Comments on: GBU Correction

By: PCastleberg

PCastleberg — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 21:33:25 +0000

John, its not that we “don’t have the same personnel as last year. Its that we did have the same personnel as last year, they were our starters and they got injured. We came into this season counting on Jenkins, KGB, Bigby, Barnett etc…Now we are so beat up that not only didn’t we are playing our 3-4 string safeties, our 3rd string LBs our 3rd-4th string Defensive Ends….

When any team is doing that much shuffling there are going to be issues.

My biggest problem is that I don’t think this scheme adjusts very well to losing your starting talent. You see a team like the Giants running the scheme they are running and they are able to mask some weaknesses because they have a scheme that is flexible enough to shift the burden to other areas of the defense without creating as big of holes and problems.

They have the flexibility to blitz more or bring pressure from different areas to compensate.

With the scheme that Sanders is running either he doesn’t have the knowledge to adjust or the scheme is not flexible enough to make it “easy” to do without creating other problems.

Thats why I think we need a new DC who will bring with him a new scheme.

By: John Morgan

John Morgan — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:57:16 +0000

Well last year I know there were some issues with the mid-level pass defense. Tight ends used to (and still do) rip off huge gains. I would guess the biggest issue is the line. With no front four pressure to speak of it’s hard to contain any offense. I’m still perplexed by the run defense issues though. It’s not enough to say we don’t have the same personnel as last year. I’m more of a fan of a Giants-type defense though, which means big and fast bodies are needed.

By: PCastleberg

PCastleberg — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 17:37:13 +0000

Well this defensive scheme had the same struggles last year so I would submit that its “sagging” is due more to being missing 3 of its top play makers from last year and having multiple other guys dinged up.

This D was marginal before and its marginality (is that a word) is being exposed in droves as its talented starters go down to injury.

By: John Morgan

John Morgan — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 17:24:06 +0000

Whoops! Sorry I didn’t read your comment at the end of Ross’ posting. Even though I disagree with you, you were more realistic about the potential record at the beginning of the season, so I’ll have to back off a bit on my ‘sabotage’ conspiracy theory.

I just find it hard to believe that a defense can sag so badly just from poor alignments. Obviously opposing offensive coordinators can ‘read’ the scheme that Sanders puts out there, and I find it hard to believe that his response or adjustments can be so pathetic (especially after last year’s performance). Or simply put, I don’t think he’s that dumb.

I thought it was interesting that according to the McCarthy press conference yesterday, there was a single linebacker on the last series, and Hawk wasn’t in. I didn’t get a chance to see the play since I was listening to the radio. Can you or Ross and Wes dissect that last series here on the website?

By: John Morgan

John Morgan — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 17:08:19 +0000

I’ve come to the conclusion that Sanders is actively screwing up the defense. My read is that he and McCarthy are at odds and this abysmal performance by the defense is a direct result of the conflict between the two coaches. It’s hard to be focused when there’s a lot of wrangling taking place around you.

Of course the official line, and the public statements by Mike McCarthy, laud Sanders and profess respect for his ability. However the press is very persistent in questioning both Sanders’ competence and McCarthy’s faith in it (good for them!). At best this is a distraction, but in reality, this non-resolution of the conflict caused by Sanders’ performance (whether is is simply boneheaded or deliberately destructive) is a show stopper. Right now the defense is mired and the defensive coordinator has to go to break the impasse.