Defense sucks again!

[HairOnFire]

We will simply have to wait and see if the the defensive scheme is a bit more aggressive when the bullets start to fly.

There it is. Dead freaking on.

Marvin better have some sort of a major revelation, because he fired Frazier for being aggressive. If you can't cover a sole, you may as well send everyone. I would rather someone be wide open, because they gambled on a blitz, rather than wide open for no particular reason.

Oh my my, oh hell yes.

We're all agreeing, for the most part, that a too conservative scheme isn't the best way to protect an inexperienced secondary. Far better to dramatically increase the pass rush heat...resulting in the secondary being asked to cover for shorter periods of time. And all the better if you increase your level of aggression by turning loose your defensive line AND an inexperienced wrecking ball like Ahmad Brooks.

[membengal]

Yup, looks to me like we have reached the very rare Bengalszone consensus on this one.

If I go through the rest of my life as a Bengals fan and never ever again have to see them run a play on defense where they in effect rush ZERO guys (as HoF very succinctly summarized earlier in this thread) I will be a very happy Bengals fan.

Just what the f**kity f**k is that kind of defense supposed to look like on paper anyway? Is the point to see if the receivers will get so tired running around that they just stop and stare at the quarterback?

[BengalszoneBilly]

What's the philosophy behind a big soft-cushion zone?

Basically the same as "The Big Comfy Chair" torture from the Monty Python skit. It's so ludicrous, it's funny!

[ShulaSteakhouse]

Check out the combined stats of opposing Qb's vs the Bengals this preseason:

79-117 (.675) 1018 yds, 5 TD, 2 INT

This whole philosophy of just relying on your QB and 2 WR's and a Rb to literally win a points fest every week isn't going to get you to the playoffs. At some point you have to stop somebody and get your defense off the field.

As mentioned above, I wouldn't be so worried if this didn't look like the same defense we saw all of last year - relying purely on turnovers to stop people and are so afraid of not giving up a big play - they play soft and let teams nickel and dime them to death all day long - and then end up giving up the critical big play any ways (see Pittsburgh game last year to bounce them out of the playoffs) because they're so damn tired by the 4th quarter from being on the field so long, they can't keep it up.

It really is a coaching issue IMO and if the radio talk shows around town are any indication today, people are starting to turn on Marvin pretty quickly much like they started to at the end of last season - whether you agree with that or not - it's happening.

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

Oh my my, oh hell yes.

We're all agreeing, for the most part, that a too conservative scheme isn't the best way to protect an inexperienced secondary. Far better to dramatically increase the pass rush heat...resulting in the secondary being asked to cover for shorter periods of time. And all the better if you increase your level of aggression by turning loose your defensive line AND an inexperienced wrecking ball like Ahmad Brooks.

Well, let's hope the film brings home the rather obvious difference in success between the first couple of drives and the rest. I agree on letting Brooks do what he does best. If I recall, Odell was out of position all the time the first half of his rookie year, but it was worth it because of the plays he did make. I think a position as complicated as MLB, you have to let someone grow into from a mental perspective. I almost think I'd just put him out there, tell him what the general goal is, and let him do what he wants.

[membengal]

With regard to impatience and talk shows, shula, I am pretty much right there.

Up until this year, I have understood the issues facing ML in terms of dealing with the D. Not the least of which has been a series of catastrophic injuries in 2005 and 2006 that left them reeling. I get that caused a problem, I do.

But, they have had an off-season to get ready for this in 2007, they are relatively healthy on D, and I am seeing the same issues. Why? Why is that? How has that not been addressed? If not by personnel, then by scheme? I just don't see any excuses with respect to the D that will allow me to accept another season like last year.

[HoosierCat]

But, they have had an off-season to get ready for this in 2007, they are relatively healthy on D, and I am seeing the same issues. Why? Why is that? How has that not been addressed? If not by personnel, then by scheme? I just don't see any excuses with respect to the D that will allow me to accept another season like last year.

Because Marvin/Bresh clearly believe that 1. their defensive personnel are adequate to the task and 2. there's nothing wrong with the scheme, rather the problem is in poor execution. Thus all the talk about the D's problem being missed assignments and poor tackling, etc.

I think they're nuts. Certainly, execution can always be improved. But no level of improvement is going to help when your scheme dictates you rush no one on a passing down, or when your first alternate at SS is a 7th round rookie because you let your vet backup DB go in FA.

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

Because Marvin/Bresh clearly believe that 1. their defensive personnel are adequate to the task and 2. there's nothing wrong with the scheme, rather the problem is in poor execution. Thus all the talk about the D's problem being missed assignments and poor tackling, etc.

You know that 2. is true. Remember the Indy game when Bres was running up and down the sidelines, yelling at the D to stick with the scheme, it will work? No it won't Chuck - this is Peyton Manning, you can't just wait for him to miss on on of those easy 3rd and 4 passes!

I think they're nuts. Certainly, execution can always be improved. But no level of improvement is going to help when your scheme dictates you rush no one on a passing down.

And when the coverage is so simplistic, the QB knows who will be open before the snap.

So Hair's right, we all agree the D schemes don't work. I expect you townies to show up at Bres's house with torches and pitchforks.

[cincy9275]

marvin loyalty to a unqualified moron like bresh is going to cost him his job. i mean just look at the play of our defense these guys alot of time look like they have no clue of what their doing. it is a shame that the fans who pay to support this team has to put up with this bull s**t. then you can add simmons to that list to his st's is really pathetic it seem like every game the opposing team has a big run back or some kind of play that we seldom make. then add shanes shank and st louis bad snap those are plays at that time of the year that should never never happen. i agree shula the coaches are at fault for the struggles of this team. my biggest concern is that we are waisting talents like palmer cj and rudi and tj. because we have a hard headed coach who won't admit that the defense is very seriously lacking in the coaching department. and anyone who knows anything about football can tell there is something wrong there. then when well know former football players are asked about our defense the first thing you see is laughter. the players are emitt smith rod woodson marshel faulk sean sulsbery or how ever you spell his name, but when our defense is mention to these guys the first thing that come across thier face is a grin. the raider did not even want this guy back after thier team went to the super bowl the guys is a joke and his scheme can be figuerd out by any high school qb the man must go enough is enough his defense has got worse not better in the past 3 years and i have seen no improvment what so ever. TO BRESH IF YOU READ THIS PLEASE RESIGN NOW WE DON'T WANT YOU HERE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[membengal]

Are opposing tight ends invisible in Bres' schemes? That's also a somewhat serious question. Time and again, we seem befuddled that position exists in terms of defense. This was the one that got me last night, quoted from Curnutte's blog with regard to the Falcons' second TD "drive":

"On second and 10 from the 41, the Bengals left the left side of the field open for a 29-yard reception by tight end Dwayne Blakley."

That guy was wide effin open. Like he'd walked onto the field from the sidelines. It boggles my mind. It really does.

[agreen_112]

Oh my my, oh hell yes.

We're all agreeing, for the most part, that a too conservative scheme isn't the best way to protect an inexperienced secondary. Far better to dramatically increase the pass rush heat...resulting in the secondary being asked to cover for shorter periods of time. And all the better if you increase your level of aggression by turning loose your defensive line AND an inexperienced wrecking ball like Ahmad Brooks.

Well, let's hope the film brings home the rather obvious difference in success between the first couple of drives and the rest. I agree on letting Brooks do what he does best. If I recall, Odell was out of position all the time the first half of his rookie year, but it was worth it because of the plays he did make. I think a position as complicated as MLB, you have to let someone grow into from a mental perspective. I almost think I'd just put him out there, tell him what the general goal is, and let him do what he wants.

One play stood out in my mind when I read this post... It was when Harrington rolled out to his left and ran up to just before the neutral zone, Brooks was right there about 5 yards in front of him, holding still in his "zone" with no one near him to cover and no lineman to block for Joey. I would've loved to see some aggressiveness and awareness to leave that zone and lay a hit on Harrington. Harrington lobbed a pass for a 1st down and Brooks had no one near him, he was like a sitting duck in empty space. This is were he needs to show that wildness, because I KNOW O-dawg would've blew 'em up!

[generaldreedle]

After reading the replies I have noticed that the census seems to be that it is either the scheme or the personnel or a combination of the both that is causing this defense to suck. I personally think that it is scheme and coaching, not personnel. This defense, as to quote Merrill Hoge, "now has the personnel to run ML's scheme." Every person on the defensive side of the ball, has been picked by ML, one way or another. So now that the defense is filled with ML's personel, you can't blame personnel as the reason the defense sucks. That leaves the blame to the scheme and the coaches. I hope this defense proves me wrong, but I do not see it showing any signs of consistency this year. Which leads me to this question. If we go 8-8 again, because of the defense, and not make the playoffs, should Bresnahan be the only one to go? I am starting to think that maybe ML should go with him. If ML cannot put together even a half-a** defense in 5 years, does he deserve to keep his job?

[agreen_112]

I love Marv, but after 5 years and still no defense... That's a hard call, I'd hate to be the one to have to make that decision... Let's all pray for this not to happen and that we make the playoffs, that's all I've got to say.

[HoosierCat]

So now that the defense is filled with ML's personel, you can't blame personnel as the reason the defense sucks.

Of course you can. There's nothing magical about Marvin's talent evaluation abilities -- he can sign and draft guys who turn out to be mediocre or poor talents just as well as the next guy. You're absolutely right that this is Marvin's team, but that doesn't mean everyone turned out to be the player he thought they'd be. If it did, Kenny Irons would have blown out his knee somewhere else because Chris Perry would be a superstar.

There's also the front office to consider. We know the scouting department is understaffed; we know Mikey sometimes lobbies for players his coaches aren't enamoured of; and we know the team doesn't spend on top-tier FAs in outside FA. All that impacts Marvin's ability to build the team.

The scheme certainly needs a lot of work. But so does the talent level. We have too many defensive starters who wouldnt be starting on a lot of other teams. Heck, some of them -- namely Brooks and Jeanty -- wouldn't even be starting here if it weren't for injuries and suspensions. And we are throwing an awful lot of young guys, such as Peko, JJoe, Nduke and White, into roles vacated by experienced veterans. Hopefully they grow into those roles, but it will take time -- and during that time we're likely to be cringing at rookie mistakes a lot.

[The PatternMaster]

Do people forget that 4 game stretch last year when the defense played lights out, I prefer to think that they will step it up once the season starts.

Look people, it's a glorified practice not the real thing so let's not get too bent out of shape about this. Until we get beat in an actual game in which the defense plays bad then I think everything else is premature. Yes there are some distrubing warning signs but there are also some good things to be encouraged about as well.

[James_Brooks21]

Do people forget that 4 game stretch last year when the defense played lights out, I prefer to think that they will step it up once the season starts.

Look people, it's a glorified practice not the real thing so let's not get too bent out of shape about this. Until we get beat in an actual game in which the defense plays bad then I think everything else is premature. Yes there are some distrubing warning signs but there are also some good things to be encouraged about as well.

I don't remember a 4 game strech where they played lighs out defense, I looked at the schedule last year and did not see a four game strech. I guess you are starting with that New Orleans game and call that lights out defense where they gave up 510 yards passing to Drew Brees, yes we won that game but 510 yards passsing without Colston is not lights out defense. Plus the other three games were against Cleveland, Baltimore, Oakland not exactly great offenses. The thing is nothing counts in that game last night but guess what everything matters from that game. That defense has not looked decent this whole preseason. I would have taken that Brian Simmons, Spikes, Ambrose, Hawkins, Reinard Wilson,Kimo defense of 1998 over this defense.

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

There's also the front office to consider. We know the scouting department is understaffed; we know Mikey sometimes lobbies for players his coaches aren't enamoured of; and we know the team doesn't spend on top-tier FAs in outside FA. All that impacts Marvin's ability to build the team.

Yeah, I can't understand what about the last 15 years makes Mikey think he knows anything about talent evaluation. That said, I look at the team and I honestly think that the skill of the players isn't orders of magnitude worse than other teams. This is completely unproveable, unless Bres eventually goes somewhere else and either sinks or swims. But just from the eyeball test, I think some of these guys could be players if the coaches get out of their way.

The scheme certainly needs a lot of work. But so does the talent level. We have too many defensive starters who wouldnt be starting on a lot of other teams. Heck, some of them -- namely Brooks and Jeanty -- wouldn't even be starting here if it weren't for injuries and suspensions. And we are throwing an awful lot of young guys, such as Peko, JJoe, Nduke and White, into roles vacated by experienced veterans. Hopefully they grow into those roles, but it will take time -- and during that time we're likely to be cringing at rookie mistakes a lot.

Yeah, but all teams face that. Hell, the Patriots' pattern is discarding players who are about to get expensive in favor of younger players who are reasonably talented and fit well into a good scheme. I think JJoe is a good corner, he showed real ability last year. Peko' solid, and if he's one of your worse starters on D you're doing fine. I think Jeanty's the real deal - I predict people will eventually acknowledge this. Safety is (perpetually) thin, but we also have Kilmer who looked OK last year (unless something happened to him that I missed?). So all in all, I think there's talent there. No, not a top-5 defense on paper - but not a bottom 5, either. That's all I'm saying, really - this team has enough talent to not be ranked 27th.

[Stripes]

I do not blame the scheme, I blame the personnel. The Bengals defense will never make any progress if the coaches continuously change their philosophy to patch up holes as they appear. They have to stick to their guns, and they will, and the players have to start executing properly. I do not blame the coaches in any way when they drop eight players into coverage and the opposing quarterback still finds an open receiver. I don't even think it's the pass rush. The defensive line played well last night. It's the young secondary and the bad linebacking corps that has been the problem all along.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the defense lacks the talent to improve. They're young though, and there has been close to zero continuity.

[bengalzalltheway]

Serious question. Scheme thing. Draft philosophy question too.

So...

I watch the Steelers Sunday night, and even in pre-season with "vanilla" D, they get ferocious pressure on McNabb. From the LBers. They always have LBers who can rush. Always. Why are the Bengals not able to target that same kind of LB as well? Why are we not able to identify that kind of diamond in the rough? Ever?

And, as to scheme:

What. the. f**k? Why are guys running that wide open? Always? Is there really nothing that can be done to tighten that up? I understand the Falcons were in some exotic five wide sets, and that the Lions a few weeks back are mad scientists in the pass game with Martz, and that Brees is a spread the field QB as well, but is there really not something they can put in to deal with that? Even in the pre-season? Just to, ya know, practice stopping someone? You know Brady and Roethlisberger, at the least, will spread the field in the regular season on them. Hell, even Baltimore may try that once they get a load of the pre-season tape.

What. the. f**k. is. Bres. and. ML. looking. at? Why can't this be fixed?

Year after year, I wait to see some improvement. I see no sign of improvement. None.

That team will stuggle to not be 0-4 out of the gate if the D doesn't have any better clue than that in a few weeks.

Jeebus.

I completely agree with everything you said. We should still be able to get pressure on the quarterback even with a "pre-season" defense. Giving the quarterback 5 seconds to throw the ball will make everyone in the secondary look horrible. I'm just hoping that we have some new schemes for the season opener.

[bengalzalltheway]

I do not blame the scheme, I blame the personnel. The Bengals defense will never make any progress if the coaches continuously change their philosophy to patch up holes as they appear. They have to stick to their guns, and they will, and the players have to start executing properly. I do not blame the coaches in any way when they drop eight players into coverage and the opposing quarterback still finds an open receiver. I don't even think it's the pass rush. The defensive line played well last night. It's the young secondary and the bad linebacking corps that has been the problem all along.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the defense lacks the talent to improve. They're young though, and there has been close to zero continuity.

Couldn't agree more. Players have to start taking responsibility for this upcomming season. I'm just hoping the coaches will throw in some different schemes to get the players some opportunities, but I think most of the blame lies squarely on the players shoulders. This is the NFL not flag football...the quarterback shouldn't have 5 seconds to pick and choose his receivers.

GO BENGALS!

[cincy9275]

I do not blame the scheme, I blame the personnel. The Bengals defense will never make any progress if the coaches continuously change their philosophy to patch up holes as they appear. They have to stick to their guns, and they will, and the players have to start executing properly. I do not blame the coaches in any way when they drop eight players into coverage and the opposing quarterback still finds an open receiver. I don't even think it's the pass rush. The defensive line played well last night. It's the young secondary and the bad linebacking corps that has been the problem all along.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the defense lacks the talent to improve. They're young though, and there has been close to zero continuity.

Couldn't agree more. Players have to start taking responsibility for this upcomming season. I'm just hoping the coaches will throw in some different schemes to get the players some opportunities, but I think most of the blame lies squarely on the players shoulders. This is the NFL not flag football...the quarterback shouldn't have 5 seconds to pick and choose his receivers.

GO BENGALS!

well they would'nt if bresh was not droping 8 and rushing 3 then having the corners play 15 yards off the line.

[HoosierCat]

and there has been close to zero continuity.

Yup. That's another factor to include in addition to scheme and talent. This team has gone through LBs like crap through the proverbial goose during Marvin's tenure. Ditto the safety position. There's also been a lot of churn on the d-line -- Justin and Thornton are the only ones left from Marvin's first year. In fact I think those two are the only ones left from the 2003 defense period.

[membengal]

Perhaps lack of continuity explains the reason they can't seem to cover a TE.

Seriously, does anyone yet have a reason as to why they can't ever seem to cover a TE? Why are TEs running routes so ***damn confusing to them? Why?

[BengalszoneBilly]

We will simply have to wait and see if the the defensive scheme is a bit more aggressive when the bullets start to fly.

There it is. Dead freaking on.

You know what's even more on target? When I promise you it won't be. If it was even remotely possible don't you think we would have seen at least a hint of it sometime during this preseason from at least one or two players? We're going to see more of what we saw last season. A team ranked last in pass defense. How long can this defense live in the s**tter for crissake?

[HoosierCat]

Perhaps lack of continuity explains the reason they can't seem to cover a TE.

Seriously, does anyone yet have a reason as to why they can't ever seem to cover a TE? Why are TEs running routes so ***damn confusing to them? Why?

Off the top of my head, I'd say first that since the Bengals usually don't have a TE who can catch worth spit makes it hard to practice against. Not an excuse but there's a difference between knowing the theory and actually doing something, and I suspect the defense doesn't get to do a lot of doing when it comes to practicing vs. an NFL-caliber receiving TE.

But really I think the problem is that the Bengals just generally struggle in coverage versus anyone See pass defense comma crappy.