Change the roster or change the scheme?

[Mr. Scot]

A little insight into Ron Meeks via this excerpt from a Gantt story with quotes from Eugene Robinson...

"Wow, we got Meeks?" Robinson said. "Congratulations to him -- and good for us. We just got a good coach."

While Meeks is coming to oversee the entire defense, Robinson said the move would be of particular benefit to the team's defensive backs. He said the one thing he knows is that Meeks is a stickler for technique, and should make the team's still-young secondary more polished.

Robinson said he remembers Meeks as a guy who was willing to work with individual players' strengths and adapt to them, rather than forcing them into some dogmatic preconceived notion. Even though Falcons cornerback Ray Buchanan preferred to play off receivers and use his quickness, and Michael Booker was more of a physical corner who liked to jam receivers at the line, Meeks made sure both preferences were taken into account.

"He's a disciplined guy, and very studious, not a yeller and screamer," Robinson said. "But the biggest thing we liked about him then was that he'd take what you do best and work with it. He'd put you in position to succeed.

"He wasn't looking to change your style, he was looking to recognize your abilities and work with them."

Herald Online

Adaptability is generally good, and has been something of a weak point under John Fox.

On the flipside, there's the school of thought that says the way to win is to get a system you believe in and then find the right players to run that system. This is the approach that teams like the Steelers prefer. In this mindset, the machine is what matter. Players serve as "parts", and parts can be replaced if needed. Might seem stubborn and/or dispassionate, but it must be admitted that the results offer solid evidence in their favor.

So which of these approaches would you advocate for the Panthers?

A) Build the system and plug in the right players

Get good players and build the system around them

[pantherclaw]

We have good players on defense with the d-line being the thinnest. Bring in some linemen, and let these guys play.

[Debil]

I think for the time being, we need to adapt to the players' strengths. In the long term (if our coaching staff remains long enough), we can always pull in players to fit a certain scheme.

[Fireball77]

I actually think it's always best to use somewhat of a combination and that's where the adaptability comes into play. For example, when the Steelers got Polamalu, LeBeau certainly tailored schemes to use his strengths, yet before they had a player like him, I don't necessarily think they were thinking..OH IF ONLY WE HAD A DOMINANT AND VERSATILE SAFETY IMAGINE WHAT WE COULD DO. LeBeau had good defenses with and without TP.

[rayzor]

B followed by A

If you are going to be building a system it is much better to build it around the talent you already have in place (a lot cheaper as well). Once you have that system set in place find players that will help accentuate the system that you have in place.

makes sense to me.

wasn't something that they have been all that good at in the past but the way they tried dealing with the Dline last year (even though it didn't work out all that well) was a good idea. the principle is sound.

[Porkchop Express]

a case could probably be made that a) the system, is exactly what we did on offense during last offseason

[rodeo]

everyone said the steelers were stupid for drafting joey porter because he didn't fit their scheme. everyone said ray lewis was too small to play in a 3-4.

people need to stfu about who can play in what scheme and just let them play.

[monstercat]

If you think about it, the teams that zone blitz a lot out of the 4-3 are about the closest thing you can get to what the Steelers do with the 3-4, because they don't rely on overwhelming the offensive line with numbers, but instead they keep you guessing about where the rush is coming from since any of the 3 or 4 linebackers can be blitzing at any time.

[PhillyB]

Given that we already have a solid core of players, Meeks would do well to adapt to what we've got, slightly shifting the defensive plans around the players we have. If he turns out to be successful and his position, or the style of his defense, looks to be longterm, then future drafting and signings should be based around the continuation of said machine.

[KillerKat]

"Even though Falcons cornerback Ray Buchanan preferred to play off receivers and use his quickness, and Michael Booker was more of a physical corner who liked to jam receivers at the line, Meeks made sure both preferences were taken into account."

Hopefully playing 20 yards off the receiever is a thing of the past now.

[Kevin Greene]

Robinson said. "But the biggest thing we liked about him then was that he'd take what you do best and work with it. He'd put you in position to succeed.

"He wasn't looking to change your style, he was looking to recognize your abilities and work with them."

I just got wood.

[mantal]

"Even though Falcons cornerback Ray Buchanan preferred to play off receivers and use his quickness, and Michael Booker was more of a physical corner who liked to jam receivers at the line, Meeks made sure both preferences were taken into account."

Hopefully playing 20 yards off the receiever is a thing of the past now.

That was the single biggest beef for years. Just that alone would mean a vast improvement in my eyes...

[rayzor]

yeah, giving WRs a cushion was never a good idea.

bump them and mess up the timing, give the Dline a bit more time to get the job done.

no WR should ever leave the line without getting hit.

[Mr. Scot]

More about Meeks from Dan Reeves (his HC with the Falcons)...

"The way he gets his players to just fly to the ball has always impressed me," said Reeves, who said he regretted losing Meeks to the Washington Redskins in 2000. "What he's always preached is pursuit,of getting to the football."

Charlotte Observer

We've been missing that element. If we get it, I'll be happy.