How bad is the rest of the -dline at pass rushing?

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(03-25-2025, 09:41 PM)chrisball96 Wrote: Absolutely, seems like Trey’s agent has failed him time and again. The threat this time around to sit out was particularly foolish. No one for a second believed that a 30 year old DE was going to waste a year like that.

Trey's agent has been a little dumb I think as well.

(03-25-2025, 10:20 PM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: Trey is a Bengal next year. 

My bad for implying otherwise unless a crazy  offer surfaces.

Yes, it would have to be a crazy offer for Trey to be traded. A 1st rounder and a 2nd rounder or a 1st and a player or something like that.

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(03-25-2025, 09:05 PM)Bilbo Saggins Wrote: Who cares? It's a run first league now. We're back to leather helmets, three yards, and a cloud of dust. Stop the run and cover the pass for 10 seconds. QBs nowadays aren't good enough to complete passes if the coverage is good enough. 

In all seriousness, Lou tried to do the thing of having pass rushers drop into coverage at a higher rate than the rest of the league. It was by in large awful. I'd much prefer a coverage player who can moonlight as a pass rusher than vice versa. Lou's defense was too passive. Dropping rushers into coverage is passive. You're praying that the opposing QB makes a hilariously bad mistake by throwing it right to a defensive end.  Why would they try to build a defense that depended on such a flukey occurrence rather than just trying to sack the QB? 

I thought Lou had the Ends dropping into coverage way too often myself. Not a good plan and it didn't trick anybody.

[Joelist]

(Yesterday, 02:31 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: I thought Lou had the Ends dropping into coverage way too often myself. Not a good plan and it didn't trick anybody.

That is part of what changed after 12 weeks. The Ends were not dropped back nearly as often. I posted earlier in this thread on how the sack numbers definitely went up after his changes - Essentially in the 6 games in the revised scheme we had as many sacks as in 11 games prior. 

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(Yesterday, 04:02 PM)Joelist Wrote: That is part of what changed after 12 weeks. The Ends were not dropped back nearly as often. I posted earlier in this thread on how the sack numbers definitely went up after his changes - Essentially in the 6 games in the revised scheme we had as many sacks as in 11 games prior. 

Saw the numbers you provided as well. A lot of poor play can be put on coaching. Great coaches put their players in the right situations 
to succeed. I hope we see a lot of different looks this year on Defense, more blitzing from the LB's and Secondary and just more aggression
period would be nice. I know it can bite you in your ass sometimes, but so can playing conservative and relying on fluke plays.

[chrisball96]

(Yesterday, 04:02 PM)Joelist Wrote: That is part of what changed after 12 weeks. The Ends were not dropped back nearly as often. I posted earlier in this thread on how the sack numbers definitely went up after his changes - Essentially in the 6 games in the revised scheme we had as many sacks as in 11 games prior. 

I don't have a firm grasp on the film, but does anyone remember our DE dropping into coverage giving us any sort of advantage? Maybe it did and I missed it, but if not, man taking 12 weeks to correct it is...probably part of the reason Lou is no longer with us. 

I mean, I get 3-4 teams doing that sort of thing with their athletic ends, but not sure our guys were really built to do that on a regular basis. 

But I could be wrong there I am about as far from a football coach as you might see!