This particular thread isn't meant to be a bash Mason thread, so let's not turn it into one.
I honestly would like people's opinion on which defense they would prefer, all things being equal.
There were times under Woody (and Shoop under Franklin, although he didn't blitz nearly as much as Woody did) that a blitzing defense caused havoc, creating sacks and turnovers. Other times, they got burned for big plays.
Under Mason, they play his "top down" strategy, giving up the underneath stuff to try and prevent bigger plays (which probably would work pretty decently if our guys could tackle).
Both styles have pros and cons. One tries to make big plays at the risk of giving up big plays, while the other basically concedes not making many big plays hoping to not give up any. Which do you prefer and why?
I honestly would like people's opinion on which defense they would prefer, all things being equal.
There were times under Woody (and Shoop under Franklin, although he didn't blitz nearly as much as Woody did) that a blitzing defense caused havoc, creating sacks and turnovers. Other times, they got burned for big plays.
Under Mason, they play his "top down" strategy, giving up the underneath stuff to try and prevent bigger plays (which probably would work pretty decently if our guys could tackle).
Both styles have pros and cons. One tries to make big plays at the risk of giving up big plays, while the other basically concedes not making many big plays hoping to not give up any. Which do you prefer and why?
