Thread: WCO/Cover 2 needs to go

Originally Posted by tastywaves

Good to see you coming around.

I think we have upgraded this year and have the potential for adequate play this year, but you've been giving the secondary a free ride for the last several years when we were clearly one of the worst secondaries in the NFL. Always putting the blame on the DL.

I would be thrilled if by the end of the season, we look at the greatest weakness on our defense being the interior of our defensive line.

BTW: I'm not necessarily of the belief that you have to have shut down corners on your team to be an effective defense. It helps, but many times at too high of a cost. I think safety play has been the bigger issue for this team and am hopeful that Harrison will continue to develop into a long term quality starter for us.

I wonder how many are seeing things my way after watching the defense play almost a flawless game yesterday.

It all started with Guion getting that sack when he was left alone and ended when Griff was given chances to put the QB down when we needed someone to put him down. Thats why I always blame the DL. If the scheme breaks down, its almost always because they didn't do their job. When they don't, you force the other areas (LB'rs and DB's) to help which weakens them in their areas.

In the end, your BTW was right and proven yesterday. We don't need shut down DB's. We just need the whole defense to do their job and the scheme works. That allows them to do just their job, which is more than enough to be successful in this scheme.

Originally Posted by Marrdro

I wonder how many are seeing things my way after watching the defense play almost a flawless game yesterday.

It all started with Guion getting that sack when he was left alone and ended when Griff was given chances to put the QB down when we needed someone to put him down. Thats why I always blame the DL. If the scheme breaks down, its almost always because they didn't do their job. When they don't, you force the other areas (LB'rs and DB's) to help which weakens them in their areas.

In the end, your BTW was right and proven yesterday. We don't need shut down DB's. We just need the whole defense to do their job and the scheme works. That allows them to do just their job, which is more than enough to be successful in this scheme.

A 2 TD lead for a large part of the second half greatly helps our defensive scheme be effective. That being said, we have failed for many years holding a lead with this same philosophy. Biggest reason IMO, is improved secondary play from both the safeties and the DB's.

I don't remember Guion being left alone, but I do remember Griffen having a free shot at Stafford. The Griffen sack was because the Vikings brought more guys than Detroit could block and left Griffen alone. This wasn't a 4 against 5 or 6 situation. Quite often we were using extra rushers to put pressure on Stafford.

The scheme can break down very easily even when the DL does their job. Everyone has a job to do and weakness in any area will cause the team to suffer. We have had a lot of weaknesses outside of the DL over the last several years.

Originally Posted by tastywaves

A 2 TD lead for a large part of the second half greatly helps our defensive scheme be effective. That being said, we have failed for many years holding a lead with this same philosophy. Biggest reason IMO, is improved secondary play from both the safeties and the DB's.

I don't remember Guion being left alone, but I do remember Griffen having a free shot at Stafford. The Griffen sack was because the Vikings brought more guys than Detroit could block and left Griffen alone. This wasn't a 4 against 5 or 6 situation. Quite often we were using extra rushers to put pressure on Stafford.

The scheme can break down very easily even when the DL does their job. Everyone has a job to do and weakness in any area will cause the team to suffer. We have had a lot of weaknesses outside of the DL over the last several years.

Guion wasn't alone. His sack came when he was singled up and he ate the guy up.

As to Griff, your correct. 1 of his 4 hits he was left alone because Chad brought it to the inside.

JA's sack and several other plays were just the front 4 rushed, you could almost say they were coverage sacks because of how long Stafford had the ball and didn't have a place to go with it.

Originally Posted by Marrdro

Guion wasn't alone. His sack came when he was singled up and he ate the guy up.

As to Griff, your correct. 1 of his 4 hits he was left alone because Chad brought it to the inside.

JA's sack and several other plays were just the front 4 rushed, you could almost say they were coverage sacks because of how long Stafford had the ball and didn't have a place to go with it.

So are you giving the secondary credit for the DL's success?

Originally Posted by tastywaves

So are you giving the secondary credit for the DL's success?

Quite the contrary. I'm saying that the DB's are able to do that because the DL is doing it by themselves.

Just making the small point that because the zones are flooded with DB's and LB'rs, coverage sacks will come.

In the end, this scheme will work and it will look good, but it will only look good if the effort comes from every stage and it all starts with the DLmen doing it without help.

It seems to me when we were getting the best pressure it was because we were sending LB's and Safeties in after the QB.

Originally Posted by Marrdro

Quite the contrary. I'm saying that the DB's are able to do that because the DL is doing it by themselves.

Just making the small point that because the zones are flooded with DB's and LB'rs, coverage sacks will come.

In the end, this scheme will work and it will look good, but it will only look good if the effort comes from every stage and it all starts with the DLmen doing it without help.

Hmmmm.....I think you need to give the secondary and LB'ers more credit on a coverage sack than the DL.

Coverage sack definition --- sack of the quarterback that takes place after about 3 seconds after the snap; caused by inability of the quarterback to find an open receiver because of excellent pass coverage on the receivers

I like how you turn that around to saying that the DL pressure allowed us to drop the back 7 into coverage when by definition they were not applying much pressure (ie., coverage sack)

If the QB's were hitting open guys quickly with only 4 pass rushers, I think you would still lay the blame on the DL for not getting to the QB faster. When does it ever become the fault of the secondary? And I'm not asking for shut down coverage corners, just want the back end of the team doing what they are being asked to do. The last couple years, they haven't done so well, this year they are doing better. This is not due to improved DL play IMO, but because we upgraded the talent in the secondary. Many ways to skin the cat to improve a defense regardless of how true you want to be to the philosophy of a particular scheme.

And not to confuse things too much, but as Floyd points out, we did bring extra pass rushers many times against Stafford which led to a lot of our success. I don't see that changing.

Originally Posted by tastywaves

Hmmmm.....I think you need to give the secondary and LB'ers more credit on a coverage sack than the DL.



I like how you turn that around to saying that the DL pressure allowed us to drop the back 7 into coverage when by definition they were not applying much pressure (ie., coverage sack)

If the QB's were hitting open guys quickly with only 4 pass rushers, I think you would still lay the blame on the DL for not getting to the QB faster. When does it ever become the fault of the secondary? And I'm not asking for shut down coverage corners, just want the back end of the team doing what they are being asked to do. The last couple years, they haven't done so well, this year they are doing better. This is not due to improved DL play IMO, but because we upgraded the talent in the secondary. Many ways to skin the cat to improve a defense regardless of how true you want to be to the philosophy of a particular scheme.

And not to confuse things too much, but as Floyd points out, we did bring extra pass rushers many times against Stafford which led to a lot of our success. I don't see that changing.

Fault lies with the scheme with me my friend. Not the individual players or position groups.

I do admit, however, that I do look to the bigs up front first, as you contend. Its my nature. Same goes for the offense. If they are doing their job everyone else looks good doing theirs.

Many times.......??? Obviously you didn't listen to (or read) what our HC had to say about that.

Originally Posted by Purple Floyd

It seems to me when we were getting the best pressure it was because we were sending LB's and Safeties in after the QB.

I quit charting the games this year as my hands are usually full with my grandson, however, that was not the case last weekend.

Very few pressures came from the back seven, at least from what I saw. Leslie's quotes kindof back that up.

My biggest gripe was they went to the prevent defense late in the game. We all know the prevent defense prevents nothing, and the Lions drove the length of the field and scored their lone touchdown against it(took about 2minutes off the clock).
We still won the game, but the Lions got an opportunity to tie it up at the end that should have never been given.
I would like to see more aggressive play calling from the offense and defense when they have a lead late.