Dean Pees

[RavensAllTheWay]

 I think it's more complicated than that though.

 

If the DC isn't putting the players in the best position to succeed then their failure is ultimately theirs.

 

A good example would be Cameron. When he sent the speedster on an end around and execution was not perfection, is that on the player? Or on the OC for not using that player properly ? Not recognizing their strengths?

 

If a CB who excels in man coverage is constantly used in zone and fails, is that on him or on the DC? Same for vice versa.

 

Well the question is, are guys like Melvin/Gorrer/Levine/Brown/Franks/Webb best suited for man? Pees thought not, and I don't really blame him. It's best not to leave unknowns (and with Webbs injury, he may be an "unknown") in situations where they could potentially get beat off the line right away.

 

Jimmy is better suited for man, but he definitely wasn't consistently in zone. He got up in receivers faces some. Should Pees have put him in man more often? Probably, so I'll give you that. As for the others, Webb is not physical, and everyone else was a big mystery, so putting them in position to make tackles is probably the safest.

[rmcjacket23]

Well the question is, are guys like Melvin/Gorrer/Levine/Brown/Franks/Webb best suited for man? Pees thought not, and I don't really blame him. It's best not to leave unknowns (and with Webbs injury, he may be an "unknown") in situations where they could potentially get beat off the line right away.

 

Jimmy is better suited for man, but he definitely wasn't consistently in zone. He got up in receivers faces some. Should Pees have put him in man more often? Probably, so I'll give you that. As for the others, Webb is not physical, and everyone else was a big mystery, so putting them in position to make tackles is probably the safest.

Yeah, its sort of a catch-22 really. Everybody agrees that Jimmy is a much better press-man cover corner, always has been. The problem is, at least recently, its hard to argue that literally anybody else in the secondary is quality in man coverage.

 

So there's two schools of thought... either you play man because that's what your best secondary player excels at, and essentially just pray that the rest of your secondary doesn't get torched, or you design a defense to put your secondary in its optimal position to succeed, given its limited talent.

 

Either way, you're not maximizing the talent in some aspect of the defense.

[CalvinSmoke]

Because that is their strength, their secondary. Our strength is our Front 7 so we should be blitzing more than 21% for sure.

It's an old debate, but stand-by tactics in football show clearly that one good way to help an ailing secondary is QB pressure. If you aren't getting it rushing 4, then you've got to blitz more than 21% of the time. Sometimes, you will get burned, no question. But allowing the QB all day gets you burned anyway with a weak secondary.

though a good point I'd say that their secondary looks even better because they font have to blitz to get pressure. They have one of the more explosive front sevens in the league.if they had to blitz they wouldn't look as dominant in the secondary. There's no right way, it's just depends on what you have and what works

[rmcjacket23]

One of the best defenses of this decade (2010+) in the Seahawks doesn't blitz either. The philosophy is similar, the just press man more because of who they have.

I think this is a bit of a misconception though...

 

Frankly, the Seahawks defense is great because they're well above average at just about every position on the defense, and they had no real weaknesses.

 

The Seahawks secondary plays a TON more zone coverage than people think they do, and they've acknowledged this consistently. What they do exceptionally well is tackle and swarm the ball, which a lot of teams (even ours) sometimes struggle with.

 

The 2013 Seahawks that won the SB didn't blitz because there was rarely a reason to. Their front four could consistently create pressure without any help, and their secondary could basically just sit back and wait.

 

Typically, if you have a great secondary, it actually makes sense to blitz MORE, because its fairly rare for a defense to be as well-rounded as they were, and most teams that are strong in the back end also tend to be weaker up front, thus with a strong secondary, you feel that you can send more guys to get to the QB.

 

Conversely, with a strong front and a weak secondary, it's actually typical to blitz LESS. The reason, ideally, is that your front can create pressure on the QB with a standard four or five man rush, and thus you can drop more players into coverage to flood passing lanes in order to mask possible weaknesses in talent or skill in the secondary.

 

Most of our better defensive games last season came when we could create pressure with 4 man rushes. It doesn't mean we consistently got sacks, but we could at least make things uncomfortable.

[CalvinSmoke]

I think this is a bit of a misconception though...

Frankly, the Seahawks defense is great because they're well above average at just about every position on the defense, and they had no real weaknesses.

The Seahawks secondary plays a TON more zone coverage than people think they do, and they've acknowledged this consistently. What they do exceptionally well is tackle and swarm the ball, which a lot of teams (even ours) sometimes struggle with.

The 2013 Seahawks that won the SB didn't blitz because there was rarely a reason to. Their front four could consistently create pressure without any help, and their secondary could basically just sit back and wait.

Typically, if you have a great secondary, it actually makes sense to blitz MORE, because its fairly rare for a defense to be as well-rounded as they were, and most teams that are strong in the back end also tend to be weaker up front, thus with a strong secondary, you feel that you can send more guys to get to the QB.

Conversely, with a strong front and a weak secondary, it's actually typical to blitz LESS. The reason, ideally, is that your front can create pressure on the QB with a standard four or five man rush, and thus you can drop more players into coverage to flood passing lanes in order to mask possible weaknesses in talent or skill in the secondary.

Most of our better defensive games last season came when we could create pressure with 4 man rushes. It doesn't mean we consistently got sacks, but we could at least make things uncomfortable.

There still isn't a right way to do it. It's all scheme and what you want the offense go have. The Steelers for example blitz often and try to confuse you underneath into bad decisions. They will do that regardless of who is in their secondary. They risk getting burned over the top.

The Seahawks give up underneath completions but drop back as much as thy can in coverage and don't allow anything over the top, relying on good pursuit to the ball and sound tackling.

Pees is more so like the 2nd

[ravensdfan]

Well the question is, are guys like Melvin/Gorrer/Levine/Brown/Franks/Webb best suited for man? Pees thought not, and I don't really blame him. It's best not to leave unknowns (and with Webbs injury, he may be an "unknown") in situations where they could potentially get beat off the line right away.

 

Jimmy is better suited for man, but he definitely wasn't consistently in zone. He got up in receivers faces some. Should Pees have put him in man more often? Probably, so I'll give you that. As for the others, Webb is not physical, and everyone else was a big mystery, so putting them in position to make tackles is probably the safest.

It's difficult to even assess Melvin for me at this point in time with so small a sample size. Hard to tell what his strength would be. Out of that group I think Gorrer and Webb are the only ones that could be better in man coverage (I think Webb began to look more like himself towards the end of the season). That doesn't mean they'll never get burned. Just that percentages should play in their favor.

 

I wasn't really thinking this guy or that guy, just that applying blame becomes all sorts of complicated things combined in any situation.