Steve White was always pretty clear that he had no problem with including stunts in the game plan, it was some of the specific stunts and their timing and frequency that he had major issues with.
Same here. Every team stunts from time to time. I specifically asked about the stunts privately and was told that a majority of them were called on run downs and were actually part of the scheme to stop the run. I'm not sure if that was the case, but in 2013 and 2014, what is a run down? Especially in the NFC South where Brees is just as likely to throw on first down as he is third down. I like Steve White and think he does a good job. I am biased as a part time CBS Radio employee also, but I like his take on things from a former player perspective. But listening to sports radio callers, they just scream STUNT STUNT STUNT as if it it some sort of thing created in Schiano's evil laboratory. My point was, there will be stunts in this defense, and there were stunts in Monte Kiffin's defense as well. I was listening to a caller yesterday saying, "Well at least we won't be seeing anymore stunts!" And I thought to myself, funny, I was just sitting beside Joe Cullen less than an hour earlier who said there will be stunts.
Well and this gets to the wrong headed mentality of the coaches. This is a collegiate mind set where stopping the run can be a priority because many to most college teams don't have a QB who can consistently make you pay. In the NFL, that isn't true and it really isn't true in our division. Rutgers was sacricifing consistent pass rush to be better stopping the run and that wasn't gonna work.
Steve White was always pretty clear that he had no problem with including stunts in the game plan, it was some of the specific stunts and their timing and frequency that he had major issues with.
Same here. Every team stunts from time to time. I specifically asked about the stunts privately and was told that a majority of them were called on run downs and were actually part of the scheme to stop the run. I'm not sure if that was the case, but in 2013 and 2014, what is a run down? Especially in the NFC South where Brees is just as likely to throw on first down as he is third down. I like Steve White and think he does a good job. I am biased as a part time CBS Radio employee also, but I like his take on things from a former player perspective. But listening to sports radio callers, they just scream STUNT STUNT STUNT as if it it some sort of thing created in Schiano's evil laboratory. My point was, there will be stunts in this defense, and there were stunts in Monte Kiffin's defense as well. I was listening to a caller yesterday saying, "Well at least we won't be seeing anymore stunts!" And I thought to myself, funny, I was just sitting beside Joe Cullen less than an hour earlier who said there will be stunts.
Well and this gets to the wrong headed mentality of the coaches. This is a collegiate mind set where stopping the run can be a priority because many to most college teams don't have a QB who can consistently make you pay. In the NFL, that isn't true and it really isn't true in our division. Rutgers was sacricifing consistent pass rush to be better stopping the run and that wasn't gonna work.
I wouldn't say that. We weren't going to have consistent pass rush with the talent we were putting out there on the D-line . Period. Schi was even quoted once saying that he would, " love to rush four straight up every play , but we're not there yet . "Schi was a bad coach , but he wasn't as evil and stupid with his x's and o's as some like to portray. He was trying to make chicken salad out of chicken shlt , and trying a little too hard , I think....
I wouldn't say that. We weren't going to have consistent pass rush with the talent we were putting out there on the D-line . Period. Schi was even quoted once saying that he would, " love to rush four straight up every play , but we're not there yet . "Schi was a bad coach , but he wasn't as evil and stupid with his x's and o's as some like to portray. He was trying to make chicken salad out of chicken shlt , and trying a little too hard , I think....
Our only hope of a consistent pass rush was to send GMC on a "play the run on the way to the passer" mission. We consistently didn't do that which means he was sacrificing the only asset of a pass rusher he had. Plus, we were for lack of a better term gameplan focused on stopping the run so what he was doing wasn't about creating pass rush (that was his blitzes he ran to get pass rush) but about stopping the run. Our overuse of the stunts was a by product of an obsession with the wrong thing.He wasn't "bad" with X's and O's but then again almost none of them are. X's and O's really aren't that hard. I'd say that it is lot more like pizza there is average and great but none that is really bad. The challenge is how to combine them into a coherent gameplan and that is where he sucked.
One guy can't do it by himself . If GMAC is rushing the same gap every play the other team will just game plan for it . Roll away from him , chip him with a back , double him , whatever. He needs help from the edge.
Game planning to stop the run on first and second down to ensure a passing down(third) for your D-lineman was sound for a while (Monte believed in this). But the league has changed and it is time to realize all downs are passing downs now.
TIMING of when a team does a stunt, as well as the coordination of the players involved in the movement, are crucial to it's success. Yes, outside contain was IMO the single biggest problem we had defensively all year. And not just with stunts either. In the good ol' days, our D was near impossible to get outside of; they contained to near perfection!!
Well and this notion that stunts are the only way to outside contain is silly. You can do that with a normal rush.Here is the simple fact on our stunts:1. We ran them way too much. No kidding they didn't invent stunts but they are something you do from time to time to mix up and offense. They aren't a "base" defense element.2. We ran them typically to minimize our best player (GMC) and to free up a average player (AC).3. They didn't work. They managed to both neither keep contain nor get pressure on the passer. Sure, someone didn't run his assignment right that happens and guys won't be in the right gaps...it doesn't explain the long-term failure of the mechanism.4. We ran stuns that could NEVER work. Frankly the TEX stunts for example aren't odd and everyone runs them but the wild things where AC didn't cross with GMC on his side but crossed to the left of Spence was insane. You would need a guy of David's speed to run that sort of stunt to have any slim hope of it working -- maybe Revis'
I agree with you, but I think it was even more than that. DB's landmarks could change right before the snap of the ball with a call from Goldson. If he accidentally called out a 49er's coverage call by mistake, suddenly all of the DBs are thrown out of whack and you have a huge hole in the defense.Imagine the play being called, and you as a Defensive player have 3 different places you might be going to. You're listening for the call to tell you which one, the call comes, and it's in Portuguese.
If that happens, do what Goldson does. Lower your head and go helmet to helmet with the nearest player.
A radio host that knows very little about sports and likes to scream things....who could that be???? Cough big cough cough dog cough
If that happens, do what Goldson does. Lower your head and go helmet to helmet with the nearest player.
+1
"A small pocket of Bucs fans (and some radio hosts) have convinced themselves that former head coach Greg Schiano and defensive coordinator Bill Sheridan invented stunting by defensive linemen, but Cullen said the Bucs will at times use the dreaded “S” word as part of the package to get pressure on the quarterback."Lol ...veiled shot at Steve White there . I like it .
Stunts can be a good thing when used appropriately. Of course lineman will tell a coach "just let me go after my guy"...it's bravado. Ego. Who wants a defensive lineman that says "yeah....lets trick these guys to get to the QB"? In reality, sometimes you have to stunt. Never bought into that being the reason we weren't getting sacks. Our D-Lineman, McCoy aside, just aren't that good. Could be a coaching thing. We'll soon find out.
I agree Hayseed, in a perfect world you hope to not stunt, but as you mentioned McCoy was the only proven one to get pressure on the QB and I think the staff was scrambling to try and generate pressure. Every team stunts, but when it doesn't work and you get caught with your pants down so to say, it looks really bad. Gruden mentioned it on one Monday night game, I think Seahawks-Rams. that he loved the Seahawks use of stunts. Again, it seemed on numerous occasions that the Bucs were caught out of position on some stunts and allowed QBs to make big plays with their feet. But part of that was the outside guy not keeping contain. The Panthers home game was one. Sources told us McCoy went rogue to a degree and allowed Newton to escape for the run. Really in hindsight, the biggest mistake this staff made defensively in my opinion was being way too complex in the scheme. If everyone plays perfect it worked, but it didn't allow for many mistakes. Players want to play and not be overloaded with thinking and several told us that late in the season.
If you ask me Mark that was terrible scheming. When GMAC was lined up at the NT position, he would stunt to the left and the LDE would stunt inside. The problem is that because of the angle that GMAC was rushing at, from inside to out, he was easily deflected and there is no way he could keep contain on the left edge. It was just terrible scheming. The angles just don't work. The majority of the stunts we ran put our players at extreme disadvantages. They first offensive play for Philly in the Eagles game we had everyone on the entire DL stunt and basically took every DL+ Mason Foster out of the play just to set up David for the free rush. Of course they dumped it off to Shady for a 60 yard gain. I have a hard time accepting that the players went rogue. More like the scheme was so bad that it made it impossible for them to be effective. I'm not sure if this is the play you are talking about?
Damn....I completely forgot about the Eagles game and the first play of scrimmage...that was brutal and towards the end of the game with the off set offensive line formation that was hard to watch as they came right at the Bucs stunts and slants.
Did you guys read SRs latest Fab? https://www.pewterreport.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=9616:&Itemid=15 It talks specifically about some of the problems with the defense. No question there were many issues. Scheme being one of them.
TIMING of when a team does a stunt, as well as the coordination of the players involved in the movement, are crucial to it's success. Yes, outside contain was IMO the single biggest problem we had defensively all year. And not just with stunts either. In the good ol' days, our D was near impossible to get outside of; they contained to near perfection!!
Well and this notion that stunts are the only way to outside contain is silly. You can do that with a normal rush.Here is the simple fact on our stunts:1. We ran them way too much. No kidding they didn't invent stunts but they are something you do from time to time to mix up and offense. They aren't a "base" defense element.2. We ran them typically to minimize our best player (GMC) and to free up a average player (AC).3. They didn't work. They managed to both neither keep contain nor get pressure on the passer. Sure, someone didn't run his assignment right that happens and guys won't be in the right gaps...it doesn't explain the long-term failure of the mechanism.4. We ran stuns that could NEVER work. Frankly the TEX stunts for example aren't odd and everyone runs them but the wild things where AC didn't cross with GMC on his side but crossed to the left of Spence was insane. You would need a guy of David's speed to run that sort of stunt to have any slim hope of it working -- maybe Revis'
Excellent post. It's fairly difficult to believe there writers and posters on this site still trying to defend the former regime's use of their stunts.
Seems blatantly obvious. Clayborn I think got the rawest deal. He's was always stuck in those stunts or coverage like he was some sort of versitile 3-4 olb. On occasion, OK. Large chunks of nearly every game? Dudes a power edge rusher and he rarely.got.to do just that. They had McCoy getting taken out of plays by design more than just a rare play or two.The fact that some guys had success in that is a big testament IMO. Spence seems to be a great find if he continues to improve.
