Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Kiffin offered a new contract « previous next »
Page: 1 2 3 4 ... 6

bradentonian

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 27669
Offline
« #15 : January 10, 2008, 03:34:33 PM »

A dominant three technique makes the whole defense a lot better. But there was still no excuse for not being creative on defense against the Giants -- particularly when you know that you don't have a dominant three technique.

There is no excuse...  the defensive game plan was solid.  Monte didn't want to blitz because he didn't want to give up the big play, especially with the threat of Burress.  Stopping the run and daring Eli to play mistake-free football was our best opportunity to win.


DanTurksGhost

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 19746
Offline
« #16 : January 10, 2008, 03:36:24 PM »

There is no excuse...  the defensive game plan was solid.  Monte didn't want to blitz because he didn't want to give up the big play, especially with the threat of Burress.  Stopping the run and daring Eli to play mistake-free football was our best opportunity to win.

So he gave up the game instead.

bradentonian

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 27669
Offline
« #17 : January 10, 2008, 03:37:32 PM »

ELI looked like a HoF QB against the Bucs. It was pitiful. I wanted to throw a brick at the TV - it was so frustrating. Got to blame our DC for not being able to adapt his defense to what the NYG were doing. It will be tough for the organization to dump ol' Monte, but the time will come.


And our offense looked like the Yuccaneers of old... are you blaming the OC for that?


We depend more on our defense to be able to make stops. I'm sure there are other threads about our crappy offense and Paul Hackett's inability to adjust.

Why are you holding the defensive coaching staff to a higher standard than the offensive coaching staff?


BuccinTex

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 4940
Offline
« #18 : January 10, 2008, 03:38:15 PM »

A dominant three technique makes the whole defense a lot better. But there was still no excuse for not being creative on defense against the Giants -- particularly when you know that you don't have a dominant three technique.

There is no excuse...  the defensive game plan was solid.  Monte didn't want to blitz because he didn't want to give up the big play, especially with the threat of Burress.  Stopping the run and daring Eli to play mistake-free football was our best opportunity to win.

Game plans have to adapt when the other team is sustaining drives and you can't get your D off the field.


sammy8887

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 4241
Offline
« #19 : January 10, 2008, 03:39:38 PM »

A dominant three technique makes the whole defense a lot better. But there was still no excuse for not being creative on defense against the Giants -- particularly when you know that you don't have a dominant three technique.

There is no excuse...  the defensive game plan was solid.  Monte didn't want to blitz because he didn't want to give up the big play, especially with the threat of Burress.  Stopping the run and daring Eli to play mistake-free football was our best opportunity to win.

I don't know about our defensive game plan being solid...I know it did prove that even Eli Manning can look good if you give him plenty of time to throw the football...

Bucmaniac86

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1385
Offline
« #20 : January 10, 2008, 03:41:52 PM »

the biggest  fault to this defense was a result in not pressuring the qb which allows 1 and 3 step drops which killed us- we get pressure up the middle and force the qb to take 7 steps and shotguns and youll see this d come alive

bradentonian

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 27669
Offline
« #21 : January 10, 2008, 03:43:17 PM »

A dominant three technique makes the whole defense a lot better. But there was still no excuse for not being creative on defense against the Giants -- particularly when you know that you don't have a dominant three technique.

There is no excuse...  the defensive game plan was solid.  Monte didn't want to blitz because he didn't want to give up the big play, especially with the threat of Burress.  Stopping the run and daring Eli to play mistake-free football was our best opportunity to win.

Game plans have to adapt when the other team is sustaining drives and you can't get your D off the field.

So we should have blitzed and given up 38 points instead of 24?


escobar

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 4130
Offline
« #22 : January 10, 2008, 03:45:08 PM »

A dominant three technique makes the whole defense a lot better. But there was still no excuse for not being creative on defense against the Giants -- particularly when you know that you don't have a dominant three technique.

There is no excuse...  the defensive game plan was solid.  Monte didn't want to blitz because he didn't want to give up the big play, especially with the threat of Burress.  Stopping the run and daring Eli to play mistake-free football was our best opportunity to win.

So in other words, he wanted to play it safe. Hmm, well that will get you beat almost everytime. Their only deep threat was an injured Burress, blitzing Eli and covering Plaxico in man coverage is a risk I wish we would have taken as opposed to letting the league leader in Int's pick us apart as effortlessly as his brother did.

kevabuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2241
Offline
« #23 : January 10, 2008, 03:45:28 PM »

I keep hearing how Monte is the guru of defenses. But this seasons defense allowed backup to backups embarrass our team. What ELI did to the Bucs makes me doubt if Monte should continue to coach - I'm sure I'm very wrong, but this season's defense couldn't make stops when we absolutely needed them. Their stats were great, but stats don't win games. I'm starting to doubt our genius DC. Fellow Buc fans, I know that's sacreligious, but just had to get that out.
Defense gets tired being on the field all day, when your offensive Guru can't keep drives going and continually running the defense out ther after only 3 plays.
The TOP on offense this year was right at 30 minutes, I don't believe that equals being on the field all day.

I think the defense made things harder on themselves this year, giving up too many 3rd down conversions and not being in the right positions in the red zone. This could be due to rookies and first time starters. This area should be vastly improved next season because this defense is predicated on being in the right position and each player trusting that every other player will be where he is supposed to be.

\"The budget should be balanced; the treasury should be refilled; public debt should be reduced; and the arrogance of public officials should be controlled.\" -Cicero. 106-43 B.C.

DanTurksGhost

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 19746
Offline
« #24 : January 10, 2008, 03:45:53 PM »

Why are you holding the defensive coaching staff to a higher standard than the offensive coaching staff?

I can't speak for anyone else, but for me it's simple. The defense was supposed to be the strength of this team, and it is certainly more talented than the offense. Everyone knew going into this game that the Giants defensive line was going to give our OL fits, that Garcia may be on his back all afternoon, that we were starting an inexperienced cast-off at LOT against a high-pressure DL. Pundits talked about how Eli was going to struggle against our defense, that the league's most-intercepted QB might get picked off three times against the Bucs, that Manning was sure to struggle when facing the Monte Kiffin-led unit.

Yet, despite the fact that Manning sliced through the defense like a hot knife through butter, Monte was unable to provide an answer. Did the offense fail us? Sure did, as did the ST (those two turnovers were probably the difference in the game). But neither of those two units were deemed among the best in the league, while the Bucs defense is (at least statistically).

sammy8887

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 4241
Offline
« #25 : January 10, 2008, 03:46:06 PM »

A dominant three technique makes the whole defense a lot better. But there was still no excuse for not being creative on defense against the Giants -- particularly when you know that you don't have a dominant three technique.

There is no excuse...  the defensive game plan was solid.  Monte didn't want to blitz because he didn't want to give up the big play, especially with the threat of Burress.  Stopping the run and daring Eli to play mistake-free football was our best opportunity to win.

Game plans have to adapt when the other team is sustaining drives and you can't get your D off the field.

So we should have blitzed and given up 38 points instead of 24?

I think that was frustration, but I'll answer it seriously:

Teams normally don't blitz in order to give up more points...

DanTurksGhost

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 19746
Offline
« #26 : January 10, 2008, 03:46:31 PM »

So we should have blitzed and given up 38 points instead of 24?

So you have a crystal ball, then?

bradentonian

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 27669
Offline
« #27 : January 10, 2008, 03:47:15 PM »

A dominant three technique makes the whole defense a lot better. But there was still no excuse for not being creative on defense against the Giants -- particularly when you know that you don't have a dominant three technique.

There is no excuse...  the defensive game plan was solid.  Monte didn't want to blitz because he didn't want to give up the big play, especially with the threat of Burress.  Stopping the run and daring Eli to play mistake-free football was our best opportunity to win.

So in other words, he wanted to play it safe. Hmm, well that will get you beat almost everytime. Their only deep threat was an injured Burress, blitzing Eli and covering Plaxico in man coverage is a risk I wish we would have taken as opposed to letting the league leader in Int's pick us apart as effortlessly as his brother did.

Really?  It put our defense in the top 5 and helped us win the division and get to the playoffs.


BuccinTex

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 4940
Offline
« #28 : January 10, 2008, 03:47:37 PM »

How do you know we would give up 38?  Not blitzing wasn't working.  I would have had faith in the secondary to cover up their receivers and see if we can get pressure by blitzing in various ways.  Eli is not his brother and won't be reading the defense and calling the correct audibles at the line.


bradentonian

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 27669
Offline
« #29 : January 10, 2008, 03:48:22 PM »

A dominant three technique makes the whole defense a lot better. But there was still no excuse for not being creative on defense against the Giants -- particularly when you know that you don't have a dominant three technique.

There is no excuse...  the defensive game plan was solid.  Monte didn't want to blitz because he didn't want to give up the big play, especially with the threat of Burress.  Stopping the run and daring Eli to play mistake-free football was our best opportunity to win.

Game plans have to adapt when the other team is sustaining drives and you can't get your D off the field.

So we should have blitzed and given up 38 points instead of 24?

I think that was frustration, but I'll answer it seriously:

Teams normally don't blitz in order to give up more points...

No, but that's often the result.  Especially with the design and personnel of our defense.

  Page: 1 2 3 4 ... 6
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Kiffin offered a new contract « previous next »
:  

Hide Tools Show Tools