how valuable is haynesworth?

IMO Bud has monkeys juggling swords in his head and really doesn't have as much objectivity anymore at his age. He might be getting advice from Underwood and others but IMO Bud sees the 8-8 record and the success of VY but couldn't give too much objective commentary when it comes to the actual "schemes". Heck, if he was objective he would demand Fisher be fired or demand Fisher fire his DC for letting Thompson continue to start every game. IMO I'm not sure if Bud knows who Lamont Thompson is or what position he plays.

 

Gut, I responded to everything I saw you asked and had facts to respond with.

As far as how often Washington blitzed this year, I have no clue. Please feel free to fill us in. What I did find from a few quick searches was circumstancial but still valid. In week 1 this year, "the Vikings ran 65 plays. The Redskins blitzed 20 times"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/13/AR2006091302177_pf.html

That's just week 1, so it's not as if I am going to say he blitzed 30% of the time every week. In fact, some of what I saw pointed out that Williams backed off the blitz a number of times because Washington didn't have the personnel to run the system without Springs at CB. And I never ignored Washington's injuries. Buy you are the one talking as if we should play more aggressively regardless of who we have on the field...

So, as I see it, there are 2 options: 1) I was right that Washington continued to blitz too much and that was their downfall on defense, or 2) Washington backed off the blitzing because they didn't have the personnel to run it successfully, which is exactly why I said the Titans shouldn't do it. So either way, your argument is wrong in my book.

As far as the Patriots blitzing, there are a few key points you leave out. First, they use a lot of 3-4 looks so a blitz doesn't necessarily mean sending any more pass rusher than we normally do without blitzing. Second, their front 7 was a much better pass rushing unit than ours is in terms of personnel (in other words, their blitzes are more likely to get to the QB quickly). And third, their secondary was probably still better than ours is now.

In terms of our blitzes now, I never suggested that we NEVER blitz and you know damned well I didn't say that. And it would be hard to suggest we never blitz when over a quarter of our sacks came from non-DLinemen. Every defense blitzes occasionally, it's just a question of how much. You can't just throw the same scheme at an offense on every down. You have to try to keep them off balance. But you also have to play to your strengths, and being too aggressive defensively is not our strength over the last few years.

Can a blitz help in coverage if it's successful? Absolutely. The point is that any time you blitz the QB you are making a tradeoff. It's all about getting more pressure on the QB, but the cost is in weakening your coverage teams. If you don't get there, or at least get good pressure, any good QB is likely to pick you apart. And it becomes that much easier when he gets to pick on Hill or Thompson. And if you cover deep then you have to worry about the RB being wide open and taking a short pass for a big gain. Or you go with zone coverage but the offense finds the holes since you have fewer players in coverage. And as far as I'm concerned, we don't have a good enough pass rush to consistently pressure the QB even with a blitz or a good enough secondary to cover opposing WRs long enough.

In terms of a chin being only as strong as it's weakest link, I'm not wrong, you just have to think of it relative to other teams. It's true you can cover up for a few deficiencies, so just having 1 weak player isn't a killer (every team has at least 1 weak player). But the more holes you have the harder it is to cover them up. And considering our holes on defense (2 bad starters in the secondary, Sirmon at MLB, and no pass rush threat other than KVB), we can't cover them all up. Thus, we can't afford to play with a very high risk defense.

As far as the stats from Football Outsiders I pointed out, they are purely based on numbers. There's no need to justify them. And if you need an explanation of their stats, check on their site.

 

No, a good defense starts with good players on the field. Even great coaches can put out bad products on the field if they don't have good players.

 

:goodbad:

 

Listen up

Let me just add my 2 cents in cause there's some posts on here that make no sence.We all can agree that we need another shutdown corner,a good DE,Saftey,and a few good run stuffers. But before anything it starts with winning.We all know what a few good wins back to back can do to a team. When your winning everything is easier and if you don't beleive in that cliche your full of sh*t.My prime example is the Colts.Indy's defense this year was terrible but when your 9-0 that takes a back seat.Colts players and even Dungy himself were quoted throughout the year saying our defense is struggling but where gettin the W's and thats all that matters.Once they got that first loss to Dallas followed by back to back losses everything blew up.When the titans started winning 2,3,4 games in a row it was all about vince and it should've been but the bashing on the defense died down.Yeah you gotta have some players and good coaching to make things happen but thats not the only thing.When the post season started the colts not just Bob Sanders got their attitude changed in a hurry and as funny as it sounds had one of the best defenses throughout the post season,go figure.I agree some was scheme,some personal but if we came out of the gates faster things would have been easier.We got that taste of winning back and i fully expect it to carry over.Fisher will improve the defense.He promised last year things would be different and would upgrade and he did.This year he said defense will be emphasis and will improve and i beleive him why wouldn't i, after what he did this season.

 

Sk...

Then how can you use them as a basis for your argument?

So whether you're right or wrong...you're still right? Amusing.

I'll take door number 2....which means you're wrong. If they didn't blitz, then their being a bad defense wrecks your theory that they were bad due to blitzing without the personel. It also invalidates your repeated statements that Gregg Williams can't adjust his scheme/playcalling to his personel.

I left nothing out. You said they were only as strong as their weakest link...which in your explanation proves your own point to be false. Therefore repeatedly stating we're only as good as our weakest link is also false.

For the point of this debate, I wouldn't count the times they rushed four (since we normally rush 4) but rather the times they rushed more than 4.

And yet they still blitzed very successfully (meaning they didn't get toasted despite 2 gigantic holes in their secondary). So this invalidates the next point you're about to make that if you don't have the personel, you can't blitz. The Pats did it...quite successfully.

Really? With an undrafted rookie free agent starting fulltime and Troy playing nickel back vs the Colts is better than our nickel secondary vs the Colts?

So help me out here. Your argument is that we can't blitz because we don't have the personel and we'll get killed. Now you're admitting that most of our sacks came off of blitzes. So I guess your argument is no longer that we can't blitz because we'll get killed, so what IS your argument? That blitzing more will suddenly kill us when our current blitzes are helping? And this is with OUR personel and Schwartz tipping our hand everytime we do it (AND bringing the house most of the time - the most dangerous blitz you can do).

And yet, we still aren't getting burned by it. So what is your explanation for why we're not getting burned when we are showing an all out blitz, give the offense ample time to adjust...and we're still successful? How is this possible with our 'terrible' secondary AND leaving BOTH Lamont and Hill one on one in coverage all over the field. Can I get an explanation?

Apparently Schwartz disagrees with you.

Which is precisely why we need to blitz more....not more all out blitzes, but mix them up and add more overloads (which are not really blitzes since you still could rush 4 guys) and zone blitzes (again rushing 4-5) while DISGUISING the coverages.

Also playing more (at least SOME) trap coverages and some more man coverage (blitzing or not).

You just mentioned that a lot of our blitzes got us more sacks. Sitting back got us more beat. Which do you think we should do more of?

Haven't I been saying don't let them pick on Hill and Thompson? With rushing 5-6 guys you could still limit the weaknesses by blitzing Thompson and putting a safety over the top of Hill. But even still, I pointed out that Schwartz (when he does blitz) frequently brings the house and does leave Hill and Thompson alone...and yet they are most often getting beat with 7 and 8 in coverage playing deep. So how come we haven't been getting burned on these blitzes everytime we run them. If you're the QB, wouldn't you just send the WR opposite Hill on a fade and complete the 20-30 yd pass nearly everytime?

This is why keeping the offense off-balance (by playing all varieties of coverage and blitzes as well as alignments need to be used) and creative playcalling are MORE important than if you had a stacked roster. Constantly playing the same 5-6 coverages and being predictable (a few teams beat us for TD's using the same route concepts against the same coverage at about the same point on the field - if I recall correctly) leads to successful offense and big plays - not better D.

This is what I call destroying your own argument. I have QUOTED you saying you can cover up a few deficiencies...meaning your weakest link CAN be covered up - hence, you are not as bad as your weakest link. How can you say you weren't wrong when your own words say you're wrong?

I've never coached in the NFL but I've already explained how the weaknesses of the players can be covered up (not all the time...but a significant amount more than they are being covered up now). I've also pointed out other teams that do this very thing successfully. And yet you refuse to blame the coaching staff for NOT protecting the weaknesses of the players but simply blame the players because they don't do everything right. I'll give you a hint. Every single player on the Titans has flaws. The better you hide those flaws, the more successful a team we'll be. Allow those flaws to be constantly exposed (especially when they don't need to be), and it is negligent. I point out the Pats because they can take 2 gigantic holes in their secondary and cover them up. How? By putting those players in positions to succeed and by protecting their weaknesses. When we faced the Raiders in the playoffs a few years ago, we lost one CB and got killed by their passing attack. The Pats lost so many CB's it's not funny and they still knocked the Colts out of the playoffs easily and win the Super Bowl. And we DID have Kearse in that game. Unfortunately, we also had Schwartz.

Do the math.

Gut

 

...

NO WONDER I'M BALD!!!

 

Of course I don't think that Fisher would do it to prove a point... I TRULY believe that he believes in his coaching scheme. Fisher is a guy who sticks to his guns... He believes in Schwartz... Yes, I think he would go down with his ship than abandon it.

Now, I dont understand why he does stick up for him? Maybe he doesn't want to prove himself wrong for the selection? I don't know. But I would say the majority of Titans fans believe our defensive coordinator is underperforming.

I've used the phrase "even a broken clock is right twice a day" to illustrate the point of if Fisher sticks with Schwartz long enough he's bound to get some payoff.