Mebane at 3-tech, more blitzing
by cashless on May 20, 2009 12:50 PM PDT
33 comments
He talks about learning more pass rush moves, and how he'll be playing the 3-tech. basic stuff.
"I’m the three technique this year so one of my focuses this year is to get my weight down and my role this year is to bring more energy to the defensive line and the defense so my role has pretty much changed.
"The one guy I’ve been looking at as far as taking different things and different situations is Warren Sapp. He played the three-technique really well and we’re running the Tampa defense is the same defense so I’m just looking at film of what he was doing and when certain plays came at him I’m just trying to focus on him and what he was doing and incorporating that into my game.
But then he goes on to be a little discriptive about a change in defensive tackle roles, as well as the plays the defense is learning.
"This year we’re throwing a lot of different looks," Mebane noted. "From looking at the plays they are giving us, it seems like everybody is blitzing more.
"As a defensive line, the defensive tackles, we’re not sliding this year because the three technique is always going to play the three-technique and the nose guard (Colin Cole) will play the nose.
Scout.com - from Mebane interview on 710 KIRO
To be perfectly honest, the talk about sliding I don't know what to do with. I've watched Lofa reposition the defensive tackles after diagnosing the offensive formations, but how that translates into anything other than ideal run stopping position is something I know nothing about.
The idea of Mebane at the 3-tech sounds fun to watch, and I'm guessing that would make Bryant the backup 1, and Redding/Terrill(?) the backup 3. Blitzing more often sounds fun too, but we'll have to see it in action before we really know how well they are designed.
The Tampa reference I believe is to Tampa Bay's defense with lots of different schemes involved, not to the Bears/Colts "Tampa 2" defense as I understand it. However, it would be interesting to see more written about what Tampa Bay actually did, both back in their SB days, and in the years following as that DL broke apart and they continued to be pretty good.
A place to bury strangers.
2 recs |
33 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Gap Assignment
hasn’t been explicitly confirmed, but Pete Carroll gave an absolutely fantastic workshop on the 4-3 Under, which is what SC has run under him. We keep hearing these things, like what Mebane just said, about how we’re running what Tampa’s run, so I dunno, but Mora did say 4-3 Over was what we’re running. Anyway, Carroll has Under as the base, and it’s so easy to flip I can’t imagine we would run Over and never Under. The final caveat I’m getting at, and the relevance to sliding, is that what Carroll describes here is single-gap assignment. No idea if we’ll run that, but I am guessing one guy will have 2-gap assignment, only one guy, but always one guy. And I would guess that to be Mebane or Cole. Anyway, on to Carroll:
The prime spot on the defense to the weak side is the B gap player. He is an inside-foot to outside-foot alignment on the offensive guard to his side. He is a 3 technique player. He has B gap control but he can’t get reached or hooked by the defense due to the way we align him. The whole scheme of this defense is predicated upon not getting hooked.
I followed up on the West Coast Defense post a while ago, but I think it’d sunk so far down nobody read it any longer. But for Mebane to play the “prime” spot on the weak side, and for Curry to play the prime spot on the strong side, with Hill expected to rack up a lot of tackles, there is a lot to be excited about with this defense.
by jacobstevens on May 20, 2009 1:17 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Nice! Posts like the subject and this response have me facinated.
Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, QB Jevon Snead, OT Ciron Black, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh
by Misfit74 on May 20, 2009 1:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, it's THE thing of the offseason for me
Can’t stop thinking about it. I’m generally cautious, but I’m finding it nearly impossible to identify and substantiate the risks that the defense bites like John is able to. He’s also able to find more substantial reasons for optimism than I can….
by jacobstevens on May 20, 2009 1:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think you put more value into scheme than I do
I value talent and to a lesser extent unpredictability. It’s important to play players to their strengths, but it’s hard to ruin Reggie White or make Brian Russell. In fact, I would argue scheme is probably one of the least important parts of football. A Tampa 2 is not effective. A 3-4 is not effective. A Tampa 2 with Simeon Rice, Warren Sapp, John Lynch, Derrick Brooks and Ronde Barber is effective. A Tampa 2 with Jared DeVries, Shaun Cody, Paris Lennon, Daniel Bullocks and Leigh Bodden is not.
by John Morgan on May 20, 2009 3:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You still have to use the talent correctly though
Hill is a classic case of this. A scheme that fails to correctly use its players can really make players disappear.
by Fear on May 20, 2009 4:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right.
On another assumption, about each player’s role and the similarity to Pete Carroll’s defense, having the best players in the most important and impactful positions, and having players like Tapp, Redding, Cole & Hill in positions that maximize their strengths and minimize their weaknesses (sorry for yet another plug, but as I laid out in speculation on my WCD New Info followup) is why I think there’s a lot to be excited about.
On the side, I don’t think Hill is quite a classic case of that. His role was more about being NOT the pass rusher, than about being thrust in coverage. Great run support. On the idea that pass rush is more valuable than good underneath coverage, JP was rightfully utilized as he was equally a strong pass rusher and cover LB — in skillset. He still made mistakes, and those against the run were easily mitigated, but in pass defense less so.
by jacobstevens on May 20, 2009 5:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I unquestionably am
in this case. I completely agree with what you’re saying, though. Talent comes first. Coaches, scheme, all the other things we belabor aren’t a close second.
But. Assuming — as I do — that the talent range, in cumulation of a roster of 22 starters, is quite thin between the best & worst teams each year, is why it remains relevant. Relative to any other sport, this is a coach’s game. Baseball. Any given live action ball & goal sport (BBall, hockey, polo, lacrosse, futbol) is moreso dictated by the talent, the dynamic of moving the ball, and the size of the pitch. A stop action game like football, in a hyper-competitive setting, game-changing talent can single-handedly put you over. And it can also be mired in the incompetence of a roster that doesn’t measure up overall.
A pure lack of one of the 4 components of main play (run & pass offense & defense) can simply kill your chances. Talent trumps all, but when cumulative talent is not disparate, this is a coach’s game, and scheme matters.
by jacobstevens on May 20, 2009 5:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Aren't players like Bodden or say Jason David
examples of just how important scheme is? Clearly Reggie White and Derrick Brooks are going to be great no matter where you put them but where are players like Cato June or Darryl Tapp in the wrong system?
by Nate Dogg on May 20, 2009 6:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
To a certain extent I agree with you.
But Reggie White is a plus in any scheme and Brian Russell is a minus. Most NFL players are not at the very edge of each side of the spectrum.
What about a guy like Ronde Barber being in a cover 2 vs playing man? Or blitzing Leroy Hill instead of putting him in coverage, or playing Trufant in a cover 2 zone exclusively instead of letting him play man? There are plenty of players with certain strengths and weaknesses that fit into one scheme FAR better than another, and finding them to fit into your scheme seems like it should be of utmost importance because of the salary cap. You have to give less money to someone, far better for them to play a good supporting role that minimizes their weaknesses.
by cashless on May 20, 2009 6:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
John... aren't you actually arguing TO the importance of scheme here?
If you don’t have a Derrick Brooks-Sapp-Ronde Barber… isn’t it even more important to find a scheme that compliments your personnel?
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
by iverson2169 on May 20, 2009 9:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Scheme and coaching are very important
Plenty of good defensive coaches can get alot from nothing. A guy like Dick Lebeau can take players that might not even rate on another team and build a Super Bowl defense. Jim Johnson can take average blitzers and create a scheme that can put pressure on just about any team. And Bill Belichek is a prime example of a coach that can take a WR and turn him into an effective CB in a scheme that gives him a chance to excel.
I think coaching and scheme are as important, if not more important, than talent. Belichek proves that year in and year out when he takes a group of fairly pedestrian NFL players and coaches them up to look like super stars because his schemes are so innovative and his ability to pull the most out of a player.
That’s why you see a team like Detroit, that has some talent, go 0-16 with a coach running a bad scheme that has been figured out. Martz offense was great when it was new. Now it’s an already figured out puzzle that can be beaten time and time again.
It is only the coaches that can change schemes every year that make the best units. Which proves that scheme trumps talent more often than not. Otherwise the top offensive and defensive coaches wouldn’t be worth hiring.
I read an article on Jim Johnson, Monte Kiffin, and Dick Lebeau not too long ago. And all three agreed that if you don’t find ways to change what you’re doing every year, you’re going to be figured out and beat. So all three coaches make an extra effort to change their blitz packages and schemes every year to keep opposing offenses confused.
Scheme is super important. Talent is secondary to scheme. A great scheme can make average talent look great because defense is the sum of its parts and one good piece does not a defense make.
Doesn’t mean talent isn’t important. But it does mean you can have all the talent in the world and a poorly designed scheme will expose them to loss. Poor coaching and player development also hurts alot.
by ASeahawkfan on May 21, 2009 8:52 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
While there is some merit to what you're saying I'm not sure what to think.
What you say makes sense, but it seems further in the other direction. I don’t agree as much as other(s) have downplayed the importance of scheme vs. talent, though. As a whole, they’re both important and critically so. I don’t think you can dismiss one for the other. I can’t personally quantify the importance of each. I’d like to learn more. Maybe there are some books on the matter.
Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, QB Jevon Snead, OT Ciron Black, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling 6'2, 200
by Misfit74 on May 21, 2009 9:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't discount talent
I don’t discount talent. I simply deem scheme more important. Not by a huge margin, but by some margin nonetheless.
Our Matt Hasselbeck is an example of a player that might not have made it in the NFL if he had not had the good fortune to have had Mike Holmgren coaching him and designing a scheme specific to his strengths. Same with Seneca Wallace. Mike Holmgren was a prime example of a coach that could create a scheme to fit his players even if their wasn’t top talent on the team.
Look at what Holmgren was able to get out of this offense year in and year out. He got production even when the talent wasn’t top notch. And when the talent was there, he got top 3 production. But even when Hutch had left and Alexander was a shadow of his former self, he got production out of this offense.
Same thing can be said of guys like Belichek and Lebeau with the defense.
Take a team like the Dallas Cowboys. That team is stacked with talent. Yet they don’t go far into the playoffs because their coaching is fairly weak and often can’t out think the guy playing across from them.
And the New York Giants didn’t have more talent than the New England Patriots in the Super Bowl, but Spagnuolo’s defensive scheme put pressure on Brady all day. It completely shut down the most prolific offense in NFL history. Spagnuolo used a scheme that New England was unprepared for and made Justin Tuck look like a super star. Who knows if Justin Tuck would have risen in stature the way he had if Spagnuolo hadn’t figured out the best way to use him.
I put alot of faith in scheme. And the big name coaches get those big names because they can put talent to effective use, even subpar talent. We had a coach for decade that was damn good at getting the most out of the talent available to him. I have a feeling we’re going to be missing his ability over the next few years.
by ASeahawkfan on May 21, 2009 10:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think it's 51% one and 49% the other.
I’ll let everyone else argue on which is the 51%
by B.B.Finnegan on May 21, 2009 10:07 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
What's weird is that JM gave the impression scheme was pretty much worthless in relation to talent.
At least that’s the takeaway I got. Maybe he’ll clarify or reiterate what he meant now that it’s become a clearer question.
Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, QB Jevon Snead, OT Ciron Black, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling 6'2, 200
by Misfit74 on May 22, 2009 11:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Most of the really smart football people
I know and read have figured that part out. Talent does trump all. It does in every sport. Football simply is so much more complex and dependent on strategy than other sports, that coaching is at least relevant. In baseball, the manager is negligibly relevant, and that’s usually only when you have a great manager like Pinella or Torre, a guy that is set apart from the rest of the league.
So when the talent disparity in the NFL isn’t wide, across 32 teams, and the margin of error is so small (game of inches!) then coaching and scheme is important, and can bring about 4-5 game swings. Still can’t get anywhere without talent. But when talent is reasonably there (like we are; an 8-8 talent team. 8-8 talent teams like last year’s Patriots, Dolphins, Cardinals, Panthers & Falcons made the playoffs.) — when the talent is there, roughly speaking, styles make fights, as they say, and the coach determines the style in scheme, gameplan and playcalling.
John doesn’t think scheme is worthless, just that I’m going crazy over the idea of the West Coast Defense, and since he’s not seeing great talent on the team he’s doubtful it would make much of a difference even if it is what I think it is.
by jacobstevens on May 22, 2009 12:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You say the talent disparity isn't wide
but I don’t agree with that at all. The same teams populate the playoffs for years on end. The few times a coach is foolish enough (or unlucky enough like Marty Schottenheimer) to leave a winning program, it doesn’t collapse, it plays at about the same level. Mike Tomlin won the Super Bowl in his second year as head coach. He seems like a nice player’s coach, but no genius. George Seifert and Barry Switzer pulled the same trick. Norv Turner was supposed to be a complete failure, but the Chargers have played at almost the exact same level since he was hired. Bill Belichick was a failure in Cleveland and is now heralded among the greatest coaches who ever lived. Coaching might matter more in football, but I don’t think it matters that much. The strategy of football is pretty pat, and unless you have inside information, I think strategy is pretty much guess and hope.
by John Morgan on May 22, 2009 4:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are you serious?
The Chargers have played at the same level? No they haven’t. Marty had that team playing much better.
And the Steelers won because they still have Lebeau. Notice the drop off in offensive production since the departure of Whisenhunt. But because Lebeau can still design a very good scheme, the Steelers remained strong.
And where did Whisenhunt go? Arizona. Is that team playing at the same level? They have about the same talent they’ve had for three or four years. But Whisenhunt is running the team now and has made it more competitive.
Belichek did not fail in Cleveland. He wasn’t given time to build his team. Even without much time, he still built a Cleveland defense that was #1 one year and went 12-4 with minimal talent. Minimal talent.
Morgan, normally you seem to do alot of research. Not so much in this case. You should go research what was going on with that Cleveland team and what Belichek did there with minimal talent.
Sure, sometimes once a team is built it can go on auto-pilot as long as things don’t change too much. When Jimmy Johnson left, that team did not change but for the coach.
George Seifert kept exactly the same system that Bill Walsh his mentor kept. I guess you don’t want to give Bill Walsh credit for designing the WCO system either.
Coaching matters as much if not more than talent. You could give a weak coach all the talent the 90s Cowboys had to start with and they wouldnt make a single Super Bowl. If Jimmy Johnson hadn’t built that team prior to the arrival of Switzer, that team would be nowhere.
Same thing with the Seiferts and Tomlins.
They inherited not only talent, but systems that work. Systems they did not make, but only continued.
There’s a reason the Rooney’s held onto Lebeau after Cowher left. It certainly didn’t have anything to do with discounting scheme like you seem to do. Smart managers know once you have a good, proven coach, you let him do his job. It’s why Bill Parcells always has a job and so will Belichek. They know how to build winning competitive teams. Just like Holmgren did in Green Bay and Seattle.
Take all the talent you want. Stack a team like the Raiders have done or the Cowboys, and if you have weak coaching and a weak scheme, they won’t come within sniffing distance of a Super Bowl.
But get yourself a great coach that knows how to develop talent, knows how to outscheme other coaches, and he’ll take 6th round leftovers to the Super Bowl and beyond.
So you’re way off base Morgan. Way, way, way off base. I’d agree with you for a sport like baseball or basketball, but not football. Football is about total team development and scheme. It’s about being able to use that 3rd receiver who may not be as talented to run a play the opposing defense isn’t expecting. It’s about having a coach that can prepare that guy to make that play work.
Kind of like when Belichek designs a play for Mike Vrabel to score a touchdown. That is scheme and out thinking your opponent. We see it every year in football.
by ASeahawkfan on May 22, 2009 9:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The 1994 Browns were 11-4
It was the only winning season in Belichick’s five years and it was the only year the defense was good. In the other five years the defense was 20, 17, 10 and 14.
by John Morgan on May 23, 2009 8:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Minimal Talent?
The 1994 Cleveland Browns were not shot of talent on the defensive side of the ball, AS. Michael Dean Perry, Rob Burnett, Pepper Johnson, and Eric Turner were all pro bowlers that year, and Turner earned his only all-pro award of his career that year. There were also several strong role players on that team, like Carl Banks, Don Griffin and Anthony Pleasant. Belichick has always had talent everywhere he’s been. His legacy as a defensive mind was built upon one of most talented defensive lineup’s of the ’80’s. He’s developed a few, he’s also failed on a few projects.
And an argument could actually be made in the case of talent making a big difference between Dick LeBeau’s success and failure. While he was at Cincinatti, he for the most part had inferior defensive units, but during his stints with the Steelers his defenses were some of the best he’s ever coached. Why is that? Probably due a lot to talent. Either that or LeBeau’s true genius bloomed late in his career.
I most certainly believe in scheme, but a scheme is nothing without the right parts to make it work. There is a balance between talent and coaching that every successful defense has to find, iMO.
by Catoblepas on May 23, 2009 4:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
All teams have talent
If you don’t have a coach that can put it all together, they’ll go nowhere. It may take them years to develop the talent, but a good coach will get you results a majority of the time. More than just putting a bunch of talent together with a low talent coach and expecting them to win Super Bowls.
The NFL is the only major sport to have their most prestigious trophy named after a coach. That is the value the NFL puts on coaching.
Coaches do so much to build a team. When you have 22 plus players that all need to be put together properly, you need a coach that can do the job effectively.
by ASeahawkfan on May 23, 2009 7:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
As a basketball coach...
I would strongly disagree with this statement that basketball coaches aren’t significant compared to football ones, or “football is about total team development and scheme.” (Implying basketball isn’t.)
What I’ve actually seen in my playing and coaching careers at the high school level is that basketball coaches adjust their scheme to fit their players, being far more adaptive to the talent in order to maximize success. Football coaches run “their system” for better or worse.
I went to a single A high school, Onalaska, that won the state championship in 1986 running a wishbone option attack with HORSES, i.e. TALENT. In 1993 I was 6’4" 185 lbs and could jump, with great hands, and the horses were gone. He could have simply thrown the ball up in the air to me 15 times a game against 5’7" corners, but I knew the only time he would throw was on 3rd and 18, so I didn’t even go out, and lived in the gym. Meanwhile the basketball coach changed offensive and defensive scheme and tempo yearly to best suit his talent.
This has happened at nearly every school I’ve coached at, and most coaches I know would agree this to be true when comparing football/basketball coaches. Admittedly I’m referring to the high school level, but I’ve put in too damn much time with untalented teams trying to simply make them competitive to accept you saying that in basketball coaching and scheme aren’t that important. I’ve seen high school basketball coaches try gimmicky stuff just to eek wins out, yet very very rarely do you see a football coach switch from, say a Wing T to a spread or pro style offense (or the A-11 offense.)
At the higher levels, I do believe that coaches have the capability of building their team talent around their philosophy, but don’t just go lumping everything together, and don’t think that scheme and coaching alone trumps talent. You can’t make chicken salad out of chicken shit, and you can’t take a jackass to the derby.
Talent, more often than not, trumps, and I believe this to be more true each and every level up the ladder. In high school you can “sneak by” on trickery and gimmicks and the ol’ “smoke and mirrors” but each level up you go, the margin levels decrease, between talent from one roster and the next, and in the quality between coaches. Hence, overall talent level becomes more and more significant as you get higher and higher up the food chain, and those rare teams with a few or even several supremely talented individuals are FAR more likely to win, regardless of the scheme or philosophy.
Please, for the LOVE OF GOD, stop suggesting next year's 1st round pick (or picks) be used for Taylor Mays and or a QB of the future. Let's just let the season unfold, people, and evaluate much deeper in the process!!!
by whiskey chainsaw on May 25, 2009 4:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'll point this out:
there’s a difference between adjusting your scheme to suit your players vs your scheme requiring everyone doing things right for the scheme to work.
Football coaches are notoriously conservative in their approach to all things football. Every rare once in a while, a new way of doing things takes over. But as it stands there are only a handful of different schemes in Football, each having a variety of adaptions. Football coaches tend to stick to their scheme come hell or high water. It’s a constant problem. Basketball coaches are much more likely to adapt their scheme to their talent. But here’s the difference people are talking about: In Basketball, individual talent can shine through a bad scheme and lack of talent. A phenomenal athlete can single handily bring his team forward.
In Football, no one player can single handily bring his team victory. It has more emphasis on the overall scheme. A phenomenal RB still needs some kind of line (except Barry Sanders). A QB still needs receivers/TE’s/O linemen. Every position to a very large extent relies on at least one other position. I think that’s where the scheme vs talent debate is coming from. A phenomenal athlete in Football can do a lot, but he can not win a game. In Basketball, a Lebron James can put up 42% of his team’s points in the playoffs !
That doesn’t reflect on Basketball at all. I personally think Basketball coaches may be the most innovative when it comes to coaching out of all of the “big 3” sports. This might be because athleticism is so important there, and athletes are allowed to shine and dominate so thoroughly. So the coaches intelligently adjust their scheme to make use of this (like the Cavs turning their offense into something that literally revolves around LeBron).
by Fear on May 26, 2009 11:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So like this?
I’ve got to learn how to upload pictures from my computer…
2010 Seahawks Mock: 1A: Eric Berry S, 1B: Ndamukong Suh DT, 2: Charles Brown OT, 4:Zac Robinson QB, 5: Stafon Johnson RB 6: Will Tukuafu DE, 7: Kerry Meier WR
Also acceptable, trade for Patrick Chung and draft Ed Wang so everyone can Wang Chung tonight.
by LantermanC on May 27, 2009 8:48 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I would argue that Ilgaskis and Varejao (sorry for the spelling) have more value than what is attributed to them
LeBron is unbelievable but his teammates really help him with the scheme they run. Notice how LeBron and the big men mirror each other on the court? This pulls the big men out and gives him the lane. Also their ability to shoot 20 footers make the big men respect them leaving the key. On top of that, they both know spacing really well and get open in LeBron sight for the easy dishes.
by Built2Spill on May 27, 2009 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think playoff turnover runs about 50%
and tenure on account of talent disparity is pretty much limited to the QB position, IMO. Any implications a winning program not collapsing on account of coaching turnover has on whether coaching makes a difference is offset by coaching turnaround stories. Parcells is probably more responsible in Miami than Sparano, but Parcells’ coaching stints serve as example. Parcells leaving also serves as example for a winning program not playing at the same level once the coach leaves. And, most tenured playoff teams also usually retain the coach, as you pointed out the rarity of turnover there. So I don’t think examining winning programs after coaching turnover can really be conclusive.
Once again, I make the relative comparisons to other sports. The salary cap essentially caps talent disparity. If it doesn’t so much so that Houston can perennially contend against Indianapolis, I can easily see that. We’re not talking flat like a billiard table. But a bell curve that is more obtuse, yes. Obtuse enough that the least talented team in the league would be more talented than the least talented team in another sport like baseball, and yet finish 0-16, while in a season with 10x the number of games, no team will ever go 0-162, yes. Arbitrary? Yes, that, too. But so, too, is claiming talent is disparate. I don’t think I’ll win ya over, and I’ve got nothing else to say. Thanks for the great discussion, but we’ve probably taken it as far as it’ll go.
by jacobstevens on May 26, 2009 2:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess last year Mebane played both positions
I was listening to the Kearney interview and often they’d swap the 3 and the 1 tech. That’s what Mebane meant by no sliding. From now on he will just stick to being the 3-tech. So it’s not exactly like Mebane will be learning an entirely new position, or be out of position, he will just be focusing on one that he was already playing.
by B.B.Finnegan on May 22, 2009 4:44 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
That will put Mebane next to Kerney, correct? LDT and LDE from what I've seen.
I can see that working due to the fact teams may not know which player to double. It’s somewhat likely that they both should command double-teams. Kerney’s health permitting, of course.
Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, QB Jevon Snead, OT Ciron Black, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling 6'2, 200
by Misfit74 on May 22, 2009 6:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
mebane at 3?
I remember John commenting the best way to use cole would be at the 3, right?
We shall see how it works.
by paul2 on May 23, 2009 10:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
whiskey chainsaw
You’re never going to get me to see what you’re saying.
Everyone hails Tom Brady as this great QB. But Brady was put into a system where success was built into the system. Same reason why Matt Cassel can step in and the team goes 11-5.
Same as Brady can have mostly new receivers and go 12-4 and take the team to the AFC Champisonship game.
Same as Brady can come in and take the team to the Super Bowl when an equally good QB in Drew Bledsoe was there before.
Same as a great QB with a cannon arm and good receivers in Carson Palmer can play in Cinci and go nowhere.
Coaching in the NFL more than any other sport including basketball is supremely important. It starts with team building, not just scheme and motivation. That’s why Dick Vermeil can take three different teams with varying talent levels to the playoffs and two to the Super Bowl.
That’s why Mike Holmgren can take two teams with varying talents levels to the Super Bowl.
I’m not at all implying that talent isn’t important. But I am saying with 100% certainty that coaching is more important. You can’t take chickenshit and make a great sandwich, but a bad coach can take filet mignon and turn it into dog food if it’s his hand that first touches it.
That’s why you want a stud coach to build your team. That’s why Parcells always has a job. That’s why Holmgren will always find work. That’s why the Super Bowl Trophy is named for Vince Lombardi.
Football teams are made up of parts. No team has Pro Bowl parts at every position. They have a few studs mixed in with lesser players. Often those studs perform regardless of where they play, but their team doesn’t win
Why? Because it’s the coach that can take the less than great parts…aka the average to below average talent..and turn them into a useful part of a team. They take roleplayers and average players and put them in an effective scheme to win. They develop the players and instill in them the will and desire to win. They are able to see the game in a way other coaches and fans cannot and make adjustments to win ball games.
There is so much that goes into being a good coach and there are so few coaches that have been able to build Super Bowl teams, yet there has been tons of talent in the NFL over the years. Every team has had tons of talent at one point or another, but not every team has had a coach capable of developing the talent or out thinking his opponents.
So I’m never going to buy that talent trumps all in the NFL. Not until you show me a team with Pro Bowlers at all 22 positions and coming off the bench. Not until you show me a team that is just as dominant after the great coach leaves as before. I don’t mean winning a single Super Bowl.
Coaches dominate. Just look at Joe Gibbs. This guy took three different QBs to the Super Bowl. Were they all equally as talented? No. They weren’t. Joe Gibbs was the man on that Washington Redskins team. He built that team and he developed the talent.
Sorry, I’m not buying it. Coaches are the number one component for success in the NFL. Not only their ability to evaluate and develop talent, but their ability to outscheme and outmovtivate the guy across from them.
That’s why winning coaches can win anywhere given the time needed to build the team. But a winning player can go somehwere else and the team will still flounder with a bad coach.
by ASeahawkfan on May 26, 2009 8:24 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Just to make it clear
I don’t mean one Super Bowl with someone elses team.
by ASeahawkfan on May 26, 2009 8:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
