New Defensive Scheme?

[oasis]

Here's the thing. In light of losing Clemons, I was worried that we would be forced to alter our scheme, and I have a problem with changing schemes because:
1 elite qb's want you to blitz so they can find the open man
2 playing a new scheme takes adjustments and trial-and-error and playoffs are not the time for that.

So my question is, does signing Chukwarah, who is so similar in playing style to Bruce, an indication that we are not changing a new scheme? Do you still think we'll blitz more?

 

[Sac]

Return of the bandit.

 

[theENGLISHseahawk]

I don't really understand the idea here. We'll still play a 4-3 under, just with Irvin manning the LEO. Perhaps they play Scruggs a bit more at end on early downs for run value? Apart from that what would change?

 

[RolandDeschain]

I think we'll change it up some, and blitz more. It still baffles me why we don't blitz much, it has worked very well for us this year by and large when we do blitz, and we've only rarely gotten burned on it that I can recall. We get burned regularly on 3rd & long without blitzing, so we might as well bring the house on 3rd down, lol.

 

[-The Glove-]

There's no way we'd completely change a scheme in the middle of a playoff run. We may have some different looks with more blitzes, but that could be a benefit for us because Atlanta hasn't seen us use those looks.

 

[oasis]

I don't really understand the idea here. We'll still play a 4-3 under, just with Irvin manning the LEO. Perhaps they play Scruggs a bit more at end on early downs for run value? Apart from that what would change?

I meant would we start blitzing like crazy like the end of the skins game... maybe I didn't make that clear

 

[Axx]

I don't really understand the idea here. We'll still play a 4-3 under, just with Irvin manning the LEO. Perhaps they play Scruggs a bit more at end on early downs for run value? Apart from that what would change?

I meant would we start blitzing like crazy like the end of the skins game... maybe I didn't make that clear

I think Pete Caroll and Gus Bradley are going to not blitz and keep it as a "secret". I can only imagine them using it in clutch time like they did against the skins.

 

[volsunghawk]

0-11-0 look, all game long.

 

[Jazzhawk]

There's no way we'd completely change a scheme in the middle of a playoff run. We may have some different looks with more blitzes, but that could be a benefit for us because Atlanta hasn't seen us use those looks.

Agreed...no way a scheme is changed in one lousy week.

 

[Starrman44]

Guess I didn't understand the question very well. I voted no.

I think if we blitz more it's because they aren't concerned about Ryan getting outside the pocket and gashing us and that he holds the ball longer and is more susceptible to being blizted. Not only can you get there (because he does hold the ball), but also he is so accurate that if you allow him to stand in the pocket all day then you may as well pack it up and go home.

So, in summary, we may blitz more, but I don't think it will be any different than if we had Clem (other than he is our most effective rusher, imo).

 

[garydrake425]

Lets bring the heat. I like seeing a delayed blitz package mix here and there.

 

[justafan]

Why would anyone want to change anything about this scheme?They are one of the top 15 hardest teams to score on in the last ten years.Considering this is the easiest era in history to score with all the rule changes protecting WR, I think its pretty damn impressive.Stat wise they are within a couple of points of the better Pitt and Balt defenses in the last 10 years and better than most of their Ds at points allowed.Which is the only stat that matters IMO.
If we do lose in Atl its not playcalling, D scheme or not blitzing, its because we got beat by a team that executed and was better THAT day.