Eric Mangini Thread

Originally posted by pickle:
What I am asking/stating is a completely acceptable criticism of Mangini. A coach adapts scheme to talent, right? So, after 8 weeks we are still scheming to a pass rush that is non-existent. To me, that means coaching.

He's used multiple schemes, so if there is a criticism it's either that he used too many or used them at inappropriate times. He has also worked on dialing up a pass rush, which is necessary. Your question is apt, but is it a fair criticism? I don't think so. As the D has improved, and if it keeps improving, Mangini should receive more appreciation.

Originally posted by pickle:
What I am asking/stating is a completely acceptable criticism of Mangini. A coach adapts scheme to talent, right? So, after 8 weeks we are still scheming to a pass rush that is non-existent. To me, that means coaching.

We discussed this in depth after week 2 (PIT game). How Tampa2 relies on a good 4 man pass rush to be effective. This can be said of any zone coverage, but much more versus Tampa2 because a MLB is asked to cover a deep zone. This is twice, off the top of my head, that a LB has been victimized trying to run after a WR deep down the middle of the field, and it looked silly doing it.

imo, if a DC wants to play Tampa2, just play Cover3. At least in Cover3 the three deep zone defenders are defensive backs who are better equipped to play WRs running deep routes. The only situation I like Tampa2 is when the defense thinks the flats will be targeted, so having a CB out there will help to defend the pass. No idea why Mangini called it with 1 minute left in the first half on a 1st and 10. He should suspect that ATL might be looking for a chunk play. Why task Bow with covering a deep zone?

Originally posted by thl408:

Originally posted by pickle:
What I am asking/stating is a completely acceptable criticism of Mangini. A coach adapts scheme to talent, right? So, after 8 weeks we are still scheming to a pass rush that is non-existent. To me, that means coaching.

We discussed this in depth after week 2 (PIT game). How Tampa2 relies on a good 4 man pass rush to be effective. This can be said of any zone coverage, but much more versus Tampa2 because a MLB is asked to cover a deep zone. This is twice, off the top of my head, that a LB has been victimized trying to run after a WR deep down the middle of the field, and it looked silly doing it.

imo, if a DC wants to play Tampa2, just play Cover3. At least in Cover3 the three deep zone defenders are defensive backs who are better equipped to play WRs running deep routes. The only situation I like Tampa2 is when the defense thinks the flats will be targeted, so having a CB out there will help to defend the pass. No idea why Mangini called it with 1 minute left in the first half on a 1st and 10. He should suspect that ATL might be looking for a chunk play. Why task Bow with covering a deep zone?

its called getting cute lol

Originally posted by jonesadrian:

Originally posted by thl408:

Originally posted by pickle:
What I am asking/stating is a completely acceptable criticism of Mangini. A coach adapts scheme to talent, right? So, after 8 weeks we are still scheming to a pass rush that is non-existent. To me, that means coaching.

We discussed this in depth after week 2 (PIT game). How Tampa2 relies on a good 4 man pass rush to be effective. This can be said of any zone coverage, but much more versus Tampa2 because a MLB is asked to cover a deep zone. This is twice, off the top of my head, that a LB has been victimized trying to run after a WR deep down the middle of the field, and it looked silly doing it.

imo, if a DC wants to play Tampa2, just play Cover3. At least in Cover3 the three deep zone defenders are defensive backs who are better equipped to play WRs running deep routes. The only situation I like Tampa2 is when the defense thinks the flats will be targeted, so having a CB out there will help to defend the pass. No idea why Mangini called it with 1 minute left in the first half on a 1st and 10. He should suspect that ATL might be looking for a chunk play. Why task Bow with covering a deep zone?

its called getting cute lol

In Mangini's defense, Bowman is one ILB with the speed and ability to be decent down the field. He would no doubt have loved having Willis and Bowman in their prime! But then...who wouldn't?

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by jonesadrian:

Originally posted by thl408:

Originally posted by pickle:
What I am asking/stating is a completely acceptable criticism of Mangini. A coach adapts scheme to talent, right? So, after 8 weeks we are still scheming to a pass rush that is non-existent. To me, that means coaching.

We discussed this in depth after week 2 (PIT game). How Tampa2 relies on a good 4 man pass rush to be effective. This can be said of any zone coverage, but much more versus Tampa2 because a MLB is asked to cover a deep zone. This is twice, off the top of my head, that a LB has been victimized trying to run after a WR deep down the middle of the field, and it looked silly doing it.

imo, if a DC wants to play Tampa2, just play Cover3. At least in Cover3 the three deep zone defenders are defensive backs who are better equipped to play WRs running deep routes. The only situation I like Tampa2 is when the defense thinks the flats will be targeted, so having a CB out there will help to defend the pass. No idea why Mangini called it with 1 minute left in the first half on a 1st and 10. He should suspect that ATL might be looking for a chunk play. Why task Bow with covering a deep zone?

its called getting cute lol

In Mangini's defense, Bowman is one ILB with the speed and ability to be decent down the field. He would no doubt have loved having Willis and Bowman in their prime! But then...who wouldn't?

but we've been getting killed in that scenario all year. literally pounded into submission with chunk plays
how many times does it have to happen in order for you to throw it out altogether and not try and sneak it in there lol

every time they sneak it in it costs us. every single time. this is just a common sense issue.

but that's coaching arrogance and its not limited to mangini. coaches don't really like when things are working and going good. its never.. this is great so let's just do this and win.

it's always this is great.. hey im in a zone now.. hey we dominated and the guys are playing well you know what lets toss this out there and see what happens and then you get the big gain, the touchdown at the end of the half

and then at the end of the game the coach is like damn why didn't i just do what was working?

So i got a newbie question and dont wanna scroll thru all this to get an answer....

From what i have read throught the forums manginis schemes are like a yoyo (up and down)...i understand alot of guys have left and alot new personal have come on board...from all accounts i have read on here tomsula was a good defensive coach, so if the defence is playing like s**t and manginis schemes/patterns (forgive me still learning the terminolgy) are not working does tomsula come over and say this s**t aint working try this? I just find it strange that some of fans on here work out whats wrong and nothing happens on field they keep going with things that are not working...

Just thought a headcoach could over rule things if you understand what i mean

Originally posted by jonesadrian:
but we've been getting killed in that scenario all year. literally pounded into submission with chunk plays
how many times does it have to happen in order for you to throw it out altogether and not try and sneak it in there lol

every time they sneak it in it costs us. every single time. this is just a common sense issue.

but that's coaching arrogance and its not limited to mangini. coaches don't really like when things are working and going good. its never.. this is great so let's just do this and win.

it's always this is great.. hey im in a zone now.. hey we dominated and the guys are playing well you know what lets toss this out there and see what happens and then you get the big gain, the touchdown at the end of the half

and then at the end of the game the coach is like damn why didn't i just do what was working?

Yes, I agree but there may be an explanation for this breakdown...like a Safety being a bit late to help out the ILB. It's been obvious that they would be much better off with another safety on the field and I was hoping to see Ward and Tartt more. Now that Bethea is down then they need both out there.

But I'll keep giving the D some time to gel because they seem to be a bit better each week...since the two blow outs in the second and third weeks of the season.

I think mangini has called only 2 good games. 1st game, and last game. In between he has left the middle 1/3 of the field open with a LB chasing a guy that can run with the CBs and Ss. It as been a glaring screwup since game two, and we had two instances in this game. Thl or jonnydel already answered the fix, a cover 3, but what makes mangini call a good game 2 out of 8 times i don't know. Disappointing tho, as he really dialed up a bunch of successful blitzes this game and against the vikes.

What happened in between, well, it wasn't purty.

Originally posted by pasodoc9er:
I think mangini has called only 2 good games. 1st game, and last game. In between he has left the middle 1/3 of the field open with a LB chasing a guy that can run with the CBs and Ss. It as been a glaring screwup since game two, and we had two instances in this game. Thl or jonnydel already answered the fix, a cover 3, but what makes mangini call a good game 2 out of 8 times i don't know. Disappointing tho, as he really dialed up a bunch of successful blitzes this game and against the vikes.

What happened in between, well, it wasn't purty.

I thought the game against the Packers was also a decent game by the defense.

Originally posted by leakyfausett:
I thought the game against the Packers was also a decent game by the defense.

this. and even the Game against the Hawks wasnt that bad either, in despite of the points allowed, imho.

from Mangina to Mangenius in one week, according to NT at least.

Dont curr...still sucks.

Originally posted by thl408:
We discussed this in depth after week 2 (PIT game). How Tampa2 relies on a good 4 man pass rush to be effective. This can be said of any zone coverage, but much more versus Tampa2 because a MLB is asked to cover a deep zone. This is twice, off the top of my head, that a LB has been victimized trying to run after a WR deep down the middle of the field, and it looked silly doing it.

imo, if a DC wants to play Tampa2, just play Cover3. At least in Cover3 the three deep zone defenders are defensive backs who are better equipped to play WRs running deep routes. The only situation I like Tampa2 is when the defense thinks the flats will be targeted, so having a CB out there will help to defend the pass. No idea why Mangini called it with 1 minute left in the first half on a 1st and 10. He should suspect that ATL might be looking for a chunk play. Why task Bow with covering a deep zone?

Seems to me that Mangini figures if I'm going to trust a guy to be versatile and make good decisions it should be Bowman. So he leans on him too much. Understandable as he's the top leader left on the D. With Bethea out the DBs are extremely young. But teams are seeing that and taking advantage of the mismatch. Bowman said after the game Sunday that he finally feels like he can play without hesitation so I expect him to improve...perhaps run more freely in coverage. It looks like he is expecting help from a safety when the WR goes deep and was trying to stay between the WR and the QB. Now he may try to stay deep on the WR.

But with Tartt and Ward playing so well I don't see a reason to continue using Bowman in coverage as much. I would like to see him blitz more and have Brooks and Lynch play the flat on their sides. It will still burn them if all the receivers go deep, but it might cause some discomfort for the QBs. Using Tartt or ward in the nickle with Bowman blitzing seems almost ideal for this team.

With how well our CB's are playing I want to see Ward replace Reid.