Ethnicsands
All-American
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2011
- Messages
- 22,724
Manny seems like a guy who watched Buddy Ryan's Ds in the '80s but didn't understand them at all. The Bears had two really good safeties in Fencik and Duerson. Mike Singletary, Wilbur Marshall and Otis Wilson at LB, and Richard Dent, Dan Hampton and the Fridge on DL. And for all that, their CBs played tight. And you could stick, bump, grab and hit back then. And teams ran a lot, and that D, for all the pressure, maintained integrity. The blitzes were also down and distance dependent.Manny’s problems are multi factored.
Let’s discuss the sack numbers and TFLs which are his calling card. Manny runs a system that charitably could be described as a river boat gambler system. He either instructs or permits his DTs to focus exclusively on disruptive penetration and his DEs generally crash the pocket without a focus on contain.
Why is this a riverboat gambler mentality? Well the DL will either make a big play or put the rest of the defense in Jeopardy. The best example of this was Gerald Willis. He regularly made disruptive plays but he also failed to hold his gap responsibilities which meant runs at his gap often resulted in situations where he ran himself out of a play and the linebackers had unblocked OL meeting them at hole. Similarly, our DEs get so far up field that counters, delays, and sometimes simple off tackle runs find them out of position. IMO when we had NFL ends and tackles this type of D could have big success against lesser talents and make big plays occasionally against better teams but isn’t reliable. We have seen this play out when he get double digit sacks vs bums then worked by offenses that aren’t retarded like Wisky and OK State.
His coverage shells also have big problems but he’s historically had less talent there so it’s less obvious how bad the schemes are.
Manny watches that and thinks it's just about 'send eeryone.' Grad assistants should know more about D than Manny appears to based on his scheme. No idea what he's thinking. And it's not like he explains himself. He's more interested in headlines, beer parties, turnover chains and talk than in fundamentals, it seems.