from 1043 the fan.

[broken12]

according to them a broncos official says if we have one turnover its very likely we will lose the turnover battle. So according to them that theres no chance that this defense will not cause turnovers! SADDD:listen: Also according to mike shannahans press conf. roderick rogers got the start cuz they are looking for some speed to help in coverage and someone who can help in run support from the safety position thats why he got the start. I myself is starting to think that it isnt the players anymore, I really believe that the d coordinator should scheme to get his players in position to make plays, I have not seen any of our defenders in position to make pics all season but once, in the falcons game when they seemed to blitz more.

[Bronco9798]

The coordinator can put them in position, but the players still have to make the play. I mean, come on.......Geez.......

[Mike]

The coordinator can put them in position, but the players still have to make the play. I mean, come on.......Geez.......

But the coordinators don't, so you get what we got.

[Bronco9798]

I thoroughly enjoy watching everybody blame the position coaches for the play of our defense. We have the worse front four in football outside of the Chiefs, who only have 6 sacks this year. We have talentless people up front who can do nothing for 4 quarters. Your defense starts up front and works it way back. We start with Champ and move our way up. This is wrong.

You want to blame somebody? Blame the scouts, the personnel people, and the ones that makes the decisions to bring these scrubs in. Who's bright idea was it to bring Mcree and Manuel, Moss, Robertson, and some of these linebackers here. Who brought Dre Bly here so we could constantly watch him get burned play after play. You can put any player in a position to make plays, etc., but if that player isn't talented enough he isn't going to make those plays. Anyway, blah....Some of you guys crack me up with this fire the coaches thing. Fire your scout people and personnel people first. And if you have to blame Shanny for bringing these turds in, blame him.

No coach can coach talentless players. We fire defensive coordinators literally every year. Find some talent and some guys that can play defense and some of these coordinators and coaches will look like a genius. Just saying.........

[broken12]

i really dont think its the players, seriously the dline is being coached to hold up blockers and stop the run. Its a joke to not let em go after the opponent, stop the run on the way to the qb. The scheme is a joke, with that said, I would be interested to see us use more zone blitzing on passing situations, ala robinson. We got a bunch of speed on defense, and our de could drop back into zones. I really believe that the talent on the defense is being underutillized. I remember the days when Elway would throw a couple of pics andwe sould still win the games because the defense would even the turnover ratio. Right now I think we are -14 in turnovers, I really believe that cutler and the offense has to much pressure having to play perfect in order to win games.

[MOtorboat]

i really dont think its the players, seriously the dline is being coached to hold up blockers and stop the run. Its a joke to not let em go after the opponent, stop the run on the way to the qb. The scheme is a joke, with that said, I would be interested to see us use more zone blitzing on passing situations, ala robinson. We got a bunch of speed on defense, and our de could drop back into zones. I really believe that the talent on the defense is being underutillized. I remember the days when Elway would throw a couple of pics andwe sould still win the games because the defense would even the turnover ratio. Right now I think we are -14 in turnovers, I really believe that cutler and the offense has to much pressure having to play perfect in order to win games.

That has long been the Broncos defensive line philosophy. It has worked in the past. The defensive line is not giving the linebackers enough space to make the play and the linebackers (sans Williams) aren't necessarily good enough to make those plays when they are given the chance. Its not Slowik for the most part.

[Bronco9798]

i really dont think its the players, seriously the dline is being coached to hold up blockers and stop the run. Its a joke to not let em go after the opponent, stop the run on the way to the qb. The scheme is a joke, with that said, I would be interested to see us use more zone blitzing on passing situations, ala robinson. We got a bunch of speed on defense, and our de could drop back into zones. I really believe that the talent on the defense is being underutillized. I remember the days when Elway would throw a couple of pics andwe sould still win the games because the defense would even the turnover ratio. Right now I think we are -14 in turnovers, I really believe that cutler and the offense has to much pressure having to play perfect in order to win games.

So you think Dumervil, Peterson, Robertson, Engleberger, Moss, Ekuban could all go to another team as a group and be better. I don't.

[broken12]

That has long been the Broncos defensive line philosophy. It has worked in the past. The defensive line is not giving the linebackers enough space to make the play and the linebackers (sans Williams) aren't necessarily good enough to make those plays when they are given the chance. Its not Slowik for the most part.

since when has it worked, robinsons dlines would stunt and zone dawg, coyers would do same, i dont remember so enlightn me!

[MOtorboat]

since when has it worked, robinsons dlines would stunt and zone dawg, coyers would do same, i dont remember so enlightn me!

In pass coverage, maybe that's the problem, but in run defense, sure running downs, it has long been the philosophy of Mike Shanahan-coached teams that the defensive line takes up blockers, two and three at a time, and the linebackers run down the play. This is Shanahan's defensive philosophy, has been for years. That's why he drafts fast linebackers.

[broken12]

In pass coverage, maybe that's the problem, but in run defense, sure running downs, it has long been the philosophy of Mike Shanahan-coached teams that the defensive line takes up blockers, two and three at a time, and the linebackers run down the play. This is Shanahan's defensive philosophy, has been for years. That's why he drafts fast linebackers.

but when has it worked, you said it worked fine for years! He got away from robinsons scheme cuz he thought the dline had too much responsibilty, which is just dumb. If we wanna improve on defense there has to be more than just bull rush up front. The dline needs to learn to run stunts.

[Bronco9798]

but when has it worked, you said it worked fine for years! He got away from robinsons scheme cuz he thought the dline had too much responsibilty, which is just dumb. If we wanna improve on defense there has to be more than just bull rush up front. The dline needs to learn to run stunts.

Well you need to replace the D line before you change anything. One day you will wake up and realize this D line is horrible.

[MOtorboat]

but when has it worked, you said it worked fine for years! He got away from robinsons scheme cuz he thought the dline had too much responsibilty, which is just dumb. If we wanna improve on defense there has to be more than just bull rush up front. The dline needs to learn to run stunts.

You have a real short memory my friend:

2008 26th 144.5
2007 3oth 142.6
2006 12th 113.3
2005 2nd 85.2
2004 4th 94.5
2003 7th 100.3
2002 4th 93.1
2001 6th 93.2
2000 7th 99.9
1999 19th 108.6
1998 3rd 80.4
1997 16th 112.7
1996 1st 83.2
1995 23rd 118.4

[broken12]

So you think Dumervil, Peterson, Robertson, Engleberger, Moss, Ekuban could all go to another team as a group and be better. I don't.

i do, think that the chiefs wouldnt want dmerville right now, how bout the colts they sure would be better with robertson. This defensive scheme is vanilla teams really dont have to prepare for us I said in other post. Google bob slowik and look up packers boards on this cartoon character. They erased him from the picture and got better within a year. I remember robertson tearing up the pittsburge offensive line last year, here he has been asked to hold up for our linebackers, thats what i mean when i say underutilizede. I really dont want to see this defense improve because we will have to wait another year to get a compitent d coordinator. Those of you thinking that things will change better not hold your breath.:elefant:

[broken12]

You have a real short memory my friend:

2008 26th 144.5
2007 3oth 142.62006 12th 113.3
2005 2nd 85.2
2004 4th 94.5
2003 7th 100.3
2002 4th 93.1
2001 6th 93.2
2000 7th 99.9
1999 19th 108.6
1998 3rd 80.4
1997 16th 112.7
1996 1st 83.2
1995 23rd 118.4


07 08 are the slowik years arent working, the years prior are from are zone blitzing schemes we would run. thanks for comferming

[Bronco9798]

i do, think that the chiefs wouldnt want dmerville right now, how bout the colts they sure would be better with robertson. This defensive scheme is vanilla teams really dont have to prepare for us I said in other post. Google bob slowik and look up packers boards on this cartoon character. They erased him from the picture and got better within a year. I remember robertson tearing up the pittsburge offensive line last year, here he has been asked to hold up for our linebackers, thats what i mean when i say underutilizede. I really dont want to see this defense improve because we will have to wait another year to get a compitent d coordinator. Those of you thinking that things will change better not hold your breath.:elefant:

I see every game. I constantly watch Doom try to rush the QB. It's a pathetic site. He gets manhandled constantly. He cantt generate anything trying to get to the QB. Oh, he gets close sometimes, but close doesn't work. Watch the game a little harder and watch Doom pass rushing. It's almost embarrassing.

[MOtorboat]

07 08 are the slowik years arent working, the years prior are from are zone blitzing schemes we would run. thanks for comferming

A.) This is Slowik's first year as defensive coordinator (the titles are bullshit, this is the first year he's calling the signals.)
B.) Bates and Coyer were our only d-coordinator that employed the zone blitzing schemes. The AFC Championship game also showed why people threw on us instead of run on us.
C.) Robinson rarely zone blitzed...he just flat blitzed.
D.) The above list confirms that for years we've been good in the run game, and its only recently we have not. You asserted that this has not worked, when it has.
E.) That has long been the defensive philosophy against the run, and for years it worked.

[broken12]

wow looking back at that, the robinson years look nicee! Would take that anyday over this dink and dunk to hell, or just line up and run us over becuase everyone knows what were going to do.

[broken12]

A couple of years ago, Slowik was in charge of the Green Bay defense (under the regime of pear-shaped Mike Sherman). Slowik started the year with an aggressive game plan - and the team spent all of training camp practicing this scheme. For those who recall, these were the dark days of Ahmad Carroll and Joey Thomas at DB. Suddenly, almost without warning, Slowik switched to a passive scheme that involved minimal blitzing. He also switched between zone & man coverage in random fashion. At times, it was as if the D-backfield had no idea if they were in zone or man. Slowik quickly became the most hated man in all of Wisconsin, even more so than Bud Selig (a difficult task, to be sure).

I'm sure some other Packer fan on this site can provide more detail. It was horrible to watch
agree with that...I also was scratching my headon that one. Slowik must be a nice guy to be getting that promotion considering his past and the simple fact that he was part of the team that was running the pathetic D last year. I am of the school of thought that if you really want to change you have to get rid of the whole staff. Why dump Bates and replace him with that turd?
To get back to that 10- to 13-win plateau, Shanahan's top priority is to re-establish a defense that can stop the run. That's why Shanahan said, in so many words, he replaced Jim Bates with Bob Slowik as his top defensive assistant.

Bates' system was predicated on stopping the pass. It's why he used only seven men in the box. Shanahan's defensive philosophy is to first stop the run. It's why he insisted on adding an eighth man to the box after the season's fifth game.

As an offensive-minded head coach, Shanahan wants the ball. And a defense that doesn't stop the run keeps its offense waiting on the sidelines.

"There were philosophical differences," Shanahan said. "(Bates) has had a lot of success at what they did. It just didn't work out here. Now, we go on.

"We've got a philosophy here on defense that I'd like to get back to. Bob knows that philosophy."

Bob Slowik was the worst defensive coordinator the Packers ever had, by a long mile (and they've had some terrible defenses). I just can not believe Shanahan keeps escaping accountability every season by retaining his job, while proven pros like Jim Bates get fired (ie forced to retire).

If Slowik calls the Broncos defense next year, start any and all players on your roster that are facing the Broncos. It's the new "Never Bench Your Studs" rule - Always Start Your Players Against Slowik.

Here endeth the rant. Thank you.
http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=377311&st=0&p=8031520&#entry8031520

[weazel]

mayday, mayday...

[MOtorboat]

A couple of years ago, Slowik was in charge of the Green Bay defense (under the regime of pear-shaped Mike Sherman). Slowik started the year with an aggressive game plan - and the team spent all of training camp practicing this scheme. For those who recall, these were the dark days of Ahmad Carroll and Joey Thomas at DB. Suddenly, almost without warning, Slowik switched to a passive scheme that involved minimal blitzing. He also switched between zone & man coverage in random fashion. At times, it was as if the D-backfield had no idea if they were in zone or man. Slowik quickly became the most hated man in all of Wisconsin, even more so than Bud Selig (a difficult task, to be sure).

I'm sure some other Packer fan on this site can provide more detail. It was horrible to watch
agree with that...I also was scratching my headon that one. Slowik must be a nice guy to be getting that promotion considering his past and the simple fact that he was part of the team that was running the pathetic D last year. I am of the school of thought that if you really want to change you have to get rid of the whole staff. Why dump Bates and replace him with that turd?
To get back to that 10- to 13-win plateau, Shanahan's top priority is to re-establish a defense that can stop the run. That's why Shanahan said, in so many words, he replaced Jim Bates with Bob Slowik as his top defensive assistant.

Bates' system was predicated on stopping the pass. It's why he used only seven men in the box. Shanahan's defensive philosophy is to first stop the run. It's why he insisted on adding an eighth man to the box after the season's fifth game.

As an offensive-minded head coach, Shanahan wants the ball. And a defense that doesn't stop the run keeps its offense waiting on the sidelines.

"There were philosophical differences," Shanahan said. "(Bates) has had a lot of success at what they did. It just didn't work out here. Now, we go on.

"We've got a philosophy here on defense that I'd like to get back to. Bob knows that philosophy."

Bob Slowik was the worst defensive coordinator the Packers ever had, by a long mile (and they've had some terrible defenses). I just can not believe Shanahan keeps escaping accountability every season by retaining his job, while proven pros like Jim Bates get fired (ie forced to retire).

If Slowik calls the Broncos defense next year, start any and all players on your roster that are facing the Broncos. It's the new "Never Bench Your Studs" rule - Always Start Your Players Against Slowik.

Here endeth the rant. Thank you.
http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=377311&st=0&p=8031520&#entry8031520

This post was really long, and I didn't read it, plus I noticed at the end it was just a copy and paste.

Slowik is not the problem. The talent evaluation is the problem.

[Bronco9798]

This post was really long, and I didn't read it, plus I noticed at the end it was just a copy and paste.

Slowik is not the problem. The talent evaluation is the problem.

I got bored too.

[broken12]

we got talent on defense, such as bailey, williams, dikumerville, thomas, robertson, bly. thats six players that I believe could start on just bout any team. I really hate this at this point because its mute for those who are blind and dont wanna watch the defense. I remeber earlier this year champ said something to the fact that this team wont have many sacks due to the fact that they will focus on stopping the run. The problem with that is you allow teams to convert on third downs becuase these players are taught to just hold up blockers. The defense is allowing record completion percentages, third down conversion percentages, and are among worst in nfl in every catagory. The reason we dont come up with any turnovers is because we are not pressureing the qbs. The more time this bafoon has to steady this defense is the closer we get to losing our offense. Yes there are other factors to consider in these losses but one constant has been the horrific defense. We have not even slowed anyone down since week oone.

[G_Money]

Better talent on the DL let us be top 10 in yards and points, huh?

2004 defensive unit (9th in points, 4th in yards) included:

DL:

Reggie Hayward
Monsanto Pope
Mario Fatafehi
Anton Palepoi
Marco Coleman
Raylee Johnson
Luther Elliss
Ellis Johnson

Linebackers:

DJ
Al Wilson
Donne Spragan

Secondary:

Kenoy Kennedy
John Lynch
Kelly Herndon
Champ Bailey

I wouldn't call that DL a set of dudes that outclasses the one we currently have. We're down one LB and one S from the back 7 on the defense. Kennedy was no better than Manuel, and Herndon isn't better than Bly. Pryce missed that year with back surgery.

We're missing defensive leadership and 2 Pro-Bowlers, which obviously makes a difference - but the Pro Bowlers weren't from the DL. Hayward is better than anything we currently have, but the rest of that bunch of journeymen, last-year-gaspers and rejects put together a season that ranked them in the top 3rd of the NFL.

But I'm sure it had nothing to do with coaching.

~G

[Bronco9798]

You lose all credibility when you say Bly has talent.

Not you G, the one above you.

[broken12]

You lose all credibility when you say Bly has talent.

Not you G, the one above you.

dre bly made pro bowl in two seasons with the lions. You have to have talent to do that. has 38 interceptions in career, that pretty good for a talentless db. 7 defensive tds in career pretty good dont you think. those stats are pretty good you would think. Especiallly were he has played the rams nor the lions have had great defenses.

[MOtorboat]

You have to have talent to do that.

Not really.

[broken12]

Not really.

whatever man, how many cbs from detroit are making pro bowls with their records. Better yet how many defensive players make the probowl in detroit many shawn rogers is the only other i can think of lately they were 6-10x2 5-11 and 3-13 them years that bly was there and seem to make pro bowl.

[Bronco9798]

dre bly made pro bowl in two seasons with the lions. You have to have talent to do that. has 38 interceptions in career, that pretty good for a talentless db. 7 defensive tds in career pretty good dont you think. those stats are pretty good you would think. Especiallly were he has played the rams nor the lions have had great defenses.

You rely to much on stats and numbers. Watch Bly play today. End of discussion.

[MOtorboat]

whatever man, how many cbs from detroit are making pro bowls with their records. Better yet how many defensive players make the probowl in detroit many shawn rogers is the only other i can think of lately

Bly's INT numbers are overinflated, because he takes too many chances. Pro Bowls are WAY over-rated.

[broken12]

Bly's INT numbers are overinflated, because he takes too many chances. Pro Bowls are WAY over-rated.

wake up man, cmon dont you think that maybe he had better stats before coming here due to better defensive schemes? Or do you really think its becuase he took too many chances. plz

[MOtorboat]

wake up man, cmon dont you think that maybe he had better stats before coming here due to better defensive schemes? Or do you really think its becuase he took too many chances. plz

I think its because he's old and can't make the plays he could before, because he's slowed down. The fact that he's opposite the best shutdown corner in the league doesn't help.

He gets picked on. There's nothing scheming can do to fix that. The same happened with D-Will in 2006. He got picked on because Champ is so good. So in some regards, Champ's great play can be a problem. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with scheme. We do not get pressure on the quarterback, because the players rushing the quarterback are not good enough.

Frankly, I find it hilarious at the people that get so upset about schemes. It's the freakin' NFL...do you really think that coaches at this level have no idea how to scheme? After years and years and years of coaching experience on the Denver coaching staff, do you honestly think they are incompetent, and that YOU know more than they do? I doubt you do.

Talent is the problem. Injuries aren't helping.

P.S. The only person I might disregard the above statement to is G~...

[PatricktheDookie]

We're 6 and 5. Most experts predicted us to be 6-10 this season after looking at our lack of talent.

We drafted well, we have several picks in the upcoming draft, and we're slowly improving our depth.

The Broncos are on the rise. Just because we're not there now doesn't mean it's time to start firing people.

[broken12]

I think its because he's old and can't make the plays he could before, because he's slowed down. The fact that he's opposite the best shutdown corner in the league doesn't help.

He gets picked on. There's nothing scheming can do to fix that. The same happened with D-Will in 2006. He got picked on because Champ is so good. So in some regards, Champ's great play can be a problem. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with scheme. We do not get pressure on the quarterback, because the players rushing the quarterback are not good enough.

Frankly, I find it hilarious at the people that get so upset about schemes. It's the freakin' NFL...do you really think that coaches at this level have no idea how to scheme? After years and years and years of coaching experience on the Denver coaching staff, do you honestly think they are incompetent, and that YOU know more than they do? I doubt you do.

just look up bob slowiks coaching backround and history.
Talent is the problem. Injuries aren't helping.

P.S. The only person I might disregard the above statement to is G~...

just go look up slowiks coaching resume and stats. That alone is the backbone to my argument. If you really believe that his defense will eventually get better, like goerge straight said i got some ocean front property in arizona. lol

[MOtorboat]

just go look up slowiks coaching resume and stats. That alone is the backbone to my argument. If you really believe that his defense will eventually get better, like goerge straight said i got some ocean front property in arizona. lol

It will get better when it gets better players. The fact that we've had four different defensive coordinators in four years ought to tell you that much. It's not my problem you can't see that.

Coaches can only do what their talent allows them to. I don't give a shit what he did in one year with the Packers.

Just an FYI, his defense was 4th in the NFL in 1993 with the Bears.

[topscribe]

You have a real short memory my friend:

2008 26th 144.5
2007 3oth 142.6
2006 12th 113.3
2005 2nd 85.2
2004 4th 94.5
2003 7th 100.3
2002 4th 93.1
2001 6th 93.2
2000 7th 99.9
1999 19th 108.6
1998 3rd 80.4
1997 16th 112.7
1996 1st 83.2
1995 23rd 118.4


Talk about a testament to the value of a run defense. Would one think there's
a correlation between a 13-3 record and 85.2 in 2005, or Conference and
Super Bowl Championships and 80.4 in 1998?

Nonetheless, I can't blame the run defense for yesterday. If one would check
the Broncos' TOP in the second half (about 11 minutes?), one could quickly
suppose that the defense would be worn down.

I blame the defensive figures in the second half on deep pass after deep pass.
With the way Hillis was running the ball, I believe it would have benefitted the
Broncos' defense greatly had he done it a little more?

-----

[MOtorboat]

Talk about a testament to the value of a run defense. Would one think there's
a correlation between a 13-3 record and 85.2 in 2005, or Conference and
Super Bowl Championships and 80.4 in 1998?

Absolutely. :salute:

The decline of the run defense can be directly correlated with the rotating door at defensive coordinator, and the strange creation of a position for Jim Bates.

The belief by Shanahan as a team builder (not the coach), that the defensive coordinator was the problem, is where this becomes troublesome.

[broken12]

http://www.dack.com/archive/bob-slowik-must-be-fired.html
Bob Slowik All-Time Records
Bob Slowik's defense is one for the history books. In a really, really bad way.

Record Slowik
Record Broken
Record
Fewest Opponent Turnovers, Season 15 16 (1995)
Fewest Passes Intercepted By, Season 8 13 (1980, 1995, 1998)
Fewest Forced Fumbles, Season 11 12 (1995)
Most First Downs Allowed, Passing, Season 228 188 (1995)
Most Yards Allowed, Net Passing, Season 3,943 3,762 (1983)
Most Yards Allowed, Passing, Game 464 448 (2004)
Most TD Allowed Passing, Season 33 31 (1986)
Highest Opponents' Passer Rating, Season 99.1 86.1 (1958)
with the pack

[MOtorboat]

http://www.dack.com/archive/bob-slowik-must-be-fired.html
Bob Slowik All-Time Records
Bob Slowik's defense is one for the history books. In a really, really bad way.

Record Slowik
Record Broken
Record
Fewest Opponent Turnovers, Season 15 16 (1995)
Fewest Passes Intercepted By, Season 8 13 (1980, 1995, 1998)
Fewest Forced Fumbles, Season 11 12 (1995)
Most First Downs Allowed, Passing, Season 228 188 (1995)
Most Yards Allowed, Net Passing, Season 3,943 3,762 (1983)
Most Yards Allowed, Passing, Game 464 448 (2004)
Most TD Allowed Passing, Season 33 31 (1986)
Highest Opponents' Passer Rating, Season 99.1 86.1 (1958)
with the pack

Congratulations. You have learned how to copy and paste.

[MOtorboat]

P.S. Are you actually a Packers fan? You seem utterly obsessed with Packers sites. And frankly, isn't that the same thing you posted earlier?

[broken12]

Congratulations. You have learned how to copy and paste.

thank you, but do you know how to research.

[MOtorboat]

thank you, but do you know how to research.

Read my response first.

I don't give a shit what his defense did in Green Bay. He had one year, and had different personnel than he does here in Denver.

Can you name one player who was on both defenses?

[G_Money]

Frankly, I find it hilarious at the people that get so upset about schemes. It's the freakin' NFL...do you really think that coaches at this level have no idea how to scheme? After years and years and years of coaching experience on the Denver coaching staff, do you honestly think they are incompetent, and that YOU know more than they do? I doubt you do.

Talent is the problem. Injuries aren't helping.

P.S. The only person I might disregard the above statement to is G~...

Okay, I can understand the "we're all amateurs, they're pros, so they're not idiots" approach, I guess.

But then why did they add two safeties who are known to be terrible in coverage and only barely acceptable as run stoppers or blitzers...and then never have them run stop or blitz, and only play them in coverage?

If it was a talent-addition problem, then somebody forgot to include Slowik in the FA signings because he obviously needed at least one cover safety and we didn't give him one.

If he wanted those guys to use in coverage, then it's kinda on him, isn't it?

You're not wrong about pass-rush: our players simply cannot rush the passer in a man-up, beat-your-guy sort of way. But we refuse to stunt them, or blitz, to help. If the guys who need to succeed AREN'T succeeding, then you need to go to plan B: a plan that covers for your weaknesses.

Slowik, however, has too many plans. He plays 4-3, then 3-4, then 5 LBs, then 6 DBs. He doesn't stick with anything, and nothing works. Maybe you're right and that's just an indication that no one could come here and make more of this defense than Slowik has made.

But over his career as DC Slowik has a habit of adjusting toward the passive from the aggressive, and desperately moving deck chairs around into fanciful arrangement as his defensive ship sinks.

This year is no different. If a guy has a habit of being a deer-in-the-headlights at his various jobs, and you give him a shot, do you bail on him if he gives you the same deer-in-the-headlights act? Or do you say, "maybe he just needs more time..."

Marquand Manuel has done exactly what it was feared he might do: suck. He can't cover, and he's demonstrated that time and time again this year.

Do you want to give him another year to prove he can't get better?

Dumervil gets KILLED on edge runs. A wetnap stapled to the turf could do better. Do you want to try another year with him on the edge of the defense, or do you want someone with a better skillset?

This was Slowik with with his last 3 defenses. Cleveland had no talent and was like this. Green Bay had some talent and was like this. We probably had somewhere in between, and we're like this.

I don't know how Slowik is with excellent talent. When Wannstadt was around to ride his ass (Wannstadt DOES know defense) Slowik was decently mediocre, I guess. He took over Tobin's D, got one great year out of the remnants, and then sunk back into mediocrity. They were better years than this one, obviously, but he's never been that great at keeping people out of the end zone, which is sorta the job of the defense.

But the point is if we're not likely to GET excellent talent (and I'm not holding my breath for the 3 pro-bowlers on the DL, the one at MLB and the one at S to get here) then we need a coordinator who can at least achieve mediocrity with less than stellar talent.

If Slowik can't do that, he needs to go.

He's never shown he can do that.

Waiting for him to get better is like waiting for Doom to crush running plays to his side or Manuel to sparkle in coverage.

He's never gotten the most out of what he's been given. It's not in his nature to do that. But if you decide to keep him, how long do you give him? If it's this bad next year, do you blame it on the talent still? Maybe the talent is still young, still "gelling" or maybe there are more injuries. Does he get year 3 if year 2 is not significantly better?

Stability for the sake of stability never helped Dennis Green or Norv Turner become better coaches. It's not in their nature to BE great pro head coaches. They don't have what it takes. The longer their teams waited to find this out, the stupider they looked in the end.

I don't believe it's in Slowik's nature to be a good DC. I'm just hoping we don't wait too long to figure this out, because I would like to get someone with a better nature in there ASAP.

~G

[MOtorboat]

G~,

I've watched three schemes in three years, and I truly respect your knowledge of the game, it far surpasses mine, but those three years have taught me that talent, not scheme, makes a team.

[broken12]

G~,

I've watched three schemes in three years, and I truly respect your knowledge of the game, it far surpasses mine, but those three years have taught me that talent, not scheme, makes a team.

If you would just research you would see that he did that with good talent on the packers team. Those stats I put up are records and not good ones. the problem with your argument is that you say that it dont take a good scheme to win. So you telling me that you think any coach can come here and produce as shannahan has? I highly doubt it!! So if herm edwards came in here with his offensive philosaphy we would be fine? doubt it!!

[MOtorboat]

If you would just research you would see that he did that with good talent on the packers team. Those stats I put up are records and not good ones. the problem with your argument is that you say that it dont take a good scheme to win. So you telling me that you think any coach can come here and produce as shannahan has? I highly doubt it!! So if herm edwards came in here with his offensive philosaphy we would be fine? doubt it!!

I don't have to research it. I know the situation, so please stop asking me to do so.

****edit***

Shanahan's talent evaluation on defense is questionable.

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SCHEME!

[horsepig]

Enough of the Slowik crapola! We've seen what he can do (Atlanta) if the reins are pulled back a little. The main problem with this defense is stopping the RUN!!!!! I hate to say this but, too bad for Champ (& J. Lynch) that they ended up here. We need to focus on stopping the run and my money's on Larsen. Our pass dee is beyond help this season. Next year kids. Lordy, Lordy, draft a safety (maybe 3) and a stud tackle. Play Larsen and Woodyard and DJ (if he comes back strong) and tell Nate to play ST's just like he has for his whole career. Could we maybe hit a few on defense like we have on offense in the draft, if so watch the hell out, "we'll be comin and hell will be comin with us!"

[MOtorboat]

Enough of the Slowik crapola! We've seen what he can do (Atlanta) if the reins are pulled back a little. The main problem with this defense is stopping the RUN!!!!! I hate to say this but, too bad for Champ (& J. Lynch) that they ended up here. We need to focus on stopping the run and my money's on Larsen. Our pass dee is beyond help this season. Next year kids. Lordy, Lordy, draft a safety (maybe 3) and a stud tackle. Play Larsen and Woodyard and DJ (if he comes back strong) and tell Nate to play ST's just like he has for his whole career. Could we maybe hit a few on defense like we have on offense in the draft, if so watch the hell out, "we'll be comin and hell will be comin with us!"

Bottom line is that the front four aren't making plays (holding up the o-line) and the linebackers aren't physical enough, or smart enough to make the play.

There is nothing wrong with any sort of scheme, our players are just not talented enough to make the play.

[broken12]

Im here to post my point view and argue it! No I am not a packer fan been a bronco fan since the early 80's. I remember being teased in school becuase of it. So I do have strong feelings and like seeing them when they are competative, but when i see the defensive debacle that they hae put out the last two years is very dissapointing. I dont mean to offend you in any way as you are entitled to your own views. From what I see, its my opinion that these players are not allowed to or put in position to make plays for the fear of giving up the big play. after a bit of looking into slowiks stats as a coordinator it seemed to me that the way he calls defense we were doomed. It would be more encouraging if they could stop something. You know make a team one dimentional and stop them, but from what i saw at the begining of the year with those big leads making teams have to pass to get back into games and not being able to stop it really discouraged me for the rest of the seasson.

[MOtorboat]

Im here to post my point view and argue it! No I am not a packer fan been a bronco fan since the early 80's. I remember being teased in school becuase of it. So I do have strong feelings and like seeing them when they are competative, but when i see the defensive debacle that they hae put out the last two years is very dissapointing. I dont mean to offend you in any way as you are entitled to your own views. From what I see, its my opinion that these players are not allowed to or put in position to make plays for the fear of giving up the big play. after a bit of looking into slowiks stats as a coordinator it seemed to me that the way he calls defense we were doomed.

They've had three different people calling the plays in the last three years.

I think its quite obvious that its not the scheme.

[G_Money]

G~,

I've watched three schemes in three years, and I truly respect your knowledge of the game, it far surpasses mine, but those three years have taught me that talent, not scheme, makes a team.

I disagree a little bit.

Scheme can make the best of average talent. No scheme can make average talent into a world-class defense.

Great talent makes great coordinators look even better, and can make good coordinators look better than they are.

But it is indeed possible to have an decent defense filled with great talent, or a good defense filled with average talent.

You can only be as good as your players will allow you to be. The current talent on this defense is not going to be top-5 material, ever.

But you CAN be as good as your talent allows you to be, and we aren't even that.

We're MINUS TWELVE in turnover margin.

2007: +1
2006: 0
2005: +20
2004: -9
2003: -4
2002: -5

Except for 2005 we've haven't been very good in recent years in turnover margin. It's not our thing. But we've never been this bad. And if our rates continue, it's gonna get historically bad before the season's over.

Turnovers are forced by pressure and scheme normally - coaching. There are certain coaches that always have great turnover margins, no matter who the players are. They practice it, they preach it, and their defenses excel at it. Slowik is not one of those guys. If Jay is gonna continue to turn the ball over, then regardless of talent I can't say I expect our defense to do much about it.

Sacks:

2008: 19 (11 games)
2007: 31
2006: 35
2005: 27
2004: 38
2003: 35
2002: 38

We're on track for high-20s sacks again. Might even make 30. Sacks are not a good way to rate consistent QB pressure (as Doom's sack line should attest) but opposing passer percentage is a better way, and we're about to shatter that record. But there's always a danger that we keep players who get sacks but don't actually pressure the QB that well.

I guess I just worry that Slowik doesn't seem to understand what the talent he has at his disposal is actually good at. I mean, you could say, "Nothing," but they have to be good at something.

They kill in goal line situations and known short-yardage. We have big tackles, fast ends, fast linebackers (cept Spencer), run-playing safeties and ball-hawking corners. Not all of them are good players, but all of them are better at some things than others.

So why do they seem to spend so much time doing the things they're worse at under Slowik's schemes? Bly can't cover, he jumps routes and goes for picks. So Slowik has him cover all the time.

Safeties can't cover, but spend all their time in coverage.

Woodyard is the fastest LB on the field, so naturally Larsen and his backup pull man coverage on the TE, and Larsen draws Lelie on the TD. Moss and Doom can't defend run plays, so obviously they're out there in running situations. We're good on the goal line in the 4-3 so Slowik switches us to a 3-4 after we've already made a successful goal line stand in a 4-3 and we get hosed.

These are the things that make me wonder. Other teams obviously want to scheme to make mismatches with our personnel vs. theirs, but why do we help them so often?

I want a DC who is less generous, regardless of our talent level. No DC can make this a great D without some new pieces, but there are some pieces here that could be on our next championship team, and they don't begin and end with Champ and DJ. We're not barren of all useful talent. It's just not useful when being used this way.

~G

[MOtorboat]

Understandable G~, it really is...but at some point, someone, somewhere has to make a play, regardless of the scheme given to them.

I guess I'm just a big proponent of the player makes the coach rather than the coach makes the player, especially at this level.

Like I said, I severely lack in football knowledge compared to you, G~, but I do know that watching three years of mediocre defense, with three defensive coordinators, with three different schemes, I tend to think that talent is the problem, not scheme.

[horsepig]

As far as Slowik's dee being "soft" and "passive"' I think that comes from on high. Why is Greg Robinson not STILL our DC? Shanny couldn't stand it that someone else got some cred', why couldn't Shanny keep the old O-Line coach, can't think of his name (I'm getting senile).

[G_Money]

They've had three different people calling the plays in the last three years.

I think its quite obvious that its not the scheme.

Coyer's last year: Quit blitzing. We slowly got ground down and exposed over the course of the year.

Bates/Slowik hybrid: No blitzing. Couldn't stop the run or the pass with 7 or even 8 in the box.

Slowik: No blitzing, huge cushions by the corners. Gonna set opposing passer completion all-time marks, had huge troubles with the run until rookies got in the games.

It might not be the scheme, but it sure does look like a philosophical problem. We've always had the personnel and mindset for a blitzing team. No blitzes = suck D gettin' exposed. If we want to run a no-blitz D we'd better find a lot more talent than we've had since our Super Bowls.

~G

[MOtorboat]

Coyer's last year: Quit blitzing. We slowly got ground down and exposed over the course of the year.

Bates/Slowik hybrid: No blitzing. Couldn't stop the run or the pass with 7 or even 8 in the box.

Slowik: No blitzing, huge cushions by the corners. Gonna set opposing passer completion all-time marks, had huge troubles with the run until rookies got in the games.

It might not be the scheme, but it sure does look like a philosophical problem. We've always had the personnel and mindset for a blitzing team. No blitzes = suck D gettin' exposed. If we want to run a no-blitz D we'd better find a lot more talent than we've had since our Super Bowls.

~G

I'll buy that, but I still think we lack in defensive talent.

[G_Money]

Understandable G~, it really is...but at some point, someone, somewhere has to make a play, regardless of the scheme given to them.

No argument with that at all. :salute: Why it took rookies to start making plays I'll never know.

7 of our last 8 quarters of defense have looked almost respectable. Players were making plays whether they were "supposed to" or not.

Player accountability is a big thing. Having the D get better when the starters go down doesn't speak well of the starters, in talent or desire. Like I've said before, it's still not a good D, but at least more of the players on the field are giving their all in it.

I truly hope we clean out some of the slackers and talentless hacks on D this winter.

We need it.

~G

[horsepig]

Coyer's last year: Quit blitzing. We slowly got ground down and exposed over the course of the year.

Bates/Slowik hybrid: No blitzing. Couldn't stop the run or the pass with 7 or even 8 in the box.

Slowik: No blitzing, huge cushions by the corners. Gonna set opposing passer completion all-time marks, had huge troubles with the run until rookies got in the games.

It might not be the scheme, but it sure does look like a philosophical problem. We've always had the personnel and mindset for a blitzing team. No blitzes = suck D gettin' exposed. If we want to run a no-blitz D we'd better find a lot more talent than we've had since our Super Bowls.

~G
We need to find some more talent. I feel like we've found some in Larsen and Woodyard, and some of the D-line guys seem to be coming on. Screw the rush, those guys don't come around often and we've proven we won't pony up to resign them (Trevor Pryce, Berry, and that other guy). Get Champ some friggin help, Bly is so-so, we need safeties ( a team traditon-Strong safeties). Then blitz like hell !

[horsepig]

Another thing G, Larsen wasn't "on" zone and Larsen at least made a try on the play, the other BACKER there had that responsibility. I did not see the game live, I watched it on tivo and I saw two very glaring defensive series in the 4th quarter. They pulled Larsen for a series and the Raiders went nutso running, then Larsen went down late and the Raiders went nutso running!

[gobroncsnv]

Go back as far as Robinson to find our last good, all-around dline... could stop the run, and the pass. And even at that, we had one of the highest average rushing yards allowed for a SB team.
Fast forward to the 2005 AFC title game, playing Pittsburgh, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING we did put pressure on Roth (not to mention Manning in the previous years)... That is the best Dline we've had since the SB years. Coyer tried stunts, blitzes, blitzes, and even the "punt-rush" blitz... We didn't have the guys up front, with this scheming, to make the difference.
Fast forward to now - at NO position on our current D do we have a player who is better than anyone on those defenses, because Champ is out.
Coyer's crew couldn't get there, we complained about pass pressure all season long, we had no LB's have any interceptions... Now our talent level is worse, and we're looking for better results???
Now look at the Giants, look at the Titans. Who would do better? Slowik with their personnel, or Spagnuolo with ours? I'd take my chances with Slowik and their guys, myself.
We have coaching issues, I stipulate that... but if all we do is change coordinators again without a SUBSTANTIAL improvement in talent, I think I could mail you the results now.
That's my "less filling" to your "great taste". Either way, our D still sucks...

[G_Money]

Now look at the Giants, look at the Titans. Who would do better? Slowik with their personnel, or Spagnuolo with ours? I'd take my chances with Slowik and their guys, myself.
We have coaching issues, I stipulate that... but if all we do is change coordinators again without a SUBSTANTIAL improvement in talent, I think I could mail you the results now.
That's my "less filling" to your "great taste". Either way, our D still sucks...

I agree with that. Slowik with the G-man would have a better D than Spagnuolo with ours.

But our D with Spag would be better than it is with Slowik.

And the G-Men's D with Slowik would be worse than it is with Spag.

If we keep starting Webster and Boss and our safeties, there's only so good we're ever gonna get. If Doom and Moss are as good as we can do at DE, we're always gonna have issues there.

We obviously need more talent. But who do you want to get it? A DC who has a system that works great with the right sorts of talent, or a DC who has never been anything close to great, nor stuck with a system for more than 6 weeks?

I don't want to dump Slowik and keep adding terrible free agents to the team. Only a fool thinks our D is fully staffed with talent and ripe for a new DC to take it back to prominence, though I am partial to the rooks.

But if Slowik wanted these safeties, he's a problem. If he wanted Boss and Niko, he's a problem. Did he want them? I dunno, but if he didn't and Shanny forced them on him anyway even though the two of them are supposed to be at least friendly, then I would think that makes him worthless as a DC anyway. Not being able to pick your own guys or at least have a say makes you a neutered coach. If he wanted Larsen and Woodyard and Barrett, then maybe he isn't as much of a problem as I think. But wait, they couldn't get on the field until it was them or the tackling dummies. Back to being a problem.

We don't have any idea what to do with the talent we have, nor do we know what talent to add to make our scheme work best. We don't even know what our scheme is. It was supposed to be blitzing but it's not. It was supposed to be a 4-3, but then it was a 3-4, then a 3-5, then a 3-2-6, then back to a 4-3, then a 3-4 on the goal line one series and a 4-3 the next.

I don't mind wrinkles in a scheme. I LIKE wrinkles. But if you have nothing but wrinkles, then your scheme is a crumpled up wad of paper instead of a plan.

That's an issue for me.

Add talent. By God, add a LOT of talent. But since Shanahan can't add FA defensive players to save his life can we PLEASE get a DC in here who knows what would work for him, and how to make do with what we can give him in the meantime?

Bates failed at the first part and has never been able to do the 2nd part. Slowik could be worse. Do better next time.

TIA.

~G

[horsepig]

Geeze Gobronc, Robinson had the same probs the 49'ers DC had, we're ahead by 25, how do I slow down a desperate team passing every down. The main thing Robinson had was a modicum of freedom concerning how to scheme and call the defense. He also had a very, very good corner in Ray Crocket, a play maker/game changer, plus some "fair safeties", plus a whole bunch of other "killers", like Romo. Ever notice how that defense lost a little when Romo took a series off? Those guys had to answer to Romo and Atwater in the huddle after a play.

[horsepig]

I say give Slowik some time. You guys are absolutely right, is it the DC, the head caoch, the scouts? They don't practice. they don't tackle, how do they know who the best players are? We see these guys like Larsen and Woodyard in pre-season and then-nevermore, until injuries. I don't pretend to know what happens in coaches meetings (but I do know we are not talking about geniuses here) . I think I talk for most Bronco fans when I say, "I just want to see a team that gives their all with some really good schemes from our coaches". (anybody remember watching Collier's defenses?)

[gobroncsnv]

If we keep starting Webster and Boss and our safeties, there's only so good we're ever gonna get. If Doom and Moss are as good as we can do at DE, we're always gonna have issues there.

We obviously need more talent. But who do you want to get it? A DC who has a system that works great with the right sorts of talent, or a DC who has never been anything close to great, nor stuck with a system for more than 6 weeks?

I don't want to dump Slowik and keep adding terrible free agents to the team. Only a fool thinks our D is fully staffed with talent and ripe for a new DC to take it back to prominence, though I am partial to the rooks.

But if Slowik wanted these safeties, he's a problem. If he wanted Boss and Niko, he's a problem. Did he want them? I dunno, but if he didn't and Shanny forced them on him anyway even though the two of them are supposed to be at least friendly, then I would think that makes him worthless as a DC anyway. Not being able to pick your own guys or at least have a say makes you a neutered coach. If he wanted Larsen and Woodyard and Barrett, then maybe he isn't as much of a problem as I think. But wait, they couldn't get on the field until it was them or the tackling dummies. Back to being a problem.

We don't have any idea what to do with the talent we have, nor do we know what talent to add to make our scheme work best. We don't even know what our scheme is. It was supposed to be blitzing but it's not. It was supposed to be a 4-3, but then it was a 3-4, then a 3-5, then a 3-2-6, then back to a 4-3, then a 3-4 on the goal line one series and a 4-3 the next.

I don't mind wrinkles in a scheme. I LIKE wrinkles. But if you have nothing but wrinkles, then your scheme is a crumpled up wad of paper instead of a plan.

That's an issue for me.

Add talent. By God, add a LOT of talent. But since Shanahan can't add FA defensive players to save his life can we PLEASE get a DC in here who knows what would work for him, and how to make do with what we can give him in the meantime?



~G


I agree a lot with this, and about the very same players... We really haven't seen the right kind of fire from our LB's until Boss and Web went out. ANd in his first few weeks, Winborn didn't impress me much either. He's finding a way to improve (coaching?). Woodyard has something in him worth keeping, too. And Larsen just needs time in the saddle, I could live with keeping him at MIKE.

So there's something right and wrong about this... a) these kids are improving, I think, because of experience gained, and coaching. When the run D was good on Sunday, we held containment, didn't overrun plays, and had a couple of decent goal-line stands. Couldn't begin to tell you why we got over it... b) the "wrong" part of things, why did the staff not recognize the problems we had with our starters?

Will Elvis ever rise above being situational? Moss seems to be improving, at least what I saw in the Browns and Falcons games. (Was he there on Sunday?) Do our safeties belong in the NFL at all? 'cause we darn sure don't want them to belong here...

Whatever we do at DC (and hear this, I do think we should), all the more, I hope the Goodman's are burning midnight oil by the barrel-full. If they could do for our D what they did for our O the last couple years, then we'll have us a team. But you're right, whoever becomes our DC, he needs to shop for the groceries as well. The way to fix our large talent-gap will be worthless if it's not focused.

But here's my key point... we've not given ANY of our DC's the luxury of a decent, all around front 4 since 98. How much easier would game planning be if we fixed that? Offensive coordinators look pretty stupid when the oline sucks. Same holds true for the dline.

[G_Money]

Whatever we do at DC (and hear this, I do think we should), all the more, I hope the Goodman's are burning midnight oil by the barrel-full. If they could do for our D what they did for our O the last couple years, then we'll have us a team. But you're right, whoever becomes our DC, he needs to shop for the groceries as well. The way to fix our large talent-gap will be worthless if it's not focused.

But here's my key point... we've not given ANY of our DC's the luxury of a decent, all around front 4 since 98. How much easier would game planning be if we fixed that? Offensive coordinators look pretty stupid when the oline sucks. Same holds true for the dline.

DL is the hardest position to fill on defense. If a guy can run you can make some sort of safety or CB out of him, even if it’s just a nickel back. If a guy can hit you should be able do something with him at safety and LB. He might not be great at everything, but skill positions have a better success rate than linemen, and there are just more quality guys available every year. DL requires something more. You can’t just be big and strong. Every DL that comes out in the draft is big and strong.

But some are lazy. And some can’t get to the passer. And some can’t stop the run. And some are poorly coached. And some are quitters. And some don’t have good technique. And some are bullies who don’t like being punched in the mouth by equals.

The teams that put together successful defensive lines usually have one of a couple of things going for them (if not both things):

- Several high-round DL draftpicks. Their lines are stocked with 1st and 2nd rounders. Of course, we tried that when we added Warren and Courtney Brown to the team. It didn’t work out. And then we tried it with Moss, Crowder and Thomas. That’s not working either. Have I mentioned that the bust rate for DL is higher than any other position?

- Scheme. Scheme doesn’t bust, if it’s the right scheme. The Steelers DL is so good because they’ve all played together for several years in the same scheme. The Steelers scheme has been the same since forever. New guys are drafted or signed specifically because they fit the scheme, and are instructed in the nuances of that scheme. Same with Tampa Bay. Same with the Patriots. The Jags scheme is also good, but they let one of their top-talent DL go and they’re suffering. They’ll fix that in this next draft and be back to nasty again. Spagnuolo has a badass scheme that makes people cry, and after a rocky start to last year he’s been killin’ it with that scheme, so much so that he could lose his top 2 DEs and move on without missing a beat.

We can’t keep removing DCs like crazy, because then we don’t have a chance to get settled into a scheme. But we also shouldn’t lock in long-term with a guy whose schemes are underwhelming.

Great DL are hard to get. Good DL that fit a great scheme to a T are easier. If we need to wait for 3 or 4 more first round picks on the DL, half of which fail, it’s gonna be a long wait in the desert to get a competent DL.

Having a coach who can do for the DL what we did with the OL for so long – pick up scheme guys who can be monsters in our system – makes life a little easier.

I don’t want to have to do this the hardest way possible, by scouring the Earth for ridiculous man-beast talents and having them all work out to the highest level. The Goodmans make me more confident that we have a chance of doing that – a few years ago I would have said we have zero chance.

But I’d still rather go a route that has some flexibility, and can work even if the 4 horsemen of the Apocalypse aren’t suiting up on our DL.

~G

[topscribe]

DL is the hardest position to fill on defense. If a guy can run you can make some sort of safety or CB out of him, even if it’s just a nickel back. If a guy can hit you should be able do something with him at safety and LB. He might not be great at everything, but skill positions have a better success rate than linemen, and there are just more quality guys available every year. DL requires something more. You can’t just be big and strong. Every DL that comes out in the draft is big and strong.

But some are lazy. And some can’t get to the passer. And some can’t stop the run. And some are poorly coached. And some are quitters. And some don’t have good technique. And some are bullies who don’t like being punched in the mouth by equals.

The teams that put together successful defensive lines usually have one of a couple of things going for them (if not both things):

- Several high-round DL draftpicks. Their lines are stocked with 1st and 2nd rounders. Of course, we tried that when we added Warren and Courtney Brown to the team. It didn’t work out. And then we tried it with Moss, Crowder and Thomas. That’s not working either. Have I mentioned that the bust rate for DL is higher than any other position?

- Scheme. Scheme doesn’t bust, if it’s the right scheme. The Steelers DL is so good because they’ve all played together for several years in the same scheme. The Steelers scheme has been the same since forever. New guys are drafted or signed specifically because they fit the scheme, and are instructed in the nuances of that scheme. Same with Tampa Bay. Same with the Patriots. The Jags scheme is also good, but they let one of their top-talent DL go and they’re suffering. They’ll fix that in this next draft and be back to nasty again. Spagnuolo has a badass scheme that makes people cry, and after a rocky start to last year he’s been killin’ it with that scheme, so much so that he could lose his top 2 DEs and move on without missing a beat.

We can’t keep removing DCs like crazy, because then we don’t have a chance to get settled into a scheme. But we also shouldn’t lock in long-term with a guy whose schemes are underwhelming.

Great DL are hard to get. Good DL that fit a great scheme to a T are easier. If we need to wait for 3 or 4 more first round picks on the DL, half of which fail, it’s gonna be a long wait in the desert to get a competent DL.

Having a coach who can do for the DL what we did with the OL for so long – pick up scheme guys who can be monsters in our system – makes life a little easier.

I don’t want to have to do this the hardest way possible, by scouring the Earth for ridiculous man-beast talents and having them all work out to the highest level. The Goodmans make me more confident that we have a chance of doing that – a few years ago I would have said we have zero chance.

But I’d still rather go a route that has some flexibility, and can work even if the 4 horsemen of the Apocalypse aren’t suiting up on our DL.

~G

Good post, as usual, but I do have to comment that the Broncos did not
fail in their assessments of Courtney Brown and Gerard Warren. As you
know, Brown succumbed to his knee problem. Had it not been for that, he
would have been very good.

Warren is starting and doing a good job now for the Raiders. Again, I don't
believe talent assessment was the problem. I believe Warren was one of
Jim Bates' many gaffs. Did jettisoning Warren have anything to do, BTW,
with the precipitous escalation of the opponents' YPC in rushing figures? He
was misused when he was here, and he was scapegoated out when that
didn't work out.

You know, the Broncos had the talent to be one of the better D-lines in
the league. How much difference would Warren and Trevor Pryce have
made with a healthy Brown, adding to Thomas and Ekuban, and Dumervil
coming in on passing downs?

*sigh* :look:

-----

[G_Money]

Brown was an absolute monster when he was healthy. For 3 weeks a year he ate children and pillaged towns from coast to coast.

His bad luck, and ours, that he could never stay healthy.

Warren has no heart. I don’t care about his talent, he’s a coward. Warren Sapp hated him with a fiery passion. Warren only played to get his next contract, and has done nothing but skate by on all that talent ever since.

Better to get him out of here entirely than let him infect even one of our young DL, currently on the roster or about to arrive, with that attitude.

Here’s hoping we can find guys as talented as Brown and Warren to shore up our DL, but without their respective injury and attitude issues.

~G

[Lonestar]

I still maintain that you can have the best talent in the world and if the scheme and continuing coaching is for crap they will get tired of it and give up or move on..

You can take good talent and with great coaches an schemes turn them into great talent. Perhaps not all pros but good solid every down talent..

right now we may have good talent in the 2007 draft and would not know it because to the coaches..

Look at the Giants they lost two all world DL guys and they are almost on track to repeat last years Super bowl win. If you look at their players they have a couple of second day choices making really great plays week after week.. granted they have a couple of #1's on the DLine also but a great coach cause bring out the best in the players..

I looked at all of this 4-5 weeks ago IIRC they have a couple of 4-6 rounders wreaking havoc this year.. after replacing strahan and the other guy..

DL has been our Achilles heal for almost a decade.. we have never been able to bring the heat with out using the blitz.. at least during mikeys regime.

It is time IMHO to replace the D coaching staff top to bottom in fact I think a case could be made to purge the entire coaching staff except Turner.

[LawDog]

It isn't scheme vs. talent vs. DC, but rather a combination of the three and most importantly, some continuity.

If you have a great scheme/talent/DC you can have a solid year defensively with even mediocre tools in the other two areas. (i.e. great talent, mediocre scheme and DC = solid year, not great but not atrocious either.) However, when you have any one of the three being really poor, you are going to have a very long year defensively. Think of a three-legged stool - one or two short legs still give you a place to park your rump, but with only two legs you are on your back looking at the rafters.

We've had no consistency on any of the three legs the past three years. Yet, we have this huge defensive playbook that apparently is completely open at any given time. See the random switching from 4-3 to 3-4 and back again as an example. Offensive playbooks are dialed back depending on the players available for a given game. It doesn't seem that our defenses have been willing (or able) to dial back the 'book and focus on the fundamentals. Players out of position leads to bad technique and poor tackling. Players being used outside of their particular strengths leads to bad technique and poor results. Players trying to implement an ever-changing and apparently complicated scheme can not be comfortable with their assignments and are having to think too much on the field. Stop trying to hit it out of the park scheme-wise. Simplify, play to the strengths of the players we have available, focus on the basics.

Right now, our defense is an ugly house built on sand. It might look cute on paper, but it ain't cutting it on Sunday.

[JONtheBRONCO]

We have 2 sure talents on defense, 1 above average defensive end, 2 rookies who might pan out and thats all. Our secondary is terrible, our interior is worse, and our pass rush is hysterical.

[Lonestar]

We have 2 sure talents on defense, 1 above average defensive end, 2 rookies who might pan out and thats all. Our secondary is terrible, our interior is worse, and our pass rush is hysterical.


I'd say we have keepers in DJ, Champ and probably Thomas. a really great core to build on..

DE we have a couple of pass rush specialist that should be keepers..

Robertson is a load but will not be here long because of his knees.. so he should be replaced a ASAP.. as it will take a strong year to replace him.. Even if he sticks around he can be a rotational guy for years..

so right now he have SIX keepers that have experience..

but only 3.5 of them are potential every down players .. (factoring out rotation for rest ON DL)

that means we need at the minimum:

2 every down DEs that can play both pass and rush..
1 run stopping DT, but he could be the rookie Powell on IR..
2 safeties unless rogers or Woodyard if they do not keep him at LB..
1 MLB unless larsen is the guy and from what I've seen he seems to be in on every play..
1 SLB unless winborn or woodyard can handle this spot..
1 LCB unless bly takes HUGE cut in pay I mean really HUGE..


perhaps one of the rookie CB can fill the bill or perhaps under a valid Defensive scheme and new DC Paymah might be a good opposite to Champ.

our NEW GM should take this as a shopping list and find asses for those saddles..

[haroldthebarrel]

I thoroughly enjoy watching everybody blame the position coaches for the play of our defense. We have the worse front four in football outside of the Chiefs, who only have 6 sacks this year. We have talentless people up front who can do nothing for 4 quarters. Your defense starts up front and works it way back. We start with Champ and move our way up. This is wrong.

You want to blame somebody? Blame the scouts, the personnel people, and the ones that makes the decisions to bring these scrubs in. Who's bright idea was it to bring Mcree and Manuel, Moss, Robertson, and some of these linebackers here. Who brought Dre Bly here so we could constantly watch him get burned play after play. You can put any player in a position to make plays, etc., but if that player isn't talented enough he isn't going to make those plays. Anyway, blah....Some of you guys crack me up with this fire the coaches thing. Fire your scout people and personnel people first. And if you have to blame Shanny for bringing these turds in, blame him.

No coach can coach talentless players. We fire defensive coordinators literally every year. Find some talent and some guys that can play defense and some of these coordinators and coaches will look like a genius. Just saying.........

Curiously enough most of our free agent pick ups since the Hayworth/Berry years have all had better seasons at other teams.
Can you explain that to me.

[fcspikeit]

I think its because he's old and can't make the plays he could before, because he's slowed down. The fact that he's opposite the best shutdown corner in the league doesn't help.

He gets picked on. There's nothing scheming can do to fix that. The same happened with D-Will in 2006. He got picked on because Champ is so good. So in some regards, Champ's great play can be a problem. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with scheme. We do not get pressure on the quarterback, because the players rushing the quarterback are not good enough.

Frankly, I find it hilarious at the people that get so upset about schemes. It's the freakin' NFL...do you really think that coaches at this level have no idea how to scheme? After years and years and years of coaching experience on the Denver coaching staff, do you honestly think they are incompetent, and that YOU know more than they do? I doubt you do.

Talent is the problem. Injuries aren't helping.

P.S. The only person I might disregard the above statement to is G~...

It should help! If you have a guy like champ that can cover one on one. we should be able to double the other side. Are you really saying a team has to have 2 Champ Bailey's to be able to stop the pass? The scheme most certainly could do something to fix that!

How is it possible we are covering one on one on the outside, rushing 3 & 4 down lineman and we can't find a way to get pressure? What are the other 5 guys doing?

Yes, apparently GB thought the same thing when they canned him and they were a lot better off for it.

Against ATL on 3rd and 18 we didn't blitz, yet we have a S covering their best WR in the back of the endzone by himself. How is that possible?

It makes no sense. If we are going one on one on the outside, we should sure as hell be able to stop the run or at least get to the QB, even with scrubs!

Slowiks scheme don't seem to use all 11 guys. Half the time there are 3 or 4 guys in a zone with no one to cover.

[fcspikeit]

Go back as far as Robinson to find our last good, all-around dline... could stop the run, and the pass. And even at that, we had one of the highest average rushing yards allowed for a SB team.
Fast forward to the 2005 AFC title game, playing Pittsburgh, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING we did put pressure on Roth (not to mention Manning in the previous years)... That is the best Dline we've had since the SB years. Coyer tried stunts, blitzes, blitzes, and even the "punt-rush" blitz... We didn't have the guys up front, with this scheming, to make the difference.
Fast forward to now - at NO position on our current D do we have a player who is better than anyone on those defenses, because Champ is out.
Coyer's crew couldn't get there, we complained about pass pressure all season long, we had no LB's have any interceptions... Now our talent level is worse, and we're looking for better results???
Now look at the Giants, look at the Titans. Who would do better? Slowik with their personnel, or Spagnuolo with ours? I'd take my chances with Slowik and their guys, myself.
We have coaching issues, I stipulate that... but if all we do is change coordinators again without a SUBSTANTIAL improvement in talent, I think I could mail you the results now.
That's my "less filling" to your "great taste". Either way, our D still sucks...

If Spagnuolo had an off season to get guys to fit in his scheme, we would have better talent. If slowik can't utilize the talent our guys have, how is he supposed to be able to get talent? Don't you need to be able to recognise it first and know what your going to be asking them to do?

Everyone makes it sound like the G-men and Titans have 11 world beaters on D. I got news for you, they don't! They have 2 or 3 good to great players and the rest are scheme guys. We have 2 or 3 good to great players and no scheme players, because we don't seem to have a set scheme.

[gobroncsnv]

But they have the good sense to make their best players be the ones on a D that count the most... up front. Makes everybody behind them better. The Giants' winning SB "scheme" was making Brady's uniform turn green. Everything descended from that. Our dline had the skill to give Jmarc an almost perfect QB rating.

[WARHORSE]

The Dline is not a dominant bunch. Theyre barely ringing a blip on the radar of defensive line ability. But for everyone who thinks all we have to do is draft Dline, youre nuts. You can draft Dline all you want, if the talent isnt in the draft, youre going to have JACK. As for bringing in Robertson, for every person who thinks this was dumb, tell us what we should have done. YOU CAN ONLY DO WITH WHATS AVAILABLE. Its not like we could pick Justin Tuck, Osi or Strahan in the offseason. Its not like Haynesworth was there for the taking.

We spent draft picks on Dline, and we arent about to spend more, unless a unique talent walks into our hands. Other than that, its gonna be a run of the mill guy in the later rounds, unless he proves to be a lucky steal.

We have to give credit where its due. Our past few drafts have been more than adequate, and lets hope our defensive picks are going to pan out the same. I still think Crowder should put on weight, and play tackle. He has the speed of a D-end, so lets get him bulked up and stronger.


As for the safeties, did the Broncos know that Lynch was going to leave? I do think they got a little arogant in thinking we could play with the clowns we have now.

Safety is the biggest problem we have right now. That and some dominating up front.

[fcspikeit]

But they have the good sense to make their best players be the ones on a D that count the most... up front. Makes everybody behind them better. The Giants' winning SB "scheme" was making Brady's uniform turn green. Everything descended from that. Our dline had the skill to give Jmarc an almost perfect QB rating.

I agree with you, it should start up front.

Your also talking about one of the best D-lines to ever play. We don't have to be no where near that good to be a 11-20 ranked defense.

Just for fun,

Here are the top 10 Defenses in the NFL

1 Pittsburgh Steelers
2 Baltimore Ravens
3 Washington Redskins
4 Tampa Bay Buccaneers
5 New York Giants
6 Philadelphia Eagles
7 Tennessee Titans
8 Dallas Cowboys
9 Minnesota Vikings
10 Arizona Cardinals

How many household names are playing on those D-lines? Remember now, these are the top 10, so I'll bet you can name a few.

Now look at 11-20

11 Carolina Panthers
12 New England Patriots
13 New York Jets
14 Jacksonville Jaguars
15 Chicago Bears
16 Buffalo Bills
17 Green Bay Packers
18 Houston Texans
18 Indianapolis Colts
20 Miami Dolphins

Just off the top your head, how many can you name from that bunch? Do you notice there are as many household names in the second group as the first?

My point is, the one consistent the top 10 have over the rest is they all have good to great DC. Because of this, the hole unit plays better..

[gobroncsnv]

When Dan Reeves was here, the Broncos offense wasn't bad at all, and we had a lot of come-from-behind wins... Guess he's an offensive genius...

[MOtorboat]

It should help! If you have a guy like champ that can cover one on one. we should be able to double the other side. Are you really saying a team has to have 2 Champ Bailey's to be able to stop the pass? The scheme most certainly could do something to fix that!

How is it possible we are covering one on one on the outside, rushing 3 & 4 down lineman and we can't find a way to get pressure? What are the other 5 guys doing?

Yes, apparently GB thought the same thing when they canned him and they were a lot better off for it.

Against ATL on 3rd and 18 we didn't blitz, yet we have a S covering their best WR in the back of the endzone by himself. How is that possible?

It makes no sense. If we are going one on one on the outside, we should sure as hell be able to stop the run or at least get to the QB, even with scrubs!

Slowiks scheme don't seem to use all 11 guys. Half the time there are 3 or 4 guys in a zone with no one to cover.

Fair enough, but if we can't get pressure than he's on an island, and we have been running a lot of two deep, over the top coverages with big cushions, trying to get our cornerbacks to jump routes, and they haven't been able to do so this year. I can see how some of that is coaching, but if we get pressure, if our front four was worth a damn, that scheme would be getting us a ton of turnovers.

Fair enough. Is it the scheme, or do those other five players not have a knack for finding players in a zone and matching up with? It's a good question.

I'm sorry, I just don't buy the Packer argument. They gave him one year. How is a defensive coordinator supposed to implement and coach given 16 games? Besides, there are all sorts of coaches who were considered bums in their previous job, and now are geniuses.

If we had a safety worth a damn, then the scheme wouldn't have mattered because he would have been able to cover him. Of course,if we had a front four who could get some pressure, 3rd and 18 wouldn't be a problem.

[haroldthebarrel]

Fair enough, but if we can't get pressure than he's on an island, and we have been running a lot of two deep, over the top coverages with big cushions, trying to get our cornerbacks to jump routes, and they haven't been able to do so this year. I can see how some of that is coaching, but if we get pressure, if our front four was worth a damn, that scheme would be getting us a ton of turnovers.

Fair enough. Is it the scheme, or do those other five players not have a knack for finding players in a zone and matching up with? It's a good question.

I'm sorry, I just don't buy the Packer argument. They gave him one year. How is a defensive coordinator supposed to implement and coach given 16 games? Besides, there are all sorts of coaches who were considered bums in their previous job, and now are geniuses.

If we had a safety worth a damn, then the scheme wouldn't have mattered because he would have been able to cover him. Of course,if we had a front four who could get some pressure, 3rd and 18 wouldn't be a problem.

are you sure about that.

There was one poster who posted about Slowiks schemes seem to create few turnovers.

To me, the guy has proven he is a very good positional coach but a lousy cordinator. There's nothing wrong with accepting your limits.
I wish he would accept a demotion and go back coaching the secondary, but there seems to be an unwritten rule that you dont accept demotions within the same team.

As far as pressure, I think that has to do with talent, technique and will.
Our positional coach, Jacob Burns(I think thats his name) has a record of basically no player being developed, and almost all free agents playing better before or after Denver.
That's the same record as Gibs' son who also didnt produce at all, and even didnt follow his cordinator btw.

The good thing is that we have a very young team who should individually become better. The question is, is it a player and the player only who creates how good he can be, or can coaches influence that in a great way?
To put it another way, if you wanted to become the greatest chef you would be, would you like to learn under Gordon Ramsay, or would you think you could become a great one regardless of your teacher?

[MOtorboat]

are you sure about that.

There was one poster who posted about Slowiks schemes seem to create few turnovers.

To me, the guy has proven he is a very good positional coach but a lousy cordinator. There's nothing wrong with accepting your limits.
I wish he would accept a demotion and go back coaching the secondary, but there seems to be an unwritten rule that you dont accept demotions within the same team.

As far as pressure, I think that has to do with talent, technique and will.
Our positional coach, Jacob Burns(I think thats his name) has a record of basically no player being developed, and almost all free agents playing better before or after Denver.
That's the same record as Gibs' son who also didnt produce at all, and even didnt follow his cordinator btw.

The good thing is that we have a very young team who should individually become better. The question is, is it a player and the player only who creates how good he can be, or can coaches influence that in a great way?
To put it another way, if you wanted to become the greatest chef you would be, would you like to learn under Gordon Ramsay, or would you think you could become a great one regardless of your teacher?

At some point, the talent has to be addressed instead of the coordinator. I guess I'm just sick of having a new defensive coordinator every year, thinking that that will somehow magically fix things, when its pretty apparent that our front seven isn't very good. I can think of ONE player that is any good, and that's D.J. Williams.

Talent evaluation, defensively, stinks on this team.

[CoachChaz]

At some point, the talent has to be addressed instead of the coordinator. I guess I'm just sick of having a new defensive coordinator every year, thinking that that will somehow magically fix things, when its pretty apparent that our front seven isn't very good. I can think of ONE player that is any good, and that's D.J. Williams.

Talent evaluation, defensively, stinks on this team.

Amen...couldnt agree more. Add to the fact that kids are drafted and singed and given minimal opportunity to prove anything on the field. people complain about Moss and Crowder, but damn...let them play somewhat regularly before we decide they suck.

Now we're looking to draft safeties, when we could very well have an answer with Woodyard and Barrett...but we'll never know

[haroldthebarrel]

At some point, the talent has to be addressed instead of the coordinator. I guess I'm just sick of having a new defensive coordinator every year, thinking that that will somehow magically fix things, when its pretty apparent that our front seven isn't very good. I can think of ONE player that is any good, and that's D.J. Williams.

Talent evaluation, defensively, stinks on this team.

I think they both are connected and you cannot really separate them.

If you have a great cordinator, you will get/develop great talent, and if you already have/developed talent you must have a great cordinator.

Secondly, I am quite certain that the Goodmans know how to find talent, but it doesnt stop there. I am quite certain you have to develop talent after you find it. That is why some teams can take the high risk/reward players and not fail as often.
And to do that you need a talented staff and a staff that help people develop over the years. not a year.
Look at how bad Timmons looked last year, and what a different player he is now when he plays.

Thirdly, I think you are right that changing staff often leads to lesser player development. Hence the Gordon Ramsay reference.
I believe a player selected to fit one system, he will have a lesser chance of developing in a new one.
I think this is very obvious when you look at qb who busts as very often these guys have different staffs each year and little consistency at the positions around them.

And finally, I think the future is bright for our team since Shanahan seems to learn from most of his mistakes. We dont need to draft a lineman or qb early and stuff like that.

[haroldthebarrel]

Amen...couldnt agree more. Add to the fact that kids are drafted and singed and given minimal opportunity to prove anything on the field. people complain about Moss and Crowder, but damn...let them play somewhat regularly before we decide they suck.

Now we're looking to draft safeties, when we could very well have an answer with Woodyard and Barrett...but we'll never know

This is something I always wondered about the Broncos.
Why does it seems that so many young players are given their opportunity through another players injury.

Are we afraid of them making mental mistakes moreso than the veteran in front of him.

Look at our roster now and I will say that Marshall, Woodyard, Larsen, Kuper and Harris all were given their opportunity to shine through injuries.

People say Shanahan is never afraid of playing rookies, but that really hasnt been the case up until this and last season.

[LRtagger]

I think its because he's old and can't make the plays he could before, because he's slowed down. The fact that he's opposite the best shutdown corner in the league doesn't help.

He gets picked on. There's nothing scheming can do to fix that. The same happened with D-Will in 2006. He got picked on because Champ is so good. So in some regards, Champ's great play can be a problem. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with scheme. We do not get pressure on the quarterback, because the players rushing the quarterback are not good enough.

Frankly, I find it hilarious at the people that get so upset about schemes. It's the freakin' NFL...do you really think that coaches at this level have no idea how to scheme? After years and years and years of coaching experience on the Denver coaching staff, do you honestly think they are incompetent, and that YOU know more than they do? I doubt you do.

Talent is the problem. Injuries aren't helping.

P.S. The only person I might disregard the above statement to is G~...


Yea, you're right. No NFL coaches should ever get fired because, obviously, to be in the NFL you MUST know what you are doing, right? :coffee:

Show me ONE shred of evidence that would lead you to believe Slowik is a competant DC...aside from your argument "he made his way to the NFL, so he must be good"

Also, your post contradicts itself...the players are in the NFL, too...don't you think they have to have talent to get there?

[LRtagger]

Fair enough, but if we can't get pressure than he's on an island, and we have been running a lot of two deep, over the top coverages with big cushions, trying to get our cornerbacks to jump routes, and they haven't been able to do so this year. I can see how some of that is coaching, but if we get pressure, if our front four was worth a damn, that scheme would be getting us a ton of turnovers.


Go back and watch the Miami and New England games...and the Cleveland game for that matter. It doesn't matter what kind of pressure you generate. If your CB is 10-15 yards from the ball, the offense will take the underneth throw all day which totally negates any pressure anyways.

The only way this works is if the offense has all of its receivers running 10-15 yards + downfield into the coverage and give the pressure a chance to disrupt the QB...unless you can find me a DL that can get to the QB in less than the time it takes the QB to take a 2-step drop and throw a 5 yard pass.

Miami did it to us all day long...and then after the game Slowik said he was happy with our defense because we kept the ball in front of us which is our objective...UHHHHH their receiver still had 11 catches for 111 yards! They had 21 first downs! And our run D held them to 2.6 YPC on 29 carries, which was overlooked because they still managed to get first downs at will. What good is a run D or pass rush when they can dump the ball off to a no-name receiver for 51829374981234 yards.

After that game and the NE game, players (both offensive and defensive) were questioning why no adjustments were made on D after we were getting picked apart. When you start having players question their coach to the media, its time to start thinking about making a change.

Unless we are prepared to dump more than half of our defensive players because they either a) arent Pro Bowlers or b) question their coach, it is time to start thinking about bringing in a COMPETANT defensive mind who can completely rebuild this defense's philosophy.

It wont matter who we draft or what FA's we pick up, there is no way Slowik can bring this D back from the dead.

[fcspikeit]

Fair enough, but if we can't get pressure than he's on an island, and we have been running a lot of two deep, over the top coverages with big cushions, trying to get our cornerbacks to jump routes, and they haven't been able to do so this year. I can see how some of that is coaching, but if we get pressure, if our front four was worth a damn, that scheme would be getting us a ton of turnovers.

Fair enough. Is it the scheme, or do those other five players not have a knack for finding players in a zone and matching up with? It's a good question.

I'm sorry, I just don't buy the Packer argument. They gave him one year. How is a defensive coordinator supposed to implement and coach given 16 games? Besides, there are all sorts of coaches who were considered bums in their previous job, and now are geniuses.

If we had a safety worth a damn, then the scheme wouldn't have mattered because he would have been able to cover him. Of course,if we had a front four who could get some pressure, 3rd and 18 wouldn't be a problem.

MB, We are getting killed by the big cushions. When you give that kind of cushion, it takes away the interior blitz. Any QB worth his salt will throw it underneath to the now open spot made by the blitz. I haven't seen any rout jumping eaither. Not even by champ. He knows how to jump a rout. The fact that he's not, tells me the coaches are telling them to stay back and make the tackle after the catch. that is however exactly what the players have said...So again, we see the big cushions are a problem created by the scheme, the players are doing what is asked of them.

It's a zone! Either the guy comes in your zone or he doesn't. It's why I hate the all out zone. A good QB will pick it apart all day. The only chance it will work is if you have a really good d-line that will make the QB force the ball. We don't have that MB. Slowik has to know this... so I ask why, why does he scheme something when he knows we don't have the players to make that work?. The zone works great when you blitz.

Look at pitt for instance, The corners might play off and give up the inside, they blitz from the middle, back the OLB in the zone taking away the slant. If the QB don't see the OLB backing up and he reads the blitz he will throw the slant. Even if he see's the OLB backing up, the hope is that the blitz will get there. If it don't, the WR can clear the zone and your in trouble. It's all timing. Half the time when we blitz its a delay and the Blitzer just runs into the pile of guys. it is a bit pathetic really, Your going to blitz up the middle, so you bulrush the DT, and have the End's stunt in? :confused: there are no holes for the Blitzer to get through! 5 guys can block 6 for 3 seconds if their all in one big pile. There are ways to open up hole's on the o-line by stunting your D-lineman around, like pulling the DT into the T and speed rushing the End around the outside. make the O-line seperate and open up holes. All the good blitzing teams do this. If you watch Pitt or Ten when they blitz, the line is stunting all over after the snap.

For every retread coach that works out, there are 3 that don't. The same thing could be said for everyone playing in the NFL. Some times guys move and they get better, other times they move and are worse. These professional coaches draft countless bust’s every year. Just because someone has a job in the NFL, coach or player, that don’t mean they are good at what they do. It’s the reason some teams are lousy and others are good. A DC is a DC is a DC, is no more true then a player is a player is a player.


If you’re a OC and you can work it out to have a s covering your WR you have done your job. You will win that battle 8 times out of 10 regardless who the safety is. Their skill set is not to cover a WR one on one. Most corners can’t do that and that is apart of their skill set. So how can we blame a S for not being able to do it?


It goes back to what myself, G, and others have been saying, Each player has a skill set, the position they play is based on that skill set. It’s why you go to a dime in known passing situations. You are trying to get the right skill set on the field to defend the play.
If you go to the football field on Sunday with your buddies, do you tell the heaviest kid to cover the fastest guy on the other team? Not if you want to defend the play. That is the coach’s job. How be it on a much bigger level, it is the same concept.

[LRtagger]

I'm sorry, I just don't buy the Packer argument. They gave him one year. How is a defensive coordinator supposed to implement and coach given 16 games? Besides, there are all sorts of coaches who were considered bums in their previous job, and now are geniuses.



Sorry, MO...not trying to jump on all your posts, but I just disagree with them.

You have to look at what Green Bay did before and after Slowik and why they fired him.

Slowik was the GB DC for their 2004 season.

In 2003 under Ed Donatell (the Broncos DB coach for the SB years), the Packers were a top 5 defense in nearly every category. McCarthy fired him because of ONE play (the 4th down in the NFCC game) even though Donatell put a consistant and strong defense on the field week after week they helped get them to the NFCC game.

In 2004, under Bob Slowik, they were a bottom 10 defense in every category. Including giving up 5 TDs in one quarter TWICE in that single year. Breaking several all-time Packers franchise lows on D. He is one of the most hated men in their franchise's very long history.

In 2005, Jim Bates takes over. The team ranks in the mid teens in every category with the same players. This is the year they drafted Rogers with their #1, and a DB and WR with their second round picks. So, they instantly became a better D just by firing Slowik.

In 2006, Jim Bates' left the Packers when McCarthy was fired and Bates was turned down for the HC position. Bob Sanders took over the D in 2006, they drafted one major player on D (AJ HAWK) and became a top 10 D again.

Before Slowik arrived and after he left, the Pack put a top tier defense on the field without any blockbuster names being brought in. I guess you could consider Hawk a blockbuster name, but its not like he carries the team.

Do you think it is a coicidence that the team went from a top defense to a bottom feeder in the only year that Slowik was in charge? And then immediately climbed back to the top the year after he was fired?

[fcspikeit]

I think they both are connected and you cannot really separate them.

If you have a great cordinator, you will get/develop great talent, and if you already have/developed talent you must have a great cordinator.

Secondly, I am quite certain that the Goodmans know how to find talent, but it doesnt stop there. I am quite certain you have to develop talent after you find it. That is why some teams can take the high risk/reward players and not fail as often.
And to do that you need a talented staff and a staff that help people develop over the years. not a year.
Look at how bad Timmons looked last year, and what a different player he is now when he plays.

Thirdly, I think you are right that changing staff often leads to lesser player development. Hence the Gordon Ramsay reference.
I believe a player selected to fit one system, he will have a lesser chance of developing in a new one.
I think this is very obvious when you look at qb who busts as very often these guys have different staffs each year and little consistency at the positions around them.

And finally, I think the future is bright for our team since Shanahan seems to learn from most of his mistakes. We dont need to draft a lineman or qb early and stuff like that.


It's really about the players skill set. A corner that is good in zone ain't necessarily good in man. As the scheme changes, so does the needed skill set of the players.

My problem with Slowik is his scheme, It's hard to even recognise what it is? He is changing it around all the time. IMO even guys like G who are good at matching a players skill set with a defense, would have a hard time doing it for Slowik. All this changing tells me he really don't know what he's doing, that and some of the matchups he puts his players in are asinine..

IMO first we need to get a DC who knows what he's doing, give him the time to build our defense as he sees fit. Let him develop the players he needs to make his system work..

I just don't believe slow is that guy, I fear us wasting 2 or 3 years with him in the name of consistency.

[haroldthebarrel]

It's really about the players skill set. A corner that is good in zone ain't necessarily good in man. As the scheme changes, so does the needed skill set of the players.

My problem with Slowik is his scheme, It's hard to even recognise what it is? He is changing it around all the time. IMO even guys like G who are good at matching a players skill set with a defense, would have a hard time doing it for Slowik. All this changing tells me he really don't know what he's doing, that and some of the matchups he puts his players in are asinine..

IMO first we need to get a DC who knows what he's doing, give him the time to build our defense as he sees fit. Let him develop the players he needs to make his system work..

I just don't believe slow is that guy, I fear us wasting 2 or 3 years with him in the name of consistency.

That is kinda what I think as well.
When things dont work he just makes the schemes more complicated, and that is so wrong on so many levels.
I dont understand a lot of things, but everybody knows you start with the easy parts and then go on to more complex problems.
That is actually my main point why I think he is not able to hold this job as a cordinator.