You bet.RollTide said:
My point is that the personnel is the key reason for the success of the defense and not how much Schwartz is teaching fundamentals once the season begins.
No offense, but have you really sat in and listened to Gregg Williams break down film. Do you have access to practice or something? And have you done the same with Schwartz. I'm sure most of that is speculation. I've never heard Schwartz blame anyone. Mostly that's just people on here.Gut said:
The team defense lands at Fishers feet. He's the supposed deffensive minded coach. I'm not saying your eye of recognizing DC capabilities isn't as sharp as Fishers but it is hard to believe. Either way, this comes down on Fisher seeing how it's his job at stake.
TJ- based on your statements, am I to understand the poor defensive play over the past 2 years is due to talent and coaching accountability/responsibility has very little to do with it?
RCarie, many of us agree that Fisher is ultimately responsible for the team's play but feel it is in the team's best interest to replace the DC, not Fisher.
RCarie, many of us agree that Fisher is ultimately responsible for the team's play but feel it is in the team's best interest to replace the DC, not Fisher.
TitanJeff said:
An argument for Fisher being a good head coach? Maybe because the combination of Fisher and a difference DC took us to the superbowl. So who's the weak link? A better solution would have been to replace him 2 years ago when it was obvious he was way over his head.
Just my two cents.
TitanJeff said:
But the defense gave up a touchdown on the first try. Fatigue wasn't a factor. Denver scored on their first four possessions. Granted, the offense needs to improve. I just don't think you can blame the defensive struggles on the offense. They looked pitiful coming out of the gate.
dg1979us said:
But that talent in 2000 was developed and groomed by another DC. They guys were taught how to play defense by Williams. Samari was a shut down corner when Schwartz was still getting coffee. The LBs and lineman were groomed to tackle by Williams. Schwartz inherited a defense that had received instruction on the "NFL 101." Has he developed any of his defensive lineman or corners that have been drafted since he has been in charge of defense? Just think about it, the defense has been on downward spiral since Williams left. I am can't say that the defense wouldn't give up a million points if Williams were here but I can guarentee that they would play fundamentally sound football. They would not miss tackles, miss assignments, get run over. The guy on the other team may get the first down, but it wouldn't come easy.
Ugh...
Let's try to address these points one more time...
This is not about ONE pre-season game, but about 2 years which most people have chalked up to injuries, lack of talent and experience. Guess what, we have at least an avg talented D and it's not like we're starting 4 or 5 rookies on D. This team is not as young as we'd like to believe!
So the whole reason this technique thing has been brought up is because one horrendous play vs the Saints in which 4-6 players all threw their technique and defensive responsibilities out the window. I chalked this up to one bad play where half the defense all made rookie mistakes. Even on well coached teams, a single play like that can happen....it's rare, but it can happen. But then I'm seeing more of the same vs the Broncos....A LOT more.
Now I'm not looking at it as a once in a blue moon type of thing anymore since the frequency has significantly increased and it looks like nothing has changed over the last 2 seasons...even with BETTER talent and experience!
No one can prove without a doubt that it's a coaching problem vs a player problem....but look at the evidence.
Players who didn't use to make many mistakes are making a lot more - when they are NOW in their prime? The mistakes are team defense wide which eliminates any one position coach and shifts the responsibility towards the DC. The likelihood of the majority of players continually not following good coaching for large chunks of games is near zero. Is it possible that Reese has drafted the worst players who can't follow any coaching? I suppose, but that doesn't account for players like Bulluck making many more mistakes than in the past. The only thing that has changed for Bulluck is the coaching.
This is why many of us are questioning Schwartz...and we're not even talking schemes...just fundamentals.
If pre-season is meaningless, why do they play? Seriously, if all you can learn from pre-season is about the rookies, why would your starters play 1 snap? Since the entire NFL plays their starters in every pre-season game...there is value there. Not in the wins or stats, but in seeing what people can do and getting them some reps.
If coaches don't coach technique beyond OTA's and pre-season, why do we have them? Seriously, the DC can put all the defenses on film and just have each unit watch to learn the D since they know all the techniques. Clearly that doesn't happen. So I don't understand how anyone can argue that a guy like Bulluck needs no coaching. Or to take the point to the absurd, why have training camp for any vet with more than 3 years experience. They are professional athletes and know how to keep themselves in shape. You could send the playbook home with them and bring them in for a week or 2 before the first game just to run the D's a few times on the field. That would be ridiculous, but that is where this point takes us. To give a better analogy...
I'll go back to my boxer analogy everyone has sidestepped because it illustrates this the best. Why would the Heavyweight Champion of the World need a coach? Not only need a coach, but to drill him in the limited number of techniques in boxing? To watch him workout? Did he forget how to do a benchpress? Did he forget how to throw a hook? Isn't that an insult to him to suggest he needs a coach to watch him do stuff he's been doing for more than half his life? And boxing has a limited number of techniques...not like football.
If it's a disgrace to suggest Bulluck needs to have his technique monitored by coaching, why do championship boxers do it?
No, I don't think Bulluck needs as much technique work as a rookie or second year player because Bulluck SHOULD be at the level where for most of the time, he doesn't need to think about technique. But even the top people in the sport make mistakes and need technique corrected. If it's not corrected...they'll make more mistakes over time...it is the nature of the beast.
Or ask yourself why 2 guys with 3 MVP's need a batting coach? Why does a baseball team have a batting coach if they have no rookies? And even the rookies know how to hit since they've learned all the techniques in college and the minors, right? And yet, they not only have them, they NEED them. Why would you need a pitching coach for a staff full of vet pitchers? I haven't heard one professional player in baseball or football suggest they've learned all the techniques and no longer need coaching! Has anyone?
I can't tell you what Schwartz is doing in camp because I'm in NY, but my mention of Williams breaking down tape is from several of his defensive football videos in which he does break down tape and you have a great feel for his attitude, his views on accountability and demand for excellence. It's good stuff...and these videos are meant for other coaches...so these aren't PR tapes.
While Schwartz may run some of the same drills as Williams, the attitude and accountability appear to be completely different. I'm not listening to Schwartz talk to guys on the sideline, at practice or in the film room, but the defense takes on the persona of it's coordinator. Take a look at the Oilers D from '92 to '93 when Buddy Ryan took over. The whole demeanor of the D changed...and that's what I'm talking about. If you're a guy like Williams who pulls no punches and demand excellence and holds EVERYONE accountable (including himself), the defense is going to reflect that. When I see a D making bad mistakes all over the field, that too is a reflection on the DC beyond the schemes. Like it or not, Schwartz has brought us a soft D and it shows!
I think Ms. Titan and I are on the same page in something we need to look at...WHO has developed into a stud under Schwartz? Anyone? Bueller...?
No, I can't tell anyone if we'll be a top 10 D or the worst in the league in October. I feel the ingredients are there for both results. But the more poor technique we see, the worse our D will play away from their potential.
If people are really going to use the lack of talent argument...please name a starting player on the D who is BELOW avg and give me a player by player accounting of the talent on D in your opinion. I have already laid out my thoughts and no one has challenged them except to say we lack talent...
WHERE specifically?
IMO, the D for this year should easily be middle of the pack and with some real effort, break into the top 10 (or at least be close depending on how the offense is). We have the ingredients in my opinion...a pro bowl pass rusher, a pro bowl caliber DT, 2 stud LB's, a good FS, and a 'shut down' CB. That is more than a lot of D's have.
The ingredients for a bottom 10 D are poor technique, poor pursuit angles, poor tackling, and a bad offense (and poor talent...but we don't have that problem).
Seriously, if the Pats can WIN the Super Bowl with several injuries to their D including having to start an undrafted CB and playing a WR in the nickel, why can't we manage a solid D with vets and players drafted in rds 1-5?
For those wondering why we're not calling for Fisher's head...As I've mentioned before, you can't replace Fisher right before the start of the season. You CAN replace the DC and send a strong message to players and coaches a like. Party time is OVER. Time to get to work!
Bad signs...
When a vet player who just won a Super Bowl championship and coming off a top 5 D starts calling out the COACHING staff, I think we have a coaching problem!!!
When the DC is trying to chew out/inspire the D on the sideline during a game in which we are stinking up the joint and the players are rolling their eyes and not buying it...there is a MAJOR coaching problem!
Hopefully, this last game was a wake up call and the Titans knock the Falcons back a couple of decades. But right now, it doesn't look good.
One more bad egg by the D and someone or something is going to have to change (cut a player, coach, completely change up practice, ect).
I know the Broncos are an excellent team, but we looked like bottom feeders against them and that is the WRONG direction for us to be going.
Gut
Let's try to address these points one more time...
This is not about ONE pre-season game, but about 2 years which most people have chalked up to injuries, lack of talent and experience. Guess what, we have at least an avg talented D and it's not like we're starting 4 or 5 rookies on D. This team is not as young as we'd like to believe!
So the whole reason this technique thing has been brought up is because one horrendous play vs the Saints in which 4-6 players all threw their technique and defensive responsibilities out the window. I chalked this up to one bad play where half the defense all made rookie mistakes. Even on well coached teams, a single play like that can happen....it's rare, but it can happen. But then I'm seeing more of the same vs the Broncos....A LOT more.
Now I'm not looking at it as a once in a blue moon type of thing anymore since the frequency has significantly increased and it looks like nothing has changed over the last 2 seasons...even with BETTER talent and experience!
No one can prove without a doubt that it's a coaching problem vs a player problem....but look at the evidence.
Players who didn't use to make many mistakes are making a lot more - when they are NOW in their prime? The mistakes are team defense wide which eliminates any one position coach and shifts the responsibility towards the DC. The likelihood of the majority of players continually not following good coaching for large chunks of games is near zero. Is it possible that Reese has drafted the worst players who can't follow any coaching? I suppose, but that doesn't account for players like Bulluck making many more mistakes than in the past. The only thing that has changed for Bulluck is the coaching.
This is why many of us are questioning Schwartz...and we're not even talking schemes...just fundamentals.
If pre-season is meaningless, why do they play? Seriously, if all you can learn from pre-season is about the rookies, why would your starters play 1 snap? Since the entire NFL plays their starters in every pre-season game...there is value there. Not in the wins or stats, but in seeing what people can do and getting them some reps.
If coaches don't coach technique beyond OTA's and pre-season, why do we have them? Seriously, the DC can put all the defenses on film and just have each unit watch to learn the D since they know all the techniques. Clearly that doesn't happen. So I don't understand how anyone can argue that a guy like Bulluck needs no coaching. Or to take the point to the absurd, why have training camp for any vet with more than 3 years experience. They are professional athletes and know how to keep themselves in shape. You could send the playbook home with them and bring them in for a week or 2 before the first game just to run the D's a few times on the field. That would be ridiculous, but that is where this point takes us. To give a better analogy...
I'll go back to my boxer analogy everyone has sidestepped because it illustrates this the best. Why would the Heavyweight Champion of the World need a coach? Not only need a coach, but to drill him in the limited number of techniques in boxing? To watch him workout? Did he forget how to do a benchpress? Did he forget how to throw a hook? Isn't that an insult to him to suggest he needs a coach to watch him do stuff he's been doing for more than half his life? And boxing has a limited number of techniques...not like football.
If it's a disgrace to suggest Bulluck needs to have his technique monitored by coaching, why do championship boxers do it?
No, I don't think Bulluck needs as much technique work as a rookie or second year player because Bulluck SHOULD be at the level where for most of the time, he doesn't need to think about technique. But even the top people in the sport make mistakes and need technique corrected. If it's not corrected...they'll make more mistakes over time...it is the nature of the beast.
Or ask yourself why 2 guys with 3 MVP's need a batting coach? Why does a baseball team have a batting coach if they have no rookies? And even the rookies know how to hit since they've learned all the techniques in college and the minors, right? And yet, they not only have them, they NEED them. Why would you need a pitching coach for a staff full of vet pitchers? I haven't heard one professional player in baseball or football suggest they've learned all the techniques and no longer need coaching! Has anyone?
I can't tell you what Schwartz is doing in camp because I'm in NY, but my mention of Williams breaking down tape is from several of his defensive football videos in which he does break down tape and you have a great feel for his attitude, his views on accountability and demand for excellence. It's good stuff...and these videos are meant for other coaches...so these aren't PR tapes.
While Schwartz may run some of the same drills as Williams, the attitude and accountability appear to be completely different. I'm not listening to Schwartz talk to guys on the sideline, at practice or in the film room, but the defense takes on the persona of it's coordinator. Take a look at the Oilers D from '92 to '93 when Buddy Ryan took over. The whole demeanor of the D changed...and that's what I'm talking about. If you're a guy like Williams who pulls no punches and demand excellence and holds EVERYONE accountable (including himself), the defense is going to reflect that. When I see a D making bad mistakes all over the field, that too is a reflection on the DC beyond the schemes. Like it or not, Schwartz has brought us a soft D and it shows!
I think Ms. Titan and I are on the same page in something we need to look at...WHO has developed into a stud under Schwartz? Anyone? Bueller...?
No, I can't tell anyone if we'll be a top 10 D or the worst in the league in October. I feel the ingredients are there for both results. But the more poor technique we see, the worse our D will play away from their potential.
If people are really going to use the lack of talent argument...please name a starting player on the D who is BELOW avg and give me a player by player accounting of the talent on D in your opinion. I have already laid out my thoughts and no one has challenged them except to say we lack talent...
WHERE specifically?
IMO, the D for this year should easily be middle of the pack and with some real effort, break into the top 10 (or at least be close depending on how the offense is). We have the ingredients in my opinion...a pro bowl pass rusher, a pro bowl caliber DT, 2 stud LB's, a good FS, and a 'shut down' CB. That is more than a lot of D's have.
The ingredients for a bottom 10 D are poor technique, poor pursuit angles, poor tackling, and a bad offense (and poor talent...but we don't have that problem).
Seriously, if the Pats can WIN the Super Bowl with several injuries to their D including having to start an undrafted CB and playing a WR in the nickel, why can't we manage a solid D with vets and players drafted in rds 1-5?
For those wondering why we're not calling for Fisher's head...As I've mentioned before, you can't replace Fisher right before the start of the season. You CAN replace the DC and send a strong message to players and coaches a like. Party time is OVER. Time to get to work!
Bad signs...
When a vet player who just won a Super Bowl championship and coming off a top 5 D starts calling out the COACHING staff, I think we have a coaching problem!!!
When the DC is trying to chew out/inspire the D on the sideline during a game in which we are stinking up the joint and the players are rolling their eyes and not buying it...there is a MAJOR coaching problem!
Hopefully, this last game was a wake up call and the Titans knock the Falcons back a couple of decades. But right now, it doesn't look good.
One more bad egg by the D and someone or something is going to have to change (cut a player, coach, completely change up practice, ect).
I know the Broncos are an excellent team, but we looked like bottom feeders against them and that is the WRONG direction for us to be going.
Gut
Exactly. All we hear are excuses but when a team like the Pats win a SB with an UDFA rookie CB starting you have to wonder if we are getting what we can out of what we have. An UDFA rookie CB would be enough of an excuse to this coaching staff to throw in the towel and suck all year. To a real good group of coaches it is simply a challenge they manage to over come.
There are about 30 teams, besides us, who aren't like the Pats, and they could ask themselves the same question.Soxcat said:
ok, some people are arguing that it's a lack of talent, so I've devised a little questionnaire to try to find out:
1) Is A. Brown better than K. Vanden Bosch?
2) Is I. Scott better than the R. Starks?
3) Is T. Harris better than A. Haynesworth?
4) Is A. Ogunleye better than Odom/Laboy/Schobel (pick 1)?
5) Is H. Hillenmeyer better than D. Thornton?
6) Is B. Urlacher better than P. Sirmon?
7) Is L. Briggs better than K. Bulluck?
8) Is C. Tillman better than A. Jones?
9) Is M. Brown better than L. Thompson?
10) Is C. Harris better than C. Hope?
11) Is N. Vasher better than R. Hill?
If you answered yes to 100% of these questions, then yes we have a lack of talent.
If you answered yes to 75% of these questions, then we still need some key players.
If you answered yes to 50% or less of these questions, then we do not have a lack of talent.
Personally I answered yes to 4 of them and obviously I believe we are quite talented on defence.
1) Is A. Brown better than K. Vanden Bosch?
2) Is I. Scott better than the R. Starks?
3) Is T. Harris better than A. Haynesworth?
4) Is A. Ogunleye better than Odom/Laboy/Schobel (pick 1)?
5) Is H. Hillenmeyer better than D. Thornton?
6) Is B. Urlacher better than P. Sirmon?
7) Is L. Briggs better than K. Bulluck?
8) Is C. Tillman better than A. Jones?
9) Is M. Brown better than L. Thompson?
10) Is C. Harris better than C. Hope?
11) Is N. Vasher better than R. Hill?
If you answered yes to 100% of these questions, then yes we have a lack of talent.
If you answered yes to 75% of these questions, then we still need some key players.
If you answered yes to 50% or less of these questions, then we do not have a lack of talent.
Personally I answered yes to 4 of them and obviously I believe we are quite talented on defence.
Soxcat said:
Oh give me a break. Our last few defenses dont match up to the pats superbowl defenses at all. We dont have a Rodney Harrison, Richard Seymour, Mcginest, Bruschi, Vrabel, Colvin, Law, etc. etc. WHen you have that type of talent on your defense you can get a way with starting young guys at a couple positions a lot easier than you can when you have our type of talent. Are you seriously going to compare our last couples years defenses to that of a team who just had a legendary run the last several years, much of it provided by its defense?
And like Hoffa said, there isnt a team in the league that has done what the Pats of done since the cowboys of the early 90s. So, exactly who would you have brought in at DC that would have all of a sudden put our defense on the same level as that of a legendary team?
Vigsted said:
Id take Bulluck over Briggs and KVB over Brown, and probably hope over Harris. But even with that, Briggs and Brown are both really solid players.
In my opinion, it is the key reason. Talent, injuries and lack of experience played a much bigger role on defense the last two seasons than coaching (or lack thereof).Riverman said:
I'm talking about '04 and '05. Not now. I personally feel this defense has enough talent and experience to be a top 15 defense if they stay healthy. Depth concerns me but I like the core.Vigsted said:
I'm just not ready to judge this defense based on one preseason game. I don't think it is a reflection of what we'll get this season.
I'm pulling out of this thread because all I'm doing is repeating myself. I clearly understand your point but find your logic totally flawed.Gut said:
I am not willing to call this defense a bust yet because of one meaningless game. Call me an optimist.
I continue to think '04 and '05 defenses were impacted a lot more by lack of talent and experience (and don't forget the injuries) than whether or not Schwartz teaches enough fundamental technique during the regular season.
Let's watch it play out. I think we'll know by November whether we can blame three seasons of poor defenses on Schwartz and all defenses coaches or not.
TitanJeff said:
That awsome 2003 D gave up over 20 points a game. Granted the O scored over 400 points that season. I will give you a motivated Titan team went into Murdermore and beatdown the ratbirds, the singular highlite of Dehr Schwartzie's regieme, of course he followed that up by giving up the game winning FG with 3 mins left in the game at New England. Titans needed one stop, ONE stop.
Tj...
I understand where you're coming from. I hope you understood my 'Why even excellent players need coaching and technique monitoring' analogy.
I'll leave the past behind for now since we both agree on one thing...
This D SHOULD be at minimum a top 16 D because we have the talent (assuming our offense does it's part).
As I've said, one pre-season game doesn't predict the future and hopefully that Broncos game will be a wakeup call to get at least some of these things corrected!
The Falcons will certainly be a good test to see what has been 'fixed' since last week.
Here's hoping we'll see some GOOD play from the Titans on BOTH sides of the ball!!!
Gut
I understand where you're coming from. I hope you understood my 'Why even excellent players need coaching and technique monitoring' analogy.
I'll leave the past behind for now since we both agree on one thing...
This D SHOULD be at minimum a top 16 D because we have the talent (assuming our offense does it's part).
As I've said, one pre-season game doesn't predict the future and hopefully that Broncos game will be a wakeup call to get at least some of these things corrected!
The Falcons will certainly be a good test to see what has been 'fixed' since last week.
Here's hoping we'll see some GOOD play from the Titans on BOTH sides of the ball!!!
Gut
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
