Originally posted by CalgaryNiner:
There's just too much here to comment on but when you're still complaining about our defensive pressure when we finished 3rd in sacks because we didn't get them the "correct way", there's probably just no pleasing you.
Not at all. The original post was on how TBC can play great for NE in a 3-4 but like crap for us and then go back to NE and play great again. Are you telling me we couldn't use a WILL who had 10 sacks on a defense that lost Seymour, started 5 rookies and even lost Wilfork for a good portion of the year? What exactly IS your point? B/c we had to generate sacks from every position except from the 4 LBers of where the sacks should come from, that's OK? The point here is that Manusky needs to watch game tape of more successful DC's and the exotic blitz schemes theye use and how best to take advantage of ALL four LB's in a 3-4 in addition to generating pressure with the d-line and CB's (which 3-4 defenses do also).
Originally posted by CalgaryNiner:
A sack is a sack is a sack. Either we got it because we got good pressure or we got it because of good coverage. Both results are evidence of a good defensive scheme seeing as we have no single dominant pass rusher.
Is it? Then where we the sacks when we needed them the most (see MN, Indy, Seattle, GB, etc.)? The bottom line is you are looking at the defense and the sacks as a whole and are missing the fact that there are still areas that need grand improvements and in the 3-4, for us, it's with utilizing the 4 LBers properly in addition to what he's already doing with the rest of the 7 guys to get pressure. We've got some talent - right now, it's just too predictable.
I'm certainly not saying Manusky sucks by any means but I am saying, if he's ever going to be ranked higher then 12th, this is the next step he has to take. He has some good players now and they are familiar with his scheme...now is the time to expand upon it. That's all.
Originally posted by CalgaryNiner:
Who cares who gets the sack? In my opinion, a team that gets sacks from lots of different positions like us is harder to gameplan for not easier. When you know a team relies on a singe pass rusher it is much easier to plan your blocking schemes to account for him. You complain about predictability and then complain about our sacks coming from too many different positions. That's a complete contradiction!
Again, the 4 LBers are the primary pass rushers of the 3-4 but this is in addition to good line stunts and pressure as well as your CB & safety blitz. The 3-4 is designed to disguise where the pass rush is coming from. Most of our sacks this year were d/t individual efforts, not scheme IMHO (e.g. Smith overpowering two linemen, good coverage, etc.). A better scheme can increase and built upon what we already established.
Originally posted by CalgaryNiner:
This same defense that made average players look like all-stars (I'd actually like some of examples of this) made Peyton Manning and Kurt Warner look like rookies. This team still has a handful of issues, but defensive scheming and QB pressure is no longer one of them IMHO.
You really don't think scheming and QB still isn't an issue on this team? Many times this year QB's had ALL day to throw the ball and some games we had zero sacks and very few QB pressures/hits. We have ALWAYS matched up well against AZ and like I mentioned before, Peyton has ALWAYS struggled with 3-4 defenses.
Again, a better scheme with an added dimension of focus on utilizing the 4 LBers properly will help with being more consistent from game to game and improve upon our defense this year and result in even more sacks, QB pressures/hits and consequently, turnovers.
You have to admit though that constantly using the OLB's as pseudo DE's up at the LOS and rarely using the inside LBer's in blitz and having the CB's play 15 yards off the LOS on 3rd and shorts and his "prevent" defense has indeed cost us some key games over the past three years. With Nolan gone, I do believe Manusky will continue to grow - I just hope it's in the scheme department.
I wouldn't replace any of our guys with him!
