I mean seriously? In Rock's article you hear the players suggesting they should be more aggressive. In the Dallas game, we sent more than 4 guys just a handful of times and Romo became comfortable and eventually made some plays. Against the Broncos, we again didn't put any pressure on Peyton but instead put all the pressure on our DB's which did more than admirably for most of the game. I'm sick and tired of this "react defense" as I call it. We never take it to the opponents, instead we react and adjust to what they are doing.
I sincerely believe we could have a solid defense. Webster and Price are solid and Thomas and Ross are pretty solid backups. Rolle is above average, Tuck, Jenkins, and interior line has been very stout against the run. Take it to them! Be aggressive once in a while for crying out loud. This bend don't break philosophy is a joke and has been for a few years now. I never root for a person to get fired but something needs to be done before the season is lost. I don't want a coach, especially a defensive coach that coaches scared. Thoughts?
And then in Week 2, against possibly the most prolific offense in the league this year, the defense held Manning and Broncos to 10 points going into halftime . . . meanwhile the offense continued to show incompetence in the redzone while only mustering up 9 points on 3 field goals at the half.
Anyone who wants to target Fewell at this point is barking up the wrong tree.
I get our defense is different and I hate what it is personally.. but the secondary this year has me encouraged ( they seem much improved ) which I feel was necessary to improve things... however...
I just wonder what happens if Tuck and JPP don't have near all-pro years and what we can do on defense to bring pressure.. I don't see the combination of PF/personnel getting it done and in the end after last year's performance PF will be facing the shit storm.
Our Run defense has been impressive however and that gives me hope. Assuming the offense gets its shit straight and we can stop the run you have to assume we will have some leads in games..
When that happens I think the writing will be on the wall at that point and if we can get to the QB then we are perhaps OK.
But we're just not getting anything from DE.
I wasn't a fan of the defensive rotations last year. I don't know how you play JPP for so many snaps if you know he had a bad back and he's not effective rushing the passer. You carried the young guys for the whole season without really using them.
Can subs hold up vs. Carolina's 21/22 run game?
Can base with Herz at MLB?
Can base matchup with Carolina's play action game?
What is Perry's base? Big nickel or true 4-3?
I wrote this thread after reading Tom Rock's article posted on this website. The defensive players (Tuck&Rolle specifically) are not liking the scheme. They don't feel like they are being aggressive and attacking like they would like to. Defensive players are by nature, attackers. They don't want to sit back and give, give, give.
I appreciate everyones comments, as I don't post very often. Lets go Giants! Big Week!
Spags is a genius.
What were we ranked last year in passing and rushing defense? It was top 5 right?
But the 2013 Giants have been pretty uniformly sucky, it's certainly not limited to the D. But watching Fox's D I'm reminded of what a good D looks like. Fox, the old ba$tard, seems to take particular pleasure in beating the Giants. And it sadly reminds me of when his D as Giants D coordinator DID win games!
Nonsense. When in doubt, blame the scheme. To hell with maintaining simple responsibilities or winning 1 on 1 battles.
Problem solved
They have no type of instincts, IMO..They don't sniff out plays..no anticipation, nothing..That's the problem with most of the LB-ers and with Kiwi right now..at least the secondary, the last 2 years, were producing turnovers..
MLB and Will slow to react, poor angles, caught in the wash
Corey Webster holy crap!
Wheres the FS?
First one is 11 personnel vs subs- nickel
Second is 12 vs. base.
Who's the sideline to sideline LB'er who can "fire his gun"
mmmm Rex Ryan I dare say? LOL. Honestly he wouldnt do I think but we would have a top ten defense
I would not have a problem with Fewel being replaced, especially in light of the players being less than enthusiastic about the system. Wonder what Lovie Smith is doing??
Before we answer the question, we must ask what other changes would NY make first.
Would they bench the QB first? -don't think so
Would they fire the OC first? -Prolly not
Would they fire the HC first? -doubtful
Would they bench other players first,or fire them?-likely
assuming a mess of players get released or benched first, at what point then does fewell get fired?
0-5?
0-7?
0-10?
seriously, who dares answer? The answer can also take the form of " After the QB" or "After the HC" if you really feel that's how long he would stick.
I ask the OPs question again, and would be nice if the posters actually answered it as opposed to treating as a virtual impossibility. It was a theoretical question to begin with. No harm in giving a theoretical answer.
Unless of course you truly believe we go 0-80 before we replace the DC.
If the defense has a bad year, Fewell won't be back. If they improve and play relatively well, he will be.
His job IS in jeopardy. This is the final year of his deal.
The thing that's astonishly stupid is that most of BBI blames Fewell for a suckass D last year & wants him gone even though those same people thought all the LBs sucked royally at everything (run, pass coverage, blitzing) & couldn't make a Division III college team; the DL vastly underperformed b/c Tuck was done or too injured to be effective, JPP was very likely too injured to be the stud he'd been, Canty missed most of the year due to injury & sucked when he got back, Bernard was useless, Kuhn was on IR halfway through, Joseph was petered out by the end of the year, Osi couldn't play the run worth shit & took the long route to China to get to the QB; Webster was done or too injured to be effective, TT missed the entire year, Rolle was out of position, Hosley sucked & numerous backup CBs were on IR. Stevie Brown was the only star, yet even he blew coverages left & right & was dogshit against the run.
Considering ALL the defensive players but one sucked or were too injured to be the studs they'd been in previous years, how is it that a DC much better than Fewell could have gotten these dregs of the earth to play so much better?
I would've taken that defense last year without question. Last year was break, break, then bend in the red zone. We just need those turnovers from the defense
The points allowed should naturally shoot down if the offense gets their shit together
easy to say being creative but if you only have mayonaisse, it is hard to make a sandwich..
My tone was shitty, but that's my attitude towards the way this team is playing right now.
What amazes me more is that people SEE that the LB'ers aren't very good, JPP is still not ready, and the DE's are not playing good at all and STILL want to blame Fewell!!..
Un-fucking-beleivable..
Seems too have good history working with linebackers.
On January 23, 2004, Rivera was named the Chicago Bears Defensive Coordinator. In 2005, the Chicago Bears defense was rated second-best in the NFL.
In 2006, the Bears’ defensive efforts failed to match the success of their 2005 season. Nevertheless, the team was still a notable presence in league, finishing with the league’s third ranked and conference’s top-ranked points allowed category.[2] The defense’s success earned Rivera recognition among franchises looking for new head coaches.
If the D continues to play this way, Fewell shouldn't be canned because we will win most games where the O plays reasonably well and doesn't give the ball away.
It doesn't help either to be fair that teams are getting rid of the ball quicker via dink and dunk. Overall, except for that Fewells D hasn't been a shit show. That's the offense who needs to get their heads out their asses.
if you don't have the right personnel, you can'd do the job. I guess you will be eequally pissed of if the starting WR's were jernigan, Barden and Murphy and they couldn't score more than 14 points a game?
Reese and Ross have a philosophy. They are sticking to it. He was on Espn radio and basically said how they had two different LB corps when they won and asked the guys to name them. They had trouble. So he proved his point in that regard.
Now, as a coach, you can't worry about that. Your job is to make it work. If that means via Xs and Os then so be it. In fact if they feel the LB corps is void of talent then you need to find other ways of making it work. Throwing in the towel is not an option.
The offense has to find a way to run. If that means passing to set up the run or changing your Xs and Os, from running BOB running schemes vs pulls, traps, power, power G, G, and center then so be it. You need to find ways to run. This is what coaches have to come up with in their offensive staff meetings. This is the stuff that went on with the staff I was on. This is how it went down when I was working with the Falcons. You have to do the job no matter what. If you feel the personnel quality isn't there, you still need to be creative enough to find a way. This is what all levels of coaching entails. I saw this on my staff, on the falcons staff, and when I worked a clinic with the Cowboys staff. Make it work! Be creative enough to find ways to get whatever you need to work, to work.
Schools have vaults of clinics on video and dvd on installing different offense and concepts. NFL teams have rooms of endless tape. So go back to the drawing board, and find ways to get something going that's not working.
If those WRs are the starting WRs, then obviously they are not starting for a reason. Talent? Not digesting the choose and option routes? If they are my starting WRs then we need to adjust and find ways to get them comfortable. Does that mean installing what they are all comfortable in executing? Sure, that's how I would approach it. What if they are not digesting the sight adjustments properly? Well, maybe for this week, I simplify things until my starters can get healthy. Fact is, I can't throw the towel in. In fact, when shit hits the fan, I prefer to sit in a room and solve the issue. It may not be perfect, but personally man, that's why I loved coaching. Find a way and do it. It's been like 7 years, but that's what I miss.
It's almost like he asks the D to figure everything out for themselves, and while I don't deny his playcalling puts them in the situation to do that, I just think the burden falls on the players to an extent whereby they do more reading than reacting, and certainly don't do much to dictate tempo or initiative.
Yes, it puts them in a position to capitalize on turnovers, but god forbid they miss the opportunity then the rest of the game is bending and hoping they don't break. I don't like the tradeoff.
It's a scheme that works great with healthy vets who know what they are doing.Injured guys have too much ground to account for and noobs get pwned.It's not initiative based gameplay and sometimes I just don't think he has the players for his schemes, but goes ahead with them anyway as opposed to adapting, which I think it would be hard to argue that's something he is good at.His offenses do OK in spurts, or when they are overloaded with talent and health at a particular position, but what D-line wouldn't do well with a healthy Osi, Tuck, JPP and Kiwi???He doesn't create much pressure at the line, by scheme, and the communications issues just have me wondering what's going on, which is how his DBs look far too often.
No they aren't terrible and they were in both games, but they aren't impressive. It's not just particular performances, I don't like that whole style of defense he calls.Too much time on the field, too much thinking required of the DBs, too much dependent on turnovers for my taste.I just don't enjoy watching it.It aggravates me watching opposing offenses move up and down the field consistenly whislt hoping for a turnover.