Defense - Scheme or talent been the problem?

JKool · 04-28-2005, 05:05 PM

If it is impossible to say, why have an opinion one way or the other? Why not just say \"it is impossible to say\"? That seems like a reasonable position; i.e. it is my opinion that it is impossible, since it is impossible to say.

I think we should blame Venturi for his snotty play calling. When Crumpler scores on a slant up the middle and Ruff is the only guy within 10 yards - that might be a scheme problem, but it is certainly the wrong defensive play call, isn\'t it? Of course, you can\'t just play three deep the whole game either - so even this is a tough question.

Venturi is a harm to the defense, but it is very difficult (if not impossible from our position) to say if it is his scheme, game plan, or individual play calls. Our players just aren\'t that bad that it is obviously a case of Bad scheme + bad players.

JKool · 04-28-2005, 05:06 PM

BMG.

xrotflmao:

GumboBC · 04-28-2005, 05:12 PM

If it is impossible to say, why have an opinion one way or the other? Why not just say \"it is impossible to say\"? That seems like a reasonable position; i.e. it is my opinion that it is impossible, since it is impossible to say.

Just because something is impossible for me to answer with 100% certainty ... that doesn\'t mean I can\'t have an opinion on it. Does it?

Football isn\'t black and white. There are no clear-cut answers.

But that doesn\'t stop us from speculating.

Here\'s another one ...

Who is most responsilble for us not being able to stop the run?

1. Linebackers
2. Defensive Tackles

This is impossible to answer for me. But, I still have an opinion on it.

See my point?

We can\'t just ask the questions that are easy to answer. You\'ve got to ask the tough questions. I know the answers to the easy questions.

JKool · 04-28-2005, 05:24 PM

I think it is impossible to know without more information than we are likely to get in the case of scheme. I wasn\'t talking about \"knowing with certainty\" - that standard is too high - no one has that.

Unlike blame distributions of LB\'s and DT\'s where arguments can be made that make one assessment of blame more probable than others. In that case, your \"opinion\" is based on argument, observation, and other such good reasons.

In the case of schemes, I was suggesting (and you seemed to be agreeing) that there isn\'t/wasn\'t sufficient information to decide. Thus, the case of schemes - where it may be impossible (and I believe without access to the play call, play book, scheme design and veridical player assessment IS impossible) to make observations that would distinguish player blame from scheme from play call - there is no reason to have an opinion about the blame that falls on the scheme other than mere gut feel or some other such unreliable source.

To summarize:
1. Evidence is available to form an opinion on DT vs. LB.
2. No evidence wrt to scheme is available at all, since we don\'t have access to the play calls.
Thus,
3. Opinions make sense for 1, but not for 2.

Though I agree the evidence is dim and difficult to interpret and assess in 1.

[Edited on 28/4/2005 by JKool]

GumboBC · 04-28-2005, 05:30 PM

JKool --

I just thought it was a bit odd for you to ask this:

If it is impossible to say, why have an opinion one way or the other?

When I said it was impossible for me to say, what I meant was that I really wasn\'t sure and my \"opinion\" would just be an educated guess BASED on MY observations. In other words ... I COULD BE VERY WRONG.

I just didn\'t want folks to get the idea that I thought I knew one way or the other.

I am fascinated with the qestion, though. I really feel like when our scheme changed during the last 4 games our defense improved. Which would suggest the \"scheme\" was a big part of the problem.

IF that is the case, then I feel much better about our defense. But, I don\'t know. Which is why I wanted to get some opinions from everyone.

[Edited on 28/4/2005 by GumboBC]

JKool · 04-28-2005, 05:46 PM

Gumbo,

Here is another way of putting the problem:

In the case of the DT/LB question, observations can be used, assessments of player abilities and so on.

In the case of the scheme, it is impossible to observe the scheme independently of the play call. Unlike observations of the players, which you can make based on good inferences about the type of play call, the plays, the players in general and so on. There is no way to isolate the scheme from the play call AND you only have moderately good inferences actual play call (if that).

Thus, our information about the scheme is not only derivative on our information about the playcall, we have very, very poor access to the playcall itself. This is very different from things like players\' speed, taclking ability, playmaking ability and so on.

In fact, I\'m willing to go so far as to say that opinions about which players are better than others are reasonable (in that there are identifiable reasons, evidence, and argument) and that opinions about the goodness of our scheme (without accurate access to the playcall, playbook, and defensive design - which we\'re not going to get) are actually not based on anything that would constitute a reason to believe.

Put another way, what is the reason you believe it is 60/40? If the answer is observation, then I ask you how you observed the scheme, without knowing the playcall? If it is nothing, then I say your opinion should be \"I don\'t know the blame distribution\". If it is something else, I\'d be interested in hearing that (not because I think there couldn\'t be anything else, but because I can\'t think of anything else).

GumboBC · 04-28-2005, 06:09 PM

JKool --

I agree with the principle of your arguement.

I don\'t know what the play-call was on defense and therefore I am at a disadvantage when commenting on the \"fault\" of the defensive \"scheme\".

But by watching players consistently out of position I believe, based on that, it is very likely that the sheme is either overly complicated or poorly designed.

It\'s true, we could have a bunch of stupid players who can\'t pick up on the scheme. That could be it.

But given that we\'ve tried several players at several different positions, I believe the \"scheme\" has been a big part of the problem.

Don\'t really need a playbook for that. But, again, I could be very wrong. I don\'t know what player is supposed to do what. Not exactly anyway.

And, again, if I had the facts, then I would state it as a fact. But, I don\'t. Which is why I\'m stating my opinion based on the reasons previously listed.

JKool · 04-28-2005, 06:23 PM

But by watching players consistently out of position I believe, based on that, it is very likely that the sheme is either overly complicated or poorly designed.

You accurately assess some problems with this, but I\'d like to point out another.

Every defensive scheme has weaknesses, and every defensive call has at least one hole. Thus, when it appears that a player is out of position, it could be because the particular call was bad (thus, he wasn\'t out of position, but merely too far away because of the play design) OR it could be the scheme (not enough players rotating to the right places or not accounting properly for how long it would take THAT player to rotate to position). Being out of position is actually the player\'s fault of course (since if he were in position, he would have been there to make the play - roughly).

Since you cannot tell if it was a weakness in the scheme, a hole in the defensive play, or a player merely not doing what he was supposed to, I suggest there isn\'t good reason to judge that it was one of these without access to the playcall, playbook, or first hand report by the player or coach about his position.

Perhaps we\'re just disagreeing about what the \"scheme\" is? The scheme is the the basic packages in which the defensive plays are designed. The individual plays (and not the scheme) are what are run on the field. Which play is run is called before the snap. We\'re on the same page about that, right?

I think without the playcall and playbook, you aren\'t merely at a disadvantage to determining the fault of the scheme. I think it is impossible.

It is possible to judge the poorness of playcalling and of players with access to observations, comments by players, your own judgement of what the call should have been, etc. That is a realm where opinion makes senese to me.

FireVenturi · 04-28-2005, 06:51 PM

90% scheme
10% players

example 3rd and 6, and we giive a 8 yd cushion :casstet:

JKool · 04-28-2005, 07:57 PM

FV, isn\'t that just a bad play call? Couldn\'t it be the player lined up deeper than he was supposed to? Couldn\'t it be because the player isn\'t very good that he had to line up so far off?

I think our problem is probably more like this 70/30: play calling, scheme, and game plan, 70, players, 30. But I largely think that because I feel the coaching/scheming/planning is critical to the success of the team (moreso than the individual players). However, other than my simple rule that proper game planning is more critical to victory and my coaching experience, I don\'t seem much more evidence for my split.

04-28-2005, 05:05 PM	#11
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Defense - Scheme or talent been the problem? If it is impossible to say, why have an opinion one way or the other? Why not just say \"it is impossible to say\"? That seems like a reasonable position; i.e. it is my opinion that it is impossible, since it is impossible to say. I think we should blame Venturi for his snotty play calling. When Crumpler scores on a slant up the middle and Ruff is the only guy within 10 yards - that might be a scheme problem, but it is certainly the wrong defensive play call, isn\'t it? Of course, you can\'t just play three deep the whole game either - so even this is a tough question. Venturi is a harm to the defense, but it is very difficult (if not impossible from our position) to say if it is his scheme, game plan, or individual play calls. Our players just aren\'t that bad that it is obviously a case of Bad scheme + bad players.
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

04-28-2005, 05:06 PM	#12
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Defense - Scheme or talent been the problem? BMG. xrotflmao:

04-28-2005, 05:12 PM	#13
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616	Defense - Scheme or talent been the problem? If it is impossible to say, why have an opinion one way or the other? Why not just say \"it is impossible to say\"? That seems like a reasonable position; i.e. it is my opinion that it is impossible, since it is impossible to say. Just because something is impossible for me to answer with 100% certainty ... that doesn\'t mean I can\'t have an opinion on it. Does it? Football isn\'t black and white. There are no clear-cut answers. But that doesn\'t stop us from speculating. Here\'s another one ... Who is most responsilble for us not being able to stop the run? 1. Linebackers 2. Defensive Tackles This is impossible to answer for me. But, I still have an opinion on it. See my point? We can\'t just ask the questions that are easy to answer. You\'ve got to ask the tough questions. I know the answers to the easy questions.
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616

04-28-2005, 05:24 PM	#14
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Defense - Scheme or talent been the problem? I think it is impossible to know without more information than we are likely to get in the case of scheme. I wasn\'t talking about \"knowing with certainty\" - that standard is too high - no one has that. Unlike blame distributions of LB\'s and DT\'s where arguments can be made that make one assessment of blame more probable than others. In that case, your \"opinion\" is based on argument, observation, and other such good reasons. In the case of schemes, I was suggesting (and you seemed to be agreeing) that there isn\'t/wasn\'t sufficient information to decide. Thus, the case of schemes - where it may be impossible (and I believe without access to the play call, play book, scheme design and veridical player assessment IS impossible) to make observations that would distinguish player blame from scheme from play call - there is no reason to have an opinion about the blame that falls on the scheme other than mere gut feel or some other such unreliable source. To summarize: 1. Evidence is available to form an opinion on DT vs. LB. 2. No evidence wrt to scheme is available at all, since we don\'t have access to the play calls. Thus, 3. Opinions make sense for 1, but not for 2. Though I agree the evidence is dim and difficult to interpret and assess in 1. [Edited on 28/4/2005 by JKool]
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

04-28-2005, 05:30 PM	#15
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616	Defense - Scheme or talent been the problem? JKool -- I just thought it was a bit odd for you to ask this: If it is impossible to say, why have an opinion one way or the other? When I said it was impossible for me to say, what I meant was that I really wasn\'t sure and my \"opinion\" would just be an educated guess BASED on MY observations. In other words ... I COULD BE VERY WRONG. I just didn\'t want folks to get the idea that I thought I knew one way or the other. I am fascinated with the qestion, though. I really feel like when our scheme changed during the last 4 games our defense improved. Which would suggest the \"scheme\" was a big part of the problem. IF that is the case, then I feel much better about our defense. But, I don\'t know. Which is why I wanted to get some opinions from everyone. [Edited on 28/4/2005 by GumboBC]
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

04-28-2005, 05:46 PM	#16
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Defense - Scheme or talent been the problem? Gumbo, Here is another way of putting the problem: In the case of the DT/LB question, observations can be used, assessments of player abilities and so on. In the case of the scheme, it is impossible to observe the scheme independently of the play call. Unlike observations of the players, which you can make based on good inferences about the type of play call, the plays, the players in general and so on. There is no way to isolate the scheme from the play call AND you only have moderately good inferences actual play call (if that). Thus, our information about the scheme is not only derivative on our information about the playcall, we have very, very poor access to the playcall itself. This is very different from things like players\' speed, taclking ability, playmaking ability and so on. In fact, I\'m willing to go so far as to say that opinions about which players are better than others are reasonable (in that there are identifiable reasons, evidence, and argument) and that opinions about the goodness of our scheme (without accurate access to the playcall, playbook, and defensive design - which we\'re not going to get) are actually not based on anything that would constitute a reason to believe. Put another way, what is the reason you believe it is 60/40? If the answer is observation, then I ask you how you observed the scheme, without knowing the playcall? If it is nothing, then I say your opinion should be \"I don\'t know the blame distribution\". If it is something else, I\'d be interested in hearing that (not because I think there couldn\'t be anything else, but because I can\'t think of anything else).
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

04-28-2005, 06:09 PM	#17
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616	Defense - Scheme or talent been the problem? JKool -- I agree with the principle of your arguement. I don\'t know what the play-call was on defense and therefore I am at a disadvantage when commenting on the \"fault\" of the defensive \"scheme\". But by watching players consistently out of position I believe, based on that, it is very likely that the sheme is either overly complicated or poorly designed. It\'s true, we could have a bunch of stupid players who can\'t pick up on the scheme. That could be it. But given that we\'ve tried several players at several different positions, I believe the \"scheme\" has been a big part of the problem. Don\'t really need a playbook for that. But, again, I could be very wrong. I don\'t know what player is supposed to do what. Not exactly anyway. And, again, if I had the facts, then I would state it as a fact. But, I don\'t. Which is why I\'m stating my opinion based on the reasons previously listed.
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616

04-28-2005, 06:23 PM	#18
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Defense - Scheme or talent been the problem? But by watching players consistently out of position I believe, based on that, it is very likely that the sheme is either overly complicated or poorly designed. You accurately assess some problems with this, but I\'d like to point out another. Every defensive scheme has weaknesses, and every defensive call has at least one hole. Thus, when it appears that a player is out of position, it could be because the particular call was bad (thus, he wasn\'t out of position, but merely too far away because of the play design) OR it could be the scheme (not enough players rotating to the right places or not accounting properly for how long it would take THAT player to rotate to position). Being out of position is actually the player\'s fault of course (since if he were in position, he would have been there to make the play - roughly). Since you cannot tell if it was a weakness in the scheme, a hole in the defensive play, or a player merely not doing what he was supposed to, I suggest there isn\'t good reason to judge that it was one of these without access to the playcall, playbook, or first hand report by the player or coach about his position. Perhaps we\'re just disagreeing about what the \"scheme\" is? The scheme is the the basic packages in which the defensive plays are designed. The individual plays (and not the scheme) are what are run on the field. Which play is run is called before the snap. We\'re on the same page about that, right? I think without the playcall and playbook, you aren\'t merely at a disadvantage to determining the fault of the scheme. I think it is impossible. It is possible to judge the poorness of playcalling and of players with access to observations, comments by players, your own judgement of what the call should have been, etc. That is a realm where opinion makes senese to me.
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

04-28-2005, 06:51 PM	#19
FireVenturi Cold as Ice! Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Da Big Easy Posts: 2,978	Defense - Scheme or talent been the problem? 90% scheme 10% players example 3rd and 6, and we giive a 8 yd cushion :casstet:

04-28-2005, 07:57 PM	#20
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Defense - Scheme or talent been the problem? FV, isn\'t that just a bad play call? Couldn\'t it be the player lined up deeper than he was supposed to? Couldn\'t it be because the player isn\'t very good that he had to line up so far off? I think our problem is probably more like this 70/30: play calling, scheme, and game plan, 70, players, 30. But I largely think that because I feel the coaching/scheming/planning is critical to the success of the team (moreso than the individual players). However, other than my simple rule that proper game planning is more critical to victory and my coaching experience, I don\'t seem much more evidence for my split.
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks