Pass rushing against the Bills lacked disguise

[Sciz]

Points per game is kind of a fraudulent way to evaluate defense. It doesn't factor in how the team's offense/specials teams contributed to keeping points off the board. How about comparing 3rd down defense in that same time-frame?

For any problem you can find with points allowed, there's one with third down defense too. At least points is the stat that wins games.

 

[jnug]

Texans defensive front does a much better job pressuring the QB than the Pats do. The dif in sacks is not that great as yet, Texans 25, Pats 20 so far but I expect that gap to grow between the two teams as the season progresses.

They have more players that can rush off the edge than we do. What I would do for one more edge rusher (assuming everybody would stay healthy).

 

[RoughingthePasser]

They don't run disguise defenses because they don't trust the players to execute them. It's that simple.

The Patriots ran disguises all the time during the Super Bowl years. They are in the scheme. It amazes me how much criticism coaches get from armchair scouts who never see them in practice and never sit on meetings.

If you're going to attack anything, attack Belichick and the front office for consistently failing to find good players in the secondary.

The only thing I agree with is....

"The Patriots ran disguises all the time during the Super Bowl years."

"They don't run disguise defenses because they don't trust the players to execute".....

are you serious ?

"It amazes me how much criticism coaches get from armchair scouts who never see them in practice and never sit on meetings."

isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?
and in regards to the secondary-please see my post here :
http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/840659-can-we-fix-secondary.html
the coaches need to focus on scouting and their second half defensive schemes and adjustments....we won't survive if we don't exploit these offenses better...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlbKn8_p3vk

-rtp
outlasting you since '75

 

[Deus Irae]

They don't run disguise defenses because they don't trust the players to execute them. It's that simple.

The Patriots ran disguises all the time during the Super Bowl years. They are in the scheme. It amazes me how much criticism coaches get from armchair scouts who never see them in practice and never sit on meetings.

If you're going to attack anything, attack Belichick and the front office for consistently failing to find good players in the secondary.

2011 was a Super Bowl year. The Patriots weren't doing a whole lot of disguising.

 

[Cassanova792]

They don't run disguise defenses because they don't trust the players to execute them. It's that simple.

The Patriots ran disguises all the time during the Super Bowl years. They are in the scheme. It amazes me how much criticism coaches get from armchair scouts who never see them in practice and never sit on meetings.

If you're going to attack anything, attack Belichick and the front office for consistently failing to find good players in the secondary.

You dont need to sit in meetings, you can dissect the plays they're running during the game through your tv. It is easy to see whether they did any sort of disguising, blitzing, prevent, zone, man etc... that is if you are somewhat competent on football knowledge. So yes we CAN criticize the coaches for the plays they execute during the game.

 

[Observer]

Yeah, if you care about yards. Rex's defenses are quite a bit better at preventing teams from moving the ball, but they're no better than Belichick's defenses at preventing points.

(From week 1, 2009 to now)
Yards
Patriots: 368.5 yards per game
Jets: 295.3 yards per game

Points
Patriots: 20.0 points per game
Jets: 19.8 points per game

So Rex is allowing 70 fewer yards per game, but just .2 points per game fewer. Rex isn't a better defensive coach than Belichick. He's a coach with a different defensive philosophy that looks better to the naive people that look at yards.

Can we stop with "Rex would do better" now?

Sorry but when I see that Rex's defense has allowed the same number of points on fewer yards than Bill's, I don't think that the two defenses are equal. I think that poor Rex's offense is consistently handing over good field position to the other team. It does not tell me much about defensive performance at all but rather about the performance of their offense compared to ours.

 

[goheels22002]

I wonder if the D is simply not getting it and forced to simplify

There are rookies playing a significant amount of snaps at all three levels, especially when Hightower is on the field. But that doesn't rule out more blitz options - these guys have all played in aggressive defensive situations on clear passing downs.

It's a tough situation with so many young DBs who haven't proven to anybody that they'll make the right decisions or be in the right place. If you send pressure on the QB and the QB completes a pass on a hot route, how can you feel confident that it won't be a big gainer? If you stay home, you wind up giving the QB extra time to find his receivers against poor coverage.

It's time to switch to the 46 defense and pretend to be the '85 Chicago Bears - 10 in the box going for a jail break blitz on every play with Steve Gregory back there all alone. Force five linemen to block ten pass rushers. That will fix it.

 

[Gumby]

Yeah, if you care about yards. Rex's defenses are quite a bit better at preventing teams from moving the ball, but they're no better than Belichick's defenses at preventing points.

(From week 1, 2009 to now)
Yards
Patriots: 368.5 yards per game
Jets: 295.3 yards per game

Points
Patriots: 20.0 points per game
Jets: 19.8 points per game

So Rex is allowing 70 fewer yards per game, but just .2 points per game fewer. Rex isn't a better defensive coach than Belichick. He's a coach with a different defensive philosophy that looks better to the naive people that look at yards.

Can we stop with "Rex would do better" now?

I don't know the answer to my questions below; but your stats above immediately made me think: 'Yeah but, the yards are less because Sanchize is giving the other guy a shorter field every time'.

1. So, is there anyway to find the avg starting field position of a teams opponents?

Between Ghost, Zoltan, and Brady compared to ??, ??, and Sanchize; I have to think there is probably a 5-10 yd difference there per drive. That could easily be the 70 yd differential and make the = pt total be more impressive.

2nd corrollary to that would be # of opponent's possessions. Any way to see total possessions (without adding up per game)?

If Sanchize is giving a lot of 3-and-outs; the jesters opponents had more chances to score than Pats 'opponents' did. So again that could make the pt total more impressive.

All that said; Rexy is the last guy I would want to see anywhere near a Pats sideline (unless he is using SB tickets to watch the big game from the first row. )

 

[Gumby]

Sorry but when I see that Rex's defense has allowed the same number of points on fewer yards than Bill's, I don't think that the two defenses are equal. I think that poor Rex's offense is consistently handing over good field position to the other team. It does not tell me much about defensive performance at all but rather about the performance of their offense compared to ours.

I had same thought; didnt see your reply before I sent mine.

 

[Gumby]

I don't know the answer to my questions below; but your stats above immediately made me think: 'Yeah but, the yards are less because Sanchize is giving the other guy a shorter field every time'.

1. So, is there anyway to find the avg starting field position of a teams opponents?

Between Ghost, Zoltan, and Brady compared to ??, ??, and Sanchize; I have to think there is probably a 5-10 yd difference there per drive. That could easily be the 70 yd differential and make the = pt total be more impressive.

2nd corrollary to that would be # of opponent's possessions. Any way to see total possessions (without adding up per game)?

If Sanchize is giving a lot of 3-and-outs; the jesters opponents had more chances to score than Pats 'opponents' did. So again that could make the pt total more impressive.

All that said; Rexy is the last guy I would want to see anywhere near a Pats sideline (unless he is using SB tickets to watch the big game from the first row. )

Ok, answered my own question: From Football OUtsiders:

Team

Drives​

Yds/Dr​

Pts/Dr​

TDs/Dr​

Punts/Dr​

TOs/Dr​

INT/Dr​

FUM/Dr​

LOS/Dr​

DSR​

NE

101​

34.48 (27)​

1.99 (20)​

.238 (26)​

.337 (29)​

.238 (2)​

.099 (7)​

.139 (1)​

23.67 (2)​

.718 (26)​

NYJ

103​

31.33 (15)​

1.99 (21)​

.214 (18)​

.408 (19)​

.136 (12)​

.068 (20)​

.068 (5)​

28.47 (24)​

.700 (19)​

Pats opponents averaged starting Line of Scrimmage (LOS) of 23.7 and Jesters opponents avg 28.5. So almost 5 yds per drive.

I was a little surprised how comparable the # of drives was. 101 to 103. Cant even blame that on the OT game.

Big differences though was # of TDs per drive vs FGs (Jesters way better than Pats) and the # of fumbles (Pats #1) in particular but turnovers in general (Pats way better than Jesters).

 

[Finnishfan]

They don't run disguise defenses because they don't trust the players to execute them. It's that simple.

The Patriots ran disguises all the time during the Super Bowl years. They are in the scheme. It amazes me how much criticism coaches get from armchair scouts who never see them in practice and never sit on meetings.

If you're going to attack anything, attack Belichick and the front office for consistently failing to find good players in the secondary.

Your first sentence makes no sense.

Executing disguises means (someone fill in if I forget any key ones):
1) Lining up players "out of position" (e.g. 2 deep safties on lineup but rotate to one deep after the snap)
2) Taking a neutral stance (standing straight) or a fake stance (either hand on the ground before coverage or backfoot lean or angled waistline followed by a pass rush)
3) Having at least 5 players on LOS and no one with hand on the ground
4) Moving laterally before the snap
5) Fake rushing twitches before the snap
6) Fixing eyes on OL while playing coverage, or fixing eyes on a receiver/TE while rushing the passer

This post is not about blitzing, and stunts and other plays that create pressure on the passer. This is about disguising those plays (or the lack of those plays). This post is only about what looks the players give to the QB, and how easy it is to read them.

It doesn't require talent to disguise. It only requires good coaching.

 

[TheComeback]

You can't be serious ! Have you even looked at the Houston Texans starting defense ? Kareem Jackson was "pedestrian" at best before Wade Phillips arrived. Glover Quin and Daniel Manning are the starting safeties, um ya, I'll say it for you, WHO ? Jonathan Joseph is the only legit player in that Back Four, yet Wade Phillips has schemed that secondary into a tough, physical, ball hawking group.

Our defensive coaches are in over their heads, there's no other way to put it.

Kareem Jackson is a first round pick who developed in his second and third years. How much of that was coaching, and how much of it was just a guy maturing into the league? McCourty and Cunningham are both playing better this year. Is that because of coaching, or because they just worked their *****es off in the offseason?

Manning was never a bad safety, and I don't know who Quin is, but name recognition doesn't mean anything. Especially for defensive players.

You do realize they also have players on the d-line like JJ Watt, right? The Pats don't have players like the Texans do. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

 

[TheComeback]

Your first sentence makes no sense.

Executing disguises means (someone fill in if I forget any key ones):
1) Lining up players "out of position" (e.g. 2 deep safties on lineup but rotate to one deep after the snap)
2) Taking a neutral stance (standing straight) or a fake stance (either hand on the ground before coverage or backfoot lean or angled waistline followed by a pass rush)
3) Having at least 5 players on LOS and no one with hand on the ground
4) Moving laterally before the snap
5) Fake rushing twitches before the snap
6) Fixing eyes on OL while playing coverage, or fixing eyes on a receiver/TE while rushing the passer

This post is not about blitzing, and stunts and other plays that create pressure on the passer. This is about disguising those plays (or the lack of those plays). This post is only about what looks the players give to the QB, and how easy it is to read them.

It doesn't require talent to disguise. It only requires good coaching.

It requires experience, chemistry, and knowing the playbook. It's not as simple as "Let's just run a disguise on this play" when none of the guys can get on the same page. Every single ex-Pat who's played in this defense has said the same thing. Bruschi has said it multiple times in the last few years.

They're running vanilla schemes because they have a ton of young players. Belichick hasn't changed. He's the same coach who ran disguises with every defense he had from 2003-2007. You're using the coaches as scapegoats for players who simply haven't proven they can execute anything on a consistent basis, including the vanilla zone and man coverage schemes.

 

[Finnishfan]

It requires experience, chemistry, and knowing the playbook. It's not as simple as "Let's just run a disguise on this play" when none of the guys can get on the same page.

Every single ex-Pat who's played in this defense has said the same thing.

Forgive me, I missed a vital part in your point.

You are correct that they need all those things, and not half of our defensive players have all those acquired.

However, I still wont accept the "simple as that" perspective. Even if they suck in disguise, they should be tought on how to do it and allowed to try/practice in games. Even a failed disguise is better than no disguise, because with a failed disguise someone gets gametape of himself to learn to improve his disguise play. The gain/loss is not any bigger, becouse the QB would have gotten his read correct no matter what.

 

[Danger Zone]

Would it be fair to state that disguising a play slows the players by a couple of steps which right now would seem to be this very young secondary's weakness.. being a step behind or a second too slow in reacting to certain plays.

 

[Finnishfan]

Would it be fair to state that disguising a play slows the players by a couple of steps which right now would seem to be this very young secondary's weakness.. being a step behind or a second too slow in reacting to certain plays.

Yes. Basically every disguise does slow you down, some more than others. The biggest effect comes with a DL pass rusher.

The 3 point stance gives you great leverage to begin with, and your initial steps give you more forward momentum which makes you harder to stop. You cannot get half of that with a standing stance.

But with some other ways, the effect is minimal.

Looking at OL and standing on your front leg to show blitz doesn't leave you behind in coverage, it just means you need to be able to put your mind elsewhere than what your body and eyes indicate. Ofc if the play that is called dictates that you need to direct the receiver then you need to angle your waist and that is the end of story. No disguises available on your body posture. But that is just an example of an disguiseless scheme.

Also, even though disguises might slow you down an inch, one false presnap read per series more than makes up for the lost time, becouse confusion causes turnovers, sacks, incompletions and an insurmountable amount of frustration on the QB.

 

[jnug]

If you can see the entire field and watch a play from beginning to end what you would see is that for the most part success in influencing pass defenders occurs in the first split seconds after the ball is snapped even if the play takes longer to fully develop. A split second of delay that might start out gaining a half yard of advantage for a receiver turns into a five yard advantage by the time he is catching the ball and we see the guy as "wide open". In fact he is wide open.

Rules changes have made it easier and easier for receivers to gain an advantage and a scheme employed by the DB's no longer has the same rate of success that it used to have. Now you need at least a few DB's that can also make very athletic plays....guys that can make up tons of ground and then make a play on the ball or the receiver without being flagged in the process.

Your choices are:
- a scheme that allows the DB to maintain enough contact with the receiver so that the receiver does not break open (still viable but at a lower rate of success than in the past)
- the ability for a DB to make up ground and make a play on the receiver or the ball without being flagged for it (as in making a very athletic play, now more important in stopping a successful pass play)
- get to the QB before the play can fully develop and the half yard advantage gained in the first split seconds turns into a five yard advantage as the ball reaches the receiver

The defenders have to process a tremendous amount of information while also not ignoring their run play responsibilities at least in those first split seconds of the play. The point is that DB's cannot rely on scheme as much as they did in the past forcing defenses to employ at least a few more athletic players in their secondary....hopefully in our case ala' Talib.

This is why we need a few more athletic players back there a part of the mix. However as a coach I think what BB is doing with what he has is pretty darned impressive. He just needs a few more athletic guys to make it work at least IMO.