PDA

View Full Version : Dale Lolley: My Polamalu theory



stillers4me
02-10-2011, 05:40 AM
While driving to my final radio show last night for the 2010 season I had a thought that hit me on why Troy Polamalu was playing so much deep centerfield throughout the playoffs.

I don't think it had as much to do with his injury as it did with the one to Bryant McFadden.

McFadden was suffered a hip pointer in the Carolina game while making an interception and then tore a muscle in his rib cage the following game against Cleveland.

If you remember in that Cleveland game, Polamalu was up at the line of scrimmage to make a diving interception on the Browns' first play from scrimmage.

We didn't see him at the line of scrimmage too much after that............

read more @ http://nflfromthesidelines.blogspot.com/

NCSteeler
02-10-2011, 07:56 AM
What ever the plan was for Troy, I'm not a big fan.

steelreserve
02-10-2011, 10:35 AM
If true, all the more reason why we need more depth/talent at corner. If a nagging injury to our second CB screws up the entire defense, that's our own fault for putting ourselves in that position.

Realistically, I don't think that's what happened. Injuries happen often enough that you have to trust your backups to fill the same role as your starters and perform at least adequately without altering your scheme. Except in special situations like QB, or when a guy is irreplaceable like Troy.

The more likely reason for Troy playing that way is that we voluntarily played the sit-back defense -- against Green Bay because we fell for the Rodgers-is-God hype, and against New York because we got too comfortable with our lead. We did the same thing when we fell for the Brady-is-God hype and the Brees-is-God hype, and we do the same thing most games when we get a big lead. We stop attacking, which basically renders Troy ineffective. I really am starting to think Lebeau lets himself get psyched out in those two cases.

7SteelGal43
02-10-2011, 10:38 AM
What ever the plan was for Troy, I'm not a big fan.

Well, he did win DPOY, but I agree, he was pretty much a non factor in the playoffs and Super Bowl. The article was a good read though. I read the QB #s Monday and was like, "Wow, A Rodg didn't have a superior day to Big Ben". Ben just had a couple unfortunate (possibly not even really his fault) INTs.

Craic
02-10-2011, 06:37 PM
If true, all the more reason why we need more depth/talent at corner. If a nagging injury to our second CB screws up the entire defense, that's our own fault for putting ourselves in that position.

Realistically, I don't think that's what happened. Injuries happen often enough that you have to trust your backups to fill the same role as your starters and perform at least adequately without altering your scheme. Except in special situations like QB, or when a guy is irreplaceable like Troy.

The more likely reason for Troy playing that way is that we voluntarily played the sit-back defense -- against Green Bay because we fell for the Rodgers-is-God hype, and against New York because we got too comfortable with our lead. We did the same thing when we fell for the Brady-is-God hype and the Brees-is-God hype, and we do the same thing most games when we get a big lead. We stop attacking, which basically renders Troy ineffective. I really am starting to think Lebeau lets himself get psyched out in those two cases.

I agree we put him back there voluntarily, but I don't elive its because we fell for hype or comfortability. Instead, its because our defense was being shredded by the passing game-and they figured making the strong safety actually play safety might help it out. for about 4 games, it did, until that scheme was also figured out.

Chidi29
02-10-2011, 07:58 PM
I agree with Preacher. We needed as many coverage guys as possible. Plus, Green Bay doesn't run a lot so it didn't make sense to put Troy in the box all game against a spread set.

Don't forget that Troy and Clark switch safety positions. If Troy is at free safety, he'll be playing a coverage role.

Steeldude
02-10-2011, 09:33 PM
sounds like lebeau overreacted again and it cost the defense

steelreserve
02-11-2011, 12:45 AM
I agree we put him back there voluntarily, but I don't elive its because we fell for hype or comfortability. Instead, its because our defense was being shredded by the passing game-and they figured making the strong safety actually play safety might help it out. for about 4 games, it did, until that scheme was also figured out.

I don't know about that. We played the sit-back from the outset against NE and GB and got burned, but it's hardly as if we introduced it recently in reaction to being shredded. We played the same way for most of 2006 and the same thing happened. Same thing in 2009, both with and without Troy. Hell, you could go so far as to say the first time we did this was against NE in the 2004 championship game when we got creamed.

It really does seem more like psyching ourselves out than a well thought-out game plan. When we play our normal defense, it's not like we do any worse against the Bradys and Rodgers of the world than when we play the sit-back. They might beat us sometimes, but sometimes it works. But changing our scheme in anticipation of a big opponent always fucks us right up the ass. 100% of the time. If we treated the Packers like any other game and played our normal defense, I really believe we would've had a better shot at winning.

Put it this way: If the smart teams have figured out our regular aggressive defense, and they've also figured out the sit-back, which one gives us the better chance to win? That's right, the one that gets in their face and adds more variables to counteract that. So stupid that this was the one way we are absolutely guaranteed to throw away the game every time, and we did it in the Super Bowl.

Craic
02-11-2011, 01:08 AM
I don't know about that. We played the sit-back from the outset against NE and GB and got burned, but it's hardly as if we introduced it recently in reaction to being shredded. We played the same way for most of 2006 and the same thing happened. Same thing in 2009, both with and without Troy. Hell, you could go so far as to say the first time we did this was against NE in the 2004 championship game when we got creamed.

It really does seem more like psyching ourselves out than a well thought-out game plan. When we play our normal defense, it's not like we do any worse against the Bradys and Rodgers of the world than when we play the sit-back. They might beat us sometimes, but sometimes it works. But changing our scheme in anticipation of a big opponent always fucks us right up the ass. 100% of the time. If we treated the Packers like any other game and played our normal defense, I really believe we would've had a better shot at winning.

Put it this way: If the smart teams have figured out our regular aggressive defense, and they've also figured out the sit-back, which one gives us the better chance to win? That's right, the one that gets in their face and adds more variables to counteract that. So stupid that this was the one way we are absolutely guaranteed to throw away the game every time, and we did it in the Super Bowl.

Lebeau is quoted as saying that they were embarrased after the Pats* game, and that they went back and changed the defense. If you look closely, that is just about when Troy started to disappear from games. It DID work against the pass, as we moved from 28th against the pass up to something like 15th against the pass from the Pats* game forward. But, this is a league where little gimmicks work 1 game, maybe two.

NCSteeler
02-11-2011, 01:44 AM
Lebeau is quoted as saying that they were embarrased after the Pats* game, and that they went back and changed the defense. If you look closely, that is just about when Troy started to disappear from games. It DID work against the pass, as we moved from 28th against the pass up to something like 15th against the pass from the Pats* game forward. But, this is a league where little gimmicks work 1 game, maybe two.

Did we play anyone considered a great passing team after the "change" ?

Craic
02-11-2011, 02:18 AM
Did we play anyone considered a great passing team after the "change" ?
Don't know about "Great"

But, Bengals: 5th in attempts, 5th in completions, 13th in Yds, 12th in TD's 5th in first downs through the air. Great? No, but still pretty dang good through the air-

Also don't forget, before the Pats* game, while we were STILL 28th or so in the league, we played against the Dolphins, who were average at best, the Titans who were below average except for the TD's (average), and also, we played 3 of the last 8 games against the same teams we played before we played the Pats*.

So, while I'd say the passing teams were a bit heavy to the first of the year, the amount that this team improved was more than the inverse of passing ability-if that makes sense.

That DOESN'T mean however, that I am happy with our pass defense. Not by a LONG shot. Matter of fact, I think I am going to make a little study of it...

steelreserve
02-11-2011, 03:18 AM
Lebeau is quoted as saying that they were embarrased after the Pats* game, and that they went back and changed the defense. If you look closely, that is just about when Troy started to disappear from games. It DID work against the pass, as we moved from 28th against the pass up to something like 15th against the pass from the Pats* game forward. But, this is a league where little gimmicks work 1 game, maybe two.

We played all shitty teams after the Patriots, except the Jets and Ravens, who both have erratic, easily rattled quarterbacks, and we even lost one of those games. That doesn't tell us anything about whether the scheme "worked." In fact, it's the perfect coincidence to cover up how horribly our defense does in the sit-back.

Whether LeBeau meant it or not in his quote, this was not a change to a new scheme because the Patriots game suddenly made him get tactical. It was a change to an old, ineffective scheme from 2006 because it's what we do when he's scared. I absolutely hate that shit. We have two defensive schemes; one makes us a winning team, and the other is a complete fuck-up piece of dogshit that costs us games. I cannot stand how obvious this is, nor that so many people chalk it up to the mysterious schemes of the football masterminds. This is not rocket science. It has all the subtlety and complexity of a forklift being driven by a puking fat guy. It's a tired, shitty strategy that we've tried for years when we feel vulnerable and want to crawl into our shell. Most of the time, it results in a .500 season. This time, we got lucky and also pulled our heads out of our asses just long enough to get air a couple of times. Not even a subject that's up for debate in my mind. Either we get the personnel to play a sit-back defense, or we stop trying to fake it. End of story.

Craic
02-11-2011, 04:21 AM
We played all shitty teams after the Patriots, except the Jets and Ravens, who both have erratic, easily rattled quarterbacks, and we even lost one of those games. That doesn't tell us anything about whether the scheme "worked." In fact, it's the perfect coincidence to cover up how horribly our defense does in the sit-back.

Whether LeBeau meant it or not in his quote, this was not a change to a new scheme because the Patriots game suddenly made him get tactical. It was a change to an old, ineffective scheme from 2006 because it's what we do when he's scared. I absolutely hate that shit. We have two defensive schemes; one makes us a winning team, and the other is a complete fuck-up piece of dogshit that costs us games. I cannot stand how obvious this is, nor that so many people chalk it up to the mysterious schemes of the football masterminds. This is not rocket science. It has all the subtlety and complexity of a forklift being driven by a puking fat guy. It's a tired, shitty strategy that we've tried for years when we feel vulnerable and want to crawl into our shell. Most of the time, it results in a .500 season. This time, we got lucky and also pulled our heads out of our asses just long enough to get air a couple of times. Not even a subject that's up for debate in my mind. Either we get the personnel to play a sit-back defense, or we stop trying to fake it. End of story.

Well, we also played the Bengals, which was a strong passing team last year, ending up in the top 3rd or better in almost every stat. I also think you are wrong how we approached the game thereafter.

Raiders, 6 Sacks
Buffalo 2 Sacks
Baltimore 4 sacks
Cincy 3 Sacks
Jets 1 sack
Carolina 4 sacks
Browns 4 sacks
(playoffs)
Ravens 5 sacks
Jets 2 Sacks
Green Bay 3 Sacks.

That is an average of 3.4 sacks a game or 54 sacks over a full season.
in comparison,

Atlanta 2 Sacks
Tennessee 4 Sacks
Tampa 4 Sacks
Ravens 1 Sack
Cleveland 6 Sacks
Miami 1 Sack
NO 3 Sacks
Cincy 1 Sack.

So before the Pats* game, we had an average of 2.75 sacks a game or 44 sacks over a full season.

Now, the Saints, Falcons, and Dolphins all are pass heavy teams (2,8,13) in the first half of the year, which means that we have more chances for a sack against these teams. So, out of the first 8 games, 3 teams are pass heavy, and 3 teams we play a second time after the Pats*

In that second half of the season, the Jets and the Raiders are 2 and 4 in running attempts (to be honest, the Falcons are number 5 and Dolphins are 11, which means they are balanced). That means we played two teams that HEAVILY relied on the run in the second half, yet we still got after them. We played 3 teams that we played in the first half of the season, two of the three being more run dominant than pass dominant.

As a result, we faced less passing teams in the second half of the season and playoffs, and got more sacks.

That tells me, that we never let up bringing the pressure, matter of fact, we increased it.
______________

So the problem was NOT sitting back on our heels.

It was either in the scheming of the DB's themselves, or the talent level of our secondary.

steelreserve
02-11-2011, 05:55 PM
As a result, we faced less passing teams in the second half of the season and playoffs, and got more sacks.

That tells me, that we never let up bringing the pressure, matter of fact, we increased it.
______________

So the problem was NOT sitting back on our heels.

It was either in the scheming of the DB's themselves, or the talent level of our secondary.

Not that I disagree with you totally or anything ... but except for the Jets and Ravens, I think most of the teams we played at the end of the season were inferior enough that basically whatever we did worked OK. And consequently masked whatever problems we had.

What it boils down to is, I think the talent level of our secondary is not good enough to play a sit-back defense against a good passing team. We expose our weaknesses that way instead of compensating for them. We prolong mismatches and put them right out in the open when we play the sit-back; when we're aggressive, we shorten the exposure time of mismatches and increase the chance that the general chaos will stop the opponent from taking advantage.

And yes, this does apply to the Bengals as well. Remember the Monday Night game against them? We switched to the soft defense after we got a big lead, and all of a sudden we were screaming, "Stop it Carson, my ass is on fire!" They very nearly came back in that one. It's a good thing they're so incompetent in every other phase of the game.

Craic
02-11-2011, 06:03 PM
Not that I disagree with you totally or anything ... but except for the Jets and Ravens, I think most of the teams we played at the end of the season were inferior enough that basically whatever we did worked OK. And consequently masked whatever problems we had.

What it boils down to is, I think the talent level of our secondary is not good enough to play a sit-back defense against a good passing team. We expose our weaknesses that way instead of compensating for them. We prolong mismatches and put them right out in the open when we play the sit-back; when we're aggressive, we shorten the exposure time of mismatches and increase the chance that the general chaos will stop the opponent from taking advantage.

And yes, this does apply to the Bengals as well. Remember the Monday Night game against them? We switched to the soft defense after we got a big lead, and all of a sudden we were screaming, "Stop it Carson, my ass is on fire!" They very nearly came back in that one. It's a good thing they're so incompetent in every other phase of the game.

Ahhh... You are talking SOLELY about the DB's then? Yes, on that I absolutely agree with you. Our DB's don't seem to have the talent- but on second thought, I am not sure that is the issue as well. There are a number of times we got coverage sacks in games against good passing teams.

So why all the trouble? It could be inherent to the zone blitz scheme. We have to line up farther off the receivers, which allows them to run short timing routes, or even longer timing routes since they don't get bumped off the timed routes. Greenbay, on the other hand, plays the 3-4, but doesn't seem to play a zone-blitz type of game. Now, look at their stats, they are very good against the pass, not so good against the run.

Could it be, that an inherent defect in the 3-4 is that there is a larger gap in effectiveness between pass and run protection?

steelreserve
02-12-2011, 10:21 AM
Ahhh... You are talking SOLELY about the DB's then? Yes, on that I absolutely agree with you. Our DB's don't seem to have the talent- but on second thought, I am not sure that is the issue as well. There are a number of times we got coverage sacks in games against good passing teams.

So why all the trouble? It could be inherent to the zone blitz scheme. We have to line up farther off the receivers, which allows them to run short timing routes, or even longer timing routes since they don't get bumped off the timed routes. Greenbay, on the other hand, plays the 3-4, but doesn't seem to play a zone-blitz type of game. Now, look at their stats, they are very good against the pass, not so good against the run.

Could it be, that an inherent defect in the 3-4 is that there is a larger gap in effectiveness between pass and run protection?

All that's possible. The sporadic success and coverage sacks against good passing teams are probably because Gay sometimes has good individual plays against those teams, but never good games. We're just a little deficient in talent there if you ask me.

I don't think the problem is necessarily with the 3-4. Green Bay's 3-4 is worse against the run because, frankly, they aren't as good as us up front. We have three Pro Bowlers on our defensive line. I'd say they also have more talented DBs than us, especially Woodson. So when they need to play coverage schemes, it naturally works better.

Also, when we're getting burned by teams like GB and NE, it's not in the 3-4, it's in the nickel. The issue could be as simple as, our nickel sucks against the run and sucks against the pass, unless you're too incompetent to take advantage of it. Though I see your point -- we'd have trouble playing the 3-4 all game against three and four-receiver sets, because Clark isn't good enough in coverage to pick up a receiver any more reliably than Gay.

I see three ways to solve this -- replacing Gay with a better DB so that we CAN cover in the nickel; getting a second LB like Timmons who can stop the run but is also good enough to cover tight ends or take away the 6-yard crossing route; or replacing Clark with a guy who is just as good against the run but is better at coverage and has better instincts. The first option is the most likely, because the other two both require a kind of player that you don't find every day, and aren't always ready right away if you try to get them through the draft.