A little less violence, and a little more situational awaren

[HInquisitor]

Even if it gives you a better chance to win?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

You haven't proven that less violence gives us a better chance to win.

I can make a case for it. Winning in football is about making plays that lead to scoring, or in the case of defense, making plays that lead to scoring or prevent scoring.

So, defensively the goal is create turnovers by forcing fumbles or intercepting passes, tackling or breaking up passes to prevent 1st downs.

So, my point is that although violence may be a part of making a play, if you only focus on violence, you miss the point of football...which is to make plays to win the game.

My argument is if more focus is put on doing the things to make plays, and less on being violent just to be violent, you have a better chance to win.

Even if it gives you a better chance to win?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

You haven't proven that less violence gives us a better chance to win.

Your case is for more situational awareness, which is a good case. The violence level has nothing to do with that.

You can be a total pvssy and lack situational awareness. Conversely, you can be savage killer with tremendous situational awareness.

Technically you are right. Having a high level of situational awareness doesn't mean you can't also be very aggressive and violent (although it is rare to find a player that has both to a high degree).

What I am getting at is a matter of emphasis. Diaz keeps stressing playing violently. All I'm saying is more emphasis should be on making plays that win you games, and being violent when necessary.

 

[HInquisitor]

I like the mass subbing. Bottom line is we are paper thin on this defense and it's loaded with some guys with marginal talent and no experience. Manny might not be able to make them all great players but he can make them all experienced players.

We are 1 injury away from any one of these guys seeing major playing time.

Also in order to play fast and physical you have to be a close to fresh as possible from an energy perspective and the rotating is what allowed even a worn down unit to not completely shut down in the 4th.

Subbing can be good, especially if the talent gap is minimal. But in big games, you have to be careful... weak links get exposed quickly.

 

[Canesfan1899]

The violence from our defense was a sight for sore eyes. We beat the **** out of Francois.

 

[CANE]

That's what HInquisitor doesn't like.

 

[Left Hook]

I get what OP is saying. Less violent is truly NOT what he means. I said before the seasons that Manny's blitzing would present concerns.

My hats is off to Manny and the defense. They played very well, despite no second half support by the Offense. However, you can't blitz and use the the guy responsible for "Cook" as a part of the blitz disguise. The LB responsible for Cook shot to the LOS too. Can't do that. That guy has to stay back. Cook is too quick to ask MOST CBs to change directions like that. The LB did what he was supposed to do.....he slipped trying to change directions. That was a lot to ask of ANY LB.

Manny brings it. Richt could learn a lot from Manny!

 

[HInquisitor]

That's what HInquisitor doesn't like.

You would be mistaken. I didn't like that we lost. Which is exactly my point. We were more violent than FSU, but still lost. Let's be violent, but let's win too.

 

[HInquisitor]

I get what OP is saying. Less violent is truly NOT what he means. I said before the seasons that Manny's blitzing would present concerns.

My hats is off to Manny and the defense. They played very well, despite no second half support by the Offense. However, you can't blitz and use the the guy responsible for "Cook" as a part of the blitz disguise. The LB responsible for Cook shot to the LOS too. Can't do that. That guy has to stay back. Cook is too quick to ask MOST CBs to change directions like that. The LB did what he was supposed to do.....he slipped trying to change directions. That was a lot to ask of ANY LB.

Manny brings it. Richt could learn a lot from Manny!

Perfect example. The violence and aggression is there, which is good... But let's just be smart with it.

 

[NE Canes]

That's what HInquisitor doesn't like.

You would be mistaken. I didn't like that we lost. Which is exactly my point. We were more violent than FSU, but still lost. Let's be violent, but let's win too.

You use the term violent but typically people would say aggressive.

Aggressiveness without control can be a bad thing. But you are wrong about control and aggressiveness being rare. It is actual the rule. The game of football is essential controlled aggressiveness or violence.

Golden tried to play a less aggressive controlled defense and it just isn’t going to work, especially against the talented teams.

What we are seeing from the D these year is exactly what you want in a defense. Every team at every level is going to have players over pursue now and then. If you didn’t the play action would never work, option would never work. It is all part of the game.

You do not want the D to be less aggressive or less violent. You want both control and aggression.

 

[HInquisitor]

I never said anything about control. I'm talking about knowing the formation, personnel, threats, assignments and the situation on any given play. Then executing your assignment effectively, with aggression and violence if necessary.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[wacane]

Rayshawn Jenkins loves playing violent. Where has that gotten him? I understand the OP's point. I can count at least three tackles on Saturday where he went for the kill and he bounced right off cook. This is a good example of what I think the OP is trying to say. Be smart and wrap up. I'm sure that's being put on film this week.

 

[HInquisitor]

Exactly my point. A violent hit in the right situation can be a game-changer, which may result in a fumble or separating the ball from a receiver. But you only take it when it's there. You can't always try to light someone up... Otherwise you'll just end up with a lot of missed tackles and penalties.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[NJshoreCane]

We knew when Diaz was hired this D was going to be high risk/high reward.
We will give up big plays, due to scheme and inexperience.

I'm good with this D right where it is considering where it was 8 or 9 games ago,
and considering 2 of our top 5 players were dismissed.
I love the aggressiveness.

Defense didn't lose that game.

Forget penalties, if I had to have one play back (other than the XP) it would be the INT.
TD instead of a pick on that play, the game is over.
One could argue that even a FG there, us scoring first in the second half, spins that game a completely different way.