DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Browns to simplify defense

We blitzed before but it wasn't disguised well..only when we brought a corner did it surprise anyone..
My thoughts ALWAYS center around Wimbley..
He's never stood up to rush..nor is he moved around much.
Too vannilla for me..

I agree. We just rush Wimbley and call that a blitz.

We aren't fooling anybody. If we keep doing it the way we have, we might as well put Wimbley's hand on the ground and play a 4-3.

Blitzing is when you bring 5 or 6 players.

Odd..thats what they SAID they wanted to do..put KW hand down and rush him..
WHAT is that? They ALREADY do that..thats nothing different..I don't know if it was Rac , Phil ,Tucker or all three that said it..I think it was Phil..
But how do you confuse a offense if they know KW is going to be coming??
I move the guy around..put over the strongside..have him move up into the line presnap..jump around(wave a flag..do cheers)..something that makes the blockers look for him...

I agree.

I was always under the impression one of the benefits of the 3-4 is you could get away rushing just 4 guys much of the time because of your ability to change who the 4th rusher was....if nothing else the confusion could create some blown assignment if the O-line guessed wrong.

We don't do that...or at least haven't done that much since Romeo and the 3-4 came to town.

As much as I hate to say it, I would be ecstatic if we had the type of defense the Steelers have. You never know where they're coming from, never know what they're going to do next. That confuses offenses to no end (it's sure confused us!).

I agree with a lot of others that whenever we blitzed, it was easily picked up. Now we just lost a couple guys in coverage and got nothing out of it.

Hopefully we don't over-simplify. Yeah, sometimes you don't need ridiculous schemes (I guess like the Steelers may have), but you also don't need to do the same things over and over.

I would say the defense will mimick the Pats..we did some things this that I've seen the Pats do..stand up McGinest..moved him to NT..had him drop into a short zone..
USE LB's on the front line with one DT...

one thing you have to remember is that the dline is as much of an impact on the d as the oline is on the o.....

we haven't had a dline that requires double teams....once that happens it forces an oline to have to double a dlinemen, that in turn creates a gap for a linebacker to blitz into..

we have had our dline handled by just 3 lineman much of the time....that leaves 2 linemen and possibly the te and a back to slow down whoever is left

we haven't blitzed much for that reason....cause its more than likely to fail and just leave you open in the middle of the field...

if rogers can get pressure up the middle it will force them to either use a back to try and stop him, or double team him....

if they double team it will open a hole for a lb to get thru...and will take away an option for stopping wimbley....then they will only have the option of putting a te over wimbley to slow him down.....

sound familiar? sounds like our o philosophy before we got a line....

I agree w/what racer and Kardiac said here, and I disagree w/what Attack and Peen are saying. Of course, racer and Kardiac pretty much echoed my statements. *L*

A couple of things that need cleared up:

---RAC never blitzed a lot in New England. I watched a show on them when he was there. Although they ran a 3-4, their defense was more about playing sound, fundamental defense and less about blitzing and gimmicks.

It was essential that each guy knew his responsibilities and was in the right spot at the right time. I actually think the Brown's defense will be even more conservative this year than in the past.

That is not a bad thing.

I know fans love the blitz and gimmicks. But, it is not really good football. I'm not saying we won't blitz, but they will not be a focal part of this defense.

In the past...........our problems didn't stem from not being creative, they stemmed from having a d-line that did not command double teams, therefore, blitzes were easily picked up and our secondary was exposed.

We might get to the QB more this season.....Gawd, I hope so..........but it won't be because of creative blitz packages. Instead, it will be because we have improved on the d-line and blitzers should be more free to run unimpeded to the QB. I also hope that our d-line will get pressure themselves.

None of that is a given though. If Rogers isn't focused and in shape.....we could be have another tough year on D. Additionally, it is tough to blitz a lot when we have such a terrible FS. He isn't a guy you can count on to cover the field. He certainly isn't an Ed Reed or Brian Dawkins. And he isn't even a Troy Polamulu, who makes a ton of plays in the passing game from his SS position.

I'm also hoping we get a bit more conservative on offense. Run the ball more and not get into scoring contests. I realize that the fans will blame DA for us not scoring in bunches with "all that talent," but it will help us win more games.

And to me.........that is what it is all about.

Vers, I'm just wondering, isn't it easier to scheme against such a conservative defense?

Good question, but no it isn't.

It's hard to scheme against teams that don't take risks. A good coordinator/QB combo can pick up on a team's tendencies, and the more they gamble....the easier they are to exploit.

Think about how good the Steelers and Eagles defenses have been over the years, but they have had major melt downs in playoff games. Teams who neutralize the blitz by having the right blocking protection or beat it by throwing a quick pass to the unprotected area.......are going to kill that defense.

Look at what the Browns offense did to the Steelers in the playoffs a few years back. We certainly didn't have a stellar offense, but we fried them.

The hardest teams to beat are the teams that have a very good d-line. Guys who can rush the QB and stop the run at the same time. This allows the linebackers to fill gaps and/or drop into coverage and assist the secondary. These teams don't have to rely on corner or safety blitzes. They will send someone occasionally, and it is such a surprise, that it is effective.

This is key............teams that are conservative in nature and don't have to rely on the blitz............have guys in the right position and there are very few holes in the defense. Your offense doesn't get big plays. They must grind it out and not make any mistakes. Almost damn near impossible for most offenses.

One more thing..............it really isn't all that conservative. You can have some great schemes and mess people up by giving them certain looks pre-snap. Then, you switch your coverage and confuse the QB. That takes discipline and guys knowing their roles. It also leads to passes where you say...........how did the QB NOT SEE THAT? The reason........they were confused. But, you have to have great discipline on D and each guy has to know his assignment and not have to worry about the other guy blowing it.

We are not close to that and won't be again this year. However, I think RAC is making the right move by simplifying the scheme. I now trust Savage to keep adding players to that side of the ball, so that we eventually get to the point of being a very good defense.

And it is a defense that can win when it counts..............in the post season.

That makes sense. Thanks Vers and Ammo.

I think I can also understand why the Patriots go after the veterans that they do for defense.

I can also understand why you're not a big Brodney fan now too.

You mean we won't be seeing the "Grits Blitz"?????

Quote:

---

I'm also hoping we get a bit more conservative on offense. Run the ball more and not get into scoring contests. I realize that the fans will blame DA for us not scoring in bunches with "all that talent," but it will help us win more games.

---

It's only a "scoring contest" if the Defense doesn't hold their ground. For me....I just want to keep things balanced as opposed to leaning one way or the other....That is much harder for defenses to game plan for. (especially with all of the movement we have before the snap and the plethora of plays we call from the same formations....)

j/c.

I don't think it's about blitzing all the time, I think it's about blitzing at the right time.

If you're fundamentally sound in "base" defenses, once you bring that blitz if disguised well it should catch the OL and the QB off guard.

One of our problems last year was even when we brought people, because we couldn't command doubleteams up front whoever we brought basically ran into a brick wall.

That being said, when we blitzed more down the stretch it *DID* work, but then again look at some of the QB's we faced.

RAC never blitzed a lot in New England
Never said he did.
I said I prefer a more attacking style than read/react.
I also said his scheme mimicks the Pats..thats the scheme he ran there and he brought it here.
I saw formations and stunts he ran that are similar to the Pats.

In the past...........our problems didn't stem from not being creative, they stemmed from having a d-line that did not command double teams, therefore, blitzes were easily picked up and our secondary was exposed.


Both..I saw a few wrinkles that did confuse the offenses..when we came with corner and safety blitzes it worked better than LB blitzes..those guys have very few moved and were able to be picked up easily.

And just having Wimbley set like a DE and rush on passing downs isn't taking advantage of anything..it's basic and it doesn't confuse anyone.

I think the NE comment was in reponse to me. I claimed that RAC did things a certain way in NE and thought that he could mold our players to do the same. Vers was clarifying what I wrote. I think.

also, i think our LB blitzes we tipped them off way too soon.

Theyd always sprint to the LOS like 4 seconds before the snap, and go straight ahead and hit the OL before our DL even did. It was boring and never worked.


The ones that worked best were mixed up some. Where Dra would approach the line, and jones would move into his spot, and Dra would drop back and Jones would hit the gap.

We tipped off our blitzes way too soon under Todd and I hope that disappears

Peen......I am not attacking you, but I can't let this go:

Quote:

---

When you rush 3 players, it is hard to not be double teamed. Add in Ted who couldn't rush for squat, it was like rushing 2 players.

---

That is simply incorrect. We rarely rushed three players. Perhaps a few times when we were in a prevent situation.

We at least rushed 4 players on almost every play. Wimbley rushed almost every play. He rarely dropped into coverage. He sucks at it.

We also rushed either Peek or Willie on most plays. We often had five rushers and a blitzer and we still could not get to the QB.

It was NOT about scheme. I know you all wanna believe that. I understand that why you wanna believe it. But, that wasn't it. It was about a lack of talent.

Those are made up stats....like I said....from my personal recollection. That was about as close as I could remember.

If your recollection was different please post.

Blasphemy!

Get your facts straight!!!