Ecstasy = 6-Inches and Prominent Reason for Continual D Failure (1 Viewer)

[crosswatt]

Into 3Q they were more or less holding up against the run, but the Raiders were also shooting themselves in the foot for the first 2/3 if the game, with like 13 penalties.

Suddenly, like someone flipped a switch, the Raiders stopped committing penalties and started gashing the Saints on the ground at will. Breaux went out, but the collapse started with the run game.

I don't know what to think because we should have been holding up against the run since their OL was down two starters and had to plug the holes on the fly. We should have dominated but instead the makeshift line took over. And coming out of last year the Raiders were a poor rushing team.

I don't know how you feel good about how that played out.

One unlikely 75 yard scamper by an fourth string rookie does not exactly equate to "gash at will." They caught the defense off guard with a personnel package and down and distance play call. t was just really great execution by the Raiders.

 

[Swimmer]

Then you should probably remove Definitive from the title. It's conflicting to the point you just made.

So picky this morning EJW Good point and I'll fix. What do you think about those 3 coaches?

 

[TurboWhoDat]

there are a lot of reasons we continue to fail. imo that includes our position coaches who would have already been let go in any other organization. anyone denying that vitt, johnson and mcmahon are part of the problem, simply needs to find another common denominator to the bottom level defense and special teams we've fielded year after year. spoiler alert: it's the coaches.

but more importantly than the coaches is where our money is being spent. obviously the dead money, but consider how much we're paying guys like byrd and spiller who either aren't producing or are producing negatively. it magnifies the games like yesterday, where guys we are paying that we expect to produce like cam jordan just aren't getting it done.

we are absolutely handicapped by poor decisions, and benson has let the coaching staff and front office blur the lines on decision making, so that blame never really lands in anyone's lap. that's my biggest fear. that we're never going to get better until this FO and coaching staff moves on, because our owner is too incapacitated to make the decision himself. loomis and payton have built quite the castle for themselves.

 

[Swimmer]

we are absolutely handicapped by poor decisions, and benson has let the coaching staff and front office blur the lines on decision making, so that blame never really lands in anyone's lap. that's my biggest fear. that we're never going to get better until this FO and coaching staff moves on, because our owner is too incapacitated to make the decision himself. loomis and payton have built quite the castle for themselves.

Perfectly said!

It's just my personal belief, but I still believe in SP. We just need a strong GM on equal ground as SP to challenge some of his player and coaching decisions.

A question I had from yesterday is with 5 seconds left why doesn't SP call for a rapid out to Thomas for 5 yards. That makes the FG more reasonable.

 

[Mr. Sparkle]

One unlikely 75 yard scamper by an fourth string rookie does not exactly equate to "gash at will." They caught the defense off guard with a personnel package and down and distance play call. t was just really great execution by the Raiders.

That was always one of my favorite Haslett-isms.. "if you take away the 75 yard touchdown run, we did a good job against the run..."

 

[RazorSaint]

Or Keep and play.

Did you see Al Quddus starting and making plays for Miami yesterday?

Abdul-Quddus is a journeyman. He had a career game yesterday, but it's not like he set the woods on fire as a nickel safety and 12 game starter in Detroit.

 

[platinumvinnyv]

This is a PC thread, so don't go there!

The 61 yarder was literally 6 inches from this board being joyous today.

I think there's a lot to be excited about today. Brees is still Top 3 when he has time and not injured. I loved the attitude of that team and the young defense. We pretty well stopped the run except for the 70 yard TD. What can you say more positive about our young WRs? And the O-line looked very good.

Now, to the defensive problems that have killed us for years. SP legally signed over control of the defense to Williams. We win a SB and 1-play away from likely winning another. Now let's step back and see what is the common denominator or our record bad defense. Wow, defensive coaches who are "untouchable" as long as SP is head coach. These coaches under-perform year in and year out. Their players don't develop. Lot's of injuries. SP is killing our defense with as we would say in Texas, "His Good Ole Boy Club." Vitt, McMahon and Johnson.

Vitt took the sword for SP in Vicodin Gate and Bounty Gate. So Vitt appears to have a lifetime pass. McMahon's special teams are terrible, I mean terrible. Johnson can't develop linemen into a pass rush and Vitt can't develop LBs.

How would you like to be a Defensive Coordinator being mandated to use 3 coaches in critical positions who are untouchable good ole boy buddies with the head coach? It's pretty untenable. This is where not having have a GM as a peer to SP who knows football on the field is a real problem. An Ozzie Newsome would have had their heads years ago. But Loomis can't or doesn't confront SP on personnel and coaching.

Until SP let's his Defensive Head Coach clean house of poor coaches and hire his own, our chance of getting a respectable defense are about nil.

I feel on defense after breaux left got a little sloppy. But i kept in mind is that they really played better than i expected until breaux left



1st year in Dennis Allen Scheme

here were our starters

2 brand new LB
and 1 LB playing out of/new position

2 corners never played an nfl down

1 week on the team OLB now DE
1 brand new DT

literally the only players that contribute last year Jordan, Byrd, Breaux, Vaccoro.

 

[crosswatt]

That was always one of my favorite Haslett-isms.. "if you take away the 75 yard touchdown run, we did a good job against the run..."

It was a great run. I was not trying to dispute that or talk it away. But one run does not equal a complete breakdown of the rushing defense.

 

[saintsfan342000]

A bottom 10 defense happens just about as often as a top 10 offense around here, and they are both systematic phenomena. I can't accept that it's talent alone leading to this awful defensive play year in and year out. SP, Loomis, and/or the Three Horsemen.

 

[superchuck500]

This is a PC thread, so don't go there!

The 61 yarder was literally 6 inches from this board being joyous today.

I think there's a lot to be excited about today. Brees is still Top 3 when he has time and not injured. I loved the attitude of that team and the young defense. We pretty well stopped the run except for the 70 yard TD. What can you say more positive about our young WRs? And the O-line looked very good.

Now, to the defensive problems that have killed us for years. SP legally signed over control of the defense to Williams. We win a SB and 1-play away from likely winning another. Now let's step back and see what is the common denominator or our record bad defense. Wow, defensive coaches who are "untouchable" as long as SP is head coach. These coaches under-perform year in and year out. Their players don't develop. Lot's of injuries. SP is killing our defense with as we would say in Texas, "His Good Ole Boy Club." Vitt, McMahon and Johnson.

Vitt took the sword for SP in Vicodin Gate and Bounty Gate. So Vitt appears to have a lifetime pass. McMahon's special teams are terrible, I mean terrible. Johnson can't develop linemen into a pass rush and Vitt can't develop LBs.

How would you like to be a Defensive Coordinator being mandated to use 3 coaches in critical positions who are untouchable good ole boy buddies with the head coach? It's pretty untenable. This is where not having have a GM as a peer to SP who knows football on the field is a real problem. An Ozzie Newsome would have had their heads years ago. But Loomis can't or doesn't confront SP on personnel and coaching.

Until SP let's his Defensive Head Coach clean house of poor coaches and hire his own, our chance of getting a respectable defense are about nil.

It isn't just defense. I know that we all keep coming back to that, but there's another huge factor. You have to run the ball well in the fourth quarter to close out games. We can't do it and I'm not entirely sure why.

When we were winning divisions and putting up 12 and 13 win seasons, we were fairly good at running the ball, especially in the second half. I remember Deuce and then the stable led by PT being able to gash opposing defenses for 6 to 10 yards multiple times, just about every series in the fourth quarter. In the end, playing with a lead is not difficult to understand, you want to keep the opposing offense off of the field. It's far easier to stop an offense on the sideline than one on the field - no matter who your defense is.

And the longer it goes on, the more you ask you defense to make plays, the more likely it is that they're going to break down. Given our relative lack of talent and depth on defense, this becomes even more important. If you have a 14 or 17 point lead late in the third or early in the fourth and you can effectively run the ball - you're going to win a high percentage of games.

So what is our problem? We don't ever appear to run enough to see it purely fail - so it's hard to know. Yesterday in the fourth, Ingram had a few of those 6 to 10 yard bursts that can just demoralize a team trying to come back . . . if you stick with it. Ingram looked hungry. But Sean didn't feed him. Instead, we kept going back to the air - keeping time on the clock and allowing the Raiders to get the ball, over and over in the fourth quarter. Is Sean seeing something that he knows we're not going to be able to sustain with the run (in other words it's a talent/execution problem)? Or is he just too committed to the pass and wanting to win with his best player, #9, even though it creates a scenario where the fate rests in the hands of the defense (this would be a coaching/scheme problem)?

There's more to it than the defense. The way we have them trot out onto the field over and over to try to go win the game for us just seems a far worse choice than trying to close out the game with ball-control based on effective running and sustained drives in the fourth quarter.

 

[blackadder]

One unlikely 75 yard scamper by an fourth string rookie does not exactly equate to "gash at will." They caught the defense off guard with a personnel package and down and distance play call. t was just really great execution by the Raiders.

It was more than that one play.

Gashes of 8-10 yards a pop also played a big part in those two scoring drives that closed the gap.

 

[blackadder]

It isn't just defense. I know that we all keep coming back to that, but there's another huge factor. You have to run the ball well in the fourth quarter to close out games. We can't do it and I'm not entirely sure why.

When we were winning divisions and putting up 12 and 13 win seasons, we were fairly good at running the ball, especially in the second half. I remember Deuce and then the stable led by PT being able to gash opposing defenses for 6 to 10 yards multiple times, just about every series in the fourth quarter. In the end, playing with a lead is not difficult to understand, you want to keep the opposing offense off of the field. It's far easier to stop an offense on the sideline than one on the field - no matter who your defense is.

And the longer it goes on, the more you ask you defense to make plays, the more likely it is that they're going to break down. Given our relative lack of talent and depth on defense, this becomes even more important. If you have a 14 or 17 point lead late in the third or early in the fourth and you can effectively run the ball - you're going to win a high percentage of games.

So what is our problem? We don't ever appear to run enough to see it purely fail - so it's hard to know. Yesterday in the fourth, Ingram had a few of those 6 to 10 yard bursts that can just demoralize a team trying to come back . . . if you stick with it. Ingram looked hungry. But Sean didn't feed him. Instead, we kept going back to the air - keeping time on the clock and allowing the Raiders to get the ball, over and over in the fourth quarter. Is Sean seeing something that he knows we're not going to be able to sustain with the run (in other words it's a talent/execution problem)? Or is he just too committed to the pass and wanting to win with his best player, #9, even though it creates a scenario where the fate rests in the hands of the defense (this would be a coaching/scheme problem)?

There's more to it than the defense. The way we have them trot out onto the field over and over to try to go win the game for us just seems a far worse choice than trying to close out the game with ball-control based on effective running and sustained drives in the fourth quarter.

This isn't new. We were able to do that from 09-11 when Nicks and Evans were in their prime and Grubbs came in. But in that period we also generally did it with a big lead and with Brees shredding defenses so they stay back on their heels a bit fearing another kill shot.

But for the most part anytime we line up in an obvious run situation we struggle to convert short yardage or impose will. I don't know the answer I just know what I have watched for 11 years. The run game is something of an afterthought and it seems as much about how it's used and how it's set up as anything and we are just inconsistent in how we use and emphasize it.

And the bias is to always looking for the chess matchup in the passing game first, as opposed to being content with simply lining up and physically beating your opponent when you are able to do it. Take the low hanging fruit, please.

Remember when Payton put the sticky on his play sheet that said "Run the ball!". It needs to go from a Sticky to a permanent part of the document.

Nevertheless, this is less important right now and more of an academic debate. The offense wasn't the problem but we are in the position some times of trying to nit pick the offense to absolute perfection so it can still overcome the failure of the defense. That's how little margin for error there is for the offense, and how much pressure they are under when your opponent can realistically score every time they touch the ball, with far less effort than is required of our offense.

 

[crosswatt]

It was more than that one play.

Gashes of 8-10 yards a pop also played a big part in those two scoring drives that closed the gap.

Absent the 75 yarder, they averaged under four yards per carry. Carr had a eleven yard scramble, and Murray had a ten yard run. If we want to call that gashing, than by all means, go ahead. But the real issue was with Crabtree and Cooper picking up where they left off last year. Those guys are just really good.

 

[superchuck500]

This isn't new. We were able to do that from 09-11 when Nicks and Evans were in their prime and Grubbs came in. But in that period we also generally did it with a big lead and with Brees shredding defenses so they stay back on their heels a bit fearing another kill shot.

But for the most part anytime we line up in an obvious run situation we struggle to convert short yardage or impose will. I don't know the answer I just know what I have watched for 11 years. The run game is something of an afterthought and it seems as much about how it's used and how it's set up as anything and we are just inconsistent in how we use and emphasize it.

And the bias is to always looking for the chess matchup in the passing game first, as opposed to being content with simply lining up and physically beating your opponent when you are able to do it. Take the low hanging fruit, please.

Remember when Payton put the sticky on his play sheet that said "Run the ball!". It needs to go from a Sticky to a permanent part of the document.

Yeah, it does seem like some kind of psychosis with Payton. You would just think that an offense-minded coach would be able to realize that one fix to a terrible defense is keeping them off the field. But the passing game with an HOF QB is a shiny object that is hard to resist. But if you go that route and don't score a touchdown every time, you're asking to lose. A field goal or punt in the fourth quarter is a recipe for disaster.

Whereas if you can chew five to seven minutes off the clock with a sustained drive, the pressure to score isn't as great (if you're leading) because they're just not going to have as many opportunities.

 

[RazorSaint]

It isn't just defense. I know that we all keep coming back to that, but there's another huge factor. You have to run the ball well in the fourth quarter to close out games. We can't do it and I'm not entirely sure why.

That's a good point.

The Saints were up 24-13, receiving the kickoff following a Raiders FG, with 3 minutes left in the 3rd quarter. From that point on, they had 16 pass attempts and 6 rushing attempts. Even take out the final drive in which they HAD to pass, there were still 13 pass attempts compared with only 6 rushing attempts. And all that started up 2 scores, with possession, with 3 minutes left in the 3rd. Baffling.