Better pass rush won't help without better coverage scheme

**cdcox** · 12-28-2005, 12:40 PM

Many here on the "What one area of our team kept us out of the playoffs? " thread are declaring the pass rush as the single thing in most need of improvement. However, without a change in coverage scheme a better pass rush would have very little effect.

We run what I call "halo pass coverage" becasue the defenders often treat the receiver as someone fielding a punt, giving him a 3 yard halo. Even in double or triple coverage, our players maintain this this halo, even slowing down to avoid closing the gap when given the chance. Once the receiver catches the ball, they collapse the halo and make the tackle (or at least try to). This is done so consistently that it must be by design.

Suppose we had the league's best pass rush. The QB sees a 10 yard cushion on at least one of the wide outs. He knows from film study about the halo coverage. Any decent OC is going to have a hot option on every pass play. When the pass rush comes, the QB can go to this hot option or nearly any other player on the field and hit him for an easy completion because we do not make any serious attempt at close coverage.

I don't know why we don't run a more aggressive coverage scheme. Maybe we don't have good enough players in the secondary to run anything else. Maybe Vermeil or Gunther is so paranoid about giving up the big play that they will not give anything else a chance. What I do know is that a fierce pass rush will have very little impact until we get away from the halo coverage scheme.

Mr. Laz · 12-28-2005, 12:49 PM

agreed...

the players don't fit the scheme ... the blitz scheme doesn't fit the coverage behind it...

blah,blah,blah

the coaching just doesn't jive ... time to move on.

**ptlyon** · 12-28-2005, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laz

the coaching just doesn't jive ... time to move on.

du do do do do do dooo

pig and elephant DNA just don't jive...

Hammock Parties · 12-28-2005, 12:56 PM

I think you're being a little harsh. It's not as bad as it was under GROB.

B_Ambuehl · 12-28-2005, 12:56 PM

There are simply not enough athletes in the secondary and they struggle staying with guys man to man. You have a natural linebacker playing strong safety (Knight), a basketball player playing free safety (Wesley), a free safety playing cornerback( Warfield), and 1 true cover corner doing what he's supposed to do. (Surtain)

I'd bet $50 that's easily the slowest and least agile secondary in the entire NFL.

One of the major reasons I dissed on Williams' as a head coaching candidate last week was because he runs an aggressive man to man scheme and the players in the secondary have already proven they can't play that. However, after giving it some thought I see Warfield being moved to FS and a new athletic corner being brought in, drafted, or someone on the roster getting some PT at that position (Hodge, Sapp, Battle etc.) If that new corner could hold up, moving Warfield to FS would make that secondary a strength.

ChiefsLV · 12-28-2005, 12:59 PM

Disagree

While the Chiefs do run the zone defense a lot, they don't run it every time they line up. With a pass rush would come the ability to run a more aggressive cover scheme. Gunther is not going to leave the corners one on one with receivers if he isn't confident that the line will get to the qb. With our defensive line's inability to bring pressure consistently, we'd be giving the other team too many chances for the big play. As they say, it all starts up front.

**Lzen** · 12-28-2005, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiefsLV

Disagree

While the Chiefs do run the zone defense a lot, they don't run it every time they line up. With a pass rush would come the ability to run a more aggressive cover scheme. Gunther is not going to leave the corners one on one with receivers if he isn't confident that the line will get to the qb. With our defensive line's inability to bring pressure consistently, we'd be giving the other team too many chances for the big play. As they say, it all starts up front.

Yep.

I don't care if you have the best secondary in the league. If you can't get pressure on the QB, you'll give up a lot of passing yards, period. Even the best DBs can't cover forever.

sedated · 12-28-2005, 01:08 PM

The DB's are so far away from the WR's because the WR's have time to run their complete routes.

If the QB had less time and a hand in his face when he was throwing, the DB's would look much better.

**ptlyon** · 12-28-2005, 01:10 PM

If we had a stud DT, this thread would not exist.

Warrior5 · 12-28-2005, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ptlyon

If we had a stud DT, this thread would not exist.

Exactly...a better pass rush would allow Gun to use a better coverage scheme.

Mr. Laz · 12-28-2005, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warrior5

Exactly...a better pass rush would allow Gun to use a better coverage scheme.

maybe

and maybe a better scheme would provide a better pass rush.

jspchief · 12-28-2005, 01:23 PM

I think it's pas rush and the middle of our secondary.

We need a DT to collapse the pocket and force the QB int oour edge rushers. And we need better safeties to cover the middle of the field.

I also think our scheme is flawed. We rarely bump receivers off their route.

htismaqe · 12-28-2005, 01:42 PM

A better this or that wouldn't allow Gunther to do anything.

He's inept.

Everybody said Warfield coming back would ALLOW Gunther to play more bump-and-run. They were wrong.

siberian khatru · 12-28-2005, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

A better this or that wouldn't allow Gunther to do anything.

He's inept.

Everybody said Warfield coming back would ALLOW Gunther to play more bump-and-run. They were wrong.

Here's the thing that bothers me: We read this kind of stuff all the time on the Planet. Have you ever read anyone, anywhere in the KC media ask Gunther WHY he doesn't play more b'n'r? Maybe he's got a good explanation (although I doubt it). But it would be so much more enlightening if the media did their job and just asked him to explain.

I always thought reporters should be representatives of the readers/fans. I told coaches I was covering that I'd often ask them questions from a fan's perspective, the guy sitting in the stands or at home on the couch wondering why so-and-so made the decision he did. For me, it was a way not to personalize things -- coaches didn't think I was attacking them, I was only playing devil's advocate. Most appreciated that (some still didn't like the questions, but they were just azzholes).

There's a lot of smart folks on the Planet who understand football -- at least how the game works and how other teams do things. That doesn't necessarily mean they're right and the Chiefs coaches are wrong, but I think it would help if the media served as a bridge between the team and fans and asked the coaches to "educate" us on why they do the things they do.

I read those press conference transcripts I see little more than "who's hurt ... will he play ... ever faced an injury like that before ... how tough will it be playing Team X ... when you were in Philly/St. Louis did you ever ... how was practice this week ..."

**cdcox** · 12-28-2005, 02:46 PM

To all you that say Gun would run a different coverage scheme if the pressure was there:

Why does Gun not man up when we are sending 7 or 8 players on a max blitz. Even if the blitz does not get someone on the QB in 2 seconds, he is going to go to his hot receiver just on the basis of reading the blitz alone. The QB will not hold the ball for 4 or 5 seconds because of the read. Still the blitz is matched halo coverage. Is our DB talent so bad that they can't cover a reciever for 3 seconds?

12-28-2005, 12:40 PM
cdcox www.nfl-forecast.com Join Date: Sep 2000 Casino cash: $2361769	Better pass rush won't help without better coverage scheme Many here on the "What one area of our team kept us out of the playoffs? " thread are declaring the pass rush as the single thing in most need of improvement. However, without a change in coverage scheme a better pass rush would have very little effect. We run what I call "halo pass coverage" becasue the defenders often treat the receiver as someone fielding a punt, giving him a 3 yard halo. Even in double or triple coverage, our players maintain this this halo, even slowing down to avoid closing the gap when given the chance. Once the receiver catches the ball, they collapse the halo and make the tackle (or at least try to). This is done so consistently that it must be by design. Suppose we had the league's best pass rush. The QB sees a 10 yard cushion on at least one of the wide outs. He knows from film study about the halo coverage. Any decent OC is going to have a hot option on every pass play. When the pass rush comes, the QB can go to this hot option or nearly any other player on the field and hit him for an easy completion because we do not make any serious attempt at close coverage. I don't know why we don't run a more aggressive coverage scheme. Maybe we don't have good enough players in the secondary to run anything else. Maybe Vermeil or Gunther is so paranoid about giving up the big play that they will not give anything else a chance. What I do know is that a fierce pass rush will have very little impact until we get away from the halo coverage scheme.
Posts: 45,536

12-28-2005, 12:49 PM	#2
Mr. Laz Don't Tease Me Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: KS Casino cash: $11047037	agreed... the players don't fit the scheme ... the blitz scheme doesn't fit the coverage behind it... blah,blah,blah the coaching just doesn't jive ... time to move on. __________________
Posts: 95,626

12-28-2005, 12:56 PM	#4
Hammock Parties I'll be back. Join Date: Nov 2002 Casino cash: $4740478	I think you're being a little harsh. It's not as bad as it was under GROB. __________________ Chiefs game films
Posts: 277,685

12-28-2005, 12:56 PM	#5
B_Ambuehl Veteran Join Date: Apr 2005 Casino cash: $9805405	There are simply not enough athletes in the secondary and they struggle staying with guys man to man. You have a natural linebacker playing strong safety (Knight), a basketball player playing free safety (Wesley), a free safety playing cornerback( Warfield), and 1 true cover corner doing what he's supposed to do. (Surtain) I'd bet $50 that's easily the slowest and least agile secondary in the entire NFL. One of the major reasons I dissed on Williams' as a head coaching candidate last week was because he runs an aggressive man to man scheme and the players in the secondary have already proven they can't play that. However, after giving it some thought I see Warfield being moved to FS and a new athletic corner being brought in, drafted, or someone on the roster getting some PT at that position (Hodge, Sapp, Battle etc.) If that new corner could hold up, moving Warfield to FS would make that secondary a strength. __________________ Who's decision was it to fire Romeo" - Coleman C Hunt: "It was my decision but it was one that Scott agreed with" LOL
Posts: 2,605

12-28-2005, 12:59 PM	#6
ChiefsLV Starter Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Las Vegas, NV Casino cash: $7102003	Disagree While the Chiefs do run the zone defense a lot, they don't run it every time they line up. With a pass rush would come the ability to run a more aggressive cover scheme. Gunther is not going to leave the corners one on one with receivers if he isn't confident that the line will get to the qb. With our defensive line's inability to bring pressure consistently, we'd be giving the other team too many chances for the big play. As they say, it all starts up front.
Posts: 998

12-28-2005, 01:10 PM	#9
ptlyon Bono & Grbac wasn't enough Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Sioux City, IA Casino cash: $13133829	If we had a stud DT, this thread would not exist. __________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Advertise here: $19.99 a month
Posts: 33,528

12-28-2005, 01:23 PM	#12
jspchief BAMF Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Your Face Casino cash: $9998710	I think it's pas rush and the middle of our secondary. We need a DT to collapse the pocket and force the QB int oour edge rushers. And we need better safeties to cover the middle of the field. I also think our scheme is flawed. We rarely bump receivers off their route. __________________ Courage is not the absence of fear but rather the judgment that something is more important than fear. The brave may not live forever but the cautious do not live at all.
Posts: 27,207

12-28-2005, 01:42 PM	#13
htismaqe 'Tis my eye! Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Chiefsplanet Casino cash: $10269900	A better this or that wouldn't allow Gunther to do anything. He's inept. Everybody said Warfield coming back would ALLOW Gunther to play more bump-and-run. They were wrong.
Posts: 100,022

12-28-2005, 02:46 PM	#15
cdcox www.nfl-forecast.com Join Date: Sep 2000 Casino cash: $2361769	To all you that say Gun would run a different coverage scheme if the pressure was there: Why does Gun not man up when we are sending 7 or 8 players on a max blitz. Even if the blitz does not get someone on the QB in 2 seconds, he is going to go to his hot receiver just on the basis of reading the blitz alone. The QB will not hold the ball for 4 or 5 seconds because of the read. Still the blitz is matched halo coverage. Is our DB talent so bad that they can't cover a reciever for 3 seconds?
Posts: 45,536