Josh McDaniels, you sir, are an idiot

[OnTheWarpath15]

So I'm driving home after running some errands, and am listening to Sirius NFL Radio.

The 2:00 Drill News Report comes on, and they mention the Broncos meeting with the Bengals - that Denver is focusing on eliminating the big play.

Fair enough.

Until they go to the tape, for the quote from McDaniels.

I'm paraphrasing, but this is pretty damn close to verbatim:

"We just have to focus on not giving up those chunks of yards. We need to make an offense drive 12, 14, 16 plays."

http://i41.tinypic.com/2gwgp4j.jpg


Yes, Mr. Piven, you heard that correctly.

Josh McDaniels would like his defense to give up 12, 14 or 16 play drives, allowing the opponent to win the TOP battle, and wear out his defense. Meanwhile, keeping his own offense off the field.

Apparently he has no concept of 3-and-out. Or he doesn't plan on it happening very often.

This guy makes Herm Edwards look like Bill Fucking Walsh.

[ChiefaRoo]

So I'm driving home after running some errands, and am listening to Sirius NFL Radio.

The 2:00 Drill News Report comes on, and they mention the Broncos meeting with the Bengals - that Denver is focusing on eliminating the big play.

Fair enough.

Until they go to the tape, for the quote from McDaniels.

I'm paraphrasing, but this is pretty damn close to verbatim:

"We just have to focus on not giving up those chunks of yards. We need to make an offense drive 12, 14, 16 plays."

http://i41.tinypic.com/2gwgp4j.jpg


Yes, Mr. Piven, you heard that correctly.

Josh McDaniels would like his defense to give up 12, 14 or 16 play drives, allowing the opponent to win the TOP battle, and wear out his defense. Meanwhile, keeping his own offense off the field.

Apparently he has no concept of 3-and-out. Or he doesn't plan on it happening very often.

This guy makes Herm Edwards look like Bill ****ing Walsh.


Good. I hope her Herm's the donks up something good.

[Buck]

AND Idiot

[MMXcalibur]

I recall the Chiefs game against the Niners in San Francisco a few years back where Jeff Garcia and the Niners offense literally OWNED the ball the entire game. The high flying Chiefs offense never got a whiff of the ball because the Niners were continually driving and picking up first down after first down.

[OnTheWarpath15]

AND Idiot

Dude, I'm not having my own thread hijacked because some fuckstick n00b doesn't understand the lexicon.

Better off playing it straight.

[Just Passin' By]

So I'm driving home after running some errands, and am listening to Sirius NFL Radio.

The 2:00 Drill News Report comes on, and they mention the Broncos meeting with the Bengals - that Denver is focusing on eliminating the big play.

Fair enough.

Until they go to the tape, for the quote from McDaniels.

I'm paraphrasing, but this is pretty damn close to verbatim:

"We just have to focus on not giving up those chunks of yards. We need to make an offense drive 12, 14, 16 plays."

http://i41.tinypic.com/2gwgp4j.jpg


Yes, Mr. Piven, you heard that correctly.

Josh McDaniels would like his defense to give up 12, 14 or 16 play drives, allowing the opponent to win the TOP battle, and wear out his defense. Meanwhile, keeping his own offense off the field.

Apparently he has no concept of 3-and-out. Or he doesn't plan on it happening very often.

This guy makes Herm Edwards look like Bill ****ing Walsh.

You think defenses should just give up huge chunks of yardage instead of forcing the opponents to make 12/14/16 play drives?

[MikeMaslowski]

Ride the Piven train while you can my friend. He's got to be going down soon.

[Buehler445]

ROFL.

May he have a long and storied career with the Donko bitches.
Posted via Mobile Device

[KCUnited]

Seems like he has a realistic grasp of where his defense is at too me.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

You think defenses should just give up huge chunks of yardage instead of forcing the opponents to make 12/14/16 play drives?

If the end result is a score, then yes....of course, this is overly reductive. Aggressive Ds that go after the opposition rather than try to win a war of attrition help you win the turnover battle and create the big plays you need to win the game and change momentum.

[Mile High Mania]

"We just have to focus on not giving up those chunks of yards. We need to make an offense drive 12, 14, 16 plays."


I'd have to hear the actual quote, not a version of what you recall it being before I get too crazy with it...

[Just Passin' By]

If the end result is a score, then yes.

The idea is to force an offense to make a lot of successful plays to score rather than getting gashed for huge gains.

[Consistent1]

I think the guy is a tool, don't get me wrong. But it sounds like to me he is saying that if a team is going to score, he wants them to work for it, take more plays to do so and have more chances at turnovers and mistakes. Not two plays for a quick TD then back to the sideline to rest.

[OnTheWarpath15]

If the end result is a score, then yes....of course, this is overly reductive. Aggressive Ds that go after the opposition rather than try to win a war of attrition help you win the turnover battle and create the big plays you need to win the game and change momentum.

Beat me to it.

[Just Passin' By]

I'd have to hear the actual quote, not a version of what you recall it being before I get too crazy with it...

No need to, really. It's part of the "bend, but don't break" style of defense.

[OnTheWarpath15]

The idea is to force an offense to make a lot of successful plays to score rather than getting gashed for huge gains.

Actually, the idea is to get your defense off the field, and not allow the opposition to score.

Two things McFuckstick didn't even bring up.

He's already resigning to the fact his defense isn't going to force many teams into 3-and-outs.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

The idea is to force an offense to make a lot of successful plays to score rather than getting gashed for huge gains.

No, that's an oversimplification. Your defense should attack the offense, not let it slowly pick it apart. You'll give up big gains that way, but you also change games with big plays.

Why don't you ask some Chiefs fans how much they like the Tampon 2.

[Just Passin' By]

No, that's an oversimplification. Your defense should attack the offense, not let it slowly pick it apart. You'll give up big gains that way, but you also change games with big plays.

Why don't you ask some Chiefs fans how much they like the Tampon 2.

No, it's not an oversimplification, anymore than your response was. It's just a basic methodology. I don't need to ask Chiefs fans about it. I've been watching it in New England for quite some time now.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Actually, the idea is to get your defense off the field, and not allow the opposition to score.

Two things McFuckstick didn't even bring up.

He's already resigning to the fact his defense isn't going to force many teams into 3-and-outs.

Case in point: Chiefs-Colts, 2004.

The Chiefs have a piss awful defense, but they blitzed the fuck out of Manning. They gave up a ton of yards and points, but made enough plays with the pressure to overcome the lack of talent, whereas 9 months before they sat back and let themselves get slowly dissected, leaving their offense absolutely no room for error.

[Just Passin' By]

Actually, the idea is to get your defense off the field, and not allow the opposition to score.

Two things Mc****stick didn't even bring up.

He's already resigning to the fact his defense isn't going to force many teams into 3-and-outs.

And once again, you just don't seem to know what you're talking about. He's talking about the same style of defense that the Patriots run. It seems to work pretty well there.

[kysirsoze]

I think the guy is a tool, don't get me wrong. But it sounds like to me he is saying that if a team is going to score, he wants them to work for it, take more plays to do so and have more chances at turnovers and mistakes. Not two plays for a quick TD then back to the sideline to rest.

I understand your point but it's the defense that usually needs the rest so if they are going to score anyway, it's better that it's quick.

Like Hamas was saying, fundamentally you're either aggressive with high risk high reward, or you're conservative and hope to "bend don't break." McDaniels comments lead me to believe the Donk D will be the latter. Might be reading too much into a throwaway response to the press, though.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

And once again, you just don't seem to know what you're talking about.

Claims mean nothing without evidence. You've never been able to grasp this. The act of you saying something does not emboss it in gold, in fact, it laminates it in a peanut-crusted diarrhea glaze.

[dirk digler]

I think the guy is a tool, don't get me wrong. But it sounds like to me he is saying that if a team is going to score, he wants them to work for it, take more plays to do so and have more chances at turnovers and mistakes. Not two plays for a quick TD then back to the sideline to rest.

I think that is accurate

[Titty Meat]

Like Tennesee did last night

[OnTheWarpath15]

And once again, you just don't seem to know what you're talking about. He's talking about the same style of defense that the Patriots run. It seems to work pretty well there.

Of course it did.

They have talent.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Case in point: Chiefs-Colts, 2004.

The Chiefs have a piss awful defense, but they blitzed the fuck out of Manning. They gave up a ton of yards and points, but made enough plays with the pressure to overcome the lack of talent, whereas 9 months before they sat back and let themselves get slowly dissected, leaving their offense absolutely no room for error.

Bingo.

[Consistent1]

I don't want to take sides with you guys arguing. Let's just get along...ha. It just seems that he does have some confidence in his team D being successful enough to stop drives if they are going to take a bunch of plays. Would you rather see Brady having to dump off to Faulk and get decked anyway, perhaps still having to punt....or get burned by a 60 yarder to Moss with everybody on O having a clean jersey going back to the sideline? I don't get any we aren't going to be aggresive at times vibe.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

I think that is accurate

Of course that's what he's alluding to. It's also a fucking straw man argument. You don't have the option of either A) Allow 16 play drives or B) allow 1 play drives.

If you don't have talent on D, you need to attack, attack, attack. Your talent will get exposed either way, but if you allow yourself to pressure the QB and take chances, the end result will still be similar, but you also won't lose the TOP by 10 minutes, and you'll give your team extra possessions through winning the turnover battle.

[Amnorix]

Apparently he has no concept of 3-and-out. Or he doesn't plan on it happening very often.

This guy makes Herm Edwards look like Bill ****ing Walsh.


You don't seem to understand. This is Bill Belichick's philosophy -- the classic "bend but don't break" philosophy.

The key is to force an offense repeatedly execute at a high level and force them to sustain long drives, rather than give up the big play. BB has generally favored this approach over the more attacking styles that are more blitz based and higher risk / higher reward.

He's not saying he WANTS offenses to execute 10, 12, 14 play drives, but rather that he wants to force them to do it IN ORDER TO score at all, rather than 4 plays and 65 yards for the TD.

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

I don't care HOW the donkey's fail, just FAIL.

[Hog's Gone Fishin]

Any way you look at it. Their defense will be on the field most of the time because they have Orton.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

You don't seem to understand. This is Bill Belichick's philosophy -- the classic "bend but don't break" philosophy.

The key is to force an offense repeatedly execute at a high level and force them to sustain long drives, rather than give up the big play. BB has generally favored this approach over the more attacking styles that are more blitz based and higher risk / higher reward.

He's not saying he WANTS offenses to execute 10, 12, 14 play drives, but rather that he wants to force them to do it IN ORDER TO score at all, rather than 4 plays and 65 yards for the TD.

He understands perfectly.

Bill Belichick has/had Richard Seymour, Green, Bruschi, Vrabel, Harrison, Law, Samuel, McGinest, Thomas, Colvin, Mayo.

It's easy to play a BBDB D when you have The 1999 Bucs. It doesn't work when you have the 2008 Chiefs. When you lack talent, you have to attack, otherwise you end up with 10 sacks for the season, blowing late leads, while giving up 28 points a game.

[Amnorix]

I understand your point but it's the defense that usually needs the rest so if they are going to score anyway, it's better that it's quick.

Like Hamas was saying, fundamentally you're either aggressive with high risk high reward, or you're conservative and hope to "bend don't break." McDaniels comments lead me to believe the Donk D will be the latter. Might be reading too much into a throwaway response to the press, though.

No, you've pretty much got it.

But "defenses needing to rest" is a bit of a myth anyway. Sure, they can get worn down, but depending on the depth and rotations etc., they might be ok. Losing time of possession usually has more to do with the other team's offense out-executing your offense.

I wonder if the Patriots in 2007 dominated TOP. Some of their quick strike offensive attacks probably led to losing TOP yet winning the game, sometimes by a sizeable margin, I bet.

[Just Passin' By]

Claims mean nothing without evidence. You've never been able to grasp this. The act of you saying something does not emboss it in gold, in fact, it laminates it in a peanut-crusted diarrhea glaze.

You mean like making an O.P. about specific words spoken, without actually having the quote?

I'm able to grasp quite enough, thanks. The Patriots play a style of defense that tries to avoid giving up huge chunks of yards and to force the opponent to make more positive plays in order to score. It's been very successful, and it's what McDaniels is talking about.

By the way, that defense still is a frequent league leader in sacks and players like Asante Samuel made a living (and huge contract) making interceptions in that defense.

[OnTheWarpath15]

He understands perfectly.

Bill Belichick has/had Richard Seymour, Green, Bruschi, Vrabel, Harrison, Law, Samuel, McGinest, Thomas, Colvin, Mayo.

It's easy to play a BBDB D when you have The 1999 Bucs. It doesn't work when you have the 2008 Chiefs. When you lack talent, you have to attack, otherwise you end up with 10 sacks for the season, blowing late leads, while giving up 28 points a game.

Beat me to it once again.

[Just Passin' By]

He understands perfectly.

Bill Belichick has/had Richard Seymour, Green, Bruschi, Vrabel, Harrison, Law, Samuel, McGinest, Thomas, Colvin, Mayo.

It's easy to play a BBDB D when you have The 1999 Bucs. It doesn't work when you have the 2008 Chiefs. When you lack talent, you have to attack, otherwise you end up with 10 sacks for the season, blowing late leads, while giving up 28 points a game.

Now you're arguing personnel vs. style. That's a different issue than what OTW was calling McDaniels out for.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

I wonder if the Patriots in 2007 dominated TOP. Some of their quick strike offensive attacks probably led to losing TOP yet winning the game, sometimes by a sizeable margin, I bet.

Yeah, I remember whenever Herm made this argument. And the 2007 Pats were #2 in TOP.

[Amnorix]

He understands perfectly.

Bill Belichick has/had Richard Seymour, Green, Bruschi, Vrabel, Harrison, Law, Samuel, McGinest, Thomas, Colvin, Mayo.

It's easy to play a BBDB D when you have The 1999 Bucs. It doesn't work when you have the 2008 Chiefs. When you lack talent, you have to attack, otherwise you end up with 10 sacks for the season, blowing late leads, while giving up 28 points a game.

Well, he never had those guys all at once, but sure, over time, we've had alot of talent on defense.

I think most fans think that a more attacking style of defense is better. It's more fun to watch, and seems more productive due to the turnover issue. To use your same logic, if you ahd more talent, then why not attack? It's what the Steelers and Ravens do, right? With talent everywhere, your risk is minimized, and you can compensate for an offense that might not be as stellar as your defense. Use your defense to create the turnovers/points, etc.

[dirk digler]

Of course that's what he's alluding to. It's also a fucking straw man argument. You don't have the option of either A) Allow 16 play drives or B) allow 1 play drives.

If you don't have talent on D, you need to attack, attack, attack. Your talent will get exposed either way, but if you allow yourself to pressure the QB and take chances, the end result will still be similar, but you also won't lose the TOP by 10 minutes, and you'll give your team extra possessions through winning the turnover battle.

I think he was just making a general point that he would rather his D make the offense work to score than giving up quick easy TD's. I see nothing wrong with that.

Also he may feel because of his QB situation he can't be in shootouts.

[OnTheWarpath15]

No, you've pretty much got it.

But "defenses needing to rest" is a bit of a myth anyway. Sure, they can get worn down, but depending on the depth and rotations etc., they might be ok. Losing time of possession usually has more to do with the other team's offense out-executing your offense.

I wonder if the Patriots in 2007 dominated TOP. Some of their quick strike offensive attacks probably led to losing TOP yet winning the game, sometimes by a sizeable margin, I bet.

Yeah, ask Tennessee how that worked out last night.

They were gassed when they needed it most.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Now you're arguing personnel vs. style. That's a different issue than what OTW was calling McDaniels out for.

No, I'm engaging in issues of how personnel dictates philosophy, and how McDaniels is so goddamned inured to the idea of being Belichick that he's molding his team as though it's the Patriots, when doing so is playing to its weaknesses rather than its strengths.

That's why he's a fucktard. He doesn't seem to understand how the talents of your team dictate the style you should use. You shouldn't run the 1970's Raiders offense with Chad Pennington, but McDaniels doesn't seem to understand this.

[Quesadilla Joe]

What is wrong with making teams fight for everything they get instead of giving up a bunch of big plays.

THREAD FAIL

[Titty Meat]

If the giants would have not blitzed the Patriots they wouldn't have won the super bowl. You don't let good QB's pick you apart.

[Buehler445]

You don't seem to understand. This is Bill Belichick's philosophy -- the classic "bend but don't break" philosophy.

The key is to force an offense repeatedly execute at a high level and force them to sustain long drives, rather than give up the big play. BB has generally favored this approach over the more attacking styles that are more blitz based and higher risk / higher reward.

He's not saying he WANTS offenses to execute 10, 12, 14 play drives, but rather that he wants to force them to do it IN ORDER TO score at all, rather than 4 plays and 65 yards for the TD.

I don't know if I'd classify BB's defense as "bend but don't break".

When I think of "bend but don't break" defenses, I think of the Bucs Tampa 2. Herm tried to do it here, which was fail, but the premise is the same. Out executing the offense.

BB put together some downright NASTY gameplans and blitz packages. Enough to confuse (and dominate) Peyton Manning, the ultimate student of the game.

That is much more aggressive than the Tampa (tampon) 2 that coined the phrase.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Amnorix]

Yeah, I remember whenever Herm made this argument. And the 2007 Pats were #2 in TOP.

Right. Because damn near every drive was a TD. Lightning strike or not, we rarely went 3 and out. I remember when we went 3 (or 4?) and out at the start of the SB and I was completely stunned. We almost always scored on the first possession. It was a harbinger of things to come.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Well, he never had those guys all at once, but sure, over time, we've had alot of talent on defense.

I think most fans think that a more attacking style of defense is better. It's more fun to watch, and seems more productive due to the turnover issue. To use your same logic, if you ahd more talent, then why not attack? It's what the Steelers and Ravens do, right? With talent everywhere, your risk is minimized, and you can compensate for an offense that might not be as stellar as your defense. Use your defense to create the turnovers/points, etc.

No. Talent trumps everything, but when you lack talent, you must make up for it by attacking. You can play a conservative style or attacking style when you have talent--it's immaterial, your talent will reign supreme. But when you don't, you need to make up for that by pressing the issue.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Now you're arguing personnel vs. style. That's a different issue than what OTW was calling McDaniels out for.

No, it's not.

He doesn't have the talent to play bend-but-don't break, and he surely can't afford to make dumbass comments like these to the media.

There's nothing in his comments that would lead one to believe he has any confidence whatsoever in his defense.

Make a comment that you can't give up chunks of yardage.

Make a comment that you need to get off the field on 3rd down.

Make a comment that you need to create pressure that causes mistakes your offense can take advantage of.

DON'T imply that you can't do any of those things by claiming it's good for your defense to be on the field all day.

[Amnorix]

I don't know if I'd classify BB's defense as "bend but don't break".

When I think of "bend but don't break" defenses, I think of the Bucs Tampa 2. Herm tried to do it here, which was fail, but the premise is the same. Out executing the offense.

BB put together some downright NASTY gameplans and blitz packages. Enough to confuse (and dominate) Peyton Manning, the ultimate student of the game.

That is much more aggressive than the Tampa (tampon) 2 that coined the phrase.
Posted via Mobile Device

BB is ultimately flexible, and responds to the offense and the particular situation. He played Manning straight up plenty of times, with limited blitzing. Other times he blitzed quite a bit. It all depended on what he thought would work.

Ultimately, though, his base philosophy is more bend but don't break over high risk/high reward scenarios. He doesn't approach things like a Dick LeBeau or a Jim Johnson (RIP).

[Amnorix]

No. Talent trumps everything, but when you lack talent, you must make up for it by attacking. You can play a conservative style or attacking style when you have talent--it's immaterial, your talent will reign supreme. But when you don't, you need to make up for that by pressing the issue.

Your philosophy isn't very flexible is it? If I were facing a relatively inefficient offense with a pretty good OLine but an inaccurate QB, then I think your approach is probably wrong.

I dislike your one-size-fits-all categorization. I also think that most teams in the league fall somewhere in between lots of talent and no talent. What should teams with average talent do? You don't think it depends on what they're facing? Where their strengths line up against the offense's weaknesses, and vice versa?

[Amnorix]

Yeah, ask Tennessee how that worked out last night.

They were gassed when they needed it most.

Usually the prevent defense is good at preventing the team employing it from winning. I certainly agree with that, especially against a good QB.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

BB is ultimately flexible, and responds to the offense and the particular situation. He played Manning straight up plenty of times, with limited blitzing. Other times he blitzed quite a bit. It all depended on what he thought would work.

Ultimately, though, his base philosophy is more bend but don't break over high risk/high reward scenarios. He doesn't approach things like a Dick LeBeau or a Jim Johnson (RIP).

Belichick puts his teams in positions that will maximize their ability. When his secondary was awful in 2004, they brought a lot more pressure. When they couldn't get there, he used a fucking 1-5-5 prowl against the Bills. McDaniels is putting theory above looking at how to best maximize his talent. You don't have a power hitter bunt, and you don't make Tony Gwynn a pull hitter.

[Just Passin' By]

No, I'm engaging in issues of how personnel dictates philosophy, and how McDaniels is so goddamned inured to the idea of being Belichick that he's molding his team as though it's the Patriots, when doing so is playing to its weaknesses rather than its strengths.

That's why he's a ****tard. He doesn't seem to understand how the talents of your team dictate the style you should use. You shouldn't run the 1970's Raiders offense with Chad Pennington, but McDaniels doesn't seem to understand this.

No, you're defending an idiot who posted about a specific quote without actually getting the specific quote. That's the same idiot who followed that up with "Apparently he has no concept of 3-and-out." The O.P. didn't know what the hell he was talking about. It's admirable that you're trying to bail his clueless ass out, though.

[MikeMaslowski]

McDaniels is going to be the greatest coach that ever coached. Madden is going to hand off his franchise. "McDaniels" will be the new title and he will be on the cover every year.

[Amnorix]

If the giants would have not blitzed the Patriots they wouldn't have won the super bowl. You don't let good QB's pick you apart.

They didn't blitz us. They won the battle at the LOS, with their D-Line vastly outperforming our OLine.

[beach tribe]

No, you're defending an idiot who posted about a specific quote without actually getting the specific quote. That's the same idiot who followed that up with "Apparently he has no concept of 3-and-out." The O.P. didn't know what the hell he was talking about. It's admirable that you're trying to bail his clueless ass out, though.
lol

[Just Passin' By]

No, it's not.

He doesn't have the talent to play bend-but-don't break, and he surely can't afford to make dumbass comments like these to the media.

There's nothing in his comments that would lead one to believe he has any confidence whatsoever in his defense.

Make a comment that you can't give up chunks of yardage.

Make a comment that you need to get off the field on 3rd down.

Make a comment that you need to create pressure that causes mistakes your offense can take advantage of.

DON'T imply that you can't do any of those things by claiming it's good for your defense to be on the field all day.

You don't even have the actual quotes. There's nothing in his comments that's even posted.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Your philosophy isn't very flexible is it? If I were facing a relatively inefficient offense with a pretty good OLine but an inaccurate QB, then I think your approach is probably wrong.

I dislike your one-size-fits-all categorization. I also think that most teams in the league fall somewhere in between lots of talent and no talent. What should teams with average talent do? You don't think it depends on what they're facing? Where their strengths line up against the offense's weaknesses, and vice versa?

If you can't bring pressure with your front 4, and their QB is inaccurate, why the hell would you sit back and allow the QB all day to find someone? Hell, you'd be better off bringing six and letting the QB miss the open player w/ his inaccuracy or go down to the pressure.

Again, you are conflating philosophy of a poor team to one with a talented team--probably because you haven't rooted for a poor team in about 16 years.

Bad defenses have to bring pressure. Good defenses can do anything and everything, because they're good defenses.

[OnTheWarpath15]

You don't even have the actual quotes. There's nothing in his comments that's even posted.

Should I have written it down while driving?

Like I said, it's damn close to verbatim.

Personally, I could give two shits whether you think I'm making it up or not.

[MikeMaslowski]

Should I have written it down while driving?

Like I said, it's damn close to verbatim.

Personally, I could give two shits whether you think I'm making it up or not.

I believe you, is the earth still flat?

[Amnorix]

Belichick puts his teams in positions that will maximize their ability. When his secondary was awful in 2004, they brought a lot more pressure. When they couldn't get there, he used a ****ing 1-5-5 prowl against the Bills. McDaniels is putting theory above looking at how to best maximize his talent. You don't have a power hitter bunt, and you don't make Tony Gwynn a pull hitter.

errr...awful in 2004? It wasn't that bad. Held the Colts' absurd offense to 3 points in the playoffs, and won the SB. It wasn't the greatest that we had, as I recall Law got hurt halfway through the season, but it wasn't like 2002 or last year or anything. Those were awful...

But yes, we did bring more pressure in 2004 IIRC.

[Buehler445]

errr...awful in 2004? It wasn't that bad. Held the Colts' absurd offense to 3 points in the playoffs, and won the SB. It wasn't the greatest that we had, as I recall Law got hurt halfway through the season, but it wasn't like 2002 or last year or anything. Those were awful...

But yes, we did bring more pressure in 2004 IIRC.

Is 2004 the year that they had Brown starting at CB?
Posted via Mobile Device

[rad]

Should I have written it down while driving?

Like I said, it's damn close to verbatim.

Personally, I could give two shits whether you think I'm making it up or not.

WTF is this turd giving you shit? JFC, it's as if the point was totally missed or something....

['Hamas' Jenkins]

errr...awful in 2004? It wasn't that bad. Held the Colts' absurd offense to 3 points in the playoffs, and won the SB. It wasn't the greatest that we had, as I recall Law got hurt halfway through the season, but it wasn't like 2002 or last year or anything. Those were awful...

But yes, we did bring more pressure in 2004 IIRC.

Because you were starting a secondary of rookies and guys off the street. Gay, Samuel, Brown, etc. You made up for that by blitzing more. And those blitzes masked the weakness of the secondary, even if there were games (like the MNF game against us) where they got lit up (despite about 150 yds of drops by our WRs).

[Amnorix]

If you can't bring pressure with your front 4, and their QB is inaccurate, why the hell would you sit back and allow the QB all day to find someone? Hell, you'd be better off bringing six and letting the QB miss the open player w/ his inaccuracy or go down to the pressure.

Again, you are conflating philosophy of a poor team to one with a talented team--probably because you haven't rooted for a poor team in about 16 years.

Bad defenses have to bring pressure. Good defenses can do anything and everything, because they're good defenses.

Too simple. Good defenses are good defenses because they do a few things well (maybe VERY well) and cover up their flaws well, in one fashion or another. In this era, few teams are like the 70s Steelers, with Pro Bowlers or HOFers at multiple positions across all 3 levels of defense.

I agree that bad teams need to be more CREATIVE in their defensive game planning, and that it is very likely they will need to be mroe attack oriented.

But often the goal against an inaccurate QB is to force him to throw accurate passes, which may be better served by not blitzing.

Besides, in the modern NFL, any defense that does one thing more or less exclusively isn't likely to succeed in the first place. If you blitz every down, then the offense will just max protect, and you're probably going to get drilled flat regardless.

[rad]

No, you're defending an idiot who posted about a specific quote without actually getting the specific quote. That's the same idiot who followed that up with "Apparently he has no concept of 3-and-out." The O.P. didn't know what the hell he was talking about. It's admirable that you're trying to bail his clueless ass out, though.

This post.......is amazing.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Too simple. Good defenses are good defenses because they do a few things well (maybe VERY well) and cover up their flaws well, in one fashion or another. In this era, few teams are like the 70s Steelers, with Pro Bowlers or HOFers at multiple positions across all 3 levels of defense.

I agree that bad teams need to be more CREATIVE in their defensive game planning, and that it is very likely they will need to be mroe attack oriented.

But often the goal against an inaccurate QB is to force him to throw accurate passes, which may be better served by not blitzing.

Besides, in the modern NFL, any defense that does one thing more or less exclusively isn't likely to succeed in the first place. If you blitz every down, then the offense will just max protect, and you're probably going to get drilled flat regardless.

Bringing pressure does not mean bringing pressure on every play. But I'm talking about philosophical approaches, not absolutist approaches in every down of every game.

[Amnorix]

Is 2004 the year that they had Brown starting at CB?
Posted via Mobile Device

In the slot, so technically not "starting". Our DBs were decimated with injuries that year. We did have to bring more blitzes to give the QBs less time to pick apart our defenses.

But when you have a very talented front 7 and a relatively weak back 4, you can see bringing more blitzes, especially against highly accurate QBs like Manning that, with a little time, will easily pick apart a mediocre DB corps.

[Frankie]

Josh McDaniels, you sir, are an idiot .

Do not insult our next OC.

[Amnorix]

This post.......is amazing.

Why?

I agree that McDaniels is right when he says the Broncos defense needs to stop giving up big plays. Whether he plays a more attacking style or not if, hypothetically, they were at the top of the league last year in 20+ yard plays, then they need to cut that crap down regardless of their style.

That means alot of things, with better tackling probably near the top of the list.

[Hootie]

Bringing pressure does not mean bringing pressure on every play. But I'm talking about philosophical approaches, not absolutist approaches in every down of every game.

Remember when you took Vernon Gholston 1st overall two years ago in the CP mock draft?

ROFL

[wasi]

On the one hand it's difficult to know exactly what McDaniels was asked.

On the other hand, I think the majority of the posters on this thread are NFL savy enough to understand the concept of coach speak. I don't know if I've ever hear coach speak like this, EVER. NFL coaches simply don't say things like: "we need to stop giving up the big play, we want to force long drives" in the same sentence or in response to one specific question. The reason you don't hear it is because no matter what the actual quote was it is a defeatist attitude. Your Head Coach can't be saying things like this, he's gotta be more intellegent and wise in his choice of words.

I've said it many times, I think McDaniels is an excellent football mind, he is just not either ready or doesn't have the ability to be a HC. You need much more than X's and O's. Watch video of him and he's nervous all the time, biting his nails, scratching his neck and head.. he is just not HC material at this point and this quote in the original post doesn't surprise me one bit if it's close to what he actually said.

[OnTheWarpath15]

On the one hand it's difficult to know exactly what McDaniels was asked.

On the other hand, I think the majority of the posters on this thread are NFL savy enough to understand the concept of coach speak. I don't know if I've ever hear coach speak like this, EVER. NFL coaches simply don't say things like: "we need to stop giving up the big play, we want to force long drives" in the same sentence or in response to one specific question. The reason you don't hear it is because no matter what the actual quote was it is a defeatist attitude. Your Head Coach can't be saying things like this, he's gotta be more intellegent and wise in his choice of words.

I've said it many times, I think McDaniels is an excellent football mind, he is just not either ready or doesn't have the ability to be a HC. You need much more than X's and O's. Watch video of him and he's nervous all the time, biting his nails, scratching his neck and head.. he is just not HC material at this point and this quote in the original post doesn't surprise me one bit if it's close to what he actually said.

My point exactly.

[Just Passin' By]

On the one hand it's difficult to know exactly what McDaniels was asked.

On the other hand, I think the majority of the posters on this thread are NFL savy enough to understand the concept of coach speak. I don't know if I've ever hear coach speak like this, EVER. NFL coaches simply don't say things like: "we need to stop giving up the big play, we want to force long drives" in the same sentence or in response to one specific question. The reason you don't hear it is because no matter what the actual quote was it is a defeatist attitude. Your Head Coach can't be saying things like this, he's gotta be more intellegent and wise in his choice of words.

I've said it many times, I think McDaniels is an excellent football mind, he is just not either ready or doesn't have the ability to be a HC. You need much more than X's and O's. Watch video of him and he's nervous all the time, biting his nails, scratching his neck and head.. he is just not HC material at this point and this quote in the original post doesn't surprise me one bit if it's close to what he actually said.

My point exactly.

Jim Zorn:

On the importance of wide receiver Santana Moss’ third down catch:

“It was big. We were trying to come out and throw one to Malcolm Kelly, but the guy buzzed right underneath it. I knew I couldn’t get my [running] back out because he was in protection, so I was able to come back across and throw the ball to Santana. It’s not something you want to do all the time because sometimes guys can pick those and go back the other way. Santana made a great catch and then we were able to get the big play with [tight end Chris] Cooley. Those are the type of plays that are going to be game-changers for us. It’s hard to continue to score when you’re having 14 and 15 play drives and put a lot of points on the board – it’s not going to happen. You’ve got to be able to have those big plays to get you down the field and help you score.”


http://bgobsession.com/showthread.php?t=3526

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Remember when you took Vernon Gholston 1st overall two years ago in the CP mock draft?

ROFL

And this is related to this discussion, how?

Moreover, even if it were, which it isn't, which I'm not surprised that you can't comprehend, since you are basically a rapist Brian Callahan for a living, he's one year in. I guess we should also flush Dorsey down the toilet, ignore the fact that Gholston was playing a read and react system rather than an attacking system that suited his abilities, and we'll ignore the fact that he had a strong preseason for the Jets, including two sacks and a FF (which was called back on a dubious penalty).

But yeah, you'd have a point, if it weren't totally unrelated to the discussion and you weren't so goddamned stupid that you didn't know this.

But Huard > Palmer, Thigpen > Palmer, and the Cubs are set up to dominate for years while the Cardinals have nothing. Oh Summer of '08, where have you gone?

Idiot.

[wasi]

Jim Zorn:



http://bgobsession.com/showthread.php?t=3526

Fail

I don't think anyone is saying that the intent of the McDaniels statement might correct to some degree. The Jim Zorn statement backs up the thinking that it conceivable that a defense can have success if it makes an offense earn points by no giving up big demoralizing plays. No arguement there.

But the surprise in regards to McDaniels statement isn't because he thinks that giving up long drives is better than big plays or visa versa, or that making big plays is important because it's difficult to sustain long drives. The surprise and questioning comes from the statement itself... the wording and the message it conjures up in the ears of fans and quite possibly players and coaches.

Like I said, on the one hand it's difficult to know the exact question and context of the question.

On the other hand, given everything I've seen/heard from McDaniels it doesn't surprise me if the quote was close to how it was worded in the original post. McDaniels just doesn't come off as good at the politic.

[Just Passin' By]

Fail

I don't think anyone is saying that the intent of the McDaniels statement might correct to some degree. The Jim Zorn statement backs up the thinking that it conceivable that a defense can have success if it makes an offense earn points by no giving up big demoralizing plays. No arguement there.

But the surprise in regards to McDaniels statement isn't because he thinks that giving up long drives is better than big plays or visa versa, or that making big plays is important because it's difficult to sustain long drives. The surprise and questioning comes from the statement itself... the wording and the message it conjures up in the ears of fans and quite possibly players and coaches.

Like I said, on the one hand it's difficult to know the exact question and context of the question.

On the other hand, given everything I've seen/heard from McDaniels it doesn't surprise me if the quote was close to how it was worded in the original post. McDaniels just doesn't come off as good at the politic.

Pissing about the wording and claiming that the coach is an idiot or is somehow giving evidence that he's unfit to be a coach when you understand the intent of what he's saying, without even having the quote to look at, while silly enough, is not what the O.P. was doing. He was bitching about the underlying intent:

Josh McDaniels would like his defense to give up 12, 14 or 16 play drives, allowing the opponent to win the TOP battle, and wear out his defense. Meanwhile, keeping his own offense off the field.

Apparently he has no concept of 3-and-out.

[Quiet Storm]

You don't seem to understand. This is Bill Belichick's philosophy -- the classic "bend but don't break" philosophy.



Don't they always turn this into a Bellicheat thing? No one cares. Win a superbowl when you don't have a camera fixated on the other teams defensive coordinator and then join the rest of us football fans.

McDaniels....Oh God I hope Cinci drops a 60 spot on them.

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

And this is related to this discussion, how?



But yeah, you'd have a point, if it weren't totally unrelated to the discussion and you weren't so goddamned stupid that you didn't know this.


Idiot.

He doesn't know how to pick his own ass or nose much less an NFL prospect.

"Draftubator blah-blah-blah, I'm a fucking tool blah-blah-blah"; he loves attempting to get in the middle of these things, and I love watching you and others kick his dumb ass back to the Sex Offender wing.

[Titty Meat]

People on here don't know shit about college football. Of course a moron like BabygotGrbac will jump on Hamas when he makes one bad pick. It's not like Babygotgrbac knows anything about college football though, he just goes by what the pundits say.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

People on here don't know shit about college football. Of course a moron like BabygotGrbac will jump on Hamas when he makes one bad pick. It's not like Babygotgrbac knows anything about college football though, he just goes by what the pundits say.

The other thing billay, is that I'm not convinced it's a bad pick yet. Now, I have made several incorrect picks in the past, it's part of sticking your neck out--sometimes the blade drops and you end up with your skull in the bucket.

Did Gholston have a Jevon Kearse rookie year? Not even close. But I remember after the 2006 season when retards all over this board were calling Vince Young the second coming and talking about how stupid Houston was for taking Williams and gloating about how good Hali and Pollard were.

[Titty Meat]

The other thing billay, is that I'm not convinced it's a bad pick yet. Now, I have made several incorrect picks in the past, it's part of sticking your neck out--sometimes the blade drops and you end up with your skull in the bucket.

Did Gholston have a Jevon Kearse rookie year? Not even close. But I remember after the 2006 season when retards all over this board were calling Vince Young the second coming and talking about how stupid Houston was for taking Williams and gloating about how good Hali and Pollard were.

Thats a good point. Even if Gholston sucks I won't bash you for it you gave a take, most people on here just parrot whatever Todd McShay or Mike Mayock says. I'm sure people on here said Herm was good at drafting.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Thats a good point. Even if Gholston sucks I won't bash you for it you gave a take, most people on here just parrot whatever Todd McShay or Mike Mayock says. I'm sure people on here said Herm was good at drafting.

The good will come with the bad. I loved Gholston. I didn't like Matt Ryan. I also hated Vince Young, Jamarcus Russell, and I loved Matt Forte when people thought he was a FB coming out of Tulane. You'll never bat 1.000, and I'm fine with people critiquing my misses as long as they are also willing to acknowledge their own.

FWIW, I thought the Texans should take Ferguson in the '06 draft. It would have been a good pick, but not the homerun that Williams was. I called Bush a rich man's Dave Meggett, and well, Vince Young was so fucking stupid there was no way he should have ever been trusted to run any pro offense.

[Halfcan]

dumb donks

[wasi]

Pissing about the wording and claiming that the coach is an idiot or is somehow giving evidence that he's unfit to be a coach when you understand the intent of what he's saying, without even having the quote to look at, while silly enough, is not what the O.P. was doing. He was bitching about the underlying intent:

I don't see any problem with the original post, other than the fact it's not the exact quote. And I'd be damn surprised to hear it myself it wasn't for the fact it's coming from McDaniels.

If asked about your defensive scheme, philosophy or gameplan? You respond, "We need to get off the field". If you're a talker, you can say "We can't give up the big play." If your just not really sure how your supposed to respond and your a bit overwhelmed by everything that is happening you might add "We can't give up the big play and we have to dictate what we give the offense and give the ball back to our offense."

I don't know if you ever say, "We WANT the offense to put together a 12, 13, 14 play drive". Maybe you say "We WANT the offense to turn the ball over" or "we WANT the offense to feel like they can't run the ball". Part of the job description is to talk to the media. So, I expect coaches at the NFL level to be more articulate if they like talking. Others just don't say anything. I think McDaniels feels he needs to act like he belongs in the HC fraternity.. but I'm not sure he even feels like he does. If he does he certainly hasn't shown me anything to make me believe he does.

[Quiet Storm]

I think the Bengals are prime....at least to take them down.

[Simply Red]

Beat me to it once again.

he's a post whore.

[Just Passin' By]

I don't see any problem with the original post, other than the fact it's not the exact quote. And I'd be damn surprised to hear it myself it wasn't for the fact it's coming from McDaniels.

If asked about your defensive scheme, philosophy or gameplan? You respond, "We need to get off the field". If you're a talker, you can say "We can't give up the big play." If your just not really sure how your supposed to respond and your a bit overwhelmed by everything that is happening you might add "We can't give up the big play and we have to dictate what we give the offense and give the ball back to our offense."

I don't know if you ever say, "We WANT the offense to put together a 12, 13, 14 play drive". Maybe you say "We WANT the offense to turn the ball over" or "we WANT the offense to feel like they can't run the ball". Part of the job description is to talk to the media. So, I expect coaches at the NFL level to be more articulate if they like talking. Others just don't say anything. I think McDaniels feels he needs to act like he belongs in the HC fraternity.. but I'm not sure he even feels like he does. If he does he certainly hasn't shown me anything to make me believe he does.

Again, you're making an argument without the quote. Even the O.P. didn't write it the way you're portraying it. Even his 'quote' says "We need to make an offense drive 12, 14, 16 plays".

As for articulate, there's not a single human being in the world who doesn't misspeak on occasion. This whole thread is based upon one biased poster's uncorroborated claim about the specific wording of what a disliked coach said, despite the fact that everyone who's not as clueless as the O.P. understands what the coach would have been intending to say with the statement.

[smittysbar]

IMO all he is saying is that you can't let a team come out and strike with a big play. extending a drive to several plays might end up in a score but if a team has to convert on 3rd downs and what not, you have a better chance at stopping them.

I mean come on guys, he is an NFL coach, he knows his shit. Does he want a 3 and out? Sure, and to think any different is dumb. Not to mention, people may be reading in to what he said WAY to far.

[philfree]

Again, you're making an argument without the quote. Even the O.P. didn't write it the way you're portraying it. Even his 'quote' says "We need to make an offense drive 12, 14, 16 plays".

As for articulate, there's not a single human being in the world who doesn't misspeak on occasion. This whole thread is based upon one biased poster's uncorroborated claim about the specific wording of what a disliked coach said, despite the fact that everyone who's not as clueless as the O.P. understands what the coach would have been intending to say with the statement.

I believe that's right.


PhilFree:arrow:

[Mecca]

If Palmer is fine Cincy owns that game...Chris Henry matched up on a dude who's 5'9 yea big game.

[wasi]

Again, you're making an argument without the quote. Even the O.P. didn't write it the way you're portraying it. Even his 'quote' says "We need to make an offense drive 12, 14, 16 plays".

As for articulate, there's not a single human being in the world who doesn't misspeak on occasion. This whole thread is based upon one biased poster's uncorroborated claim about the specific wording of what a disliked coach said, despite the fact that everyone who's not as clueless as the O.P. understands what the coach would have been intending to say with the statement.

Fair enough in the end we don't know the question or the context of it. We assume/know his intent wasn't to misspeak because he's pretty much at the highest level of his profession. I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt.

But in closing there is one thing I would like to add. I don't dislike McDaniels, IMO he's been great so far.

[whoman69]

I hope Herm Edwards is available in 2 years when this guy gets fired.

[Easy 6]

I've said it many times, I think McDaniels is an excellent football mind, he is just not either ready or doesn't have the ability to be a HC. You need much more than X's and O's. Watch video of him and he's nervous all the time, biting his nails, scratching his neck and head.. he is just not HC material at this point and this quote in the original post doesn't surprise me one bit if it's close to what he actually said.

Good thread, every side is making its point very well & in the wash everyone wins.

This post sums up the thread for me.