Why is our run defense so bad? I understand stopping the run this year hasn't been our #1 goal, but the jags game it was and we still got trounced.

Something just doesn't add up here. We have what appears to be a talented young defense. Are we just not as good talent wise, or is the scheme ever worse than I ever have thought? I know Schwartz is bad, but is he that bad? Historically bad? Are our "role" players not as good as other team's role players?

Schwartzie is very, very bad. He took over with the numero uno ranked D and has steadily year after year imposed his scwartzification upon it until now we have the 32nd ranked d(notice lower case sarcasm). Yet the local media continue to "buddy" up to him so as not to offend. Schwartzie has to go.

Why is our run defense so bad? I understand stopping the run this year hasn't been our #1 goal, but the jags game it was and we still got trounced.

Something just doesn't add up here. We have what appears to be a talented young defense. Are we just not as good talent wise, or is the scheme ever worse than I ever have thought? I know Schwartz is bad, but is he that bad? Historically bad? Are our "role" players not as good as other team's role players?

Welcome to the club :))

Bad it is, just how bad, well you asked for it(maybe you didn't but here it is anyways). Current NFL stats rankings hot off the offical web site:
Total d-32nd ranked, that is dead last for those in Smyrna.
Passing d-14th but why pass when literally anyone with two legs can gash your run d.
Rushing d-31st, yeah thats right still some work left to do here mr. schwartz.
Scoring d-31st again at 27.0 per game but how much could the fags have scored if they had tried after hmm the second half kickoff.
But even more than stats is the way they play, playing the Titans used to mean you would get beat up even if you won, now you see the opposition laughing and smiling on the field of play all the time during TV closeups. Fat Albert kicked the wrong guy, he should have found the "little genuis" with the red hat prowling around on the sideline.:grrr:

Just my opinion here but there are a variety of reason the Titans are so bad against the run game. For starters, neither KVB or LaBoy are as effective with a body on them which means they generally struggle more against the run. In the interior, you have R. Smith and Starks. I don't think either are good enough to defeat a double team as Haynesworth sometimes does. Neither win enough one-on-one battles either which means someone is out on our LBs.

Moving onto LB, Sirmon does not have the speed or power to shed blocks and plug holes as he needs to. Bulluck and Thornton have also struggled at times when opponents get a body on them. The strength of their game is working in space where they can utilize their speed.

That's why when Haynesworth is on his game, he disrupts so much because he forces opponents to use two blockers and he still gets a push. Too bad he is rarely on his game. The Titans need a serious upgrade at MLB as well.

I really hope we address both in the offseason. I think Thornton and Hope helped our speed, especially with Bulluck already there, but some power in the middle would go a long way.

Several things. Fred Taylor was performing at peak level. The offense couldn't concert often enough on 3rd down which meant the defense was on the field a lot. When your defense doesn't get a chance to relax on the bench and catch a breather, the defensive schemes have to go basic, zone up, because tired players simply cannot effectively execute complicated schemes.

When an offense sees that a defense isn't getting rest between downs, they implement difficult schemes. They try out plays just to see how they work. That's why you see a lot of fights. Guys get tired and mad.

That's why football is the purest of team sports. Defense needs offense to execute in order to operate at maximum capacity. Offense needs defense to execute to get them the ball. None of that was happening Sunday vs the Jaguars.

That's why football is the purest of team sports.

Has nothing on female mud wrestling.

Several things. Fred Taylor was performing at peak level. The offense couldn't concert often enough on 3rd down which meant the defense was on the field a lot. When your defense doesn't get a chance to relax on the bench and catch a breather, the defensive schemes have to go basic, zone up, because tired players simply cannot effectively execute complicated schemes.

When an offense sees that a defense isn't getting rest between downs, they implement difficult schemes. They try out plays just to see how they work. That's why you see a lot of fights. Guys get tired and mad.

This makes sense as the game goes into the middle and final stages. And still, you will rarely see a good defense completely break down when the offense is struggling... the Ravens, Bucs and Bears (from last year) are a good example.

The Jags had scored a total of 20 points in their last two games before facing the Titans, yet there were able to score 14 points in the first quarter. I would assume that any player in the NFL is in good shape to last at least the first quarter of a game.

The Raiders are also a good example. Their D has kept them close in almost every game this season, despite their horrible production on offense.

Got to say, Elf. I didn't think you knew nearly this much about football when you showed up. I thought you were just here to love on LT. I still don't understand that part, but you've got some good insight.

I D is clearly getting worn down when we get stuck on those three and outs. We need to always open our game run-heavy, at least this season.

elfin knows LT is the deebil now.

To answer your question:

TIME OF POSSESSION 26:49 - OPPONENTS 33:11

When we led the league in run defense, those numbers were reversed.

Why is our run defense so bad? I understand stopping the run this year hasn't been our #1 goal, but the jags game it was and we still got trounced.

Something just doesn't add up here. We have what appears to be a talented young defense. Are we just not as good talent wise, or is the scheme ever worse than I ever have thought? I know Schwartz is bad, but is he that bad? Historically bad? Are our "role" players not as good as other team's role players?
simple sup...............we have the worst MLB in football who runs a 4.9 and can not take on guards..........when AH was playing he made the situation better but without him Sirmon is a total liability. The rest of the DT are avg at best and truthfully everyone except Smith is way below avg and can not handle teams OG one on one..............we are overmatched...........it is also the reason hope has so many tackles.............we have to get bigger and stronger and faster up the gut.............and we need a MLB in the worst way possible.

Several things. Fred Taylor was performing at peak level. The offense couldn't concert often enough on 3rd down which meant the defense was on the field a lot. When your defense doesn't get a chance to relax on the bench and catch a breather, the defensive schemes have to go basic, zone up, because tired players simply cannot effectively execute complicated schemes.

When an offense sees that a defense isn't getting rest between downs, they implement difficult schemes. They try out plays just to see how they work. That's why you see a lot of fights. Guys get tired and mad.

That's why football is the purest of team sports. Defense needs offense to execute in order to operate at maximum capacity. Offense needs defense to execute to get them the ball. None of that was happening Sunday vs the Jaguars.

Great post in general but not wishing to be sexist, doubly so to see such a knowledgable female fan. :thumb:

Maybe you you can spend a little time with my girlfriend & explain a few things (in terms of football of course,I got my own game down just fine thanks).

Whenever we sit down together to watch a game she uses one line more than any other. No matter how patient I am even if I say this looks like a pass or a run we always end up with her saying:'so tell me again,where did the ball go?' :hmm:

TJ, we agreed in the off-season that the Titans had at least avg talent on D and should finish no worse than middle of the pack. Well, your reasoning is that our good players are worse and our avg players are bad?

The numbers speak for themselves....and they are HORRENDOUS!!!

You have a valid point about LaBoy (he's an under-weight speed rusher) but not with KVB. He plays both the run and rushes the passer well.

Starks is up and down and sometimes looks LOST but Smith is a solid DT. We have a bad scheme and bad coaching which leads to a BAD result!

It sounds like you're saying we need to draft/sign a bunch of albert's to protect Bulluck because no one our D (including Bulluck) can man up?

If I recall, the Colts DE's don't protect their OLB's AT ALL and Thornton fared quite well there. How come he can't do it here?

How come I'm occasionally seeing Bulluck getting blocked 8 yards out of a play by a single TE? How come Bulluck doesn't look like he can blanket any TE's anymore? He's there to make the tackle, but not to stop a completion. Why?

And dude, not protecting the MLB means the MLB is not gonna make the play. Ray Lewis in his prime could blow through OG's and OC's but even he couldn't hack it a few years ago when he lost him big beefy DT's to protect him. Other teams are able to protect their MLB's with having 2 330lb DT's...how come we can only do it with Haynesworth? That's either bad coaching or bad scheme.

Who do you think CAN play on this team?

But beyond that, there is a simple validation to my point. We have added Thornton, Hope, Finnegan, and Robaire Smith since last year. By all accounts, certainly Hope, Thornton and Finnegan are improvements over what we had last year. How is the defense WORSE!!!???

Bad scheme...bad coaching....bad coordinating!

Gut

Thanks for the responses. I try to look at our players objectively as much as I can, but it is difficult. I think as a fan, I tend to have a bullish overview of our players.

Not watching any other team closely, it's hard to decide what the real issue is. It seems to be other teams are getting things done with similar talent. I keep hearing how great Tony Brown is, and how he should have not been on the street, but is our team's perception that he's great just a microcosm of how bad our personnel is? If we think he's great, then we must truly suck?

For the record, I hate Jim Schwartz. I have since 2003. That's nothing new, but again, I am trying to look at our issues as objectively as possible.

I think very highly of these people on the defense. Maybe my perception of them is skewed by rose colored glasses?

Pac
Bull
AH
Hope
KVB
Thorton

Sorry, this is not correct and is coaches speak for....EXCUSE!

Tell me how the Eagles are able to run their complicated D and perform at a MUCH higher level (both in effectiveness and stats) when they have a bad time of possession stat too?

You don't go basic, WE go basic because Schwartz can't coach...and that is the problem.

How is it that we are getting blown out by the Jags and know they are gonna just run the second half and we STILL can't stop them. And it wasn't just Fred Taylor...is Maurice Drew the next LT? I think not.

So what BASIC schemes were we running and what 'difficult' scheme were the Jags using since we were tired?

While there is SOME truth to the concept that a tired defense won't perform to MAX ability, that doesn't become a problem is your D stops the O on 3rd down. Of course, you also need to stop them on first and second down just to GET a third down.

And keep in mind, this was their BACKUP QB running the show! There were no difficult schemes...we just got blown out of the building as much as you CAN get blown out.

You are perfectly correct in your last paragraph. Defense and Offense do work together for maximum efficiency, but the Ravens Super Bowl team and the '85 Bears show what can be done with one dominant side of the ball and a single playmaker on the other. It can be done, but not with bad coaching, a bad scheme and a rookie QB.

Gut

Several things. Fred Taylor was performing at peak level. The offense couldn't concert often enough on 3rd down which meant the defense was on the field a lot. When your defense doesn't get a chance to relax on the bench and catch a breather, the defensive schemes have to go basic, zone up, because tired players simply cannot effectively execute complicated schemes.

When an offense sees that a defense isn't getting rest between downs, they implement difficult schemes. They try out plays just to see how they work. That's why you see a lot of fights. Guys get tired and mad.

That's why football is the purest of team sports. Defense needs offense to execute in order to operate at maximum capacity. Offense needs defense to execute to get them the ball. None of that was happening Sunday vs the Jaguars.

worse because KVB is not playing as well as he did last yr and we have had terrible DT play all yr and our MLB situation is worse this yr than last. Kassell, while slow as Sirmon, was able to man up.............Sirmon is slower and less physical. I think the DL play has fallen far below everyone expectations so far. And this fall off directly effects the LB's, especially the MLB. The only two players playing better are Jones and Hope. Hill has been about the same in my view. The other thing that has killed the D is the poor O play has resulted in this bad D being on the field longer further exposing them to Offenses making bigger plays because they are on the field far longer than they have been. I also think JS has been very slow in becoming aggressive further exposing the D to the run game. It appears he has chosen slow death over a quick painless death on D this yr. All in all it is another 2-3 win yr.

Maybe that is why Fish wanted a defensive player #3 overall instead of Vince...if you can believe that rumor. Mario Williams anyone?

Neither win enough one-on-one battles either which means someone is out on our LBs.


I have come to the belief that this is our #1 problem on D (well aside from LT and Hill) and it's not just a question of player ability, although we're not topnotch in that department either.

I was watching one of the Broncos' DE's or in their game against the Steelers and he was so much more active in his attack. Our DE's basically just rush upfield and try to get around the outside using a rip move, but as soon as their initial attack is stopped they don't have a countermove. The Broncos' DE would rip, swim, spin, club, whatever it took to defeat his man. Heck on one play he used the club move and litterally shoved the Steeler OT to the ground. I just don't see any of that from either of our DE's and that has to be on coaches and the techniques their teaching.

worse because KVB is not playing as well as he did last yr and we have had terrible DT play all yr and our MLB situation is worse this yr than last. Kassell, while slow as Sirmon, was able to man up.............Sirmon is slower and less physical. I think the DL play has fallen far below everyone expectations so far. And this fall off directly effects the LB's, especially the MLB. The only two players playing better are Jones and Hope. Hill has been about the same in my view. The other thing that has killed the D is the poor O play has resulted in this bad D being on the field longer further exposing them to Offenses making bigger plays because they are on the field far longer than they have been. I also think JS has been very slow in becoming aggressive further exposing the D to the run game. It appears he has chosen slow death over a quick painless death on D this yr. All in all it is another 2-3 win yr.
So if the MLB is the worse ever, why is Sirmon still starting? I don't buy that theory. Yeah, Sirmon isn't probowl material, but is he the worst in the league? Better yet, if he is, what does it say about our team that he's starting.. And making 2.5 m to boot?

That would make us the laughing stock of the league... Wait, I think we already are.

How come I'm occasionally seeing Bulluck getting blocked 8 yards out of a play by a single TE? How come Bulluck doesn't look like he can blanket any TE's anymore? He's there to make the tackle, but not to stop a completion. Why?

And dude, not protecting the MLB means the MLB is not gonna make the play. Ray Lewis in his prime could blow through OG's and OC's but even he couldn't hack it a few years ago when he lost him big beefy DT's to protect him. Other teams are able to protect their MLB's with having 2 330lb DT's...how come we can only do it with Haynesworth? That's either bad coaching or bad scheme.

Who do you think CAN play on this team?

But beyond that, there is a simple validation to my point. We have added Thornton, Hope, Finnegan, and Robaire Smith since last year. By all accounts, certainly Hope, Thornton and Finnegan are improvements over what we had last year. How is the defense WORSE!!!???

Bad scheme...bad coaching....bad coordinating!

Gut
You just hit some of the problem. While Bulluck is God around here, the fact is he is not physical, and does get blown off the plays a great deal. He makes a lot of tackles, but sadly they are 10 yards downfield after someone has run by him. Sirmon isn't nearly as bad as people think. Thornton is really our only outstanding linebacker right now. We do need some better linemen, but if we could just keep the ones we have on the field it would help. Odom and AH being out doesn't help, and losing Long early has been a factor in the pass rush. Right now we do not have a dominate front 7, and it is showing.

i think thornton has more touble getting off blocks than bulluck does.

so you blame Bulluck and have no problem with Teflon Drew...interesting.

so you blame Bulluck and have no problem with Teflon Drew...interesting.
i just crack up at that everytime.

certainly one of the greater comments made on this forum

Their are some that want to blame everything that happens to the Titans on the Defensive Coordinator. Sorry, there's more to it than just that. First off, it doesn't help to have one of your best defensive players suspended, when we have zero depth at that position. Second, when your Offense goes three and out on every series and turns the ball over so much the D gets no rest. It all contributes to poor defense. I think the biggest thing was Pac being out. Wolfolke just can't handle that position. We still lack depth at many positions on D. Although, I'm sure it makes people feel better to think they've got it figured out and blame everything on Schwartzie.

If the offense can get first downs and allow our D to rest they play just fine. They've been proving it all year. Keep in mind we haven't even had a single productive offensive game yet.

poor schwartz. his guys are always too young. or too injured. or suspended. or they dont get enough rest. jeez, you would think he would have resigned by now.

fact is, we bring in more talented guys and the defense gets worse. how does that happen?

look i love looking at things from others perspectives but I want you to defend the premise..................defending JS is akin to defending Sirmon or LT..................and realistically I cant fathom why people dont realize people like Donnie Nickey and 59 28 are here because of Fisher.........no one is better teflon coated than him..................a 500 HC for a decade with no championships should be questioned at every move................his records proves that

Actually, Floyd is more responsible for the players we have. Not Fisher. If you can't realize that we don't have depth on D than you not worth arguing with. Not saying JS is good or bad. We all agree that Gregg Williams is a good DC, right? Where are the Skins right now... He got beat by us!!! That's worse than anything. So, is he horrible?? I doubt it... Last year we were bad. In my opinion we are better on defense than last year. Of course it doesn't really matter if you can't score, and we can't.

we have to score more than 27 points a game to win, only four teams in the league do that.

We definately need more than 7, that for sure... We need VY to throw a little less than thre int's too. And we might want to control the ball a little more so the D doesn't have to play the whole freaking game...

TJ, we agreed in the off-season that the Titans had at least avg talent on D and should finish no worse than middle of the pack. Well, your reasoning is that our good players are worse and our avg players are bad?
We didn't talk about the impact of having a terrible offense would have on this defense (or any defense in the league). Hill clearly started out poor. We expected a healthy Odom. We didn't anticipate Haynesworth or Pacman being out. We had no evidence on Sirmon because he'd never played the middle.

You have a valid point about LaBoy (he's an under-weight speed rusher) but not with KVB. He plays both the run and rushes the passer well.
Just my opinion. Take a look at KVB and how often he removes himself from a run play with his speed rush.

Starks is up and down and sometimes looks LOST but Smith is a solid DT.
How can you call the defense horrible and then say all these players are doing well? You want to blame it all on scheme? The Texans cut Robaire. The Texans! Shouldn't that tell us something?

If I recall, the Colts DE's don't protect their OLB's AT ALL and Thornton fared quite well there. How come he can't do it here?
See the Colts numbers against the run lately? That defense is designed to defend the passing game. If a team can get a lead and run the football, it folds as the Steelers proved and the Titans nearly did a few weeks ago.

But beyond that, there is a simple validation to my point. We have added Thornton, Hope, Finnegan, and Robaire Smith since last year. By all accounts, certainly Hope, Thornton and Finnegan are improvements over what we had last year. How is the defense WORSE!!!???
All I have is my humble opinion, Gut. I think our defense is only as good as our weakest defensive player. In this case, we have too many. How many times have you seen LaBoy not stay at home and get burned by the end around? What about LT or Sirmon take a bad angle or be a step too slow in making a tackle? Look at Hill's play early and Woolfolk's play lately. There are too many inferior players on this roster.

I see the Titans defense not winning personal matchups and there not being enough talent surrounding the weak links to compensate for it.

Do I think Schwartz's schemes are a problem? Sometimes. But explain the Colts game to me. Many here want to credit the players when they play well and Schwartz when they don't and that doesn't cut it.

I have come to the belief that this is our #1 problem on D (well aside from LT and Hill) and it's not just a question of player ability, although we're not topnotch in that department either.
Right. I don't think you can pin success or failure on one man. You have to improve in a variety of areas. DC may be one of them. But I don't see anyone being able to return this defense to the top 10 with many of the player the Titans currently have.

i dont see anyone who could make this d top ten . i think we could be better than 20 though.

Do I think Schwartz's schemes are a problem? Sometimes. But explain the Colts game to me. Many here want to credit the players when they play well and Schwartz when they don't and that doesn't cut it.

I've come to the conclusion that the problem is related to the DC and poor performances by players. But what exactly did Schwartz do against the Colts that he doesn't do every game? Couldn't it be that the Colts were overconfident and Manning decided to take a day off? It certainly looked that way... that and the fact that the Titans were running all over the place.

I don't want to take away credit from anyone, but we need to be realistic. Manning easily trashed good defenses like the Broncos and Patriots. Are you telling me that Manning was completely overmatched by a defense that turns backup QBs into hall of famers?

I've come to the conclusion that the problem is related to the DC and poor performances by players. But what exactly did Schwartz do against the Colts that he doesn't do every game? Couldn't it be that the Colts were overconfident and Manning decided to take a day off? It certainly looked that way... that and the fact that the Titans were running all over the place.

I don't want to take away credit from anyone, but we need to be realistic. Manning easily trashed good defenses like the Broncos and Patriots. Are you telling me that Manning was completely overmatched by a defense that turns backup QBs into hall of famers?
Maybe Manning had an off day. Maybe things just went the Titans way defensively that day. But I do know Schwartz's defense was more effective than any team the Colts have faced this season. Shouldn't he get the credit if we are going to blame the man for giving up 35+?

Regardless of the blame or credit, it's the double-standard I take issue with.

Just my opinion. Take a look at KVB and how often he removes himself from a run play with his speed rush.


How can you call the defense horrible and then say all these players are doing well? You want to blame it all on scheme? The Texans cut Robaire. The Texans! Shouldn't that tell us something?


KVB plays the run well, but he is taken out on some of those plays. Is that his choice? I figure the DC tells them basically what to do. Maybe there is some freelancing allowed, I dunno.

Easy on Robeast :nono: He's been ok. We know it was more of a money thing. We could still upgrade, but RDE needs work more. KVB, Al, Robaire, and a good RDE is what I'd like to see. But who knows how the line turns out.

Easy on Robeast :nono: He's been ok. We know it was more of a money thing. We could still upgrade, but RDE needs work more. KVB, Al, Robaire, and a good RDE is what I'd like to see. But who knows how the line turns out.
I know. I'm getting harsh on some of these guys. But I've adopted a policy that talent = production and I'm not seeing much.

Maybe Manning had an off day. Maybe things just went the Titans way defensively that day. But I do know Schwartz's defense was more effective than any team the Colts have faced this season. Shouldn't he get the credit if we are going to blame the man for giving up 35+?

Regardless of the blame or credit, it's the double-standard I take issue with.
we did the EXACT same thing the jags did the week before. ran the ball for over 200 yards and rushed 3 or 4 and dropped 7 or 8. the jags defense held them to 14 points while their punt coverage team gave up a td.

i dont think it was anything special.

Hail! Fuhrer TitanJeff

TJ, talent by definition has nothing to do with results. Results has nothing to do with talent as well.

In my opinion, most of our players are severely underachieving. So are our coaches & personnel. Everyone gets some blame for our crap three seasons.


If it were up to me, I would fire JS, fire Reese... I would exercise the 1 year option with Fish. Tell him he sinks or swims with the 07 season. He will be out of excuses. If he doesn't make the playoffs next year he's gone.

This is a bit of a muncher...

Just my opinion. Take a look at KVB and how often he removes himself from a run play with his speed rush.

Statistically, KVB is one of the top tackling DL in the league this year. Hard to believe he can do that while consistently taking himself out of the play speed rushing up the field.

How can you call the defense horrible and then say all these players are doing well? You want to blame it all on scheme? The Texans cut Robaire. The Texans! Shouldn't that tell us something?


Statistically, the defense is HORRIBLE. I don't believe I said all the players were playing well. But we are certainly performing at a level FAR BELOW the talent level of the players. You mention we're not winning the one on one matchups...but that is NOT what defense is all about. It's about playing as a unit which plays well with the other units which equates to playing as a team! The best OL's are not the ones with the most talent necessarily...they are almost ALWAYS the ones that can play the best as a unit. This kind of synergy is what allows the great defenses to have weaknesses because the players play well in terms of units and the players are well coordinated to cover the weaknesses and force the offense to play to the defenses strengths. Schwartz doesn't do any of that. We don't win the individual matchups because he allows the offense to dictate the matchups and they will find the biggest weaknesses if allowed to do so...and we sure allow them to do so. So under your theory of needing to win all the individual matchups, you're gonna need to spend 11 FIRST rd picks on defensive players and still end up with a mediocre defense because they still won't play together and the offenses will STILL dictate the matchups to us.

How come people always use the excuse that such and such cut this player. I don't think anyone was crying how bad Frank Wycheck was...he was cut too. Seems he turned out pretty well for us. Point is...being cut by one team doesn't mean a player can't succeed somewhere else in a different scheme. Why does that happen? Because of how the player is utilized. Smith in my opinion has been solid.


See the Colts numbers against the run lately? That defense is designed to defend the passing game. If a team can get a lead and run the football, it folds as the Steelers proved and the Titans nearly did a few weeks ago.

THIS is EXACTLY my point. We play as poor as the Colts run D and they aren't even trying to protect their LB's! That is based on their scheme...how come we have the same result but that isn't our scheme? Clearly it IS our scheme that is the problem. Either that or no one on our D can play....and we have quite a bit of evidence to the contrary!

I think our defense is only as good as our weakest defensive player. In this case, we have too many. How many times have you seen LaBoy not stay at home and get burned by the end around? What about LT or Sirmon take a bad angle or be a step too slow in making a tackle? There are too many inferior players on this roster.

One common mistake people make is to equate talent with performance. How can a Frank Wycheck be so bad to be cut by one team but be awesome for another team. Did Wycheck all of a sudden get tremendously better? No, we utilized his strengths better. If most of our players aren't playing up to snuff, you need to take a hard look at the scheme to put players into the best position to utilize their strengths.

If the Steelers were only as good as their weakest link, they'd NEVER be a top 5 defense...and yet...they are able to do that. Same with the Pats. How did they win a Super Bowl with an undrafted rookie starting at one CB and a old WR playing nickel back? How come they could beat Peyton Manning with those HUGE holes??? Same with most teams being able to hide a weakness or 2. We, on the other hand, have every weakness exposed AND exploited! That is bad coordination of our defense and there is one guy who controls that! THIS IS his job description. No one gets 11 hall of famers on defense....EVERY D has flaws. The question is, can you play to your strengths and keep offenses from exposing your flaws. This is what coaching is all about.

LaBoy gets burned on the end around....but so does everyone else we have at DE and OLB. Do they ALL stink or is there a coaching problem? Funny, even backup players on the Steelers and Pats can contain the end around most of the time whereas we look like we've never seen it before. How come? That's COACHING my friend. Pure and simple.


Do I think Schwartz's schemes are a problem? Sometimes. But explain the Colts game to me. Many here want to credit the players when they play well and Schwartz when they don't and that doesn't cut it.

I'd counter that Schwartz's schemes are a problem the majority of the time and he's WAY too predictable. In back to back games we gave up TD's in similar positions on the field against the same defensive coverage (cover 2)against the same patterns. And THAT is bad. AND we can't stop the run?

I will give him credit in the Colts game. Unlike most of our games, they decided to stop the Colts from running over us using a 3 wr formation against our nickel. Instead, we played a lot of 4-3 zone to force him to march down the field and try to run on our 3 LB's when normally we matchup with 2. I felt we needed to make Manning feel more uncomfortable in that game, but his D worked fairly well until the last 2 drives. Unfortunately, at that point, he just kept running the same D over and over and Peyton made the adjustments to beat the defense. So even though his defensive design for that game was good, he couldn't make the proper adjustments in crunch time. We need better! And one game is hardly worth keeping him consiering our D has been at a Div II college level in twice that many games.

And the bottom line is that we improved the TALENT on this defense with Hope, Thornton and Finnegan (not to mention the younger players are supposed to have improved from last year, right?) and yet the defense is WORSE?!?!?!?

That CAN'T happen...even with the offense struggling and Haynesworth out for 5 games. It's not like Pac has been out for 6 games. Hope and Thornton are arguably 2 of the top 5 players on the defense....so how can we be worse?

The answer is coaching TJ. Even without Haynesworth, we have at least AVG talent on this D which means we should be around 16th. OK, so the offense is bad so maybe that drops us to about 20. Even so, our points shouldn't take THAT much of a hit because if you play a bend don't break D - like we do - the D should stiffen closer to the endzone. But we don't even do that right!

Gut

Regardless of the blame or credit, it's the double-standard I take issue with.

I feel your pain.

To be honest, when I see our D suck consistently, and then hold Manning to 14 points in a 1-point game, and then suck miserably again, I can't help but feel that it's sheer dumb luck that a good game occurred. I don't beleive that Schwartz came up with a great scheme that day and said "Hey, that was great! Let's not do it any more!"

I still think that there's talent being underutilized. Even if you are the worst player in the NFL, you're still among the best of the best footballers anywhere. What are the chances that eleven of the worst would wind up on the same team?

TJ, talent by definition has nothing to do with results. Results has nothing to do with talent as well.
I couldn't disagree more.

Maybe it is the term "talent" that I think of differently than most. I think 99% of those I've discussed this with here feel talent equates to a physical number like a 40 time. I see the total package which includes physical tools but also includes mental aspects and a desire to be the best.

Pick an industry and tell me the most successful people in it are there solely because of physical skills. I see "talent" all the time who don't have the desire to be the best which is followed by poor results. So are these people truly "talented"?

In my opinion, most of our players are severely underachieving. So are our coaches & personnel. Everyone gets some blame for our crap three seasons.
On this we agree.

Why is our run defense so bad? I understand stopping the run this year hasn't been our #1 goal, but the jags game it was and we still got trounced.

Something just doesn't add up here. We have what appears to be a talented young defense. Are we just not as good talent wise, or is the scheme ever worse than I ever have thought? I know Schwartz is bad, but is he that bad? Historically bad? Are our "role" players not as good as other team's role players?

The problem is our DTs are too small, they get spread out by the interior linemen and have to rely on their arms to make tackles. And Peter Sirmon is a joke at MLB. Tulloch has a lot to leanr, but at least he takes on runners head on and not sideways... We need maulers in the middle, and I'm sorry, but Starks and Jessie aren't maulers. Big dudes, but not maulers. We need big dudes like Stroud, Pat Williams, John Henderson, Casey Hampton, etc.

Of course, those aren't out there for the taking... If only Fat Albert was good boy...

This is a bit of a muncher...
That's a bit of an understatement. ;) But here is a munching reply.

Statistically, KVB is one of the top tackling DL in the league this year. Hard to believe he can do that while consistently taking himself out of the play speed rushing up the field.
I'm not saying he is bad. But I don't call less than five tackles a game exceptional either. Do you not feel he's declined a bit since last season?

Schwartz doesn't do any of that. We don't win the individual matchups because he allows the offense to dictate the matchups and they will find the biggest weaknesses if allowed to do so...and we sure allow them to do so.
How about an example? Are you saying something along the lines of why Pacman doesn't stay on the opponents #1 WR throughout the game?

So under your theory of needing to win all the individual matchups, you're gonna need to spend 11 FIRST rd picks on defensive players and still end up with a mediocre defense because they still won't play together and the offenses will STILL dictate the matchups to us.
Not at all. As we have seen, a number 1 pick doesn't necessarily equate to a superior player.

Smith in my opinion has been solid.
So KVB is a top DE against the run and Smith is solid yet the defense is last in the NFL because Schwartz doesn't place them on the field properly?

THIS is EXACTLY my point. We play as poor as the Colts run D and they aren't even trying to protect their LB's!
Eh? You lost me here. Both are examples of poor run defenses. Even with no tackles last week, he is on pace to far exceed this tackle totals from last season.

One common mistake people make is to equate talent with performance. How can a Frank Wycheck be so bad to be cut by one team but be awesome for another team. Did Wycheck all of a sudden get tremendously better? No, we utilized his strengths better. If most of our players aren't playing up to snuff, you need to take a hard look at the scheme to put players into the best position to utilize their strengths.
For every Wycheck, there are 20 Ryan Leifs. Yes, a team can be a better fit for a player as was the case with Wycheck. But I bet you'll also find Wycheck will admit to being a better player from a technical standpoint as he gained experience in the league. Anyone want to debate he had the best physical tools in the league?

As I mentioned to someone else, my definition of "talent" goes well beyond 40 times and other physical measurements. It's about the total package for me -- physical, desire, intensity, mental, etc. We've seen some exceptionally physically-talented guys never make it in the NFL because they didn't have the heart or mental abilities to match their physical skills.

Now, if you want to argue that coaching is the reason some players never get better because their job is to prepare the player mentally, I buy into some of that. But at the same time, a player must have the mental tools and the desire to improve.

If the Steelers were only as good as their weakest link, they'd NEVER be a top 5 defense...and yet...they are able to do that.
Name me one team in the top 15 defensively who would take LT over their current FS. How about Sirmon? How about Hill (up to the last couple of weeks).

LaBoy gets burned on the end around....but so does everyone else we have at DE and OLB. Do they ALL stink or is there a coaching problem? Funny, even backup players on the Steelers and Pats can contain the end around most of the time whereas we look like we've never seen it before. How come? That's COACHING my friend. Pure and simple.
C'mon, Gut. Do you honestly think the coaches don't point out this on film and tell LaBoy he MUST stay at home to guard against it? He's been burned on it repeatedly. At what point to you point the finger at LaBoy for not learning? Are you ready to fire Washburn since he is responsible for the DL?

I'd counter that Schwartz's schemes are a problem the majority of the time and he's WAY too predictable.
So was Schwartz predictable from '01 - '03 too? Or did he decide to change schemes to something much less effective on purpose?

Since I am late for work and I've addressed the rest of your points in the past, I'm going to close this a little early. If you want to discuss a specific thing I didn't respond to, please let me know. I enjoy the conversation.

Believe it or not, I am as frustrated as anyone about our defense. And though I don't give Schwartz a pass for it, I also think it is over-simplification to think he and all the position coaches are to sole reason for what we are seeing out there.

I couldn't disagree more.


Jeff, no offence, but I think you're mixing talented and skilled together. Talent is a natural ability but it doesn't mean you're perfect. To have a good player you need both talent and skill. But no question our D is loaded on talent, but lacking in skill.

TJ, talent by definition has nothing to do with results. Results has nothing to do with talent as well.

In my opinion, most of our players are severely underachieving. So are our coaches & personnel. Everyone gets some blame for our crap three seasons.


If it were up to me, I would fire JS, fire Reese... I would exercise the 1 year option with Fish. Tell him he sinks or swims with the 07 season. He will be out of excuses. If he doesn't make the playoffs next year he's gone.

I think what you mean is what TJ is also saying. Just because you have talent (defined by stats, physical measureables, college production) DOESN'T mean you'll become a good or even great player. The Ryan Leafs of the world have talent but can't put it together...so they don't succeed.

However, the better your coaching staff is (and GM), the better chance you can still make a guy who can't put it all together into a productive player. QB's bust so much because you can't do anything else with them unless they physically can play WR (Hines Ward, Randle-El, Drew Bennett). But right now, we're talking defense.

Outside of the LB position and possibly S, players bust more on D because of physical limitations or they can't adjust to the speed of the NFL. It is highly unlikely that several players on our D forget repeatedly how to defend the bootleg. Let's be clear, we're not talking HS football where THIS exact thing is drilled and drilled and drilled into the players. We're talking the NFL. To stop the bootleg, 3 things must happen. First, you have to be in the right defensive formation. Second, the scheme must be sound. Third, the player needs to execute the scheme.

It is hard to believe that LaBoy, Odom and Bulluck all don't remember that they have the bootleg. More likely the scheme is the problem. While the Steelers got beat by an end around because of a superior play by Javon Walker, they didn't get fooled by any of the bootlegs or end arounds. Why, they adjusted their scheme so they always had a free rusher who would take QB first. This is not rocket science and it's hard to believe that this is all the players faults and it keeps happening over and over again.

Also, there was the admission by Fisher that the D isn't good enough to go in with a balanced attack and they had to pick their poison. That tells me that they are trying to attack specific things which leave them (scheme-wise) vulnerable to other things. This is what I think is going on. Cause if it was ONLY LaBoy doing it it'd be one thing, but when it's LaBoy, Odom AND Bulluck...that is a coaching problem.

When I say we have talented players, I mean we have guys with the talent to succeed given good coaching, a good scheme, and someone who will call the plays effectively. This is NOT happening. I think there are some players on this D who are not better than backup material at this point (like LT), but MOST of this D is avg starting quality or better. And with a better DC, we'd be able to hide our weaknesses better instead of having them exposed over and over again.

Gut

Name me one team in the top 15 defensively who would take LT over their current FS. How about Sirmon? How about Hill (up to the last couple of weeks).


More interesting would be to look at how many players on our D WOULDN'T be starters on other teams. Here's my list:
KVB = starter
LaBoy = ?
Robaire = starter
Haynesworth = starter
Bulluck = starter
Thornton = starter
Sirmon = backup
Pacman = starter
Hill = backup
Hope = starter
Thompson = waterboy

How come other teams stop the run with 'normal' size DT's in the 300lb range?

You contradict yourself by saying they are too small but then saying Jesse is a big dude but can't play.

So what IS the problem in your eyes?

Gut

The problem is our DTs are too small, they get spread out by the interior linemen and have to rely on their arms to make tackles. And Peter Sirmon is a joke at MLB. Tulloch has a lot to leanr, but at least he takes on runners head on and not sideways... We need maulers in the middle, and I'm sorry, but Starks and Jessie aren't maulers. Big dudes, but not maulers. We need big dudes like Stroud, Pat Williams, John Henderson, Casey Hampton, etc.

Of course, those aren't out there for the taking... If only Fat Albert was good boy...

Jeff, no offence, but I think you're mixing talented and skilled together. Talent is a natural ability but it doesn't mean you're perfect. To have a good player you need both talent and skill. But no question our D is loaded on talent, but lacking in skill.
Okay, let's discuss a bit more then.

How do you measure talent? If it isn't by what that talent produces, then I don't know how you can. I see natural ability not as talent but potential.

When I think of talent, I think about how it is used. For example, "he is a talented writer". That is based on what that writer has produced. Not so much his potential though it could be taken to the next level.

That is why I feel production is the measure of talent.

All players in the NFL have shown talent at the college level. Do they remain talented when they fail at the pro level?

More interesting would be to look at how many players on our D WOULDN'T be starters on other teams. Here's my list:
KVB = starter
LaBoy = ?
Robaire = starter
Haynesworth = starter
Bulluck = starter
Thornton = starter
Sirmon = backup
Pacman = starter
Hill = backup
Hope = starter
Thompson = waterboy
Okay, this is probably reasonable. That means we have six players who would probably start on a top 15 defense. Of those you mention, we didn't have Smith for the first few games of the season. We've not had Haynesworth for four. We've not had Pac and Thornton for one each.

It helps to tell the story, IMO.

For example, "he is a talented writer".

Another example of how the word talented is being misused. A talented writer is the character Jamal Wallace in Finding Forrester, a skilled writer is Stephen King, Dan Brown, J.K. Rowling, Tom Clancy, etc., although I'm sure they also posses talent.

Commence Munching...

I'm not saying he is bad. But I don't call less than five tackles a game exceptional either. Do you not feel he's declined a bit since last season?

If you're nearly leading the league in tackles at your position, you have to be at least decent and more likely good. I feel KVB is a little less effective than last year for 2 reasons. First, people know him and will scheme that into their offense...chipping him with backs or double teaming him more. Secondly, with teams running so much against us he'll be playing more run first on the first 2 downs...meaning his pass rush will be less effective vs passes on first down especially. But that is a byproduct of how the d is playing.


How about an example? Are you saying something along the lines of why Pacman doesn't stay on the opponents #1 WR throughout the game?


I wasn't gonna go there though that is certainly a valid argument...but it's worse than that. First, we are playing TOO MUCH zone and giving an easy zone read pre-snap to the QB. When we're playing Dallas and it's 3rd and 5 and TO goes in motion...if no CB goes with him, you've just told the offense that the D is in zone...allowing the offense to dictate the matchup. Not only that, but the QB and WR both now know it's zone. Result...TO runs a crossing pattern and is wide open for a first down. Against most zones, LB's cover the middle of the short field so they've dictated that TO is working against our LB's...a big mismatch FOR them. An excellent DC would use a match up zone a lot..especially on key plays...which would see a CB run with TO in motion giving the QB a man to man read. However, at the snap, the CB now plays the zone position of his area on the field and the other players adjust accordingly. While the CB is not technically covering TO, the QB already has gotten a false pre-snap read and won't be able to tell the difference for the first .5-1.0 seconds. This is an obvious advantage to the D since the QB has a false read, may decide to look at a different WR as his primary because it's a man cover D (or so he thinks) and TO and other WR's may adjust their patterns because their reading man coverage initially. See how this helps the D?

We're not doing this or do it VERY infrequently. Also, when you're in a cover 2 D and they put 3 WR's to one side, you need to have a change built into the scheme because the 3 WR's can stretch the zone with 1 WR in the flat (draws up the CB), one WR breaking a short post to draw over the deep outside safety while the last WR breaks a deeper croner route which is successful because the deep safety has already been lured inside and is now out of position. Most good defenses adjust the defensive play when the offense tries to overload one side of the field. In response they overload the zone to that side of the field to take away this easy exploit. Not the Titans. Bad enough we allow this to happen in one game...worse is having the exact same thing done in the next game.

Of course, we can also point out the most obvious thing you alluded to. Since the Titans don't man up their corners, the Cowboys get to decide when they want Hill covering TO. Needless to say that either gives them a HUGE advantage or it forces the defense to adjust it's scheme to try and help Hill (put a S over top). In response, they overload the other side of the field. Now what do you do if you're Schwartz? Either remove the help from Hill to overload the strong side...or you allow the strong side zones to be stretched easily for big damage. The third alternative is to skew the LB coverage to that side and drop both the CB and S to that side deep (half field deep Quarters). But then you allow the TE, RB and TO to tear up the backside underneath areas. Schwartz tried several of these things and we got burned on a lot of them because he allows the offense to dictate the matchup and from that...they go to work. If instead, you matchup Pac on TO, they don't know if it's man or zone or blitz or what the D is doing because they can't dictate the worst matchup on the field and force the defense to protect it. Now, with Pac on TO, Hill on Glenn, ect., you don't know who's getting help, who isn't, when and everything is harder to read.

Remember when I said Schwartz was too predictable? This is what I'm talking about. Also, this is painfully obvious near the goal line where the O can put their biggest guy on Pac or matchup their best WR on Hill.

So KVB is a top DE against the run and Smith is solid yet the defense is last in the NFL because Schwartz doesn't place them on the field properly?

As mentioned above, placing them is part of coordinating a defense. If you're misaligned, it's hard to stop certain things. But formationally, there are strengths and weakness to each formation. When you look at your own player's strengths and weaknesses, you want to protect your weaknesses and force the offense into your strengths. We don't do this much. For example, if Starks can't handle a double team block, he should be lined up between the OC and OG where he's MOST LIKELY to get a double team block which will result in him being blown off the ball and the OG or OC (depending on the play) getting out to take out our MLB and poof...successful running play. If Starks is a good one gap DT, he should be playing a 3 technique (outside shoulder of the OG where he controls that gap). This is how you play players to their strengths and not place them in positions to fail. Similarly, if Sirmon is not great at taking on blockers, you need to try and protect him more by NOT penetrating the OL with your DT's...but rather have them control the 3 interior OL. I hope this is a simple enough example.


Eh? You lost me here. Both are examples of poor run defenses. Even with no tackles last week, he is on pace to far exceed this tackle totals from last season.

2 points here. The Colts are rather unique in that they don't really try to stop the run with their basic scheme. Instead, they try for maximum QB pressure. What this means is that their DE's rush straight up the field to put max pressure on playaction passes and any 5/7 step drops. This means that OT's can push the DE's by and then attack the OLB's (including Thornton). Thornton played very well in this D so obviously he must be able to shed blockers to some decent degree of skill or he would have been obliterated in that D. That's my point about Thornton. The second point is that the Scheme of that isn't to stop the run...but ours is and we're getting the same result...a terrible run D. But we're not having our DE's rush right up field to attack all passers on every play. If we did, we'd expect to have a decent pass D. To put that into context, the Colts are worst against the run, but 3rd in passing yards allowed and have given up about a 1:1 ratio of passing TD's to INT's. We are 14th in passing yards but have given up about a 3:1 ratio of TD's to INT's which translate to a huge difference in QB rating against us.

Point is...our scheme is not getting it done....either vs the pass or run.


For every Wycheck, there are 20 Ryan Leifs. Yes, a team can be a better fit for a player as was the case with Wycheck. But I bet you'll also find Wycheck will admit to being a better player from a technical standpoint as he gained experience in the league. Anyone want to debate he had the best physical tools in the league?

But this IS the point. We have players gaining experience but they're not getting better. We have 3 options. First, the player is terrible and will never be decent. Second, the scheme is preventing the players from playing to their strengths. Third, the coaching is not teaching these players how to play. I can already here the argument that LT will never 'get it.' But what about Starks, LaBoy, Odom, Mahelona, Waddell, Woolfolk, Gardner, Lowry, Fuller, Reynolds, and Hill (to name a few)? Are all of these guys terrible players (if yes, Reese should have been fired long before this and if no, then you have to take a harsh look at the coaching and the scheme). I find it extremely unlikely that all the above players are busts! And at least 4 of those players were taken on the first day of the draft.

And one other thing. Ever notice how good defenses seem to have good role players and they are put in positions to play their roles...like a good pass rusher coming in and rushing the passer instead of having to take on a pulling OG to stop a running play? Outside of some creativity with our nickel back, we don't do this. And again, this harkens back to putting players into a position to utilize their strengths. If Bulluck has difficulty taking on blockers, how come we don't scheme around that?


Name me one team in the top 15 defensively who would take LT over their current FS. How about Sirmon? How about Hill (up to the last couple of weeks).

The point is not who would take and start one of those players, but which of these teams already HAS one or more of these players but succeeds by keeping that weakness hidden as much as possible.

I'd say that Chicago has a couple of guys...Hillenmayer doesn't exactly scare me nor do either of their safeties Manning and Johnson. But they play good TEAM defense so these weaker players are not overly exposed. And that's not a middle of the pack D, but arguably the best D in the NFL. How about Leber and Smoot on Minnesota (top 7 in points allowed)? Or perhaps a better example are Bruschi and Junior Seau. Neither of those guys can really cover anymore...but you don't see that aspect of thier game being exposed.

I wouldn't fire Washburn over the contain thing because I don't know the exact defense called and whether to blame the scheme, the coaching, the players, or some combo. However, we do know the scheme against Denver was not designed to specifically stop the bootleg cause then LaBoy or whomever would be in Plummer's face all day. That didn't happen nor was LaBoy benched for not containing the bootleg. And we saw the same thing repeatedly in pre-season.


So was Schwartz predictable from '01 - '03 too? Or did he decide to change schemes to something much less effective on purpose?


There were 3 things going for the Titans when Schwartz took over. First, we were maxed out on talent. Second, teams were afraid of our pass rush. Third, we had a culture on D of being excellent run stoppers. Over time, a few things changed. First, we lost accountability. Second, we moved to a more zone based scheme and lastly, we had a large personel turnover. The major players on D outside of Bulluck all left and with it...our dominance against the run. In the last couple of years, we had 2 more issues. First, Reese dumped salary...bye bye Rolle and Kevin Carter. Secondly, Schwartz is too predictable and people have caught on to what he likes to do and know they can outcoach him down the stretch. Also, without a dominant run D, the D is doubly exposed to the run and the pass. No one fears our run D nor our pass rush. No one fears our hardhitting because we don't hit that hard anymore. No one fears our 46 D because our scheme is more simple and easy to read than it is complex. And the guy calling the shots both is predictable and doesn't demand accountability.

I think that about covers it.

Gut

So when Barry Sanders retired on the top of his game, he all of a sudden is no longer a talented back?

How about Junio Seau who retired...amking him an untalented player and then starting for the Pats and playing pretty well.

This definition of talent doesn't make sense to me. I call this what it is....production.

Players usually fall into 1 of 2 categories...players with NFL measureables (right size, speed, agility, strength, ect) and players who don't (too short, too small, too slow, ect.). Both players can succeed because a player who truly 'gets it' can be better than one who doesn't....even if he has better measureables. Case in point, one college defensive coach once said...I'd rather have a 4.7 (speed) guy going in the RIGHT direction at the start of the play than a 4.5 guy going in the wrong direction.

The first player has physical talent while the second player has more talent in the football smarts department. Of course even these players have to be within a certain range of physical talent to play in the NFL. No WR could run a 5.5 40 and succeed no matter how well he ran his patterns.

So when I talk about talented players, I'm talking about guys with talent in either the physical side or the mental side or both. Even this is an oversimplification, but I hope you get the idea. Furthermore, we can get an inkling to how these players may translate into NFL players based on their physical numbers and their college production.

Gut


Okay, let's discuss a bit more then.

How do you measure talent? If it isn't by what that talent produces, then I don't know how you can. I see natural ability not as talent but potential.

When I think of talent, I think about how it is used. For example, "he is a talented writer". That is based on what that writer has produced. Not so much his potential though it could be taken to the next level.

That is why I feel production is the measure of talent.

All players in the NFL have shown talent at the college level. Do they remain talented when they fail at the pro level?

Another example of how the word talented is being misused. A talented writer is the character Jamal Wallace in Finding Forrester, a skilled writer is Stephen King, Dan Brown, J.K. Rowling, Tom Clancy, etc., although I'm sure they also posses talent.
Then tell me. How do you measure talent?

If you're nearly leading the league in tackles at your position, you have to be at least decent and more likely good.
I believe he is good but I also don't see only five tackles a game as being something which has a huge impact on the run game.

Of course, we can also point out the most obvious thing you alluded to. Since the Titans don't man up their corners, the Cowboys get to decide when they want Hill covering TO. Needless to say that either gives them a HUGE advantage or it forces the defense to adjust it's scheme to try and help Hill (put a S over top).
Help me with my history here but didn't Rolle always cover the opponent's #1 when he was with the Titans? I seem to remember that. So it isn't beyond Schwartz's reasoning to do this. Why isn't he doing it now? We can only speculate but I bet it has to do with the inexperience/skill of his CBs.

Remember when I said Schwartz was too predictable? This is what I'm talking about. Also, this is painfully obvious near the goal line where the O can put their biggest guy on Pac or matchup their best WR on Hill.
What is your solution if Schwartz thinks the corners don't have the experience/skill to line up other than one side or the other?

Similarly, if Sirmon is not great at taking on blockers, you need to try and protect him more by NOT penetrating the OL with your DT's...but rather have them control the 3 interior OL. I hope this is a simple enough example.
It's also an example how the lack of talent of your weakest links limits what you can do defensively. If you can't bring the DTs, then what impact does that have when a pass is called? Does that slight delay in the rush give the opposing QB that extra second to exploit your FS or #2 CB who has struggled all year?

The second point is that the Scheme of that isn't to stop the run...but ours is and we're getting the same result...a terrible run D.
But when the Colts need to stop the run and scheme to do so because they don't have the big lead, their defense is exposed. Were the Colts playing bad scheme against the Titans in that game? I don't think so. The Titans were pounding them and there was nothing they could do to stop them. It boiled down to one-on-one matchups and the Titans OL was manhandling the Colts DL.

Here's another example. The Jags are up 34-0 midway in the third quarter. Did you see anything to indicate the Jags wanted to do anything but run out the clock by rushing the football? I didn't see much trickery at all on the Jags offense but they gashed the Titans for another 78 yards on the ground.

Where did scheme come into play here? Everyone knew what was coming. No surprises. Yet Schwartz gets criticized for not being able to stop a vanilla offense who just wanted to run out the clock? Tell me what could have been done differently?

Point is...our scheme is not getting it done....either vs the pass or run.
Agreed. But how much of this is on Schwartz and how much is on the players is my question. You make it sound as if Buddy Ryan stepped in as DC the Titans would rise to the top 10 and I don't think we have the horses to make it happen because this is a terribly inconsistent defense.

I'm skipping ahead because I found this more interesting...

There were 3 things going for the Titans when Schwartz took over. First, we were maxed out on talent. Second, teams were afraid of our pass rush. Third, we had a culture on D of being excellent run stoppers. Over time, a few things changed. First, we lost accountability. Second, we moved to a more zone based scheme and lastly, we had a large personel turnover.
I totally agree except for the accountability part which I'm not sure I fully understand. Are you saying players are not being told they are blowing assignments? If so, how do you know this?

On your other points, the zone was a direct reaction to the lack of talent/experience. Remember 2004 and the injuries and that a number of backups were in. It severely limited scheme. Zone was the result.

Then the cap purge. Again, scheme has to be adjusted to the holes and especially the inexperience.

And the guy calling the shots both is predictable and doesn't demand accountability.
Is he predictable because he is limited as to what he can do because of talent and experience? I think he is. And I need to understand what you mean by accountability before I can respond to that.

Then tell me. How do you measure talent?

Talent, especially on a football field, is not measureable as such, you can just see it, it's almost a gut feeling. Pacman is what I call talented, you can just see that football comes natural to him. Hope on the other hand I consider more skilled, he doesn't exude natural ability, but has worked very hard to be as good as he is.

I actually have the perfect example from my own league where a guy came in off the streets (former soccer player) and immediately became a beast at runningback. He didn't have a clue about football, didn't know the rules, but he was just naturally gifted running with the football (tackling was not his strong suit though).

Hey, Keith Bulluck is one of the positives about the Titans defense!

Help me with my history here but didn't Rolle always cover the opponent's #1 when he was with the Titans? I seem to remember that. So it isn't beyond Schwartz's reasoning to do this. Why isn't he doing it now? We can only speculate but I bet it has to do with the inexperience/skill of his CBs.


What is your solution if Schwartz thinks the corners don't have the experience/skill to line up other than one side or the other?


If you could point to a single factor that would indicate a difference between playing left and right cornerback, sure I'd agree with you. But from what I'm seeing there's little to no difference as to what the left cornerback does as opposed to the right cornerback. There must be some other reason for not locking Pac on the best receiver.
And inexperience/skill doesn't fly either, I mean if your best corner isn't good enough to cover the receiver, what good does it do to let your second best corner cover him?

How come other teams stop the run with 'normal' size DT's in the 300lb range?

You contradict yourself by saying they are too small but then saying Jesse is a big dude but can't play.

So what IS the problem in your eyes?

Gut

I'm not contradicting myself, Jesse is a big dude (as opposed to me) but not big enough for the DT position, or at least he doesn't have the necessary strength. Fact is he usually gets shoved aside and can only depend on arm tackling to try and stop the run. Not always, but usually. John Thornton, Fat Albert, Jamaal Williams, the guys I meantioned in my reply, guys like that are very good run stuffers. Robaire is one but is too inconsistent. We'll see what happens next week when Albert returns.

Talent, especially on a football field, is not measureable as such, you can just see it, it's almost a gut feeling.
I see where you're coming from but respectfully disagree. Gut feelings (sorry, Gut) only go so far in a sport where the goal is to win. At some point, you have to look at results. I think those that produce are more talented than those who don't if you look at talent as I do.

I actually have the perfect example from my own league where a guy came in off the streets (former soccer player) and immediately became a beast at runningback. He didn't have a clue about football, didn't know the rules, but he was just naturally gifted running with the football (tackling was not his strong suit though).
Which you saw when he PERFORMED, right? Would you have thought him talented if he fell over his feet, hit the wrong holes, fumbled the ball?

By your definition, wouldn't LT be as talented as anyone on the team?

If you could point to a single factor that would indicate a difference between playing left and right cornerback, sure I'd agree with you.
I ran across this doing a search. It is from the Jags official site:

"What's the difference between right and left corner? The right corner is the 'squat' corner, which means he is often involved in zone coverage and will fall off into underneath coverage. The left corner must have greater man-to-man coverage skills. He has to be able to run all over the field with the receiver he's covering."

I hear DEs talking about playing one side or the other. You get used to moving in a certain motion and direction and it takes some adjustment to go to the other side as it did Roos moving from RT to LT.

When we are looking at CB, besides the above, it may also have to do with the support given by the FS. LT may slide over more to help out a struggling Hill which can put them in the position for double coverage where Pac, on the left side, has to handle whoever he covers on his own.

hit the wrong holes, fumbled the ball


He did fumble and he did miss the holes he was supposed to run through, but his running, cutting, breaking tackles, etc. was already there, he only needed to learn to read the game properly and secure the football with both hands when in traffic.

He did fumble and he did miss the holes he was supposed to run through, but his running, cutting, breaking tackles, etc. was already there, he only needed to learn to read the game properly and secure the football with both hands when in traffic.
And once he learned to do those things, would you say is was more, less or the same talent he was before he learned those thing?

Then tell me. How do you measure talent?talent is measured in the NFL by offseason workouts in college and the draft....................they are largely based upon numbers..................great football players are measured by one thing ................production married to outcome..................if they are not married the player is generally called talented but not elite............best example I can think of is Marino..................individual talent great but his outcomes were terrible over his career.................and then there are guys like Brady who had no measurables..............fell to the 6th round but his production to outcome is unparelleled for a 6th rounder...................there in lies the difference...............Scouts will tell you that is the reason Brady fell.............his individual talent measured the way we currently do..............was ordinary.........................few scouts are able to see a players worth in the right system...............some do...............best example of that...............Chrebet and Colston...................its anothe rreason you should value low round picks..................because when they hit your team gets a double dip of production for low cap value..................that usually leads to a long run................

Commence Munching...



If you're nearly leading the league in tackles at your position, you have to be at least decent and more likely good. I feel KVB is a little less effective than last year for 2 reasons. First, people know him and will scheme that into their offense...chipping him with backs or double teaming him more. Secondly, with teams running so much against us he'll be playing more run first on the first 2 downs...meaning his pass rush will be less effective vs passes on first down especially. But that is a byproduct of how the d is playing.



I wasn't gonna go there though that is certainly a valid argument...but it's worse than that. First, we are playing TOO MUCH zone and giving an easy zone read pre-snap to the QB. When we're playing Dallas and it's 3rd and 5 and TO goes in motion...if no CB goes with him, you've just told the offense that the D is in zone...allowing the offense to dictate the matchup. Not only that, but the QB and WR both now know it's zone. Result...TO runs a crossing pattern and is wide open for a first down. Against most zones, LB's cover the middle of the short field so they've dictated that TO is working against our LB's...a big mismatch FOR them. An excellent DC would use a match up zone a lot..especially on key plays...which would see a CB run with TO in motion giving the QB a man to man read. However, at the snap, the CB now plays the zone position of his area on the field and the other players adjust accordingly. While the CB is not technically covering TO, the QB already has gotten a false pre-snap read and won't be able to tell the difference for the first .5-1.0 seconds. This is an obvious advantage to the D since the QB has a false read, may decide to look at a different WR as his primary because it's a man cover D (or so he thinks) and TO and other WR's may adjust their patterns because their reading man coverage initially. See how this helps the D?

We're not doing this or do it VERY infrequently. Also, when you're in a cover 2 D and they put 3 WR's to one side, you need to have a change built into the scheme because the 3 WR's can stretch the zone with 1 WR in the flat (draws up the CB), one WR breaking a short post to draw over the deep outside safety while the last WR breaks a deeper croner route which is successful because the deep safety has already been lured inside and is now out of position. Most good defenses adjust the defensive play when the offense tries to overload one side of the field. In response they overload the zone to that side of the field to take away this easy exploit. Not the Titans. Bad enough we allow this to happen in one game...worse is having the exact same thing done in the next game.

Of course, we can also point out the most obvious thing you alluded to. Since the Titans don't man up their corners, the Cowboys get to decide when they want Hill covering TO. Needless to say that either gives them a HUGE advantage or it forces the defense to adjust it's scheme to try and help Hill (put a S over top). In response, they overload the other side of the field. Now what do you do if you're Schwartz? Either remove the help from Hill to overload the strong side...or you allow the strong side zones to be stretched easily for big damage. The third alternative is to skew the LB coverage to that side and drop both the CB and S to that side deep (half field deep Quarters). But then you allow the TE, RB and TO to tear up the backside underneath areas. Schwartz tried several of these things and we got burned on a lot of them because he allows the offense to dictate the matchup and from that...they go to work. If instead, you matchup Pac on TO, they don't know if it's man or zone or blitz or what the D is doing because they can't dictate the worst matchup on the field and force the defense to protect it. Now, with Pac on TO, Hill on Glenn, ect., you don't know who's getting help, who isn't, when and everything is harder to read.

Remember when I said Schwartz was too predictable? This is what I'm talking about. Also, this is painfully obvious near the goal line where the O can put their biggest guy on Pac or matchup their best WR on Hill.



As mentioned above, placing them is part of coordinating a defense. If you're misaligned, it's hard to stop certain things. But formationally, there are strengths and weakness to each formation. When you look at your own player's strengths and weaknesses, you want to protect your weaknesses and force the offense into your strengths. We don't do this much. For example, if Starks can't handle a double team block, he should be lined up between the OC and OG where he's MOST LIKELY to get a double team block which will result in him being blown off the ball and the OG or OC (depending on the play) getting out to take out our MLB and poof...successful running play. If Starks is a good one gap DT, he should be playing a 3 technique (outside shoulder of the OG where he controls that gap). This is how you play players to their strengths and not place them in positions to fail. Similarly, if Sirmon is not great at taking on blockers, you need to try and protect him more by NOT penetrating the OL with your DT's...but rather have them control the 3 interior OL. I hope this is a simple enough example.



2 points here. The Colts are rather unique in that they don't really try to stop the run with their basic scheme. Instead, they try for maximum QB pressure. What this means is that their DE's rush straight up the field to put max pressure on playaction passes and any 5/7 step drops. This means that OT's can push the DE's by and then attack the OLB's (including Thornton). Thornton played very well in this D so obviously he must be able to shed blockers to some decent degree of skill or he would have been obliterated in that D. That's my point about Thornton. The second point is that the Scheme of that isn't to stop the run...but ours is and we're getting the same result...a terrible run D. But we're not having our DE's rush right up field to attack all passers on every play. If we did, we'd expect to have a decent pass D. To put that into context, the Colts are worst against the run, but 3rd in passing yards allowed and have given up about a 1:1 ratio of passing TD's to INT's. We are 14th in passing yards but have given up about a 3:1 ratio of TD's to INT's which translate to a huge difference in QB rating against us.

Point is...our scheme is not getting it done....either vs the pass or run.



But this IS the point. We have players gaining experience but they're not getting better. We have 3 options. First, the player is terrible and will never be decent. Second, the scheme is preventing the players from playing to their strengths. Third, the coaching is not teaching these players how to play. I can already here the argument that LT will never 'get it.' But what about Starks, LaBoy, Odom, Mahelona, Waddell, Woolfolk, Gardner, Lowry, Fuller, Reynolds, and Hill (to name a few)? Are all of these guys terrible players (if yes, Reese should have been fired long before this and if no, then you have to take a harsh look at the coaching and the scheme). I find it extremely unlikely that all the above players are busts! And at least 4 of those players were taken on the first day of the draft.

And one other thing. Ever notice how good defenses seem to have good role players and they are put in positions to play their roles...like a good pass rusher coming in and rushing the passer instead of having to take on a pulling OG to stop a running play? Outside of some creativity with our nickel back, we don't do this. And again, this harkens back to putting players into a position to utilize their strengths. If Bulluck has difficulty taking on blockers, how come we don't scheme around that?



The point is not who would take and start one of those players, but which of these teams already HAS one or more of these players but succeeds by keeping that weakness hidden as much as possible.

I'd say that Chicago has a couple of guys...Hillenmayer doesn't exactly scare me nor do either of their safeties Manning and Johnson. But they play good TEAM defense so these weaker players are not overly exposed. And that's not a middle of the pack D, but arguably the best D in the NFL. How about Leber and Smoot on Minnesota (top 7 in points allowed)? Or perhaps a better example are Bruschi and Junior Seau. Neither of those guys can really cover anymore...but you don't see that aspect of thier game being exposed.

I wouldn't fire Washburn over the contain thing because I don't know the exact defense called and whether to blame the scheme, the coaching, the players, or some combo. However, we do know the scheme against Denver was not designed to specifically stop the bootleg cause then LaBoy or whomever would be in Plummer's face all day. That didn't happen nor was LaBoy benched for not containing the bootleg. And we saw the same thing repeatedly in pre-season.



There were 3 things going for the Titans when Schwartz took over. First, we were maxed out on talent. Second, teams were afraid of our pass rush. Third, we had a culture on D of being excellent run stoppers. Over time, a few things changed. First, we lost accountability. Second, we moved to a more zone based scheme and lastly, we had a large personel turnover. The major players on D outside of Bulluck all left and with it...our dominance against the run. In the last couple of years, we had 2 more issues. First, Reese dumped salary...bye bye Rolle and Kevin Carter. Secondly, Schwartz is too predictable and people have caught on to what he likes to do and know they can outcoach him down the stretch. Also, without a dominant run D, the D is doubly exposed to the run and the pass. No one fears our run D nor our pass rush. No one fears our hardhitting because we don't hit that hard anymore. No one fears our 46 D because our scheme is more simple and easy to read than it is complex. And the guy calling the shots both is predictable and doesn't demand accountability.

I think that about covers it.

Gut

You might wanna put in chapters.

talent is measured in the NFL by offseason workouts in college and the draft....................they are largely based upon numbers..................great football players are measured by one thing ................production married to outcome..................if they are not married the player is generally called talented but not elite............
Would you call Brady talented? Would you call him more talented than David Carr or Joey Harrington?

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a173/javvieh/others/IMG_0369.jpg

Ramble on!!!

I believe he is good but I also don't see only five tackles a game as being something which has a huge impact on the run game.

I didn't say he made a HUGE impact, just that he was good vs the run. Julius Peppers may be the only DE right now dominant against the run.

Help me with my history here but didn't Rolle always cover the opponent's #1 when he was with the Titans?

Rolle did predominantly cover the opposing #1 WR under Williams. Schwartz initiated the change upon arrival. Due to teams like the Patriots success with zone D's at the time, Schwartz started converting the Titans D to a zone D...and that was WITH guys like Rolle. He is simply more of a zone guy and is trying to 'borrow' from the best DC's in the game. Unfortunately he doesn't understand how and when to use these schemes which is why they don't work for us. The more he has changed over the years, the worse the D has gotten. Of course that also has to do with losing talent and the culture Williams created. Schwartz is not a matchup guy...period.


What is your solution if Schwartz thinks the corners don't have the experience/skill to line up other than one side or the other?[?QUOTE]

Not sure what you mean by this...my solution if he doesn't think these guys can play man...or if they can't play right side vs left side? If you were playing a 'traditional' 4-3 D, typically there were two choices. First is to put your best CB on the defensive left (side of the SS) due to the SS's penchant for coming up against the run while the weaker CB was on the side of the FS. However, teams don't line up there WR's like that anymore. Now #1 WR's line up in the slot, either side and even in the backfield. But this kind of thinking is the ONLY reason you could point to for keeping CB's on one side or the other. However, I've already explained all the benefits you give the offense by aligning this way. Furthermore, teams can simply put a TE, RB or slot WR in motion to change the strength of the formation (and thereby the force players vs the run). So while Pac might have Hope on his side, putting the TE motion to Hill's side forces us to seriously adjust our front 7 to compensate AND/OR forces LT to become the SS (against the run) with now our weakest CB playing with no over top help vs playaction.

It makes more sense to put Pac on there best WR eliminating all the pre-snap reads the defense has and they won't know who's getting what help and from where (LB or S). Since the Titans have announced that they now see both S's as both SS and FS....clearly their responsibilities flip depending on offensive formation and defensive playcall. Hence, they are certainly now vulnerable to the equation I gave you earlier and explains how occasionally we end up with Hill on a top WR one on one by himself down the field. This is getting outcoached.

[QUOTE]
It's also an example how the lack of talent of your weakest links limits what you can do defensively. If you can't bring the DTs, then what impact does that have when a pass is called? Does that slight delay in the rush give the opposing QB that extra second to exploit your FS or #2 CB who has struggled all year?

It doesn't work that way. The Pats 3 DL only penetrate on obvious passing downs...other than that they eat up blockers and it doesn't seem to hurt them or the Steelers pass rush. That's because it's the design of the system. It's also a reason why everyone rushes the passer better on 3rd and 15 than they do on 1st and 10. But from defense to defense, this type of thing is designed into the scheme. For example, if you have a penetrating DL, then your LB's had better be able to take on OL and shed blockers well. If you don't have a penetrating DL, then your LB's are more free to roam. However, it appears our scheme is not fitting the players we have...and vice versa. You MUST adjust the scheme to the best personel you have. I'm not seeing this nor am I seeing us put our guys in the best position for them to succeed.


But when the Colts need to stop the run and scheme to do so because they don't have the big lead, their defense is exposed. Were the Colts playing bad scheme against the Titans in that game? I don't think so. The Titans were pounding them and there was nothing they could do to stop them. It boiled down to one-on-one matchups and the Titans OL was manhandling the Colts DL.

Yes and no. When the Colts REALLY try to stop the run they bring up an 8th and sometimes a 9th defender and play a cover 3 (so they can drop down their SS or even run blitz him). While their stats don't indicate they CAN stop the run, they are able to do so. Otherwise, why would you ever pass against them and by definition should be able to run the D up and down the field all day. However, we do see them make the occasional stop behind the line. But for the most part, they don't worry about the run much and it works for them during the regular season.


Here's another example. The Jags are up 34-0 midway in the third quarter. Did you see anything to indicate the Jags wanted to do anything but run out the clock by rushing the football? I didn't see much trickery at all on the Jags offense but they gashed the Titans for another 78 yards on the ground.


Well, I saw 3 things. First, the Titans D was completely demoralized. Second, the Jags were rolling on all cylinders. Third, our backups (like Tulloch) appeared a bit lost which made the 'results' worse at times. But why weren't the Titans run blitzing the Jags on every down? Why weren't we dropping the 8th, 9th and 10th defender into the box to stop their running? As you said...they weren't doing anything sneaky to us....but Schwartz didn't adjust to stop them nor was he willing to sellout to get a stop. If your unit is having major problems, sometimes bringing the heat is the BEST way to get back on track and force the offense to make an adjustment to make the play. And if you're gonna tell me we're too untalented to bring the house I'd say hogwash! Down 34-0 you've already lost and have to take chances to get back in it. Otherwise you may as well phone it in...which is what seems to be happening when we're getting blown out.


Where did scheme come into play here? Everyone knew what was coming. No surprises. Yet Schwartz gets criticized for not being able to stop a vanilla offense who just wanted to run out the clock? Tell me what could have been done differently?

I just gave you the most obvious...drop more defenders into the box and or run blitz them. We just kept lining it up and taking the damage.


Agreed. But how much of this is on Schwartz and how much is on the players is my question. You make it sound as if Buddy Ryan stepped in as DC the Titans would rise to the top 10 and I don't think we have the horses to make it happen because this is a terribly inconsistent defense.

I would guarantee you Buddy Ryan...one of the greatest DC's of all time probably could turn this unit into a top 10 unit or darn close. More realistically, I'd say an above avg DC should have this D no worse than 16th...middle of the pack. Take a look at Buddy Ryan's Cards defense and tell me all the great players he had there...one excellent DT and one excellent CB. Everyone else was solid or a role player. But some of those role players dominated because they were allowed to utilize their strengths and he hid their weaknesses. And if you look at what those role players did once they left his D, they didn't do much. We have the opposite problem...we can't figure out how to utilize our role players (except for Finnegan) to play to their strengths. This is all coaching. But back to the original point...we don't have #1 D talent...but we don't need to. We have at least middle of the pack talent and we're not even close to that in performance. And the biggest problem with how YOU define talent (by production) is that it can NEVER be a coaching problem if the player isn't producing.


I totally agree except for the accountability part which I'm not sure I fully understand. Are you saying players are not being told they are blowing assignments? If so, how do you know this?

What happens when your kid comes home and tells you he failed his math test? Assuming the child isn't an idiot or bad at math...we find the problem is the child didn't study. So you tell him he has to study to do well. What happens the next time he fails a math test because he didn't study? Do you keep lecturing him hoping that will somehow make the difference this time? OR, do you change the rules? Right now you expect him to do it and when he doesn't, he gets lectured. Most parents follow this up with punishment for repeated offenses but this is only marginally effective. Even more effective is to change the rules. Second failed test leads to all his toys being taken away (or the things he'll work his tail off to get back) with the caveat that he can earn toys back for each good test grade. So instead of doing the absolute minimum to avoid punishment, we now have a child who's busting his butt to get a reward. If we take that to the football field, accountability means that if you stink up the joint, you get benched and someone else gets a shot at your job. So what do you do now...you either ride the bench and feel sorry for yourself - in which case you're better off on the bench before you get cut as far as the team is concerned. OR, you bust your tail off to try and win back your job. Take a look at LT. How has he been held accountable? He's been pointed out to the media twice and 'put on notice.' The marginal improvement game happened in response and now he's right back where he started. 1 'good' game vs 7 bad ones. Is this acceptable? From the current accountability standard of the Titans, this is acceptable since he hasn't lost his job. Is there any motivation for LT to fear losing his job? No. Is there any real motivation to get better other than his own internal desire (or lack there of)? This wouldn't happen if it were my team. This type of accountability is harder on a playoff team because benching a more talented player could hurt performance for a single game which in a tight race could be the difference. However, we're not near that level which is why we should make everyone accountable to the people above them. If you stink up the joint, we will actively pursue improving the position with other guys on the roster, via trades, and/or the draft.


On your other points, the zone was a direct reaction to the lack of talent/experience. Remember 2004 and the injuries and that a number of backups were in. It severely limited scheme. Zone was the result.


No, we started playing zone concepts the moment Schwartz walked in the door. There was even talk about how guys like Rolle had to 're-learn' how to play zone since they played so much man under Williams. They even announced they'd be adding more zone concepts in the off-season to copy what the Pats and other top D's were doing...especially with zone blitzes. You also have to remember that Williams' last year we still used 46 D at times. When Schwartz took over, it no longer appeared. The 2 years we had serious injury problems it's understandable to play less man...but if you can't accomplish the goal of zone defense...to stop the big play...then you have a serious problem. You can give him a pass on 2 injury riddled years...but what about last season? What about THIS season??? We play more zone than man but get just as burned either way. Either we have a HS football team or our scheme and playcalling and coaching have serious problems.

You need not play zone to hide inexperience 'holes.' Who would you rather have, a vet mediocre CB who's lost a step or the #6 pick in the draft in an inexperienced Pacman? I think 10 out of 10 of us would prefer Pacman. Inexperience is not as important factor as some think.


Is he predictable because he is limited as to what he can do because of talent and experience? I think he is. And I need to understand what you mean by accountability before I can respond to that.

Dude, how can the Pats D beat the Colts and the Eagles with an undrafted rookie CB starting and Troy Brown...an inexperienced CB playing the nickel? Clearly they were short on talent at 2 of the most important positions vs a team like the Colts. Did the lack of talent and experience stop Crenel from mixing up his defense? NOPE!

Gut

You might wanna put in chapters.

...when the book comes out!

Gut

Players draft status is not about talent but about projection of the player into the NFL and how well you'd expect that player to perform.

Anyone drafted in the NFL...especially a QB...has the talent (or potential) to succeed at the NFL level. However, most don't make it. Not because they were 6th rnd picks, but because the position is very difficult to learn and execute. After years as a backup, Brady figured it out.

Carr on the other hand was thrust into a starting role AND has played behind a bad OL. What would have happened if Brady was drafted by the Texans and forced to start from day 1 while Carr was allowed to learn for a few years before starting?

Gut

talent is measured in the NFL by offseason workouts in college and the draft....................they are largely based upon numbers..................great football players are measured by one thing ................production married to outcome..................if they are not married the player is generally called talented but not elite............best example I can think of is Marino..................individual talent great but his outcomes were terrible over his career.................and then there are guys like Brady who had no measurables..............fell to the 6th round but his production to outcome is unparelleled for a 6th rounder...................there in lies the difference...............Scouts will tell you that is the reason Brady fell.............his individual talent measured the way we currently do..............was ordinary.........................few scouts are able to see a players worth in the right system...............some do...............best example of that...............Chrebet and Colston...................its anothe rreason you should value low round picks..................because when they hit your team gets a double dip of production for low cap value..................that usually leads to a long run................

Brady only sat one year I believe, but your points are valid and interesting. We managed to get to the SB with a very bad secondary, and it was only exposed during that game. We did manage to "hide" most of our weaknesses. Fisher has always had the mindset that a team can rarely take the ball 80 yards against you. Unfortunately that seems to be happening with more frequency now. I will still stand by my post that TOP is critical. When we were a great defense, we led the league in it. Offenses work in rhythms, and when they don't get on the field often enough, it takes a while for things to get going. A good example would be the Colts game. Manning finally adjusted in the 4th quarter when they were on the field more and had managed to finally shut our offense down. This is also a game of matchups, and sometimes a team has the right personel to win. We beat blown out by Dallas, we beat the Skins, then the Skins beat Dallas. The Texans blow out the Jags, we blow out the Texans, the Jags blow us out. Curious game it is.

Our secondary of Rolle, Walker, Bishop and Robertson was not bad in 1999.

I'm not contradicting myself, Jesse is a big dude (as opposed to me) but not big enough for the DT position...

At 340lbs, he's bigger than MOST of the DT's and is more than big enough for a DT.

...or at least he doesn't have the necessary strength.

He's probably one of the strongest guys on the team. But what you're really after is...

...he usually gets shoved aside and can only depend on arm tackling to try and stop the run.

I broke this down this way to show you something. First he's not big enough, then he's not strong enough. But those two statements aren't correct but you say that to justify his not being able to produce. Him playing well has nothing to do with his size and strength since those are above avg for an NFL DT.

Once you understand that, you can start to look at the real WHY he's not playing well. It's this kind of thinking that allows people to think there is little talent on this defense.

Gut

Gut, I think we might need to find a method of hitting only one or two points per post. ;)

Some quickie comments on some random points...

The change to zone was due to personnel. Go back and look at the DBs from the day Schwartz took over. It may very well be his preference but, as you point out, many teams are very successful using that scheme. Why not the Titans?

What works for the Pats and Steelers in a 3-4 where the LBs are pressuring the QB changes the role of the DL. I believe the Steelers went mainly with a 4-3 this season, didn't they? I know they've been giving up a ton of points this year. I don't know if I would use them as a good example. You have to get pressure with your DL in a 4-3. You can't worry about protecting Sirmon. And if the DTs are getting pressure, you can bet it will tie up more OL and Sirmon will have a better opportunity.

My point about the Colts D is they were in their best scheme to stop the run against the Titans in that game yet couldn't. That points to their personnel who is drafted to stop the pass. Notice they went out and traded for a biggun the next week? It was execution and personnel.

You mention the Titans should have used the run blitz against the Jags when they were only rushing the football. Doesn't that make it a prime example of the inability of our front seven being able to get the job done against their front six? Again, one-on-one matchups the Titans D don't win enough of. Execution and personnel.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the effectiveness of what Buddy Ryan would have on this D. Do I think the Titans defense is playing up too their potential? No way. But I think it is insane to point only at scheme when you have so many execution and personnel problems like your top DTs gone for four games each, a #2 CB who was torched so often, a FS who continues to make error after error, and a MLB who is a step slow and ineffective with a body on him.

I also am not a fan of Schwartz's style of defense much of the time. My defense of him and his scheme is that I believe he gets far too much blame for a player's mistake on the field. Execution continues to be a problem (like the Jags first TD last week and the Dallas game). Schwartz continues to simplify the defense as was reported after the Colts game because players continue to miss assignments. The man's hands are often tied as to what scheme he can use when the players can't execute it. Funny that when the defense does execute well that Schwartz doesn't get any credit because it is somehow a fluke.

Thanks for clearing up your points about accountability. On this we agree. I place that squarely on the shoulders of Fisher.

On your final point, you point to the Pats again as a team who were effective with limited personnel. Yet it is the same zone you are critical of Schwartz for using. The difference? Pressure. The Pats get pressure on the QB. Most secondaries in the league will look good against that. The Titans looked great when our DL was all over Carr that first half, didn't they?

The change to zone was due to personnel. Go back and look at the DBs from the day Schwartz took over. It may very well be his preference but, as you point out, many teams are very successful using that scheme. Why not the Titans?

Was Samari Rolle still on this team...one of the best man cover CB's in the league? Yes. So what personel problem are you referring to? Even if your OTHER starting CB is terrible, you can double cover that guy with a LB or S. At that's a worse case scenario.

As far as running a defense, I don't care if it's a predominant zone D or a man D as long as it's GOOD. The problem I have with Schwartz is that he calls the wrong zone defense at the wrong time (IMO) like staying in a cover 2 10 yards away from our goal line after the D brings over another WR to flood the zone. This is not rocket science...this is good High School football adjustments. The problem with Schwartz running a zone D is he gets outcoached because you have to call different zone to take away different things at different times. Man is easier to playcall.


What works for the Pats and Steelers in a 3-4 where the LBs are pressuring the QB changes the role of the DL. I believe the Steelers went mainly with a 4-3 this season, didn't they? I know they've been giving up a ton of points this year. I don't know if I would use them as a good example. You have to get pressure with your DL in a 4-3. You can't worry about protecting Sirmon. And if the DTs are getting pressure, you can bet it will tie up more OL and Sirmon will have a better opportunity.

Pitt is still using a 3-4, but good 4-3 teams use a similar prionciple for the DT who's between the OC-OG because every offense will initially try to double team him, get him turned and then release one of those guys (usually the OG) to take out the middle LB. THAT DT MUST force the OG-OC to stay on him protecting the middle LB. The other DT and DE's can rush the passer at will as long as they control their gaps. The Steelers are still giving up only about 95 yards per game and only 5 rushing TD's.


My point about the Colts D is they were in their best scheme to stop the run against the Titans in that game yet couldn't. That points to their personnel who is drafted to stop the pass. Notice they went out and traded for a biggun the next week? It was execution and personnel.

The Colts were NOT in their best scheme to stop our run. When they WANT to stop the run they bring up a S and play either cover 3 behind it or blitz. They don't do this a lot. They pick their spots like on 2nd and 10 on our last drive. Even though we'd been gashing them all game, they got a good stop on that down to force us into 3rd and long. They CAN stop the run when they want to. Equate this to us against the Jags...we just stayed neutral and watched our D get run over and over again. The Colts beat us because at the critical time, they could stop the run. We couldn't stop the Jags BACKUP for a whole game. Should we be able to stuff them playing vanilla? Sure...but the reality is almost NO D's stop the run without some help from the scheme. Schwartz didn't do anything to help us in that game.


You mention the Titans should have used the run blitz against the Jags when they were only rushing the football. Doesn't that make it a prime example of the inability of our front seven being able to get the job done against their front six?

Let me ask you a question. If you're a DC and facing a team with a rookie QB, do you play a vanilla defense or do you throw the book at him to confuse him, blitz him and sack him? You suggesting we should be able to beat the Jags playing straight up is only a mental exercise since NO ONE plays vanilla defenses if they are avg or above DC. And a lot of times teams out-execute your personel because their scheme puts them in a good position and puts your players in a bad position. Is that your players fault or the DC's fault?

Execution is intimately tied to scheme as I just mentioned. They are not mutually exclusive. And while we missed Haynesworth for several games, it's not like the top D's don't lose some of their best players too...and yet I don't see them giving up 27 points a game. Do you?

So instead of being ranked 16th, we should only be ranked 20th without Pac and Haynesworth....and yet we are much worse than that AND if you look at the stats with Pac and Haynesworth when the season is over, I don't think you'll see a dramatic difference....although you SHOULD.

Schwartz continues to simplify the defense as was reported after the Colts game because players continue to miss assignments. The man's hands are often tied as to what scheme he can use when the players can't execute it.

Simplifying our defense shows me 2 things. First, Schwartz believes the players are at fault and that playing a more vanilla defense will make us better. The obvious reality is that simplifying the defense will make us WORSE. There is a good reason why the best defenses don't play a basic scheme (unless they have all-world talent)...it makes it TOO EASY for the offense to figure out what your doing and adjust their playcall/scheme to take advantage of it. It's when the offense doesn't know what you're going to do that you'll be most successful.

Accountability starts at the top and the top is Floyd Reese who answers to Bud Adams. Reese is where the Buck stops. Fisher certainly has a ton of control over the coaches and players under him, but he seems to give his coordinators a lot of free reign. Of course, Fisher IS responsible for what those guys do, but Reese needs to get involved when Fisher is making mistakes. Forcing Fisher to fire Schwartz would be a good start.


On your final point, you point to the Pats again as a team who were effective with limited personnel. Yet it is the same zone you are critical of Schwartz for using. The difference? Pressure. The Pats get pressure on the QB. Most secondaries in the league will look good against that. The Titans looked great when our DL was all over Carr that first half, didn't they?

Again, I'm not a big fan of zone coverage, but a good defense is a good defense and if you get there by bend don't break/zone or 46 all out attack matters less than the results. I would be complaining just as much if our D was terrible playing all man coverage.

Gut

Was Samari Rolle still on this team...one of the best man cover CB's in the league? Yes. So what personel problem are you referring to? Even if your OTHER starting CB is terrible, you can double cover that guy with a LB or S. At that's a worse case scenario.
Andre Dyson was a rookie in '01 who started right away. Rolle was hurt some during that season as well. Was the zone a bad scheme since the Pats were so successful with it? That's what I don't get here. You prefer man-to-man. Maybe I do as well. But zone has proven to be an effective scheme too. Just because the Titans don't execute it well sometimes doesn't change that. We saw Hill get torched in man-to-man against the Jets. Does that make it a bad scheme too?

THAT DT MUST force the OG-OC to stay on him protecting the middle LB. The other DT and DE's can rush the passer at will as long as they control their gaps.
Right. We need Haynesworth to be double-teamed so the C can't get out on Sirmon. However, Big Al needs to be pushing the pocket in the process.

They CAN stop the run when they want to.
Sorry, Gut. I'm not buying it. I've seen the Colts get gashed far too often and they remain the one team under the Titans in that category. I'm willing to bet it will be their undoing too. Getting Sanders back will help along with the upgrade they've had at DT.

Should we be able to stuff them playing vanilla? Sure...but the reality is almost NO D's stop the run without some help from the scheme. Schwartz didn't do anything to help us in that game.
In a straight matchup, you should win a few and lose a few. When you know what the opponent is doing, the scales should tip your way. I watched our DL get knocked back on every snap for stretches in the fourth quarter. The Titans DL was rarely winning any one-on-one battles. Yet you want me to believe if Schwart