PDA

View Full Version : Curious on the D?


Malloy
11-10-2010, 08:12 AM
Ok, first of all, this NOT a biach and moan thread on the D, if that is what you want to do, I'm sure there are better threads for just that.

My question, and this is where I need someone more football savy to help out, what is wrong with the D... Yeah, what the h... is this id1ot asking, can't he see that everything is wrong?

My line of thought is this, yes we have problems in pass rush, yes we have problems in pass defence, yes we have young players, yes we have very few turnovers.

Is it coaching... and if yes, WHY is it coaching. Are we looking at a faulty defensive scheme, or is the scheme o.k. whilst the players are unable to implement it.

And this is what I end up with, a messy thread. All in all I am just curious to hear what some of the football savy D-lovers out there see in regards to scheme and execution, is it one of the other, both or something completely different? :)

HTown2ATX
11-10-2010, 08:51 AM
It's a few reasons. Coaching has not been great. IMO they have not been great in disguising things and have been easy to read at times.

Individuals on the Defense are nowhere near their draft status in regards to their play.

Also on the defense, I don't know who would be considered the "leader" vocally. Was it DeMeco? I don't know, but if it was he is gone for the year now anyway and the D was still bad anyway when he was in there so it mus have fallen on deaf ears if it was him.

So who else would be the "Leader" of the defense.

Mario - Not his style or personality
Okoye - :lol: altogether
Cody - doubt it
Smith - not sure
Cush - no
any other LB's - no
DB's and Safeties - Maybe Pollard tries to be the leader but with his play here lately.....hmm.......

It's just a mix of a bunch of crap + crap that = crap.

:kubepalm:

Short answers I know and I apologize. But, aside from being at work and not having time for some in depth magical post where I act like I'm some football guru, this defense doesn't deserve that kind of time anyway to type all that.

drewmar74
11-10-2010, 09:46 AM
Malloy-

Based off of what I've read, gleaned, and digested is below..... Please keep in mind that my cable provider didn't give me the Chargers game last weekend so I can't speak to what might have been seen there.

We get very little push with our DT's. This leaves a clean pocket for the QB to step up into. Cody has been serviceable against the run but Okoye is still getting handled - period.

The lack of push in the middle has hurt our DE's since the QB can just step up. Antonio Smith has played well but Mario looks "wrong." Maybe that hip injury is really bothering him. Maybe he's not trying. Maybe its both. But he doesn't look right. Also, we lost Barwin for passing downs when Antonio would have moved inside to help get that middle pressure.

The LB's also tend to suffer because of the DT situation. Instead of flowing to the ball, they're now having to shed G's and C's - especially at the Mike. We lost Demeco and, even though he wasn't setting the world on fire, he was a Pro Bowl Mike. Cushing is trying to learn the Mike but it doesn't look like a great fit. I don't know if he has limited play calling, isn't a great communicator, or what. I don't think I saw him change one alignment during the Colts game. I wouldn't mind seeing him go back to Sam because it sure looked more natural. I'm not even going to get into the "juiced v. dejuiced debate." Diles and Bentley = serviceable? I didn't see Bentley on the field much against the Colts - were we in nickle most of the time? Diles hasn't looked nearly as good this year as last. He seems to be doing a lot of spider monkey tackling 10 yards downfield.

The secondary play has been shoddy. KJ's woes are well documented and GQ has looked like a second year corner in a bad scheme - not great. We still don't have any answers at FS and Pollard has been exposed this year as a big hitter which does NOT equal a good tackler. He has also looked like a real liability in coverage.

I guess beyond that, it goes to the coaches and, to a degree, Rick Smith. They picked out the scheme with the "knifing, disruptive" DT's that just get blown up. They haven't been able to come up with any answers on how to generate a pass rush with our front four or how to disguise a blitz. Hell, I haven't seen a good blitz since the preseason when they sent Mario on a stunt and GQ off of a slot corner blitz on the same side. The secondary should have had an experienced corner and at least a decent safety if they wanted to start Kareem.

So, that's what I'm seeing and have read (and tend to agree with). The problems on the D - well, they're everywhere.

Malloy
11-10-2010, 09:56 AM
Thanks to you both so far. I agree with your general observations, but the underlying tendencies and deficiencies, such as Cushing not changing the alignment and in general being what LOOKS like passive, is something I have seen, but not take REAL notice of.

Thanks again, and everyone, please feel free to join in, if only for therapeutical reasons ;)

badboy
11-10-2010, 09:57 AM
Leadership is mostly silent as posted above. Poor decisions by coaches on individual plays and poor or no game plan adjustments until halftime. At least two of our losses, Texans basically gave away the first half. Stupid players like Cushing and Duane Brown getting suspensions by thinking of themselves rather than team. Drafting a "bump and run" corner (Kareem Jackson) who often misses his bumps and is then off balance. He can't recover in time to break up a play unless ball is underthrown by QB as was his INT against Chargers. Your on the field leader Ryans is out injured and his back up Bentley can't handle the play calling (evidently) so Cush takes the Mike and looks totally lost. Your NFL best receiver (before this season) AJ shows he is not 100% recovered from ankle. Your top 8 QB last season is missing receivers every game and is taking a beating as a weak Oline cannot protect him. There is much more and I know I included coaching and offense but I could not stop typing.

silvrhand
11-10-2010, 10:10 AM
Malloy-

Based off of what I've read, gleaned, and digested is below..... Please keep in mind that my cable provider didn't give me the Chargers game last weekend so I can't speak to what might have been seen there.

We get very little push with our DT's. This leaves a clean pocket for the QB to step up into. Cody has been serviceable against the run but Okoye is still getting handled - period.

The lack of push in the middle has hurt our DE's since the QB can just step up. Antonio Smith has played well but Mario looks "wrong." Maybe that hip injury is really bothering him. Maybe he's not trying. Maybe its both. But he doesn't look right. Also, we lost Barwin for passing downs when Antonio would have moved inside to help get that middle pressure.

The LB's also tend to suffer because of the DT situation. Instead of flowing to the ball, they're now having to shed G's and C's - especially at the Mike. We lost Demeco and, even though he wasn't setting the world on fire, he was a Pro Bowl Mike. Cushing is trying to learn the Mike but it doesn't look like a great fit. I don't know if he has limited play calling, isn't a great communicator, or what. I don't think I saw him change one alignment during the Colts game. I wouldn't mind seeing him go back to Sam because it sure looked more natural. I'm not even going to get into the "juiced v. dejuiced debate." Diles and Bentley = serviceable? I didn't see Bentley on the field much against the Colts - were we in nickle most of the time? Diles hasn't looked nearly as good this year as last. He seems to be doing a lot of spider monkey tackling 10 yards downfield.

The secondary play has been shoddy. KJ's woes are well documented and GQ has looked like a second year corner in a bad scheme - not great. We still don't have any answers at FS and Pollard has been exposed this year as a big hitter which does NOT equal a good tackler. He has also looked like a real liability in coverage.

I guess beyond that, it goes to the coaches and, to a degree, Rick Smith. They picked out the scheme with the "knifing, disruptive" DT's that just get blown up. They haven't been able to come up with any answers on how to generate a pass rush with our front four or how to disguise a blitz. Hell, I haven't seen a good blitz since the preseason when they sent Mario on a stunt and GQ off of a slot corner blitz on the same side. The secondary should have had an experienced corner and at least a decent safety if they wanted to start Kareem.

So, that's what I'm seeing and have read (and tend to agree with). The problems on the D - well, they're everywhere.

This pretty much sums it up +rep.

+ tackling hasn't been all that great this year either for some reason.

HOU-TEX
11-10-2010, 10:22 AM
We have two of the youngest CB's in the league. One of our safety's can't cover, the other just disappears and find myself wondering where the hell he runs off to every play. Our once badass LB crew has been decimated by injury and are playing out of position. Or DT's like to play patty-cake if they aren't getting blasted 5 yards down field (Okoye). The DE position is also injured.

After listing all of the above, our defensive scheme is the primary reason for failure IMO. It's the coaches job to put their players in the best position to succeed. Are they doing that? I don't think so. Have we seen any exotic scheming trying to get the QB down? Nope. They're trotting the same thing out there week in week out. Opposing QB's have pointed out how vanilla our "aggressive" defense after tossing up a 400 burger on us.

Malloy, I'm not being a dick when I say this. If you watch other games the Texans are not involved in I think you'd be surprised. Heck, the Monday night game alone was obvious to me. Pitt obviously has a good D, but even Cincy showed things that we'd never do. Zimmerman knows his front 4 couldn't get to the QB, so what does he do? He dials up ways to get pressure on the QB by blitzes/putting his players in the best position to succeed.

Defensive coaches need to think outside the box and continue to find ways to confuse offenses. Especially these days with all the new rules and bs which give offense's the edge.

BigBull17
11-10-2010, 10:23 AM
We built our D around lighter, faster, disruptive DT's. Sadly this guy was Okoye. Our LB's are absolutely awful at blitzing altogether, be it disguising or execution. We have a box safety forced into deep safety because we have corners who struggle running with receivers. Our ends are ok, but there is normally too much space in the pocket to move around in. Our defensive scheme is so plain and simple even the dumbest QB can dissect it. Our D coordinator is also deathly afraid of making changes. It is easily the worst defensive unit I have ever seen assembled, either in talent or execution. Oh, and I forgot our "over trained athlete" who is "under trained" this year. He isn't as good juice free.

nero THE zero
11-10-2010, 10:30 AM
FWIW, on Monday when John and Lance were talking about the Texans, Marcus Coleman texted in and said something to the effect that the defense doesn't have players that fit a scheme.

What I took from the comment is that our defense is kind of an amalgamation of players that the coaches and/or GM like, but that don't fit any sort of organized scheme. I'm not going to use the cliche identity crisis, but, you know...

Essentially, we have a group of talented defensive players, but they might not be utilized correctly. And, they might not be able to be utilized correctly, together. IOW, maybe Kareen Jackson is a better fit in a Tampa-2 and Glover Quin is a better fit in man. Maybe DeMeco is a better fit in a 4-3 and Cushing is a better fit in a 3-4. This is what I got out of Marcus' comment.

badboy
11-10-2010, 10:34 AM
Question? SInce KJ has proven he can not bump and run, why not occasionally have him fake bumping the WR and then he blitzes the QB? It would stun me and maybe the opponent. Even if he does not get a sack, the QB could go into shock and throw the ball away. The worst case scenario is a TD as no one would guard the WR (has anyone seen our free safety?)but that is happening anyway. I'm just thinking outside the box.

badboy
11-10-2010, 10:37 AM
FWIW, on Monday when John and Lance were talking about the Texans, Marcus Coleman texted in and said something to the effect that the defense doesn't hace players that fit a scheme.

What I took from the comment is that our defense is kind of an amalgamation of players that the coaches and/or GM like, but that they don't fit any sort of organized scheme. I'm not going to use the cliche, identity crisis, but, you know...

Essentially, we have a group of talented defensive players, but they might not be utilized correctly. And, they might not be able to be utilized correctly, together. IOW, maybe Kareen Jackson is a better fit in a Tampa-2 and Glover Quin is a better fit in man. Maybe DeMeco is a better fit in a 4-3 and Cushing is a better fit in a 3-4. This is what I got out of Marcus' comment.Halleluyah! I always liked Marcus and not just because he agrees with me.

Malloy
11-10-2010, 10:53 AM
Malloy, I'm not being a dick when I say this. If you watch other games the Texans are not involved in I think you'd be surprised. Heck, the Monday night game alone was obvious to me. Pitt obviously has a good D, but even Cincy showed things that we'd never do. Zimmerman knows his front 4 couldn't get to the QB, so what does he do? He dials up ways to get pressure on the QB by blitzes/putting his players in the best position to succeed.


Hehe, no harm done and no you're not being a dick. :)

I actually agree with what you say, the reason for this thread is to hear what other people have noticed, other than 'suck' :)

I watch 5-10 games a week, got the NFL Pass going and I do see tendencies, especially with our Texans, just being curious if others see the same things, and what they thing the 'real' underlying problem might be.

Thanks again y'all for the comments!

Hervoyel
11-10-2010, 11:12 AM
Ok, first of all, this NOT a biach and moan thread on the D, if that is what you want to do, I'm sure there are better threads for just that.

My question, and this is where I need someone more football savy to help out, what is wrong with the D... Yeah, what the h... is this id1ot asking, can't he see that everything is wrong?

My line of thought is this, yes we have problems in pass rush, yes we have problems in pass defence, yes we have young players, yes we have very few turnovers.

Is it coaching... and if yes, WHY is it coaching. Are we looking at a faulty defensive scheme, or is the scheme o.k. whilst the players are unable to implement it.

And this is what I end up with, a messy thread. All in all I am just curious to hear what some of the football savy D-lovers out there see in regards to scheme and execution, is it one of the other, both or something completely different? :)

I think it's scheme and coaching followed by some shortcomings in talent at a handful of very important spots due to injury, inexperience, and in some cases age.

Scheme: Frank Bush isn't doing very much differently than Richard Smith did so to be honest we've got evidence of this scheme being rather limited going on 5 years. Over those five years our defense has begun every season in dreadful fashion and ended most of those seasons on a bit of an upswing. With Richard Smith we spoke often of how he was trying to keep everything in front of him and you often heard the phrase "playing not to lose" spoken about the Texans. Later in the year when the season had been for all intents and purposes "lost" there would come a stretch of 4-6 games where the Texans seemed to "release the hounds" and we'd begin doing better. This was simply Smith being more aggressive in blitzing and taking more chances because he had to show improvement somehow.

Last year Frank had the exact same experience and started out poorly. Then two things happend. Brian Cushing's steroids kicked in and Bernard Pollard showed up with a chip the size of a garbage can lid on his shoulder. They seemed to spark an upswing as the Texans moved through a schedule of nancy-boys mostly with some swagger. We weren't any different or all that much better. We had two more playmakers in Cushing and Pollard and we set them on a bunch of bad offenses and not half bad offenses that were playing either from behind or under pressure to keep up with our offense which had an outstanding year. We've talked all this week about how defenses play differently depending on the score of the game. Get ahead, make them throw the ball, and then make them one dimensional is the formula. Suddenly offenses aren't running anymore and your run stats get better (Oh look, the Texans are KILLING the run!). Make them throw to catch up or keep up and suddenly we are getting some pressure on the QB (Mario goes to another Pro Bowl!).

I'm not saying these are bad things but they come from a number of sources and having good solid coaching or a sound scheme aren't the only places you can find defensive improvement in the short term.

This year we're playing a tougher schedule. Pollard isn't angry anymore. Instead he's fat and happy, Cushing is off the juice and out of condition (and now position). Our offense isn't jumping all over people like it did at times last year. Our best work is on tape and teams see what they have to do to stop us. We again look like the really vanilla bunch of boobs we've always been.

We need a coach who teaches a scheme that he is a master of implementing. We need an established defensive coordinator to fix this. When you go get a defensive guru you dont' fret over whether he's a 4-3 coach or a 3-4 coach. You don't fret over his salary demands or the fact that he's going to expect to be the master of his side of the ball. You bring him in and let him work his mojo.

That's the major problem in my eyes. I say that because we've got 4.5 years of this same scheme to look at. Anybody can point out what's happening there.

The problems with talent are more difficult to put a finger on. Are the corners so lousy because we have no pass rush? Is it because the safeties suck too? Who knows? Are we not getting to the QB in time because the corners are being beaten in the blink of an eye or do our linemen stink? Why do our linebackers look so lethargic and confused? Is it because Ryans is out and Cushing is out of position? If that's the case then why did it look like that before when Ryans was playing?

I don't know but I fix the scheme first and then see how these players, or as many of them as the new DC can use do playing something different.

drewmar74
11-10-2010, 11:19 AM
If you watch other games the Texans are not involved in I think you'd be surprised. Heck, the Monday night game alone was obvious to me. Pitt obviously has a good D, but even Cincy showed things that we'd never do. Zimmerman knows his front 4 couldn't get to the QB, so what does he do? He dials up ways to get pressure on the QB by blitzes/putting his players in the best position to succeed.

I noticed this. The Bengals actually did a fair job of keeping pressure on Ben. After watching a bunch of Texans defense, it was kinda cool to watch a D that looked like they knew what they were doing.

Essentially, we have a group of talented defensive players, but they might not be utilized correctly. And, they might not be able to be utilized correctly, together. IOW, maybe Kareen Jackson is a better fit in a Tampa-2 and Glover Quin is a better fit in man. Maybe DeMeco is a better fit in a 4-3 and Cushing is a better fit in a 3-4. This is what I got out of Marcus' comment.

Interesting theory.

TimeKiller
11-10-2010, 12:43 PM
The problem with the D?

The secondary can't cover, the LBers can't tackle and the DL can't rush the passer.

Anything else?

The coaches make zero adjustments.

DerekLee1
11-10-2010, 01:21 PM
Predictability and readability are the biggest problems. We have NFL-caliber players on our D, and a couple of Pro Bowlers as well. But when a 4th receiver says something like "the coaches said they tend to play inside, so stay on the outside" - and then burns us for 3 deep plays and 2 TD's, then it's definitely the scheme. When Matt Cassell can look at how we're lined up, call an audible, and hit receivers for 3 TD's, that's the scheme. When Manning can call a fake snap count, see who runs to the line, and then know exactly how to reconfigure the offense, that's the scheme.

silvrhand
11-10-2010, 01:40 PM
Essentially, we have a group of talented defensive players, but they might not be utilized correctly. And, they might not be able to be utilized correctly, together. IOW, maybe Kareen Jackson is a better fit in a Tampa-2 and Glover Quin is a better fit in man. Maybe DeMeco is a better fit in a 4-3 and Cushing is a better fit in a 3-4. This is what I got out of Marcus' comment.

That's what you get when you draft the "best athlete" on the board instead of someone who fits your system.

thunderkyss
11-10-2010, 05:32 PM
I noticed this. The Bengals actually did a fair job of keeping pressure on Ben. After watching a bunch of Texans defense, it was kinda cool to watch a D that looked like they knew what they were doing.



Funny there was only one sack recorded, yet you say they were able to keep pressure on Ben.

Kinda reminds me of our game against the Giants. During the game you could see Eli Running his butt off. Two interceptions were thrown, because he was under pressure.

Yet after the final score, no one remembers that. We didn't record a sack, so there was no pressure.

I think the problem with our defense is simple. The reason we don't look so hot this year, & many thought we had a great defense (even giving Frank Bush & Kubiak props), is that we've gone away from that attacking defense that we all (most of us anyway) liked, & went ultra conservative, because of the youth in the secondary & the absence of Cushing over the first 4 games.

I think we need to throw caution to the wind, dial up the aggression & let the chips fall where they may. Let our play-makers make plays.

drewmar74
11-10-2010, 05:36 PM
Funny there was only one sack recorded, yet you say they were able to keep pressure on Ben.

Kinda reminds me of our game against the Giants. During the game you could see Eli Running his butt off. Two interceptions were thrown, because he was under pressure.

Yet after the final score, no one remembers that. We didn't record a sack, so there was no pressure.

I wasn't sure where you were going with this at first but I ended up digging it. Yes, you're right. Pressure does not always have to equal sacks.....

Malloy
11-11-2010, 02:07 AM
Funny there was only one sack recorded, yet you say they were able to keep pressure on Ben.

Kinda reminds me of our game against the Giants. During the game you could see Eli Running his butt off. Two interceptions were thrown, because he was under pressure.

Yet after the final score, no one remembers that. We didn't record a sack, so there was no pressure.

True, during the Giants game we did get a bit of the infamous pressure, enough for the double INTs. Now what I have not considered is the time Eli had in the pocket before said pressure got to him, if it's 3+ seconds I'm less than impressed.

I think the problem with our defense is simple. The reason we don't look so hot this year, & many thought we had a great defense (even giving Frank Bush & Kubiak props), is that we've gone away from that attacking defense that we all (most of us anyway) liked, & went ultra conservative, because of the youth in the secondary & the absence of Cushing over the first 4 games.

I think we need to throw caution to the wind, dial up the aggression & let the chips fall where they may. Let our play-makers make plays.

And here I am in 100% agreement. Not that I'm a 'throw caution to the wind'-kinda guy, far from it, but at this point I have a hard time seeing how we can do any worse. By doing something radically different we MIGHT figure out a few things that work and, heaven forbit, surprise some opponents with our scheme. I'm all for spicing it up too, sure there's a chance that some of out players do not know what to do, but hey, if they dont know, neither will the opposing offense :)


Comments in bold.

DexmanC
11-11-2010, 02:25 AM
Funny there was only one sack recorded, yet you say they were able to keep pressure on Ben.

Kinda reminds me of our game against the Giants. During the game you could see Eli Running his butt off. Two interceptions were thrown, because he was under pressure.

Yet after the final score, no one remembers that. We didn't record a sack, so there was no pressure.

I think the problem with our defense is simple. The reason we don't look so hot this year, & many thought we had a great defense (even giving Frank Bush & Kubiak props), is that we've gone away from that attacking defense that we all (most of us anyway) liked, & went ultra conservative, because of the youth in the secondary & the absence of Cushing over the first 4 games.

I think we need to throw caution to the wind, dial up the aggression & let the chips fall where they may. Let our play-makers make plays.

Kubiak's Texans always go conservative when the *heat* is on. Now, we're
in a position where we must go 6-2 (depending on who you beat) or better.
I expect them to be REALLY tight in EVERY area, because each game
against our division opponents count 3 times (Conference/Division/Overall)
and our Conference games against the Ravens and Jets count three times
(Conference/Tiebreaker/Overall)

These next 4 to 5 weeks have HEAVY stakes on the line. Do the Texans
man up, or ***** out?

hradhak
11-11-2010, 05:35 AM
The point of blitzing isn't necessarily to sack the QB although that's a huge plus. A well disguised blitz can do a lot of things. When you blitz someone is going to be open. But if you disguise the blitz well, you can confuse the QB into thinking one side of the field or the other is open. If you confuse him well and he cuts his throwing time in half he may make the throw he doesn't want to make, or take a sack, or worse only have time to look at the wrong side of the field and force a throw.

The person who I think disguises blitzes well is the Steelers. They run the Fire Blitz to great effect. You bring 2 people up to the line to blitz, and then drop one back in coverage. If done well, it can confuse your LT and take him out of the pass protection.

All of the above is nothing earth shattering. But the Texans are very poor at doing certain things. When they do blitz, it is only one of the LBs. It is usually Cushing, and the playcall is not a disguised blitz either. He'll line up somewhere, and the blitz is easily picked up. There's no confusion as to which side of the field will be open etc. All a QB at the line has to do is to find his hot receiver and hit him or in most cases the blitz gets picked up by the RB and the QB has all day to throw.

Here's how we fix it:
1) Call more blitzes where we bring 2 LBs or a LB and pollard to the LOS. At the snap drop one or two men back in coverage either the LB or the safety and a DE.
2) Use some of the corners as blitzers. A sack or hit early in the game is effective to make him a decoy for later blitz packages. Or don't show blitz with them and have them come on the blitz.
3) Have only 2 down lineman at the LOS. Stand your 2 DEs and 2 LBs at the LOS and drop some or none back in coverage. The Steelers use that to great effect against the Bengals.

I could go on, but I think the point is that we've oversimplified the playcalling so much to prevent missed assignments that we've made our defense so easy to read that no QB has trouble dissecting at the LOS and finding out who is open.

Grams
11-11-2010, 07:40 AM
These next 4 to 5 weeks have HEAVY stakes on the line. Do the Texans
man up, or ***** out?

The question all of us are waiting for the answer to.

Malloy
11-11-2010, 08:14 AM
I could go on, but I think the point is that we've oversimplified the playcalling so much to prevent missed assignments that we've made our defense so easy to read that no QB has trouble dissecting at the LOS and finding out who is open.

So you're thinking that it's because of the players that the scheme has been 'dumbed down'? I agree, and it would make sense, because I hate to think that we have a D-coordinator missing the 'obvious'.

This leads back to drafting the right players, and being able to coach em into a working unit. Sort of a chicken-and-the-egg discussion :(

hradhak
11-11-2010, 09:46 PM
So you're thinking that it's because of the players that the scheme has been 'dumbed down'? I agree, and it would make sense, because I hate to think that we have a D-coordinator missing the 'obvious'.

This leads back to drafting the right players, and being able to coach em into a working unit. Sort of a chicken-and-the-egg discussion :(

What baffles me is that our personnel is not much different from last year, so why did our defense get dumb? But looking at our defensive playcalling from preseason to now, we have significantly decreased the complexity of our blitz packages.

Don't get me wrong, I think our defense is also not executing as well. We miss tackles left and right, many of our players are out of place, take bad angles of attack etc.

I think that by calling bland defensive schemes, we lose the mental chess match that other offenses play against defense. The guys we line up at the line are not disguised into what they are doing. It's just too easy to predict and doesn't confuse anybody (including us, I guess).

thunderkyss
11-11-2010, 11:28 PM
I think that by calling bland defensive schemes, we lose the mental chess match that other offenses play against defense. The guys we line up at the line are not disguised into what they are doing. It's just too easy to predict and doesn't confuse anybody (including us, I guess).

I believe this is our biggest issue. We're playing conservative Kubiak... play-makers can't make plays.

steelbtexan
11-11-2010, 11:38 PM
1.The interior DL is not tough enough.
2. The DE/OLB cant get any pass rush and the inteior DL isn't getting any push.
3. The LB's cant cover a TE/RB to save their lives.
4. The secondary is young and in addition to not being good tacklers at the S positions. They are often out of position. When the CB's aren't falling down they are getting beat by double moves. This secondary is quite possibly the worst secondary in NFL history. IMHO
5. This doesn't even mention the fact that DC Bush is obviously in way over his head.

Other than that everything is just peachy with this defense.