Dean Pees on the Defense - Blitz questions

[Sanchize]

Re: Dean Pees on the Defense - Blitz questions.

Where would BB put him? You want him to demote a DC he likes to rehire Crennel?

Last I heard, Crennel wanted to take a year off before coaching again. Plus, he's in his mid 60s.

Uhm, I don't want him to do anything but yeah that would be an option. And **** LeBeau is 72 and still is a great coordinator. I was just wondering if bringing RAC back was ever rumored or discussed and if it was why he wasn't hired back.

 

[patsfan-1982]

I think it is very obvious that this Patriots defense isn't as dynamic as it was under RAC. The Patriots defense used to force offenses to adjust to them, which led to QB mistakes and turnovers. How many times have you seen a QB check to a different play against a Pees defense? How many times has the Patriots come with an exotic blitz that the offense was not prepared for?

I agree that Pees just isn't a very good defensive play caller. RAC got so much more out of the defense that it makes me kinda sick.

Patriots need to find somebody that can force offenses to respect the defense, cause right now the defense plays on its heels all game long.

Oh and the proof is in the pudding...how many interceptions do the Patriots defense have under Pees?

Romeo Crennel in 4 years as the DC the team had 89 INT
but he had Otis Smith ty law Milloy harrison Tyrone Poole

this is Dean Pees 4th year as the DC for the pats the team has 55 INT under him and samuel had about 20 of them and he has been gone for 2 years now

are INT the end all and tell all i dont know we are forgeting one thing that pees has had over the years over 30 new starters on D

under pees the D was ranked

2006 #2 in points allowed and #6 in yerds

2007 #4 in points allowed and #4 in yerds

2008 # 8 in points allowed and #10 in yerds

and right now are #3 in yerds

under Crennel the D was ranked

2001 #6 in points allowed #24 in yerds

2002 #17 in points allowed #23 in yerds

2003 #1 in points allowed #7 in yerds

2004 #2 in points allowed #9 in yerds

2003 was the first year with ted washington rosie colvin and harrison when the talent level went up so did hes number as a DC

so what that in mind pees is not doing to bad

 

[convertedpatsfan]

Romeo Crennel in 4 years as the DC the team had 89 INT
but he had Otis Smith ty law Milloy harrison Tyrone Poole

this is Dean Pees 4th year as the DC for the pats the team has 55 INT under him and samuel had about 20 of them and he has been gone for 2 years now

are INT the end all and tell all i dont know we are forgeting one thing that pees has had over the years over 30 new starters on D

under pees the D was ranked

2006 #2 in points allowed and #6 in yerds

2007 #4 in points allowed and #4 in yerds

2008 # 8 in points allowed and #10 in yerds

and right now are #3 in yerds

under Crennel the D was ranked

2001 #6 in points allowed #24 in yerds

2002 #17 in points allowed #23 in yerds

2003 #1 in points allowed #7 in yerds

2004 #2 in points allowed #9 in yerds

2003 was the first year with ted washington rosie colvin and harrison when the talent level went up so did hes number as a DC

so what that in mind pees is not doing to bad

Agreed. And Pees has been doing it with far less talent. RAC had Ty Law, Pees had Ellis Hobbs. RAC had Bruschi and Vrabel in their primes, Pees had Bruschi and Vrabel as they started to break down.

I'm not attacking RAC. He did a great job for us. But Pees is working with a defense being re-built for the future while still expected to contend for a championship today. It's not a squad filled with All-Pros, but he's done a solid job so far.

 

[Nunchucks]

Strength of schedule has a lot to do with Peese success. RAC was facing some of the toughest opposition in the league, peese got to face teh NFC west last year.

Maybe it is a talent issue, but I think that is just an excuse.

 

[skinnydog]

Very nice post. "Dynamic" is a great word. Changing things up is key.

A lot of people seem to equate "aggressive" and "attacking" with "blitzing". The blitz is one component of an attacking defense, but it's not the whole story. If you blitz all the time, you will probably pay a price. As you say, it's "forcing offenses to adjust", which throws them out of sync and off their game. It's creating confusion by throwing different formations at them, by changing around personnel, by changing the defensive alignment at the last minute, by masking your schemes so they can't tell where the pressure will be coming from, by dropping back when they think you're blitzing and blitzing when they think you're playing it safe, by making them pay on both ends for every completion, by doing things that they're not prepared for, and generally by getting them so befuddled, confused, frustrated, and antsy about getting hit that they make mistakes that they usually wouldn't make.

We did that in the 2001 SB. We took on the Greatest Show on Turf and threw a lot of curve balls at them, while punishing them for every yard. We disrupted Warner's rhythm and timing, and got his receivers looking for who was going to hit them instead of looking for the ball. We did the same thing with the Colts in the 2003 and 2004 playoffs.

Now it seems that we just focus on taking away one weapon, and sit back and let the other ones carve us up. We're still playing like we have a bunch of old slow guys on defense.

As usual, Mayo nails it.

This defense used to confuse the crap out of the best offenses in the league. The also made plays that changed the game week and week out and aggressiveness is a bout a lot more than blitzing although that is a big part of it. I just don't remember our corners playing so soft. I know there is no Ty Law out there, but this is ridiculous. You can play semi-soft against the wides and close like hell on short underneath passes and take the receivers out or step in front to try for an int. But our corners are usually 10+ yards off the receiver at the line and backing up with the snap. By the time they read the underneath pass, they can't close on the receiver to break up the pass or deliver a hard blow.

 

[Kontradiction]

We had better turn up the pressure this week or else we're going to get carved up. Matt Ryan isn't exactly the type of QB that you can just sit back in coverage against. I have faith that the defense can make the appropriate changes, though. Especially if BB is going to be hands-on with it in practice this week (which, according to the way he sounded in the postgame interview, he is).

 

[slash83]

We had better turn up the pressure this week or else we're going to get carved up. Matt Ryan isn't exactly the type of QB that you can just sit back in coverage against. I have faith that the defense can make the appropriate changes, though. Especially if BB is going to be hands-on with it in practice this week (which, according to the way he sounded in the postgame interview, he is).

What did he say that gave you that impression, just curious didn't hear it.

 

[Kontradiction]

What did he say that gave you that impression, just curious didn't hear it.

It's not what he said, it's how he said it. What he said was the same as always, that it was a team loss... which is true. But there was something in his tone of voice that made me believe that he was going to be a little more hands on with the team and their adjustments than he has in recent weeks. Sometimes it's HOW people say something that you need to listen to instead of WHAT they say, if that makes any sense.

 

[slash83]

It's not what he said, it's how he said it. What he said was the same as always, that it was a team loss... which is true. But there was something in his tone of voice that made me believe that he was going to be a little more hands on with the team and their adjustments than he has in recent weeks. Sometimes it's HOW people say something that you need to listen to instead of WHAT they say, if that makes any sense.

It makes sense, I know what your sayin

 

[bucky]

It's easy to blitz when you've got Rodney and Ty Law sitting back there. But on this team, most of the DBs either have problems tackling (Wilhite, Springs, Merriweather) or covering man to man (Sanders, Wheatley, Chung, McGowan).

 

[bostonia3333]

I posted this in another similar thread:

The defense statistically looks fine, but if you watch the games carefully, you are praying for the opposing team to NOT pass the ball. Let's look at the Jets game. For 2 quarters, I thought Rex Ryan was doing his best Herm Edwards impersonation by just running the ball and not putting Sanchez in a position to make too many throws down the field. That was playing into the Patriots favor because Belichick eats game managers alive. In the third quarter, Ryan shifted his game plan and went to the pass primarily. The Pats could never solve Sanchez. They got lucky on a few 3rd down incompletions by Sanchez to help keep the score a one possession game.

I think that Bodden, Springs, and Wilhite are MUCH better than Oneal and Hobbs. People are overblowing the Mayo and Seymour absences too much. The Pats have the personnel on defense to be successful and their depth is incredible, it's just that the coaching is not there. I think Dean Pees should be fired at some point this season(the sooner the better!) because the defensive philosophy has not changed at all since 2008. Playing 10-15 yards off of WRs against below average qbs is getting pretty annoying. Pees defense is certainly a bend but don't break unit which I hate, but what is really concerning is he isn't maximizing his players strengths. Bodden and Springs are good enough corners who could be left on islands in close man to man coverage while blitz packages are being employed. I think Burgess is a fantastic player who's main asset is rushing the passer at the edges.

I'm not a rah-rah guy, but the Pats defensive unit just doesn't look excited to play football like they used to. The defense lacks bravado and personality--that stuff the coaches instill into their players, not everyone inherits it. Even during the 07 and 08 years, the 110% effort to get a sack, get a fumble strip, or knock a players head off wasn't there--we all know the tackling and the hitting has been pretty putrid. This is to be blamed on coaching. Crenell brought it and his players bought into it. It's time for a change, and Pees needs to go--I think there are several defensive masterminds out there--we don't need the best one with an offense like we have.

 

[bucky]

The Pats could never solve Sanchez. They got lucky on a few 3rd down incompletions by Sanchez to help keep the score a one possession game.

Interesting that you say that. The game plan is always created with the QB's skill set in mind. So you can say that they got "lucky", or you could say that they expected Sanchez to make some errant throws and he did. The fact that he did not make enough of them is a credit to him and also a reflection of the fact that he was either tied or ahead more than half of the game and was never down by more than 6 points, so he never had to force the issue. The defense also forced 2 fumbles and recovered 1 of them, and tipped a pass at the LOS that was almost intercepted.

As for that ridiculous 3rd and 13 conversion - that was actually a check down to the RB. There's no way you can blame play calling on that one. Guyton got no depth on his drop. He gave him a push and the just ignored him for whatever reason. And the other 7 guys dropped too far and weren't able to tackle him. That's poor execution and not poor play calling.

Having said all that, I too agree that the play calling is very Vanilla and expect it to get more sophisticated as the season progresses.

 

[duff5678]

is it me or does this team just not blitz anymore? nfl qbs must be pressured. freddy sanchez looked like joe montana on a few of those drives. this group can't get consistent pressure rushing 4

 

[JSn]

I think we could be underestimating what effect losing Mayo had on these game-plans. They may have needed a couple of weeks to roll out a shift in the formula.

Don't be surprised to see Burgess 2.0 active on Sunday.

 

[gomezcat]

Re: Dean Pees on the Defense - Blitz questions.

The Jests were 3/11 on 3rd down conversions.
The Jests were forced to kick FGs on 2/3 redzone opportunities.
The Jests managed 254 yards of total offense.
The Jests scored 16 points.

Great post. I posted the gameday stats a couple of days ago, which spoke for themselves. We lost because an offence, which is having some understandable problems clicking, missed a lot of chances to convert redzone chances. We lost by SEVEN POINTS.

 

[skinnydog]

Interesting that you say that. The game plan is always created with the QB's skill set in mind.

As for that ridiculous 3rd and 13 conversion - that was actually a check down to the RB. There's no way you can blame play calling on that one. Guyton got no depth on his drop. He gave him a push and the just ignored him for whatever reason. And the other 7 guys dropped too far and weren't able to tackle him. That's poor execution and not poor play calling.

QUOTE]

On the first, do you mean the Pats spent the last 2 years collecting cornerbacks who cannot cover unless they play 10-15 yards off the line of scrimmage?

On the second, the 3rd and 13, it was a bad play call. The Pats called a timeout so they could come with no pressure. That let Sanchez go through his reads while standing there calmly and then hit the RB in stride. Guyton may well have just stayed in his zone and the RB may have just done a good job of finding the soft spot underneath. Either way it was too easy for Sanchez. Any zone has a soft spot and given time, just about any QB can find it.

 

[bucky]

On the second, the 3rd and 13, it was a bad play call. The Pats called a timeout so they could come with no pressure. That let Sanchez go through his reads while standing there calmly and then hit the RB in stride. Guyton may well have just stayed in his zone and the RB may have just done a good job of finding the soft spot underneath. Either way it was too easy for Sanchez. Any zone has a soft spot and given time, just about any QB can find it.

What you're saying makes no sense. The whole point of that coverage is to take away the passes down the field and make the QB dump it off to the back. That's exactly what happened. The fact that the back was able to come out of the backfield late, get a little dump off and pick up 13 yards on 3rd and 13 is just poor execution. Very poor, actually. If you had called an all out blitz and the execution had been similarly poor, you would have probably had a 50 yard gain.

 

[captain stone]

That's SUCH a good subject line...

Mike Reiss' blog - Pees on why the Pats didn't blitz much - ESPN Boston

EXCERPT:

How bloody profound...not.

Never, ever, believe anything a coach, jock or exec says for public consumption...esp. one employed by the Patriots.

 

[olschool]

Pees works for BB, probably the best defensive mind in the game.
I'm sure he follows his bosses orders like everyone else.

BB is obviously trying to develop a good pass coverage defense, at the expense of blitzing. Remember, he's working in a bunch of young guys back there, and Bodden / Springs are just temporary fixes. I'm sure when he's more confident in the coverage, he'll be bringing the blitz more.

Myself , I'd rather see the pitiful deep ball coverage improved, than the occasional safety/corner blitz.

They are getting pressure and sacks with the four man front. Give it some time.

The old saying ; Live by the blitz, die by the blitz, still rings true.

 

[Deus Irae]

"We didn't always get there like we wanted to, but really, we just have to improve in both the coverage part of it and the rush part of it."

We've all been assured by people on this site that the pass rush has been absolutely fine, so this "Pees" guy is clearly just trying to stoke the fires of controversy.