Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Cole World

Ron Parker on Atlanta defense

83 posts in this topic

2 hours ago, jamesmasen said:

I'm tired of watching us play zone because it's played so poorly.. we need to play man the guys we have can't get it done unfortunately

Poole should have been resigned and another top notch Box safety should have been acquired. This team went backwards putting all there eggs into the offense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, PeytonMannings Forehead said:

Well somebody was out there covering something because even when Baker had time, nothing was open.

Didn’t watch the game so I won’t argue with you, but I don’t really care what other teams do. The Falcons don’t have the players to replicate a scheme that was predicated on having 4 pro bowlers in the secondary. Pass rush is separate to me, a good one makes everything you want to do easier. There are ways to run a D that don’t just allow teams to tee off on you without breaking a sweat. So the scheme sucks and our players suck. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Falcanuck said:

I could answer all of your questions, but I really don’t have to prove anything to you and you’ve been quite the snarky little *** hole lately. Not sure who leaked in your cereal, but chill with the “I’m smarter than you” BS because it’s incredibly lame. You’re usually a good poster.

To answer your final question, though, I equate a soft zone to playing like 7-8 yards off the ball, never jamming, nor re-routing anybody (which you can do very easily with flat defenders). Just simply allowing an opposing offence to run free. Very little blitzing. The same drops. No variation. Simple.

It's not about being smarter dude. Nothing I'm talking about is more complicated than high school level football. Me saying that what you're saying is stupid is different from me claiming to be a genius.

You can't answer those questions, and they wouldn't take more than a quick Google. This is willful ignorance. Keep your head in the dirt buddy.

22 minutes ago, JDaveG said:

In before someone replies "that wasn't a soft zone" just because the Niners' version worked.

"Soft zone" and "predictable" are the respective defensive and offensive excuses for "**** that didn't work."

This is my exact problem. It wasn't even all about the 49ers pass rush. Shoot, our pass rush was pretty great through the first 3 games and we still got chewed up. They played disciplined football on the back end and had guys closing quick in their zones to make moving the football difficult.

If people were saying, oh, Quinn is running way too much man when our guys lose their one on ones, or maybe that we need to disguise our zone packages at the snap to not make ut so easy to read - fine. I agree to an extent (though they tend to be sloppy in even easy zones, the cover 6 was a mess yesterday). But this "muh soft zone" is just lazy.

JDaveG likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Falcanuck said:

Didn’t watch the game so I won’t argue with you, but I don’t really care what other teams do. The Falcons don’t have the players to replicate a scheme that was predicated on having 4 pro bowlers in the secondary. There are ways to run a D that don’t just allow teams to tee off on you without breaking a sweat. So the scheme sucks and our players suck. 

Agreed on the bolded.

But it doesn't take 4 Pro Bowlers in the secondary to run this scheme.  It takes that run it and be an all-time great defense, sure, but there is nothing about this scheme that mitigates this team from playing solid defense.  You don't need great players to play solid, fundamental football and hold teams under 30 a game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Francis York Morgan said:

It's not about being smarter dude. Nothing I'm talking about is more complicated than high school level football. Me saying that what you're saying is stupid is different from me claiming to be a genius.

You can't answer those questions, and they wouldn't take more than a quick Google. This is willful ignorance. Keep your head in the dirt buddy.

This is my exact problem. It wasn't even all about the 49ers pass rush. Shoot, our pass rush was pretty great through the first 3 games and we still got chewed up. They played disciplined football on the back end and had guys closing quick in their zones to make moving the football difficult.

If people were saying, oh, Quinn is running way too much man when our guys lose their one on ones, or maybe that we need to disguise our zone packages at the snap to not make ut so easy to read - fine. I agree to an extent (though they tend to be sloppy in even easy zones, the cover 6 was a mess yesterday). But this "muh soft zone" is just lazy.

OK you want to go this route? That’s cool. You’re a weird, edgy neck beard that thinks because he listens to angsty music and reads poetry that you’re smart. You aren’t, Atticus (or whatever strange name your parents gave you again). Calling someone stupid is the same thing as anointing yourself intellectually superior. Again, you aren’t. Didn’t realize you turned into a little brat because your favourite football team lost a couple games, but it’s sad to see. Last reply here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, PeytonMannings Forehead said:

Agreed on the bolded.

But it doesn't take 4 Pro Bowlers in the secondary to run this scheme.  It takes that run it and be an all-time great defense, sure, but there is nothing about this scheme that mitigates this team from playing solid defense.  You don't need great players to play solid, fundamental football and hold teams under 30 a game. 

Mike Smith had a top 5 scoring defense in 2012 with average to below average talent, people forget that.

It, of course, got torn apart by SF's rushing attack but that was the #1 rushing offense that year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ChickenBiscuit said:

Mike Smith had a top 5 scoring defense in 2012 with average to below average talent, people forget that.

It, of course, got torn apart by SF's rushing attack but that was the #1 rushing offense that year.

Glad you brought that up.

Let us not forget Mike Nolan had all the blitzes, exotic fronts, disguises, and coverages in the world. :ninja:

mqg96, falconsd56 and JDaveG like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, ChickenBiscuit said:

Mike Smith had a top 5 scoring defense in 2012 with average to below average talent, people forget that.

It, of course, got torn apart by SF's rushing attack but that was the #1 rushing offense that year.

 

38 minutes ago, PeytonMannings Forehead said:

Glad you brought that up.

Let us not forget Mike Nolan had all the blitzes, exotic fronts, disguises, and coverages in the world. :ninja:

2010 Defense allowed 14 pts fewer than 2012. But yeah they overachieved and ran in to GB offense in playoffs.

mqg96 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Falcanuck said:

OK you want to go this route? That’s cool. You’re a weird, edgy neck beard that thinks because he listens to angsty music and reads poetry that you’re smart. You aren’t, Atticus (or whatever strange name your parents gave you again). Calling someone stupid is the same thing as anointing yourself intellectually superior. Again, you aren’t. Didn’t realize you turned into a little brat because your favourite football team lost a couple games, but it’s sad to see. Last reply here. 

:lol: Wat? I can't even track this. Read through my responses and compare your reactions. You're going off the deep end dude

24 minutes ago, falcons007 said:

 

2010 Defense allowed 14 pts fewer than 2012. But yeah they overachieved and ran in to GB offense in playoffs.

Definitely overachievers. But they played hard overall. World of difference.

1 hour ago, PeytonMannings Forehead said:

Glad you brought that up.

Let us not forget Mike Nolan had all the blitzes, exotic fronts, disguises, and coverages in the world. :ninja:

Ain't that the truth. Worked sometimes - I remember thinking he was a genius after the Denver game. But you can only put so much makeup on a turd before you realize it still stinks

Vandy, falcons007, JDaveG and 1 other like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

imo its the spacing of our zones that's the problem. there is way to much space between the zones. I believe this is a product of DQ's philosophy of having a fast defense he's overly reliant on the team speed without recognizing that the defense's speed doesn't complement the recognition and reaction speed of our players. I've seen multiple times where a player's natural instinct caused him to line up tighter only to be told by a team mate to get wider. DQ needs to tighten up our zones. It also appears to me that we don't account for a QB's mobility in either the scheme or the game plan. Finally there's very little variation to our defensive alignments. Didn't think it was possible for our defense to be even more vanilla than our offense

Summerhill likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, PeytonMannings Forehead said:

Agreed on the bolded.

But it doesn't take 4 Pro Bowlers in the secondary to run this scheme.  It takes that run it and be an all-time great defense, sure, but there is nothing about this scheme that mitigates this team from playing solid defense.  You don't need great players to play solid, fundamental football and hold teams under 30 a game. 

That’s the most disappointing thing for me all during quinn’s 4+ years here, PMF. His defenses have not been a sound, fundamental football team. I thought that was the one thing we could count on when we hired him, instead it’s been the D’s biggest weakness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Vandy said:

That’s the most disappointing thing for me all during quinn’s 4+ years here, PMF. His defenses have not been a sound, fundamental football team. I thought that was the one thing we could count on when we hired him, instead it’s been the D’s biggest weakness.

5 seasons and we still can’t properly leverage a run or rally to the ball when it’s caught. Guys are still out there blowing assignments. It’d be one thing if we were doing everything right and still getting rolled but we out there looking like we don’t know what we’re doing.

I thought that’s why MM had to go but we’ve somehow gotten worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, PeytonMannings Forehead said:

5 seasons and we still can’t properly leverage a run or rally to the ball when it’s caught. Guys are still out there blowing assignments. It’d be one thing if we were doing everything right and still getting rolled but we out there looking like we don’t know what we’re doing.

I thought that’s why MM had to go but we’ve somehow gotten worse.

Yup.

It has nothing to do with basic scheme..

The most "exotic" schemes get beat when guys do not do their jobs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, PeytonMannings Forehead said:

Agreed on the bolded.

But it doesn't take 4 Pro Bowlers in the secondary to run this scheme.  It takes that run it and be an all-time great defense, sure, but there is nothing about this scheme that mitigates this team from playing solid defense.  You don't need great players to play solid, fundamental football and hold teams under 30 a game. 

Quinn has been calling bad games too. I've never seen a team so inept against screen passes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, PeytonMannings Forehead said:

:lol: I’m not the only one who sees it! :lol::tiphat:

Yepp seen it since the vikings game but I've been banned 30 days for a joke. I cant take this team seriously until Arthur Blank stops going for these used car Salesmen type coaches. I dont want a marketing rah rah Guru. Give me a real football coach who knows his Xs and Os. Should have kept Shanny, and Lefleur. Would be nice if we can get Jim Harbaugh and get rid of Freeman, Beasley, Oliver, Kazee, and Campbell. I would like to take Swift with our high pick or a dominant pass rusher. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Osiruz said:

Quinn has been calling bad games too. I've never seen a team so inept against screen passes. 

Part of that is because of how poor the execution has been.

The Indy game....I actually thought it was a solid game plan and generally good calls.....the problem is that we tackled like ****.

That is not saying that he has been great....far from it but there have been numerous times where the correct defense was called but either guys were out of position or just whiffed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Osiruz said:

Quinn has been calling bad games too. I've never seen a team so inept against screen passes. 

I'm coming around on this too. It's starting to feel more like he's throwing coverages at a wall to see what sticks at this point. There's no reason to be in cover 3 on 3rd and less than 5. And if the team's lost some confidence in him, that's a problem too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, falconsd56 said:

Part of that is because of how poor the execution has been.

The Indy game....I actually thought it was a solid game plan and generally good calls.....the problem is that we tackled like ****.

That is not saying that he has been great....far from it but there have been numerous times where the correct defense was called but either guys were out of position or just whiffed.

 

Sure there are a few of those. However DQ quits on 3rd and shorts and calls some inexplicable plays. He gets caught wit his pants down on screens ALOT. There's no need to have Vrex beasley in on run downs, just play the run how you played it last year. All good though, he is digging his own grave deeper and giving us the high pick we should have had last year when we missed out on Quinnen Williams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Osiruz said:

Yepp seen it since the vikings game but I've been banned 30 days for a joke. I cant take this team seriously until Arthur Blank stops going for these used car Salesmen type coaches. I dont want a marketing rah rah Guru. Give me a real football coach who knows his Xs and Os. Should have kept Shanny, and Lefleur. Would be nice if we can get Jim Harbaugh and get rid of Freeman, Beasley, Oliver, Kazee, and Campbell. I would like to take Swift with our high pick or a dominant pass rusher. 

I'm right there with you.  Don't know if I can get down with Harbaugh, though.  You wanna talk about rah-rah coach.  That's Jim all the way.

8 minutes ago, Osiruz said:

Sure there are a few of those. However DQ quits on 3rd and shorts and calls some inexplicable plays. He gets caught wit his pants down on screens ALOT. There's no need to have Vrex beasley in on run downs, just play the run how you played it last year. All good though, he is digging his own grave deeper and giving us the high pick we should have had last year when we missed out on Quinnen Williams.

Still a mystery to me why Vic is still out there on base.  I figured Quinn knew what he was doing so I deferred to him, but it ain't working.  He's not a linebacker and rushing him in out of base means we're brining 5, which take a defender out of the middle of the field and exposing us in coverage.

Ovie_Lover, Osiruz and Vandy like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Hurry_Up_And_Buy said:

Poole should have been resigned and another top notch Box safety should have been acquired. This team went backwards putting all there eggs into the offense. 

I honestly think we would of been fine with a vet cb and getting rid of Beasley for a pass rush vet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Falcanuck said:

I could answer all of your questions, but I really don’t have to prove anything to you and you’ve been quite the snarky little *** hole lately. Not sure who leaked in your cereal, but chill with the “I’m smarter than you” BS because it’s incredibly lame. You’re usually a good poster.

To answer your final question, though, I equate a soft zone to playing like 7-8 yards off the ball, never jamming, nor re-routing anybody (which you can do very easily with flat defenders). Just simply allowing an opposing offence to run free. Very little blitzing. The same drops. No variation. Simple.

 

 

49ers did exactly that last night. Lots of teams do it. Colts did it against the Chiefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My thing is, what happened to “fast and physical?” I remember Quinn saying that he was an attacking style defense, forcing turnovers, aggressive. I don’t see ANY of it. Playing a soft zone is not aggressive. The defense has to step up. 
 

Beasley should not be on the field. Period. 
Takk needs to play next to Grady. Grady is frequently double teamed. 

Kazee, needs to be back at FS. Rico, thank you being a leader but we still need wins. 
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0