close
close

first Drop

Com TW NOw News 2024

    • Browns’ first-half debacle against Giants shows Jim Schwartz’s defense has a problem — Jimmy Watkins
    news

    Browns’ first-half debacle against Giants shows Jim Schwartz’s defense has a problem — Jimmy Watkins

    Vaseline Posted on

    CLEVELAND, Ohio — Browns defensive coordinator Jim Schwartz thinks his players will beat yours, and he doesn’t care who knows it. In fact, for most snaps played by Cleveland’s defense, Schwartz is screaming it from his playbook.

    In an era that is defined Through funky zone coverages and simulated pressure, Schwartz keeps it simple. Leave my corners on an island and just one safety deep to protect them. Bet on my defensive line and my blitzers to hit the quarterback before his receivers win one-on-one battles, or bet on those receivers to lose. Essentially, dare the offense to throw a big punch, then throw your own while the offense is still winding up. If Schwartz’s players are as good as he thinks, their fist will land first.

    In Sunday’s 21-15 loss to the stinking, no-good, offensively challenged Giants, however, Schwartz’s unit ate too many early hay bales. New York scored three touchdowns in a 17-minute first half on Sunday, equaling their total in two weeks. The Giants gained 15 or more yards on three first-half plays, nearly equaling their total from their Week 1 losses to the Vikings (four). And New York dominated the first two quarters so thoroughly that Cleveland couldn’t recover despite pitching a second-half shutout, raising a world-beating question for a defense that calls itself the best in the world.

    How?

    “They just executed well,” Browns edge rusher Myles Garrett said. “They got us out there, ran those screens, quick swings. They just kept us off balance and didn’t let us dictate the pace of the game up front by rushing the ball in a bunch of ways.”

    Call it a Schwartzian response from one of Schwartz’s star students. In Garrett’s defensive encounters, success is simple: Players either beat their man or they didn’t. And the defense got a stop or allowed a point as a result. Winning and losing is reduced to execution because Schwartz’s game plans, built around simplicity that produces quick decisions, make it that way.

    Just ask him.

    “… It’s a challenge every week, but we want to play fast, we want to play physical,” Schwartz said two weeks ago. “You want to, like, one of the things I try to do is eliminate as many ‘if, then’ statements for each player as possible, right?” Schwartz said two weeks ago. “Don’t give them too much ‘if this happens, do this.’ Don’t make them (think), ‘well, if this happens and this happens and this happens. It’s all part of what we do.'”

    Coincidentally, Schwartz delivered that response days after another performance in which his unit was blitzed (no pun intended). The Cowboys poured in 20 first-half points against Cleveland in a 33-17 Week 1 win. And when you factor in last postseason’s 45-14 loss to the Texans, the best, fastest, least-prone defense in the world has allowed 20 or more first-half points in three of the last four games.

    Small sample size? Sure. Correctable problems? Schwartz thinks so. Discussing the Dallas loss two weeks ago, he described his defense as tired, lacking in execution, not communicating or playing fast enough. “We want to be known as a fast defense and you can’t slow players down too much,” he said then, “but we have enough looks to balance our stuff and all those things.”

    Two weeks later, I wonder how he’ll describe Sunday’s first half against New York. Sure, some plays — a missed tackle here, a Malik Nabers mosh there — can be criticized for performance. But what about the simple screens and swing passes that kept Cleveland “off balance,” in Garrett’s words? What about the process that led to Emerson (not Denzel Ward) defending Nabers one-on-one? And what will Schwartz make of Garrett’s claim that New York “used our aggressiveness against us?”

    “It’s hard to say without seeing the film,” Garrett said when asked why Cleveland was off-kilter against New York. “Maybe they just used our aggressiveness against us, and I think they made some really good play calls. I’m not saying we didn’t, but it’s about using the stack as a D-lineman; making those plays when they’re cutting inside and flying downhill.

    “It’s a combination of both. Especially when it’s fast, we’ve got to jump on it and we’ve got to make sure we don’t miss any tackles. We also missed a couple of tackles that could have set them back and helped us on those drives.”

    Classic Schwartzian player quote: Always mention execution, even when we’re having a game plan conversation. Schwartz’s philosophy can blur the line when he has the right players. And with capital-D guys like Garrett (who limped out of the stadium Sunday), Jeremiah Owusu-Koramoah, Denzel Ward, Martin Emerson Jr. and Grant Delpit (among others), Cleveland’s coordinator has proven the wisdom of letting players play.

    But compare Schwartz on Sunday to Giants defensive coordinator Shane Bowen, who had Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson take off his cap after the loss. Watson said Bowen “changed the game plan” by using more pressure and man coverage than Cleveland had anticipated. Those changes created mismatches and confusion for Cleveland’s defense, and Watson suffered a career-high eight sacks as a result.

    Meanwhile, the Giants have devised a game plan to attack the philosophy Schwartz shouts at opponents. Giants receiver Wan’Dale Robinson said Schwartz played more zone than New York expected, but Garrett’s theory of “using our aggressiveness against us” is “pretty much what (our game plan) was,” Robinson said. Quarterback Daniel Jones credited New York coach Brian Daboll for “mixing it up” with misdirections and quick throws that “kept (the Browns) on their heels.” And four months after Schwartz reflected on last year’s playoff loss by telling reporters that his “high-risk defense” chased too many plays and pressed too hard, the Browns once again found themselves imploding early against a play-caller who knew which stress points to poke.

    I’m not suggesting that anyone has “fixed” Cleveland’s defense or overtaken its coordinator. Both Schwartz and his players have a long track record that suggests otherwise.

    But I don’t see how Cleveland’s defense can play fast when it’s also unbalanced. I don’t believe “execution” can explain every defensive lapse exposed in Sunday’s first half. And I’m not sure Schwartz can solve every challenge with simple concepts that encourage quick thinking.

    Even though I know he doesn’t care what I think.

    “You do what works for your players and what you think is best to win the game,” Schwartz said last week when asked about trends in the league that contradicted his single-high coverages. “There are a lot of good single-high (coverage) teams. Seattle was one of the best defenses in the league for a long time. Maybe they ran more single-high than I did, but it really suited them. Their guys knew it and they played hard, and I think that’s probably the biggest thing.

    “I’m not privy to those conversations. I mean, there’s plenty of ways to combat the two-high. There’s plenty of ways to combat the one-high. Tampa was one of the best defenses in the league, played a lot of two-high. It’s just how you do it, what you do, and we like what we do. We think it suits our players and allows them to play fast, and those are the things we’re more concerned about than the trends in the league and what anyone else might say.”

    Vaseline
    View all posts

    You Might Also Like