• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

(No Longer) Joe Woods’ Defense

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
Great call, so we only rushed 4 on that play. Man, we need to rush more than that sometimes, rushing only 4 on every play wont get it done in this league.
Generally, no. And when they're only rushing 4 it's pretty easy for a mobile QB to maneuver around especially if there isn't interior pressure from the DTs.

It's most effective going against statues, and even then the coverage can't be so simple that the first read is usually open.

To give Woods credit - I liked what I saw at the tail end of the game. I thought he switched it up a bit and used Delpit very well. It'll be interesting to see if there is progression during our next game and if the end of the Texans game was a stepping stone, or if he was feeling the pressure of having an underperforming defense at the time and simply went with something new in the moment.
 
Cris Collinsworth touched on something last night that I thought was surprisingly poignant in regards to NFL defenses.

Not every team does this, but the vast majority of teams have the same general philosophy defensively in 2021.

Essentially the overarching thought process is to play your safeties deep, keep everything in front of you and be very good at tackling to avoid yards after the catch. Teams are more willing than ever to concede the run and the short passing game and will trade off as many 4-7 yard plays as the other team can consistently execute in exchange for *not* giving up plays over 20 yards.

The idea being if you force the opposing team to execute an 8 to 15 play drive just to get points, the chances increase dramatically that somewhere along the way they will give up a sack, or blow a block that turns into a tackle for loss on a running play, or commit a penalty, or have a miscommunication between QB and WR for an INT or incomplete pass, or the QB will make an inaccurate throw, or a WR will drop a pass, etc.

Now... when none of those mistakes happen and a team just marches down on you in 10 plays and takes up 6-7 minutes off the clock, that can be extremely frustrating, but very few teams are equipped to consistently do that.

The Browns are one of those teams because they run the ball so much better than the vast majority of teams.
 
Last edited:
Cris Collinsworth touched on something last night that I thought was surprisingly poignant in regards to NFL defenses.

Not every team does this, but the vast majority of teams have the same general philosophy defensively in 2021.

Essentially the overarching thought process is to play your safeties deep, keep everything in front of you and be very good at tackling to avoid yards after the catch. Teams are more willing than ever to concede the run and the short passing game and will trade off as many 4-7 yard plays as the other team can consistently execute in exchange for *not* giving up plays over 20 yards.

The idea being if you force the opposing team to execute an 8 to 15 play drive just to get points, the chances increase dramatically that somewhere along the way they will give up a sack, or blow a block that turns into a tackle for loss on a running play, or commit a penalty, or have a miscommunication between QB and WR for an INT or incomplete pass, or the QB will make an inaccurate throw, or a WR will drop a pass, etc.

Now... when none of those mistakes happen and a team just marches down on you in 10 plays and takes up 6-7 minutes off the clock, that can be extremely frustrating, but very few teams are equipped to consistently do that.

The Browns are one of those teams because they run the ball so much better than the vast majority of teams.
I generally agree with that strategy. Give your defense as many chances as possible to make a play. Give the offense as many chances as possible to make a mistake.

I think that you can still pull off this 2-high shell coverage while being aggressive and creative.

You don't need to drop Denzel Ward into a deep zone. He can play press-man with that safety over the top. You don't need to play base pressure--you can disguise things. Move people around, drop people out.

Part of the maximizing the amount of chances for the opposing team to make a mistake is maximizing the number of things per play that team has to do. Add "Make the QB figure out this disguised coverage" and "Make the QB and OL figure out this disguised/complex pressure" to each play and that's going to cause more problem for opposing offenses.

In the same way it's free advantage for the offense to use motion, it's free advantage for your defense to try and play mind games with the offense.
 
I generally agree with that strategy. Give your defense as many chances as possible to make a play. Give the offense as many chances as possible to make a mistake.

I think that you can still pull off this 2-high shell coverage while being aggressive and creative.

You don't need to drop Denzel Ward into a deep zone. He can play press-man with that safety over the top. You don't need to play base pressure--you can disguise things. Move people around, drop people out.

Part of the maximizing the amount of chances for the opposing team to make a mistake is maximizing the number of things per play that team has to do. Add "Make the QB figure out this disguised coverage" and "Make the QB and OL figure out this disguised/complex pressure" to each play and that's going to cause more problem for opposing offenses.

In the same way it's free advantage for the offense to use motion, it's free advantage for your defense to try and play mind games with the offense.

Totally agree.

The idea of primarily playing a deep shell zone isn't a bad thing necessarily. But it also doesn't mean you *have* to play a basic vanilla "almost every look is the exact same" defense either. Disguising what the QB is seeing pre and post snap is still a very critical element and it is something that feels like has been lacking through two weeks.

Woods seems to be putting a lot of faith in the front four to get pressure, which is fine, but at the same time you have to help these guys out by manufacturing the kind of things that can cause a QB to hesitate 1-2 beats which can ultimately be the difference between pressure getting home or not.

As it stands right now, the Browns haven't really dressed much up defensively. It's mostly just a straight zone and the QB is getting rid of the ball so quickly to guys who are open in that 5-8 yard area that it more or less neutralizes the pass rush.
 
Week Two with all these new faces on defense seems a little early for some of the criticism to me. Myles, Ward, and part-time starters Takitaki & Malcolm Smith are carry-overs. Everyone else is learning the scheme, learning the terminology. Many of these starters/major contributors are rookies or playing in the NFL for the first time these past two weeks.

The Browns are top ten in very important categories like yards allowed and points allowed per game. Some might point to small sample size, but the AFC Champs and best offense in the NFL were one of those two teams.

Is the debate a matter of style points at this point? Yes, we want the Browns to win but we also want five sacks and a bunch of turnovers? I want this defense to entertain, and Woods has a boring defense. Is that the big issue?

I do believe the turnovers will come eventually, along with some more creative blitzes. By the end of 2020, they ended up 19th in total takeaways. Drop zone blitzes increased as the season went on, especially on third down.

I don't expect any coach to blitz several players and play man against Mahomes and Tyrod. It's just asking for a running QB to have a field day. Let's see what the new starters can learn in a week.
 
Week Two with all these new faces on defense seems a little early for some of the criticism to me. Myles, Ward, and part-time starters Takitaki & Malcolm Smith are carry-overs. Everyone else is learning the scheme, learning the terminology. Many of these starters/major contributors are rookies or playing in the NFL for the first time these past two weeks.

The Browns are top ten in very important categories like yards allowed and points allowed per game. Some might point to small sample size, but the AFC Champs and best offense in the NFL were one of those two teams.

Is the debate a matter of style points at this point? Yes, we want the Browns to win but we also want five sacks and a bunch of turnovers? I want this defense to entertain, and Woods has a boring defense. Is that the big issue?

I do believe the turnovers will come eventually, along with some more creative blitzes. By the end of 2020, they ended up 19th in total takeaways. Drop zone blitzes increased as the season went on, especially on third down.

I don't expect any coach to blitz several players and play man against Mahomes and Tyrod. It's just asking for a running QB to have a field day. Let's see what the new starters can learn in a week.


Truthfully, the biggest problem is that they are allowing 3rd down conversions at a rate that's going to end in disaster.

The Browns have an incredible, top...3? offense in the NFL. They don't need much, just mid pack in getting off the field on 3rd down and they'd be fine. But at this rate, they aren't even close to being good at it.
 
Week Two with all these new faces on defense seems a little early for some of the criticism to me. Myles, Ward, and part-time starters Takitaki & Malcolm Smith are carry-overs. Everyone else is learning the scheme, learning the terminology. Many of these starters/major contributors are rookies or playing in the NFL for the first time these past two weeks.

The Browns are top ten in very important categories like yards allowed and points allowed per game. Some might point to small sample size, but the AFC Champs and best offense in the NFL were one of those two teams.
Any stats on points allowed per possession? To me, that would be a good place to start, and then look at things like turnovers and field position. Points per game and yards per game are pretty bad stats to use if the team is limiting the number of possessions the opponent has.

Is the debate a matter of style points at this point? Yes, we want the Browns to win but we also want five sacks and a bunch of turnovers? I want this defense to entertain, and Woods has a boring defense. Is that the big issue?
No--I want my defense to be effective. I believe that playing one of the best press-man corners in football in a deep zone on the majority of plays is an inefficient choice that will limit this defense's effectiveness. I believe that reducing the variables an opposing offense has to account for on every play will limit this defense's effectiveness.


I do believe the turnovers will come eventually, along with some more creative blitzes. By the end of 2020, they ended up 19th in total takeaways. Drop zone blitzes increased as the season went on, especially on third down.
Maybe. I always view defense as two basic components--coverage and pressure. Even if the pressure improves, I still have problems with our coverage philosophy.

I don't expect any coach to blitz several players and play man against Mahomes and Tyrod. It's just asking for a running QB to have a field day. Let's see what the new starters can learn in a week.
It will be interesting to see how this defense performs against different offenses. If you tell me Denzel Ward is playing zone so he can keep his eyes on the running QB, then fine--I'll ask you if it worked, but at least I can buy that philosophy. I'd still prefer to run MEG or split-field concepts.
 
Any stats on points allowed per possession? To me, that would be a good place to start, and then look at things like turnovers and field position. Points per game and yards per game are pretty bad stats to use if the team is limiting the number of possessions the opponent has.

There really isn't any explanation here. Why are the stats the NFL keeps on yards per game and points per game not sufficient? Why do you feel the defense should be penalized in a stat for long drives by the offense?


No--I want my defense to be effective. I believe that playing one of the best press-man corners in football in a deep zone on the majority of plays is an inefficient choice that will limit this defense's effectiveness. I believe that reducing the variables an opposing offense has to account for on every play will limit this defense's effectiveness.

I do not believe a press man coverage is the best decision for the opponent's the Browns faced. Press zone is a more interesting answer that fits the opposing offense. A zone gets eyes off the defender's assigned man and keeps the action on front of them. The important skill here is for the defender's to get quick breaks when the QB tucks to run and quick breaks when the ball is released. That's where the Browns really need to clean some technique up.




Maybe. I always view defense as two basic components--coverage and pressure. Even if the pressure improves, I still have problems with our coverage philosophy.

I have seen very few people upset about coverage choices but lots of people mad about only sending four in pressure. It's a tough one because sending four worked against KC, but that success didn't continue against the Texans. A bit of hindsight, IMO. Strangely, hindsight is usually reserved for losses instead of a solid win. So again, I wonder why people are really upset. Stats say the Texans didn't have a great day overall after two good opening drives.


It will be interesting to see how this defense performs against different offenses. If you tell me Denzel Ward is playing zone so he can keep his eyes on the running QB, then fine--I'll ask you if it worked, but at least I can buy that philosophy. I'd still prefer to run MEG or split-field concepts.

Woods is going to call a lot of MEG. He does some split-field, but I definitely saw "Cover four" Sunday.

I think I mentioned this, but I saw most of the game on my phone after my internet cut out. I won't pretend I caught everything when I'm watching a game off my phone. I do see that the reaction to the defensive performance from fans didn't match the results I see from a statistical perspective. They seemed to want a blowout with a rookie QB being embarrassed, and what they got was an ineffective Texans offense that didn't embarrass themselves. It's still a comfortable win.
 
There really isn't any explanation here. Why are the stats the NFL keeps on yards per game and points per game not sufficient? Why do you feel the defense should be penalized in a stat for long drives by the offense?
Really? If one team allows 28 points over 100 possessions, and one team allows 27 points over 8 possessions, which defense is better?

Points per game aren't a very good stat at analyzing how good a defense is--especially with such a small sample size. Points per possession are better than points per game, just like all of us here on this NBA message board recognize that points per 100 possessions is better than points per game.

Considering how much the Browns run the ball on offense to milk the clock, combined with this "soft zone" keep everything in front of us on defense that leads to lengthy drives time-wise, it would be fair for a fan to ask if the Browns' stats are skewed because of a low number of total possessions.

I do not believe a press man coverage is the best decision for the opponent's the Browns faced. Press zone is a more interesting answer that fits the opposing offense. A zone gets eyes off the defender's assigned man and keeps the action on front of them. The important skill here is for the defender's to get quick breaks when the QB tucks to run and quick breaks when the ball is released. That's where the Browns really need to clean some technique up.
That's fair. I'd still say that I didn't see Denzel Ward doing this at all--and there are better ways to accomplish slowing down a scrambling QB while defending the pass, like the before-mentioned MEG and split-coverage calls.


I have seen very few people upset about coverage choices but lots of people mad about only sending four in pressure. It's a tough one because sending four worked against KC, but that success didn't continue against the Texans. A bit of hindsight, IMO. Strangely, hindsight is usually reserved for losses instead of a solid win. So again, I wonder why people are really upset. Stats say the Texans didn't have a great day overall after two good opening drives.
I'm not those people. I have more concerns over our coverage than I do about our pressure. I'm seeing a little dose of exotic blitzes and drop zones already, which is nice. That was one goal I said I wanted to see this year, and we're already seeing it.

Woods is going to call a lot of MEG. He does some split-field, but I definitely saw "Cover four" Sunday.
If he does, then I'll give him praise. I can't say I noticed it last year, and those concepts are something I want to see this year.

I think I mentioned this, but I saw most of the game on my phone after my internet cut out. I won't pretend I caught everything when I'm watching a game off my phone. I do see that the reaction to the defensive performance from fans didn't match the results I see from a statistical perspective. They seemed to want a blowout with a rookie QB being embarrassed, and what they got was an ineffective Texans offense that didn't embarrass themselves. It's still a comfortable win.
There were a lot of plays with wide open looks that are easy for any QB. Some really noticeable balls for Brandin Cooks stood out that were right in front of Denzel Ward who looked to be dropping back into a deep third. If we lost or the game was on the line in the last quarter, and we were still giving a dogshit QB easy reads like that I'd have an issue--but it wasn't, and I don't. I don't care about the result on Sunday--I care about whether or not this team is ready to win a Super Bowl in February.
 
Points per game aren't a very good stat at analyzing how good a defense is--especially with such a small sample size. Points per possession are better than points per game, just like all of us here on this NBA message board recognize that points per 100 possessions is better than points per game.

Considering how much the Browns run the ball on offense to milk the clock, combined with this "soft zone" keep everything in front of us on defense that leads to lengthy drives time-wise, it would be fair for a fan to ask if the Browns' stats are skewed because of a low number of total possessions.

Conservative on offense has symbiotic relationship with the conservative defense. This is the overall strategy Stefanski wants.

He designs the offensive playcalls, and hand-picked Woods as coordinator. We agree they play off of one another in philosophy. I see an offensive identity and defensive identity that go together, taking less risks on first and second down is matched on offense and defense.

I want to see how the defense changes when McDowell, Delpit, Newsome, and JOK gain more experience. I want to see how the defense tries to outsmart the opposing quarterback when Hill, Johnson, Takk and Jackson have complete mastery of the defensive calls. Then I'd expect more of what Mary Kay Cabott bitched and pleaded to see after a comfortable home win.
 
Conservative on offense has symbiotic relationship with the conservative defense. This is the overall strategy Stefanski wants.

He designs the offensive playcalls, and hand-picked Woods as coordinator. We agree they play off of one another in philosophy. I see an offensive identity and defensive identity that go together, taking less risks on first and second down is matched on offense and defense.

I want to see how the defense changes when McDowell, Delpit, Newsome, and JOK gain more experience. I want to see how the defense tries to outsmart the opposing quarterback when Hill, Johnson, Takk and Jackson have complete mastery of the defensive calls. Then I'd expect more of what Mary Kay Cabott bitched and pleaded to see after a comfortable home win.
I too want to see how the defense develops.

If nothing changes over the next 19 games, then I'll likely say Woods isn't good enough in my eyes. Neither the coverage nor the pressure is good enough yet for me to say Woods is one of the best in the business.

I have no reason to believe nothing will change.

I don't think I agree with your conservative symbiosis theory--but we can save that for another day. I don't even buy the argument that running the ball is conservative.
 
Conservative on offense has symbiotic relationship with the conservative defense. This is the overall strategy Stefanski wants.

He designs the offensive playcalls, and hand-picked Woods as coordinator. We agree they play off of one another in philosophy. I see an offensive identity and defensive identity that go together, taking less risks on first and second down is matched on offense and defense.

I want to see how the defense changes when McDowell, Delpit, Newsome, and JOK gain more experience. I want to see how the defense tries to outsmart the opposing quarterback when Hill, Johnson, Takk and Jackson have complete mastery of the defensive calls. Then I'd expect more of what Mary Kay Cabott bitched and pleaded to see after a comfortable home win.
I think Keys is onto something here.

I have never coached a football team, but I have to think you begin installing a defense with a fundamental such as "We will pressure with four, so we can cover with seven"... And this is how you approach the game. I would also imagine that installing the disguised defensive call, is something you do when everybody has the fundamental in their heads. I would also think you would use more disguise or surprises late in the season so there is not a lot of game film to study for tells.

There are a lot of newbies yet, especially in the secondary, that have not played together. Yes they are better players. Faster with more skills. But not a lot of live snaps together. And besides that, if I am going to understand my strengths and weaknesses, I think I want to see if I can beat the other guys straight up. If my corner is good enough , he should be able to contain Hill. Can my linebackers and safeties stop Kelce? if not, why not? At the end of the season we will know what we have and game plan to that.
 
I do worry that we're too keen on having all the pieces together and perfectly in place to try to make it work. Like trying to back out of a driveway on a busy street and waiting until every light is in your favor and no car in sight on both sides. "Well we COULD'VE gotten a stop to seal the game if Delpit didn't miss those 5 snaps. Well our gameplan was ruined when Harrison got ejected. Once our rookie get up to par, we'll be ready. Well, all we need is an all-pro at Mike, an all-pro at Sam, and a couple pro bowlers at 3 and 1 tech and then Woods can utilize his scheme the way he wants."

I agree with fam that kept saying he doesn't think Berryski are the types to fire a dude mid-season but the clock is ticking. Don't think Woods will get another crack at this if things don't improve. We have the dawgs - barring a catastrophic string of injuries, it has to get done this year.
 

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-13: "Backup Bash Brothers"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:11: "Clipping Bucks."
Top