Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Interesting note on this year's defense


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
42 replies to this topic

#16 SKULL

SKULL

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 328 posts

Posted 18 January 2009 - 12:29 PM

Makes one wonder how the players in locker room were taken it !

If your working in a company amd everyone sees the boss taking over for someone,Then Turd starts talking to people who talk to people who talk to people .
Pretty soon everyone has opinions on the matter some for some against

Then those people start fussing amonst each other and soon theres and ERIE feeling ..
Some just went through the motion just to get the season over and get home .
With hopes come trainning camp it will be took care of .

Jenkins saw all this last season and got out .
Peppers gave it a chance to get better ,It did not . Now he wants out .

Some one needs to step up and take out the trash !

Edited by SKULL, 18 January 2009 - 12:32 PM.


#17 southcakalac

southcakalac

    Wharton Fan Club

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,755 posts

Posted 18 January 2009 - 12:38 PM

Is it to much to ask just to see our CBs hitting the wide receivers off the their routes and just more physical play in general? :confused:

#18 Sandy Claws

Sandy Claws

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,395 posts

Posted 18 January 2009 - 12:39 PM

I'm going off of what Gantt said based on his sources.

Your take is essentially choice A, which I agree is a valid possibility.


Where do you get choice B based on what is in that article? The only way is to add a lot of speculation into the mix.

It may not be as clear as your "too many cooks" in choice A either. When I hear that term, I think about 2 guys making changes without regard for what the other is doing. In this case, maybe deciding to send an LB or 2 on a blitz without changing the remaining coverage responsibilities. But the actual situation here could be that there was agreement but the changes themselves created issues. We had gone through camp, the pre-season, and at least half the regular season, then we made changes. There will be an adjustment period. Some of our LBs and DBs looked lost in coverage against the Cards. I swear I thought I saw Davis covering Marshall more than once.

#19 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 39,853 posts

Posted 18 January 2009 - 12:43 PM

Is it to much to ask just to see our CBs hitting the wide receivers off the their routes and just more physical play in general? :confused:

Soft zone coverage.

We were down on PI calls (one all season) but also didn't have much in the way of interceptions. There were some cases (Saints game in particular) where I saw plenty of opportunities for gys to jump routes, but they wouldn't.

It makes you wonder if they've been coached not to.

And if so, is that on Trgovac or Lewis?

#20 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 39,853 posts

Posted 18 January 2009 - 12:47 PM

Where do you get choice B based on what is in that article? The only way is to add a lot of speculation into the mix.

It may not be as clear as your "too many cooks" in choice A either. When I hear that term, I think about 2 guys making changes without regard for what the other is doing. In this case, maybe deciding to send an LB or 2 on a blitz without changing the remaining coverage responsibilities. But the actual situation here could be that there was agreement but the changes themselves created issues. We had gone through camp, the pre-season, and at least half the regular season, then we made changes. There will be an adjustment period. Some of our LBs and DBs looked lost in coverage against the Cards. I swear I thought I saw Davis covering Marshall more than once.

You might be overthinking it here.

Per Gantt, Fox started horning in on the defensive side of things about mid-season, which is right around the time we fell off. This was the second straight season Fox had gotten "more involved" in the defense.

The question is simply this: Do you believe we fell off because Fox's input messed things up or do you believe having Fox looking over his shoulder adversely affected Trgovac's ability to do the job?

#21 panthers55

panthers55

    Starting all over again

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,722 posts

Posted 18 January 2009 - 12:54 PM

What doesn't make sense to me if why would Fox get more involved if everything were going along fine. He gets involved when things are not going well not the other way around. And his fixes would be directed toward areas which need improvement which in the past have been largely successful. I would think that if his interventions weren't successful he would either back off or try something else. I haven't really seen an example of where his interventions made things worse rather than better. If not before then why now?

It makes more sense that our defense was worse as the season progressed due to the better competition we were facing. And he got involved as we started to struggle. On the other hand maybe he needs a new perspective or new approach. Our defense isn't as aggressive as it needs to be and without Peppers it will need a new scheme. If we don't it will be the worse one we have had under Fox. And after this year, that would take some doing.

#22 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 39,853 posts

Posted 18 January 2009 - 12:57 PM

What doesn't make sense to me if why would Fox get more involved if everything were going along fine. He gets involved when things are not going well not the other way around. And his fixes would be directed toward areas which need improvement which in the past have been largely successful. I would think that if his interventions weren't successful he would either back off or try something else. I haven't really seen an example of where his interventions made things worse rather than better. If not before then why now?

It makes more sense that our defense was worse as the season progressed due to the better competition we were facing. And he got involved as we started to struggle. On the other hand maybe he needs a new perspective or new approach. Our defense isn't as aggressive as it needs to be and without Peppers it will need a new scheme. If we don't it will be the worse one we have had under Fox. And after this year, that would take some doing.

Gantt didn't provide a specific time when he got involved other than "mid-season". It's logical to expect that it happened after something made him think there was a problem. What it was, or exactly when? Not known at this point, but you can make an educated guess.

#23 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,925 posts

Posted 18 January 2009 - 01:06 PM

we actually started the season with an elite defense. had the #2 secondary in the league. shut down every elite RB we played. shut down the #1 and #2 passing offenses.

then after the bye mid-season they collapsed. this article is making me rethink things a bit.

#24 panthers55

panthers55

    Starting all over again

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,722 posts

Posted 18 January 2009 - 01:17 PM

we actually started the season with an elite defense. had the #2 secondary in the league. shut down every elite RB we played. shut down the #1 and #2 passing offenses.

then after the bye mid-season they collapsed. this article is making me rethink things a bit.


If our defense was doing so well then why would Fox intervene? He is not the problem and at worse was not able to fix it. But his intervention clearly wouldn't have been the problem or made things worse. Otherwise he would have just kept things as they were and kept going along as we were. Seems to me after the break we went to much more of a zone look after using more man coverages early.

#25 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 39,853 posts

Posted 18 January 2009 - 01:26 PM

If our defense was doing so well then why would Fox intervene? He is not the problem and at worse was not able to fix it. But his intervention clearly wouldn't have been the problem or made things worse. Otherwise he would have just kept things as they were and kept going along as we were. Seems to me after the break we went to much more of a zone look after using more man coverages early.

Reminds me, there's word the Skins might be looking to trade Carlos Rogers.

He could conceivably be a decent complement to Gamble (if fully recovered from knee issues) and could be had more cheaply than Asomugha, but they may want a second rounder for him. I think that's a bit more than I'd want to give up, especially with no first rounder at the moment.

#26 panthers55

panthers55

    Starting all over again

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,722 posts

Posted 18 January 2009 - 01:49 PM

Reminds me, there's word the Skins might be looking to trade Carlos Rogers.

He could conceivably be a decent complement to Gamble (if fully recovered from knee issues) and could be had more cheaply than Asomugha, but they may want a second rounder for him. I think that's a bit more than I'd want to give up, especially with no first rounder at the moment.


I would like to get another good man coverage corner whether in FA or through the draft. I figure that our current guys would be better in man coverage than zone plus we could use more depth in the case of injuries and in nickel and dime coverages.

I would like to get some bigger corners with the speed to cover as well as the size to fight for the ball. Our corners are generally not very big and physical.

#27 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 39,853 posts

Posted 18 January 2009 - 01:54 PM

I would like to get another good man coverage corner whether in FA or through the draft. I figure that our current guys would be better in man coverage than zone plus we could use more depth in the case of injuries and in nickel and dime coverages.

I would like to get some bigger corners with the speed to cover as well as the size to fight for the ball. Our corners are generally not very big and physical.

He's 6-0, 190. Started the year as their top guy but fell off some, sat out all last year (knee) and is a bit disgruntled now over being replaced with DeAngelo Hall.

I could see getting him, but a second rounder is too high a price.

My favorite trade idea this offseason is still getting Heath Miller from the Steelers.

Todd Heap is a tad disgruntled in Baltimore, but he'd likely cost too much.

#28 Sandy Claws

Sandy Claws

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,395 posts

Posted 18 January 2009 - 02:14 PM

You might be overthinking it here.

Per Gantt, Fox started horning in on the defensive side of things about mid-season, which is right around the time we fell off. This was the second straight season Fox had gotten "more involved" in the defense.

The question is simply this: Do you believe we fell off because Fox's input messed things up or do you believe having Fox looking over his shoulder adversely affected Trgovac's ability to do the job?


Looking beyond the limits that you set is overthinking? I disagree. It seems that far too many here are willing to hang Trgovac and keep Fox. If we take mid season as meaning week 8, then Fox got involved, and the D dropped in performance. If it was later, then the D dropped, Fox got involved, but was unable to fix it. (And we really don't know that Trgo did not invite Fox's involvement to begin with.)

Why does Fox get the pass while some call for Trgo's head on a pike? Isn't it possible that Fox is more to blame for the ills than Trgo? Fox wore a headset, heard the calls, had the authority to make changes. He also reviewed and approved game plans for both the O and the D. Why bring in a different cook if the head chef is just going to order him to burn the beef stew?

#29 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 39,853 posts

Posted 18 January 2009 - 02:17 PM

Looking beyond the limits that you set is overthinking? I disagree. It seems that far too many here are willing to hang Trgovac and keep Fox. If we take mid season as meaning week 8, then Fox got involved, and the D dropped in performance. If it was later, then the D dropped, Fox got involved, but was unable to fix it. (And we really don't know that Trgo did not invite Fox's involvement to begin with.)

Why does Fox get the pass while some call for Trgo's head on a pike? Isn't it possible that Fox is more to blame for the ills than Trgo? Fox wore a headset, heard the calls, had the authority to make changes. He also reviewed and approved game plans for both the O and the D. Why bring in a different cook if the head chef is just going to order him to burn the beef stew?

Blaming Fox for screwing things up was one of the options I gave.

#30 Badbak

Badbak

    Official Huddle Recluse

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 311 posts

Posted 18 January 2009 - 02:18 PM

Perhaps Fox and Trgovac had different ideas on what needed to be "fixed" and that caused some confusion in the defensive backfield. In the attempt to correct the fix they had the DL injuries. Then some people began overplaying and freelancing trying to help other players and it all fell apart. Remember early in the season when the defense was playing so well you kept hearing guys talking about everybody knows their resposibilities and as long as everyone is where they are supposed to be and nobody is trying to help cover other peoples areas and freelancing like in the past it will work. Evidently they stopped doing it.


Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com