I believe in that philosophy 100%. Simplicity and consistency provides much better results over a broader set of applications and personnel. Complexity limits your personnel and demands a superior talent level to be successful.
I don't get the reasoning behind Ulbrich making the following statements a couple days ago: Ulbrich said that “30 to 35 snaps” is approximately the maximum total that he wants any of the team’s linemen to play per game, citing the “level of fatigue that is associated with how we play.” “We don’t catch blocks, we don’t read blocks; things are on our terms,” Ulbrich said. “And when you play like that, when you play with your hair on fire, and you play with the energy and the strain that we demand of them, asking them to play any more than 35 snaps I think is detrimental to their health and to the quality of play.” Many commentators including Nania https://jetsxfactor.com/2022/06/02/ny-jets-jeff-ulbrich-dl-plan-unwise/ disagree with the philosophy. But I'm wondering what advantage accrues to publicizing ones plans in any case? Do you see BB letting every team know his defensive plans? I'd rather not have a coach tell everyone his strategy prior and I gotta question Ulbrich's coaching acumen for doing so.
Good post but very puzzling. What does it mean "to play with your hair on fire?" That, as well as "all gas, no brake," suggests you're not playing under control and could be vulnerable to overreaction and being out of position. Do professional football players need slogans like that to perform their best? I would think if your not giving 100% out there someone else is ready to take your place, is enough motivation for players at this level. Sometimes I wonder about this coaching staff.
I think is fair to say the DC and the defense should be under the same microscope and with as much focus as with Zach and the Offense. We have added plenty of horsepower on the defensive side of the ball, the team has a year in their resume, injuries as of now are not an issue, so let us not assume that for us to be successful all we need is a better Zach. This D needs to dominate for us to have a fighting chance. Also to Westies point I hope “ hair on fire” means a damned good and controlled game plan executed with speed and violence and not just go out and hit the QB or the ball carrier.
I felt the same way when we let the other teams know we were switching to a 4-3. Why are we making our plans so obvious?!?! Letting other DCs know our strategy is a recipe for disaster! /s Exactly!!! You don’t see millionaires attend any motivational seminars, because they’re already rich and don’t need motivation!!! Any staff wasting time motivating their players is focusing on the wrong things. /s On a side note, if my 72 yo mom went out driving with all gas no break she would 100% he out of control and vulnerable to overreaction. I wonder if the CS is training this team so they can be prepared to handle situations wile minimizing the mistakes…. Probably not since they’re spending all their time coming up with slogans.
IDK defense still feels weak to me on paper due to the DT spot (Q is the only good one on the roster) and the FS spot (joyner at 31 of an injury and davis) and the LBers (mosley and Q were decent at best last year and sherwood is unknown) we do seem stacked at CB and edge though
Yeah... we're gonna get gashed again. Last year we gave up over 2,300 rushing yrds. Fucking pathetic. You, as well as anyone, knows what that does to a team. Sucks the life right out of them.
The 30-35 snaps per game per DL scares me, especially with the interior DL depth this team has. Does this defense play with so much more intensity than others that it warrants such a snap count? Guys like Quinnen Williams and JFM should probably be out there a lot more then 30-35 snaps per game. I really hope Nate Shephard isn't playing the same amount of snaps as Quinnen Williams and there's a lot more flexibility than would seem in that quote. And or I hope he'll alter this strategy if the DL is performing putridly again
I don't jump to conclusions from last season because we had (a) poor defensive talent, (b) season-ending injuries to our best players, and (c) an offense that struggled to sustain drives and therefore left our defense on the field longer with poor field position. Those factors would make any team close-to-last in most defensive categories, so I don't assume Ulbrich is at fault. However, the snap count snafu has me very concerned. Coaches don't have to be perfect, but they darned well better know the key stats that drive the game. The statistics show that, for defensive linemen in the NFL, there is not a correlation between snap count and injury, so this is not like pitch counts in baseball where you need to limit snaps to minimize risk of injury. If you are keeping your starters at 35 snaps rather than 45, the backup guy gets maybe 30 snaps instead of 20. The only theoretical justification for this would be if you believe that, during snaps 21-30, your backup will perform better than your starter would during snaps 35-45. I'm not aware of any coach in the league that believes this, and it doesn't pass the smell test. However, if Ulbrich really believes this, then it's possible he has figured out something no one else has figured out, so I'll try to keep an open mind. The other possibility is that Ulbrich mis-stated the number because he just doesn't realize how many snaps an NFL defense typically plays, and he didn't realize that he was suggesting limiting our starters to less than 50% of the snaps. If that's the case, he should be fired immediately. I can excuse a lot of faults, but the minimum competence bar should require any NFL coordinator to have a clear handle on things as fundamental as "how many defensive snaps do we typically play."
The link below leads to an interview with Nania showing how inept such a defensive snap-count plan would be and shares that Saleh had his big 3 DL players play 75% of snaps. But perhaps more importantly, it shows Ulbrich making the comments during a presser. He looks smart until he opens his mouth--the guy may be in over his head. The discussion is in the first 10 minutes of the program.
That assumes that all of the D linemen will always be available to play? What happens when one or more D linemen are out with an injury? Some of them will have to play more than 35 snaps and significantly more than that with multiple players injured. So those who play more than 35 snaps, which will probably happen, will play poorly and have their health damaged. According to Ulbrich.
I have a hard time saying I am concerned with Ulbrich at the moment for these reasons. 1) We had a TON of injuries on defense including virtually every FA signing 2) Our entire secondary were basically rookies 3) It was a first year system and entire first year staff If we struggle again this year and #1 doesn't occur then yes I will be concerned.
At about 11 minutes the guy is showing his research that all + starters play more than 35 snaps and agrees that Q and Lawson should play more. All he agrees with is that the average number of snaps across the position is about 35 snaps--not that the + players should be limited.
It reads as if you’re saying “all starters play more than 35 snaps” but I know you mean all *stars play more than 35 snaps. I believe the counter would be that we don’t know if we have any stars yet. We have people who we hope are stars and have star potential… but we have no stars. It’s my understanding Ulbrich didn’t present the idea that we’re maxing out at 35 snaps; it was more of a Cimini question and Ulbrich answered “ideally”. Ideally each player only plays 35 snaps bc ideally the other team has a lot of 3 and outs. I bet JFM with his versatility and Q with his potential get about 40 snaps a game and I think Lawson starts the season on the lower end with the rookies getting more. The CS showed they’re OK with putting rookies out there early. We shall see.
Idk why but Ulbrich's beard really bothers me. What kind of beard starts graying on the outside first rather than the chin area? Makes no sense.
Are we not making too big a deal and getting overly worried about Ulbrich statement? Don't get me wrong, I'm not sold on him but I remain with a wait and see attitude for this year. I saw some ray of hope towards the end of the season on D and we have a few key pieces this year that should make us a lot more competitive. I also think the roster defensively is not finished yet. Having said that, I'm not getting too excited about his statement. I don't believe for a second that the count will be that strict and limited equally across our line. as some here make it sound, like Q and JFM and Lawson will absolutely have the same count as the back ups. Its more of a management tool to keep tract of snaps and maximize effectiveness of the players. Is not like he will call the play and say, take Q and Lawson out now, no matter how well and effective they are playing because they reached 35 snaps. I actually expect the opposite. They are looking great keep pushing, they look gassed, keep them out. From my view point, the issue is different. Stop talking so much. At the end of the day, I hope Ulbrich coaching proves better than his press conferences, if anything I think he says too much, provides too much info that should be kept in house, and I believe RS needs to be more involved in the D and help him be less open kimono with valuable team information, much like our nemesis BB.
