JKool

Billy, I wasn\'t trying to avoid the debate - I just can\'t figure out exactly what it is we\'re disagreeing about. Here are a couple of things, so of which may help and others are merely me trying to understand the problem:

(1) Execution. This is something players do independent of their talent (at least as I understand your use). Thus, it seems to me that it is a combination of two things: (a) smarts/memory/visual recognition, and (b) doing what the scheme requires. (b) is of obvious interest, since it makes execution and schemes almost synonymous. Without a scheme, there would be nothing to execute. Maybe I missed your point here, but that sounds right to me.

(2) Coaching also has three parts, one of which will sound interestingly familiar: (a) selecting appropriate packages of players, (b) motivating players, (c) selecting a good scheme (defensive play). (c) appears to have coahing include schemes.

(3) Ah ha! As I wrote this last one, I thought perhaps our disagreement is here: I think of schemes as the set of defensive plays that you will utilize during the game - perhaps it has more/less meaning to you?

(4) You keep saying that schemes are less important than players and coaches. Is this because players and coaches USE schemes? Is it because without players and coaches, there would me no schemes? Those don\'t make one or the other more important in my view, they just make one depend on the other - I guess I\'m just not sure what \"more important\" means here. My view is that schemes are just another part of the mix (I think players, coaching, and schemes just are the defense, I guess - one is not more important than the others).

(5) Here is an example. Let\'s say that the zone-blitz is a scheme (since I think it is). It is often said, and I agree, that this is one of the greatest revolutions on defense in the last 10-15 years (and I agree). In a zone blitz more of the second line (LBs and DBs come than the OL thought would, and a DE or DT drops into a zone coverage as the others blow by). When this innovation first came about, it didn\'t matter too much who was playing, since teams that hadn\'t seen it too often before couldn\'t adjust the line blocking very effectively (certainly not on the field).

Now, in anticipation of your response to my example, I suppose we could say that without speedy/savvy palyers and a quick DE/DT, we couldn\'t run a zone defense in the first place (but I don\'t see how that makes the idea of a zone blitz not the nightmare and that it couldn\'t be executed with just about any NFL calibre player). Also, you might cavil that it is coaching that is the thing here - without a coach who knew when to implement the zone-blitz, there would be no good zone blitzes. Again, I think it is the scheme that is important to it\'s success (the innovation created the problems for the OL, not the coaches); also, you might argue that it is just bad coaching on the other teams part not to be ready to adapt to such a defense (but coaching had to change once there was a new kind of threat - the zone blitz scheme).

(5) Given what I have said here, I don\'t know how to answer your question about which has been the bigger problem for the Saint\'s D - since it is my view that the goodness of the defense depends on all things being in proper alignmnet (the coaching, the talent, and the excecution OF THE SCHEMES).

What say you?

"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

GumboBC

I say that new innovative schemes might work more effectively for a while. But, they WILL be figured out and some coordinators WILL figure them out quicker than others.

Also, I say that those schemes can only work effectively if they have the right players for the scheme.

In other words, you can\'t just plug any ol\' palyer in there just because they play in the NFL and expect the scheme to work.

If that\'s the case, then we should have just kept the players we had on defense last year and changed schemes.

What happened to that great Buddy Ryan 46 defense? Is the West Coast Offense unstoppable? Is it even any more effective than other offenses now?

And for the record, I\'m not suggesting \"athletic talent\" is all that consitutes a good player. I\'m suggesting that good players are more important than schemes by a large margin.

Bottom line: If you have enough good players you can use ANY scheme you choose and be great. But, if you don\'t have enough good players NO scheme is going to work.

Danno

So a shut-down CB is a scheme?

GumboBC

Well.....................

Here\'s what happened. I thought instead of continuing to split hairs on what a shut-down CB was, we would be better served to talk about schemes that would help our current CB\'s out, because we\'ve got about a snowballs chance in hell of getting a shut-down CB this year.

It was CLEARLY a self seving move on my part to hijack this thread :P

But, it got bogged down in a deabate on what is more important, scheme or players. I keep tryin\' to tell \'em that I\'d rather have Fred Smoot and Champ Baily at CB, but we\'re going to have to settle for a good scheme to help mask our CB\'s weaknesses.

OK, JKool, you can have your thread back......LMAO.


[Edited on 22/6/2004 by GumboBC]

JKool

I can! Goody!

(1) At any rate, I was interested in the scheme/player debate. I\'m still not sure why we disagree - I still think it has something to do with what constitutes \"more important\". I guess, I\'ll just continue thinking about it - as of now, I guess we disagree... oh well.

Here is something I couldn\'t agree with more:
However, the fact that schemes are used to cover up players, I don\'t think, is evidence that players are more important, since, I insist, that schemes also make players better.

I\'ll let you know when I have something interesting.

(2) I think my question about shut-down corners was answered by example much earlier in the thread. I think there are very few. I also think that when people complain about lack of depth at CB on this year\'s team, they are NOT saying that we don\'t have a shut-down corner - all they are saying is we need at least one more guy who could be a starter in the NFL.

"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

GumboBC

JKool --

It really doesn\'t make much difference to me if you think schemes are more important than the players executing them BUT.................

If you do indeed place more value in schmes -- answer these questions for me?

1. What\'s the best way to fix our secondary? Bring in some proven CB\'s or come up with a scheme to make \'em better?

2. Do you know of any team where you can say that their scheme is MORE responsible than the players for their success?



[Edited on 23/6/2004 by GumboBC]

JKool

Billy, I\'m sad to hear that it doesn\'t matter to you what I think... snif.

Here are some answers, though I\'m still not sure what I think about the whole deal (schemes vs. players).

(1) Proven CB.
(2) It would be hard to say. It is my view that players and schemes are co-important when scheme means selection of defensive play. That is, there are some great players made greater by good schemes and some bad players made mediocre by good schemes (and the converse is true). Thus, I think a good way to think about this is as follows: great players will probably be great no matter what (so in that sense players are more important), but think of guys who were great in one system then sucked (or were at least much less good) in another (Chad Cota or Sammy Knight come to mind). These players were made better by the scheme (even if that means that it was simply that there weaknesses were hidden); thus, in this second sense the schemes were more important.

I agree that schemes to not make defenses that much better or worse, but the more things you are able to do with the players you have (thanks in part to their own greatness) the better those players will appear!

I guess my gut feeling is that it is very hard to separate players and schemes when you judge their goodness (since the two occur at the same time during a game). I do agree with you that the players you have determine the schemes available to you whole heartedly - but I\'m still not clear why you think that that makes the players more important.

Here is an argument on your behalf that I consider pretty good: every team in the NFL has the same schemes available to them (since there really aren\'t that many options), but the better teams are not the ones with the better schemes, they are the ones with the better players.

I would appreciate it if you would answer this question though: do schemes ever put good/great players in better position to make plays? If the answer is yes, then why isn\'t the scheme important to the player\'s success? If no, why do you not think that?

"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

JKool

PS - I thought the advent of the zone-blitz was an example of a scheme that made some players look better than they were. Clearly as offenses learned to adapt to that particular scheme there were several linebackers whose sack totals were higher than they would have been otherwise (thus, appearing better than they were as a result of the scheme).