JKool

The simple answer is yes.

The more complex answer is this: on a running play, you want guys headed to the point of attack - where the play will hit the LOS, rather than into the backfield.

If a running play cuts back or is \"bounced outside\", then it is up to the pursuit to make the play - the idea of a run blitz is the same as a regular blitz: stop the play before it starts.

Our problem, in general, is too many guys in the backfield (or trying to get there - they\'re actually being over aggressive) and not enough guys at the LOS. Thus, this comes down to, as many have pointed out, game planning (which is on the coaches).

However, it is my view that we turn our D-line loose too often. Controlled blitzes is generally the answer to this problem - which I thought was the question. Furthermore, it is easier to adjust a run blitz to a pass blitz than the converse - since you commit at the beginning of the play. With our improved coverage (i.e. Mike Mc and F. Brown), the extra few seconds shouldn\'t hurt too much - especially when compared to giving up the run.

Also, it is more difficult to cut back or bounce outside if the defender is closing to the line rather than closing to the backfield.

[Edited on 29/10/2004 by JKool]

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

JKool

BnB,

A fine point. I hadn\'t considered that. Indeed, why not Smith, Rodgers, and Watson on the field. I think Watson might be improved at MLB by substantial protection at the line by a run blitz or the extra strength that Smith would add.

Of course, we\'d have to get Howard back next year if we were to go with this.

Saint.tastic

Maybe if they have the D-line hold there position and the line and try to contain the RB and stead of an all out rush from our line that might cut down on some of the yards. It\'s easier to stand your ground then rush the QB then it is to rush the QB and try to chase the RB from behind.

Just my opinon

rich006

Two points:

1. We have the same problem on the D-line that we have on the O-line: not enough nasty, aggressive, smash-mouth attitude. That comes from on-field leadership IMHO--Rickey Jackson anyone?

2. How about scoring some points in the first quarter? If we are always behind, the other team is always going to be running the ball. I\'m not saying it\'s the offense\'s fault we can\'t stop the run, but playing with a lead occasionally would definitely help.

St.Shrume

I am not a football guru, and most of what I learned about football is from watching the Saints and playing Madden for about 10 years.

BUT what I see is a defense that either doesn\'t or can\'t follow the playcalling duties.

If the playcalling is complicated, they are not intelligent enough to grasp it.

Or maybe they just don\'t trust in the play call (or the playcaller) to do what they are told.

Sure, it probably is a bit of both, but this has to be addressed. You can draw up the perfect run stopping D, but if the guys aren\'t going to play it out as drawn it will probably not work.

If the guys are not intelligent enough to get it, simplify it down enough for them. If they are not going to do as told, sit their asses on the bench.

In battle, as much as you may not like what your superior says, you HAVE to follow thru...at least during the battle (or play). After the play, on the sideline is when you show your dissent. If they hate or mistrust Venturi\'s calls, this is not the way to show it.

BiggPoppaFro3

First we keep our assignments. Don\'t take our eyes of the man we Must cover.

Then, we make sure to fill gaps and clog holes when they come up. An inch of daylight is too much IMO.

Next, we execute our offensive game plan like texas does criminals: early and often,


Finally, we find LT. Lock him in his house and not let him come out until Mon. morning.


Seriously, I think we can take them if we just keep it simple on D and potent on O. They are good, but they aren\'t the Patriots.

Kristomac

I believe a large part of our defensive problems are primarily with the ends.
Darren Howard hasn\'t played well, either because of anjury, and/or he didn\'t appreciate being being the designated franchise player. I think our defense would be farther along if Will Smith had been playing all this time.
Charles Grant is a sack machine, but the number of long runs that have gone past him while he\'s flailing to get the the QB, gives me the dry heaves. He seems more interested in his personal stats than working with the team to stop the run. We got rid of L\'Roi Glover for the exact same reasons.

SaintFanInATLHELL

I\'m going to do some snippage...


It\'s been my observation that the D-line has generally been giving the opposing QB all day long anyway. Collins had 350 yards passing and no sacks. The two times he was pressured at all resulted in an Oakland penalty and one of the INTs.

OK. So how do we handle the obvious misdirection of running the ball on obvious passing downs? Do we then continue not to blitz the QB and play run blitz instead?

SFIAH

SaintFanInATLHELL

But isn\'t this counter to what JKool has been referring to? That the D-Line gets in trouble because they are overly agressive in trying to get to the QB, and therefore either run themselves out of the play, or allow for a cutback.

In the run game overpursuit and overagression can be just as flawed as being passive.
It would. However we are playing teams in KC, Denver, SD, and Atlanta too, that are
going to run the ball regardless. They are all top 10 in the NFL in rushing.

What I want to see from the offense is a more potent rushing attack. It\'s still my belief that McCarthy is going to have to mix it up better and go counter to his predictable tendencies. More play action. More draws. Mixing Karney in both the pass and the rush. More screens. More controlled rollouts for Brooks. Frankly I\'d only like to see Deuce run the ball from the power or offset I about 40 percent of the time, and only 20 percent of the time on 1st down.

Now I still want the run game to batter the defense. But use a bit more finesse instead of the simplistic line it up and run at them style the offense has exhibited of late.

But the defense has to take on the mission of stopping the run for the next 4-5 games. I believe that our secondary can make the required plays. They\'ll give up yards, but sometime in a drive they\'ll make the required stop. Note that Oakland\'s only two passing TDs happened when the DB fell down. Otherwise they did a fair job of it.

SFIAH

Super Bowl Championships: New Orleans Saints:1, Carolina:0, Atlanta Chokers: STILL ZERO

Only Atlanta choked in an unchokable situation... Life is definitely good.

turbo_dog

1. Better linebackers

2. New defensive coordinator

I\'ve felt that our tackles have been good or at least good enough the past few years, despite what others say. They seemed to be the scapegoat every time the defense suspect. The linebacking corps has been bad since Haslett took over the team. I don\'t know if its because he doesn\'t want to admit that he picked linebackers who couldn\'t play or if he really believes that Sedrick Hodge is a probowler, but that has always been played down by Haslett. Athletic, strong, intelligent linebackers are, in my opinion, the key to a good run defense.