Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Dean Pees = Greg Mattison?
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Baltimore Ravens
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
MilleniumD2000


Joined: 20 Jan 2009
Posts: 485
Location: Baltimore
PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2012 1:51 pm    Post subject: Dean Pees = Greg Mattison? Reply with quote

Work with me here because I know this may be a overreaction after only two weeks but this defense looks very similar to Mattisons other then Pees blitzing a few more plays per game. Mattison was famous for his three man rush on third and long. Dean Pees did his fair share of three man rushes yesterday with a spy because he was afraid of Michael Vicks scrambling ability. On the other side of the coin, when we blitzed we were pretty successful. Now I know we're missing Suggs but we have enough talent on defense that the display they put on yesterday is unacceptable. Am I overreacting or is their legitimate cause for concern?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sp6488


Joined: 14 Mar 2005
Posts: 8561
Location: MD
PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'd say overreacting a slight bit. I don't think you can really look at his strategy against Vick and the Eagles as indicative of how he will call games for the rest of the year. We've been hurt by mobile QB's in the past and I'm guessing that was a big factor in how this game was called defensively. I thought we looked pretty good in week 1 also, so I'm ready to reserve judgement for a bit.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Flaccomania


Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Posts: 22061
Location: Parkville, MD
PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2012 4:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I personally think so, and that's including game 1. Our pass rush is bad. Period. We knew it would likely be an issue coming into the game. Even against Cincinatti we weren't able to get much pressure until late in the game, particularly from anyone not named Ngata. However, we didn't really do too much to help change that until we were up big. And even with that, I don't think our defense looked very good against Cincinatti.

I feel like Pagano had success because he trusted our corners on an island. Yes, he had Suggs which helped the rush, but I don't feel as though Pees fully trusts our secondary and thus is hesitant to make them vulnerable.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coordinator0


Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Posts: 7254
PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2012 10:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes I would agree that Pees is looking very Mattison-esque. The game against the Bengals fooled me a bit because of the situation the Bengals were in later on in that game when the Ravens' defense looked great. The play-calling yesterday, in a game that was close throughout unlike last week, was pretty terrible and Pees' scheme was obliterated by the Eagles. Many of the instances where we saw an wide open receiver for the Eagles was a result of the scheme and not a blown coverage, and the number of instances that we saw this leads me to believe he didn't make many adjustments either.

The pass-rush was abysmal anytime we didn't rush more than 3/4 (except for the first INT that Vick threw) and Pees kept up that style of pressure the entire game. It didn't work at all. Aside from the 24 points the Eagles did score they had 3 other drives deep into Ravens territory where the defense looked bad. Now if it's working I don't have a problem with it but the number of times Vick had a clean pocket was embarrassing. The first/second drive they had was pretty good for the Ravens in terms of getting pressure but after that it was bleh.

Sure the players need to be held responsible for not beating their assignments but this is a scheme league and they need to be put in a position to succeed. This non-blitzing/soft coverage type of play-calling works when you have a good front 3 or 4 (usually 4) with linemen that can get to the QB but that's not what the Ravens are. Neither Ngata or McPhee are consistent pass-rushers and relying mostly on those two to rush the passer is destined to fail. Brady will tear this defense apart next week if we see a similar game-plan.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SnA ExclusiVe


Joined: 01 Jun 2011
Posts: 20978
Location: Spokane, WA
PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 12:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Flaccomania wrote:
I personally think so, and that's including game 1. Our pass rush is bad. Period. We knew it would likely be an issue coming into the game. Even against Cincinatti we weren't able to get much pressure until late in the game, particularly from anyone not named Ngata. However, we didn't really do too much to help change that until we were up big. And even with that, I don't think our defense looked very good against Cincinatti.

I feel like Pagano had success because he trusted our corners on an island. Yes, he had Suggs which helped the rush, but I don't feel as though Pees fully trusts our secondary and thus is hesitant to make them vulnerable.


Agreed. Peas is just another Mattison clone, and since we have ZERO elite, semi elite, or even GOOD pass rushers not named Ngata, it's going to cause problems and Peas doesn't seem to get that yet...

He better adjust soon or it's going to be A LONNNNNGGGGG year
_________________

BlaqOptic wrote:
I'd say he's [Dennis Pitta] the fourth best TE in the division... Cameron > Miller > Gresham > Eiffert = Pitta
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BareYourTeeth


Joined: 29 Mar 2009
Posts: 1013
Location: I'm a machine Jerk!
PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 7:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I believe that this should be our starting defensive lineup:

DT Arthur Jones
NT Haloti Ngata
DE Pernell McPhee
Rush Paul Kruger
Will Jameel McClain
Mike Ray Lewis
Sam Courtney Upshaw
LCB Lardarius Webb
SS Bernard Pollard
FS Ed Reed
RCB Jimmy Smith

Does anyone agree?

Like Flaccomania said, Pees doesn't fully trust our corners on an island and that's a shame because Webb is more than capable, while Jimmy is still going through some growing pains but he's getting there. Cary, on the other hand, has been costing us pretty big but he's proven he can be an above average corner.

We have one of the best secondaries in the league and Pees is not taking advantage of it. While he should be bringing the house, he's only rushing 3/4. With Suggs injured, Kruger is our best pass rusher so we should take more advantage of that and move him to the Rush linebacker position. From what I saw on Sunday, Upshaw looked better than Kruger did playing at Sam, keep him there because once Suggs comes back and Kruger most likely signs with another team after this season that's where he'll be playing.
_________________

2000WORLD CHAMPIONS2012
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SnA ExclusiVe


Joined: 01 Jun 2011
Posts: 20978
Location: Spokane, WA
PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 8:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

@BareYourTeeth: I fully support that starting lineup at this point. The distinction between Jones/Kemoeatu/Cody is a wash right now but Ngata at NT would straight up destroy people!

Not to mention Kruger is a Rush LB, not a SAM and either Upshaw or McClellan get teh start at Sam.

However, at Will I have to say Ellerbe (of all people...) has looked better than Jameel has.
_________________

BlaqOptic wrote:
I'd say he's [Dennis Pitta] the fourth best TE in the division... Cameron > Miller > Gresham > Eiffert = Pitta
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BareYourTeeth


Joined: 29 Mar 2009
Posts: 1013
Location: I'm a machine Jerk!
PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 8:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SnA ExclusiVe wrote:
@BareYourTeeth: I fully support that starting lineup at this point. The distinction between Jones/Kemoeatu/Cody is a wash right now but Ngata at NT would straight up destroy people!


I feel that Jones is a better player than both Kemoeatu/Cody at this point and he's also faster. It definitely helps the pass rush as well.

Basically, Ngata at NT>Ngata at RE and Jones @ DT/RE>Kemoeatu/Cody @ NT

SnA ExclusiVe wrote:
Not to mention Kruger is a Rush LB, not a SAM and either Upshaw or McClellan get teh start at Sam.


Yup, something I've pointed out more than once just this week.

SnA ExclusiVe wrote:
However, at Will I have to say Ellerbe (of all people...) has looked better than Jameel has.


I agree and I forgot to mention that in my post, if Jameel doesn't step it up soon give the nod to Ellerbe, who has made more plays.

Let's just hope the coaches agree and make the adjustments.
_________________

2000WORLD CHAMPIONS2012
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
diamondbull424


Moderator
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Posts: 12975
Location: Baltimore, MD
PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 10:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

^^^ I think the big problem with that lineup above is that it sufficiently destorys our front 7 depth at DE. If either McPhee or Jones or both get tired it could mean that on 3rd down we have to remove both of them to get a rest and not just substitute one for the other. As you said, both provide more speed and that's big in passing situations. I'd cosign that lineup for passing situations only.

In run situations, I'd rather bring back Cody as NT as he may not be as good with getting penetration against the OL, he's better at occupying blockers to keep our LBers untouched. It's like Kemo is out there trying to make plays whereas Cody was out there because he knew being a part of a greater whole would help the team make more plays. Our defense needs the type of unselfishness. Too many guys are playing selfish and not trusting other guys to make plays IMO. I agree that I do want Kemo out of the starting lineup for that reason alone.

Back to the above lineup. Like I said, situation-ally it makes sense. But if we run it too much it could mean being even worse against the run.. and it could mean putting more stress on our DEs without giving them breathers. Neither of which is a good thing.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coordinator0


Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Posts: 7254
PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 11:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

diamondbull424 wrote:
^^^ I think the big problem with that lineup above is that it sufficiently destorys our front 7 depth at DE. If either McPhee or Jones or both get tired it could mean that on 3rd down we have to remove both of them to get a rest and not just substitute one for the other. As you said, both provide more speed and that's big in passing situations. I'd cosign that lineup for passing situations only.

In run situations, I'd rather bring back Cody as NT as he may not be as good with getting penetration against the OL, he's better at occupying blockers to keep our LBers untouched. It's like Kemo is out there trying to make plays whereas Cody was out there because he knew being a part of a greater whole would help the team make more plays. Our defense needs the type of unselfishness. Too many guys are playing selfish and not trusting other guys to make plays IMO. I agree that I do want Kemo out of the starting lineup for that reason alone.

Back to the above lineup. Like I said, situation-ally it makes sense. But if we run it too much it could mean being even worse against the run.. and it could mean putting more stress on our DEs without giving them breathers. Neither of which is a good thing.


Yep. I don't think Ngata is any more great (I could probably word the better) at NT than he is DE, he does play there at times and there isn't any noticeable difference in my opinion. I'd like to see Hall get on the field a bit more but other than that I'm happy with what the DE rotation looks like. It's the way they're being used that gets my blood boiling. I think we'll have a better feel for the situation after the Patriots game but I'm not holding my breath to see if Pees doesn't rely mostly on them to get to Brady.

You hit the nail on the head with Kemoeatu. It's not that he's a bad player it's just that he doesn't seem to be as disciplined in his assignments as Cody is. I think bringing Kemoeatu in on 3rd downs would be better as long as they don't run a play where Ngata is moved to NT. He's a better play-maker than Cody (not like that's saying much) and that keeps him a bit fresher too.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SnA ExclusiVe


Joined: 01 Jun 2011
Posts: 20978
Location: Spokane, WA
PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 11:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well why not just play Ngata at NT in the 3-4 and then kick him outside in the 4-3 or something?

Or in the nickel, just have Upshaw-McPhee-Ngata-Kruger as our 2-4-5 or nickel defense?

We don't really destroy our DE depth, we just make the starters better, you can find different ways to create depth other than playing Ngata at DE.
_________________

BlaqOptic wrote:
I'd say he's [Dennis Pitta] the fourth best TE in the division... Cameron > Miller > Gresham > Eiffert = Pitta
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Flaccomania


Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Posts: 22061
Location: Parkville, MD
PostPosted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 8:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

diamondbull424 wrote:
^^^ I think the big problem with that lineup above is that it sufficiently destorys our front 7 depth at DE. If either McPhee or Jones or both get tired it could mean that on 3rd down we have to remove both of them to get a rest and not just substitute one for the other. As you said, both provide more speed and that's big in passing situations. I'd cosign that lineup for passing situations only.

In run situations, I'd rather bring back Cody as NT as he may not be as good with getting penetration against the OL, he's better at occupying blockers to keep our LBers untouched. It's like Kemo is out there trying to make plays whereas Cody was out there because he knew being a part of a greater whole would help the team make more plays. Our defense needs the type of unselfishness. Too many guys are playing selfish and not trusting other guys to make plays IMO. I agree that I do want Kemo out of the starting lineup for that reason alone.

Back to the above lineup. Like I said, situation-ally it makes sense. But if we run it too much it could mean being even worse against the run.. and it could mean putting more stress on our DEs without giving them breathers. Neither of which is a good thing.


I agree with this -- I like Cody at NT as he is more disciplined and knows his role of eating blockers. That also helps to free up Ngata slightly more as well as the LBers. I would like the see Cody staring again over Kemo.

As for Ngata at NT, I don't like it. I like him at DE more because you're able to make plays more often at that position IMO. I wouldn't want to see our best play making DL be relegated to NT where he's just supposed to eat some blockers. As well, with Ngata at NT and McPhee/Jones at DE, our run defense is going to suffer like others have said.

This is what I'd like to see in our front 7:

LE - Jones
NT - Cody
RE - Ngata
Rush - Kruger
Will - McClain
Mike - Ray
Sam - Upshaw

And then on passing downs, switch to a 4-3 look

LE - Kindle/Upshaw
DT - Ngata
DT - McPhee
RE - Kruger
Sam - Upshaw/Ellerbe
Mike - Ray
Will - McClain

Personally, I like the idea of McPhee going against interior OL -- IIRC, that's where a lot of his sacks/pressures came last year because interior OL aren't typically used to guys with his speed coming off the line at them.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GaTechRavens


Moderator
Joined: 25 Nov 2006
Posts: 17545
Location: Madison, WI
PostPosted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 9:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wow. One game, people.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Flaccomania


Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Posts: 22061
Location: Parkville, MD
PostPosted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 9:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

GaTechRavens wrote:
Wow. One game, people.


Except it's been two -- we didn't get much pass rush against Cincy until we were up big. That, coupled with Pees' history, I think it's warranted to at least question whether or not he's going to continue to be more passive than we believe he should be.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GaTechRavens


Moderator
Joined: 25 Nov 2006
Posts: 17545
Location: Madison, WI
PostPosted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 10:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Flaccomania wrote:
GaTechRavens wrote:
Wow. One game, people.


Except it's been two -- we didn't get much pass rush against Cincy until we were up big. That, coupled with Pees' history, I think it's warranted to at least question whether or not he's going to continue to be more passive than we believe he should be.


It was pretty much universally agreed upon that he did a great job in the opener. He can't just generate a pass rush out of thin air, and with the lack of pass rushing talent we have, sometimes it's better not to be too aggressive.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Baltimore Ravens All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 1 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group