Chow thinks Schwartz is terrible too

Discussion in 'Tennessee Titans and NFL Talk' started by Brian, Jan 9, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Starkiller

    Starkiller 9

    Joined:
    May 30, 2002
    Messages:
    14,957
    No, actually worse...
    #31
  2. Fry

    Fry Hatin' is what I do.

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2004
    Messages:
    26,222
    doesnt get much worse than 32nd in total defense and 31st in scoring(san fran was 32nd)
    #32
  3. Starkiller

    Starkiller 9

    Joined:
    May 30, 2002
    Messages:
    14,957
    http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamdef.php

    If you actually look at the stats relative to strength of schedule, ours was better than Washington's. And if you look at it with more importance given to the last half of the season, ours was MUCH better.
    #33
  4. Fry

    Fry Hatin' is what I do.

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2004
    Messages:
    26,222
    yeah, but he had injuries, so this year shouldnt count....
    #34
  5. Starkiller

    Starkiller 9

    Joined:
    May 30, 2002
    Messages:
    14,957
    He didn't have to play an all or nothing defense knowing he had a roster that wasn't prepared to handle it. That's my whole point. Playing an aggressive defense isn't necessarily the answer for every team...
    #35
  6. Vince10

    Vince10 Camp Fodder

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2006
    Messages:
    280
    Look, certain plays can beat the blitz. Unless you can defend against them at least a little, you should not blitz too much. It doesnt help if you get a sack and incompletion on 1st and 2nd down if 3rd down results in a 50 yard TD. Aside from PacMan, we have no one who can cover 1v1. So zone it is. It is a fine scheme if your front 4 can rush the passer, which ours cannot. But even then it is better than blitzing if blitzing will regularly result in long TDs.

    I am not saying I agree with the scheme 100%, but I see why we employed it.
    #36
  7. PhiSlammaJamma

    PhiSlammaJamma Critical Possession

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2003
    Messages:
    6,508
    They wouldn't have to cover for as long, I think that's the point of the defense.
    #37
  8. Starkiller

    Starkiller 9

    Joined:
    May 30, 2002
    Messages:
    14,957
    And the tradeoff is that they have fewer people available to cover the same number of receivers...
    #38
  9. Vigsted

    Vigsted Starter

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2005
    Messages:
    4,337
    Well, receivers are still wide open even when we drop 8 in coverage, so it's a complete tossup, but I honestly believe we would fare better with "more pressure less in coverage" than "less pressure more in coverage".
    #39
  10. Starkiller

    Starkiller 9

    Joined:
    May 30, 2002
    Messages:
    14,957
    Part of that is just finding holes in the zone. But if you blitz you have to use a lot more man coverage. And while I'm sure Pacman could be good in man, I'm far less sure of Hill. Remember the Chargers game, when they threw his way constantly and he was beaten constantly?

    And when a WR finds an open spot in a zone, you tend to have someone behind him to make the tackle. In man coverage, that is more likely to create a big gainer. Zones tens to allow more completion percentage for fewer big plays. Man coverage should cut down on completions, but it allows for more big plays.
    #40
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.