Page 2 of 2
Re: Pagano on Quinn
Posted: Mon Jun 22, 2020 11:44 am
by dplank
Well, the position coach is coaching technique mainly and helping implement the master plan of the DC for his position group. But the DC creates the plan and calls the defensive plays on gameday. So, if the DC play design is calling for stunts, or guys on the DL to "hold" a lineman to create a free runner, or blitz a LB while dropping a DL in his place to confuse the opponent, then all the position coach can do is work with his guys to execute that concept as well as possible. The players didn't change, they were just asked to do different things under Pagano (i.e., EJax was asked to play more box safety than he was under Vic, Roquan's assignments changed, etc). And these are the things, coupled with what I just read from this interview, that have me concerned about Quinn. Pagano has already shown us he'll play people out of position while trying to scheme things up, and he basically said as much in this interview that Quinn will have a tough adjustment ahead of him - I don't like hearing that. If that was the plan, we shouldn't have spent that much money on the guy as we don't know that the adjustment will be successful. You don't bet franchise money like that and drastically change things on them, big money like that should be spent on sure things.
Re: Pagano on Quinn
Posted: Mon Jun 22, 2020 1:07 pm
by Z Bear
Got you on the soft definition, but I think Hicks had more to do with the regress than anything else. Also, I think the addition of Quinn will help out more than people realize. Floyd was not much of a pass rushing threat, so the need to blitz was greater especially with Hicks gone. Hicks, Mack, Nichols, and Quinn should be able to generate enough pressure without blitzing.
Re: Pagano on Quinn
Posted: Mon Jun 22, 2020 3:27 pm
by dplank
It's certainly possible Z, I hope you're right and Hicks return is the one thing that gives me hope here. I have a long standing bias to be fair, I thought that Pagano rode the coattails of others in Baltimore to the HC gig in Indy. And when he got there, I thought his "defensive genius" label was unwarranted, and sure enough his defenses stunk up the place in Indy damn near every year - and got worse no less. So I was not happy at all when we signed him as the "big name DC" out there when Vic left.
So I know I have a bias here and I definitely can see how one key player, and Hicks is that, can turn things around very quickly. Losing him was hard, maybe even worse than losing Mack honestly. Mack's the better player and all, but when you start losing at the point of attack, esp up the middle, it has a nasty trickle down impact on the rest of the defense.
We'll see, I remain hopeful as I think our defense is absolutely stacked this year. There are no excuses barring massive injuries, this unit should be great (not just good) and should be near the top of the league in sacks and turnovers (which typically come from pressure, they go hand in hand).
Re: Pagano on Quinn
Posted: Mon Jun 22, 2020 5:47 pm
by Otis Day
You have to have the personnel to be good,no matter who the coach is. I don't recall Pagano having an abundance of players in Indy. Buddy Ryan had studs in Chi and Philly. Baltimore had studs for years as well. Hell, Lovie had studs here as well and they were not consistently dominant. Injuries played a part in that. You need studs at each level of the D.
Re: Pagano on Quinn
Posted: Tue Jun 23, 2020 12:48 pm
by Yogi da Bear
Z Bear wrote: ↑Mon Jun 22, 2020 1:07 pm
Got you on the soft definition, but I think Hicks had more to do with the regress than anything else. Also, I think the addition of Quinn will help out more than people realize. Floyd was not much of a pass rushing threat, so the need to blitz was greater especially with Hicks gone. Hicks, Mack, Nichols, and Quinn should be able to generate enough pressure without blitzing.
Ah, there's the rub that I've been harping on. IF Pagano is serious about making Quinn a true OLB, than we aren't going to be able to send BOTH Mack and Quinn WITHOUT blitzing. I've been so certain that we were going to keep Quinn as a DE for just this reason.
But now all of DP's talk is making really itchy. His observation that Pagano loves to blitz, to scheme, versus just using the straight out aggressiveness of the front seven really is starting to worry me. If you're simply using the aggressiveness of your front seven, you make Quinn a DE and simply send him all the time along with Mack. But if you're scheme driven with a blitzing philosophy, you make Quinn an OLB and use the threat of BOTH Mack and Quinn to stymie opposing offenses and force them to choose how to shift their blocking protections to whatever side they think we might send--Quinn or Mack.
Myself, I much prefer the first style where we send BOTH Mack and Quinn every chance we get. In the second style, if we're dropping either Mack or Quinn into coverage, we become far less aggressive and aren't using our pieces to their best benefit. Thanks a lot DP. Now you got me worrying. I'm hoping as they move along, they're smart about it (as Pagano says they have to be) and just keep Quinn at position that he does best--with his hand in the dirt rushing the passer and protecting the edge.
If you put Quinn and Mack and Hicks in the positions they are best geared for, you don't NEED to blitz.
Re: Pagano on Quinn
Posted: Tue Jun 23, 2020 1:41 pm
by Z Bear
Yogi da Bear wrote: ↑Tue Jun 23, 2020 12:48 pm
Ah, there's the rub that I've been harping on. IF Pagano is serious about making Quinn a true OLB, than we aren't going to be able to send BOTH Mack and Quinn WITHOUT blitzing. I've been so certain that we were going to keep Quinn as a DE for just this reason.
Not true, the Bears drop a lineman, not a LB, when they play nickle. So the 2 OLBS and 2 remaining lineman would be a 4 man rush. Essentially Mack and Quinn would be the DEs then Hick and Nichols/Goldman would be the DTs.
Re: Pagano on Quinn
Posted: Tue Jun 23, 2020 2:00 pm
by dplank
Our personnel seems best suited for 4/3 IMO.
RDE - Quinn, DT - Goldman, DT - Hicks, LDE - Mack
WLB - Roquan, MLB - Trevathan, SLB - Iggy or Vaughters
Then you get Gipson backing up at DE, Nichols at DT. And most importantly, Quinn/Mack are playing DE where they can wreak most havoc on the field.
Re: Pagano on Quinn
Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2020 12:53 pm
by wab
dplank wrote: ↑Tue Jun 23, 2020 2:00 pm
Our personnel seems best suited for 4/3 IMO.
RDE - Quinn, DT - Goldman, DT - Hicks, LDE - Mack
WLB - Roquan, MLB - Trevathan, SLB - Iggy or Vaughters
Then you get Gipson backing up at DE, Nichols at DT. And most importantly, Quinn/Mack are playing DE where they can wreak most havoc on the field.
I've been saying since Quinn signed that even though this defense is called a 3-4, you'll really see that it's a 4-3 under.
Monster SAM (Mack)
Pass rushing RDE (Quinn)
Powerful LDE (Hicks)
Run stopping NT (Goldman)
Athletic 3T (Nichols)
Run Stopping MLB (Trevathan)
The SAM, WLB, MLB, RDE, NT, and LDE are on the field the majority of the time in a 4-3 Under, so you can almost consider it a 3-4. 3T really only comes in on passing downs.
When you look at the roster, the Bears have the perfect personnel for it.
Re: Pagano on Quinn
Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2020 1:31 pm
by Arkansasbear
Yogi da Bear wrote: ↑Tue Jun 23, 2020 12:48 pm
Z Bear wrote: ↑Mon Jun 22, 2020 1:07 pm
Got you on the soft definition, but I think Hicks had more to do with the regress than anything else. Also, I think the addition of Quinn will help out more than people realize. Floyd was not much of a pass rushing threat, so the need to blitz was greater especially with Hicks gone. Hicks, Mack, Nichols, and Quinn should be able to generate enough pressure without blitzing.
Ah, there's the rub that I've been harping on. IF Pagano is serious about making Quinn a true OLB, than we aren't going to be able to send BOTH Mack and Quinn WITHOUT blitzing. I've been so certain that we were going to keep Quinn as a DE for just this reason.
But now all of DP's talk is making really itchy. His observation that Pagano loves to blitz, to scheme, versus just using the straight out aggressiveness of the front seven really is starting to worry me. If you're simply using the aggressiveness of your front seven, you make Quinn a DE and simply send him all the time along with Mack. But if you're scheme driven with a blitzing philosophy, you make Quinn an OLB and use the threat of BOTH Mack and Quinn to stymie opposing offenses and force them to choose how to shift their blocking protections to whatever side they think we might send--Quinn or Mack.
Myself, I much prefer the first style where we send BOTH Mack and Quinn every chance we get. In the second style, if we're dropping either Mack or Quinn into coverage, we become far less aggressive and aren't using our pieces to their best benefit. Thanks a lot DP. Now you got me worrying. I'm hoping as they move along, they're smart about it (as Pagano says they have to be) and just keep Quinn at position that he does best--with his hand in the dirt rushing the passer and protecting the edge.
If you put Quinn and Mack and Hicks in the positions they are best geared for, you don't NEED to blitz.
I see Quinn playing a lot like Rosey Colvin did for us. He lined up with his hand down on lots of downs and stood up as well. I see us going with 3 DL and him and Mack standing up; a DL of him, Hicks and Goldman on the DL with ???? playing other OLD; him and Hicks playing DE in a "traditional" 4-3 system; Hicks kicking inside in a 4-3 with Mack joining him as the DE.
Hopefully his signing will let Chuck draw up all sorts of things to throw at teams.