1st Half Game Thread

[NikkiSixx]

That's not a sound argument... It only takes one run to take it to the house as well. I see what you're saying, as long as we let the receivers get behind our DBs all the time, one and done... But they still have to execute it.

Bottom line is both ways are deadly... If we can't stop the run, we're in trouble. If we can't stop the pass, we're in trouble.

Pick your poison.

Sure it is. It makes perfect sense from a statistical standpoint. We usually had 2 high safeties, and receivers were bracketed, so there was no one getting by us. The run game was more open in the short to medium range, but it is still in front of the defensive backs, so the likelihood of that being taken to the house is low.

The idea is to lower the opposing teams odds of ultimate success by making them complete first down after first down, again and again to get down the field. Remember bend, don't break?

Under a man scheme there isn't as much help over the top if any at all, and if you get burned, it's going to be for 6 and it can happen right now.

So from a statistical standpoint, the two competing ideas can be viewed as 1) giving your defenses more chances to get a stop or the other 2) requiring your defense to be perfect (get burned once and it's a td, no other chances to stop them that drive cause the drive is over.)

Hopefully that helps explain the ideology behind it.

 

[timnsun]

Sure it is. It makes perfect sense from a statistical standpoint. We usually had 2 high safeties, and receivers were bracketed, so there was no one getting by us. The run game was more open in the short to medium range, but it is still in front of the defensive backs, so the likelihood of that being taken to the house is low.

The idea is to lower the opposing teams odds of ultimate success by making them complete first down after first down, again and again to get down the field. Remember bend, don't break?

Under a man scheme there isn't as much help over the top if any at all, and if you get burned, it's going to be for 6 and it can happen right now.

So from a statistical standpoint, the two competing ideas can be viewed as 1) giving your defenses more chances to get a stop or the other 2) requiring your defense to be perfect (get burned once and it's a td, no other chances to stop them that drive cause the drive is over.)

Hopefully that helps explain the ideology behind it.

I understand what you're saying, and do see the validity in your argument as well.

It still comes down to picking your poison, in my opinion... Where I agree with you most is in the final minutes of the game where the outcome is in doubt... Last year if the opponent got the ball late with a chance to go ahead, I would absolutely want our defense to be strong defending the pass.

 

[NikkiSixx]

I understand what you're saying, and do see the validity in your argument as well.

It still comes down to picking your poison, in my opinion... Where I agree with you most is in the final minutes of the game where the outcome is in doubt... Last year if the opponent got the ball late with a chance to go ahead, I would absolutely want our defense to be strong defending the pass.

I agree, ultimately, the players need to be able to play more than one scheme. That was the problem with the last guy, there was no adjustment. Next week, it will be interesting to see what type of defense we play.