PDA

View Full Version : KC defense ready to ice vanilla look


Mr. Laz
08-22-2006, 10:59 AM
KC defense ready to ice vanilla look

Chiefs don’t want to show too much but say they must improve.

By ADAM TEICHER
The Kansas City Star

Notes: No sign of Holmes

Herm Edwards wants to see the Chiefs play defense with a lot more fire than they showed in last week’s loss to the Giants.

One way to get that fire is to turn up the heat. Edwards hinted that the Chiefs, after playing mostly plain, basic defenses in their first two preseason games, might do just that in Saturday night’s game against St. Louis at Arrowhead Stadium.

“We’ll just see,” Edwards said. “Let’s wait until Saturday and see what we do.”

Edwards is conflicted about the defense, which has been a pushover in two games. The Chiefs have yielded a ton of rushing yards and have made no momentum-generating big plays.

The Chiefs haven’t forced a turnover and have just three sacks.

Edwards wants better. He also wants to keep the defenses as plain as possible to reveal as little as possible about their regular-season plans.

Something has to give, and it might be the need to hide their plans.

“This is the third game, so you might see a little bit different,” linebacker Derrick Johnson said. “Whatever we’re going to do, this is the game to do it. We won’t be as vanilla.”

Vanilla isn’t the normal way of defensive coordinator Gunther Cunningham. Blitzing and getting pressure on the quarterback are his favorite tactics, so sitting by idly while opponents take advantage of the Chiefs has to be killing him.

“A little bit,” Edwards said. “You want to work on fundamentals, but you’re right, we’re playing it real vanilla. People know what we’re doing. They can sit there and game-plan for us all they want because they know what kind of coverage we’re going to run.

“We’re trying to implement some things and see if players can play them. That’s very, very important. Believe me, Gunther has a bag of blitzes. We can blitz. We know how to do that. We can put pressure on the quarterback if we need to do that. But we want to get some basic defenses down first. We need to get some principles down. That’s important.”

The Chiefs worked in training camp on some exotic defensive tactics but used precious few in the exhibition losses to Houston and the Giants.

“I believe the coaches are doing the right thing right now in keeping it vanilla,” Johnson said. “They’re making sure we’ve got our base defense down. We can come with the blitzes. You know Gun. He can fire off some stuff. We know his mentality. Right now, he’s probably biting his tongue sometimes. But we’ve got those plays. We’re going to get to that.

“When you play like we’ve been playing and when teams know what you’re going to do, they’re going to get some stuff on you. That’s OK. The coaches know what they’re doing. We’re buying in.”

Safety Sammy Knight agreed.

“What we’re doing is fine,” Knight said. “We’ve just got to play better. It starts by playing with more emotion. If you do that, the plays will come no matter what we’re doing on defense.”

Despite some otherwise gloomy defensive statistics, Edwards sees one positive in the pass defense. The Chiefs have not yielded a throw of more than 15 yards despite defending 59 passes and allowing 38 completions.

“We’re getting them to throw the ball where they don’t want to throw it,” Edwards said.

As far as the largely punchless pass rush, the Chiefs are counting on the return from injury of first-round draft pick Tamba Hali to help. He will start against the Rams.

Edwards indicated he believes the Chiefs are talented enough to play good defense.

“We’ve got it,” Edwards said. “We just have to get on the same page. That’s all. That’s tough. We haven’t revamped everything, but we’re asking them to do some things differently. We’re playing a coverage that’s very disciplined coverage, a very physical coverage. They’re starting to understand that. There are some things we’re going to do to help them. We’re not going to just stay in this coverage.”


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To reach Adam Teicher, Chiefs reporter for The Star, call (816) 234-4875 or send e-mail to ateicher@kcstar.com

htismaqe
08-22-2006, 11:06 AM
One thing that Holthus mentioned to be aware of.

No, they haven't stopped anybody.

They also have given up ZERO big plays, which is a far cry different from previous years.

Mr. Laz
08-22-2006, 11:09 AM
One thing that Holthus mentioned to be aware of.

No, they haven't stopped anybody.

They also have given up ZERO big plays, which is a far cry different from previous years.
why try a throw for 30 yards when the defense is giving you three 10 yrd passes?




stopping big plays means nothing if you can prevent the 1st downs.

htismaqe
08-22-2006, 11:12 AM
It doesn't mean "nothing" at all.

Especially when you were giving up nearly 80 plays over 20 yards in ONE SEASON.

MichaelH
08-22-2006, 11:14 AM
I'll believe it when I see it.

RedThat
08-22-2006, 11:16 AM
why try a throw for 30 yards when the defense is giving you three 10 yrd passes?




stopping big plays means nothing if you can prevent the 1st downs.

Could it be the cover 2 scheme? For not giving up big plays and allowing the short passes?

Chiefnj
08-22-2006, 11:17 AM
A return to GROB's bend but don't break philosophy of defense. Ahh, what nostalgia.

htismaqe
08-22-2006, 11:18 AM
Could it be the cover 2 scheme? For not giving up big plays and allowing the short passes?

That's one of the basic tenants of the Cover 2 - keep everything in front of you.

Cormac
08-22-2006, 11:19 AM
They also have given up ZERO big plays, which is a far cry different from previous years.

No consolation. Die by the big play or be dinked and dunked to death. Pick your poison.

htismaqe
08-22-2006, 11:19 AM
A return to GROB's bend but don't break philosophy of defense. Ahh, what nostalgia.

The problem is that we never lived up to that philosophy. They gave up HUGE plays all over the place under GRob.

I still firmly believe that it wasn't the coach, it was the players.

wutamess
08-22-2006, 11:20 AM
It doesn't mean "nothing" at all.

Especially when you were giving up nearly 80 plays over 20 yards in ONE SEASON.

Is that the case or is that exxageration?
I'm truly wanting to know.
Not being facetious.

RedThat
08-22-2006, 11:23 AM
My understanding is, we're not giving up big plays, and allowing short passes. Not stopping anybody?

Then this D-Line really stinks. Sims, Dalton, Hicks....adios. These guys gotta go. They are so bad that they shouldn't even be backups.

*I heard in another thread that Benny Sapp is our best pass rusher right now.

htismaqe
08-22-2006, 11:24 AM
No consolation. Die by the big play or be dinked and dunked to death. Pick your poison.

It is absolutely consolation. It's impossible to get dinked and dunked to death 100% of the time. No offense is perfect, they will eventually stumble and half to punt or may even turn it over.

The problem with our defense is that it never gets to that point because we've been allowing teams to score from anywhere on the field.

It IS a small step in the right direction.

htismaqe
08-22-2006, 11:25 AM
Is that the case or is that exxageration?
I'm truly wanting to know.
Not being facetious.

Hang on...I'll find it for you.

Mr. Laz
08-22-2006, 11:25 AM
It doesn't mean "nothing" at all.

Especially when you were giving up nearly 80 plays over 20 yards in ONE SEASON.
i SAID .... it means nothing IF you can't stop the 1st downs


IF,IF,IF


ya cranky ol' bitch



stopping the big plays right now doesn't really mean anything UNLESS they prove that they can tighten it up later and stop the easy short stuff.

RedThat
08-22-2006, 11:26 AM
No consolation. Die by the big play or be dinked and dunked to death. Pick your poison.

I'll stick to the dinks. Im hoping that Hali is the real deal. But the line has to improve. I like our philosophy on defense.

*I think the main emphasis of this defense is to put pressure on the QB. We've been awful at it.

htismaqe
08-22-2006, 11:29 AM
Here you go:

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=120815

Check the August 11th update.

FringeNC
08-22-2006, 11:30 AM
So are the CBs going to play tight coverage or not this year?

htismaqe
08-22-2006, 11:32 AM
i SAID .... it means nothing IF you can't stop the 1st downs

IF,IF,IF

ya cranky ol' bitch

stopping the big plays right now doesn't really mean anything UNLESS they prove that they can tighten it up later and stop the easy short stuff.

I'm not cranky.

I'm just pointing out the hole in your thinking.

Like I said to Cormac - it's impossible to get dinked and dunked to death 100% of the time. No offense is perfect, they will eventually stumble and half to punt or may even turn it over.

Mr. Laz
08-22-2006, 11:32 AM
I'll stick to the dinks. Im hoping that Hali is the real deal. But the line has to improve. I like our philosophy on defense.

*I think the main emphasis of this defense is to put pressure on the QB. We've been awful at it.
we've tried to "stick with the dinks" before


then game time comes around and we face a decent quarterback who isn't gonna miss the open receiver and isn't gonna make the big mistake.

the offense slowly move the ball down the field and score each time and then we get behind and can't afford to play so freakin soft. We try and tighten up some and BOOM ... there goes the big play again.


heck ... you could say we've tried this bend but don't break crap every year since Vermeil showed up.

Doesn't mean crap UNLESS you can step up and stop the 1st downs or get the big turnover.

morphius
08-22-2006, 11:32 AM
*I heard in another thread that Benny Sapp is our best pass rusher right now.

You mean that guy who keeps grabbing at the QB like he is a greased pig and ends up on the ground all alone?

htismaqe
08-22-2006, 11:33 AM
So are the CBs going to play tight coverage or not this year?

What, specifically, are you referring to?

If you're talking about checking the WR at the LoS, I'd say we don't yet know. They did alot of jamming against Houston, but they apparently didn't against New York.

FringeNC
08-22-2006, 11:34 AM
I'm not cranky.

I'm just pointing out the hole in your thinking.

Like I said to Cormac - it's impossible to get dinked and dunked to death 100% of the time. No offense is perfect, they will eventually stumble and half to punt or may even turn it over.

Except that playoff game against Indy.

|Zach|
08-22-2006, 11:35 AM
we've tried to "stink with the dinks" before


then game time comes around and we face a decent quarterback who isn't gonna miss the open receiver and isn't gonna make the big mistake.

the offense slowly move the ball down the field and score each time and then we get behind and can't afford to play so freakin soft. We try and tighten up some and BOOM ... there goes the big play again.


heck ... you could say we've tried this bend but don't break crap every year since Vermeil showed up.

Doesn't mean crap UNLESS you can step up and stop the 1st downs or get the big turnover.
So you have established our defense won't be that good if we don't stop people.

HC_Chief
08-22-2006, 11:35 AM
I saw an awful lot of blitzing versus NYG.... I'm getting tired of this "vanilla scheme" excuse. The problem isn't scheme, it's <i>personnel</i>. Our DL is crap. Until we get a legit starting DT or two, the D will be inept.

Mr. Laz
08-22-2006, 11:36 AM
I'm not cranky.

I'm just pointing out the hole in your thinking.

Like I said to Cormac - it's impossible to get dinked and dunked to death 100% of the time. No offense is perfect, they will eventually stumble and half to punt or may even turn it over.
there isn't a hole in my thinking .......

only a hole in your ability to read/accept what i actually wrote and not interpret my post the way you want it to be.

IF means IF ... not *insert a parker euphemism here*

|Zach|
08-22-2006, 11:38 AM
Hey guys...on offense we are really gonna try to pound the ball on the ground this year!

"Well it won't work if we can't get good yardage out of our runningback."

Well....ya....

Mr. Laz
08-22-2006, 11:38 AM
So you have established our defense won't be that good if we don't stop people.
okay, Yogi.



more precisely i've tried to establish that stopping the big play doesn't equal stopping people.

FringeNC
08-22-2006, 11:38 AM
What, specifically, are you referring to?

If you're talking about checking the WR at the LoS, I'd say we don't yet know. They did alot of jamming against Houston, but they apparently didn't against New York.

I'm talking about giving a receiver a cushion that's beyond the 1st down marker.

htismaqe
08-22-2006, 11:40 AM
Except that playoff game against Indy.

I was going to address this with Laz' post, but since you gave me a specific instance to draw upon, I'll use your post instead.

You guys sure have strange memories. I sure don't remember getting dinked and dunked to death in the Colts game.

I remember getting burned by Brandon Stokely deep, and it certainly was EARLY in the game.

Count Alex's Losses
08-22-2006, 11:41 AM
This is garbage. We're not going to play 10 yards off the receiver during the regular season. Cover 2 corners get up and bump their receivers before falling into their zones.

htismaqe
08-22-2006, 11:42 AM
there isn't a hole in my thinking .......

only a hole in your ability to read/accept what i actually wrote and not interpret my post the way you want it to be.

IF means IF ... not *insert a parker euphemism here*

There is a whole in your thinking.

I know what the meaning of the word "if" is. And I know precisely why you used it.

It's quite simple:

No offense will get the 1st down 100% of the time, even with NO DEFENSE on the field.

You can yammer all you want, it doesn't change the fact that stopping big plays, for THIS defense, is a BIG deal.

Mr. Laz
08-22-2006, 11:43 AM
This is garbage. We're not going to play 10 yards off the receiver during the regular season. Cover 2 corners get up and bump their receivers before falling into their zones.
so you're saying that stopping the big play is a bad thing?[/parker]

Count Alex's Losses
08-22-2006, 11:44 AM
What the hell. I'm agreeing with Parker.

FringeNC
08-22-2006, 11:45 AM
I was going to address this with Laz' post, but since you gave me a specific instance to draw upon, I'll use your post instead.

You guys sure have strange memories. I sure don't remember getting dinked and dunked to death in the Colts game.

I remember getting burned by Brandon Stokely deep, and it certainly was EARLY in the game.

And I also remember numerous 3rd down attempts where we failed to stop them.

Or better yet, take out the flea flicker, and Dallas did that to us last year. Especially their two drives in the 4th quarter. Let them march down the field in small chunks.

The Chiefs' defense may be improved this year -- who the hell really knows now -- but nothing I've seen on the field thus far has me inspired.

htismaqe
08-22-2006, 11:46 AM
Except that playoff game against Indy.

I found it, and I was right.

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/gamebook/NFL_20040111_IND@KC

1st 3 Indy drives, 3 plays of 20+ yards. We weren't dinked and dunked at all.

Mr. Laz
08-22-2006, 11:46 AM
You can yammer all you want, it doesn't change the fact that stopping big plays, for THIS defense, is a BIG deal.
in the abstract ... "yes"

stopping the big play is a goal of EVERY defense


but IF we can't stop the short plays too we won't be able to stay in this umbrella defense for long. Teams will just come in a dink and dunk until we fall behind and have to come out of it ...... then they go deep.

it's been happening to us for years now.

htismaqe
08-22-2006, 11:47 AM
I'm talking about giving a receiver a cushion that's beyond the 1st down marker.

Like I said, we jammed in the Houston game, so it's anybody's guess at this point.

Count Alex's Losses
08-22-2006, 11:47 AM
THIS IS NOT AN UMBRELLA DEFENSE. THERE ARE PLAYERS DEFENDING THE SHORT ZONES. GET A CLUE.

Mr. Laz
08-22-2006, 11:48 AM
What the hell. I'm agreeing with Parker.
dropping to your knees for another mod, i see.

|Zach|
08-22-2006, 11:48 AM
I just got a couple of laughs reading a few of the posts.

I can imagine all these guys around a table talking about different football strategies and philosophies for their teams and then each of them telling the other why it won't work citing a lack of execution.

htismaqe
08-22-2006, 11:48 AM
in the abstract ... "yes"

stopping the big play is a goal of EVERY defense


but IF we can't stop the short plays too we won't be able to stay in this umbrella defense for long. Teams will just come in a dink and dunk until we fall behind and have to come out of it ...... then they go deep.

it's been happening to us for years now.

That's my point.

1) Teams CANNOT dink and dunk like you suggest they can. EVERYBODY makes a mistake at some point.

2) It has NOT been happening to us for years. Find a game and point out an instance where we gave up a touchdown WITHOUT giving up a 20+ yard play on the drive. Here's a hint - you won't find one easily.

|Zach|
08-22-2006, 11:49 AM
dropping to your knees for another mod, i see.
Because agreeing with mods gets people sooo many benefits.

Wile_E_Coyote
08-22-2006, 11:50 AM
You mean that guy who keeps grabbing at the QB like he is a greased pig and ends up on the ground all alone?

that's the Benny Sapp I remember

htismaqe
08-22-2006, 11:51 AM
Because agreeing with mods gets people sooo many benefits.

Well it does keep GC from being banned for the tenth time. :D

Mr. Laz
08-22-2006, 12:03 PM
That's my point.

1) Teams CANNOT dink and dunk like you suggest they can. EVERYBODY makes a mistake at some point.

2) It has NOT been happening to us for years. Find a game and point out an instance where we gave up a touchdown WITHOUT giving up a 20+ yard play on the drive. Here's a hint - you won't find one easily.
fine ... you win


we are going to the super BOWL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

go bowe
08-22-2006, 12:06 PM
Because agreeing with mods gets people sooo many benefits.benefits? *perk*

gee, zach, i totally agree with you... :D :D :D

htismaqe
08-22-2006, 12:06 PM
fine ... you win

we are going to the super BOWL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now that's the kind of ridiculous hyperbole I come here for.

I've been around this place long enough to know what's going on. I don't expect you to admit improvement, no matter how tiny. It sets up improper expectations...

|Zach|
08-22-2006, 12:07 PM
Weak.

Mr. Laz
08-22-2006, 12:11 PM
Now that's the kind of ridiculous hyperbole I come here for.

I've been around this place long enough to know what's going on. I don't expect you to admit improvement, no matter how tiny. It sets up improper expectations...
well okay then, big man.

one day you're telling everyone had pathetic they are because preseason doesn't mean a thing.

the next you're telling them what a big deal it is that the defense is stopping the big play IN PRESEASON.


so step up ..... what does this big deal/big play stopping mean?




super bowl ... top 10 defense ... what?



laz
~waiting for the backpedaling to begin~

Hog Farmer
08-22-2006, 12:15 PM
If we can keep our opponents offense on the field long enough then eventually their running backs and wide receivers will get tired. That's when we'll kick their ass.

Count Alex's Losses
08-22-2006, 12:18 PM
No one knows shit about this defense yet. Stop judging them based on preseason games. The only thing we can say for certain is that they will be playing alot of cover two, and that DOES NOT mean they will be playing 10 yards off the line on 3rd and 3.

htismaqe
08-22-2006, 12:18 PM
well okay then, big man.

one day you're telling everyone had pathetic they are because preseason doesn't mean a thing.

the next you're telling them what a big deal it is that the defense is stopping the big play IN PRESEASON.

so step up ..... what does this big deal/big play stopping mean?

super bowl ... top 10 defense ... what?

laz
~waiting for the backpedaling to begin~

I'm wondering where you saw that I told anyone they were "pathetic" because the preseason "doesn't mean a thing." You sure love to talk in absolutes...

And yes, stopping the big play this PRESEASON IS a big deal. Why? Because we gave up big plays all over the place under Vermeil in preseason, and it turned out to be a portent of things to come.

What does it mean? It means that SOMETHING has changed. What is that something? I really don't know. Nor do I know if we're actually going to produce better results. I just know that it's a positive SIGN.

The above, of course, is "backpedaling".

|Zach|
08-22-2006, 12:19 PM
well okay then, big man.

one day you're telling everyone had pathetic they are because preseason doesn't mean a thing.

the next you're telling them what a big deal it is that the defense is stopping the big play IN PRESEASON.


so step up ..... what does this big deal/big play stopping mean?




super bowl ... top 10 defense ... what?



laz
~waiting for the backpedaling to begin~


ROFL

You can't even stand behind huge vague general statements yet you are asking the other person for a pinpoint prediction that reflects many many more variables than the one we are discussing I love it.

You were better off being a drama queen.

fine ... you win


we are going to the super BOWL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

htismaqe
08-22-2006, 12:20 PM
ROFL

You can't even stand behind huge vague general statements yet you are asking the other person for a pinpoint prediction that reflects many many more variables than the one we are discussing I love it.

You were better off being a drama queen.

Facts and accuracy are only required when DEFENDING the team.

It's not required when bashing the team, because they deserve it.

stevieray
08-22-2006, 12:22 PM
Facts and accuracy are only required when DEFENDING the team.

It's not required when bashing the team, because they deserve it.


Pretty much.

Mr. Laz
08-22-2006, 12:23 PM
I'm wondering where you saw that I told anyone they were "pathetic" because the preseason "doesn't mean a thing." oh come now ... just because you used the word moron or idiot instead of pathetic doesn't change the basic jist.
What does it mean? It means that SOMETHING has changed. What is that something? I really don't know. Nor do I know if we're actually going to produce better results. I just know that it's a positive SIGN
so you're saying is, it COULD be a big deal IF they continue to improve??



interesting :hmmm:

Mr. Laz
08-22-2006, 12:26 PM
Facts and accuracy are only required when DEFENDING the team.

It's not required when bashing the team, because they deserve it.Now that's the kind of ridiculous hyperbole I come here for.

I've been around this place long enough to know what's going on.

btw ... who's bashing the team?

not me, i'm merely saying that stopping the big plays by itself doesn't mean much of anything.

htismaqe
08-22-2006, 12:31 PM
oh come now ... just because you used the word moron or idiot instead of pathetic doesn't change the basic jist.

so you're saying is, it COULD be a big deal IF they continue to improve??

interesting :hmmm:

I use the words "moron" and "idiot" quite a bit in reference to many Chiefs fans because they're unfortunately deserved. As for using them in the CONTEXT of saying that preseason, unequivocally, means NOTHING, I'd ask you to point out where I said that.

If you're talking about predictions of starting out 0-8 and their ilk, you can save it. Don't denigrate yourself by trying to defend such silliness.

And no, I'm not saying it COULD be a big deal. I'm saying it IS a big deal.

In the past 5 or so preseason, we've given up a ton of big plays in preseason and gone on to give up RECORD NUMBERS of big plays in the regular season. Elementary historical analysis says that giving up NO big plays this preseason is a GOOD change. Does that mean the trend will hold up and we'll give up no big plays in the regular season? Of course not. But then again, I'm not pretending to say that either.

htismaqe
08-22-2006, 12:32 PM
Illustrating absurdity with absurdity is called "irony".

Count Alex's Losses
08-22-2006, 12:40 PM
The two big plays we've allowed this preseason were a 25-yard run and a 20-yard reverse.

I guess this means our run D is going to suck!

Hog Farmer
08-22-2006, 12:44 PM
You guys have to realize, Scanlon has only been in on a limited number of plays, he's being held back until the season starts.

Chief Henry
08-22-2006, 01:51 PM
I'm getting tired of this "vanilla scheme" excuse. The problem isn't scheme, it's <i>personnel</i>. Our DL is crap. Until we get a legit starting DT or two, the D will be inept.


I couldn't have said it better myself.

jspchief
08-22-2006, 03:34 PM
Edwards wants better. He also wants to keep the defenses as plain as possible to reveal as little as possible about their regular-season plans.


Here's my problem with "vanilla". Teicher claims that Herm doesn't want to reveal things for the regular season. Why not? After the first game, everyone is going to have film on us anyway. How many games do we really expect to win based off of surprise rather than execution?

I don't know if what we are doing is vanilla or not. It appears to be to me, but it's hard to compare against a scheme we've yet to run in the regular season.

But if the coaches really are keeping it vanilla, I have to wonder why. I would think practicing it so that the execution is there would be more important than surprising teams with plays that we can't properly execute.

I don't expect them to display the entire playbook. But it's not like teams haven't seen the Cover 2 before. Run the dman scheme liek you're going to run it in the regular season. Let these guys get the experience and confidence to play this game right when it counts.

CoMoChief
08-22-2006, 03:45 PM
The two big plays we've allowed this preseason were a 25-yard run and a 20-yard reverse.

I guess this means our run D is going to suck!

I will still continue to think our defense sucks until I am shown otherwise. We may not give up big plays, but we constantly get punched with 8 yards here and 9 yards there. Theres no reason for huge plays when the opposing offense is facing 2nd and short all game long. We'll never win a game if thats the case. Why do you think the defense is out on the field for too long???

htismaqe
08-22-2006, 03:54 PM
Here's my problem with "vanilla". Teicher claims that Herm doesn't want to reveal things for the regular season. Why not? After the first game, everyone is going to have film on us anyway. How many games do we really expect to win based off of surprise rather than execution?

I don't know if what we are doing is vanilla or not. It appears to be to me, but it's hard to compare against a scheme we've yet to run in the regular season.

But if the coaches really are keeping it vanilla, I have to wonder why. I would think practicing it so that the execution is there would be more important than surprising teams with plays that we can't properly execute.

I don't expect them to display the entire playbook. But it's not like teams haven't seen the Cover 2 before. Run the dman scheme liek you're going to run it in the regular season. Let these guys get the experience and confidence to play this game right when it counts.

Great post.

Chiefnj
08-22-2006, 03:57 PM
I don't expect them to display the entire playbook. But it's not like teams haven't seen the Cover 2 before. Run the dman scheme liek you're going to run it in the regular season. Let these guys get the experience and confidence to play this game right when it counts.


Even the commentators noted how far Law was playing off the ball in a short yardage situation that led to an easy conversion. Even if they wanted to play basic vanilla D, why not bump the guy at the line? What's the point putting the corner 7 yards off the ball on 3rd and 3 and giving the Giants an easy first down? Who on the defense benefits from that?

Count Alex's Losses
08-22-2006, 05:34 PM
That's a very good point, nj. Is it possible Law screwed up his assignment?

Rukdafaidas
08-22-2006, 06:34 PM
I know one thing, Law isn't going to consistantly play 10 yards off the line in the regular season.
Law is the most physical CB in football. Hell, they even changed the CB contact rules (started enforcing) because of him.

the Talking Can
08-22-2006, 07:04 PM
I know one thing, Law isn't going to consistantly play 10 yards off the line in the regular season.
Law is the most physical CB in football. Hell, they even changed the CB contact rules (started enforcing) because of him.

you underestimate Gun's stupidity at your peril, young one....let me tell you the story of Kendrell Bell In Coverage...

Reaper16
08-22-2006, 07:18 PM
Here's my problem with "vanilla". Teicher claims that Herm doesn't want to reveal things for the regular season. Why not? After the first game, everyone is going to have film on us anyway. How many games do we really expect to win based off of surprise rather than execution?

I don't know if what we are doing is vanilla or not. It appears to be to me, but it's hard to compare against a scheme we've yet to run in the regular season.

But if the coaches really are keeping it vanilla, I have to wonder why. I would think practicing it so that the execution is there would be more important than surprising teams with plays that we can't properly execute.

I don't expect them to display the entire playbook. But it's not like teams haven't seen the Cover 2 before. Run the dman scheme liek you're going to run it in the regular season. Let these guys get the experience and confidence to play this game right when it counts.
I was thinking the same thing reading this thread. What's the use of keeping elements of the Cover 2 secret? It's not like everyone in the NFL doesn't know about that scheme. If clowns like us on message boards can ascertain that we'll be jamming recievers at the line, then NFL coaching staffs certainly can.

eChief
08-22-2006, 08:06 PM
If they pull the covers off of just 10% of the regular season defense and offense and we see something I'll be somewhat appeased. If they pull off the covers and still suck we will be suffering through a long year.

As it looks now the playbook as well as the players are using the old fashioned iron lung to survive.

Chiefnj
08-22-2006, 11:04 PM
What exactly does "vanilla" mean when it is being used this week by Chiefs reporters? In the 3rd quarter of the Giants game the Chiefs D did a lot of blitzing and used different blitz packages. Sapp was sent, Pollard was sent, the linebackers sent, etc. They did not line up and sit back in thier respective positions, they blitzed on just about every obvious passing down and also utilzed some run blitzes (which was successful on a 3rd and short). Vanilla defense my ass, unless it is coachspeak for "our first string defense sucks moose balls."