I understand that Casey Creehan is going to install a system using mainly DL pressure and man-to-man coverage. But how is this going to look? Is it going to be Cover 1 all game? Or will he mix up some more zone coverages? I'm fine with not blitzing too often; hopefully we get some pressure with the front four. It seems to me that there is only so much you can do with man-to-man when you're not blitzing, so I want to know what kind of plays they will run.
Allen: Good question.
I just hope he will not be predictable. But I think George Cortez will be on that pretty quick. I want to see a fast reacting, hard hitting defence that is full of surprises.
Creehan looks to be favoring a rush-four D that allows DBs to play man press and LBs to clog up the middle of the field on short routes (particularly crosses and slants). I think his principles are sound, but he's new to the DC position, and there are question marks at certain positions (rush end, weak-side DB, corner in general). His intensity at practice is impressive - I just hope it doesn't burn out the players by season's end. Part of his adjustment IMO will be learning how to dial down the yelling and screaming when necessary.
Just as long as his defence doesn't involve linemen covering receivers 25 yards downfield.
Really the litmus test is when bullets are flying and his players look to him for solutions will he be able to help them. If he can they will follow. If he does not have the answers they will tune him out and revert to their instincts. The other issue will be can he treat everyone fairly. His father was known to play favorite and he was never successful or anywhere long.
Amen to that!!
Well it looks like I got my question answered.
[url=http://scratchingpost.thespec.com/2012/04/final-thoughts-from-ticats-mini-camp-and-a-preview-to-the-touchdown-dinner.html#comments]http://scratchingpost.thespec.com/2012/ ... l#comments[/url]Then Etcheverry should have been the hire. 
If Drew's right and the defense does lots of thinks out of a few different looks I dont think they will be very predictable at all
prairiedog: :lol:
I should have rephrased that and said something like " a defence that prevents the opposition from ever taking anything for granted." Or something like that.
Thanks for posting that. Creehan’s philosophy seems to be fairly conventional, and I mean that in a good way. The ability to play different packages out of the same look is probably what every DC strives for. In other words, if you line up (for example) pre-snap in a 3-4 alignment with the WILL showing blitz off the edge and the safety shading the strong side, you should be able to run different plays out of that look: OLB blitz with cover 1 man, the same OLB blitz with cover 1 zone, or maybe a modified cloud (rotation) with 3 deep and the weakside DB playing either the deep middle or the outside. So not only should the plays vary behind a given look, but those plays must also vary in their philosophy with respect to the specific context (down, distance, time of the game). If you can get your opponent wondering whether you’ll blitz hard with your DBs in man or whether you’ll drop off to take away the short passing game out of the same look, you’re doing fine. 
Also, everybody is ripping on Chamblin’s use of Baggs in coverage last season, but IMO there’s nothing wrong with wanting to use an athletic DE to play a hook zone. DCs run that sort of stunt all the time. The play isn’t necessarily wrong – it’s how and when you run that play, whether the other elements of the play come together, and how good the opposing quarterback is at sniffing out this sort of trick pre-snap.