Ducks Attack Message Board Forum

Good article. Thank God no more “Bend but don’t break”. That drove me crazy.
Can’t wait

http://fishduck.com/2017/01/get-ready-f ... s-defense/

I don't think we've ran a "Bend but don't break" defense in a while. It always seemed to bend AND break.

Phenom wrote:I don't think we've ran a "Bend but don't break" defense in a while. It always seemed to bend AND break.

Sadly your right. So glad to see the end of that BS.

Phenom wrote:I don't think we've ran a "Bend but don't break" defense in a while. It always seemed to bend AND break.

I thought it was a turnstile defense.

greenyellow wrote:

Phenom wrote:I don't think we've ran a "Bend but don't break" defense in a while. It always seemed to bend AND break.

I thought it was a turnstile defense.

I like to consider it as a matador defense.

Bigducker wrote:Good article. Thank God no more “Bend but don’t break”. That drove me crazy.
Can’t wait

http://fishduck.com/2017/01/get-ready-f ... s-defense/

Actually all he really said is that we're going to run Man/Cover 4 principles. There wasn't much else in the article to draw from beyond rehashing how bad we are and how great the new guys are. Of anything, the lack of talent in the secondary should be a major concern and something barely addressed.

scoducks wrote:

greenyellow wrote:

Phenom wrote:I don't think we've ran a "Bend but don't break" defense in a while. It always seemed to bend AND break.

I thought it was a turnstile defense.

I like to consider it as a matador defense.

It was quoted to be the Times Square Defense at one point...everyone just mills around not doing anything.

Problem for Coach Morris is he thought Brady Hoke was going to change everything.

Maybe I'm in the minority but I don't think our talent level in the secondary is that bad. Not great, sure, but I think just about anyone would have looked bad back there last year with how pitiful our pass rush was. Not to mention our safeties probably feeling like they had to help out against the run a lot too.

duck541 wrote:Maybe I'm in the minority but I don't think our talent level in the secondary is that bad. Not great, sure, but I think just about anyone would have looked bad back there last year with how pitiful our pass rush was. Not to mention our safeties probably feeling like they had to help out against the run a lot too.

No probably about it, that's exactly what they had to do. When your safety is the leading tackler (last I read he was) on a defense that is supposed to keep the LB's free to make the tackles is a very bad thing. Which means either the LB's are missing tackles or the DL was not keeping the OL off the LB's. I also agree that as far as talent in the secondary at a minimum is average but not bad, I think it was a combination of under coached and a piss poor pass rush. I don't care how good your secondary is, if you give a QB time a WR will get open.

rsbgduck wrote:

duck541 wrote:Maybe I'm in the minority but I don't think our talent level in the secondary is that bad. Not great, sure, but I think just about anyone would have looked bad back there last year with how pitiful our pass rush was. Not to mention our safeties probably feeling like they had to help out against the run a lot too.

No probably about it, that's exactly what they had to do. When your safety is the leading tackler (last I read he was) on a defense that is supposed to keep the LB's free to make the tackles is a very bad thing. Which means either the LB's are missing tackles or the DL was not keeping the OL off the LB's. I also agree that as far as talent in the secondary at a minimum is average but not bad, I think it was a combination of under coached and a piss poor pass rush. I don't care how good your secondary is, if you give a QB time a WR will get open.

I'm not going to rehash the debate I had with Zac about this but I think it's very unfair to blame the DL for not getting more pressure when they largely only rushed 3 or less the majority of the time last year and the DBs were constantly 10 yards off the ball. It's why simple slants, hitches, and outs burned us. At least by pressing you're legitimately giving yourself a chance to break up the play rather than hope they miss the throw or drop it. Even if the DL got lots of pressure it wouldn't have mattered based on how far the DBs were off in coverage. Quick passing kills a pass rush ala Atlanta vs Seattle, or did you watch that game and blame the DL too?

Duck07 wrote:

rsbgduck wrote:

duck541 wrote:Maybe I'm in the minority but I don't think our talent level in the secondary is that bad. Not great, sure, but I think just about anyone would have looked bad back there last year with how pitiful our pass rush was. Not to mention our safeties probably feeling like they had to help out against the run a lot too.

No probably about it, that's exactly what they had to do. When your safety is the leading tackler (last I read he was) on a defense that is supposed to keep the LB's free to make the tackles is a very bad thing. Which means either the LB's are missing tackles or the DL was not keeping the OL off the LB's. I also agree that as far as talent in the secondary at a minimum is average but not bad, I think it was a combination of under coached and a piss poor pass rush. I don't care how good your secondary is, if you give a QB time a WR will get open.

I'm not going to rehash the debate I had with Zac about this but I think it's very unfair to blame the DL for not getting more pressure when they largely only rushed 3 or less the majority of the time last year and the DBs were constantly 10 yards off the ball. It's why simple slants, hitches, and outs burned us. At least by pressing you're legitimately giving yourself a chance to break up the play rather than hope they miss the throw or drop it. Even if the DL got lots of pressure it wouldn't have mattered based on how far the DBs were off in coverage. Quick passing kills a pass rush ala Atlanta vs Seattle, or did you watch that game and blame the DL too?

Haha such a snarky response. Have a rough Monday Duck07?

I watched that game too and generally agree with you. But I also watched all of the Duck games and while defensive play calling was certainly an issue, we also struggled to get to the QB when we did blitz, and very rarely won one-on-one match ups at the line of scrimmage.

I understand the deficiencies at all levels which is why it's hard to even judge some of these guys because of the scheme.

Isn't the real key to being a good defensive coach not having a special/preferred scheme, but rather simply being able to outsmart the offensive play caller? Because the offense dictates everything, the defense puts itself at a huge disadvantage if it uses an inflexible approach that the offense can anticipate. That seems to me to be the real reason Chip Kelly obliterated USC in 2012; he knew that Monte Kiffen was married to the Tampa 2, which meant basically every play called on offense was done so with a high degree of certainty about the defense being seen. There has to be a huge disparity in player talent for that sort of edge to be negated.

Handsome Dan wrote:Isn't the real key to being a good defensive coach not having a special/preferred scheme, but rather simply being able to outsmart the offensive play caller? Because the offense dictates everything, the defense puts itself at a huge disadvantage if it uses an inflexible approach that the offense can anticipate. That seems to me to be the real reason Chip Kelly obliterated USC in 2012; he knew that Monte Kiffen was married to the Tampa 2, which meant basically every play called on offense was done so with a high degree of certainty about the defense being seen. There has to be a huge disparity in player talent for that sort of edge to be negated.

I think almost every defensive coach would disagree with you on the 'offense dictates everything' bit. 11 tacklers on the field, 10 blockers; a defense can, at a minimum, take certain things away if they choose (and have ample athletes).