Thread: How to fix the pass D?

Switch to the 4-3 man Defense.

More pressure on the QB! Just like the other guys said. How? Less stunts. More delayed blitzes.

When you're up 31-17 with 4 minutes to go in the game, though, you should probably take out some D-linemen and just rush 2 or 3. Flood the zone with DBs.

"UffDaVikes" wrote:

"ultravikingfan" wrote:

"UffDaVikes" wrote:

"ultravikingfan" wrote:

"UffDaVikes" wrote:

[quote author=IndoViking link=topic=38769.msg654678#msg654678 date=1192404313]
How do you think we can fix our pass D? Today was another proven example that our secondary gave up way too much in the passing game. BRIAN GRIESE had 300+ yards... that is unacceptable.

Well, instead of giving a big cushion and letting the WR's run freely we could jam them on the line and knock them on their asses instead. It takes a lot more time for a play to develop when a WR has to pick his carcass off the turf and dust off before he runs his pattern.

That big cushion is zone defense.
If you want to eliminate that cushion you would have to go man.

Well then, there you have it.

If you are going to play man, you'd better have the guys who can do it.


And, we really have not done it very much; just our system.
When you watch a game with a big time WR (Moss or Owens) you will hear the annoucer say something like, "they have single coverage on so and so."
Then the QB realizes that (or not) and so and so scores a TD.

Not if that WR gets knocked on his ass

So if jamming them isn't going to work in your opinion, then please enlighten me with your theory on how to fix it with the players we have. I'm all ears
[/quote]

Well, a defense should try a little of both and mix it up.
We have gone man, but we seem to always go zone.
I never said jamming them would not work.
Its hard to jam the bigger and more physical WR's with smaller DB's.
You set yourself up for getting burned really bad in man.
Maybe the coaches really believe in zone, I do not know.


Zone is not bad as long as everybody does their job.
Instead on 1on 1, it is more like 1 on 1 with help.
But, a good team can pick apart a zone defense (last year Brady did this to us).
Zone has its weaknesses as does man.
Neither are perfect and there are plays designed to beat the zone.
Quick hitters and slants are one a few things that beat zone.
Favre and the Pack did quite a few slants against us and the announcers even mentioned that they were trying to beat the zone with those quick slants.

"PurplePowerPunch" wrote:

Switch to the 4-3 man Defense.

With a 4-3 the LB's are not going to help you in a pass defense as well as a 3-4.
I think we have good LB's to handle the zone.

If you have fast LB's it makes more sense to play zone.
Zone is put in place to prevent to deep ball moreso than man.
However, like anything else things breakdown and players get open deep.
Man prevents the short passes.


My thinking is that teams do not want to get killed deep and they will be more willing to give-up the short and underneath passes.


A lot of teams switch between zone and man to mix things up so the defense is not as predictable to the offense.
Football is a gamble.
You gamble and set the defense, or offense, a certain way in hopes of defeating the other.
Sometimes it pays off, sometimes it does not.
Sometimes no matter what you do you still suck.
;D

Insert Ed Reed.





-------->here






Sharper





















{THE}














Griffin






{ Mean Seven }










Winfield

"vikesfargo" wrote:

More pressure on the QB! Just like the other guys said. How? Less stunts. More delayed blitzes.

When you're up 31-17 with 4 minutes to go in the game, though, you should probably take out some D-linemen and just rush 2 or 3. Flood the zone with DBs.

They were doing that at the end, well just a 4 man rush anyways.
Dwight smith got burned, he should have been back farther in coverage so he didn't need to chase anyone considering they went to a prevent defense.

Also if you guys look at Griese's numbers before that play where he hit Marcus McCaulley in the chest, he had about 270 yards and that would have been his 3rd INT with only one TD. That would have more or less sealed up the win as well.

"ultravikingfan" wrote:

If you have fast LB's it makes more sense to play zone.
Zone is put in place to prevent to deep ball moreso than man.
However, like anything else things breakdown and players get open deep.
Man prevents the short passes.


My thinking is that teams do not want to get killed deep and they will be more willing to give-up the short and underneath passes.


A lot of teams switch between zone and man to mix things up so the defense is not as predictable to the offense.
Football is a gamble.
You gamble and set the defense, or offense, a certain way in hopes of defeating the other.
Sometimes it pays off, sometimes it does not.
Sometimes no matter what you do you still suck.
;D

Good points.

I remember a playoff game in 1995 when the Packers,who were a team coming up, played the perennial favorite Niners and were underdogs. In order to offset the offense of the niners with Young and Rice and their timing routes, the Packers lined up Mano e Mano and hammered their players as they cam off the line. It worked perfectly and the Packers ended up winning the game. That was a good template to use but you are tight, if we don't have the talent then it won't work

The only solution to fixing our pass D is to develop a pass rush.
Sounds pretty simple but that is the problem.
I have said it before, I don't care how good your secondary is, if the QB has all day to throw the ball even the best CB's will get burned.

Further more, Ultra is right when you talk about Zone (cover 2) or Man to Man defense against the pass.
You just can't do one or the other anymore in this league.
You need to do both (Zone/Man to Man) and disguise it as well to confuse the QB.

For those who didn't get to see the game, our CB's did press at times and also played back in zone.
I think overall they did a good job of confusing Son of Griese.
In most cases when he wanted to go deep there was nobody open, resulting in a dump off to Bensen.


Those dumpoffs did produce yards but didn't give up the big play forcing the bears to get impatient.
If it wasn't for the TE's and RB's they would have had very little in the way of a passing attack.

As far as adjustments and scheme changes, I saw several times when Phat Pat and Kevin were off the field and DE's were in there rushing the passer to no avail.
With that said, It still mystifies me why we can't get a pass rush.

IMHO we have two issues on this team.
1 - OL play.
They did better yesterday.
2 - DL play against the pass.
Again, until we figure out how to generate a pass rush, this D will never get any better than it is and teams will coninue to light us up for yards.
:

The Tampa 2 is designed to only rush 4 d-line. And because of that the CB should bump so the Line gets more time to get to the QB. That´s how colts, bucs etc do it. So CB should bump.

But at the same time I think we need a real super pass rusher end. Bucs had Rice, colts got Freeney etc. We need someone like that!