Run D

[SuperMan]

If you must know I have spent 6 of the past 10 years in various middle eastern countries partaking in the thorough ass whipping being dealt to various terrorist organizations over there. I haven't had a lot of time to spend sitting comfortably in front of a computer talking football so im gonna get as much out of it as I can while I can. And I joined the day I realized the huddle existed but you can search NFL Network for the same username and check out my posts.

Well if that is the case, I apologize as I have a great respect your service to our country.

That said I think you are still overacting a tad bit to the situation whenever you play an offense like the Saints* that can lay the points on you have to focus on taking away there biggest strength which we did.

Gamble has played absolutely lights out recently.

[Floppin]

Once again if you are going to quote me then first read my entire point of view. I know Upshaw is from a different system, that was the point. We will look a lot like a 3-4 defense real soon. We got D-ends dropping in coverage, DT's playing over the nose etc... That exposes our undersized LB's at the second level. The Saints** are not a running team. Tampa Bay, ATL (even though they are transitioning out of it), and the top teams in the league this year are running teams minus Greenbay and the Patriots. What do think will happen against a team that runs alot in that downhill lead block style.

We are not switching to a base 3-4 no matter how many times you repeat yourself. We don't have the personnel to run a 3-4 base, and we haven't shown any real initiative to build one. We drafted yet another 4-3 linebacker in the first round - that alone should be enough to make the point, yet for you it doesn't as you lament it as a bad pick under the false assumption that we are switching to a 3-4 and that he doesn't fit. Once again, this is completely and totally false.

We are playing looks out of both formations, but are using them in situation specific instances. For instance we are using 4-3 packages with four down DE's on the line and various 3-4 looks on passing downs to improve our pass rush. These are the plays where you will see DE's drop into coverage - IE CJ on that one play.

The majority of the time that we were gashed on running plays were when we were run against while in a passing defensive look. When we had a run base 4-3 look with both Edwards in they got next to nothing. This point notwithstanding, had we tackled better they wouldn't have had hardly any long runs at all as every run play had a defender miss a tackle within 5 yards of the line.

My main point is this : throughout your argument you have shown a true misunderstanding of what you're looking at, and should just give up while your not yet to far behind.

[carpantherfan84]

Well if that is the case, I apologize as I have a great respect your service to our country.

That said I think you are still overacting a tad bit to the situation whenever you play an offense like the Saints** that can lay the points on you have to focus on taking away there biggest strength which we did.

Gamble has played absolutely lights out recently.

I appreciate the sentiment but it is not not required. I didn't say that for any sympathy. Make no mistake I live for that stuff. 3rd generation airborne paratrooper talking. I have been in the Army since a month after high school and I wouldn't have it any other way. I am on the huddle for intelligent conversation about my 3rd passion behind family and soldiering and that is NFL football. I only ask that you attack my argument, my reasoning or my opinions not my intelligence or my character.

[carpantherfan84]

Oh and props to Gamble he played outstanding. The Giants will be a good test of our Run D if Ahmad Bradshaw is healthy even though the results will be skewed because of the short week.

[Rubi]

Run D may not be needed vs the Gmen if Bradshaw is out.

We need to pressure Eli and eliminate Nicks from the game. If Tampa can throw up 30+ points with their basic, vanilla, standard offense we should be in very good position to do the same.

[SuperMan]

I appreciate the sentiment but it is not not required. I didn't say that for any sympathy. Make no mistake I live for that stuff. 3rd generation airborne paratrooper talking. I have been in the Army since a month after high school and I wouldn't have it any other way. I am on the huddle for intelligent conversation about my 3rd passion behind family and soldiering and that is NFL football. I only ask that you attack my argument, my reasoning or my opinions not my intelligence or my character.

Well placed sentiment and I will do so.

My respect is out myself being a 3rd generation former soldier as well.

My grandfather was D-day -1 101st Airborne.

My father was a Seal for 13 years.

And I was a Marine for four years, I don't say it out of sympathy but out of empathy I have been there myself.

On to the point I think you are over estimating the amount of 3-4 plays we run, I do think we need to stop the run better but I believe we need that to come from better fundamentals our tackling was atrocious we missed no less than 12 tackles that could have been make for minimal gains.

[Kuech the Sneak]

Oh and props to Gamble he played outstanding. The Giants will be a good test of our Run D if Ahmad Bradshaw is healthy even though the results will be skewed because of the short week.

Bradshaw probably not playing, especially on a short week. Hope nicks can miss this one. This win would be HUGE going into Atlanta the week after

[panthers55]

case and point, our top five tacklers

C. Godfrey 11

J. Anderson 9

J. Norman 8

C. Gamble 7

J. Beason 7

and Nakamura was at number 6 with 5.

I don't know that this Stat has as much to do with the running game as it does the short passing game

[frash.exe]

lol yes the run d is something to be scared of because everybody's totally afraid of the Saints*' playmaking running game

the Panthers neutralized the biggest threat on the Saints* offense, Drew Brees. The defense did a good job today, and they also did a good job last week.

[carpantherfan84]

We are not switching to a base 3-4 no matter how many times you repeat yourself. We don't have the personnel to run a 3-4 base, and we haven't shown any real initiative to build one. We drafted yet another 4-3 linebacker in the first round - that alone should be enough to make the point, yet for you it doesn't as you lament it as a bad pick under the false assumption that we are switching to a 3-4 and that he doesn't fit. Once again, this is completely and totally false.

We are playing looks out of both formations, but are using them in situation specific instances. For instance we are using 4-3 packages with four down DE's on the line and various 3-4 looks on passing downs to improve our pass rush. These are the plays where you will see DE's drop into coverage - IE CJ on that one play.

The majority of the time that we were gashed on running plays were when we were run against while in a passing defensive look. When we had a run base 4-3 look with both Edwards in they got next to nothing. This point notwithstanding, had we tackled better they wouldn't have had hardly any long runs at all as every run play had a defender miss a tackle within 5 yards of the line.

My main point is this : throughout your argument you have shown a true misunderstanding of what you're looking at, and should just give up while your not yet to far behind.

Well we shall see in another offseason what our defense looks like. Kuechly was a bad pick, not because he cant play but because we now have 4 starting LB's under 250 and against that style of running where LB's are the key to stopping the inside run, we are over matched. The two Edwards' are playing well but the need for Dwan was because of the mismatch at the second level. Thats fine against teams that run a lot of draws or screens or West Coast style offenses that send a lot of backs on swing passes but downhill inside running is gonna be a problem.

The tackling was a problem. But step back for a second what I saw was LB's fighting against blocks only being able to get an arm on the guy instead of holding off the block and attacking the ball. I dont think technique or effort was the problem I think it was being overmatched physically at the point of attack.

My overall point is that to be successful this season we have to figure out a way to consistently stop inside downhill running along with the improvement we made in pass coverage. The fact that we need to constantly put in "3-4 looks" proves that there is a personnel issue in different situations because the 3-4 and 4-3 are meant to be interchangeable as there is a serious difference in the type of player required. The 4-3 is a passing defense. The only time it wouldn't be would be against 4 or more recievers. So if we have to sit a LB with less than 4 recievers then why do we have the type of LB's that we do?

[Floppin]

My overall point is that to be successful this season we have to figure out a way to consistently stop inside downhill running along with the improvement we made in pass coverage. The fact that we need to constantly put in "3-4 looks" proves that there is a personnel issue in different situations because the 3-4 and 4-3 are meant to be interchangeable as there is a serious difference in the type of player required. The 4-3 is a passing defense. The only time it wouldn't be would be against 4 or more recievers. So if we have to sit a LB with less than 4 recievers then why do we have the type of LB's that we do?

The personnel required is much different when you want one or the other as your base set. We have the personnel for a base 4-3, which is why we are such. We run 3-4 looks situation depending, like I said earlier. This isn't something unique to the panthers, and it most certainly isn't because of a personnel issue. Being able to provide different looks up front make protections all the harder for the offensive line and this advantage provides mismatches for our pass rushers - a good thing.

When we want to stop the inside run - traps, draws, dives, or otherwise- we most certainly can and will align accordingly. Tampa got very little up the middle once we adjusted to the offense. Their only positive runs, excluding the first quarter, were to the outside, which was a containment issue rather than a DT/LB issue.

The only way that our LB's would be undersized would be if we were running a 3-4 the majority of the time, including obvious running downs. Which we, most definitely, are not.

[carpantherfan84]

Well placed sentiment and I will do so.

My respect is out myself being a 3rd generation former soldier as well.

My grandfather was D-day -1 101st Airborne.

My father was a Seal for 13 years.

And I was a Marine for four years, I don't say it out of sympathy but out of empathy I have been there myself.

On to the point I think you are over estimating the amount of 3-4 plays we run, I do think we need to stop the run better but I believe we need that to come from better fundamentals our tackling was atrocious we missed no less than 12 tackles that could have been make for minimal gains.

Thats really awesome about your grandfather. My most proud noncombat time was burial detail. It is always an honor to be able to pay respects to past war vets. The majority of which that I buried were Vietnam Vets of course.

[Fox007]

Norman looked pretty good today and he has no where to go but up!

[Swaggasaurus]

A lot of those gashes were slipped tackles by Beason. Probably just rust, he will get it together.