What the heck is a "Shut Down Corner"? (A bit of a repeat)
 

I'm reposting this, since it got lost in a different debate, and I think it is interesting.

Cheers.

What the heck is a "Shut Down Corner"? (A bit of a repeat)
 

Defintion of shutdown corner: A CB that can neutralize the receiver he is covering with no help from other players. A la Deion Sanders. We don\'t have one but neither do a lot of other teams.

We have depth, JKool. We have as many CB\'s on our roster as just about any other team. I think what you are talking about is \"quality\" depth? I don\'t think the quality of our CB\'s beyond the 2 starting CB\'s is any worse than a lot of teams. If any of the other 31 teams number 1 CB gets hurt, who do they have that can step in and be a quality guy? Some teams are in better shape than others but MANY are in the same boat as us. The problem with our CB\'s isn\'t depth. It\'s \"starting quality.\" IMO.






[Edited on 20/6/2004 by GumboBC]

What the heck is a "Shut Down Corner"? (A bit of a repeat)
 

yes, we are thin at cb position. and even if we had a \"shut down\" corner what\'s to prevent the other team from going to the other side? this all goes back to the line....
many qb\'s exploited us last yr for lack of pressure..........
once coverage breaks down, it\'s just a matter of time......
was it dave waymer who was the head hunter yrs ago? no speed, but one hit and those recievers were never the same...........give me a guy with good instincts, a nose for the ball, and a crusher/punisher to instill fear in the reciever and i\'ll forego the speed.
just a little more depth though, and we\'re not looking bad at all.......swamee

What the heck is a "Shut Down Corner"? (A bit of a repeat)
 

We do have a lack of quality depth, but we also have a lack of play making CB\'s. They have physical limitations such as height, speed, instincts or experience. This forces us to be very conservative in their coverage options and forces assistance to them. Even a CB as erratic as a Terrell Buckley was a worry for a QB because he did have the ability to break on a read and make a big play at least once a game. I don\'t know enough about Jason Craft to rule this out of his game, but if we can get Tebucky and Mitchell on the field at Safety, with their make-up speed perhaps we could envision our corners a little more aggressive in making a play on the ball.

What the heck is a "Shut Down Corner"? (A bit of a repeat)
 

lummOx --

I agree that we don\'t have starting quality depth at CB. But, who does? Sure there are SOME teams better equipped to handle an injury than us. But, not many.

Look at the NFC South. Who has better depth at CB than us?

Tampa?
Carolina?
Atlanta?

What the heck is a "Shut Down Corner"? (A bit of a repeat)
 

One thing that always surprises me about Tampa is their ability to manufacture quality DB\'s. They always seem to have a new one popping up every year that looks impressive. Carolina\'s front seven is so much better than ours that it overshadows their secondary concerns moreso than us, and Atlanta\'s defense has so many holes it\'s like buffett night at the brothel. DeAngelo Hall will make some huge plays for them along the way this year though.

What the heck is a "Shut Down Corner"? (A bit of a repeat)
 

Well that was true up until last year when there starting CB got hurt and then they struggled big time stopping the pass. But, I belive their CB\'s success has been largely responsible because of the great pass rush from their front 4. Either that or they are a CB factory. Not so coniecidently there front 4 wasn\'t the same last year and neither was their pass rush??

Understood. But, what does that have to do with having quality depth at CB? Sure their front seven is better and their CB will look better playing behind them but my point was about depth at CB. Not great front 7\'s.

All I\'m saying is I don\'t think depth is that big of a concern because a lot of teams are in the same boat as us. They just have better starters than us.

What the heck is a "Shut Down Corner"? (A bit of a repeat)
 

The following list is who I would classify as being a true \"shut-down corner.\" My definition may vary, but I would consider anyone who can make plays against the best receivers in the league, and is consistent with it.
Chris McAlister
Patrick Surtain
Ty Law
Charles Woodson
Champ Bailey
That\'s a real short list, folks. Feels like I\'m leaving someone out, though.
Watch out for Trufant this year. He might have a breakout season.

[Edited on 20/6/2004 by BlackandBlue]

What the heck is a "Shut Down Corner"? (A bit of a repeat)
 

BnB, I like the list - it looks about right to me.

Billy, \"quality depth\", good! That is what I was after - sorry I didn\'t say it so clearly.

LummOx, right on the nail! The problem is the lack of coverage options. Sure we can do fine without a bunch of them, but our defense (including our pass rush) will be improved greatly with more options.

Two things:
(1) I was just sick of hearing about this \"shut down corner\" crud. I don\'t think we need one, and I don\'t think anyone said we did. The question is just whether or not we have enough \"quality\" corners. There is a hidden problem here that has been teased out in this thread - depth isn\'t the only issue, it is the lack of true quality of even our starting guys. If we got another guy who could start two good things would happen - we would have better competition for the starting positions AND we\'d have another guy who could play just as well as the starters (thus, depth).
(2) The guy I have in mind is Ambrose before he got old. A guy with all the tools to take away one of the two WRs usually on the field - most of the time by himself (or with a rolling cover deep). It doesn\'t have to be the top guy (WR), the second guy will do.

At any rate, I agree with Billy that maybe it isn\'t all that bad after the top two - it just seems to me that the top two right now tend to fit better in specialty roles (like nickle).

What the heck is a "Shut Down Corner"? (A bit of a repeat)
 

A shut-dowwn corner can take any WR and remove him from the game.
I don\'t think there has been one since Deion, and I hate that jerk.
There isn\'t a SDCB in the game today.

The top corners in the game today are not shut-down corners, they are simply solid man-to-man corners. They play excellent man coverage but are far from being the shut-down CB moron-boy was.

And if it weren\'t for excessive holding not called, I think Mr. Law would have been toasted in the 2003 AFC title game.

Comparing todays CB\'s to Deion is like comparing todays running backs to Walter Payton or Jim Brown. There isn\'t a SDCB in the NFL today.

[Edited on 20/6/2004 by Danno]

What the heck is a "Shut Down Corner"? (A bit of a repeat)
 

This conversation makes me think about a question that was brought up last year. The question being........Which is more important -- The players or the scheme?

I\'ve always said the players are more important than the scheme. Now, for those of you that think the scheme is more important, then you should feel pretty good about our cornerbacks.

A cover 2 or cover 3 scheme can ceratainly help mask some weaknesses at CB. But, it also takes away from other areas of the defense. That\'s why the players are more important than ANY scheme.

With that said, we are going to have to rely on our pass rush from our front 4 and play some cover 2 or cover 3 defense. Hey, it can be very effective with the players we have. But, if that pass rush doesn\'t get there or we can\'t stop the run then we\'re screwed. And Mike McKenzie isn\'t going to change that.

What the heck is a "Shut Down Corner"? (A bit of a repeat)
 

You\'re trying to start trouble again.....

What the heck is a "Shut Down Corner"? (A bit of a repeat)
 

Me? Nah........ lol......Not looking for trouble lummOx.

Actually, this conversation about our CB\'s did make me think about the conversation we had a while back. But, it wasn\'t just you saying schemes are more important than players. It was quite a few saying the same thing if I remember correctly.

And I must admit I\'ve done a lot of reading on defensive schemes since that conversation and I do place MORE value in schemes than what I did at that time. But I still think players are more important.

The schemes I\'ve been studying the most are the cover 2 and cover 3. Those cover schemes intrigue me because it makes up for a lack of true play-makers at cornerback and at the same time it minimizes the support you have to take away from the run game as compared to some other defensive schemes.

I think when you get right down to it, there aren\'t very many different defensive schemes. There are just variations of the same ones. And different ways of disquising them.

This \"cornerback\" subject has been analyzed from every different angle and the only conclusion I can come up with is we\'re going to have to rely on a combination of scheme and pass rush to be a truly effective defense.

Now admit players are more important, damn it...LMAO. J/K

Seriously though. If there\'s anything you would like to add about what defensive scheme you think would be more effective I would like to hear your opinion on the subject.

Peace lummOx.

What the heck is a "Shut Down Corner"? (A bit of a repeat)
 

(1) Perhaps we\'re just using different vocabulary, but our cover 2 was primarily a run defense (with either both Ss back or an S and a CB)?

(2) There is some sense in which I agree with you, Billy, and another I don\'t. When you have moderate to weak players, scheme is everything. When you have strong players, then the scheme is less important - UNLESS your D-coordinator has gamble schemes available because the players are so good. In this second case, the greatness of the players is augmented greatly by the scheme. Thus, as usual, it depends.

I hope that was coherent; I\'m feeling pretty tired.

What the heck is a "Shut Down Corner"? (A bit of a repeat)
 

well go to bed.


i have to disagree wit u there danno. id have to say that champ bailey and charles woodson when healthy are the only shutdown corners. but i agree with you about the other guys being good man to man guys.

i agree with this statement completely

What the heck is a "Shut Down Corner"? (A bit of a repeat)
 

JKool -- If you examiine your statement carefully, I think you will see that you proved my point that players are ALWAYS more important than the sheme.

You said that when you have weak players that the scheme is everything. Well, that is true. But, if you have weak players then those weak players dictate the scheme you must use.

If you had great players then you could use the same scheme you used with the weak players and it would be more effective. Also, you could use many more schemes that you wouldn\'t be able to use with the weak players.

So, you tell me which is more important. Players or schemes? Schemes are schemes. Players dictate the schemes..... ;)

What the heck is a "Shut Down Corner"? (A bit of a repeat)
 

Here\'s a very good article that explains the cover 2 defense and how to beat it. Personally, I think this is the best defense that suits our players.

http://espn.go.com/media/ncf/2002/0926/photo/0926_1.gif

Terminology
Why is it called Cover 2
When deciding the terminology of calling coverages, the number of deep zone pass defenders that are deployed will normally determine what a defensive coach calls a defense. In Cover 2 for example, there are two deep safeties that divide the field into halves. If the secondary played Cover 3, three deep defenders would divide the deep responsibility on the field into thirds. If they played Cover 4, four deep defenders divide the deep zone into fourths.

Obviously, different teams use different terminology, but the most commonly used is simply identifying how many deep zone defenders are used.

What is Cover 2?
The base Cover 2 is a zone defense where every defender is responsible for an area of the field and not a specific man. The field is divided into five underneath zones and two deep zones. The two corners and three linebackers play the underneath fifths, and the two safeties play the deep halves. In the diagram below you can see the field divided into underneath fifths and deep halves.

Cover 2: How is it played?
In Cover 2, it is obvious that the safeties have a tremendous burden and a lot of field to cover. They must get help from the underneath coverage to keep receivers from outnumbering them in the deep zones. There are two critical techniques that can help the safeties. First, the corners must collide with the receivers and flatten out their routes to keep them from running outside freely, which would stretch the safeties. If the wide receivers release unmolested, it is almost impossible for the safeties to get enough width quickly enough to defend the deep pass. The corners are responsible for their outside fifths, which is a shallow area, but they must sink with the receiver until another receiver threatens their zone.

For the rest of this article:

http://espn.go.com/ncf/columns/davie/1437187.html

Edit: Here\'s the statement that best sums up the cover 2 defense for me:

Conclusion
Cover two is an effective coverage because you can assign five defenders to play the underneath zones. This makes the offense have to execute at an extremely high level to be effective. The defense is not allowing much space or easy throws. The vulnerability of cover two is that you only have two deep defenders. Obviously, that leaves a large area for the safeties to cover. To help the deep defenders, the underneath zone players must pattern read the routes of the offensive players to take the pressure off the safeties. The key to cover two, or any zone coverage, is getting a great pass rush with your four rushers. No zone coverage can hold up against a good passing football team if you don\'t pressure the quarterback.








[Edited on 21/6/2004 by GumboBC]

What the heck is a "Shut Down Corner"? (A bit of a repeat)
 

GumboBC, man, your arguement is hard to disagree with. And yes, i think you\'re right, players are more important than scheme, since scheme is dictated by the players you have. But in the NFL (of all sports), players are just ahead of scheme, and not by much, in importance. In other sports, i think your arguement would be stronger.

Why? Because in the NFL instinct and talent can only give you a shot at starting. I don\'t care if you are a Michael Vick. If you don\'t understand schemes, if you can\'t plan correctly for a play, no matter how good you are, you will get beat. As much as there is all the hype about Vick (and heck, i think he IS a phenom) I cannot see him do what he did his first year again, unless he starts to understand NFL schemes better. He surprised the NFL the first full year he played (like A.B. did). In the NFL people learn real quick and adapt. You can\'t just say \"Go long\" and try and out run teams year in year out.

American Football, of all sports, is very scheme driven, because plays start from set pieces. It is not a free flowing game, where individual inginuity, talent and experience mean everything. In football, the players are dependent on scheme, the plays are run dependent on scheme.

I do not think it is a coincidence that the Broncos continuously have great RB\'s, the Rams great QB\'s or that the Eagles and Bucs have solid defenses almost year in and year out. If they can get players to understand their schemes, and spend time in their system, they almost always succeed. That is scheme being better than player\'s talent. Sure the players they have are solid, but they are not the Randy Moss\'es of the world.

In the past few years, the teams that won Superbowls have been scheme teams, not megastar teams. The Pats (twice), the Bucs and Ravens. Sure they have talent, but no one I would consider Superstars. Buc\'s D comes the closest with Sapp, Brooks and Lynch, but we\'\'ll see how all 3 play now that 2 are on different teams. I bet they shined due to the scheme.

If players were truly that much more important than scheme, then the Redskins should have won the last 3 Super bowls. Every year they get more and more talent, and look just as crappy. Why? They keep changing coaches (i.e. schemes) and think the players\' talent will make up for all this. Survey says....\"Wrong!\"

Wish the Saints were coming up here to play again, that\'s the only time i get to see my beloved Black and Gold these days.

Cheers

What the heck is a "Shut Down Corner"? (A bit of a repeat)
 

St.Shrume --

That was very well thought out, St. Shrume. Good job.

But, I think I place more importance on players over schemes than you do.

If you look at any successful scheme or defense for that matter, it\'s successful because of the talent moreso than the scheme. It\'s just that the scheme plays to strengths of the defense (or to the talent) and it masks the weak areas.

Take the Bucs defense. The cover 2 plays to the strength of the front 4 and their pass rush. Without that great pass rush from the front 4, then that defense wouldn\'t work. At least it wouldn\'t work nearly as well.

Then you have teams where the secondary is stronger than the front 4. Like the Redskins you mentioned. They weren\'t a succesful defense because it\'s harder to come up with an effective defensive scheme when you can\'t stop the run or rush the passer. It\'s not the scheme that\'s the problem in Washington. It\'s the lack of talent on the defensive line.

I\'m sure teams wish it were as simple as just using the correct scheme to turn their team around. But, I think if you ask any coach they will tell you that the players are more important than any scheme.

What the heck is a "Shut Down Corner"? (A bit of a repeat)
 

Nice summary, Gumbo. The problem has never been about \"what scheme should we run?\" The problem is \"what scheme can we run?\"

The whole problem with our \"serviceable\" corners is that it limits what we can do on defense. Offensive Coordinators spend all day looking at where they think your defense is going to be in a given situation. They plan their game accordingly. Our lack of \"quality depth\" at CB puts us in predictable situations. Being predictable makes us exploitable; an inexcusable condition considering how much cap room we had during the off-season.

With just one corner who can man-up with another team\'s number 1 WR and hold him in check, we would have so many other options on defense. You can then play to your strengths rather than being stuck in cover 2 all day long because that\'s your only prayer of stopping the bad guys\' passing game.

Too many people look at our team and evaluate it in a vacuum - and it\'s easy to get excited about one\'s team when you do that. We have some pretty glaring weaknesses at the moment. My hope is that Brown will emerge as a corner, Watson is good enough to win the starting job, and Sullivan becomes something other than a waste of a round 1. That\'s a lot of hopes....

What the heck is a "Shut Down Corner"? (A bit of a repeat)
 

Wow! This thread has turned out pretty well.

(1) St.Shrume - Awesome post! I agree.
(2) FF,
Awesome! I totally agree. Where were you when I was trying to argue this earlier! You put it so well.

(3) Pak, I did hit the hay, but I\'m still pretty tired today - I think I\'m comin\' down with somethin\'. And in the summer no less! Bah!

(4) Billy, as always, well argued. Two things:

(a) So the Cover 2 is what I thought, and I don\'t see why that would make you vulnerable to the run - is that because there are no run blitzes in the basic scheme?

(b) I think we all may be disagreeing about the meaning of \"more important\". You correctly analyzed what I said earlier, so I guess I did say that players are the key to scheming - in one sense that makes them more important. The sense of more important that I had in mind (and I\'d guess StShrume - cool name btw - and FF too) was this: without the scheme the players - no matter how great - would be seriously hampered. In fact, with a bad scheme they could look like pretty poor players even when they\'re not (WhoDat, I think, suggested that this may have accounted for Knight looking so bad two years ago). Thus, the schemes are what allow the great players to be great (rather than just fine physical specimens). Thus, the scheme is, in the sense of putting your best players in the right place to make plays, \"more important.\"

Think of it this way, if Darren Howard were to run back every play to try and make an interception in the deep hook zone (even if he got one) would not be as great a player as he is - in fact, most people would think he was an idiot (and he probably would be for doing this evey play). The point is, great players don\'t get to do WHATEVER they want, they get to do what is possible within the scheme.

Thus it is my hunch that, as usual, we agree. It is merely a verbal dispute at this point over what constitutes \"more important\".

What the heck is a "Shut Down Corner"? (A bit of a repeat)
 

I don\'t think we\'re disagree on what the \"meaning\" of \"more important\" is. I think we have a fundamental difference on which is more important. Scheme or Players.

Of course you always want to have the scheme that best fits your players. That\'s a given. But, schemes don\'t make players BETTER. Schemes just help prevent a player(s) weakness from being exposed as much. And also schemes are figured out and are defeated much easier than you stop a great players.

Lastly, as I said earlier, cooridinators are limited to what they can do scheme-wise depending on the players they have. Everything is dictated by the avalible talent on hand. Thus, players are always more important than the scheme.

I do get what some of you guys are saying. And I agree that the scheme is VERY important. Just NEVER more important than the players.

Also, using Darren Howard dropping back in coverage was a bad example... ;)

As was playing Sammy Knight at a postioin where speed is critical. That was just a bad coaching decision and really had nothing to do with the scheme....... ;)

What the heck is a "Shut Down Corner"? (A bit of a repeat)
 

How about someone we would feel confident in if it was 4th and goal from the 9 yard line. Who will they pick on is what I think now. Someone that can be physical enough to jam one of the big 6\'4 WR. Both starters are 5\'10 and 180-185, they just get pushed around. Not a shut-down corner needed, just a big, physical, smart one with decent speed.

What the heck is a "Shut Down Corner"? (A bit of a repeat)
 

If you can\'t see that McAlister and Surtain can for the most part shut down their side of the field, you might want to go back and watch some reruns on the NFL network. You\'re not going to find a player that will completely shut down the best receivers in the land, not going to happen, but if you can find a guy that can do it 80% of the time, then you have a shut down corner. But that is my viewpoint, and is by no means considered the definitive definition. I threw Law in the mix cause he has proven that he can do it in the big games, on more than one occasion.

What the heck is a "Shut Down Corner"? (A bit of a repeat)
 

I don\'t want to get too big into a scheme/player discussion, and that being said, I\'m sure we can all admit that they interact in every facet of the game and rely upon each other for the success of any team. The 3rd factor of importance is coaching. The three must find a synchronicity. It\'s one thing to be a great athlete and be poorly coached in a scheme that plays against your strength, it\'s the exact same to be a poor athlete and there be a great scheme that hides your weakness, but the coaching does not allow you success within the scheme. All three factors need to be present. Without them, you are asking players to perform strictly on instincts and experience. Not many units will find cohesion in just that.

We have problems in all areas and if I had the true answer I would be making too much money to be here. I don\'t think every player we have is good enough to play consistently at the highest level required. I don\'t think our scheme is suited to every player we have, nor it is effective against every team/coach we face, and I don\'t think our team is coached well enough to be elite. Exactly what fixes are required? I could speculate all day and probably not be correct. My one line opinion.....we are not aggressive enough. I\'d rather live and die by the sword than try to beat an opponent to death with a wiffle bat. I don\'t think I\'ve ever heard a defensive player say that they are too aggressive. All I ever hear is that they don\'t get unleashed enough. These guys want to make plays not react to plays. Go out punching rather than hoping to sneak a shot in between turtling.

What the heck is a "Shut Down Corner"? (A bit of a repeat)
 

lumm0x --

First let me say I wasn\'t trying to call you out on any statement that was made in the past. And just because I feel players are more important than the scheme doesn\'t mean I\'m right. That\'s just the way I feel.

Anyway, the whole reason I brought up players vs. scheme is because I truly beleive our CB\'s are good enough to play in a cover 2 scheme and us have a good all around defense. Of course, I\'m depending on a VERY strong pass rush and an ability to effectively shut down the run.

Now, I know some of the better passing teams are going to get the best of our secondary at times. But, I don\'t think our CB\'s are that bad and I don\'t think they\'re are going to be the big downfall of this defense.

With that said, you bring up the ONE thing that scares me more than anything. And that\'s coaching. I\'m not sold on these chumps, but I\'m optimisitc.

Peace

What the heck is a "Shut Down Corner"? (A bit of a repeat)
 

I know you weren\'t unflapping the holsters. That\'s as dead a horse as we have seen. The zone coverage schemes also rely on another weak point of last year....tackling. Out of our guys last year only Thomas (with the club) and Bellamy were respectable in our back 7.

What the heck is a "Shut Down Corner"? (A bit of a repeat)
 

(1) Billy I guess we do disagree on the importance of schemes versus players (at least where the emphasis on \"most\" goes). Oh well. I think I\'ve said my peace, and you\'ve said yours on this one. Perhaps one of us will come up with a good example ;) - then we may rejoin this debate.

(2) Cover 2 doesn\'t ask the corners to do too much, unless you roll the cover (a S comes down and a CB slides to the deep half). Thus, I\'m sure they\'re good enough to do that. However, Cover 2 isn\'t an option you can employ every down (usually it is most effective on first or second and 4-7 - otherwise you\'re gonna need a different scheme). I also think with Mitchell healthy this is a reasonable scheme for our \"most downs\" defense - but only if the linebackers turn out to be ok (otherwise you\'ll see nickle on many 2nd and 3rd downs).

(3) BnB, I agree.

What the heck is a "Shut Down Corner"? (A bit of a repeat)
 

JKool --

I\'m not REAL sure how important you think \"schemes\" are in comparison to \"players.\" But, I\'m going to say this:

I\'ve thought long and hard on the subject and I can\'t think of any time where schemes are MORE important than players. I think schemes can maximize the talent a team has. I think certain schemes are harder to stop than others. But, I think schemes are only as good as the players executing them and the coaches calling the schemes. (I think coaches need to be able to call the correct schemes at the correct times.)

Furthermore, I think teams are using the \"same\" schemes for the most part.

What I think seperates the \"good\" and \"bad\" teams are:

a.) coaching
b.) execution
c. ) talent

Let\'s leave \"talent\" out of the equasion and let\'s say we have 2 teams with about the same talent level.

I don\'t think \"schemes\" would be the \"deciding factor\" in which of the 2 teams would be the \"best\". Unless you have a coach that is incompetant and uses schemes that don\'t use his personell correctly. But, that\'s more of a coaching issue than a scheme issue. As I stated before, I just don\'t think there are any magical schemes that are so unique that it\'s going to make that much of a difference.

I think what\'s really going to be the deciding factor on which team would be the best is the same \"factors\" I listed before:

a.) coaching
b.) execution

Coaching for so many reasons:

A. Coaches need to call the correct schemes at the correct times.
B. Coaches need to be able to call the correct plays at the correct times.
C. Coaches need to know the weaknesses of the opponents and be able to exploit them
D. Coaches need to be able to call the best sub packages to take advantage of certain down and distance situations. ( I think scouting an opponent\'s tendancies allows the good coaches to take adavatage of certain situations.)

And then there\'s execution. I don\'t think I need to go into that. Execution is a given. That is if a team is going to have any chance of being successful.

Some where in all of that mess I just typed is where the Saints problems have been. What do you think has been our biggest problem?

1. Schemes ?
2. Coaching ?
3. Talent ?

Feel free to elaborate on all 3 or by all means tell us if the problems are in another area. I always like hearing others view....






[Edited on 22/6/2004 by GumboBC]

[Edited on 22/6/2004 by GumboBC]

What the heck is a "Shut Down Corner"? (A bit of a repeat)
 

And can we get an AMEN! from the congregation?!!


AMEN! :D

SFIAH

What the heck is a "Shut Down Corner"? (A bit of a repeat)
 

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?

What the heck is a "Shut Down Corner"? (A bit of a repeat)
 

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.

What the heck is a "Shut Down Corner"? (A bit of a repeat)
 

So a shut-down CB is a scheme?

What the heck is a "Shut Down Corner"? (A bit of a repeat)
 

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]

What the heck is a "Shut Down Corner"? (A bit of a repeat)
 

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.

What the heck is a "Shut Down Corner"? (A bit of a repeat)
 

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]

What the heck is a "Shut Down Corner"? (A bit of a repeat)
 

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?

What the heck is a "Shut Down Corner"? (A bit of a repeat)
 

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).