Carol's Monday Press Conference (with synopsis)

[Scottemojo]

Minnesota will try to smoke screen Harvin all damn day.

I have a feeling that'll be okay in this game. Play tight, press coverage, trust the ability of your DB's and LB's to tackle, and DONT respect Ponder's arm. Even Ponder doesn't respect his arm.

I am a bit more concerned out our suddenly gashable rush D going against Peterson.

 

[Scottemojo]

Harvin on a shallow crossing pattern has been a great 3rd down play for Minny this year as well. We do not have one player who can hip pocket him, and Tru will be dead meat single covering Harvin.

 

[SharkHawk]

The fact that they ARE doing something different on third down is idiotic. I think they defend the pass fine from their base run defense when teams randomly try to pass on what would seem obvious running downs. We switch personnel for third and long and the defense gets burned at like a 75% clip. Why not just stay with the base D on a third down sometime and see what happens. For hell's sake. I'd try it. I'm sure 99% of you would.

 

[kidhawk]

The fact that they ARE doing something different on third down is idiotic. I think they defend the pass fine from their base run defense when teams randomly try to pass on what would seem obvious running downs. We switch personnel for third and long and the defense gets burned at like a 75% clip. Why not just stay with the base D on a third down sometime and see what happens. For hell's sake. I'd try it. I'm sure 99% of you would.

It just reminds me so much of those infamous "prevent defenses" (yes I know they are different). Why change what's worked for something that doesn't? If something is working, go with it until they can beat you.

I liken it to a team running 5-6 yards every play, almost never being stopped, then when the other team is expecting you to pass with 4 minutes to go in a 2 point game, you actually pass the ball. Sometimes I believe NFL coaches can outthink themselves

 

[SharkHawk]

I think they out think themselves all the time. I'm sort of over the top though. I'm one of those that believe that the move away from punting entirely is a smart thing based on the studies that have been done. I see the value in punting..... in order to keep your job. But I also see the value in not punting because of the statistical probability of winning more games as the studies have shown by increased opportunities to score and how punting itself is just a remnant of a bygone era where "field position" was more important and teams weren't even throwing the ball.

 

[HawkWow]

I think they out think themselves all the time. I'm sort of over the top though. I'm one of those that believe that the move away from punting entirely is a smart thing based on the studies that have been done. I see the value in punting..... in order to keep your job. But I also see the value in not punting because of the statistical probability of winning more games as the studies have shown by increased opportunities to score and how punting itself is just a remnant of a bygone era where "field position" was more important and teams weren't even throwing the ball.

Perhaps we both saw the same program. The one I saw featured a coach (HS?) as well as some math guy from Chicago University. There was a definite formula in place but the coach almost never punted and he also onside kicked like EVERY opportunity. It was nuts. The guy had like 12 different formations. His team won state champs...repeatedly.

But the math on not punting was incredible. I think they showed that you should never punt if outside of your own 40. We have a great punter, which sort've changes things abit, but how many times do you see a ball punted into the endzone and consequently netting like 10 yds?

OTOH, I also see benefit in punting on 3rd down. Some may recall Elway doing it frequently. 3rd and 25? Screw it....line up in shotgun formation, take the snap and boot it deep with no return man awaiting the punt. The Chicago math guy wouldn't dig it but...

 

[JSeahawks]

What happened to Robinson and Obo? This is the first thing i'm hearing of it.

 

[AgentDib]

Why change what's worked for something that doesn't? If something is working, go with it until they can beat you.

If something works, go with it until the play before they beat you. This is not a minor difference in philosophy. At issue is whether you use the same strategy regardless of situation, or if you attempt to optimize your strategy based on the situation.

I agree that coaches can outsmart themselves, but you would need to have a vanishingly small opinion of your coaching staff if you wanted to hamstring them with the same defense regardless of score differential.

 

[hoxrox]

They thought Stafford would throw more down the field, and were a bit surprised at how much he used the quick underneath passes instead of the big plays you generally see from the Lions.

In other words, he got outcoached by Linehan... him being "surprised" doesn't give me much confidence in Pete's or his staff's ability to anticipate what an opposing team is going to do each week. It's like he employs a "wait and see" approach and then reacts to it, only when it's too late, instead of being steps ahead of the opponent. For a defensive coach, I expect more.