We do so much at the line of scrimmage, both offensively and defensively, I just think sometimes we rely on it too much.

When I call a play it may have three components. This one's good. This one might be a lot better. Well, good's good. A lot better is good, too.

But let's not always try to get to a lot better. There's a lot of merit in putting your hand in the ground, going after it and playing with faster tempo. No different on defense.

The thing everybody needs to do, if we've got to rely on scheme all the time to win then we're not doing what the head coach believes in.

Whip his ass. Stop worrying about if he's in a four-technique or a four-eye (technique). Keep it simple, stupid. KISS.

Mike McCarthy wrote:

He also added this about the 49ers game .. "Did we handle the scheme very well? No. As coaches, we're supposed to put them in position to be successful. In the same breath, I don't want to hear about, 'We need to run this, we need to run that.' Let's just play our leverage and trust the guy next to us. Let's not be peeking and reacting to every damn thing."



I must agree 100%, fundamentals over scheme. If you have to run trick plays to beat someone, you aren't really beating them. That's why I don't care for the zone blocking scheme. I don't want finesse crap, I want big fatties pummeling their opponent into submission so when they line up against the Packers they be saying "ahhh shit, here is another ass whooping".

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

THIS!!!!!!! =d> =d> =d> =d>

Some of the best teams in the past had studs on the line that pummeled the opposition.

The Hogs in Washington. Steel Curtain. Dallas Doomsday defense also their OL in the 90's was excellent. Rams Fearsome Foursome with Deacon Jones, Merlin Olsen, and Rosey Grier. Jack Youngblood and Fred Dryer were added in the 70's.

Of course there is an exception to every rule. Those purple pansies were more hype than bite. That said Alan Page was a stud.

Originally Posted by: wpr