Defensive scheme. Tell me why?

GumboBC · 02-18-2005, 09:57 AM

Who here believes that many of our problems on defense were related to "scheming"? I'm talking about Rick Venturi's schemes!

Who here saw our defensive scheme change over the last 4-games? Who here saw a big improvement on defense over the last 4-games. And who here believe that the improvement over the last 4 games were a direct result of Haslett changing our defensive scheme?

Who here believes that the change in defensive scheme will carry over into next season?

If someone believes that the change in scheming won't carry over into this upcoming season .... Tell us why? Show me the light. Tell me why I shouldn't be optimistic about the defense?

Seriously!

Danno · 02-18-2005, 10:09 AM

I\'m gonna guess its because we didn\'t hire Romeo Crennel.

ScottyRo · 02-18-2005, 10:10 AM

I did see the D play a degree or two better. However, I also saw some horrible offense play by our opponents during that time and it\'s hard to say which came first.

Vinny T looked horrible when we played Dallas. His accuracy was off badly. Had he not been missing his WRs, I don\'t know that the game would have been the same.

I think the D did well against TB, but we always play up against them.

Against Atl, we didn\'t face Vick or Crumpler and although I still think we were capable of beating Atl with those two playing, they didn\'t play and the D looked better for it.

Carolina was the only game in which I really was impressed by the D. I was impressed by the whole team. Each phase of the game was played well and it was a hard fought game. On top of that we won.

So, 2 of these games I thought it was D and 2 I thought there were other factors working to make the D look better. Whether any of this carries over to next season is something we\'ll all have to wait and see - or not see.

Tobias-Reiper · 02-18-2005, 10:51 AM

Could you explain exacly what the scheme change was?

GumboBC · 02-18-2005, 11:00 AM

Could you explain exacly what the scheme change was?

I sure can.

1. The cornerbacks played man-up. Instead of playing Venturi\'s complicatred zone coverage.
2. The D-linemen maintained their gap responsibilites to maintain the run to the inside. Instead of shooting the gap every play.
3. The defensive ends stayed home on the run and blitzed the QB in obvious passing situations.

That\'s just some of the differences I noticed...

Tobias-Reiper · 02-18-2005, 11:20 AM

..why do I bother...

...so, the defense did not play any zones...
... didn\'t \"shoot the gaps\"..

hm... nah.. done with it...

FireVenturi · 02-19-2005, 10:12 AM

Could you explain exacly what the scheme change was?

I sure can.

1. The cornerbacks played man-up. Instead of playing Venturi\'s complicatred zone coverage.
2. The D-linemen maintained their gap responsibilites to maintain the run to the inside. Instead of shooting the gap every play.
3. The defensive ends stayed home on the run and blitzed the QB in obvious passing situations.

That\'s just some of the differences I noticed...

MAIN Thing.....we stopped playin cover 3 which allows the flat on one side of the field to be vunerable if u dont get an awesome pass rush and started playin like gumbo said ...man coverage. vinny did play bad, but Jake played bad because they couldnt block our DE\'s.....imagine that!!!

FireVenturi · 02-19-2005, 10:15 AM

Another thing, if we would have used that scheme all year i know we would not have been rkd 32nd in D. I am not sayin we would have been top 10 either, but if we move from 32nd to say 20th....Playoffs. So who is to blame?

CHACHING · 02-19-2005, 10:41 AM

I blame Haslett for allowing Vent to keep his job.......
I blame Haz for keeping Ambrose on the field
I blame haz for not starting Brown sooner(I was at the Raider game when he got his first start)
bASICALLY i BLAME hAZ.......PERIOD

SaintFanInATLHELL · 02-19-2005, 01:10 PM

Another thing, if we would have used that scheme all year i know we would not have been rkd 32nd in D. I am not sayin we would have been top 10 either, but if we move from 32nd to say 20th....Playoffs. So who is to blame?

Probably closer to the middle of the pack than that. The defense held the opposition to under 20 points in each of the 4 games. The Falcons were 14th in the league at 21.1 PPG.

The Saints were 5-1 when holding opponents to under 21 PPG in 2004.

If we had that scheme all year you could project to 12 or 13 wins instead of 8.

SFIAH

02-18-2005, 09:57 AM	#1
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616	Defensive scheme. Tell me why? Who here believes that many of our problems on defense were related to "scheming"? I'm talking about Rick Venturi's schemes! Who here saw our defensive scheme change over the last 4-games? Who here saw a big improvement on defense over the last 4-games. And who here believe that the improvement over the last 4 games were a direct result of Haslett changing our defensive scheme? Who here believes that the change in defensive scheme will carry over into next season? If someone believes that the change in scheming won't carry over into this upcoming season .... Tell us why? Show me the light. Tell me why I shouldn't be optimistic about the defense? Seriously!
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616

02-18-2005, 10:09 AM	#2
Danno Site Donor 2014 Truth Addict Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Spanish Fort, AL (via NO and B/R) Posts: 24,640	Defensive scheme. Tell me why? I\'m gonna guess its because we didn\'t hire Romeo Crennel.

02-18-2005, 10:10 AM	#3
ScottyRo 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Williamsburg, VA (ugh, the food here) Posts: 1,704	Defensive scheme. Tell me why? I did see the D play a degree or two better. However, I also saw some horrible offense play by our opponents during that time and it\'s hard to say which came first. Vinny T looked horrible when we played Dallas. His accuracy was off badly. Had he not been missing his WRs, I don\'t know that the game would have been the same. I think the D did well against TB, but we always play up against them. Against Atl, we didn\'t face Vick or Crumpler and although I still think we were capable of beating Atl with those two playing, they didn\'t play and the D looked better for it. Carolina was the only game in which I really was impressed by the D. I was impressed by the whole team. Each phase of the game was played well and it was a hard fought game. On top of that we won. So, 2 of these games I thought it was D and 2 I thought there were other factors working to make the D look better. Whether any of this carries over to next season is something we\'ll all have to wait and see - or not see.

02-18-2005, 10:51 AM	#4
Tobias-Reiper Merces Letifer Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,161	Defensive scheme. Tell me why? Could you explain exacly what the scheme change was?

02-18-2005, 11:00 AM	#5
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616	Defensive scheme. Tell me why? Could you explain exacly what the scheme change was? I sure can. 1. The cornerbacks played man-up. Instead of playing Venturi\'s complicatred zone coverage. 2. The D-linemen maintained their gap responsibilites to maintain the run to the inside. Instead of shooting the gap every play. 3. The defensive ends stayed home on the run and blitzed the QB in obvious passing situations. That\'s just some of the differences I noticed...
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616

Latest Blogs
2023 New Orleans Saints: Training Camp Last Blog: 08-01-2023 By: MarchingOn Puck the Fro Browl! Last Blog: 02-05-2023 By: neugey CFP: "Just Keep Doing What You're Doing" Last Blog: 12-08-2022 By: neugey

02-18-2005, 11:20 AM	#6
Tobias-Reiper Merces Letifer Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,161	Defensive scheme. Tell me why? ..why do I bother... ...so, the defense did not play any zones... ... didn\'t \"shoot the gaps\".. hm... nah.. done with it...

02-19-2005, 10:12 AM	#7
FireVenturi Cold as Ice! Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Da Big Easy Posts: 2,978	Defensive scheme. Tell me why? Could you explain exacly what the scheme change was? I sure can. 1. The cornerbacks played man-up. Instead of playing Venturi\'s complicatred zone coverage. 2. The D-linemen maintained their gap responsibilites to maintain the run to the inside. Instead of shooting the gap every play. 3. The defensive ends stayed home on the run and blitzed the QB in obvious passing situations. That\'s just some of the differences I noticed... MAIN Thing.....we stopped playin cover 3 which allows the flat on one side of the field to be vunerable if u dont get an awesome pass rush and started playin like gumbo said ...man coverage. vinny did play bad, but Jake played bad because they couldnt block our DE\'s.....imagine that!!!
	Season Ticket Holder Since 2003 Section 149, Row 14, Seats 15 and 16 Baby!

02-19-2005, 10:15 AM	#8
FireVenturi Cold as Ice! Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Da Big Easy Posts: 2,978	Defensive scheme. Tell me why? Another thing, if we would have used that scheme all year i know we would not have been rkd 32nd in D. I am not sayin we would have been top 10 either, but if we move from 32nd to say 20th....Playoffs. So who is to blame?

02-19-2005, 10:41 AM	#9
CHACHING 500th Post Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Golden State Posts: 830	Defensive scheme. Tell me why? I blame Haslett for allowing Vent to keep his job....... I blame Haz for keeping Ambrose on the field I blame haz for not starting Brown sooner(I was at the Raider game when he got his first start) bASICALLY i BLAME hAZ.......PERIOD

02-19-2005, 01:10 PM	#10
SaintFanInATLHELL The Professor Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Lithonia, GA Posts: 2,647	Defensive scheme. Tell me why? Another thing, if we would have used that scheme all year i know we would not have been rkd 32nd in D. I am not sayin we would have been top 10 either, but if we move from 32nd to say 20th....Playoffs. So who is to blame? Probably closer to the middle of the pack than that. The defense held the opposition to under 20 points in each of the 4 games. The Falcons were 14th in the league at 21.1 PPG. The Saints were 5-1 when holding opponents to under 21 PPG in 2004. If we had that scheme all year you could project to 12 or 13 wins instead of 8. SFIAH