Originally posted by evil:
Originally posted by Giedi:
Originally posted by evil:
Originally posted by Giedi:
Originally posted by Sickaa:
Originally posted by Giedi:
I'm still appalled by Saleh's comment about preferring pressures to sacks. Never been a big fan of his since then. I don't think Saleh morphed, as much as Kocurk and Kyle basically said we're installing the Wide 9 whether you (Saleh) like it or not.
To me, this is a Kocurek centered defense, and reminds me a bit of the old Buddy Ryan bear defenses. 
I've always been a fan of Buddy's high pressure defenses, and those go back to the George Perlas great steeler defenses of the past. I loved how Demeco/Kyle drafted a ton of DBs this year to bolster the Nickel. It reminds me a bit of the '81 draft with Lott and company.
Didn't Bellicheat say something similar In regards to pressure Vs sacks? . Pressures have an higher chance of causing turnovers as compared to sacks, which only Push the offense back afew yards or so.
You can view defensive philosophy as revolving around three main areas. Yardage/field position, points, or turnovers. To me, pressures more directly impacts yardage/field position philosophy more than a turnover philosophy.
Sacks on the other hand, goes with more of a turnover philosophy. Saleh (in my opinion) was confused where his philosophy was. It was caught in the middle - neither here nor there.
Demeco and Kocurek are on the same page and are full in on a turnover philosophy, which is what the old Cheat Carroll/Seifert 4-3 under defenses was all about. The only difference between the Siefert/Carroll defenses is the Wide 9 addition which basically commits the defense to stopping the pass first versus the old Seifert defenses which were more balanced.
Bellicheats defenses are a modern iteration of the old Tuna defenses under Bill Parcells which were focused more on a yardage philosophy.
From the mouth of BB himself :
"I think if you look at the overall passing game, the statistic that stands out the most in terms of correlation is pressure. So pressure on the quarterback leads to more bad plays than sacks do, in terms of turnovers unless you have strip sacks, obviously. That's the No. 1. After that, pressures cause bad throws and potentially turnovers."
Belichick noted that the pass rush comes down to team defense, tethering the production of the pass rush to the quality of coverage and vice versa. But his note about focusing on strip sacks and pressure while devaluing sacks is a unique insight. Sacks make players money, but they may not be tied to winning football games.
And he isn't alone. Pretty much any defensive coach will tell you they value pressures over sacks, that isn't to say they don't value sacks though. Every coach would prefer to get a sack on every play but that isn't going to happen but if you can at least generate pressure, you can disrupt the timing, rhythm and comfort of your opponent.
I would bet Kocurek and Ryan's also value pressures over sacks.
Packers OLB coach Mike Smith (who has been coaching one of the most consistent pass rushers in Z. Smith and has previously coached Dee Ford and Chris Jones in KC) ranted on this last season :
"I don't know what happened. A long time ago somebody — probably when they started recording sacks — fans, coaches, whoever, defined a great pass rusher, or an effective pass rusher, off of sacks. That's one of the stupidest things I've ever seen. You define a great pass-rusher by consistency," Smith said.
A pass rusher who averages one sack a game would be an All-Pro, but Smith said a pass rusher who gets regular pressure, several times a game, does more to help his team win.
"You have to look how they are affecting the quarterback," Smith said. "When they are in the game, are they affecting the quarterback, with the pressures? Because sacks are important, don't get me wrong. . . . I care about pressure, affecting the quarterback, that's the No. 1 thing. I'll take a guy that does his job play after play after play after play, being consistent, and has zero sacks, but does his job and affects the quarterback."
Disagree. Win the turnover battle - you win the game. Thats the Raider defensive philosophy under Al Davis that Walsh won 4 super bowls under. Al's basic strategy was to take the ball away on defense--- and on offense keep it away. He didn't care about yardage or points, but sacks that creates **turnovers and interceptions.**
Bellicheat comes from the Bill Parcells school of thought where they focus on yardage and a stifling defense that gives your offense good field position to score and win games. Both Tuna and Bellicheat value execution and a conservative ball control offense and special teams to win **field position and the yardage yielded** game.
You can win super bowls with both philosophies, but the 49ers being on the west coast and under the same coaching philosophy that had its precursors under the old sid Gillman and *air Coryell* offense, that's the genetics where (i think) the shanahans are operating under. I think Saleh was never very clear where he stood on that spectrum and hence he never had a defense that was clear and solid in its aspects.
Sacks do not cause interceptions, pressures cause interceptions.
From the mouth of Bill Walsh :
"There are those defensive ends who can take a tackle back into the quarterback. They can be just as effective with that as a man who makes spectacular sacks once or twice a game. Something that is not given due credit too often is the player who can take that offensive lineman back to the quarterback. Everybody keeps waiting for the pass rusher to be past somebody and make a move, where in reality you can have an excellent pass rush and not sack anybody. You break his rhythm, force him to move out of the way of his own man."
The Chiefs just lost a SB where their QB was sacked only 3 times (we sacked him 4 times the year prior). But the offense couldn't muster more than 9 points or get off any real offense because the QB was the most pressured in SB history. Not allowing him to sit back and comfortably go through his progressions was what won Tampa this game. Mahomes even admitted the consistent barrage of pressure f'd them up, messing with the timing, rhythm and cohesion of that offense.
"I just think we weren't on the same page as an offense in general," Mahomes said. "I wasn't getting the ball out on time. The receivers were running routes not exactly where I thought they were going to be at. And the offensive line, they were good at some times and sometimes they let guys through. When you're playing a good defense like that, you have to be on the same page as an offense and we weren't today. And that's why we played so bad."
Blind side sacks cause interceptions and turnovers. The Al Davis defense is focused on those kinds of turnovers, and specifically focuses on the blind side rush hitting the QB and causing mistakes and turnovers as the QB was getting ready to throw. The great raider DEs Lyle Alzado, Howie Long etc... were to hit the QB and cause turnovers. That was the Raider defensive philosophy. Win the turnover battle, win the game. (Take away and keep away) The KC vs Brady game, Tampa won the turnover battle. The 49ers vs KC game, the turnovers (i think) were even. Again the refs allowed holding in our game and didn't in the Brady game.
There's the Raider defense that focuses on turnovers and there's the Tuna/Bellicheat defense that focuses on yardage. Usually Tuna's defenses focused on big fast physically dominating linebackers to stop the run and DLinemen that can hold ground (the old 3-4) systems with the DEs being more like DTs. Tuna liked a very big suffocating kind of defense, whereas the old Raider defenses were much faster (Al Davis was all about speed on both sides of the ball) but undersized, because they wanted to gang tackle and strip the ball from the ball carrier, and also play man (Lester "the molester" Hays) and intercept the pass, as well as speedy DEs that can hit the QB on his blind side.
Walsh was heavily influenced by Al, and Bellicheat learned under Parcells. Parcells played a field position game and mistake free football whereas Al and Walsh relied on their offense to possess and score and relied on their defense to feed the ball to their offenses.
Two totally different approaches to the game is my point. The pressures you are talking about revolves more around the tactical side, vs the strategic side. You can have tanks, but if your strategy is the Magiot Line, vs the Guderion blitzkrieg, you use your tanks differently from a tactical standpoint.
