Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Del Rio ran more Zone than Turgovac.


Kurb

Recommended Posts

Buckner elborated on this yesterday in some discussion on a local radio show.

At first I was shocked, but as his rant continued it made more sense.

He said under DelRio the D-line knew they had to beat the man in from of them. Buck and Jinx had too or a guy named Shane Burton would come in and do it in their place. Pep and Ruck had too, or that cat named Al Wallace certainly would. He continued that after the first year or so under Turgo, that accountablitly started to reside, and a bit of complacency started to inch into the D-line because they knew he wouldn't replace the starters.

He said several times that Del-Rio ran a TON more soft zone schemes relying on the D-line making a play and Turgo does ALOT more blitzing and man2man. The difference being the D-line making plays for DelRio and not making plays for Turgovac.:eek:

Discuss...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Buckner elborated on this yesterday in some discussion on a local radio show.

At first I was shocked, but as his rant continued it made more sense.

He said under DelRio the D-line knew they had to beat the man in from of them. Buck and Jinx had too or a guy named Shane Burton would come in and do it in their place. Pep and Ruck had too, or that cat named Al Wallace certainly would. He continued that after the first year or so under Turgo, that accountablitly started to reside, and a bit of complacency started to inch into the D-line because they knew he wouldn't replace the starters.

He said several times that Del-Rio ran a TON more soft zone schemes relying on the D-line making a play and Turgo does ALOT more blitzing and man2man. The difference being the D-line making plays for DelRio and not making plays for Turgovac.:eek:

Discuss...

For whatever reason, the fans on this forum seem to think that Turdo likes soft zone defense. This is NOT true. Turdy was interviewed about his own personal defensive preferences, and he made it clear that he liked man-to-man coverage and blitzing a lot more than zone defense. Turdums just goes along with Fox's wishes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much of that is also the talent level behind the starters on the defensive line?

And someone catches the truth behind the problem.

It's not so much Turgo as it is lack or high quality depth/starters on the defensive line. First it was the lack of depth, now it is the lack of talent from start to finish.

Want to know why our blitzes never seem to work ? Notice none of the D-linemen beat anyone on a consistant basis.

Get a influx of talent on the D-line. Some high motor depth and our D would head back to it's winning ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see this. Its the attitude of the team. Really if your getting pressure from your front 4 you dont need to blitz.

If you are getting pressure from the front 4 you look like a genius when you blitz as well.:iagree:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And someone catches the truth behind the problem.

It's not so much Turgo as it is lack or high quality depth/starters on the defensive line. First it was the lack of depth, now it is the lack of talent from start to finish.

Want to know why our blitzes never seem to work ? Notice none of the D-linemen beat anyone on a consistant basis.

Get a influx of talent on the D-line. Some high motor depth and our D would head back to it's winning ways.

You mean hold the players accountable for their poor play and not make the coach a scapegoat?

That's not how we roll

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember that under Del Rio. When it kept on under Fox I figured it was Fox's style not really the DC. I haven't watched enough Jaguars games to know, but the last one I did was when they beat Pittsburgh the season before last and Del Rio's D was aggressive start to finish.

If our talent on our D line is so bad, who has the responsibility of recognizing that and altering the game plan?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is the whole problem. We don't have the d-line talent that we need to run our defense. We need to get constant pressure with our front four otherwise our defense will suffer.

We don't have the personnel to run that scheme, but the coaches refuse to make adjustments.

I think they have made adjustments.

Running the softer Zone is an adjustment.

As the season went on our D-line got weaker.

To compensate we had to allow a softer zone to keep from being killed by the big play. In theory the softerzone allows the D-line longer to make a play. They never made plays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

YEah I think this rings a truth home about our defense that some will not have considered. The scehemes they were using were because we simply didn't not have either the experience or the ability in key areas of the D to be more aggressive. More aggressive would have been a VERY porous D. As it is the defensive scheme slowed the opposition offenses in terms of scoring. Yes they still put up points, but not nearly as quickly as they could have.

I think having a 2nd year guy calling the plays, a rookie free safety and a league low DL from the year before kind of forced their hand. They also struggled to improve in either position as the free agency and draft just did not fall that way.

I disliked the defensive scheme but frankly there is a big reason for te indentity of this D to suddenly vanish. The coaches may have thought the players couldn't handle it...YET. Goes back to the simplification fact and another reason why Pep feels it is time to move on. He is aware of what defensive plans the coaches have for next season and if they are planning on bringing the young guys slowly to ensure they are coached properly, then he is quite right in that he will not get the opposrtunities as he will in other schemes.

It does all make a lot of sense really...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they have made adjustments.

Running the softer Zone is an adjustment.

As the season went on our D-line got weaker.

To compensate we had to allow a softer zone to keep from being killed by the big play. In theory the softerzone allows the D-line longer to make a play. They never made plays.

wow someone with some common sense!

Are you sure you don't want to blame Fox for everything while advocating the hiring of Bill Cowher to take his place? Maybe we should fire the entire defensive line. Or better yet trade defenses with Philly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • From what I gather, sure it allows you more room in that you can manipulate the cap more due to smaller prorated amounts to fit salaries in, but for cap purposes, you're still on the hook for the money at the end of the day.    "ChatGPT You said: What are the advantages for NFL teams to sign larger signing bonuses? ChatGPT said: NFL teams often use large signing bonuses as a strategic tool in contracts. While they cost real cash up front, they offer several advantages, especially when it comes to salary cap management, player retention, and negotiation leverage. Here's a breakdown of the benefits: ✅ 1. Salary Cap Flexibility Signing bonuses are prorated over the life of the contract (up to 5 years) for salary cap purposes. This allows teams to spread out the cap hit, even if the player receives the money immediately. Example: A $20M signing bonus on a 4-year deal counts only $5M/year against the cap. ✅ 2. Attracting Top Talent Players love signing bonuses because they're guaranteed money paid up front. Offering a bigger signing bonus can sweeten the deal without inflating yearly salaries. ✅ 3. Front-Loading Real Cash, Not Cap Teams with strong cash flow can pay big bonuses now while minimizing the immediate cap hit. Useful for teams trying to build around rookie QB contracts or with flexible cash budgets. ✅ 4. Locking in Key Players Larger bonuses make it harder for a player to be released early due to dead cap consequences. This can create more job security for the player and roster continuity for the team. ✅ 5. Leverage in Restructures Big signing bonuses create future cap hits via proration. Teams can later restructure deals (e.g., convert salary to bonus) to create even more cap space. ✅ 6. Competitive Edge In free agency, a team offering more guaranteed cash up front often wins the bidding war, even if the total contract value is lower than another team's. ⚠️ Key Caveat: Large signing bonuses increase dead cap risk if the player is cut or traded early."   I think that roster bonuses can be a useful tool if you're trying to keep players in by manipulating numbers and spreading the hit over time, but I don't think that it's something that you want to use unless it's "necessary." I don't know that you want to get into signing rookies on roster bonuses, as the bust rate is relatively high.    
    • not even if that team in New Orleans disbands before the first game.  Saw one 2026 mock that had them drafting first next year.  
    • Right, so basically what I said in my first post about this last night. Tepper needs to use that big wallet of his in one of the few ways it can be used in the NFL given the cap.   Give Scourton a bigger signing bonus but not a fully guaranteed deal. Everyone wins in that scenario as if Scourton is smart and hires good money people, he'll take that bigger signing bonus and use it to make more money in the end over the next 4 years than if he just had his fully guaranteed deal and a smaller signing bonus.
×
×
  • Create New...