Jeff...
You are wrong! If you honestly think that this team has that little talent up front then you need to be calling for the firing of reese now! We used 2 2nd rd picks, a 3rd and a 4th on the D-line in the 2004 draft. Are you sitting here in august 2006 telling me they can't play? Then the guy who drafted them needs to go!
You said that we had talent and experience deficiencies. Really? The place they were running the ball(right) has pro bowl player in his 6th season, a linebacker in his 5th season and a safety in his 5th season. All by the way who have been signed to long term contracts through 2009(KVB, thompson) and 2010(thornton). If these guys are not talented enough we are in big trouble because we have commited to them long term! They obviously have plenty of experience.
Don't get me wrong i appreciate an opinion that is not just schwartz sucks but i can't accept that this team doesn't have the talent. We are only starting 3 second year players and no rookies and many long time vets with 5 or more years experience. We should be good now!
You are wrong! If you honestly think that this team has that little talent up front then you need to be calling for the firing of reese now! We used 2 2nd rd picks, a 3rd and a 4th on the D-line in the 2004 draft. Are you sitting here in august 2006 telling me they can't play? Then the guy who drafted them needs to go!
You said that we had talent and experience deficiencies. Really? The place they were running the ball(right) has pro bowl player in his 6th season, a linebacker in his 5th season and a safety in his 5th season. All by the way who have been signed to long term contracts through 2009(KVB, thompson) and 2010(thornton). If these guys are not talented enough we are in big trouble because we have commited to them long term! They obviously have plenty of experience.
Don't get me wrong i appreciate an opinion that is not just schwartz sucks but i can't accept that this team doesn't have the talent. We are only starting 3 second year players and no rookies and many long time vets with 5 or more years experience. We should be good now!
TitanJeff said:
Actually that's not so hard to understand, especially if you've played yourself. When players don't have a scheme or strict responsibilities to follow, they'll start to freelance and when a player starts to freelance he starts to skip on his fundamentals.
Case in point, a backside linebacker (ie. a linebacker away from the flow of the play) is taught to shuffle down the line scrimmage to take away the cutback, however if a player isn't instructed to eliminate the cutback he'll just chase to the point of attack, and most likely overrun the play.
Same goes for the defensive ends, if they're not told anchor and look for reverses, bootlegs, etc. they are more likely to just chase down the line of scrimmage on the fake.
Let me try and clear it up...
If we draft player X....we know he has talent because we've seen his college tape and seen his athleticism, but we don't know how he'll take to coaching. So his first coach works with him with 3 possibilities...
First, he learns the technique and improves...
Second, he doesn't learn the technique and doesn't improve (or he learns the technique but free lances so no real improvement).
Third, this confuses him and he gets worse and never 'get's it!'
If player X has result one, learns the technique and gets better, we know the player can do what he needs to do and it's a question of coaching to get him to do it.
If this player then makes steady progress and becomes a Pro Bowl player (one of the top players at his position), we know he has really learned the techniques he needs to be successful and allow his talent to flourish.
If his coach then leaves and a new coach comes in and his technique starts to err...are we to believe it's the player's fault or the coaches fault?
According to Gregg Williams, if mistakes are happening on the field, it's because you're letting them happen. We define mistake as alignment, technique or responsibility....not talent. If you line me up against Bulluck and I play the correct technique but he still knocks me into oblivion, that is a talent problem.
To bring our example back into reality, Bulluck didn't used to have this problem but I'm seeing it more and more...and not just from him....from many players. If there is a technique breakdown across many players, there is a coaching problem.
If everyone on the D played with correct alignment, technique and form except one guy, we'd point to that player and say get in line. That is a single player problem.
The most obvious signs of coaching problems are when it repeatedly happens to a player it didn't used to happen to and when it crosses many units (not just DL, but DL and LB's and Secondary).
If only the LB's were messing up, we'd know McGinnis was a problem for example.
But I'm seeing this across the entire defense...DL, LB's and secondary and that points a finger at the DC.
Hopefully that clears up where I'm coming from.
And BTW, if it was a talent thing, we'd see guys play the correct technique and take proper angles, but just not able to make the play. Of course that could also be a tackling issue which we've had quite a bit of the last couple years under schwartz too. Our D used to be an excellent tackling team. Now we have more speed, but bad technique.
Gut
If we draft player X....we know he has talent because we've seen his college tape and seen his athleticism, but we don't know how he'll take to coaching. So his first coach works with him with 3 possibilities...
First, he learns the technique and improves...
Second, he doesn't learn the technique and doesn't improve (or he learns the technique but free lances so no real improvement).
Third, this confuses him and he gets worse and never 'get's it!'
If player X has result one, learns the technique and gets better, we know the player can do what he needs to do and it's a question of coaching to get him to do it.
If this player then makes steady progress and becomes a Pro Bowl player (one of the top players at his position), we know he has really learned the techniques he needs to be successful and allow his talent to flourish.
If his coach then leaves and a new coach comes in and his technique starts to err...are we to believe it's the player's fault or the coaches fault?
According to Gregg Williams, if mistakes are happening on the field, it's because you're letting them happen. We define mistake as alignment, technique or responsibility....not talent. If you line me up against Bulluck and I play the correct technique but he still knocks me into oblivion, that is a talent problem.
To bring our example back into reality, Bulluck didn't used to have this problem but I'm seeing it more and more...and not just from him....from many players. If there is a technique breakdown across many players, there is a coaching problem.
If everyone on the D played with correct alignment, technique and form except one guy, we'd point to that player and say get in line. That is a single player problem.
The most obvious signs of coaching problems are when it repeatedly happens to a player it didn't used to happen to and when it crosses many units (not just DL, but DL and LB's and Secondary).
If only the LB's were messing up, we'd know McGinnis was a problem for example.
But I'm seeing this across the entire defense...DL, LB's and secondary and that points a finger at the DC.
Hopefully that clears up where I'm coming from.
And BTW, if it was a talent thing, we'd see guys play the correct technique and take proper angles, but just not able to make the play. Of course that could also be a tackling issue which we've had quite a bit of the last couple years under schwartz too. Our D used to be an excellent tackling team. Now we have more speed, but bad technique.
Gut
TitanJeff said:
Ninja Posting today
Hey! Some of do not have internet at home right now and have a board meeting to prep for. It is hard to read 1/2 page posts without being spotted. :irked:
Hey! Some of do not have internet at home right now and have a board meeting to prep for. It is hard to read 1/2 page posts without being spotted. :irked:
Oh, I totally agree. That's what teaching/coaching is about.Riverman said:
So when a six-year vet makes a mental error he's been coached on since high school football, it's his coaches fault when he doesn't execute?
I'll buy that to a certain degree. But if the coach is teaching that technique and the player isn't performing it on a consistent basis, then I point to the player as the problem. It's a talent or experience issue or the player just isn't willing to do what it takes.
Take Haynesworth, for example. Washburn talked about how Haynesworth was very gifted from a physical standpoint but would not make the step to becoming an elite DT without practicing better technique.
So Albert clearly knows, from a technique standpoint, what it will take to make himself better. Yet he hasn't taken that step consistently and, as a result, never has reached his full potential. Is it Washburn's fault when Albert never makes the Pro Bowl?
Haynesworth remains a better than average DT because of his athleticism so no way you get rid of him. But who do you blame for the him not being technically strong?
I think that is an over-simplified comment. The example given was Bulluck using poor technique. Here's a Pro-Bowl caliber player making an error. We want to blame McGinnis for his mental lapse? Do we give McGinnis the praise when Bulluck makes a great play?
Coaches are teachers and motivators. In my line of work, I do the same. Some listen, work hard to do what is suggested, and benefit from it by improving. Others rely on their raw talents to get by and never achieve what they could have if they'd applied theirselves more. They never fulfill their potential. Am I to blame for that? Maybe. But the bulk of the responsibility must be placed on the player.
Not quite what I'm talking about TJ...
TJ,
There is a big difference between a player who never uses correct technique (Haynesworth for example) and a player who has gone years with good technique and then under a different coach doesn't hold that good technique.
Some players rarely use technique and never reach their full potential. We can argue all day about who's fault that is. But that's not what I'm talking about.
No player is perfect. Even awesome players will make an error here and there. Great coaches will stay on top of them to severely limit those errors (to the best of that player's ability).
I used Bulluck as an example because he rarely would make technical mistakes before Schwartz got here. Now that he's making them with some frequency (not a lot, but nearly every game) it IS alarming. Worse, is that many people are taking bad angles to the ball.
It's virtually impossible that the 6 guys who were in on a particular play all decided on their own to take bad angles even though it's been hammered home time and again by their individual coaches and by the DC.
I'm a teacher and as such, when people make errors, I need to get them fixed. I can't let it slide and comment after a performance how they made mistakes I didn't address in rehearsals. If you fix them in rehearsals, sure there will be the occasional error, but the whole Orchestra isn't gonna play out of tune. If they did, it'd be my head on the chopping block, not theirs.
Understand?
Gut
TJ,
There is a big difference between a player who never uses correct technique (Haynesworth for example) and a player who has gone years with good technique and then under a different coach doesn't hold that good technique.
Some players rarely use technique and never reach their full potential. We can argue all day about who's fault that is. But that's not what I'm talking about.
No player is perfect. Even awesome players will make an error here and there. Great coaches will stay on top of them to severely limit those errors (to the best of that player's ability).
I used Bulluck as an example because he rarely would make technical mistakes before Schwartz got here. Now that he's making them with some frequency (not a lot, but nearly every game) it IS alarming. Worse, is that many people are taking bad angles to the ball.
It's virtually impossible that the 6 guys who were in on a particular play all decided on their own to take bad angles even though it's been hammered home time and again by their individual coaches and by the DC.
I'm a teacher and as such, when people make errors, I need to get them fixed. I can't let it slide and comment after a performance how they made mistakes I didn't address in rehearsals. If you fix them in rehearsals, sure there will be the occasional error, but the whole Orchestra isn't gonna play out of tune. If they did, it'd be my head on the chopping block, not theirs.
Understand?
Gut
TitanJeff said:
When a TEAM (or unit) and not just one player is making technique errors, then absolutely yes- the coach is responsible. Likewise when a TEAM, and not just an individual, executes well the coach gets the credit. Case in point- Patriots.
I don't think it is oversimplified at all to place the responsibility on the coach. That is what one part of what their job is about. If a certain player doesn't "get it" technique-wise, another part of the coach's job is to staff it with somebody who does. The coach is also responsible for making the administrative calls to produce positive results. That why they are paid their salary. The players are paid to make the plays. Different players have different play-making skills, therefore they are compensated differently.
Wouldnt technique aspects be more on the position coaches rather than the coordinator? Schwartz job is to more game plan and call plays. If guys dont know how to tackle, or have shotty footwork or whatever, then the position coaches need to be addressed more than the coordinator.
Not true Dg.. A defense takes on the mentality of it's Coordinator, he sets the tone. The position coaches just implement what the DC hands down to put the whole grand scheme together. It is the the DC who runs practice and motivates his players, and makes sure that what he sees on the field is what he wants out of his defense wether it be gang tackling, flying to the ball, correct pursuit angles, etc. This all occurs in practice, with a certain tempo established to create this "synchronized havoc", that is set forth by the DC, who should just as quickly get in someone's face for not putting forth the effort, or sit someone down instead of never taking his eyes off the clipboard. It is more about attitude and fire, the best defensive coordinators, weren't necessarily the brightest, but they were ferocious and relentless with their pressure. As Chris Hope so eloquently put it, "when you get hit in the mouth, you either run away or you fight back," we haven't fought back in some time now and I think this is a direct reflection of the mentality set forth from the DC.
Jwill1919 said:
I dont really buy that. THese guys are paid millions of dollars to play a game. If they need anybody to provide them motivation, or attitude and fire, then they probably need to be in another profession where they can make $8 an hour. But, if your going to go that route, then the buck doesnt stop at Schwartz, it stops at Fisher. I dont think Schartz is as good as a Greg Williams, but I also dont think we have seem him with the same type of talent WIlliams had. Two season ago the whole d was injured, and there wasnt a coach in the league that could have made that D good. Last year we had 2 starting rookie CBs, one of whom didnt even go to training camp. This past weekend, our top DT didnt play, Laboy didnt play, and Odom got hurt, plus it was a preseason game, above all else.
When Schwartz did have talent, we completely shutdown a 2000 yard back in the playoffs, and then the next week held an offense ran by perhaps the great postseason QB ever, to 3 points after the first quarter. It is obvious that when given the talent he can put a quality D out on the field week end and week out.
dg,
Re-read what Jwill and I have been saying. Talent is NOT what we are talking about. Case in point...if our WHOLE D was injured and we played our 2nd team D vs their #1 offense, I'd expect players to play with proper technique, take proper pursuit angles and tackle to the best of their ability while probably getting beat.
That is NOT what is happening. We're not getting beat because we have no talent, but our talent is not playing up to it's potential! That is a HUGE difference!!!
Since I live in NY, I'll use a NY analogy for your comment...these guys get paid millions of dollars and shouldn't need motivation, ect. If you remember a coach named Bruce Coslet? He came and coached the Jets and made a similar comment...these guys are Professionals and are paid millions of dollars...I don't need to motivate them. Not surprisingly, the Jets stunk under him and said bye bye to Coslet. While in a perfect world they wouldn't need motivation, the reality is that they DO!
Most - if not all - the great coaches are great motivators. Unmotivated players don't get you a top 10 defense...pure and simple. But a better motivated team can beat a more talented one!
As for your Schwartz comment, here's the avg points per game our D has surrendered (scoring defense) under his tenure...
'01 24.2 (25th)
'02 20.2 (11th)
'03 20.2 (13th)
'04 27.4 (30th)
'05 26.3 (29th)
I don't know about you, but it doesn't seem like even with great talent and no injuries he can get a D to avg less than 20 points a game...and that is with IDEAL circumstances!
And don't give me we shut down someone AFTER the first quarter...next I'll hear that Schwartz can get the D to stuff the run when it's below 30 degrees, the opposing team is starting their 3rd stringer, they have no OL, and the other team is winning 24-10. So what?
Show me that less than 10% of starting RB's get 100+ yards off us...or that we allow no rushing TD's, or that we lead the league in takeaways, or that we have the lowest 3rd down success rate given up...SOMETHING to justify this soft D other than we can tackle Marvin Harrison SOMETIMES after he catches the ball for a 40 yard gain! Or if the stats aren't there...show me that no team likes playing the Titans because we hit harder than everyone else and you might beat us on the scoreboard, but we're gonna strap it on and beat you up!
Find me ONE serious redeeming value for Schwartz....ONE!!!
Talking about Schwartz and Williams in the same sentence should only be for showing that they are on opposing ends of the spectrum. Williams D was MUCH better than Schwartz and he's even been better after he left us. He took a Skins D that perennially STUNK and turned them into a good unit...even with a bunch of nobodies making up HALF the unit. Or how is it that Belicheck can WIN a Super Bowl starting an undrafted free agent CB and playing a WR as the nickel?
Schwartz CHOSE to start 2 rookies at CB because he thought they were better than the more experienced CB's we had...so he doesn't get a pass for starting rookies.
And quite frankly, I think there are a few posters who - given the talent - could put a quality D on the field!
Gut
Re-read what Jwill and I have been saying. Talent is NOT what we are talking about. Case in point...if our WHOLE D was injured and we played our 2nd team D vs their #1 offense, I'd expect players to play with proper technique, take proper pursuit angles and tackle to the best of their ability while probably getting beat.
That is NOT what is happening. We're not getting beat because we have no talent, but our talent is not playing up to it's potential! That is a HUGE difference!!!
Since I live in NY, I'll use a NY analogy for your comment...these guys get paid millions of dollars and shouldn't need motivation, ect. If you remember a coach named Bruce Coslet? He came and coached the Jets and made a similar comment...these guys are Professionals and are paid millions of dollars...I don't need to motivate them. Not surprisingly, the Jets stunk under him and said bye bye to Coslet. While in a perfect world they wouldn't need motivation, the reality is that they DO!
Most - if not all - the great coaches are great motivators. Unmotivated players don't get you a top 10 defense...pure and simple. But a better motivated team can beat a more talented one!
As for your Schwartz comment, here's the avg points per game our D has surrendered (scoring defense) under his tenure...
'01 24.2 (25th)
'02 20.2 (11th)
'03 20.2 (13th)
'04 27.4 (30th)
'05 26.3 (29th)
I don't know about you, but it doesn't seem like even with great talent and no injuries he can get a D to avg less than 20 points a game...and that is with IDEAL circumstances!
And don't give me we shut down someone AFTER the first quarter...next I'll hear that Schwartz can get the D to stuff the run when it's below 30 degrees, the opposing team is starting their 3rd stringer, they have no OL, and the other team is winning 24-10. So what?
Show me that less than 10% of starting RB's get 100+ yards off us...or that we allow no rushing TD's, or that we lead the league in takeaways, or that we have the lowest 3rd down success rate given up...SOMETHING to justify this soft D other than we can tackle Marvin Harrison SOMETIMES after he catches the ball for a 40 yard gain! Or if the stats aren't there...show me that no team likes playing the Titans because we hit harder than everyone else and you might beat us on the scoreboard, but we're gonna strap it on and beat you up!
Find me ONE serious redeeming value for Schwartz....ONE!!!
Talking about Schwartz and Williams in the same sentence should only be for showing that they are on opposing ends of the spectrum. Williams D was MUCH better than Schwartz and he's even been better after he left us. He took a Skins D that perennially STUNK and turned them into a good unit...even with a bunch of nobodies making up HALF the unit. Or how is it that Belicheck can WIN a Super Bowl starting an undrafted free agent CB and playing a WR as the nickel?
Schwartz CHOSE to start 2 rookies at CB because he thought they were better than the more experienced CB's we had...so he doesn't get a pass for starting rookies.
And quite frankly, I think there are a few posters who - given the talent - could put a quality D on the field!
Gut
I'll buy that. So are you saying Bulluck no longer practices the same technique he once did because of Schwartz?Gut said:
My opinion is that if Bulluck (or anyone else) is successful using solid technique then abandons them (even for a few plays), it is their own fault. The player KNOWS what he should be doing. He's done it before. It is exposed on film. It's not rocket science.
Why should a coach continue to teach technique a player already knows? How can anyone ever learn more if they have to be taught the same thing over and over.
At some point, the burden of playing the game properly is on the players.
Isn't the preseason one big rehearsal? I suspect they'll get it fixed or heads will roll.
In Bulluck's case, he may never have practiced great technique but it was never exposed because of the talent around him and his superior athleticism. Even now, it's rare he's not around the ball.
But in the case of most of the other players on the team, they don't have the skills Bulluck has. They've either not been in the league long enough to fully develop or they don't have the athletic ability to begin with.
The learning curve is greater for these guys. Their weaknesses are exposed easier.
At the NFL level, the coach isn't necessarily "teaching" the fundamentals or specific techniques, but rather, monitoring the players to make sure that they have not abandoned them in an effort to make plays. For example, not squaring hips in early coverage because he "anticipates" the route- and then gets burned when the receiver cuts the other way. Or takes a bad angle on a tackle because he wants to get him in the backfield and then gets juked on a cut. aka "overpursuit".
The players are only human- they want to make plays. The coach is responsible (IMO) to make sure that the player doesn't shortcut the fundamentals. The coach is the objective reviewer, the quality control guy, in this role. The coach is also responsible for making sure someone is on the field who "gets it". If he can't get a guy to employ fundamentals, he is responbible to put the guy on the bench.
IMO, the 2 year history of poor defensive play has been largely affected by the coaches neglect to insure that sound fundamentals are being executed. The schemes also haven't been effective. IMO, I think Schwartz is so interested in being the "design scheme wiz" that he doesn't recognize the problem. The effectiveness of the defense is primarily his responsibility- so he is going to have to take the heat. If he gets it fixed, I'll give him the credit. It appears he just hasn't done anything to get it right the past 2 years.
I completely agree with this. But you don't think someone with the experience of a Keith Bulluck sees this for himself in film review? Does he need McGinnis to say "now Keith, you were not moving your feet well here. You need to remember to move your feet, Keith."Riverman said:
I only agree to a certain point because, if this was the case, you'd never be able to go beyond a certain point in learning. How do you gameplan when you have to go over the same fundamentals? OTAs and training camp is for this kind of thing. There isn't time to teach techique during the regular season.
Fisher has had some tackling techinque "reminders" in the past but he shouldn't have to make it a habit.
Then what happened in '03 when the Titans defense was among the best in the league? Did they stop teaching after '03 or what? It's a legit question, IMO.
That's another issue. Scheme is on the coaches and they must adjust if the players are unable to handle it. From what I understand, Schwartz simplied the defense significantly last year due to the youth on the team. He couldn't do many of the things he did in '03 when the team had more vets and was a top 10 defense.
I'm not the biggest fan of Schwartz but I also know he isn't working with the talent and experience many teams in the league have. It dropped off significantly in '04 and '05 and just now appears to be on the rebound from a talent standpoint. If the problems persist in the regular season with this new talent/experience, then I start looking at him as the problem. Until then, I see it as much, if not more, a player issue than anything else.
This is an excellent question that I think Schwartz should be addressing the with team and media. Honestly, many of the same players look worse now technique-wise the since '03. He "dummy-down" scheme didn't work. His cover 2 scheme didn't work. His weak blitz packages haven't worked.
I realize you and I differ on where to pin the responsibility. IMO, Schwartz is in-escapably responsible for the poor play AND the apparent lack of improvement thus far this season. I'll be the first to congratulate him, if this defense quits missing tackles, taking bad angles, getting burned deep on coverage schemes and can keep an offense (other than the Colts) to less than 24 points.
My main issue is that the defense is looking worse, not better, and players are getting frustrated. 2 years is long enough to have "turned it around". I'd settle for middle of road defense as long as we're on the up-swing. I don't think Schwartz has the capacity to coordinate that effort. I'm afraid his players agree.
Riverman said:
I agree with you that this defense, and team in general needs to start showing a lot of improvement this year. But, if they dont improve, it is Reese and Fisher who have to be held responsible, because this is the team they have put together.
But again, it has been 2 preseason games, let give them a chance to see if they have improved before we start throwing everybody under the bus.
dg1979us said:
I agree. I'm hopeful we do. And ultimately, Fisher and Reese should and will answer also if we don't.
Which begs the question, "is it the scheme or the execution"? If Schwartz's watered down scheme is a problem (as we saw Saturday), then it is his responsibility to find something better. But we have examples of where it was very successful in certain matchups like the Ravens game. Generally, I think it comes down to the inexperience/talent issue more than the scheme.Riverman said:
This season has only been a couple of preseason games. IMO, you can't gauge improvement until the regular season when you have your starters on the field more than a half.
Yet he proved in '03 he could. Maybe the talent on that team was so good, even Schwartz couldn't screw it up. I somehow doubt that though. I think it's unrealistic to judge this season's defense based on two meaningless games.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
