Frazier D Does it Again xD

[PurpleMustReign]

Lol. I am not gonna pile on Frazier anymore, but I mean, come on. Mark Barron, Gerald McCoy, Lavonte David, Alterun Verner, Michael Johnson, and Dashon Goldson, and you still cannot have an efficient defense? It appears that the Cover 2 defense is on life-support. It simply doesn't work in the NFL anymore.

Cover 2 was dead after Chicago lost the Super Bowl to Indy years ago. It never really was a great scheme.

[Reignman]

Or make Limpy Bustwater look like Peyton Manning!
(KFAN nickname joke not mine! DON'T TAZE ME BRO!)

Oh damn that's hilarious. I remember the "don't taze me bro" video.

Flacco with 5 TD passes in the first 16 minutes of the game. That's gotta be a record. The Bucs pass defense would be breaking every pass record in existence right now if other teams weren't letting off the gas after their early explosions. 111.9 passer rating against for the season.

[Mothman]

Lol. I am not gonna pile on Frazier anymore, but I mean, come on. Mark Barron, Gerald McCoy, Lavonte David, Alterun Verner, Michael Johnson, and Dashon Goldson, and you still cannot have an efficient defense? It appears that the Cover 2 defense is on life-support. It simply doesn't work in the NFL anymore.

Goldson didn't play on Sunday. Cover 2 doesn't work without a strong pass rush and thus far, the Bucs don't have one.

I don't watch enough of TB to know why they're being blown out like they are but they obviously have some relatively deep problems. I do know that a defense is only as good as good as it's weakest links.

Watch some of the TD plays from yesterday's game. On the first one, rookie CB Brandon Dixon never gets his hands on Torrey Smith and is easily beaten on an inside route for a TD. On the second TD, the Ravens go to the same matchup with basically the same play, exploiting the rookie again.

On TD #3, Barron and Major Wright both arrive late in the endzone and again, it's an easy TD. Maybe that's a problem with positioning or maybe they were slow to read and react.

On the 4th TD, the Ravens go after 3rd year CB Leonard Johnson who is running with the WR and in position to make a play but doesn't get the job done.

Watch Verner on the 5th TD: he just lets Steve Smith run by him in single coverage down the left sideline.

Whatever the issues are, Smith, Frazier and the rest of that staff will be out of work by the end of the year if they can't stop the bleeding. Let's just hope the Bucs play that badly when they face the Vikings offense in a few weeks. Maybe the Vikes will actually score in double digits again.

[Reignman]

I don't watch enough of TB to know why they're being blown out like they are

Do you really need to watch more Buc games to find out why they're being blown out so often? Really? There's a pretty big clue in the title of this thread lol. So just denial or?

Cover 2 doesn't work without a strong pass rush and thus far, the Bucs don't have one.

The Vikings had one and the Cover 2 still didn't work. To get the cover 2 to work, first you need to build a time machine, and then go back to 2002.

[Purpnation]

Do you really need to watch more Buc games to find out why they're being blown out so often? Really? There's a pretty big clue in the title of this thread lol. So just denial or?
The Vikings had one and the Cover 2 still didn't work. To get the cover 2 to work, first you need to build a time machine, and then go back to 2002.

You think Frazier is the reason they are getting blown out?

How about, sheer lack of talent.

[PurpleMustReign]

You think Frazier is the reason they are getting blown out?

How about, sheer lack of talent.

They have talent. I believe Frazier and the cover 2 scheme are the reason for Tampa struggles.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[Purpnation]

Agree to disagree I suppose.

The cover two, like most schemes, can work given the correct talent, I think the biggest problem with the cover two is that it requires alot more talent then one is likely to have on the roster.

The mid 2000s Chicago Defenses are a perfect example what a cover two can accomplish with the right players, problem is, good corners, edge rushers, and a sideline to sideline MLB like Urlacher, are hard to come by, let alone assemble on one roster. And even if one can put such a D together, the salary cap dictates that you won't be able to keep them all together for very long anyways, good corners, edge rushers, and franchise MLB are very expensive indeed.

[Crax]

I think the biggest problem with the cover two is that it requires alot more talent then one is likely to have on the roster.

Wouldn't that be a good argument for it being a bad system?

My revolutionary "Watt 5" defense would be awesome. It's similar to a 4-3 but it requires 5 players(You need a backup to rotate in) that can play all D-Line positions. It would be the players fault when it doesn't work out. The system is great, you just need the talent!

[Reignman]

You think Frazier is the reason they are getting blown out?

How about, sheer lack of talent.

Ahh yeah, I do. And you're right, the sheer lack of coaching talent. Name 1 player who was ever better with Frazer as his coach? Now how many current Vikings players are already better under Zimmer in a new scheme? Or have you not noticed how much improved our defense is in less than a year? Hmmm I wonder what changed? And we even lost KW and JA. Yeah I wonder who is the far superior defensive mastermind. Lets keep making excuses and defending the other guy though.

The cover two, like most schemes, can work given the correct talent, I think the biggest problem with the cover two is that it requires alot more talent then one is likely to have on the roster.

So what you're saying is, Frazier is a moron? Why would someone choose to run a defensive scheme that requires more talent than a team could acquire in this day of the salary cap? That makes no sense at all.

The mid 2000s Chicago Defenses are a perfect example what a cover two can accomplish with the right players

That version of the cover 2 is far different than the version Frazier is running. Those Bears teams were aggressive and ball-hawkish. Same with the late 90's early 2000 Bucs. Very aggressive ball-hawking defense. Does that sound anything like the Vikings the past few years? Yeah absolutely not. So why does a guy, who played for possibly the most aggressive and successful defense ever to play this game in the '85 Bears, chose to go entirely in the opposite direction with his coaching philosophy? Yep, makes a lot of sense to me too.

And even if one can put such a D together, the salary cap dictates that you won't be able to keep them all together for very long anyways, good corners, edge rushers, and franchise MLB are very expensive indeed.

And right here you basically answer yourself from earlier and call Frazier a moron yourself. Why would some knucklehead stick with such an unviable scheme?

Frazier is a dud. He's incapable of inspiring or coaching players up, he lacks innovation and imagination, he's not very good at finding or identifying talent, he never changes the game plan, and continually sticks with a philosophy that's clearly not working in this league. Yeah it almost screams all time great. And how come when people talk about Frazier the only thing positive they can say is how nice he is? You never hear the words innovative, imaginative, guru, great adjustments, or even good coach when he's referenced. Hmmm I wonder why that is? Oh yeah, cuz he's a turrible coach. For a guy who claims to watch as much tape as he does, nothing ever seems to change. Does he not see the large gaping holes in his defense like the rest of us?

But I know, maybe Frazier is just very unlucky. Everywhere he ends up, he just happens to end up with the worst talent in the league. I guess. Cuz yep, when you have no talent on your roster, it's best to hire a guy like Leslie Frazier who had the 32nd ranked defense over the course of 3 years at his previous job to come in and coach up your defense. Brilliant! And now some of you can't figure out why the Bucs are suddenly so terrible on defense? Poor Frazier.

[Purpnation]

Ahh yeah, I do. And you're right, the sheer lack of coaching talent. Name 1 player who was ever better with Frazer as his coach? Now how many current Vikings players are already better under Zimmer in a new scheme? Or have you not noticed how much improved our defense is in less than a year? Hmmm I wonder what changed? And we even lost KW and JA. Yeah I wonder who is the far superior defensive mastermind. Lets keep making excuses and defending the other guy though.
So what you're saying is, Frazier is a moron? Why would someone choose to run a defensive scheme that requires more talent than a team could acquire in this day of the salary cap? That makes no sense at all.
That version of the cover 2 is far different than the version Frazier is running. Those Bears teams were aggressive and ball-hawkish. Same with the late 90's early 2000 Bucs. Very aggressive ball-hawking defense. Does that sound anything like the Vikings the past few years? Yeah absolutely not. So why does a guy, who played for possibly the most aggressive and successful defense ever to play this game in the '85 Bears, chose to go entirely in the opposite direction with his coaching philosophy? Yep, makes a lot of sense to me too.
And right here you basically answer yourself from earlier and call Frazier a moron yourself. Why would some knucklehead stick with such an unviable scheme?

Frazier is a dud. He's incapable of inspiring or coaching players up, he lacks innovation and imagination, he's not very good at finding or identifying talent, he never changes the game plan, and continually sticks with a philosophy that's clearly not working in this league. Yeah it almost screams all time great. And how come when people talk about Frazier the only thing positive they can say is how nice he is? You never hear the words innovative, imaginative, guru, great adjustments, or even good coach when he's referenced. Hmmm I wonder why that is? Oh yeah, cuz he's a turrible coach. For a guy who claims to watch as much tape as he does, nothing ever seems to change. Does he not see the large gaping holes in his defense like the rest of us?

But I know, maybe Frazier is just very unlucky. Everywhere he ends up, he just happens to end up with the worst talent in the league. I guess. Cuz yep, when you have no talent on your roster, it's best to hire a guy like Leslie Frazier who had the 32nd ranked defense over the course of 3 years at his previous job to come in and coach up your defense. Brilliant! And now some of you can't figure out why the Bucs are suddenly so terrible on defense? Poor Frazier.

Holy hell calm down, I wasn't defending Frazier completely, I was simply saying the complete lack of talent in the Bucs is their main problem. Chill out.

You kind of prove my point, those Chicago Bears defenses were ball hawkish because of the personnel, our Vikes were NOT ball hawkish and aggressive, because our players were not ball hawkish and aggressive.

I never said a cover 2 isn't a viable option, only that the nature of the salary cap has made it an expensive D to maintain at a high level, that is a fact.

[Reignman]

Holy hell calm down, I wasn't defending Frazier completely, I was simply saying the complete lack of talent in the Bucs is their main problem. Chill out.

I'll chill out when I finally stop seeing people defend the crap that made our defense so embarrassing for so long. People still defending Ponder, people still defending Frazier, sheeez. What if someone came along and tried to defend Steckel? Why is it any different with Frazier? Frazier tied or challenged all of Steckel's team records for futility.

You kind of prove my point, those Chicago Bears defenses were ball hawkish because of the personnel, our Vikes were NOT ball hawkish and aggressive, because our players were not ball hawkish and aggressive.

Our players are a lot more ball hawkish now, and look improved too don't they? Again what changed? Now ask yourself why Frazier was still playing so passive with this same group of guys who now look very improved playing aggressive? Because he's a terrible coach who can't identify talent, doesn't know how to put guys in a position to be better, and doesn't know what works in this league.

I never said a cover 2 isn't a viable option, only that the nature of the salary cap has made it an expensive D to maintain at a high level, that is a fact.

Whether it's a fact or not is irrelevant. If it's a high maintenance scheme which requires a lot of expensive pro bowlers to run, then it's dead in the water. Personally I don't think it's a fact. Any scheme with a lot of expensive pro bowlers is going to look like a good scheme, and obviously will help make the coach look like a hall of famer. A truly good coach should be able to coach players up and get them to play at a level higher than they anyone thought they could. Frazier was the opposite, he seemed to have everyone playing at a level worse, and in large part due to his crappy out dated scheme.

The version of cover 2 that Frazier runs, the overly conservative, watered down prevent defense, is what you play when you lack talent and your defense sucks. That's what you do, you dumb it down and just try to survive, but for Frazier it's his main defensive philosophy, ALL THE TIME. Telling players just to keep the ball in front of you, is a complete horse crap failure of a defensive philosophy. Frazier had a hand in picking the players for his scheme too, so why did it look like the talent was such crap to begin with? Why did we have so many lousy DB's for so long? Well it turns out they weren't all that bad, Frazier's scheme was just crap, because now that we have a real defensive guru who knows what he's doing, and knows how to put players in the best position to succeed, the same guys that Frazier had now look much better in their more aggressive roles. Strange how that works.

The Bucs have plenty of talent on defense right now, their problem is coaching. Their defense is currently worse in every category than it was the previous year. Zimmer took over the last place defense we had last year and has them top 15 in less than a year. Frazier takes over a slightly below average Bucs defense and somehow made it the worst in the league. Bucs were 3rd in the league in INT's last year and this year they only have 6. Hey weren't we always bottom of the league in INT's too? Hmmm I wonder what's the common denominator.

[Mothman]

With the Bucs and Falcons about to play again, this article looks back at the their previous game/debacle this season (and includes some film review):

http://www.tampabay.com/sports/football ... lm/2205383

How could a team do such much damage so quickly? To get some insight into what went wrong and how Tampa Bay might correct it, I reached out to former Buccaneers Pro Bowl cornerback and current Clearwater High head coach Donnie Abraham.

"At some point you've got to compete for the ball," Abraham says. "He never competed for the ball on this play. You can talk about scheme all you want, you can talk about what the coaches are doing, but if they don't have the type of players in simple man-to-man coverage to make plays and compete, it doesn't matter what they do defensive-wise."

[Purpnation]

I'll chill out when I finally stop seeing people defend the crap that made our defense so embarrassing for so long. People still defending Ponder, people still defending Frazier, sheeez. What if someone came along and tried to defend Steckel? Why is it any different with Frazier? Frazier tied or challenged all of Steckel's team records for futility.
Our players are a lot more ball hawkish now, and look improved too don't they? Again what changed? Now ask yourself why Frazier was still playing so passive with this same group of guys who now look very improved playing aggressive? Because he's a terrible coach who can't identify talent, doesn't know how to put guys in a position to be better, and doesn't know what works in this league.
Whether it's a fact or not is irrelevant. If it's a high maintenance scheme which requires a lot of expensive pro bowlers to run, then it's dead in the water. Personally I don't think it's a fact. Any scheme with a lot of expensive pro bowlers is going to look like a good scheme, and obviously will help make the coach look like a hall of famer. A truly good coach should be able to coach players up and get them to play at a level higher than they anyone thought they could. Frazier was the opposite, he seemed to have everyone playing at a level worse, and in large part due to his crappy out dated scheme.

The version of cover 2 that Frazier runs, the overly conservative, watered down prevent defense, is what you play when you lack talent and your defense sucks. That's what you do, you dumb it down and just try to survive, but for Frazier it's his main defensive philosophy, ALL THE TIME. Telling players just to keep the ball in front of you, is a complete horse crap failure of a defensive philosophy. Frazier had a hand in picking the players for his scheme too, so why did it look like the talent was such crap to begin with? Why did we have so many lousy DB's for so long? Well it turns out they weren't all that bad, Frazier's scheme was just crap, because now that we have a real defensive guru who knows what he's doing, and knows how to put players in the best position to succeed, the same guys that Frazier had now look much better in their more aggressive roles. Strange how that works.

The Bucs have plenty of talent on defense right now, their problem is coaching. Their defense is currently worse in every category than it was the previous year. Zimmer took over the last place defense we had last year and has them top 15 in less than a year. Frazier takes over a slightly below average Bucs defense and somehow made it the worst in the league. Bucs were 3rd in the league in INT's last year and this year they only have 6. Hey weren't we always bottom of the league in INT's too? Hmmm I wonder what's the common denominator.

No credit for Lovie? I mean, it is HIS defense and he also calls the plays. I don't give a flying #### about Frazier, and I definitely don't mean to defend him, but placing the majority of the blame on the guy when it is Lovie Smiths D (Which also happens to be nearly devoid of talent), seems pretty baseless. Again, Frazier doesn't even call the plays.

[Reignman]

I'm not sure if that's a defense of Frazier by trying to shift the blame to the players so I'm just going to say, why aren't players in a Frazier coached system ever coached to attack the ball? Can you even recall a game under Frazier where our defense even looked like it wanted to attack the ball? No, to me it looked like the QB (no matter who it was), in every game, got to play pitch n catch with his receivers all the way down field as our defense let anything and everything within 8 yards of the line of scrimmage be caught. Just keep the ball in front of you was Fraziers brilliant plan for having the worst pass defense over a 3 year period as head coach of the Vikings. The same brilliant plan that now has Tampa looking like it has the worst pass defense this league has ever seen. Now a lot of those same guys who weren't attacking the ball under Fraziers tutelage, are suddenly going after the ball under Zimmer, and our defense looks vastly improved. Is Frazier incapable of coaching his players to attack the ball, or are they just not listening to him? Either way it makes him a lousy coach.

No credit for Lovie? I mean, it is HIS defense and he also calls the plays. I don't give a flying #### about Frazier, and I definitely don't mean to defend him, but placing the majority of the blame on the guy when it is Lovie Smiths D (Which also happens to be nearly devoid of talent), seems pretty baseless. Again, Frazier doesn't even call the plays.

Lovie gets all the credit for making a buddy hire from the Dungy coaching tree of failure. Like I said earlier, you're taking over a struggling franchise with a promising defense and your first move is to hire a guy who ran the 32nd ranked pass defense over a 3 year period, to come in and run your new defense? Brilliant! That's almost as brilliant as when Frazier hired Alan Williams who was responsible for guiding the Colts to the worst pass defense this league has ever seen to come in and run his defense. That worked out great didn't it?

And don't buy into the nonsense that this is Lovie's defense. That's just Lovie being a stand up leader and owning the blame. Which is his blame to own, he made the mistake of bringing Frazier on board to begin with. Eventually it's going to cost Lovie his job, force him to fire his buddy, or officially take over defensive responsibilities himself and actually run a Lovie defense. Which BTW, how can you not remember what a real Lovie defense looks like? Does anyone not remember how the Bears flew all over the field, attacked the ball, and generated turnovers like no team in recent memory? When has a Frazier defense ever looked like that? So how can you not recognize the difference between a Lovie defense and a Frazier defense? Their styles and philosophies are the exact opposite. You'll know immediately when/if Lovie officially takes over defensive duties down in Tampa when the Bucs defense suddenly get more aggressive.

In 9 years as Bears head coach, Lovie's defense finished top 10 in takeaways 7 times with the worst being 16th. They finished top 5 5 times. While his aggressive style of defense was excelling in takeaways, defensive scores, and points off turnovers, Frazier was guiding our defense to an NFL record 9 games without an INT in 2011. A stretch where opposing QB's went a combined 198/270 (73.3%) 2447 yards (9.06 avg) 25 TD's, 0 INT's, and a rating of 131.8. Yeah try not to punch yourself in the face when you soak in such statistics. Inept doesn't even begin to describe that level of futility. We went 1-8 during that stretch only winning at Carolina on a last second FG.

Hey I wonder if generating turnovers is an important element of success in this league. Maybe Frazier missed the memo that's beat into everyone elses head game after game when they constantly throw up statistics and remind us about how much more successful a team is when it wins the turnover battle. So what kind of moron coach does it take to have a "meh" mentality when it comes to takeaways? One that's going to be a huge failure. Lovie clearly understands the importance of takeaways based on how he ran the Bears, Frazier clearly does not based on everywhere he's been. And he played friggin DB for the '85 Bears for crying out loud, so you'd think he'd know better. Yeesh!

[Purpnation]

I'm not sure if that's a defense of Frazier by trying to shift the blame to the players so I'm just going to say, why aren't players in a Frazier coached system ever coached to attack the ball? Can you even recall a game under Frazier where our defense even looked like it wanted to attack the ball? No, to me it looked like the QB (no matter who it was), in every game, got to play pitch n catch with his receivers all the way down field as our defense let anything and everything within 8 yards of the line of scrimmage be caught. Just keep the ball in front of you was Fraziers brilliant plan for having the worst pass defense over a 3 year period as head coach of the Vikings. The same brilliant plan that now has Tampa looking like it has the worst pass defense this league has ever seen. Now a lot of those same guys who weren't attacking the ball under Fraziers tutelage, are suddenly going after the ball under Zimmer, and our defense looks vastly improved. Is Frazier incapable of coaching his players to attack the ball, or are they just not listening to him? Either way it makes him a lousy coach.
Lovie gets all the credit for making a buddy hire from the Dungy coaching tree of failure. Like I said earlier, you're taking over a struggling franchise with a promising defense and your first move is to hire a guy who ran the 32nd ranked pass defense over a 3 year period, to come in and run your new defense? Brilliant! That's almost as brilliant as when Frazier hired Alan Williams who was responsible for guiding the Colts to the worst pass defense this league has ever seen to come in and run his defense. That worked out great didn't it?

And don't buy into the nonsense that this is Lovie's defense. That's just Lovie being a stand up leader and owning the blame. Which is his blame to own, he made the mistake of bringing Frazier on board to begin with. Eventually it's going to cost Lovie his job, force him to fire his buddy, or officially take over defensive responsibilities himself and actually run a Lovie defense. Which BTW, how can you not remember what a real Lovie defense looks like? Does anyone not remember how the Bears flew all over the field, attacked the ball, and generated turnovers like no team in recent memory? When has a Frazier defense ever looked like that? So how can you not recognize the difference between a Lovie defense and a Frazier defense? Their styles and philosophies are the exact opposite. You'll know immediately when/if Lovie officially takes over defensive duties down in Tampa when the Bucs defense suddenly get more aggressive.

In 9 years as Bears head coach, Lovie's defense finished top 10 in takeaways 7 times with the worst being 16th. They finished top 5 5 times. While his aggressive style of defense was excelling in takeaways, defensive scores, and points off turnovers, Frazier was guiding our defense to an NFL record 9 games without an INT in 2011. A stretch where opposing QB's went a combined 198/270 (73.3%) 2447 yards (9.06 avg) 25 TD's, 0 INT's, and a rating of 131.8. Yeah try not to punch yourself in the face when you soak in such statistics. Inept doesn't even begin to describe that level of futility. We went 1-8 during that stretch only winning at Carolina on a last second FG.

Hey I wonder if generating turnovers is an important element of success in this league. Maybe Frazier missed the memo that's beat into everyone elses head game after game when they constantly throw up statistics and remind us about how much more successful a team is when it wins the turnover battle. So what kind of moron coach does it take to have a "meh" mentality when it comes to takeaways? One that's going to be a huge failure. Lovie clearly understands the importance of takeaways based on how he ran the Bears, Frazier clearly does not based on everywhere he's been. And he played friggin DB for the '85 Bears for crying out loud, so you'd think he'd know better. Yeesh!

It seems like you place to much emphasis on scheme, and to little on personnel.

Of course Lovies current D, and Fraziers D when he was here weren't doing what Lovies Chicagos Ds were, they didn't have half the talent! Flying around and making plays is easier when you gave Urlacher, Briggs, Harris, Tillman, and Vasher. Again, Lovies D can work, but like every cheme, it needs the correct talent in place to run it.