PDA

View Full Version : Will vs. Sam


The Pencil Neck
04-12-2009, 01:20 PM
I've got a question. Maybe this is an issue with my understanding of football and formations and terminology. Or maybe this is an issue with my understanding of Richard Smith's defensive strategery.

But.

To me, a Will linebacker is aligned on the side without the TE (in a single TE formation). The Will linebacker is usually a bit lighter and faster than the Sam linebacker. The Sam usually lines up on the side with the TE and he needs to be heavier and stronger to be able to take on run blockers at the point of attack.

Do I have that right? If not, then ignore the rest of this.

There was nothing I wanted to watch on TV last night, so I put on the Monday Night game against the Jags. This is unfortunately the only game I have left on my DVR. We just got a great new TV and now we only watch/record stuff hi-def. This led to significantly less space on the DVR. And the Jags game is the only one I have in HD. It's so much easier to pick things out in HD, it's amazing.

Before the game, I decided to watch Myers/Brisiel on the offensive side and Adibi on the defensive side. Adibi played OK. He missed on some tackles but he also made some good tackles. He seemed to play well in coverage.

In the Jags game, our LB's for the majority of the game were Ryans, Adibi, and Bentley. Now, to me, that's Ryans = Mike, Adibi = Will, and Bentley = Sam.

Except, that's not how they were lining up. On almost every snap, Bentley was lined up on the side without the TE and Adibi was lined up on the side with the TE. In nickel situations, Bentley left the field and Adibi went to the side without the TE and Ferguson came up like a LB on the side with the TE.

When Bentley went out and Greenwood game in for part of the third quarter where I assume Bentley was injured, Adibi went to the side without the TE and Greenwood was usually on the side with the TE.

So, from what I was seeing, Adibi was playing Sam and Bentley was playing Will.

Is that crazy or am I misunderstanding something?

awtysst
04-12-2009, 01:26 PM
I've got a question. Maybe this is an issue with my understanding of football and formations and terminology. Or maybe this is an issue with my understanding of Richard Smith's defensive strategery.

But.

To me, a Will linebacker is aligned on the side without the TE (in a single TE formation). The Will linebacker is usually a bit lighter and faster than the Sam linebacker. The Sam usually lines up on the side with the TE and he needs to be heavier and stronger to be able to take on run blockers at the point of attack.

Do I have that right? If not, then ignore the rest of this.

There was nothing I wanted to watch on TV last night, so I put on the Monday Night game against the Jags. This is unfortunately the only game I have left on my DVR. We just got a great new TV and now we only watch/record stuff hi-def. This led to significantly less space on the DVR. And the Jags game is the only one I have in HD. It's so much easier to pick things out in HD, it's amazing.

Before the game, I decided to watch Myers/Brisiel on the offensive side and Adibi on the defensive side. Adibi played OK. He missed on some tackles but he also made some good tackles. He seemed to play well in coverage.

In the Jags game, our LB's for the majority of the game were Ryans, Adibi, and Bentley. Now, to me, that's Ryans = Mike, Adibi = Will, and Bentley = Sam.

Except, that's not how they were lining up. On almost every snap, Bentley was lined up on the side without the TE and Adibi was lined up on the side with the TE. In nickel situations, Bentley left the field and Adibi went to the side without the TE and Ferguson came up like a LB on the side with the TE.

When Bentley went out and Greenwood game in for part of the third quarter where I assume Bentley was injured, Adibi went to the side without the TE and Greenwood was usually on the side with the TE.

So, from what I was seeing, Adibi was playing Sam and Bentley was playing Will.

Is that crazy or am I misunderstanding something?

Yes. In a typical 4-3 scheme the Sam lines up on the TE side and the Will lines up on the other side. The Sam is usually going to be a bigger, stronger run stopper and the Will needs to be a faster pass coverage guy.

I guess the reason Adibi was playing Sam was because of his tackling prowess. A Sam needs to be a tackling machine. This was probably the case for 1st and second. In nickel formation, there is more of a potential for a pass, so Adibi shifted back to Will, and Ferguson came in as a pass coverage Sam. I imagine that they thought Bentley was not adept enough at tackling to be a Sam.

mussop
04-12-2009, 01:27 PM
Be carefull diving into the depths known as Richard Smiths defensive strategies. Go too deep and you might not make it back.

ObsiWan
04-12-2009, 02:12 PM
Be carefull diving into the depths known as Richard Smiths defensive strategies. Go too deep and you might not make it back.

:spit:

mussop, u got me

The Pencil Neck
04-12-2009, 02:24 PM
Yes. In a typical 4-3 scheme the Sam lines up on the TE side and the Will lines up on the other side. The Sam is usually going to be a bigger, stronger run stopper and the Will needs to be a faster pass coverage guy.

I guess the reason Adibi was playing Sam was because of his tackling prowess. A Sam needs to be a tackling machine. This was probably the case for 1st and second. In nickel formation, there is more of a potential for a pass, so Adibi shifted back to Will, and Ferguson came in as a pass coverage Sam. I imagine that they thought Bentley was not adept enough at tackling to be a Sam.

I guess that's a huge plus for Adibi.

But why move Adibi to Will when they brought Greenwood in and Bentley was brought out? If Greenwood was the better tackler (than Bentley or Adibi) then he should have been starting.

It almost looks like the opposite of what you said. It's like they thought the heirarchy of LB's went:

Bentley
Adibi
Greenwood

And they wanted their highest ranked LB lined up in space instead of in the position over the TE.

I don't know, it confuzzled me.

CloakNNNdagger
04-12-2009, 02:41 PM
I guess that's a huge plus for Adibi.

But why move Adibi to Will when they brought Greenwood in and Bentley was brought out? If Greenwood was the better tackler (than Bentley or Adibi) then he should have been starting.

It almost looks like the opposite of what you said. It's like they thought the heirarchy of LB's went:

Bentley
Adibi
Greenwood

And they wanted their highest ranked LB lined up in space instead of in the position over the TE.

I don't know, it confuzzled me.

And you will stay that way if you try to make sense of something that makes no sense. I would have to agree with Mussop.............there's definitely a reason that Smith is no longer with us.

awtysst
04-12-2009, 02:50 PM
I guess that's a huge plus for Adibi.

But why move Adibi to Will when they brought Greenwood in and Bentley was brought out? If Greenwood was the better tackler (than Bentley or Adibi) then he should have been starting.

It almost looks like the opposite of what you said. It's like they thought the heirarchy of LB's went:

Bentley
Adibi
Greenwood

And they wanted their highest ranked LB lined up in space instead of in the position over the TE.

I don't know, it confuzzled me.

I think they actually had Adibi as the highest rating LB. He lined up on the Sam during base 4-3 because of his tackling prowess and over the non TE in nickel to take advantage of his speed. Bentley played on the non TE side as the backside in hopes he could contain the pass/run on his side. Greenwood was on the bench. Greenwood only came in when Bentley was injured and played Sam. Remember, our starting Sam was supposed to be Diles. Bentley was the backup. Greenwood is the backup's backup.

Why Sam? Probably because he cannot play Will. He would get burned time and time again. So, the place he did the least damage would be Sam since Demeco could help him with tackling. So, Greenwood was a move of desperation rather than a move of choice. Also, on nickel plays, Ferguson came in.

So, the real hierarchy likely would have been
Adibi
Bentley


Greenwood.

Wolf6151
04-12-2009, 04:07 PM
Let's now apply Pencil Necks observations from the Jags. game to this coming draft and season. As I understand it Adibi was sick with an unknown illness for the beginning and middle of the year and didn't start playing until about 2/3's of the way through the season and when he was playing his weight had dropped to around 230-235 lbs., but he played well at the WLB and according to Pencil Neck played well at SLB at least in this game. Recently I read an article on another Texans website that stated with the advent of this new offseason strength and conditioning program, Adibi has bulked up approx. 20 lbs. putting him in the lower 250 lbs. range. Now Adibi is fairly athletic and fast and I would suggest that since this years draft is very poor in 4-3 SLB's and much better with 4-3 WLB why not move Adibi to SLB and then draft a WLB. Adibi already has some experience playing SLB and with his added bulk it would be much easier for him to play the SLB than a rookie. At WLB there are guys like Nic Harris who's a SS last year but will most likely be moved to WLB in the NFL, Gerald McRath, and Deandre Levy who all have good speed. Their are of course other guys but it might be much easier for the Texans to find a 4-3 WLB in this draft than a 4-3 SLB and moving Adibi shouldn't be that difficult since he's played the position a little and is fairly athletic. Also with the addition of a better SS Adibi wouldn't have to do much pass coverage of the TE or RB either, though I think he could learn that fairly quickly as well. Opinions?

The Pencil Neck
04-12-2009, 04:39 PM
Let's now apply Pencil Necks observations from the Jags. game to this coming draft and season. As I understand it Adibi was sick with an unknown illness for the beginning and middle of the year and didn't start playing until about 2/3's of the way through the season and when he was playing his weight had dropped to around 230-235 lbs., but he played well at the WLB and according to Pencil Neck played well at SLB at least in this game. Recently I read an article on another Texans website that stated with the advent of this new offseason strength and conditioning program, Adibi has bulked up approx. 20 lbs. putting him in the lower 250 lbs. range. Now Adibi is fairly athletic and fast and I would suggest that since this years draft is very poor in 4-3 SLB's and much better with 4-3 WLB why not move Adibi to SLB and then draft a WLB. Adibi already has some experience playing SLB and with his added bulk it would be much easier for him to play the SLB than a rookie. At WLB there are guys like Nic Harris who's a SS last year but will most likely be moved to WLB in the NFL, Gerald McRath, and Deandre Levy who all have good speed. Their are of course other guys but it might be much easier for the Texans to find a 4-3 WLB in this draft than a 4-3 SLB and moving Adibi shouldn't be that difficult since he's played the position a little and is fairly athletic. Also with the addition of a better SS Adibi wouldn't have to do much pass coverage of the TE or RB either, though I think he could learn that fairly quickly as well. Opinions?


This is part of what I really wanted to talk about. We don't know if we're going to look the same as that Jags game. We don't know if that was more Bush's style than Smith's although we've theorized that later in the season, we were playing closer to Bush's D than Smith's (except for the Raider game.)

If Adibi is playing the Sam, then we're looking for a Will to replace Bentley. Cushing is a classic Sam and normally, you draft Sam's later rather than earlier although there appear to be more Wills in this draft (at least to me.)

At 15, the Will choice appears to be Matthews. But there are Will's later in the draft who could be good.

dsorc
04-12-2009, 05:34 PM
I have a question about that alignment with Adibi. Was he lining up at the line of scrimmage or 5 yards back? Smith seemed to like to play cover 2. In a cover 2, the SLB has more coverage responsibilities and Adibi is better in coverage than Bentley. If he's playing 5 yards behind, then Adibi was playing as a cover 2 LB and not as a traditional SLB if that makes sense.

As to the nickel, it makes sense to me to put Ferguson over the TE instead of a LB again for coverage. A SS is supposed to be better in man to man coverage than a LB after all.

The Pencil Neck
04-12-2009, 06:01 PM
I have a question about that alignment with Adibi. Was he lining up at the line of scrimmage or 5 yards back? Smith seemed to like to play cover 2. In a cover 2, the SLB has more coverage responsibilities and Adibi is better in coverage than Bentley. If he's playing 5 yards behind, then Adibi was playing as a cover 2 LB and not as a traditional SLB if that makes sense.

As to the nickel, it makes sense to me to put Ferguson over the TE instead of a LB again for coverage. A SS is supposed to be better in man to man coverage than a LB after all.

Ah, OK. That makes sense.

The "normal" defense we were playing was with Adibi about 5 yards off the line on the strong side. Demeco was a yard or two closer. Bentley was usually on the line. There were some plays where Adibi came up and played on the line in between the DE and the DT. He even took on the tackle a couple of times.

When Greenwood game in, he took Adibi's spot and Adibi went to the line.

dalemurphy
04-12-2009, 06:19 PM
According to Richard Smith, he wanted his base defense to look the same every snap. So, at LB, we had a left and right LB, but not a SAM and WIL because they never flipped with the offensive alignment. Similarly, we didn't have a SS and a FS, just two safeties...

Basically, Smith just made it very easy for other teams to exploit weaknesses of our defense- always letting them know where we'd be lined up and never moving our players in a way that highlights their strengths and masks their weaknesses. Therefore, the only LB on our team that weighed less than 240 lbs (much less) ended up with a 270 lb TE in his face on running downs (whenever the opposing offense chose to exploit that matchup).

Wolf
04-12-2009, 06:31 PM
I really have nothing to add ,but I think of Will(wiley) and Sam (sam the sheepdog).. one heavier and one smaller and faster LOL

it has been a long day :specnatz:http://www.nonstick.com/wpics/sr1.jpg

ATXtexanfan
04-12-2009, 06:42 PM
Our D was so screwed up that will and sam didn't make sense neither did ss and fs, thank god we got a new dc

TexansSeminole
04-12-2009, 06:43 PM
According to Richard Smith, he wanted his base defense to look the same every snap. So, at LB, we had a left and right LB, but not a SAM and WIL because they never flipped with the offensive alignment. Similarly, we didn't have a SS and a FS, just two safeties...

Basically, Smith just made it very easy for other teams to exploit weaknesses of our defense- always letting them know where we'd be lined up and never moving our players in a way that highlights their strengths and masks their weaknesses. Therefore, the only LB on our team that weighed less than 240 lbs (much less) ended up with a 270 lb TE in his face on running downs (whenever the opposing offense chose to exploit that matchup).


This is what I always thought too.

The positioning of our defense pre-snap is something that I was complaining about alot last year. Many times I came away confused as to why some of our guys were lined up in the way that they were. That is probably the #1 reason I wanted Richard Smith gone. I noticed the terrible positioning of our defense far quicker than the poor play calling.

Movement is also something that has become more important in the NFL over the last few years, and something we did very little of last year. We never tried to confuse offenses with movement. If you watch the best defenses in the league they all move around pre-snap. Watch the Pittsburgh defense confuse the hell out of quarterbacks before the snap. It's intimidating.

If we want to have a great defense, we are going to have to improve our positioning and movement before the snap dramatically.

CloakNNNdagger
04-12-2009, 06:45 PM
According to Richard Smith, he wanted his base defense to look the same every snap. So, at LB, we had a left and right LB, but not a SAM and WIL because they never flipped with the offensive alignment. Similarly, we didn't have a SS and a FS, just two safeties...

Basically, Smith just made it very easy for other teams to exploit weaknesses of our defense- always letting them know where we'd be lined up and never moving our players in a way that highlights their strengths and masks their weaknesses. Therefore, the only LB on our team that weighed less than 240 lbs (much less) ended up with a 270 lb TE in his face on running downs (whenever the opposing offense chose to exploit that matchup).

Sort of like this?

http://firstorderhistorians.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/mismatch_with_story.jpg

dalemurphy
04-12-2009, 06:50 PM
This is what I always thought too.



If we want to have a great defense, we are going to have to improve our positioning and movement before the snap dramatically.

Let your heart not be troubled. If you go to houstontexans.com and read Frank Bush's chat from about 10 days ago, or check out the thread about it, you will see that Bush understands the need to confuse the QB and make the QB make difficult pre-snap decisions. He plans to have the DBs consistently closer to the LOS and will be mixing coverage and disguising it.

TexansSeminole
04-12-2009, 06:52 PM
Let your heart not be troubled. If you go to houstontexans.com and read Frank Bush's chat from about 10 days ago, or check out the thread about it, you will see that Bush understands the need to confuse the QB and make the QB make difficult pre-snap decisions. He plans to have the DBs consistently closer to the LOS and will be mixing coverage and disguising it.

It's good to hear. It's basically the same problem we had with our corners constantly lining up too deep. If you don't put your guys in good position early, it's hard to stop good offenses.

CloakNNNdagger
04-12-2009, 06:58 PM
It's good to hear. It's basically the same problem we had with our corners constantly lining up too deep. If you don't put your guys in good position early, it's hard to stop good offenses.


It's always hard to stop good offenses when your CBs can only see the LOS with the assist of binoculars at the time the ball is snapped. :mcnugget:

Polo
04-12-2009, 07:51 PM
Adibi was probably over the TE for coverage.

dsorc
04-12-2009, 09:18 PM
According to Richard Smith, he wanted his base defense to look the same every snap. So, at LB, we had a left and right LB, but not a SAM and WIL because they never flipped with the offensive alignment. Similarly, we didn't have a SS and a FS, just two safeties...
If you think about it, those are basic principles of Cover 2 since it is is for the most part a symmetric defense. In cover 2, you want smallish OLBs that can go sideline to sideline. Our problem here was that we should have faster OLBs for the scheme to even have a chance at working. Similarly, since both S are deep you need them to be hybrid FS/SS so they can fit whatever role is needed for each play. You can mix it up in cover 2, which is something Smith refused to do for some reason.
Basically, Smith just made it very easy for other teams to exploit weaknesses of our defense- always letting them know where we'd be lined up and never moving our players in a way that highlights their strengths and masks their weaknesses. Therefore, the only LB on our team that weighed less than 240 lbs (much less) ended up with a 270 lb TE in his face on running downs (whenever the opposing offense chose to exploit that matchup).
Yep, this is one of the weakness of the scheme. Cover 2 has always had issues against the run. It's just a very bad defense at hiding personnel deficiencies because of its reliance in symmetry. Add in Smith propensities to go prevent defense, pushing the DBs deeper, and it's no surprise that we couldn't stop the run. If we at least had been penetrating with the D-line instead of read and react we would have had a better chance. At least then we could have gotten some TFLs.

dalemurphy
04-12-2009, 09:44 PM
If you think about it, those are basic principles of Cover 2 since it is is for the most part a symmetric defense. In cover 2, you want smallish OLBs that can go sideline to sideline. Our problem here was that we should have faster OLBs for the scheme to even have a chance at working. Similarly, since both S are deep you need them to be hybrid FS/SS so they can fit whatever role is needed for each play. You can mix it up in cover 2, which is something Smith refused to do for some reason.

Yep, this is one of the weakness of the scheme. Cover 2 has always had issues against the run. It's just a very bad defense at hiding personnel deficiencies because of its reliance in symmetry. Add in Smith propensities to go prevent defense, pushing the DBs deeper, and it's no surprise that we couldn't stop the run. If we at least had been penetrating with the D-line instead of read and react we would have had a better chance. At least then we could have gotten some TFLs.


What isn't standard in Cover2 defenses is asking DTs to take on blocks instead of shooting gaps. The combination of a lack of agression with the front 4, mediocre talent, and poorly executed zone defense was a pretty potent recipe' for severe suckedness!

awtysst
04-12-2009, 10:11 PM
Let's now apply Pencil Necks observations from the Jags. game to this coming draft and season. As I understand it Adibi was sick with an unknown illness for the beginning and middle of the year and didn't start playing until about 2/3's of the way through the season and when he was playing his weight had dropped to around 230-235 lbs., but he played well at the WLB and according to Pencil Neck played well at SLB at least in this game. Recently I read an article on another Texans website that stated with the advent of this new offseason strength and conditioning program, Adibi has bulked up approx. 20 lbs. putting him in the lower 250 lbs. range. Now Adibi is fairly athletic and fast and I would suggest that since this years draft is very poor in 4-3 SLB's and much better with 4-3 WLB why not move Adibi to SLB and then draft a WLB. Adibi already has some experience playing SLB and with his added bulk it would be much easier for him to play the SLB than a rookie. At WLB there are guys like Nic Harris who's a SS last year but will most likely be moved to WLB in the NFL, Gerald McRath, and Deandre Levy who all have good speed. Their are of course other guys but it might be much easier for the Texans to find a 4-3 WLB in this draft than a 4-3 SLB and moving Adibi shouldn't be that difficult since he's played the position a little and is fairly athletic. Also with the addition of a better SS Adibi wouldn't have to do much pass coverage of the TE or RB either, though I think he could learn that fairly quickly as well. Opinions?

I know what you are referring to. There was no article that said he was around 250. One of the reporters saw him and thought he put on 20lbs due to the new S&C regimen. Here is the thing though, when he came out of college, he was 235 at his weigh in.

http://walterfootball.com/draft2008OLB.php

Unfortunately due to health problems he lost about 15 lbs and was listed at 220 or so. If he indeed put on 20lbs, he would be in the 240lb range. I'd prefer if he was around 245-250, but 240 is probably big enough to play Sam adequately. I would be concerned with a 230 or so lb Sam though.

I like the idea though of converting Adibi to a Sam and drafting a Will. In fact, I like it so much, I am gonna adopt it into my next Mock!

thunderkyss
04-12-2009, 10:18 PM
If we are considering moving a bulked up tackling machine like Adibi to Sam, & we've got Cato June playing Will.... we may not look at LB on the first day.

Three years in a row, I've been happily surprised by the Houston Texans on draft day.

The Pencil Neck
04-12-2009, 10:53 PM
According to Richard Smith, he wanted his base defense to look the same every snap. So, at LB, we had a left and right LB, but not a SAM and WIL because they never flipped with the offensive alignment. Similarly, we didn't have a SS and a FS, just two safeties...

Basically, Smith just made it very easy for other teams to exploit weaknesses of our defense- always letting them know where we'd be lined up and never moving our players in a way that highlights their strengths and masks their weaknesses. Therefore, the only LB on our team that weighed less than 240 lbs (much less) ended up with a 270 lb TE in his face on running downs (whenever the opposing offense chose to exploit that matchup).


The problem with this is... Adibi and Bentley were switching sides based on where the TE was.

awtysst
04-12-2009, 11:18 PM
If we are considering moving a bulked up tackling machine like Adibi to Sam, & we've got Cato June playing Will.... we may not look at LB on the first day.

Three years in a row, I've been happily surprised by the Houston Texans on draft day.

Or perhaps we grab a solid Will later on and have Cato groom him. The June signing is starting to make a lot more sense!

RipTraxx
04-12-2009, 11:34 PM
I remember a interview with Rick Smith when asked about his reasoning behing drafting Okoye. He said when u have 4 down lineman that can rush the passer w/o blitzing its invaluable...all due respect to Smith, while the theory is sound there is something i feel hes missing. I believe when you are able to have guys like Okoye or Mario ONE ON ONE with a O lineman..thats when u start to reap the benefits.

That being said, any given play u have 5 lineman blocking, 6 if the TE stays in. What needs to happen then is that we have to put 5 defenders against 5 lineman, meaning there has to be at LEAST one person blitzing almost every play. Seeming as TE serve as a check down/dump off for most Qbs even if they keep him in to block thats just one less outlet he has, thus putting more stress on his progression.

Long story short, if Bush sticks to his guns, saying our D is going to be more agressive (remember Richard Smith said the same thing when he got the job) then i believe our sack numbers will go through the roof. Have our interior guys shooting gaps AND have one LB blitzing, we will have a completely different team.

Im not one for long posts...just my honest opinion.

bah007
04-13-2009, 12:11 AM
I remember a interview with Rick Smith when asked about his reasoning behing drafting Okoye. He said when u have 4 down lineman that can rush the passer w/o blitzing its invaluable...all due respect to Smith, while the theory is sound there is something i feel hes missing. I believe when you are able to have guys like Okoye or Mario ONE ON ONE with a O lineman..thats when u start to reap the benefits.

That being said, any given play u have 5 lineman blocking, 6 if the TE stays in. What needs to happen then is that we have to put 5 defenders against 5 lineman, meaning there has to be at LEAST one person blitzing almost every play. Seeming as TE serve as a check down/dump off for most Qbs even if they keep him in to block thats just one less outlet he has, thus putting more stress on his progression.

Long story short, if Bush sticks to his guns, saying our D is going to be more agressive (remember Richard Smith said the same thing when he got the job) then i believe our sack numbers will go through the roof. Have our interior guys shooting gaps AND have one LB blitzing, we will have a completely different team.

Im not one for long posts...just my honest opinion.

Tampa Bay had the best defense in the league for years and they only rushed four on every play. Having a 3 tech like Warren Sapp helps though.

It's a principle of the Cover 2. If you can get pressure with just your front four then you don't have to blitz and you can drop seven.

Gotta have the talent though.

thunderkyss
04-13-2009, 01:03 AM
Tampa Bay had the best defense in the league for years and they only rushed four on every play. Having a 3 tech like Warren Sapp helps though.

It's a principle of the Cover 2. If you can get pressure with just your front four then you don't have to blitz and you can drop seven.

Gotta have the talent though.

It would help, if our 7 could cover.

Texan4Ever
04-13-2009, 01:15 AM
Any defense well work wonders if you have the right players who fit the scheme. For example, the 46 Bear defense worked well and caused havoc for opposing offenses, Tampa 2 worked well with the Bucs thanks in large part due to Warren Sapp and Derrick Brooks. Variations also work well, USC runs a 3-4 Elephant defense where they can blitz the front 7 and or blitz with the front 4 and drop the rest in coverage (seldom done from what I've seen).

I'd like the Texans to try to use different schemes and coverages and packages, etc etc heck steal from Madden 09 :sarcasm: if you have to during the preseason just so we have something different from the same base 4-3 defense.

dsorc
04-13-2009, 06:55 AM
The problem with this is... Adibi and Bentley were switching sides based on where the TE was.
Interesting. If that's the case, Adibi was indeed playing SLB though it's a cover 2 SLB with coverage as it's main responsibilities. This would make sense more against Indianapolis and Dallas Clark but I don't think the Jags pass to their TE that much. Having a 220 pound Adibi deal with Marcedes Lewis in the run game does not sound like a recipe for success.

76Texan
04-13-2009, 09:45 AM
According to Richard Smith, he wanted his base defense to look the same every snap. So, at LB, we had a left and right LB, but not a SAM and WIL because they never flipped with the offensive alignment. Similarly, we didn't have a SS and a FS, just two safeties...

Basically, Smith just made it very easy for other teams to exploit weaknesses of our defense- always letting them know where we'd be lined up and never moving our players in a way that highlights their strengths and masks their weaknesses. Therefore, the only LB on our team that weighed less than 240 lbs (much less) ended up with a 270 lb TE in his face on running downs (whenever the opposing offense chose to exploit that matchup).I thought you had a gleam of the chat with Bush !?! :thinking:

Defensive coordinator Frank Bush: We're going to mix it up. You have to. We're going to try to show similar looks and disguise our coverages and then make the quarterback think we're doing one thing and then we'll do another. We just want to make our coverages look the same and hopefully we'll trick the receiver and quarterback and force them into a mistake.

Polo
04-13-2009, 09:49 AM
Maybe they should ask Eugene Wilson what they should do since he brought so much knowledge over last season

dalemurphy
04-13-2009, 10:04 AM
I thought you had a gleam of the chat with Bush !?! :thinking:

Defensive coordinator Frank Bush: We're going to mix it up. You have to. We're going to try to show similar looks and disguise our coverages and then make the quarterback think we're doing one thing and then we'll do another. We just want to make our coverages look the same and hopefully we'll trick the receiver and quarterback and force them into a mistake.

If you read the entire chat, he talks about playing the backend closer to the LOS, among other things. In the quote above, part of what you didn't bold, is the concept of confusing the QB. I thought it was pretty clear reading the entire chat what Bush wants out of his defense:

- aggressive pre-snap throughout the play.
- mixing up and disguising coverages

those are two essential things that Richard Smith's defense didn't do. The Bush quotes about simplicity, I think, are in reference to allowing the defense to aggressively attack the backfield instead of engaging the OL, diagnosing the play, and then reacting.

Polo
04-13-2009, 10:10 AM
Richard Smith did the exact same thing as far as showing a base defense most of the time and doing different things from it.

The biggest difference with our defense,IMO, will be how the D-line plays.

dalemurphy
04-13-2009, 12:38 PM
Richard Smith did the exact same thing as far as showing a base defense most of the time and doing different things from it.

The biggest difference with our defense,IMO, will be how the D-line plays.

I understand, but when the two safeties are 20 yards deep and the 2 CBs are generally 10 yards deep, it limits the options and effectiveness of much of what can be done. For example, a CB blitz isn't much of a problem when the CB has to come from that far away. According to Bush, the norm will be for the team to be lined up in a pressure look, which creates a pre-snap environment that makes the QB make certain decisions. It creates decision-making problems for almost every offensive player.

One reason why our blitzes were so easy to detect the past 2 seasons is because the blitzing players had to move towards the LOS from a normally deep and unthreatening position.

76Texan
04-13-2009, 12:42 PM
I wish the concept of the DBs lining up closer to the LOS, playing bump and run is a novelty idea. Alas, it's not!

If you run back the tape to the Lions' game, the first game Dunta was back and without Wilson in the line-up, we hardly played the secondary up tight.

But the next game agaisnt the Bengals with Wilson starting and Dunta having one game under his belt, that was when the Texans started bringing guys up.

They would get burned once in awhile but they got better, especially when Adibi was also in there.
If not for Manning, the Texans would probably be 5-0 with those 3 starting together.

And agaisnt the Titans, they'd have to be helmet to helmet with the receivers to be any closer to the LOS.

FWIW, here's a little excerpt after that game:

“Enthusiasm was sky-high,” Ryans said. “It was out of the roof. Everybody was into what we were doing. Everyone was excited. It was awesome. You play a lot better when guys are like that.”

This was the second time in four weeks that the Texans have held an opponent without a touchdown. Their last two opponents' third down conversion rates have been less than 20 percent.

“I’m very proud of the job (defensive coordinator) Richard (Smith) and his staff have done and the effort that we’re getting on that side of the ball right now,” Kubiak said.

barrett
04-13-2009, 12:47 PM
I challenge you to find one scenario where we were blitzing from 10 yards behind the line of scrimmage.

I still think you're optimism is distorting and making too many assumptions about Frank Bush's vague chat responses.

Polo
04-13-2009, 01:16 PM
One reason why our blitzes were so easy to detect the past 2 seasons is because the blitzing players had to move towards the LOS from a normally deep and unthreatening position.

From what I witnessed, the Texans played up closer to the line of scrimmage a fair bit. I think Bush will be able to do more just because I think our defense will have more talent and speed than it had last year.

What I don't want Bush to do is forget about opposing personnel to the fact where he's trying to play aggresively but it's not working. I think we'll be more talented next year, but I don't see us as a defense that can come out and dictate what an offense does on a week to week basis.

That's why I said I think the most noticeable difference in scheme will be the play of the D-line...

If Bush comes out and tries to be the exact opposite of how Richard Smith was percieved, then he will fail.

thunderkyss
04-13-2009, 01:54 PM
I wish the concept of the DBs lining up closer to the LOS, playing bump and run is a novelty idea. Alas, it's not!

If you run back the tape to the Lions' game, the first game Dunta was back and without Wilson in the line-up, we hardly played the secondary up tight.

But the next game agaisnt the Bengals with Wilson starting and Dunta having one game under his belt, that was when the Texans started bringing guys up.


I agree, I think it had to do more with personnel. I currently coach a 8u girls softball team, and we have all our players playing deep. The idea is to keep the ball in front of them, so they can make a play. They're too slow, poor reflexes, and lack of athleticism prevents us from playing more aggressively.

Our LBs suck. On passing downs, you should imagine we are playing short 3 players, and we've got 4 safeties.

Zack Diles showed some promise, but imagining some improvement next season, I think that is were we should set the bar, for our backup.

Adibi on the other hand, looks like he could be a starter, if he improves.

Demeco, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. But Brian Urlacher does a much better job of getting deep, and has a better feel for what the QB wants to do. I understand, we're talking about Urlacher here, a perennial Pro-Bowler, but can anyone say that is not what we are looking for?

dalemurphy
04-13-2009, 02:00 PM
I challenge you to find one scenario where we were blitzing from 10 yards behind the line of scrimmage.

I still think you're optimism is distorting and making too many assumptions about Frank Bush's vague chat responses.

Barrett, that's my point. When we blitzed, our blitzers moved up to the LOS... there was very little disguise... we all saw it!

Bush made two points in that chat session where he clearly stated that he was going to be different than Richard Smith:

1. DBs will be lined up closer to the LOS regularly, particularly the CBs.
2. Team will be aggressive in attempting to make big plays, even at the risk of giving some up. The quote was something like, "we will play defense to win and not to not lose".


Those two points clearly highlight philosophical differences, especially when he say, "this is how we're going to be different...". Of course I sound optimistic. Any description of changes from Richard Smith's defense, by definition, is going to sound like a fantasy.

I definitely tend to be optimistic. That being said, I was one of the first critics of Richard Smith on the board. So, if my perspective is biased with this coaching change, it probably has more to do with my pessimism towards Richard Smith- and, I'm not sure "pessimism" is possible regarding Richard Smith's abilities as a defensive coordinator.

Again, I'm not predicting that our defense will rate highly. I'm not sure how they will do in regards to YPG or PPG. What I have the utmost confidence in, is it will be significantly better on 3rd down, register many more sacks, create more turnovers, and be a heck of a lot more fun to watch.

76Texan
04-13-2009, 02:05 PM
Barrett, that's my point. When we blitzed, our blitzers moved up to the LOS... there was very little disguise... we all saw it!

Bush made two points in that chat session where he clearly stated that he was going to be different than Richard Smith:

1. DBs will be lined up closer to the LOS regularly, particularly the CBs.
2. Team will be aggressive in attempting to make big plays, even at the risk of giving some up. The quote was something like, "we will play defense to win and not to not lose".


Those two points clearly highlight philosophical differences, especially when he say, "this is how we're going to be different...". Of course I sound optimistic. Any description of changes from Richard Smith's defense, by definition, is going to sound like a fantasy.

I definitely tend to be optimistic. That being said, I was one of the first critics of Richard Smith on the board. So, if my perspective is biased with this coaching change, it probably has more to do with my pessimism towards Richard Smith- and, I'm not sure "pessimism" is possible regarding Richard Smith's abilities as a defensive coordinator.

Again, I'm not predicting that our defense will rate highly. I'm not sure how they will do in regards to YPG or PPG. What I have the utmost confidence in, is it will be significantly better on 3rd down, register many more sacks, create more turnovers, and be a heck of a lot more fun to watch.Like I've said, the Texans had been doing that after the Lions' game.

dalemurphy
04-13-2009, 02:09 PM
From what I witnessed, the Texans played up closer to the line of scrimmage a fair bit. I think Bush will be able to do more just because I think our defense will have more talent and speed than it had last year.

What I don't want Bush to do is forget about opposing personnel to the fact where he's trying to play aggresively but it's not working. I think we'll be more talented next year, but I don't see us as a defense that can come out and dictate what an offense does on a week to week basis.

That's why I said I think the most noticeable difference in scheme will be the play of the D-line...

.


What you need to look at is how the defense aligned and played before the second losing streak. It was in the midst of that losing streak that Richard Smith was forced, one way or another, to change the defense.

Look at the game at Indy! If you watch that game with a critical eye, you realize that Richard Smith was so afraid of exposing his defense to the big play that he gave the game to Indy. Our offense was unstoppable that day. However, with the game in doubt in the second half and despite Mario William absolutely owning Tony Ugoh, our defense sat back in a soft shell and allowed the Colts to control the clock and march down for the game-icing score. It is that attitude that will change, according to Bush. I know our talent level on defense isn't elite but I'm not sure how any of you can argue that it's poor, given most of them have only been evaluated under R. Smith's defensive system.

Clearly, the defense has an elite DE and 2 first round DTs in addition to a probowl MLB. While not a talent-rich DBackfield, I've seen much worse. Believe me, a lot of DCs could do much more with those players than he has. You will see that soon enough, I suppose.

dalemurphy
04-13-2009, 02:11 PM
Like I've said, the Texans had been doing that after the Lions' game.

Really?.. Okay, watch the game at Indy and then tell me that again!

76Texan
04-13-2009, 02:12 PM
I guess that's a huge plus for Adibi.

But why move Adibi to Will when they brought Greenwood in and Bentley was brought out? If Greenwood was the better tackler (than Bentley or Adibi) then he should have been starting.

It almost looks like the opposite of what you said. It's like they thought the heirarchy of LB's went:

Bentley
Adibi
Greenwood

And they wanted their highest ranked LB lined up in space instead of in the position over the TE.

I don't know, it confuzzled me.I don't think this was the case, PN!

Adibi lined up mostly as a SAM.

The Jags set up in a balance 2-TE formation at times, so that might have confused you a bit.

Occasionally, I saw Adibi in the so-called WILL position. But they did that mostly in instances like:

- The RB is offsetting the TE. So Adibi was keying on the RB.
(The Bucs used Cato like that for part of their game plan.)

- They want the DE (usually Mario) and Adibi to control one side, while overloading the other side with other players.

76Texan
04-13-2009, 02:40 PM
Really?.. Okay, watch the game at Indy and then tell me that again!

Indy 1st drive
1. Playing off LOS, but 2 DBS within 4 yards.
2. 2 DBs on LOS (2 receivers)
3. 3 receivers on one side in diamond formation. You have got to play off the LOS, otherwise, your DBs won't know where to go, they will tangle with each other.
4. 2 DBs on LOS (2 receivers). One drop back just before ball was snapped.
5. 3 DBS on LOS (3 receivers)
6. 1 DB on LOS plus Adibi who pushed the TE away and made the play on Addai with Bennett up to support.
7. 3 DBs on LOS (3 receivers)
8. 1 DB on LOS (3rd and 7, they want to limit the Colts to a FG.)

2nd drive
1. 2 DBs on LOS (2 receivers)
2. Play off LOS on the corners, except Texans showed blitz with 6 men (including Dunta, who drop back as ball was snapped.)
3. 1 DB on LOS, then both DBs dropped back around 3-4 yd off LOS
4. 7 guys in the box (including Dunta) plus 1 DB on LOS

and so on...
I supposed you can continue?!?

thunderkyss
04-13-2009, 03:12 PM
3. 1 DB on LOS, then both DBs dropped back around 3-4 yd off LOS
4. 7 guys in the box (including Dunta) plus 1 DB on LOS

and so on...
I supposed you can continue?!?

& how many times did we blitz a DB? for 2008, I would say if we blitzed, we blitzed with LBs, and very rarely a safety. So I don't think it really mattered where our DBs lined up, in regards to "telling the offense when we were going to blitz"

Playing up, has more to do with our DBs being in position to stop their recievers from catching a 5 yard pass, on 3rd & 2.

At least from a R.Smith scheme perspective.

76Texan
04-13-2009, 03:12 PM
Here, let me continue a little bit more and you can do the rest if you're so inclined.


5. Playing off LOS but with 5 man front (Adibi)
6. Playing off LOS but with 7 in the box (including Dunta)

End of 1st qtr

7. 2 DBS on LOS
8. 2 DBs on LOS (3rd and 10) plus 5 man front
9. 1 DB on LOS plus 6 men up close in the box
10. Play off LOS
11. 3 DBs on LOS, then Dunta dropped back a bit
12. Play off LOS
13. 2 DBs on LOS, plus Dunta within 4 yds and 6 men up close in the box
14. 9 men on LOS blitz, forcing a quick incompletion by Manning and a FG.

3rd drive
1. Play off LOS but with 7 men in the box (including DUnta)
2. 1 DB on LOS plus 2 within 4 yds (Adibi got either a cramp or an ankle sprain on the play and Ryans had the wind knock out of him for a moment.)
3. 6 men front (9 in the box) plus another DB on LOS (3rd and 1) resulted in a one yard loss by Addai and a punt.

76Texan
04-13-2009, 03:47 PM
& how many times did we blitz a DB? for 2008, I would say if we blitzed, we blitzed with LBs, and very rarely a safety. So I don't think it really mattered where our DBs lined up, in regards to "telling the offense when we were going to blitz"

Playing up, has more to do with our DBs being in position to stop their recievers from catching a 5 yard pass, on 3rd & 2.

At least from a R.Smith scheme perspective.
You are right, except we weren't talking about blitzing with the DB(s) here.

Anyway, this is the last drive:

1. 3 DBs on LOS plus 7 men in the box (lone safety) showing blitz and creating some confusion forcing a quick incompletion by Manning.
2. 3 DBs on LOS
3. 1 DB on LOS plus Dunta within 4 yds and 6 men in the box and Ferguson coming up quickly.
4. 3 DBs on LOS
5. 3 DBs on LOS plus Ferguson coming up quickly.
6. Play back, but in 4-4 and 2 DBs on the wing. Single safety.
7. 3 DBs on LOS plus 7 in the box
8. 3 DBs on LOS
9. 3 DBs on LOS
10.3 DBs on LOS plus 7 in the box on a blitz, but Addai ran the ball for one yd.
11. 3 DBs on LOS plus 6 man front, incomplete pass. Manning on the ground.
12. 9 men in the box, forcing Manning to call a time out on 3-9
13. Play off the LOS, complete pass just short of a first down.
Call was reversed. They gave the first down to the Colts. Perhaps Faggins got cold feet and dropped back a little to far back.
14. 2 DBs on LOS plus 7 in the box and Ferguson coming up quickly.
15. 2 DBs on LOS and overloading one side, giving a different look.
16. 1 DB on LOS plus 8 man front, plus another DB coming up to LOS before ball was snapped.
Incomplte pass to Clark. FG, Indy led 33-27 with 1:54 to go.

On the road at Indy, in the 4th qtr.
Our offense was moving well.
What else can you ask from the D?

Polo
04-13-2009, 03:57 PM
Look at the game at Indy! If you watch that game with a critical eye, you realize that Richard Smith was so afraid of exposing his defense to the big play that he gave the game to Indy. Our offense was unstoppable that day. However, with the game in doubt in the second half and despite Mario William absolutely owning Tony Ugoh, our defense sat back in a soft shell and allowed the Colts to control the clock and march down for the game-icing score.

I don't remember all the details from that game because I only watched it that one time....but....

I do remember our defense holding their own for most of the game and not embarrasing themselves...

IMHO, I don't even look at the last minutes of the game and blame smith for how he played...We had been playing that way all along and were about to ride that very style to a victory... he should have never been in that position to begin with...

We had been doing o.k on defense all day long with against a very high powered offense...

Once the colts got the momentum I don't know if Smith could have done anything different that would have produced better results....I don't see how being more agressive at that point all of a sudden keeps Manning from picking us a part...

76Texan
04-13-2009, 04:03 PM
And if our offense was unstoppable, they could have scored the winning TD with the time left (almost 2 minutes.)

thunderkyss
04-13-2009, 04:08 PM
Well, I must've got lost somewhere, what are we talking about?

dalemurphy
04-13-2009, 04:19 PM
I don't remember all the details from that game because I only watched it that one time....but....

I do remember our defense holding their own for most of the game and not embarrasing themselves...

IMHO, I don't even look at the last minutes of the game and blame smith for how he played...We had been playing that way all along and were about to ride that very style to a victory... he should have never been in that position to begin with...

We had been doing o.k on defense all day long with against a very high powered offense...
Once the colts got the momentum I don't know if Smith could have done anything different that would have produced better results....I don't see how being more agressive at that point all of a sudden keeps Manning from picking us a part...



No, we were fortunate in the first half that Indy had 6 dropped passes. It was probably Indy's worst offensive performance I've ever seen. Granted, perhaps in the second half that could have continued and we would've won. However, my opinion is that good football teams have the ability to win games and not simply hope the games are given to them.

76Texan
04-13-2009, 04:20 PM
Well, I must've got lost somewhere, what are we talking about?


If you read the entire chat, he talks about playing the backend closer to the LOS, among other things.

- aggressive pre-snap throughout the play.
- mixing up and disguising coverages

those are two essential things that Richard Smith's defense didn't do.

I understand, but when the two safeties are 20 yards deep and the 2 CBs are generally 10 yards deep, it limits the options and effectiveness of much of what can be done.

Which I've been trying to show that the Texans were being more agressive than Dale had suggested.

Being more agressive doesn't mean that we would be blitzing constantly.
That much, Kubiak had repeated again and again.

76Texan
04-13-2009, 05:17 PM
No, we were fortunate in the first half that Indy had 6 dropped passes. It was probably Indy's worst offensive performance I've ever seen. Granted, perhaps in the second half that could have continued and we would've won. However, my opinion is that good football teams have the ability to win games and not simply hope the games are given to them.
NOT EXACTLY TRUE on either count!
Still, the point is the Texans D was more agressive than you had inferred.
(Hint: some dropped passes may be a result of that!)

BattleRedToro
04-13-2009, 09:16 PM
USC runs a 3-4 Elephant defense where they can blitz the front 7 and or blitz with the front 4 and drop the rest in coverage (seldom done from what I've seen).

USC runs the 4-3 Under, not the 3-4 Elephant. Here is a link (http://www.trojanfootballanalysis.com/43_under_base_defense.html).

Texan4Ever
04-13-2009, 09:22 PM
USC runs the 4-3 Under, not the 3-4 Elephant. Here is a link (http://www.trojanfootballanalysis.com/43_under_base_defense.html).


Maybe as there base, but Iv'e seen Brian Cushing play as a stand-up DE in a 3-4 allingment during games.

CloakNNNdagger
04-13-2009, 09:33 PM
USC runs the 4-3 Under, not the 3-4 Elephant. Here is a link (http://www.trojanfootballanalysis.com/43_under_base_defense.html).


That's correct, but beginning 2006 Carol introduced the 3-4 elephant to confuse the offense. Cushing became known as the "elephant man" as he frequently took that role.


USC unveils the 'elephant' man (http://www.dailytrojan.com/2.1596/usc-unveils-the-elephant-man-1.209732)

Carroll has introduced his linebackers to the "elephant," a position played by Charles Haley when Carroll was defensive coordinator for the San Francisco 49ers in the mid-'90s. It will allow Carroll to showcase four linebackers on the field at times, a shift from the traditional 4-3 defense that was characteristic of Carroll's past teams.

"It's just an old concept that was there during my days in San Francisco. It's a hybrid defensive lineman and linebacker position where a guy can be a pass rusher or drop back into coverage. So at times it'll look like we're in a 3-4," Carroll said.

Sophomore Brian Cushing has spent the most time in fall camp as the "elephant," although he said junior Keith Rivers has played it in nickel defensive situations and redshirt sophomore Clay Matthews has also spent time at the position in practice.

"We're just trying to get a new look because a lot of teams know our defenses. It lets me be free out on the field," Cushing said.

leebigeztx
04-13-2009, 11:42 PM
To the original point about slb vs wlb. It really depends on if the coach is a pressure front or contain front. Philly and the giants like 5 man pressure fronts. So the slb needs to be a ex-de that can stand up and still rush the qb. In a traditional contain front, the slb is more coverage guy than anything. Also a thing to note is unless the slb can really cover, he's off the field. The way the nfl is setup, the nickel corner plays 60% of the snaps. So if that guy cant cover or cant rush, he's off the field.

If i remember correctly, bush trained under fisher,johnson,and pendergass. For the most part, those guys are 5 man pressure guys. That means it wouldnt be a surprise to see a slb that can pressure the qb like cushing,english,barwin or someone of that ilk.

The Pencil Neck
04-14-2009, 01:36 AM
To the original point about slb vs wlb. It really depends on if the coach is a pressure front or contain front. Philly and the giants like 5 man pressure fronts. So the slb needs to be a ex-de that can stand up and still rush the qb. In a traditional contain front, the slb is more coverage guy than anything. Also a thing to note is unless the slb can really cover, he's off the field. The way the nfl is setup, the nickel corner plays 60% of the snaps. So if that guy cant cover or cant rush, he's off the field.

If i remember correctly, bush trained under fisher,johnson,and pendergass. For the most part, those guys are 5 man pressure guys. That means it wouldnt be a surprise to see a slb that can pressure the qb like cushing,english,barwin or someone of that ilk.

I always looked at Will and Sam as:

Sam lines up on the same side as the TE. Frequently used in coverage on the TE and sometimes on the RB. Has to be strong enough to take on the TE in the run game.

Will would generally be in coverage against a running back or the slot receiver. Frequently used to Blitz. More of a speed guy.

I'd never really considered a Sam a converted DE although it happens from time to time. I'd always thought the Will would be the one better used in blitzes because of the speed difference although a pressure defense should be able send both which requires both to have both speed and skill at rushing the QB. I also always figured the Will would normally be better in coverage and used in the nickel packages.

leebigeztx
04-14-2009, 10:59 AM
Pencil Neck, that pretty true, but things are constantly in motion. The will is normally the run and hit guy. Brooks is a classic example of a guy that's covered up by the de and is allowed to just flow. The slb is the guy that sets the edge on the strongside where the te is like you said, but what has happened is the Y-flex te (witten,gates,winslow, clark, heap, daniels) are now opening up and putting those guys in spce. So dc's are now putting smaller used to be wlb on the te side because those guys are normally faster lb's. Its really like a game a chicken when trying to matchup. DC's are now playing more coverage people both at lb and at safety because of those te's and the westbrook type of back. That's why a guy like roy williams is pretty much a dinosaur. He's a in the box guy that can't cover nor can he play deep middle and cover. That's why the best safeties are guys with corner skills.

As far as the ex de playing slb, its basically what 3-4 teams do. Its a 5 man pressure and the 5th is the slb. Now believe or not, smith blitzed more than it seemed, but blitzing with guys that run into lineman vs blitzing with a guy that know how to beat a lineman is different. Bush had experience under fisher and 46 principle and under jimmy johnson who has gocong right now. Spag under johnson had mathias. That's why if jenkins is gone, I think the texans should draft the best 3-4 type of olb. This will give the the ability to pressure with 5 man on any down as well as morphe into a 3-4 if the choose. I could easily see adibi and june as the wlb and slb. They both are so similar, it doesn't matter who plays which spot. Diles is the guy that might have problems.

The Pencil Neck
04-14-2009, 11:06 AM
As far as the ex de playing slb, its basically what 3-4 teams do. Its a 5 man pressure and the 5th is the slb.


I was talking about DE's transitioning to the Sam in a 4-3. I wasn't talking about 3-4's because... well... that's not our D. I know that DE's frequently turn into rush OLB's in a 3-4 but I wasn't generalizing to the point of talking about all defenses.


Now believe or not, smith blitzed more than it seemed, but blitzing with guys that run into lineman vs blitzing with a guy that know how to beat a lineman is different. Bush had experience under fisher and 46 principle and under jimmy johnson who has gocong right now. Spag under johnson had mathias. That's why if jenkins is gone, I think the texans should draft the best 3-4 type of olb. This will give the the ability to pressure with 5 man on any down as well as morphe into a 3-4 if the choose. I could easily see adibi and june as the wlb and slb. They both are so similar, it doesn't matter who plays which spot. Diles is the guy that might have problems.

One of my pet peeves is people saying we didn't blitz. We did blitz. We just sucked at it most of the time. Like you said, running into a mosh pit and getting caught in the wash isn't very effective and that's what most of our blitzers did.

So... you're hoping that we're going to morph from a defense that was primarily 4-3 (with a lot of zone blitzing and occasionally a "functional" 3-4 where one of the down lineman drops into coverage without bringing the blitzer) to a hybrid 3-4 with 5 guys on the line rushing?

dalemurphy
04-14-2009, 12:19 PM
Pencil Neck, that pretty true, but things are constantly in motion. The will is normally the run and hit guy. Brooks is a classic example of a guy that's covered up by the de and is allowed to just flow. The slb is the guy that sets the edge on the strongside where the te is like you said, but what has happened is the Y-flex te (witten,gates,winslow, clark, heap, daniels) are now opening up and putting those guys in spce. So dc's are now putting smaller used to be wlb on the te side because those guys are normally faster lb's. Its really like a game a chicken when trying to matchup. DC's are now playing more coverage people both at lb and at safety because of those te's and the westbrook type of back. That's why a guy like roy williams is pretty much a dinosaur. He's a in the box guy that can't cover nor can he play deep middle and cover. That's why the best safeties are guys with corner skills.

As far as the ex de playing slb, its basically what 3-4 teams do. Its a 5 man pressure and the 5th is the slb. Now believe or not, smith blitzed more than it seemed, but blitzing with guys that run into lineman vs blitzing with a guy that know how to beat a lineman is different. Bush had experience under fisher and 46 principle and under jimmy johnson who has gocong right now. Spag under johnson had mathias. That's why if jenkins is gone, I think the texans should draft the best 3-4 type of olb. This will give the the ability to pressure with 5 man on any down as well as morphe into a 3-4 if the choose. I could easily see adibi and june as the wlb and slb. They both are so similar, it doesn't matter who plays which spot. Diles is the guy that might have problems.


With all the talk about Matthews and Cushing, I think Clint Sintim is being overlooked. One of my favorite draft scenarios has us trading down into the bottom of round one and taking Sintim. I think he would be a very good fit for a SLB that can pressure the QB.

dsorc
04-14-2009, 01:59 PM
I was talking about DE's transitioning to the Sam in a 4-3. I wasn't talking about 3-4's because... well... that's not our D. I know that DE's frequently turn into rush OLB's in a 3-4 but I wasn't generalizing to the point of talking about all defenses.



One of my pet peeves is people saying we didn't blitz. We did blitz. We just sucked at it most of the time. Like you said, running into a mosh pit and getting caught in the wash isn't very effective and that's what most of our blitzers did.

So... you're hoping that we're going to morph from a defense that was primarily 4-3 (with a lot of zone blitzing and occasionally a "functional" 3-4 where one of the down lineman drops into coverage without bringing the blitzer) to a hybrid 3-4 with 5 guys on the line rushing?
This is the Jim Johnson template, at least as of late. Personally, I also think this is the model we should be moving to. You have a normal 4-3 front and a SLB that's closer to a 3-4 OLB. This leads to a better defense against the run in the edges because the SLB is bigger and is lining up at the LOS 90% of the time. The SLB doesn't have to rush but he will rush more than normal. The drawback is that it forces the SS into the box since the SLB is more of a liability in coverage than normal. However this can be coutered by running nickel packages slightly more often since in the nickel the SLB is replaced by a CB anyways. Another note is that in nickel the SLB can become a DE making the SLB a 3 down LB of sorts which is unusual for a 4-3 SLB.

If we grab Mathews, Sintim, or Barwin, it would signal we're going to be playing something like this as they are pass rushing SLBs. Cushing is more balanced so he could work in any scheme. The other thing to keep your eye on for this scheme is SS. For this to work you need a SS that's a reliable tackler but can cover like a CB instead of a center fielder. The SS will be going 1 on 1 vs the TE or slot WR on the base formation after all.

threetoedpete
04-14-2009, 11:36 PM
I remember a interview with Rick Smith when asked about his reasoning behing drafting Okoye. He said when u have 4 down lineman that can rush the passer w/o blitzing its invaluable...all due respect to Smith, while the theory is sound there is something i feel hes missing. I believe when you are able to have guys like Okoye or Mario ONE ON ONE with a O lineman..thats when u start to reap the benefits.

That being said, any given play u have 5 lineman blocking, 6 if the TE stays in. What needs to happen then is that we have to put 5 defenders against 5 lineman, meaning there has to be at LEAST one person blitzing almost every play. Seeming as TE serve as a check down/dump off for most Qbs even if they keep him in to block thats just one less outlet he has, thus putting more stress on his progression.

Long story short, if Bush sticks to his guns, saying our D is going to be more agressive (remember Richard Smith said the same thing when he got the job) then i believe our sack numbers will go through the roof. Have our interior guys shooting gaps AND have one LB blitzing, we will have a completely different team.

Im not one for long posts...just my honest opinion.

So who in your mind got there or will get there as the fifth man ? Inquiring minds wish to know ? Let me know how the majic dust works in october .

threetoedpete
04-14-2009, 11:39 PM
With all the talk about Matthews and Cushing, I think Clint Sintim is being overlooked. One of my favorite draft scenarios has us trading down into the bottom of round one and taking Sintim. I think he would be a very good fit for a SLB that can pressure the QB.

Clint Situm can not, will not....ever stand up in a 4-3. No one has forgotten him. He doesn't work. Now you draft the guy as a situational rusher....so be it. but that guy and his hips ain't standing up in a 4-3. Never ...ever.

leebigeztx
04-16-2009, 02:27 AM
I was talking about DE's transitioning to the Sam in a 4-3. I wasn't talking about 3-4's because... well... that's not our D. I know that DE's frequently turn into rush OLB's in a 3-4 but I wasn't generalizing to the point of talking about all defenses.



One of my pet peeves is people saying we didn't blitz. We did blitz. We just sucked at it most of the time. Like you said, running into a mosh pit and getting caught in the wash isn't very effective and that's what most of our blitzers did.

So... you're hoping that we're going to morph from a defense that was primarily 4-3 (with a lot of zone blitzing and occasionally a "functional" 3-4 where one of the down lineman drops into coverage without bringing the blitzer) to a hybrid 3-4 with 5 guys on the line rushing?

Yeah, but not really morphing into a 3-4, just 5 man pressure like giants and philly. If you have athletic lineman, it makes it better to do this. That's why I think smith was signed. He's a guy that has versitility. English, Barwin, and Matthews have been climbing up the board. I talked to my buddy who is a scout and he said its no doubt those 3 can play either olb on a 3-4 or 4-3. If they move down in the 20's if jenkins is gone, I think they will take one of the 3. Now with the zone dogs and blitzes you can create pressure and have free runners at the qb. Pitt and the giants are classic cases of why you don't need a high priced corner to have a good pass defense.