The Ideal Defense

[Hardy Pyle]

I think it comes down to rushing the passer.

 

Look at the Superbowl-winning defenses of the past 10 years, very few of them have 2 big DTs:

 

2009 - Pittsburgh: 1 big NT (Hampton) and two 290 pounders (Kirschke/Smith)

2008 - NY Giants: Nobody over 300 lbs on the whole d-line

2007 - Indianapolis: Tampa-2, best DT was 295-lb A. McFarland

2006 - Pittsburgh: see above

2005 - New England: Wilfork goes 325, but Seymour/Warren hover around 290

2004 - New England: see above

2003 - Tampa Bay: A. McFarland (295) and Warren Sapp (300+), I guess this is a good example of what you said

2002 - New England: Now we're in the pre-Warren/Wilfork days, but they still had Seymour

2001 - Baltimore: Another good example for your argument with Adams/Siragusa

 

Not too many teams with those big lugs at DT, but every one of them had good pass rushers:

 

2009 - Pittsburgh: Harrison/Woodley

2008 - NY Giants: Strahan, Umenyiora, Tuck

2007 - Indianapolis: Freeney/Mathis

2006 - Pittsburgh: Porter/Gildon

2005 - New England: Vrabel/Colvin

2004 - New England: see above

2003 - Tampa Bay: S. Rice/G. Spires

2002 - New England: Vrabel/Phifer

2001 - Baltimore: McCrary/Burnett

 

Just my 1 cent.

 

Good food for thought, but I think if you can't play the rush well on 1st and 2nd down great pass rushers become less effective on 3rd and short. All those teams, with the exception of Indy (maybe?), were awfully tough to run on.

 

I also think that you can scheme or find ways to generate a pass rush. But a big ugly to plug the middle, tough to do without the right personnel.

[bluv]

I completely agree. It doesn't matter what defense that you run, it matters about exploiting the talents and hiding the weaknesses of the players you have. Great coaches build a system around the players. Crappy coaches force their players into a system. Practically every team in the NFL has the talent to be a playoff caliber team. The problem is coaches don't know how to exploit their players.

Exactly. Ask the Jets and ManGENIUS. His first year with the Jets they were up and coming and had solid players on D in Vilma, Robertson, and Ellis in their 4-3 scheme. They finish 10-6 and were on their way. What did ManGENIUS do? He felt his 3-4 scheme was the way to go and he OUTSMARTED himself as players like Robertson and Vilma while they were better than average DT and MLB in a 4-3 were average and not good fits as NT and ILB in a 3-4. Result: they finished 4-12 the next year and had to restart and rebuild all over again. You can't fit square pegs in a round hole; he should have adjusted his schemes to fit the players than the other way around.

 

Same on offense. Every team can't run Bill Walsh West Coast offense or be a smash mouth 2000 yard rushing team. Remember how a lot of teams jumped on the Run-n-Shoot in the early 90's? It only worked with one team the Oilers. It wasn't the scheme it was the players.

 

no matter what you play, it needs to fit your personell. as easy as that. it just depends on how well you draft as an NFL team, or how well you adjust as a small-town high school coach.

Now you can have an established scheme like the Pats have and if you draft well players that fit your scheme then you can give credit to the scheme. But it still depends on the players plain and simple.

[playman]

Now you can have an established scheme like the Pats have and if you draft well players that fit your scheme then you can give credit to the scheme. But it still depends on the players plain and simple.

 

true. but you still set up your players for success instead of failure. and 2 me thats key for coaching. and we can agree that its the coaching that makes a successful team? otherwise anyone can win with superior talent. and history shows that this isnt the case.

[Coach55]

Exactly. Ask the Jets and ManGENIUS. His first year with the Jets they were up and coming and had solid players on D in Vilma, Robertson, and Ellis in their 4-3 scheme. They finish 10-6 and were on their way. What did ManGENIUS do? He felt his 3-4 scheme was the way to go and he OUTSMARTED himself as players like Robertson and Vilma while they were better than average DT and MLB in a 4-3 were average and not good fits as NT and ILB in a 3-4. Result: they finished 4-12 the next year and had to restart and rebuild all over again. You can't fit square pegs in a round hole; he should have adjusted his schemes to fit the players than the other way around.

 

Same on offense. Every team can't run Bill Walsh West Coast offense or be a smash mouth 2000 yard rushing team. Remember how a lot of teams jumped on the Run-n-Shoot in the early 90's? It only worked with one team the Oilers. It wasn't the scheme it was the players.

 

 

Now you can have an established scheme like the Pats have and if you draft well players that fit your scheme then you can give credit to the scheme. But it still depends on the players plain and simple.

 

I remember back in the day when the Bills were hurting with injuries back in the early 90's and Walt Corey converted the defense into a 2-5 to get the best players on the field.

[PushthePile]

An ideal defense benefits greatly from having an offense with a pulse.

 

No pulse= fatigue and the inability to take defensive chances and make plays

 

 

 

Unless of course you have an all-time ideal defense like the Ravens.

[offde-fence]

true. but you still set up your players for success instead of failure. and 2 me thats key for coaching. and we can agree that its the coaching that makes a successful team? otherwise anyone can win with superior talent. and history shows that this isnt the case.

 

I'm glad you mention that. I'm a Bills fan all the way, since I remember watching black and white television football. However, I still admire New England and how the team does so well regardless of injury or player. You can tell watching them that they have a brilliant coach. What finer standard and test for us than to open against the Patriots? We should get a good grasp on where we are at after game one.