Houston...err...Tennessee, we've got a problem!

Ugh...

Let's try to address these points one more time...

This is not about ONE pre-season game, but about 2 years which most people have chalked up to injuries, lack of talent and experience. Guess what, we have at least an avg talented D and it's not like we're starting 4 or 5 rookies on D. This team is not as young as we'd like to believe!

So the whole reason this technique thing has been brought up is because one horrendous play vs the Saints in which 4-6 players all threw their technique and defensive responsibilities out the window. I chalked this up to one bad play where half the defense all made rookie mistakes. Even on well coached teams, a single play like that can happen....it's rare, but it can happen. But then I'm seeing more of the same vs the Broncos....A LOT more.

Now I'm not looking at it as a once in a blue moon type of thing anymore since the frequency has significantly increased and it looks like nothing has changed over the last 2 seasons...even with BETTER talent and experience!

No one can prove without a doubt that it's a coaching problem vs a player problem....but look at the evidence.

Players who didn't use to make many mistakes are making a lot more - when they are NOW in their prime? The mistakes are team defense wide which eliminates any one position coach and shifts the responsibility towards the DC. The likelihood of the majority of players continually not following good coaching for large chunks of games is near zero. Is it possible that Reese has drafted the worst players who can't follow any coaching? I suppose, but that doesn't account for players like Bulluck making many more mistakes than in the past. The only thing that has changed for Bulluck is the coaching.

This is why many of us are questioning Schwartz...and we're not even talking schemes...just fundamentals.

If pre-season is meaningless, why do they play? Seriously, if all you can learn from pre-season is about the rookies, why would your starters play 1 snap? Since the entire NFL plays their starters in every pre-season game...there is value there. Not in the wins or stats, but in seeing what people can do and getting them some reps.

If coaches don't coach technique beyond OTA's and pre-season, why do we have them? Seriously, the DC can put all the defenses on film and just have each unit watch to learn the D since they know all the techniques. Clearly that doesn't happen. So I don't understand how anyone can argue that a guy like Bulluck needs no coaching. Or to take the point to the absurd, why have training camp for any vet with more than 3 years experience. They are professional athletes and know how to keep themselves in shape. You could send the playbook home with them and bring them in for a week or 2 before the first game just to run the D's a few times on the field. That would be ridiculous, but that is where this point takes us. To give a better analogy...

I'll go back to my boxer analogy everyone has sidestepped because it illustrates this the best. Why would the Heavyweight Champion of the World need a coach? Not only need a coach, but to drill him in the limited number of techniques in boxing? To watch him workout? Did he forget how to do a benchpress? Did he forget how to throw a hook? Isn't that an insult to him to suggest he needs a coach to watch him do stuff he's been doing for more than half his life? And boxing has a limited number of techniques...not like football.

If it's a disgrace to suggest Bulluck needs to have his technique monitored by coaching, why do championship boxers do it?

No, I don't think Bulluck needs as much technique work as a rookie or second year player because Bulluck SHOULD be at the level where for most of the time, he doesn't need to think about technique. But even the top people in the sport make mistakes and need technique corrected. If it's not corrected...they'll make more mistakes over time...it is the nature of the beast.

Or ask yourself why 2 guys with 3 MVP's need a batting coach? Why does a baseball team have a batting coach if they have no rookies? And even the rookies know how to hit since they've learned all the techniques in college and the minors, right? And yet, they not only have them, they NEED them. Why would you need a pitching coach for a staff full of vet pitchers? I haven't heard one professional player in baseball or football suggest they've learned all the techniques and no longer need coaching! Has anyone?

I can't tell you what Schwartz is doing in camp because I'm in NY, but my mention of Williams breaking down tape is from several of his defensive football videos in which he does break down tape and you have a great feel for his attitude, his views on accountability and demand for excellence. It's good stuff...and these videos are meant for other coaches...so these aren't PR tapes.

While Schwartz may run some of the same drills as Williams, the attitude and accountability appear to be completely different. I'm not listening to Schwartz talk to guys on the sideline, at practice or in the film room, but the defense takes on the persona of it's coordinator. Take a look at the Oilers D from '92 to '93 when Buddy Ryan took over. The whole demeanor of the D changed...and that's what I'm talking about. If you're a guy like Williams who pulls no punches and demand excellence and holds EVERYONE accountable (including himself), the defense is going to reflect that. When I see a D making bad mistakes all over the field, that too is a reflection on the DC beyond the schemes. Like it or not, Schwartz has brought us a soft D and it shows!

I think Ms. Titan and I are on the same page in something we need to look at...WHO has developed into a stud under Schwartz? Anyone? Bueller...?

No, I can't tell anyone if we'll be a top 10 D or the worst in the league in October. I feel the ingredients are there for both results. But the more poor technique we see, the worse our D will play away from their potential.

If people are really going to use the lack of talent argument...please name a starting player on the D who is BELOW avg and give me a player by player accounting of the talent on D in your opinion. I have already laid out my thoughts and no one has challenged them except to say we lack talent...

WHERE specifically?

IMO, the D for this year should easily be middle of the pack and with some real effort, break into the top 10 (or at least be close depending on how the offense is). We have the ingredients in my opinion...a pro bowl pass rusher, a pro bowl caliber DT, 2 stud LB's, a good FS, and a 'shut down' CB. That is more than a lot of D's have.

The ingredients for a bottom 10 D are poor technique, poor pursuit angles, poor tackling, and a bad offense (and poor talent...but we don't have that problem).

Seriously, if the Pats can WIN the Super Bowl with several injuries to their D including having to start an undrafted CB and playing a WR in the nickel, why can't we manage a solid D with vets and players drafted in rds 1-5?

For those wondering why we're not calling for Fisher's head...As I've mentioned before, you can't replace Fisher right before the start of the season. You CAN replace the DC and send a strong message to players and coaches a like. Party time is OVER. Time to get to work!

Bad signs...
When a vet player who just won a Super Bowl championship and coming off a top 5 D starts calling out the COACHING staff, I think we have a coaching problem!!!

When the DC is trying to chew out/inspire the D on the sideline during a game in which we are stinking up the joint and the players are rolling their eyes and not buying it...there is a MAJOR coaching problem!

Hopefully, this last game was a wake up call and the Titans knock the Falcons back a couple of decades. But right now, it doesn't look good.

One more bad egg by the D and someone or something is going to have to change (cut a player, coach, completely change up practice, ect).

I know the Broncos are an excellent team, but we looked like bottom feeders against them and that is the WRONG direction for us to be going.

Gut