Let me see if I can get this Fewell defense straight:
1. Get pressure with only 4 DL - produce sacks and or DBs get turn overs.
2. If no pressure with 4 DL - don't blitz - just keep sending 4 and playing cover 2 zone until you get turn over. On third down, think about dropping DL into coverage, because, hey, who the fuck would ever guess we'd do something that stupid?
3. If no pressure and no turn over - give up occasional gash run and or big play downfield - get scored on - give ball back to offense until back on defense at which point go back to step 1.
Is this about what we've all been watching from Fewell the past 5 years?
the only difference is, even if our guys get through
your going to get quite a few that will hit home.. Enough to disrupt Romo's game. They flat out threw blitzes from everywhere. The plan was to put enough pressure so they don't get burned like they did against us, and it worked for them.
Sometimes you have to pick and choose your battles
What we really need is for Moore to step up and become a 3rd down force as a pass rusher these last 9 games. We need Ayers to return to form and for JPP to be himself and stay healthy.
the creativity. We hardly ever blitz and probably because we are bad at execution. PF is not creative. We cannot blitz because we probably do not practice. I am so tired of watching our coaches march out the same game plan each week with the same mediocre results.
for the reasons Dorgan sums up nicely, let's not read THAT much into the game. Nice win for the Skins, but quick, short passes with YAC potential can do a number on a blitz package like that, even when it backs off and just sends four or five. The Cowboys were still largely working downfield and trying to open up the middle for Witten and so the blitzes were getting there. The passing game is designed to do that, working off the play action, because they have a great line. But you can have five Anthony Munozes on your line and if the rushers outnumber the blockers your QB isn't going to have time to throw it downfield. They didn't make adjustments (losing Romo didn't help) and so it worked for the entire game. They play Minnesota and TB next so they might even be able to go on a streak, but let's see if San Fran with a few weeks to prepare is caught off guard.
a say that the Tampa 2 defenses didn't work very well anymore. I didn't find that reassuring. I can't remember the last time we had a significant overload blitz like Washington was doing all night last night.
like the use of a cute little nickname for a coach, player, team, etc. more clearly points out an immature jackass.
The "Perry Fool" or "Perry Awful" fans are the same lowest common denominator fans who still refer to the NFCE teams as things like "Cowgirls", "Egals" or "Foreskins"
I don't even know why I continue trying to inject any sort of reasonable football discussion into threads like this when it's clear there's none to be had.
Why is everyone enamored with Blitzing? Good QB's typically carve up aggressive blitz schemes. Blitzing is another tool in the tool box but relying on it will get you burned. Blitzing needs to be timely and effective. Just blitzing all the time is not getting you anywhere in this league.
Blitzing is great if your defense can actually, you know, do it
Why is everyone enamored with Blitzing? Good QB's typically carve up aggressive blitz schemes. Blitzing is another tool in the tool box but relying on it will get you burned. Blitzing needs to be timely and effective. Just blitzing all the time is not getting you anywhere in this league.
BBI are experts in overly simple solutions to complex issues.
The Redskins walked a tightrope last night. If anybody goofed on their coverages while they were blitzing 6,7,8 guys, that game gets blown open.
What Carl banks said.. " the Giants don't know how to blitz"...an obvious indictment of Fewell .... And last night Haslett drew up some great blitz packages and it saved the game for Washington. Romo could have cooked a meal back there with our pass rush that game
What Carl banks said.. " the Giants don't know how to blitz"...an obvious indictment of Fewell .... And last night Haslett drew up some great blitz packages and it saved the game for Washington. Romo could have cooked a meal back there with our pass rush that game
Maybe Banks meant that the guys who are actually blitzing suck at blitzing. Because that's what I'm seeing.
I've seen stunt attempts that were so bad that I'd just be inclined to say "yeah, forget it" if I were coaching.
I want Fewell to be aggressive and not just sit back when our front 4 can't get a push. But I also don't want to see 1 or 2 guys from the back 7 just taking themselves out of the play. And it feels like that's what we keep seeing.
the blitz packages I saw last night was, guys having "clean" shots"(open lanes) at Romo...
When I watch a Giant blitz, everyone is picked up immediately, because their schemes are so vanilla......and then you have the occasional, get to the QB, and McClain or Demps misses the tackle...
hence he doesn't. I always laugh at the people that decry about the lack of talent on defense. The Giants have good talent on their defense, it's the design of the scheme that's average. Look how the Card defense stays aggressive regardless of the personnel they lose.
Skins last night were able to compensate for lack of a pass rush with the blitz, and it paid off. This is exactly what we DONOT do. Bank's comments were an indictment of Fewell.
How much more evidence is needed?...I would hope this is his last season here.
The Cardinals gave up 521 total yards to the Eagles.
It's amazing how people will just look right past stuff like this as long they see a DC relentlessly blitzing.
I know ARZ won the game, but how effective could these blitzes possibly have been when they sacked Foles ZERO times and he threw for 411 yards and the Eagles converted nearly 50% of their 3rd downs.
Cannot for the life of me understand the rationale of some posters, but.. it is what it is.
They threw the ball deep more than we did, or have this season and when you have that threat it helps the entire offense. Washington also ran the ball more efficiently than we did which helped with TOP, a big part of the success in Dallas.
As for the defense I admittedly watched them and said "I wish we did this more". The Redskins had more jailbreak blitzes than I remember the Giants having in quite some time overall and it worked. Not only did they have 5 sacks, they had 12 hurries overall. We had 5 the previous week. Ryan Mundy had 3 for the Skins which was the most on the team. How often do you see us rush the passer from the safety position, just to shake things up? I mentioned in a thread yesterday I wish we'd use J. Williams speed to rush the passer more because when he does he's pretty effective imo. But we don't do it, not to mention not having Moore, Ayers and Hankins on the field more rushing the passer vs. Kiwi who's playing time needs to be cut significantly. You can't give Romo or any quality QB time to throw or they'll carve you up but if you can get pressure and disrupt their timing you have an advantage. In today's NFL especially you need to do it and we don't.
Same goes for the Eagles/Cardinals game. Arizona wasn't afraid to bring pressure. Even though we did better against the Eagles with 11 hurries, Arizona had 19. Sure these games could've went either way but their opponents stayed with it and won.
yet the Carfs have one if the best defenses in the league.
So what can be gleemed from this?
It doesn't work everytime but it is effective.
Hard to believe anyone would Cosign Fewell when it's obvious his units have struggled with communication for years and lack of imagination in designing blitz packages instead of relying solely on the front 4.
The Cardinals give up 3.7 more yards per game than the Giants. Their scoring defense however is 5th in the league. They give up 19.9 points/game, almost exactly what they allowed the Eagles in a win. The Giants are 20th. The Cardinals, down three defensive starters from a year ago, one of which was a Pro Bowler and multiple games without their starting QB (even some snaps from their 3rd string rookie) are 6-1 leading what many considered the toughest division in the NFL. The Giants are 3-4.
and I hear you on the INT's and ST TD's but keep in mind that Arizona is 8th in points per defensive drive and we're 18th.
Also, Arizona has only given up more than 20 points in one game, their 41-20 loss to the Broncos in Denver, a game where Logan Thomas (who has no business playing QB) had to play snaps killing momentum and TOP. That was a close game until then. 17 of those point were after he came in.
In their 6 wins they've given up 17,14,14,20,13,20 or 16.33 pts/gm
I think it would be better if we emulated the Jets
Arizona's defense is playing well, there's no doubt.
I just didn't think they played well against the Eagles. The points against look solid but they gave up a LOT of yardage. Foles threw for over 400, the Eagles rushed for another 110.. they converted a lot of 3rd downs. It was just weird to me to see all these posters praising Todd Bowles during that particular game just because they blitzed a lot. Giving up 521 yards of offense just isn't good. I don't care how you slice it and I'd say the same thing if it were us.
Points per drive against is a much more accurate reflection than points allowed, IMO. And so, the Giants in that regard reflect what I think they are defensively more or less. Average-slightly below. I think they could be on the other side of average (slightly above rather than below) but I don't see this unit being much better than that. I had really, really high hopes before Hill was cut and Thurmond was lost and DRC got really banged up... and Beason got hurt.. but.. those are the breaks, I guess. I thought with all those guys this would easily be a top 10 defense.
like the use of a cute little nickname for a coach, player, team, etc. more clearly points out an immature jackass.
The "Perry Fool" or "Perry Awful" fans are the same lowest common denominator fans who still refer to the NFCE teams as things like "Cowgirls", "Egals" or "Foreskins"
I don't even know why I continue trying to inject any sort of reasonable football discussion into threads like this when it's clear there's none to be had.
arc: I'd agree totally with your post but I do believe the use of "Foreskins" is a reasonably acceptable name for that team.
The Cards lost Washington and Dockett, both are PBers and better than what we lost not to mention there pass rushing DE Abrahams retirment after concussions and they didn't miss a beat due in large part to the scheme they deploy.
I don't think anyone here knows as much about their 11 starters on defense aside from guys like Patrick Peterson (who is one of the best CB's in football), Cromartie, Mathieu and maybe Foote.
Not sure how you can draw the conclusion that it's all scheme based. Maybe some of those guys are actually good players and are playing at a high level.
If you asked anyone outside of NY who Trumaine McBride was last year, no one would have known. But he was a starter for us and did a really good job.
You're going to be hard pressed to find upper tier defensive units with a bunch of nobodies. DC's can put their players in certain positions but it's on the players to actually make the plays.
another good defender on the Cards is Calais Campbell
1. Get pressure with only 4 DL - produce sacks and or DBs get turn overs.
2. If no pressure with 4 DL - don't blitz - just keep sending 4 and playing cover 2 zone until you get turn over. On third down, think about dropping DL into coverage, because, hey, who the fuck would ever guess we'd do something that stupid?
3. If no pressure and no turn over - give up occasional gash run and or big play downfield - get scored on - give ball back to offense until back on defense at which point go back to step 1.
Is this about what we've all been watching from Fewell the past 5 years?
Fewell is running a 4-3 with a front 4 that can't get any pressure and mostly shitty linebackers.
We don't use Moore enough and Ayers has been much less effective since he got banged up. He was excellent the first few weeks.
Not a Fewell fan but those are factors.
Also given the (lack of) success of his blitzes, we should be glad Fewell doesn't blitz that much.
Basically his defense looks good when the DL is getting good pressure. It's pretty lousy if its not.
9-7 is a possibility, 8-8 the likelihood.
Again, have you seen Perry's blitzes? At least credit the guy for knowing his own weaknesses.
The "Perry Fool" or "Perry Awful" fans are the same lowest common denominator fans who still refer to the NFCE teams as things like "Cowgirls", "Egals" or "Foreskins"
I don't even know why I continue trying to inject any sort of reasonable football discussion into threads like this when it's clear there's none to be had.
BBI are experts in overly simple solutions to complex issues.
The Redskins walked a tightrope last night. If anybody goofed on their coverages while they were blitzing 6,7,8 guys, that game gets blown open.
They also get repeatedly burned when they do
Maybe Banks meant that the guys who are actually blitzing suck at blitzing. Because that's what I'm seeing.
I've seen stunt attempts that were so bad that I'd just be inclined to say "yeah, forget it" if I were coaching.
I want Fewell to be aggressive and not just sit back when our front 4 can't get a push. But I also don't want to see 1 or 2 guys from the back 7 just taking themselves out of the play. And it feels like that's what we keep seeing.
Whatever is typed after that subject line can be dismissed.
When I watch a Giant blitz, everyone is picked up immediately, because their schemes are so vanilla......and then you have the occasional, get to the QB, and McClain or Demps misses the tackle...
Skins last night were able to compensate for lack of a pass rush with the blitz, and it paid off. This is exactly what we DONOT do. Bank's comments were an indictment of Fewell.
How much more evidence is needed?...I would hope this is his last season here.
It's amazing how people will just look right past stuff like this as long they see a DC relentlessly blitzing.
I know ARZ won the game, but how effective could these blitzes possibly have been when they sacked Foles ZERO times and he threw for 411 yards and the Eagles converted nearly 50% of their 3rd downs.
Cannot for the life of me understand the rationale of some posters, but.. it is what it is.
As for the defense I admittedly watched them and said "I wish we did this more". The Redskins had more jailbreak blitzes than I remember the Giants having in quite some time overall and it worked. Not only did they have 5 sacks, they had 12 hurries overall. We had 5 the previous week. Ryan Mundy had 3 for the Skins which was the most on the team. How often do you see us rush the passer from the safety position, just to shake things up? I mentioned in a thread yesterday I wish we'd use J. Williams speed to rush the passer more because when he does he's pretty effective imo. But we don't do it, not to mention not having Moore, Ayers and Hankins on the field more rushing the passer vs. Kiwi who's playing time needs to be cut significantly. You can't give Romo or any quality QB time to throw or they'll carve you up but if you can get pressure and disrupt their timing you have an advantage. In today's NFL especially you need to do it and we don't.
Same goes for the Eagles/Cardinals game. Arizona wasn't afraid to bring pressure. Even though we did better against the Eagles with 11 hurries, Arizona had 19. Sure these games could've went either way but their opponents stayed with it and won.
It doesn't work everytime but it is effective.
Hard to believe anyone would Cosign Fewell when it's obvious his units have struggled with communication for years and lack of imagination in designing blitz packages instead of relying solely on the front 4.
Who's defense does that sound like?
Who's defense does that sound like?
Not ours. They give up more than four points per game less than we do.
I don't love going by PA and YA numbers anyway because teams are so tightly packed together and the ranks can flip all over the place easily.
Also, pick 6's and ST TD's count as points for and points against. Arizona has one of each. We have neither.
Also, Arizona has only given up more than 20 points in one game, their 41-20 loss to the Broncos in Denver, a game where Logan Thomas (who has no business playing QB) had to play snaps killing momentum and TOP. That was a close game until then. 17 of those point were after he came in.
In their 6 wins they've given up 17,14,14,20,13,20 or 16.33 pts/gm
I just didn't think they played well against the Eagles. The points against look solid but they gave up a LOT of yardage. Foles threw for over 400, the Eagles rushed for another 110.. they converted a lot of 3rd downs. It was just weird to me to see all these posters praising Todd Bowles during that particular game just because they blitzed a lot. Giving up 521 yards of offense just isn't good. I don't care how you slice it and I'd say the same thing if it were us.
Points per drive against is a much more accurate reflection than points allowed, IMO. And so, the Giants in that regard reflect what I think they are defensively more or less. Average-slightly below. I think they could be on the other side of average (slightly above rather than below) but I don't see this unit being much better than that. I had really, really high hopes before Hill was cut and Thurmond was lost and DRC got really banged up... and Beason got hurt.. but.. those are the breaks, I guess. I thought with all those guys this would easily be a top 10 defense.
Quote:
like the use of a cute little nickname for a coach, player, team, etc. more clearly points out an immature jackass.
The "Perry Fool" or "Perry Awful" fans are the same lowest common denominator fans who still refer to the NFCE teams as things like "Cowgirls", "Egals" or "Foreskins"
I don't even know why I continue trying to inject any sort of reasonable football discussion into threads like this when it's clear there's none to be had.
arc: I'd agree totally with your post but I do believe the use of "Foreskins" is a reasonably acceptable name for that team.
Carry on.
Not sure how you can draw the conclusion that it's all scheme based. Maybe some of those guys are actually good players and are playing at a high level.
If you asked anyone outside of NY who Trumaine McBride was last year, no one would have known. But he was a starter for us and did a really good job.
You're going to be hard pressed to find upper tier defensive units with a bunch of nobodies. DC's can put their players in certain positions but it's on the players to actually make the plays.