they struggled to adjust. That was all Rivera. That was a coach tweaking the defense, not totally changing it, to prevent the D from being too predictable.

 

Yeah, I watched that one where they gave up 380 to Dallas and let Romo throw for 312 and 3 td's, let the TE get 117 receiving and let Owens get a 72 yarder. They gambled and lost.

 

And thats on NO not being prepared. We run multiple coverages all the time. In fact, I recall reading somewhere that we are in an actual "cover 2" less than 40% of the time. And Babs has been receiving tons of credit for the "mug up look" where the backers all crowd the line and then either blitz or back off. You make it seem like there are no adjustments ever when that is just not the case.

 

Everyone can hold their responsibilities, but that doesn't mean we pressure the QB. Sorry, but not every scheme is good. Even if every player does it right, if the other team knows what to expect, it can be countered.

 

Well see right there you are contradicting yourself. If everyone did their responsibility, then there would be pressure on the QB. If the front four was doing their job then the QB would be pressured.

Every scheme can be good depending on coaching and players.

[nfoligno]

Everyone can be good. Depends on if the coach can get the players to do what they need to.

 

Why is our defense not playing well this year? Its not the scheme, or cause we dont blitz a ton, or stunt, or whatever. The problem is our interior linemen are not creating pass rush. Because of this we are forced to cheat our linebackers into pass rush. When it gets picked up there is less help in pass coverage. The quarterback sees where the blitz is coming from and throws the slants or to one on one coverage.

 

There is nothing wrong with the scheme. The coaches are failing to get the players the handle their responsibilities.

 

And we simply disagree.

 

(1) I do not believe every scheme is a good scheme, and only execution is at issue.

(2) Even if you say the scheme would work if executed perfectly, well, if we want to play that fantasy, if the offense has a perfect counter for the scheme, would it still work? You say the problem is our DTs are not penetrating, but could that not be because opponents are loading up the gut to stop us? Do you fault a RB for not beating a 9 man box by saying he just didn't execute?

 

I think you believe every coach is a good coach, and every scheme a good scheme, and so long as the players execute, everything will work well. I disagree.

 

And thats on NO not being prepared. We run multiple coverages all the time. In fact, I recall reading somewhere that we are in an actual "cover 2" less than 40% of the time. And Babs has been receiving tons of credit for the "mug up look" where the backers all crowd the line and then either blitz or back off. You make it seem like there are no adjustments ever when that is just not the case.

 

One. If we were going to face Pitt, would you expect our staff to practice/plan/prepare for a 4-3 defense, just in case they switch? Yea, that is an extreme, but we played zone all year. There was simply no reason to expect us to play man coverage like we did.

 

Two, again, this is more an issue of verbage. I say cover two because that is the scheme Angelo says he runs. That does not mean I believe we are in the cover 2 every down. We are in Lovie's scheme, which he calls the cover two, but that does not mean I believe we are actually playing a 2 deep zone every down. Heck, on one of Griese's picks, the announcers pointed out how we were in a 4 deep zone, rather than a cover two.

 

I have been among Babich's biggest critics, but I have actually given him some credit for this year. While I think he has failed in terms of pass rush, at the same time, I do believe he has "mixed it up" more than in the past, and have given him credit for such.

 

At the same time, I think a lot of it is smoke and mirrors. We show a lot, but in the end, most all of our pressure is still up the gut, and thus easier to defend.

 

Well see right there you are contradicting yourself. If everyone did their responsibility, then there would be pressure on the QB. If the front four was doing their job then the QB would be pressured. Every scheme can be good depending on coaching and players.

 

I don't see the contradiction. Just disagreement. I do not believe every scheme can be good, nor do I believe every coach can be good. Just as I do not believe every player can be good.

[azbearsfan]

I think you believe every coach is a good coach, and every scheme a good scheme, and so long as the players execute, everything will work well. I disagree.

 

I'm not sure where you would get that I think every coach is a good coach. Far from it. Every scheme can be good, if the coaches can get their players playing right. I believe I have said that our coaches are not doing this.

 

You say the problem is our DTs are not penetrating, but could that not be because opponents are loading up the gut to stop us? Do you fault a RB for not beating a 9 man box by saying he just didn't execute?

 

Loading up the gut in what way? Like sending all of their blockers at our DT's. Come on, nfo. Now you are just making stuff up. Watch the games. Noone is doing anything special to block our DT's. Most of the time it is a one on one block. Occasionally a double team.

 

And offense and defense are different. I would still run the back at a 9 man box to set up play actions. Again putting 9 in the box is cheating your defense.

 

One. If we were going to face Pitt, would you expect our staff to practice/plan/prepare for a 4-3 defense, just in case they switch? Yea, that is an extreme, but we played zone all year. There was simply no reason to expect us to play man coverage like we did.

 

But we just didn't play zone all year. We also played man to man. If NO didn't prepare for it, thats on them.

 

Two, again, this is more an issue of verbage. I say cover two because that is the scheme Angelo says he runs. That does not mean I believe we are in the cover 2 every down. We are in Lovie's scheme, which he calls the cover two, but that does not mean I believe we are actually playing a 2 deep zone every down. Heck, on one of Griese's picks, the announcers pointed out how we were in a 4 deep zone, rather than a cover two.

 

I have been among Babich's biggest critics, but I have actually given him some credit for this year. While I think he has failed in terms of pass rush, at the same time, I do believe he has "mixed it up" more than in the past, and have given him credit for such.

 

I have not seen where you have given Babich credit. From what I read, you have been ripping the scheme calling it predictable due to us playing passive and not blitzing and stunting and the DE's not working inside moves.

 

 

Again what I see is not bad scheme, but bad technique. Poor angles, not getting off blocks, poor tackling, not being in good position in coverage, poor discipline, not being in shape, etc.

[nfoligno]

I'm not sure where you would get that I think every coach is a good coach. Far from it. Every scheme can be good, if the coaches can get their players playing right. I believe I have said that our coaches are not doing this.

 

Who creates schemes? Coaches. If not every coach is a good coach, then how can you believe every scheme can be a good scheme. This may against be an issue of verbage. When I say scheme, I am talking about whatever it is Lovie has written down. That doesn't mean cover two in general, but Lovies scheme, whatever you want to call it.

 

Did you think Shoop was a good coach? If he devised a scheme, would it then be a good scheme regardless?

 

Loading up the gut in what way? Like sending all of their blockers at our DT's. Come on, nfo. Now you are just making stuff up. Watch the games. Noone is doing anything special to block our DT's. Most of the time it is a one on one block. Occasionally a double team.

 

"Occasionally a double team"? Come on Az. I see our DTs doubled on pretty much every down. Further, what I see is the RB/FB moving into position for an up the gut blitz. If there isn't one, he often goes into a route, but it simply appears to me offenses are focusing their protection on the interior.

 

And offense and defense are different. I would still run the back at a 9 man box to set up play actions. Again putting 9 in the box is cheating your defense.

 

The point is, if you continually run your RB up the gut against a 9 man box, and he hits a wall every time, do you fault execution? Yes, offense and defense are different, but not the point.

 

 

 

But we just didn't play zone all year. We also played man to man. If NO didn't prepare for it, thats on them.

 

 

 

I have not seen where you have given Babich credit. From what I read, you have been ripping the scheme calling it predictable due to us playing passive and not blitzing and stunting and the DE's not working inside moves.

 

 

Again what I see is not bad scheme, but bad technique. Poor angles, not getting off blocks, poor tackling, not being in good position in coverage, poor discipline, not being in shape, etc.

[azbearsfan]

Who creates schemes? Coaches. If not every coach is a good coach, then how can you believe every scheme can be a good scheme. This may against be an issue of verbage. When I say scheme, I am talking about whatever it is Lovie has written down. That doesn't mean cover two in general, but Lovies scheme, whatever you want to call it.

 

Did you think Shoop was a good coach? If he devised a scheme, would it then be a good scheme regardless?

 

lol You are taking some real liberties with your logic and applying it to what I think.

 

So every single coach creates a new and unique scheme? No. There are very few original schemes for offense and defense at this point. Lovies base defense is the cover two. Same as the Colts, Bucs, etc. It is a sound, balanced defense.

 

No I do not think Shoop is a good coach. Again I dont think that he had very much talent, I dont think he could get his guys to do what he wanted, and I didn't think he could call plays very well.

 

This does not mean if he came up with an offensive scheme it would be bad. What if he came up with a scheme and a good coach made it work?

 

If you go to coaching clinics, there is an old saying "Its not about the X's and O's, its about the Larry's and Joe's" which means it doesn't matter what you run as long as you can get the players to buy in and get them to their responsibilities. It wouldn't matter if we were running a 4-3 cover two, a 4-4 cover three, a 3-4, a 4-6, or a 3-5-3, if the coaches could get these guys to play responsibility football it would be successful.

 

"Occasionally a double team"? Come on Az. I see our DTs doubled on pretty much every down. Further, what I see is the RB/FB moving into position for an up the gut blitz. If there isn't one, he often goes into a route, but it simply appears to me offenses are focusing their protection on the interior.

 

ok, so basically you are saying that both DT's are double teamed every down. Sorry man, thats just not right.

 

The point is, if you continually run your RB up the gut against a 9 man box, and he hits a wall every time, do you fault execution? Yes, offense and defense are different, but not the point.

 

That is the point. Offense and defense are different. What we are seeing with our DL is not a fair comparison to a 9 man box. An equivalent on defense would be the offense max protecting against a 4 man rush. If they did that, you would have 7 defenders against 2 receivers in coverage. Sounds good to me.

 

 

At this point, I am tired of this subject. I keep making the same point over and over, and you keep changing yours trying to get into this word play game. First the defense is too plain and soft, next you have given Babich credit for changing things up. Clearly, if you were coach, you would run this amazing defensive scheme where you blitzed and stunted every down and they would never where the blitz was coming from. And clearly I would not run this defense. Just because I dont like your scheme doesn't make it bad. If you could get your players to all handle their responsibilities and made sure that the base defense was sound, I'm sure it would work.

[Lucky Luciano]

I'm not sure where you would get that I think every coach is a good coach. Far from it. Every scheme can be good, if the coaches can get their players playing right. I believe I have said that our coaches are not doing this.

 

Again what I see is not bad scheme, but bad technique. Poor angles, not getting off blocks, poor tackling, not being in good position in coverage, poor discipline, not being in shape, etc.

 

i have to disagree that every scheme can be good if players just execute. in my opinion any scheme is dependant upon players executing as you stated. that is a given. but... having the right personel to run it is paramount to any schemes success.

 

if you run a cover 2 specific types of players are key to it's success.

 

1) you need tackles to push in the pocket and pressure the qb.

 

2) you need a good mlb who can cover a lot of ground and cover up the middle.

 

3) you need corners who can play tight on the LOS and move the recievers into the center of the field and who are also good at stopping the run. in this cover 2 we seem to want to run we don't have the corners to do it consistantly and it shows. our corners are playing 5-10 yds off the LOS because they CAN'T play bump and run with the quicker receivers. that is one reason why the slants and crossing routes make such good yardage against us all day long.

 

i like peanut a lot and he excels at what he was drafted for... covering the big receivers like moss. his problem is he can't cover the speedsters, thus the big cushion. that is why over the years i have screamed for him to be moved to free safety and bring in a solid cover corner who CAN play bump and run at the LOS. vasher is another corner who can't play up because he gets eaten alive by quick/fast wide outs.

 

and finally, good safeties are paramount in the cover 2... you need FAST and smart safeties who have the ability to make up large distances to either help your corner in coverage or lock down that zone on their own. this we DON'T have. brown was at one time smart enough to compensate for lack of speed. but has he lost even more due to his knee injury to where it just is not enough to be smart? i don't know. i do know all of our other safeties are seriously lacking in multiple area's.

 

i also agree with your opinion that the cover 2 is used probably about 40% of the time. in fact i would say even less. this makes it even more critical to have corners who can cover man.

 

so to me, this is where good coaching vs bad coaching becomes a factor. if he doesn't or can't adjust or change his "scheme" to the players he is forced to put on the field he, in my opinion, is a poor coach and has no business collecting a pro league paycheck. it is also true that even with the personel needed to run the type of "scheme" that he wants, he HAS to be able to make adjustments to compensate for real-time game situations.

 

this not only means making adjustments at half time but throughout the game as it progresses. if he can't see or compensate for these real-time situations he is limiting the team's full potential to only one half of football or less.

 

i think many could say that this is a real problem in chicago on both sides of the ball.

[nfoligno]

First, let me begin by saying I am enjoying the hell out of this. Much better conversation then the typical, "Orton Sucks, Angelo Sucks, the Bears Suck" threads.

 

So every single coach creates a new and unique scheme? No. There are very few original schemes for offense and defense at this point. Lovies base defense is the cover two. Same as the Colts, Bucs, etc. It is a sound, balanced defense.

 

Again, we are off on verbage. When I talk about scheme, I am not talking about the general scheme, but the one the coach runs. I think you would agree that both Dungy and Lovie run a form of the cover two, but I think you would also agree that each run it differently. When I say scheme, I do not mean generally (like the cover two) but how a particular coach runs it. You said yourself, we run the cover 2 maybe 40% of the time, so when I talk about our scheme, I am not just talking about the cover two in general, but the scheme as our coaches have created it. Does that make sense? If you look at our defensive playbook, it is more than the cover two, I believe you would agree. So I am not saying the cover two sucks, but I do question our scheme, or the way we run it.

 

No I do not think Shoop is a good coach. Again I dont think that he had very much talent, I dont think he could get his guys to do what he wanted, and I didn't think he could call plays very well.

 

This does not mean if he came up with an offensive scheme it would be bad. What if he came up with a scheme and a good coach made it work?

 

But if Shoop created a scheme, would that automatically mean it is good? That's my point. Just because you have a scheme/playbook in the NFL, doesn't mean it is a good one.

 

If you go to coaching clinics, there is an old saying "Its not about the X's and O's, its about the Larry's and Joe's" which means it doesn't matter what you run as long as you can get the players to buy in and get them to their responsibilities. It wouldn't matter if we were running a 4-3 cover two, a 4-4 cover three, a 3-4, a 4-6, or a 3-5-3, if the coaches could get these guys to play responsibility football it would be successful.

 

I might agree w/ that on the HS level, but I would question that in the pros. I believe there are schemes that work on some levels, but not on others, for example.

 

Let me ask you. In 2001, did you like our scheme? Few did. It was a scheme based on max run defense, but didn't do much to pressure the QB. Even if everyone did their job, pass rush was simply not a priority. I don't care how good your secondary is. If you do not rush the passer in the NFL, no secondary can maintain coverage. Thus, I think it appropriate to question the scheme.

 

ok, so basically you are saying that both DT's are double teamed every down. Sorry man, thats just not right.

 

Not what I said, or at least not what I meant. I do believe one of our two DTs are double blocked on every down. I think Harris is doubled on most passing downs, while our 2nd DT (Dusty/Harrison) is doubled on most run downs. But the point is, we do face double blocking inside. Then you usually have a 2nd line of protection waiting to either cut a DT or pickup the inside blitz.

 

That is the point. Offense and defense are different. What we are seeing with our DL is not a fair comparison to a 9 man box. An equivalent on defense would be the offense max protecting against a 4 man rush. If they did that, you would have 7 defenders against 2 receivers in coverage. Sounds good to me.

 

Not to me. I don't care how many guys we have in coverage. If the QB is allowed all day in the pocket, eventually a receiver will get open. No matter how many you have in coverage, or how good your talent level is, you can not hold coverage forever. Eventually, the WR or TE finds and opening, and the QB hits him. I truly believe this. I recall a game a few years back. We were facing GB, and did what you are talking about. We rushed 3 and dropped 8 into coverage. We did a good job covering the receivers, but Farve had all day, and eventually, a receiver broke free and Farve hit him downfield for a long score. I recall the play pretty well, and recall the announcers counting how long he had in the pocket, and it was over 10 seconds. No matter how many you have in coverage, they simply can not be expected to cover that long. That simply isn't realistic.

 

At this point, I am tired of this subject. I keep making the same point over and over, and you keep changing yours trying to get into this word play game. First the defense is too plain and soft, next you have given Babich credit for changing things up. Clearly, if you were coach, you would run this amazing defensive scheme where you blitzed and stunted every down and they would never where the blitz was coming from. And clearly I would not run this defense. Just because I dont like your scheme doesn't make it bad. If you could get your players to all handle their responsibilities and made sure that the base defense was sound, I'm sure it would work.

 

Please allow me to clarify. No, I would not blitz and stunt on every down. That in itself would make us more predictable. I would simply like to add more things to our defense. That doesn't mean we would always do any one or two things, but simply have more things to mix it up w/, making us less predictable.

 

And I have given Babich some credit. He has used more looks than expected, but my issue is, despite all the looks, we still end up doing much of the same. Regardless how many looks we show pre-snap, at the end, we still end up blitzing up the gut and using our DEs on wide edge rushes.

 

What I would like:

 

(a) I would like to see our DEs do more than edge rush. Whether that is by design, or simply making our DEs change it up, I would like to see them not always attack the edge, but also go inside.

 

( I would like to see stunts. I am not saying all the time, but enough so that offenses have to concern themselves with it.

 

© I like that we are blitzing, but would simply like to see us blitz from more angles.

 

(d) I would like to see our CBs press more, especially when our opponent lacks a top end deep threat. Its one thing when you are facing Steve Smith, and it is prudent to respect the receivers deep speed, but we faced Carolina w/o Steve Smith and TB w/o Joey Galloway. Our CBs should be good enough to press cover average speed WRs. Press coverage is a good way to help take away the slants and quick outs. It also prevents/hurts the quick 3 step drops, allowing our DL a more realistic opportunity to pressure the QB.

 

I don't think what I am asking for is unreasonable. I am not saying we should be like Phily or Wash, w/ super complex blitzes and ultra-aggressive schemes. I simply want to see us add more to the scheme to avoid being predictable. What is my requests is unreasonable? I'm not asking to blitz every down, but simply blitz from more varied angles. I am not asking to stunt all the time, but simply add that to the package. I am not asking the DEs to always rush inside and blow off outside containment, but to simply add the potential to the mix. I am not asking for wholesale changes, but tweaks to create a greater level of uncertaintity.