Hire New DC and Replace Hill? (was Vic Fangio, Wink Martindale)

[Guest]

I don't know what you mean by shortening the game on offense. The idea of shortening the game is simply letting the clock run, and not running as many plays. Running offenses let the clock run down and just don't line up. Keep the other teams offense off the field and keep them from getting into synch. The idea is NOT to let teams run as many plays against the D. Exactly the opposite. Good defenses don't want to be on the field any more than bad defenses. They want to get the ball back as fast as possible and not let them run any plays.

But give the ball back more quickly, either by a 3 and out (incomplete passes, drops or misfires) potentially expose the blitzing D, so you run even if it is just to keep the other offense off the field. Keep them from getting into synch. Run the clock down and shorten the game, even if all you do is run the 40 second clock 3 times, so that the D is not going to have to defend.

If an offense is trying to maximize it's offensive possessions, you are doing the same with the other team. They get the ball back after your possesion, unless it is the end of the half.

You do not know what it means to take the air out of the game?

That is what happens when an opponent possesses the ball for long periods at a time, creating fewer offensive possessions for the offense over the course of the game as a whole.

We have superior offensive talent, so we want more offensive possessions per game. A better offense is more likely to pull away from a lesser offense over a greater number of possessions for both teams.

This season, we basically let opponents have those kinds of time consuming possessions against us by playing the light box and waiting for an opponent to make a mistake, which often did not happen until we played more aggressively in the red zone (not that that would be a clue as to how we should have been playing all along).

This season, the highest scoring offense (DAL) scored 277 more points than the lowest scoring offense (JAC), more than doubling them up. They were consistently better on offense, so over more possessions, their advantage became increasingly more pronounced.

That is the concept here. We have the ability to slug with opponents. While I think that a system like BAL runs would, with the right personnel, help our defense, I know it would help our offense by forcing the action and creating more possessions than our laying back, let them run it down our throats, worst team in the league on third down if we ever get an opposing offense to third down defense does.

[21&500]

You do not know what it means to take the air out of the game?

That is what happens when an opponent possesses the ball for long periods at a time, creating fewer offensive possessions for the offense over the course of the game as a whole.

We have superior offensive talent, so we want more offensive possessions per game. A better offense is more likely to pull away from a lesser offense over a greater number of possessions for both teams.

This season, we basically let opponents have those kinds of time consuming possessions against us by playing the light box and waiting for an opponent to make a mistake, which often did not happen until we played more aggressively in the red zone (not that that would be a clue as to how we should have been playing all along).

This season, the highest scoring offense (DAL) scored 277 more points than the lowest scoring offense (JAC), more than doubling them up. They were consistently better on offense, so over more possessions, their advantage became increasingly more pronounced.

That is the concept here. We have the ability to slug with opponents. While I think that a system like BAL runs would, with the right personnel, help our defense, I know it would help our offense by forcing the action and creating more possessions than our laying back, let them run it down our throats, worst team in the league on third down if we ever get an opposing offense to third down defense does.

IDK if this is what you're saying, but this is something I've maintained for a while and struggle to understand the counter argument.
a potent offense like ours and the Chiefs wants as many possessions as possible because we presumably have an advantage in a shootout against inferior offenses.
So defensively, there is risk reward to two general approaches
1. Prevent the big play, defense stays on the field longer which translates to less possessions offensively.
2. Take risks with an attacking defense, gets burned more often but also get more turnovers, and either way, the defense is off the field faster, translating to more offensive possessions.

I've always felt that option 2 was more of a match for a potent offense, but apparently Staley disagrees.
I also feel like with option 2, the defense should be more rested in the 4th quarter when it matters most.
The risk with option 1 is too high, you essentially risk long, tiring drives for your defense that give up points while keeping your potent offense on the sideline
At least with option 2, you might scored on with a big play, but the offense has a chance to match, even slow/dictate the tempo as needed.

Genuinely asking for help understanding if you disagree.

[Steve]

You do not know what it means to take the air out of the game?

That is what happens when an opponent possesses the ball for long periods at a time, creating fewer offensive possessions for the offense over the course of the game as a whole.

We have superior offensive talent, so we want more offensive possessions per game. A better offense is more likely to pull away from a lesser offense over a greater number of possessions for both teams.

This season, we basically let opponents have those kinds of time consuming possessions against us by playing the light box and waiting for an opponent to make a mistake, which often did not happen until we played more aggressively in the red zone (not that that would be a clue as to how we should have been playing all along).

This season, the highest scoring offense (DAL) scored 277 more points than the lowest scoring offense (JAC), more than doubling them up. They were consistently better on offense, so over more possessions, their advantage became increasingly more pronounced.

That is the concept here. We have the ability to slug with opponents. While I think that a system like BAL runs would, with the right personnel, help our defense, I know it would help our offense by forcing the action and creating more possessions than our laying back, let them run it down our throats, worst team in the league on third down if we ever get an opposing offense to third down defense does.

Running the ball first minimizes the number of possessions for both teams, which is a good thing if you are ahead, but a bad thing if you are trying to come back. Having more possesions only helps if the defense can actually stop the other offense more often. That isn't a style of D thing, since as I keep pointing out, many of the best defenses year in year out are bend but don't break.

We didn't play much light box this season. You can think what you want, but we played mostly nickel, which is the standard defense in the NFL for the last 40-50 years. That is not a light box, if it is the standard. We played very little dime, because of injuries. And later in the year we played a lot of base D to improve our run D. Way more than most other teams. That is what helped us catch up from being 32nd to move up the 30th or whatever we did, even after horrible start.

the points scored has nothing to do with the number of possessions necessarily. It has everything to do with efficiency. So unless you have the number of possessions for either Jags or Dallas, you didn't prove anything.

Again, your opinion is only good for you. You can think whatever you want, but if it was true, why don't football teams actually do it? I know, because NFL coaches are stupid and know nothing about football, and a bunch of fans know way more about it. That must be it. I keep pointing out almost ALL blitz-heavy defenses play run 1st offenses, including and ESPECIALLY BALTIMORE. Why is that? How many passing offenses play blitz heavy defenses? Very few. Most passing offenses, whether it is a vertical strike or short passing, plays a bend but not break style.

[Steve]

IDK if this is what you're saying, but this is something I've maintained for a while and struggle to understand the counter argument.
a potent offense like ours and the Chiefs wants as many possessions as possible because we presumably have an advantage in a shootout against inferior offenses.
So defensively, there is risk reward to two general approaches
1. Prevent the big play, defense stays on the field longer which translates to less possessions offensively.
2. Take risks with an attacking defense, gets burned more often but also get more turnovers, and either way, the defense is off the field faster, translating to more offensive possessions.

I've always felt that option 2 was more of a match for a potent offense, but apparently Staley disagrees.
I also feel like with option 2, the defense should be more rested in the 4th quarter when it matters most.
The risk with option 1 is too high, you essentially risk long, tiring drives for your defense that give up points while keeping your potent offense on the sideline
At least with option 2, you might scored on with a big play, but the offense has a chance to match, even slow/dictate the tempo as needed.

Genuinely asking for help understanding if you disagree.

Attacking defenses DON"T force more turnovers. In any given year they might, but the same D, same coach, same scheme the following year will be lower. Generally speaking, if any team gets more turnovers by the scheme, it is a bend-but-don't-break zone team. It is because defenders spend most of their time where they can react to the ball, and they have a much better chance of coming down with tipped passes. Bltizing teams the coverage spend most of their time with their back to the ball, so at best they have is a chance to deflect passes, but less of a chance of coming away with it.

The teams that consistently win the turnover battles are because they don't turn the ball over on O. Then even a reduced number of turnovers gives a net differential that is positive for the team.

Fumbles are almost random, but QB who throws a lot of turnovers tend to do so year after year. Go look at any analytics site, and you can find endless things pointing it out. Plenty of people have looked at it over and over again, and it is consistent.

[Steve]

Nobody has offered a factually correct and meaningful explanation regarding why we could not throw very deep passes to the extent we did last year.

Many people have suggested that we could not this year because of the right side of our OL. The only problem with that is the right side of our OL and the entire OL were worse last year and yet we were able to throw very deep passes with greater regularity than we did this year.

Other people have offered the more plausible explanation that defenses played us more conservatively this year. But the notion that it took defenses all season long to figure out that we had an explosive offense with Herbert in the very deep passing game is not accurate either.

Other than Lombardi not dialing up as many shot plays where the very deep pass was the first option, I do not see an alternate explanation that makes sense.

You are drawing all of your conclusions from a couple of anecdotal case, and ignoring a years of how football is played.

You have not refuted most of the evidence people have pointed to you.

[Guest]

IDK if this is what you're saying, but this is something I've maintained for a while and struggle to understand the counter argument.
a potent offense like ours and the Chiefs wants as many possessions as possible because we presumably have an advantage in a shootout against inferior offenses.
So defensively, there is risk reward to two general approaches
1. Prevent the big play, defense stays on the field longer which translates to less possessions offensively.
2. Take risks with an attacking defense, gets burned more often but also get more turnovers, and either way, the defense is off the field faster, translating to more offensive possessions.

I've always felt that option 2 was more of a match for a potent offense, but apparently Staley disagrees.
I also feel like with option 2, the defense should be more rested in the 4th quarter when it matters most.
The risk with option 1 is too high, you essentially risk long, tiring drives for your defense that give up points while keeping your potent offense on the sideline
At least with option 2, you might scored on with a big play, but the offense has a chance to match, even slow/dictate the tempo as needed.

Genuinely asking for help understanding if you disagree.

I think you have set forth most or even possibly all of what I am saying.

If we have a better offense than the team we are playing against, we usually want games with more possessions for both teams. That reduces (but does not eliminate) the risk of a statistical outlier result for any one game.

In your analysis (and mine), your option 2 tends to produce more possessions because we are going to be more likely to get a three and out or a turnover, and, on the negative side, we are going to be slightly more likely to give up a big play. In Staley's bend, but don't break defense, we are letting the opponent possess the ball, which reduces the number of possessions for both teams, which is not desirable if your offense is better than your opponent's.

I agree that option 2 is a better match for our offense.

[Guest]

You are drawing all of your conclusions from a couple of anecdotal case, and ignoring a years of how football is played.

You have not refuted most of the evidence people have pointed to you.

Nobody has showed me any evidence so far. That is the problem. There is nothing to refute.

[Steve]

No there has been plenty, you just ignored it.

[Boltjolt]

You are drawing all of your conclusions from a couple of anecdotal case, and ignoring a years of how football is played.

You have not refuted most of the evidence people have pointed to you.

It's because Chain doesn't know much about football but will argue to death even when he is wrong .....which is most of the time.

How can one ignore better offensive success in the first year of Lombardis offense and just keep talking the same repeated BS? Dude is lost.

[Charge!]

I think you have set forth most or even possibly all of what I am saying.

If we have a better offense than the team we are playing against, we usually want games with more possessions for both teams. That reduces (but does not eliminate) the risk of a statistical outlier result for any one game.

In your analysis (and mine), your option 2 tends to produce more possessions because we are going to be more likely to get a three and out or a turnover, and, on the negative side, we are going to be slightly more likely to give up a big play. In Staley's bend, but don't break defense, we are letting the opponent possess the ball, which reduces the number of possessions for both teams, which is not desirable if your offense is better than your opponent's.

I agree that option 2 is a better match for our offense.

I agree...... with option one, the Chargers are forced to play flawless football(which Chargers have not been very good at) to have a chance to win...... any penalties, turnovers, or failures to score will const you the less and because clock is running out, you have very few possessions to catch up.....

All of our wins this past season were games where our offense played nearly flawlessly and scored almost every possession to win very close games..... and we punted extremely rarely......

Only game that was not close was the win against donkeys when they played against a bad backup QB....... donkeys dominated us with their starting QB in first game which was a loss.....

Most people assumed our pass defense was greatly improved early in season, burt we found out that that was an illusion created because we were so easy to run on that teams did not have to pass to win...... later in season we played a little better against run and forced some teams to throw ball and the opponents quickly learned that we could not cover either...... so only was to win was to win a shootout.....

[21&500]

Attacking defenses DON"T force more turnovers. In any given year they might, but the same D, same coach, same scheme the following year will be lower. Generally speaking, if any team gets more turnovers by the scheme, it is a bend-but-don't-break zone team. It is because defenders spend most of their time where they can react to the ball, and they have a much better chance of coming down with tipped passes. Bltizing teams the coverage spend most of their time with their back to the ball, so at best they have is a chance to deflect passes, but less of a chance of coming away with it.

The teams that consistently win the turnover battles are because they don't turn the ball over on O. Then even a reduced number of turnovers gives a net differential that is positive for the team.

Fumbles are almost random, but QB who throws a lot of turnovers tend to do so year after year. Go look at any analytics site, and you can find endless things pointing it out. Plenty of people have looked at it over and over again, and it is consistent.

So does one scheme compliment a high scoring offense significantly more than another?
I still tend to think an aggressive defense does because regardless of how many turnovers they get, they're getting the ball back to the offense faster by means of forcing a punt or getting scores on faster.
IDK if I'm using the right verbiage but I'd like to see us take more chances by stacking the box and covering the short to intermediate area, and forcing qbs to try longer passes.
I know we'll be giving up some explosive plays but getting stabbed a thousand times for 10 minute drives is a worse fit imo.
I think anyone reading this basically gets where I'm coming from. Considering Staley is the genius and not I, I doubt I'm right, but I'm not convinced at this time either
I also thin there are other factors that come into play like personnel to play more aggressively
and ability to run the ball on offense.
Lastly, I think rules make it a better idea in general to cover the deep and allow the underneath
because it deters qbs from going deep often which leads to less PI
I think generally every DC prays to god qbs don't get smart and start taking more shots deep because they know the refs wil screw up and give them free yards.

[Steve]

Every kind of offense has been used with the bend but don't break style. I don't think it compliments a run 1st attack, but plenty of teams have tried. The big thing is that a bend but don't break D uses a lot of zone coverages so you don't need elite DB to cover well. They will always have help around them. And once the Vikings/Bucs/Colts did the cover 2 thing, you could be aggressive with just the front 4 and still have the back 7 play bend but don't break.

Blitzing defenses require a huge influx of really top-notch players. You need good pass rushers because when you blitz if the guy still can't get to the QB, you haven't helped anything. You need players who can get pressure from all over the D. No team has consistent pressure on a QB with only a single pass rusher/blitzer. And you need DB who can cover man to man. So, going for the 6th and 7th round DB who run 4.6 40 times is not going to cut it. Just look at it, most teams are not heavy blitzing teams. Pitt hasn't really called a lot of blitzes in years.

I am not aware of blitzing teams that play big play, passing offenses. They may be like the current Baltimore Ravens or our offense under Bobby Ross, where we were run 1st and did a lot of play-action, but it was all built on the running game.

There have been plenty of teams who will dial-up more blitzes from time to time. A couple of years ago, when Darius Leonard was a rookie, the Colts used the latest version of their dusty old cover 2 scheme and used a bunch of blitzes with Leonard, and he got like 8 sacks that season. But that was mostly them picking and choosing their spots.

Staley likes to blitz, but it is pretty selective. With the Rams, a lot of it was what I like to call matchup rushes. They would get a lead and then rush just 5 guys, playing zone behind it. But they didn't really disguise or confuse anyone. The idea was that Leonard Floyd and Aaron Donald were going to be able to get off their blocks, so just make sure they didn't get doubled. Then the secondary would take away the 1st and 2nd reads, and the pass rush would force the QB to throw it away or take the sack. if you have a lead, you can't afford to do either, and so teams made a lot of mistakes, and the Rams were the #1 D.

The fact that blitzing defenses get called for a lot more penalties is a big reason why teams don't do more of that. Some of it is the PI, but some of it is the offsides and such that come along with lots of guys trying to get a jump on the snap. If you keep giving the other team yards on penalties, it really hurts if there is little margin for error.

It also hurts that most teams just aren't willing to be a run first team. Unless you do is so well that you can get a LOT of yards. Sure yards don't always equal points, but you still have to drive the field to score most of the time and it doesn't matter how you get those yards.