Hortons defense was better than this...
-
cuz we switched to 3-4 from 4-3?
i don't like the fact that we switched total schemes. i think we (i mean the browns of course) have positives in both schemes. we gave up the run yards but held the opponents to less points. sheard didn't produce as mcuh because he was delegated to playing olb and put into a coverage scheme as well as mingo and krueger. i think those 3 guys would gel as hands in the dirt DEs. but i'm not the HC or DC.
maybe someday someone will figure out how to run a hybrid scheme that utilizes each player to their utmost ability. i'm tired of new coaches coming in and deciding players that could be on a pro-bowl path don't fit into their scheme and either cutting them or trading them to draft a player they think will do what they want.
well "technically" the 3-4 is supposed to stop the run better cause the edges are OLB types that when standing can anticipate the blocking schemes for that play better thus being able to position themselves better to make a play on the ball. Which anymore I think is rubbish but I don't work in the NFL. I agree with everything you said in the above post except for that Kruger and Sheard did any coverage work. Those guys hardly ever dropped into coverage, it was spot duty at best. Which is why I cannot understand not putting their hand in the dirt. If all you're basically asking of them is to rush the passer and set the edge, both guys do both of those jobs better with their hands down. If the defense knows the guy is coming, why bother standing him if you're hardly ever going to drop him. A guy like Clay Matthews is a legit threat to drop back and be "very" competent at pass coverage. But Sheard and Kruger? C'mon.
I too would love to switch to a 4-3 but I'm not sure we have the LB'ers to do it. A 4-3 mike has to be one tough physical son of a bitch....is that guy on our team right now? A 4-3 mike is often required to blow up the lead block so that the OLB'ers can flow unimpeded to the ball. Actually, even in a 3-4 at least one of the ILB'ers is a guy that's more built to blow up the lead blocks so the other guy can make the play....that also hardly ever happened this year. Both of our guys would kind of try to "feel" their way to the ball carrier. The only guy that started to play like a true ILB'er was Robertson. He was the one that started to blow up some plays on his own towards the end of the season.
But it's not gonna happen they're not moving away from the 3-4. So the same scheme is going to prevail next year and I would still like to know what exactly, if anything, Pettine's scheme does with the ILB'ers and the DL that made them shit the bed against the run this year. Why is it other teams get all kinds of injuries and still remain comepetent? How is that SF loses both of their all pro LB'ers and a rookie can step up and man up to Marshawn Lynch? They also had injuries on their d line, plus didn't some guy slap his woman around again and get a timeout or something?
well "technically" the 3-4 is supposed to stop the run better cause the edges are OLB types that when standing can anticipate the blocking schemes for that play better thus being able to position themselves better to make a play on the ball. Which anymore I think is rubbish but I don't work in the NFL. I agree with everything you said in the above post except for that Kruger and Sheard did any coverage work. Those guys hardly ever dropped into coverage, it was spot duty at best. Which is why I cannot understand not putting their hand in the dirt. If all you're basically asking of them is to rush the passer and set the edge, both guys do both of those jobs better with their hands down. If the defense knows the guy is coming, why bother standing him if you're hardly ever going to drop him. A guy like Clay Matthews is a legit threat to drop back and be "very" competent at pass coverage. But Sheard and Kruger? C'mon.
I too would love to switch to a 4-3 but I'm not sure we have the LB'ers to do it. A 4-3 mike has to be one tough physical son of a bitch....is that guy on our team right now? A 4-3 mike is often required to blow up the lead block so that the OLB'ers can flow unimpeded to the ball. Actually, even in a 3-4 at least one of the ILB'ers is a guy that's more built to blow up the lead blocks so the other guy can make the play....that also hardly ever happened this year. Both of our guys would kind of try to "feel" their way to the ball carrier. The only guy that started to play like a true ILB'er was Robertson. He was the one that started to blow up some plays on his own towards the end of the season.
But it's not gonna happen they're not moving away from the 3-4. So the same scheme is going to prevail next year and I would still like to know what exactly, if anything, Pettine's scheme does with the ILB'ers and the DL that made them shit the bed against the run this year. Why is it other teams get all kinds of injuries and still remain comepetent? How is that SF loses both of their all pro LB'ers and a rookie can step up and man up to Marshawn Lynch? They also had injuries on their d line, plus didn't some guy slap his woman around again and get a timeout or something?
obviously it's going to be up to the coaching staff and farmer to decide what's best moving forward. it's just a shame when i thought i've seen potential in certain players but they don't fit into a certain scheme, will be cut and go on to do great things with other teams.
just the way the ball bounces.
-
If ray Hortons defense were as good as the defense we've had this season Brandon Weeden would still be the quarterback. Think about that. If we held the lead in the games that we blew we'd have been in the playoffs.
And if we then upgraded the run game and offensive line as we did this year we be in the Super Bowl.heh well maybe ...
(probably I guess you can go to your computers and parse that)
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
If ray Hortons defense were as good as the defense we've had this season Brandon Weeden would still be the quarterback. Think about that. If we held the lead in the games that we blew we'd have been in the playoffs.
And if we then upgraded the run game and offensive line as we did this year we be in the Super Bowl.heh well maybe ...
(probably I guess you can go to your computers and parse that)
WSS
If ray Hortons defense were as good as the defense we've had this season Brandon Weeden would still be the quarterback. Think about that. If we held the lead in the games that we blew we'd have been in the playoffs.
har dee har har har.
you should throw down the pick and just write comedy from here on out.
-
I think we've established the number of games in which we blew the lead. We were 4 and 12. If there were only 5 of those games we have been 9 & 7.
You do the math and explain to me why that wouldn't have been acceptable.
WSS
-
I think we've established the number of games in which we blew the lead. We were 4 and 12. If there were only 5 of those games we have been 9 & 7.
You do the math and explain to me why that wouldn't have been acceptable.
WSS
I think we've established the number of games in which we blew the lead. We were 4 and 12. If there were only 5 of those games we have been 9 & 7.
You do the math and explain to me why that wouldn't have been acceptable.
WSS
Then add the Bitonio West and the crow to that lineup...
-
If ray Hortons defense were as good as the defense we've had this season Brandon Weeden would still be the quarterback. Think about that. If we held the lead in the games that we blew we'd have been in the playoffs.
And if we then upgraded the run game and offensive line as we did this year we be in the Super Bowl.heh well maybe ...
(probably I guess you can go to your computers and parse that)
WSS
If ray Hortons defense were as good as the defense we've had this season Brandon Weeden would still be the quarterback. Think about that. If we held the lead in the games that we blew we'd have been in the playoffs.
And if we then upgraded the run game and offensive line as we did this year we be in the Super Bowl.heh well maybe ...
(probably I guess you can go to your computers and parse that)
WSS
I'm of the opinion that if it wasn't for the secondary this year, the numbers...scoring and otherwise...would have been much worse this year. Our front 7 was better last year, I think that's pretty much unquestionable at this point no? They were better against the run and had more sacks last year. Plus the defense was likely on the field a whole lot more last year as well, another contributing factor.
-
If ray Hortons defense were as good as the defense we've had this season Brandon Weeden would still be the quarterback. Think about that. If we held the lead in the games that we blew we'd have been in the playoffs.
And if we then upgraded the run game and offensive line as we did this year we be in the Super Bowl.heh well maybe ...
(probably I guess you can go to your computers and parse that)
WSS
I'm of the opinion that if it wasn't for the secondary this year, the numbers...scoring and otherwise...would have been much worse this year. Our front 7 was better last year, I think that's pretty much unquestionable at this point no? They were better against the run and had more sacks last year. Plus the defense was likely on the field a whole lot more last year as well, another contributing factor.
It seems that way to me too. And the longer the other team can bang away at your line running the ball the softer your defense will get. By the last quarter they were winded and as porous a sieve.I'm of the opinion that if it wasn't for the secondary this year, the numbers...scoring and otherwise...would have been much worse this year. Our front 7 was better last year, I think that's pretty much unquestionable at this point no? They were better against the run and had more sacks last year. Plus the defense was likely on the field a whole lot more last year as well, another contributing factor.
This you're the run defense sucked so they didn't really have to throw on us.
WSS
-
If ray Hortons defense were as good as the defense we've had this season Brandon Weeden would still be the quarterback. Think about that. If we held the lead in the games that we blew we'd have been in the playoffs.
And if we then upgraded the run game and offensive line as we did this year we be in the Super Bowl.heh well maybe ...
(probably I guess you can go to your computers and parse that)
WSS
I'm of the opinion that if it wasn't for the secondary this year, the numbers...scoring and otherwise...would have been much worse this year. Our front 7 was better last year, I think that's pretty much unquestionable at this point no? They were better against the run and had more sacks last year. Plus the defense was likely on the field a whole lot more last year as well, another contributing factor.
the defense was likely on the field a whole lot more last year as well, another contributing factor.
Nope...
2013 top = 28:41 game
2014 top = 28:13 game
In this scheme, run situations had the outside backers as down linemen. Meaning we had a 5 man D line, with 2 LB's playing back.....one of the LB's back had to cover TE/RB for the pap/screen, leaving ONE LB to cover run gaps(which should have been closed by the 5 man line, btw).....so, 1 LB can't do it all, if the D line is only expect to hold the O line(as you have stated).....
So, the scheme leaves only one backer to cover 4 gaps....and...
D line(which had 9 different line ups in 16 games) played poorly and let RB's reach the second level untouched....
Finally, our pass defense was great, prompting other teams to attack our weakness with a rushing attack....we had the lowest QBR against us, the highest # of interceptions, the lowest # of 20+ pass plays, etc.....
I think after we get healthy, add some depth to the D line and with another year in the system, that we will see improvement.
But, in the end, it's a passing league and we are set up to defend that first.
-
So why did we still get gouged when our LB'ers were pressing? I can fully understand if our LB'ers were playing well off the line, but even up they were still constantly in the wrong gaps....both of them. And neither of them were anywhere to be found all season on the drawn out sweeps. Only Robertson started to flash through at the end. Did we do something different with him? When I played in a 4-3 as a DE or DT, we always were taught to extend down the line and not let the OL off of us...to only make a play on the ballcarrier if he comes to either side of us. Trying to shed the OL and get upfield immediately created a cutback lane the RB could read. It was the LB'ers job to weave through us and make the play. Hard to imagine much being different in the line play even in a 3-4 as the OLB'ers have to do the same job in that instance as DE's in a 4-3.
As for our scheme, the one I saw almost the whole season is two DL with Kruger and Sheard standing...every now and then Kruger would put his hand down basically becoming the 3rd down lineman. I see your point if we're running 3 DL and still having both Kruger and Sheard out there....that's basically putting two hybrids out there who aren't gonna be that great at coverage so that pulls one of the ILB'ers away. Seems like a terrible scheme then with what we have.
-
So why did we still get gouged when our LB'ers were pressing? I can fully understand if our LB'ers were playing well off the line, but even up they were still constantly in the wrong gaps....both of them. And neither of them were anywhere to be found all season on the drawn out sweeps. Only Robertson started to flash through at the end. Did we do something different with him? When I played in a 4-3 as a DE or DT, we always were taught to extend down the line and not let the OL off of us...to only make a play on the ballcarrier if he comes to either side of us. Trying to shed the OL and get upfield immediately created a cutback lane the RB could read. It was the LB'ers job to weave through us and make the play. Hard to imagine much being different in the line play even in a 3-4 as the OLB'ers have to do the same job in that instance as DE's in a 4-3.
As for our scheme, the one I saw almost the whole season is two DL with Kruger and Sheard standing...every now and then Kruger would put his hand down basically becoming the 3rd down lineman. I see your point if we're running 3 DL and still having both Kruger and Sheard out there....that's basically putting two hybrids out there who aren't gonna be that great at coverage so that pulls one of the ILB'ers away. Seems like a terrible scheme then with what we have.
So why did we still get gouged when our LB'ers were pressing? I can fully understand if our LB'ers were playing well off the line, but even up they were still constantly in the wrong gaps....both of them. And neither of them were anywhere to be found all season on the drawn out sweeps. Only Robertson started to flash through at the end. Did we do something different with him? When I played in a 4-3 as a DE or DT, we always were taught to extend down the line and not let the OL off of us...to only make a play on the ballcarrier if he comes to either side of us. Trying to shed the OL and get upfield immediately created a cutback lane the RB could read. It was the LB'ers job to weave through us and make the play. Hard to imagine much being different in the line play even in a 3-4 as the OLB'ers have to do the same job in that instance as DE's in a 4-3.
As for our scheme, the one I saw almost the whole season is two DL with Kruger and Sheard standing...every now and then Kruger would put his hand down basically becoming the 3rd down lineman. I see your point if we're running 3 DL and still having both Kruger and Sheard out there....that's basically putting two hybrids out there who aren't gonna be that great at coverage so that pulls one of the ILB'ers away. Seems like a terrible scheme then with what we have.
Yeah...I do think, when the line actually worked and the run got turned outside, Kruger and Sheard got burned more often than not. They both are pass rushers before run stoppers....
And I would say the Robertson is average at best. Yeah, he got better through the season, but to my eye, his best is still average.
And Kirksey looks like he'll be better, but he is still a converted(hybrid) outside backer playing in the middle. Not a thick run stopper, but more of a tweener who can cover too(which is what Pettine keeps saying he likes)....
So, in terms of stopping the run......I dont see a prototype backer on this team who will do that.....and I dont see a system that looks for that.
Ultimately....I think the team is committed to this system, so we shouldn't expect changes there. Hopefully, we will get additional line and LB talent to upgrade though.....
-
you got everyone else's opinions and they all disagreed with you. if you can't grasp that the dline injuries hurt us then you can't grasp the basics.
Of course the d line injuries hurt us, but as I've provided we were equally as bad against the run healthy as unhealthy this year. And last year was this d line not "EXACTLY" the same? So SOMETHING changed and it isn't just due to injuries. If you can't grasp that than the basics of football escape you. For the umpteenth time I'm open as to what was done differently this year. What I'm not open to is that it's ALL on the D line as it isn't ALL on the LB'ers. But what I've said from the beginning of the season and what anybody who's played organized football on the defensive side of the ball knows, final accountability for run defense falls on the LB'ers. Last year we were better against the run with the exact same D line but different linebackers. WHY? What, if anything, did we do drastically different with the d line and/or lb'ers. That's the discussion I wanted to have.
Of course the d line injuries hurt us, but as I've provided we were equally as bad against the run healthy as unhealthy this year. And last year was this d line not "EXACTLY" the same? So SOMETHING changed ...
Not "exactly" the same line. It seems small, but it was huge when Pettine switched Taylor and Rubin. Rubin was put at NT, and had a terrible season. Taylor is a perfect fit at 2-gap DE, so the move was justified, but Rubin did not play at the level we needed. I saw 2 major issues on run
First problem was that almost every play Rubin (or anybody else playing NT) was pushed 2-4 yards back and the Gs and C of the opposing team were blocking our linebackers. The reason everybody is putting the lack of run D on the line is because run stuffing STARTS on the line. The NT needs to clog the inside lanes, which Rubin/Kitchen were unable to do. In Pettine's system, the NT is the #1 most important position for run-stopping, and ours were terrible this year.
Second, the "Sam LB" position was a train wreck. Mingo was hurt, and was not making tackles. Not only that, but he was learning his 2nd new position in as many years so he was out of place at times. He did not play aggressive and never seemed to shoot gaps to make plays. It didn't get much better when Sheard was in. He is too bulky and slow to play this spot so many times Kruger would play the "Sam" while Sheard was the "Jack" which was stupid because Sheard has never been great against the run or setting the edge. He has gotten beat to the outside his whole career.
I think our ILBs played well, and Kruger did well, on most occasions. I think we are building a good D, but right now on the roster I think these are the only "good fits" on this front 7 that match the scheme:
Taylor and Hughes as 2-gap DEs
D.Bryant and Winn as 1-gap DTs (And A.Bryant in passing situations)
Dansby as the "Will LB"
Robertson and Kirksey as the "Mike LB"
Kruger as the "Jack LB"
Mingo as the "Sam LB"
That does not give us much depth, and it does not help that we have no NT...
-
Dude the last 26 thru 28 seconds is what kills you...
WSS
PS was there a noticeable difference in the games we lost in the 4th quarter?
-
Dude the last 26 thru 28 seconds is what kills you...
WSS
PS was there a noticeable difference in the games we lost in the 4th quarter?
Dude the last 26 thru 28 seconds is what kills you...
PS was there a noticeable difference in the games we lost in the 4th quarter?
Well....those last seconds weren't so good against the Colts, Ravens and Steelers.....all games we lost with less than 10 seconds left
And our TOP against the Bengals and Panthers was 21 minutes because the O went 3 and out over and over again.......with 40 minutes on the field, the D didn't stand a chance in either of these games......
-
Dude the last 26 thru 28 seconds is what kills you...
PS was there a noticeable difference in the games we lost in the 4th quarter?
Well....those last seconds weren't so good against the Colts, Ravens and Steelers.....all games we lost with less than 10 seconds left
And our TOP against the Bengals and Panthers was 21 minutes because the O went 3 and out over and over again.......with 40 minutes on the field, the D didn't stand a chance in either of these games......
Well....those last seconds weren't so good against the Colts, Ravens and Steelers.....all games we lost with less than 10 seconds left
And our TOP against the Bengals and Panthers was 21 minutes because the O went 3 and out over and over again.......with 40 minutes on the field, the D didn't stand a chance in either of these games......
I agree. That's why you have to run the ball.
WSS
-
Of course the d line injuries hurt us, but as I've provided we were equally as bad against the run healthy as unhealthy this year. And last year was this d line not "EXACTLY" the same? So SOMETHING changed ...
Not "exactly" the same line. It seems small, but it was huge when Pettine switched Taylor and Rubin. Rubin was put at NT, and had a terrible season. Taylor is a perfect fit at 2-gap DE, so the move was justified, but Rubin did not play at the level we needed. I saw 2 major issues on run
First problem was that almost every play Rubin (or anybody else playing NT) was pushed 2-4 yards back and the Gs and C of the opposing team were blocking our linebackers. The reason everybody is putting the lack of run D on the line is because run stuffing STARTS on the line. The NT needs to clog the inside lanes, which Rubin/Kitchen were unable to do. In Pettine's system, the NT is the #1 most important position for run-stopping, and ours were terrible this year.
Second, the "Sam LB" position was a train wreck. Mingo was hurt, and was not making tackles. Not only that, but he was learning his 2nd new position in as many years so he was out of place at times. He did not play aggressive and never seemed to shoot gaps to make plays. It didn't get much better when Sheard was in. He is too bulky and slow to play this spot so many times Kruger would play the "Sam" while Sheard was the "Jack" which was stupid because Sheard has never been great against the run or setting the edge. He has gotten beat to the outside his whole career.
I think our ILBs played well, and Kruger did well, on most occasions. I think we are building a good D, but right now on the roster I think these are the only "good fits" on this front 7 that match the scheme:
Taylor and Hughes as 2-gap DEs
D.Bryant and Winn as 1-gap DTs (And A.Bryant in passing situations)
Dansby as the "Will LB"
Robertson and Kirksey as the "Mike LB"
Kruger as the "Jack LB"
Mingo as the "Sam LB"
That does not give us much depth, and it does not help that we have no NT...
Not "exactly" the same line. It seems small, but it was huge when Pettine switched Taylor and Rubin. Rubin was put at NT, and had a terrible season. Taylor is a perfect fit at 2-gap DE, so the move was justified, but Rubin did not play at the level we needed. I saw 2 major issues on run
First problem was that almost every play Rubin (or anybody else playing NT) was pushed 2-4 yards back and the Gs and C of the opposing team were blocking our linebackers. The reason everybody is putting the lack of run D on the line is because run stuffing STARTS on the line. The NT needs to clog the inside lanes, which Rubin/Kitchen were unable to do. In Pettine's system, the NT is the #1 most important position for run-stopping, and ours were terrible this year.
Second, the "Sam LB" position was a train wreck. Mingo was hurt, and was not making tackles. Not only that, but he was learning his 2nd new position in as many years so he was out of place at times. He did not play aggressive and never seemed to shoot gaps to make plays. It didn't get much better when Sheard was in. He is too bulky and slow to play this spot so many times Kruger would play the "Sam" while Sheard was the "Jack" which was stupid because Sheard has never been great against the run or setting the edge. He has gotten beat to the outside his whole career.
I think our ILBs played well, and Kruger did well, on most occasions. I think we are building a good D, but right now on the roster I think these are the only "good fits" on this front 7 that match the scheme:
Taylor and Hughes as 2-gap DEs
D.Bryant and Winn as 1-gap DTs (And A.Bryant in passing situations)
Dansby as the "Will LB"
Robertson and Kirksey as the "Mike LB"
Kruger as the "Jack LB"
Mingo as the "Sam LB"
That does not give us much depth, and it does not help that we have no NT...
I'll admit that at the beginning of the season I wasn't eyeballing the DL on every play, but it didnt' seem to me like they were getting blown off the line. I would have noticed OL getting downfield untouched on our LB's. It seemed to me in the new scheme that they were not trying to get upfield like they were in Hortons gap scheme...as evidenced by our sack count being lower this year. So it did seem like they were trying to chew up the blockers. I dunno, I'd have to go back and look. But the one thing that I wholeheartedly disagree with you on is the edge setting from both Kruger and Sheard, cause that I did watch and it was something that was in my mind to keep an eye on this year even before the season started. At the beginning of the season nothing, and I do mean nothing, broke to the outside. Both Kruger and Sheard consistently got their man upfield and sat in the bounce lanes. And that was just fine with the other teams cause they just ran off center and guard all game long and it couldn't be stopped. The only times something broke to the outside was when Mingo was in, unfortunately. You're right he's not built for what they asked of him. I actually think he'd make an awesome 4-3 OLB. As the season progressed though you could tell that they were asking the OLB'ers to pinch in and help in the run, which of course resulted in RB's managing to escape interior containment.
This is what upset me so much about our early season run defense. You could blame the DL for letting the RB's get to the 2nd level consistently, I get that...but after that, those long runs are just all on the LB'ers. The whole issue that people had with DQ the previous season is that he was making tackles too far behind the line of scrimmage, well at least he was making those tackles. Our guys just got run right by. These werent' grinding big backs we were facing, those yards that were getting made on us were on a lot of big runs. You could make an argument that if teams were handing the ball off 30-40 times against us and getting those yards that they just ground us down. But how many times at the beginning of the year did teams have near or even over 100 yds by half time? On less than 15 carries. People say it's a passing league and we're set up for that. Fine. I'm even ok with averaging 100 yds or a little more on run defense. But not 150. If this year was cause of our scheme..that scheme has to go I don't care passing league or what. Look at our schedule next year. If Lynch is still in Seattle we're gonna deal with that nightmare plus SF who you know is gonna give Gore/Hyde 20 carries by halftime. It's gonna get ugly next year if we still have the same aw shux attitude toward stopping the run.
So you sound like you really know what you're talking about. What does NE do with their ILB'ers that's different? Those guys are monsters and seem to go out in coverage just fine.
-
No... Your own words say it. You wanted to discuss how many reasons why your conclusion was right. As best I can tell that conclusion was DQ's departure accounted for it a decline, or all except some small slice of Khalil Mack is better than Kirksey.
It never occurred to you someone might disagree with your conclusion let alone your premise... despite the above, awesome display of football prowess.
I saw only one dumbass here...
woefully wrong. I gave my opinion about why "I" think the run defense sucked this year, and gave some empirical evidence to back it up. Yet I still acknowledged that I may be wrong and wanted to hear from people who actually knew how the game of football was played. Those of you, including yourself, who say it's the d line stupid.....clearly show you don't know how the game is played. That's not me saying "I'm completely right and you're all completely wrong"...but there's certain facts to football you can't get around. One of those being that if you're getting gouged on run defense up the middle you have to look at what your LB'ers are doing wrong. If you dont' understand that you really don't know the game of football. Now exactly why those LB'ers weren't doing their job...is what I was trying to get at in this discussion. How much of it was scheme and how much of it was on them. Said plenty of times I'd like to hear what Oneil was doing with our LB'ers that was so different than Horton was.
Woefully inept analysis of someone's else's writing. Really. You can agree or disagree with someone but at least grasp the basics.
woefully wrong. I gave my opinion about why "I" think the run defense sucked this year, and gave some empirical evidence to back it up. Yet I still acknowledged that I may be wrong and wanted to hear from people who actually knew how the game of football was played. Those of you, including yourself, who say it's the d line stupid.....clearly show you don't know how the game is played. That's not me saying "I'm completely right and you're all completely wrong"...but there's certain facts to football you can't get around. One of those being that if you're getting gouged on run defense up the middle you have to look at what your LB'ers are doing wrong. If you dont' understand that you really don't know the game of football. Now exactly why those LB'ers weren't doing their job...is what I was trying to get at in this discussion. How much of it was scheme and how much of it was on them. Said plenty of times I'd like to hear what Oneil was doing with our LB'ers that was so different than Horton was.
Woefully inept analysis of someone's else's writing. Really. You can agree or disagree with someone but at least grasp the basics.
Grasp this... *points to crotch*
I've been beating the LB drum for years... almost since I joined the board. However, anyone who knows the game knows that in run D the primary job of the D-line is to keep the O-line off of the LBs, so they can make plays... especially true of the ILBs. Hard enough for 1st stringers to do let alone guys promoted from the PS due to injury.
As for your thread performance... I stand by my original analysis.
-
Different defenses, different offenses, different players,
foolish to just look at some stats to say Horton's defense was "better"...
renders a lot of stats from before meaningless.
The Browns have a lot better secondary now, so teams try to run more.....
injuries.....stop living in the past.
We'll see the improvements that take place next year.
Fix a few problem areas - and it should be a wild ride next season.
-
Not "exactly" the same line. It seems small, but it was huge when Pettine switched Taylor and Rubin. Rubin was put at NT, and had a terrible season. Taylor is a perfect fit at 2-gap DE, so the move was justified, but Rubin did not play at the level we needed. I saw 2 major issues on run
First problem was that almost every play Rubin (or anybody else playing NT) was pushed 2-4 yards back and the Gs and C of the opposing team were blocking our linebackers. The reason everybody is putting the lack of run D on the line is because run stuffing STARTS on the line. The NT needs to clog the inside lanes, which Rubin/Kitchen were unable to do. In Pettine's system, the NT is the #1 most important position for run-stopping, and ours were terrible this year.
Second, the "Sam LB" position was a train wreck. Mingo was hurt, and was not making tackles. Not only that, but he was learning his 2nd new position in as many years so he was out of place at times. He did not play aggressive and never seemed to shoot gaps to make plays. It didn't get much better when Sheard was in. He is too bulky and slow to play this spot so many times Kruger would play the "Sam" while Sheard was the "Jack" which was stupid because Sheard has never been great against the run or setting the edge. He has gotten beat to the outside his whole career.
I think our ILBs played well, and Kruger did well, on most occasions. I think we are building a good D, but right now on the roster I think these are the only "good fits" on this front 7 that match the scheme:
Taylor and Hughes as 2-gap DEs
D.Bryant and Winn as 1-gap DTs (And A.Bryant in passing situations)
Dansby as the "Will LB"
Robertson and Kirksey as the "Mike LB"
Kruger as the "Jack LB"
Mingo as the "Sam LB"
That does not give us much depth, and it does not help that we have no NT...
I'll admit that at the beginning of the season I wasn't eyeballing the DL on every play, but it didnt' seem to me like they were getting blown off the line. I would have noticed OL getting downfield untouched on our LB's. It seemed to me in the new scheme that they were not trying to get upfield like they were in Hortons gap scheme...as evidenced by our sack count being lower this year. So it did seem like they were trying to chew up the blockers. I dunno, I'd have to go back and look. But the one thing that I wholeheartedly disagree with you on is the edge setting from both Kruger and Sheard, cause that I did watch and it was something that was in my mind to keep an eye on this year even before the season started. At the beginning of the season nothing, and I do mean nothing, broke to the outside. Both Kruger and Sheard consistently got their man upfield and sat in the bounce lanes. And that was just fine with the other teams cause they just ran off center and guard all game long and it couldn't be stopped. The only times something broke to the outside was when Mingo was in, unfortunately. You're right he's not built for what they asked of him. I actually think he'd make an awesome 4-3 OLB. As the season progressed though you could tell that they were asking the OLB'ers to pinch in and help in the run, which of course resulted in RB's managing to escape interior containment.
This is what upset me so much about our early season run defense. You could blame the DL for letting the RB's get to the 2nd level consistently, I get that...but after that, those long runs are just all on the LB'ers. The whole issue that people had with DQ the previous season is that he was making tackles too far behind the line of scrimmage, well at least he was making those tackles. Our guys just got run right by. These werent' grinding big backs we were facing, those yards that were getting made on us were on a lot of big runs. You could make an argument that if teams were handing the ball off 30-40 times against us and getting those yards that they just ground us down. But how many times at the beginning of the year did teams have near or even over 100 yds by half time? On less than 15 carries. People say it's a passing league and we're set up for that. Fine. I'm even ok with averaging 100 yds or a little more on run defense. But not 150. If this year was cause of our scheme..that scheme has to go I don't care passing league or what. Look at our schedule next year. If Lynch is still in Seattle we're gonna deal with that nightmare plus SF who you know is gonna give Gore/Hyde 20 carries by halftime. It's gonna get ugly next year if we still have the same aw shux attitude toward stopping the run.
So you sound like you really know what you're talking about. What does NE do with their ILB'ers that's different? Those guys are monsters and seem to go out in coverage just fine.
I'll admit that at the beginning of the season I wasn't eyeballing the DL on every play, but it didnt' seem to me like they were getting blown off the line....
But the one thing that I wholeheartedly disagree with you on is the edge setting from both Kruger and Sheard, cause that I did watch and it was something that was in my mind to keep an eye on this year even before the season started. At the beginning of the season nothing, and I do mean nothing, broke to the outside. Both Kruger and Sheard consistently got their man upfield and sat in the bounce lanes. And that was just fine with the other teams cause they just ran off center and guard all game long and it couldn't be stopped. The only times something broke to the outside was when Mingo was in
This is what upset me so much about our early season run defense. You could blame the DL for letting the RB's get to the 2nd level consistently, I get that...but after that, those long runs are just all on the LB'ers. The whole issue that people had with DQ the previous season is that he was making tackles too far behind the line of scrimmage, well at least he was making those tackles. Our guys just got run right by. These werent' grinding big backs we were facing, those yards that were getting made on us were on a lot of big runs.
You could make an argument that if teams were handing the ball off 30-40 times against us and getting those yards that they just ground us down. But how many times at the beginning of the year did teams have near or even over 100 yds by half time? On less than 15 carries. People say it's a passing league and we're set up for that. Fine. I'm even ok with averaging 100 yds or a little more on run defense. But not 150. If this year was cause of our scheme..that scheme has to go I don't care passing league or what. Look at our schedule next year. If Lynch is still in Seattle we're gonna deal with that nightmare plus SF who you know is gonna give Gore/Hyde 20 carries by halftime. It's gonna get ugly next year if we still have the same aw shux attitude toward stopping the run.
So you sound like you really know what you're talking about. What does NE do with their ILB'ers that's different? Those guys are monsters and seem to go out in coverage just fine.
If you look at the run stats.....right, left, center.....you will see that most of the yardage was gained to the outside....(Kruger/Sheard/Mingo)....
We only allowed 5 runs of 10+ yards over the middle......BUT we allowed 37 runs of 10+ yards to the outside.....(real numbers, btw)
So, thats more than 7 times as many to the outside as the inside.....so, perception is everythjng except reality....
And I agree with the argument that teams piled on, after they identified our weakness....making it even worse.....yes, we gave up more rushing yards this year...but we also were the "2nd most rushed on" team in the league with 500 attempts against us....which only magnifies the issue
So....based upon the real numbers.....it would appear that the hybrid outside backers failed at a greater rate than the inside backers....
..
-
Not "exactly" the same line. It seems small, but it was huge when Pettine switched Taylor and Rubin. Rubin was put at NT, and had a terrible season. Taylor is a perfect fit at 2-gap DE, so the move was justified, but Rubin did not play at the level we needed. I saw 2 major issues on run
First problem was that almost every play Rubin (or anybody else playing NT) was pushed 2-4 yards back and the Gs and C of the opposing team were blocking our linebackers. The reason everybody is putting the lack of run D on the line is because run stuffing STARTS on the line. The NT needs to clog the inside lanes, which Rubin/Kitchen were unable to do. In Pettine's system, the NT is the #1 most important position for run-stopping, and ours were terrible this year.
Second, the "Sam LB" position was a train wreck. Mingo was hurt, and was not making tackles. Not only that, but he was learning his 2nd new position in as many years so he was out of place at times. He did not play aggressive and never seemed to shoot gaps to make plays. It didn't get much better when Sheard was in. He is too bulky and slow to play this spot so many times Kruger would play the "Sam" while Sheard was the "Jack" which was stupid because Sheard has never been great against the run or setting the edge. He has gotten beat to the outside his whole career.
I think our ILBs played well, and Kruger did well, on most occasions. I think we are building a good D, but right now on the roster I think these are the only "good fits" on this front 7 that match the scheme:
Taylor and Hughes as 2-gap DEs
D.Bryant and Winn as 1-gap DTs (And A.Bryant in passing situations)
Dansby as the "Will LB"
Robertson and Kirksey as the "Mike LB"
Kruger as the "Jack LB"
Mingo as the "Sam LB"
That does not give us much depth, and it does not help that we have no NT...
I'll admit that at the beginning of the season I wasn't eyeballing the DL on every play, but it didnt' seem to me like they were getting blown off the line. I would have noticed OL getting downfield untouched on our LB's. It seemed to me in the new scheme that they were not trying to get upfield like they were in Hortons gap scheme...as evidenced by our sack count being lower this year. So it did seem like they were trying to chew up the blockers. I dunno, I'd have to go back and look. But the one thing that I wholeheartedly disagree with you on is the edge setting from both Kruger and Sheard, cause that I did watch and it was something that was in my mind to keep an eye on this year even before the season started. At the beginning of the season nothing, and I do mean nothing, broke to the outside. Both Kruger and Sheard consistently got their man upfield and sat in the bounce lanes. And that was just fine with the other teams cause they just ran off center and guard all game long and it couldn't be stopped. The only times something broke to the outside was when Mingo was in, unfortunately. You're right he's not built for what they asked of him. I actually think he'd make an awesome 4-3 OLB. As the season progressed though you could tell that they were asking the OLB'ers to pinch in and help in the run, which of course resulted in RB's managing to escape interior containment.
This is what upset me so much about our early season run defense. You could blame the DL for letting the RB's get to the 2nd level consistently, I get that...but after that, those long runs are just all on the LB'ers. The whole issue that people had with DQ the previous season is that he was making tackles too far behind the line of scrimmage, well at least he was making those tackles. Our guys just got run right by. These werent' grinding big backs we were facing, those yards that were getting made on us were on a lot of big runs. You could make an argument that if teams were handing the ball off 30-40 times against us and getting those yards that they just ground us down. But how many times at the beginning of the year did teams have near or even over 100 yds by half time? On less than 15 carries. People say it's a passing league and we're set up for that. Fine. I'm even ok with averaging 100 yds or a little more on run defense. But not 150. If this year was cause of our scheme..that scheme has to go I don't care passing league or what. Look at our schedule next year. If Lynch is still in Seattle we're gonna deal with that nightmare plus SF who you know is gonna give Gore/Hyde 20 carries by halftime. It's gonna get ugly next year if we still have the same aw shux attitude toward stopping the run.
So you sound like you really know what you're talking about. What does NE do with their ILB'ers that's different? Those guys are monsters and seem to go out in coverage just fine.
So you sound like you really know what you're talking about. What does NE do with their ILB'ers that's different? Those guys are monsters and seem to go out in coverage just fine.
New England's DC Matt Patricia runs a 4-3 Under defense, which is slightly different than our 3-4 Over. The main difference is 4 hands-down D-linemen and 3 stand-up linebackers vs the opposite. Just like the 3-4, run-stopping starts with the 2-gap NT - and their defense is 100 times better when Wilfork is healthy and playing that position. The overall size of their front 7 helps as they line up 2- 300+ linemen and 3 260+ DE/OLB-type players. Having 2 DE's to contain the outside, and an extra 270+ OLB (Hightower) allows them to out-man the opposing front 5 basically setting up their ILBs to do some damage. Their Sam and Mike LBs have essentially the same responsibilities as ours. They have to have good size, but the most important quality is playing well in coverage.
We could run our 3-4 over with: Taylor / a new NT / D.Bryant and A.Bryant as the Jack/DE with Kruger in the Sam and that will open things up for Kirksey/Dansby to clean up the middle. That would give us the size up front that NE utilizes.
The problem is, Pettine and O'neil seem to LOVE speed on defense. They would rather push A.Bryant as a lineman and utilize Mingo's athleticism against opposing TEs and RBs instead of putting those responsibilities on Kruger and A.Bryant. It makes us smaller on D, which ultimately creates openings for opposing offenses.
-
Wilfork is, of course, one of the elite space-eaters in the league.
I've always seen Big Phil in that mold and as Mud has cited, our best run D game came during his all too brief, Week 10 return from injury after the D had gotten in sync.
Agree on the speed observation... speed makes sense if the line occupies the opposition's "beef" on run plays. Then hole-filling speed vs. the run is as useful as it is in drop-back coverages.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login