I just dont understand

Tj...

Ramble on!!!

I didn't say he made a HUGE impact, just that he was good vs the run. Julius Peppers may be the only DE right now dominant against the run.

Rolle did predominantly cover the opposing #1 WR under Williams. Schwartz initiated the change upon arrival. Due to teams like the Patriots success with zone D's at the time, Schwartz started converting the Titans D to a zone D...and that was WITH guys like Rolle. He is simply more of a zone guy and is trying to 'borrow' from the best DC's in the game. Unfortunately he doesn't understand how and when to use these schemes which is why they don't work for us. The more he has changed over the years, the worse the D has gotten. Of course that also has to do with losing talent and the culture Williams created. Schwartz is not a matchup guy...period.

 

I will...

...when the book comes out!

Gut

 

One aspect you're ignoring...

Players draft status is not about talent but about projection of the player into the NFL and how well you'd expect that player to perform.

Anyone drafted in the NFL...especially a QB...has the talent (or potential) to succeed at the NFL level. However, most don't make it. Not because they were 6th rnd picks, but because the position is very difficult to learn and execute. After years as a backup, Brady figured it out.

Carr on the other hand was thrust into a starting role AND has played behind a bad OL. What would have happened if Brady was drafted by the Texans and forced to start from day 1 while Carr was allowed to learn for a few years before starting?

Gut

 

Our secondary of Rolle, Walker, Bishop and Robertson was not bad in 1999.

 

Sledge...

At 340lbs, he's bigger than MOST of the DT's and is more than big enough for a DT.

He's probably one of the strongest guys on the team. But what you're really after is...

I broke this down this way to show you something. First he's not big enough, then he's not strong enough. But those two statements aren't correct but you say that to justify his not being able to produce. Him playing well has nothing to do with his size and strength since those are above avg for an NFL DT.

Once you understand that, you can start to look at the real WHY he's not playing well. It's this kind of thinking that allows people to think there is little talent on this defense.

Gut

 

Ok...

Was Samari Rolle still on this team...one of the best man cover CB's in the league? Yes. So what personel problem are you referring to? Even if your OTHER starting CB is terrible, you can double cover that guy with a LB or S. At that's a worse case scenario.

As far as running a defense, I don't care if it's a predominant zone D or a man D as long as it's GOOD. The problem I have with Schwartz is that he calls the wrong zone defense at the wrong time (IMO) like staying in a cover 2 10 yards away from our goal line after the D brings over another WR to flood the zone. This is not rocket science...this is good High School football adjustments. The problem with Schwartz running a zone D is he gets outcoached because you have to call different zone to take away different things at different times. Man is easier to playcall.

Pitt is still using a 3-4, but good 4-3 teams use a similar prionciple for the DT who's between the OC-OG because every offense will initially try to double team him, get him turned and then release one of those guys (usually the OG) to take out the middle LB. THAT DT MUST force the OG-OC to stay on him protecting the middle LB. The other DT and DE's can rush the passer at will as long as they control their gaps. The Steelers are still giving up only about 95 yards per game and only 5 rushing TD's.

The Colts were NOT in their best scheme to stop our run. When they WANT to stop the run they bring up a S and play either cover 3 behind it or blitz. They don't do this a lot. They pick their spots like on 2nd and 10 on our last drive. Even though we'd been gashing them all game, they got a good stop on that down to force us into 3rd and long. They CAN stop the run when they want to. Equate this to us against the Jags...we just stayed neutral and watched our D get run over and over again. The Colts beat us because at the critical time, they could stop the run. We couldn't stop the Jags BACKUP for a whole game. Should we be able to stuff them playing vanilla? Sure...but the reality is almost NO D's stop the run without some help from the scheme. Schwartz didn't do anything to help us in that game.

Let me ask you a question. If you're a DC and facing a team with a rookie QB, do you play a vanilla defense or do you throw the book at him to confuse him, blitz him and sack him? You suggesting we should be able to beat the Jags playing straight up is only a mental exercise since NO ONE plays vanilla defenses if they are avg or above DC. And a lot of times teams out-execute your personel because their scheme puts them in a good position and puts your players in a bad position. Is that your players fault or the DC's fault?

Execution is intimately tied to scheme as I just mentioned. They are not mutually exclusive. And while we missed Haynesworth for several games, it's not like the top D's don't lose some of their best players too...and yet I don't see them giving up 27 points a game. Do you?

So instead of being ranked 16th, we should only be ranked 20th without Pac and Haynesworth....and yet we are much worse than that AND if you look at the stats with Pac and Haynesworth when the season is over, I don't think you'll see a dramatic difference....although you SHOULD.

Simplifying our defense shows me 2 things. First, Schwartz believes the players are at fault and that playing a more vanilla defense will make us better. The obvious reality is that simplifying the defense will make us WORSE. There is a good reason why the best defenses don't play a basic scheme (unless they have all-world talent)...it makes it TOO EASY for the offense to figure out what your doing and adjust their playcall/scheme to take advantage of it. It's when the offense doesn't know what you're going to do that you'll be most successful.

Accountability starts at the top and the top is Floyd Reese who answers to Bud Adams. Reese is where the Buck stops. Fisher certainly has a ton of control over the coaches and players under him, but he seems to give his coordinators a lot of free reign. Of course, Fisher IS responsible for what those guys do, but Reese needs to get involved when Fisher is making mistakes. Forcing Fisher to fire Schwartz would be a good start.

Again, I'm not a big fan of zone coverage, but a good defense is a good defense and if you get there by bend don't break/zone or 46 all out attack matters less than the results. I would be complaining just as much if our D was terrible playing all man coverage.

Gut

 

Tj...

You're confusing a few things. First, as I pointed out, we didn't exactly have bad personel when Schwartz came on the scene. So we weren't forced to go all zone because we had 2 Deron Jenkins starting at CB. Point made.

As I've said before, zone or man is not as much of an issue as effectiveness. Zone and Man are types of coverages...not schemes. Schemes are the defensive design of the defense. A team can have a great defense using either zone or man. It is our scheme that is a problem along with the coaching of it. More on that below...

As I pointed out, they stopped us cold on the most important run of the game. When they want to, they are more effective than last at run D. But they don't seem to care for the most part that their run D is bad as long as Peyton is outscoring the other team. I agree with you that this is not a good idea and I also believe this will be their outdoing as the top AFC teams they will face will ALL have strong rushing attacks.

Um...YES! 2 things happen when you run blitz. First, you change the equation from a reactive defense to a proactive defense. Attacking the LOS instead of trying to read the play while trying to avoid and shed blockers is different for both the offense and defense. How many of the 20+ yard runs we've given up have come against run blitzes? I'm gonna guess the answer is none. Yes, the possibility of giving up a big run is increased, but the odds of stuffing a running play are increased a multiple of that. From my viewpoint, we're giving up big run plays because of improper pursuit rather than 4 missed tackles on one play. And personally, if my defense can't stop you playing a vanilla call, you HAVE to get aggressive and shake things up. Which would you prefer....a guaranteed loss of 37-7 OR two other possible outcomes....a fighting chance to keep the score within 10-14 points (if things go well with the run blitz) or potentially losing 37-7? Personally, I'd like to have a chance to keep the score closer and see what happens. There is little evidence to support the idea that we'd give up more big running plays blitzing them then we gave up anyway by NOT blitzing.

There is one simple reason why our pass rush is less effective than it should be. We are not getting teams into 3rd and long. When you avg giving up 5.0 yds/play...teams are gashing us on first and second down. With fewer obvious passing downs, the front 4 can't just pin their ears back and go full bore for the QB. They have to play the run first on 3rd and short for example. The other problem is that LaBoy is not that good. OL's slide to KVB's side and he also gets doubled. LaBoy is frequently one on one and doesn't even come close most of the time.

For any scheme to work, it must be sound, put the players in the best position to utilize their strengths and limit (hide) their weaknesses, be coached well (so the players know how to run the scheme as well as basic football fundamentals) and playcalled well (including making in game adjustments).

I have pointed out several flaws in the scheme (the design of the defense...not zone or man coverage). I have also pointed out (and you have too) numerous breakdowns in basic football fundamentals (things learned in High School). I have also pointed out several flaws in playcalling.

Yes, there are some players on this D that I don't think can cut it even with GOOD coaching and those players have performed poorly. And yes, I'd like to upgrade the talent on the D. However, give me an above avg DC and you'd be amazed at how 'bad' players can all of a sudden be productive. Since it is obvious we have a bad DC, he must go. I have no problem with a new DC coming in here (assuming it's someone good) and cleaning house of the defensive position coaches. I like Washburn, but I can't justify him staying.

FLUKE??? If I recall, we lost that game giving up back to back scores. The basic defensive gameplan was a good one. Strategically it makes sense to stop the run, and hope to get Peyton into some 3rd and longs - making the offense one dimensional. However, as we both agreed...you need to mix it up. The last 2 scoring drives we didn't mix it up.

If you wanna be thrilled they didn't score 40 points on us, no problem. But as has been consistently bad...when we need a stop at the end of a game, we rarely get one...Peyton Manning or backup David Garrard...doesn't seem to matter.

I liked the basic scheme, but they needed to make adjustments and mix it up because Peyton will (and did) make adjustments.

most if not all GM's are the step above the HC and has the power to fire him. I don't know if Reese has that power or not. And if Reese doesn't, how come Reese has say on personel decisions but not coaching staff? That sounds like a bad way to run a team...

But what you're not 'getting' is that the quality of the scheme comes FIRST. With a bad scheme, perfect execution can't happen no matter how good the players because they won't be in proper positions to succeed. Now drop the talent level to avg and you have a big problem. Now add no accountability and yes...it snowballs into oblivion. BUT, to improve execution, the scheme has to be good....FIRST! This is why I don't hammer all the players. With a different scheme and a good DC, we'd quickly find out who can and who can't play.

First, the Titans don't change stuff up too much on defense though I have seen Schwartz try on occasion (like he ran a 3-4 D for a series or 2 in a game once). But he's very predictable. He doesn't change much and when he does...he telegraphs it. In one of the last games...we got them in 3rd and long. He goes dome or quarter D. But his defensive alignment made it obvious we'd blitz our CB's since the only 3 DL all lined up bunched over the OC and 2 OG's. If you rush 3, you spread them out. Sure enough we bring the slot CB's and the QB hits the uncovered WR for a slant for a first down before the safety can get there. This more often than not means when we do change it up...it's not really a good changeup because they know what and where it's coming from.

As for the wrong angles, biting on fakes, missed assignments...that is NOT a scheme problem but rather a COACHING problem. If multiple players in a unit are doing it, it's probably a coaching problem...especially with the poor tackling amongst the majority of defensive players.

Dude, we have not had a really good defensive performance yet. Even playing 3 LB's vs Indy's 3 WR set we still gave up 146 yards on the ground. Against the Texans we gave up over 100 yards to a rookie RB on less than 20 carries. We also gave up over 100 yards rushing to the Skins.

We have a bad scheme and that needs to be addressed first. Hopefully by firing Schwartz, we can solve three of our problems in one shot (scheme, playcalling, football fundamentals). Whatever's left is player personel problems and lack of talent which will then be easier to deal with.

Gut