PDA

View Full Version : Out of the box "Exotic" Defensive Packages


awtysst
08-06-2010, 11:12 PM
Of course we need to have a base 4-3 defense. However, I think we need to fit our team to the type of opponent we face. So, for example, when we play run heavy teams like the Titans or Jets I say we bring out the ol 5-2.

1) The 5-2
The 5-2 is a line with 5 Dlineman and 2 LBs. In this run heavy formation we could use funneling systems. We could stack one side of the DL to have big time rushers (Mario, Barwin, Mitchell) and then have strong run stoppers with penetration ability on the other side (Okoye and Smith). Or vice versa and swap in appropriate names. We could funnel it both ways towards our strength on the field. Clearly the drawback would be against the pass, but then again, we wouldn't use this formation against the pass anyway.

2) The 4-4
Another good defense against a strong running team like the Jets or Titans. In this formation we have 4 DL and 4 LB. So, now, the O line has no idea where the pressure will come from. Lets take a quick look.

Mario---Smith---Amobi---Barwin

Cush---Sharpton---Meco---Diles

Quinn----Pollard----Jackson

In this formation(for a run heavy team) clearly we are going with a running prevention defense. The D has no idea where pressure will come from. Of course, as you can see, Peyton would crave this up. So we would not use this D against the Colts.

3) 3-5-3

A different formation that is designed to throw a different look. I would start this off as a "traditional" 4-4 and then at the snap, one of the lineman suddenly drop back and become a LB. I think Barwin is probably the best candidate for that job.

The 46
Being a Defensive football fan I have always loved the ol 46.

I think we need to use stunts and different formations to confuse defenses. With out better personal we can now consider using more exotic Jim Johnson types of schemes.

Lucky
08-06-2010, 11:26 PM
Like anything else, you have to practice a defense to become accomplished in it. Attempting to confuse offenses with exotic defenses could backfire if your defensive players become confused with their responsibilities. One reason the Bears became so proficient in the 46 was because they practiced and played it a lot. That and they had 8 Pro Bowl defenders.

Just as Kubiak needs to find mismatches in the opposition defenses to exploit Andre Johnson and Owen Daniels, Frank Bush needs to move guys like Mario and Cushing around and find the weaknesses of the offense. I don't know if he has to get all crazy with schemes to make that happen.

JB
08-06-2010, 11:31 PM
Like anything else, you have to practice a defense to become accomplished in it. Attempting to confuse offenses with exotic defenses could backfire if your defensive players become confused with their responsibilities. One reason the Bears became so proficient in the 46 was because they practiced and played it a lot. That and they had 8 Pro Bowl defenders.

Just as Kubiak needs to find mismatches in the opposition defenses to exploit Andre Johnson and Owen Daniels, Frank Bush needs to move guys like Mario and Cushing around and find the weaknesses of the offense. I don't know if he has to get all crazy with schemes to make that happen.

Antonio Smith mentioned that when they simplified, they got a lot better. This year, they should be able to add a little more into the defense.

76Texan
08-07-2010, 09:00 AM
Antonio Smith mentioned that when they simplified, they got a lot better. This year, they should be able to add a little more into the defense.

I read that quote from Smith before, and I wonder what he actually meant by it?

Because we did have a lot of different schemes in different games the whole season.

Actually, we employed everything that awtysst mentioned in particular situations (but not as a base defense).
(With different personnel grouping; ie, we may not have 4 LBs in there, but we could step a safety up in the box and become a 4-4, for example.)

CloakNNNdagger
08-07-2010, 09:30 AM
In all of the above-mentioned formations, adding Schobel would only make for capable solid variations.

small nizzle
08-07-2010, 01:45 PM
I read that quote from Smith before, and I wonder what he actually meant by it?

Because we did have a lot of different schemes in different games the whole season.

Actually, we employed everything that awtysst mentioned in particular situations (but not as a base defense).
(With different personnel grouping; ie, we may not have 4 LBs in there, but we could step a safety up in the box and become a 4-4, for example.)

because mario/okoye/smith are not smart enough to handle exotic schemes,so when they simplify it they get better...

gary
08-07-2010, 02:40 PM
because mario/okoye/smith are not smart enough to handle exotic schemes,so when they simplify it they get better...
http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee312/gary1992/fun-sizecandy.jpg

TimeKiller
08-07-2010, 03:58 PM
I like it.

5-2, I think the 4-3 Under basically accomplishes that. Cush playing up on the line, he's a big boy and floats in between DL/LB responsibilities. But if you mean literally adding a 5th DL let's run with it. Schobel/Barwin - Smith - Okoye - Mitchell - Mario/Barwin ooooh I like that. Having the Cush/Ryans as the 2 backers, Jackson - ? - Pollard - Quin. That would be a good run stopping D that would also be a pass rushing threat, definitely room to throw some zone blitzes out there. Pass coverage would be limited though.

It's not exotic but I think they need to learn a 3-4 set. Give Okam or Deljuan Robinson a purpose other than putting rather large dents in the bench. Mario - Biggin' - Smith could handle the front imo. Cush and Barwin handle OLB duties. I think the only thing missing would be another rangy run stopper like Ryans, preferably with a little size at that. Maybe Clark? I think that would really open up pass rushing, freak out a D if used sparingly and maybe get Barwin out on 2nd and long without having to worry too much about run stopping.

thunderkyss
08-07-2010, 04:31 PM
I read that quote from Smith before, and I wonder what he actually meant by it?

Because we did have a lot of different schemes in different games the whole season.

Actually, we employed everything that awtysst mentioned in particular situations (but not as a base defense).
(With different personnel grouping; ie, we may not have 4 LBs in there, but we could step a safety up in the box and become a 4-4, for example.)

I was thinking the same thing, with the personnel we have in our base 4-3, we can get to most of the things he mentioned. Cush on the line, is like the 5-2 Awtysst mentioned. I don't know that we ever had three rushers on the same side.. but Cush-Mario-Amobi-Cody-Smith would be similar.

76Texan
08-08-2010, 01:49 AM
because mario/okoye/smith are not smart enough to handle exotic schemes,so when they simplify it they get better...

Please read the post more carefully before you respond, thank you!

76Texan
08-08-2010, 03:11 AM
I was thinking the same thing, with the personnel we have in our base 4-3, we can get to most of the things he mentioned. Cush on the line, is like the 5-2 Awtysst mentioned. I don't know that we ever had three rushers on the same side.. but Cush-Mario-Amobi-Cody-Smith would be similar.

Sure, why not!
Believe me, we came up with a lot of exotic looks throughout the season.

First play against the Seahawks, for example.

It would take too long to try to describe what was going down on both sides of the ball.

But basically, we started out with a 4-3 under look (with a little twist.)

NT Cody in the strong side A gap (so at least the C needs to block him, and perhaps the strong side G may have to help to guard the nearest path to the QB).

As typical with the Under front, we isolated the weakside DE (Mario in this case) outside the weak side tackle. This is a one-on-one edge rush situation for Mario.
Next, we had the weak side DT (the Undertackle) outside the weak side guard. In this case, Okoye has the one-on-one with the G.

We twitched the strong side a little bit by putting our strong side DE (Smith) inside the strong side guard (instead of outside).
Now, the Guard has to decide whether to help the C or the tackle.

Then, of course, we had Cushing outside the TE (another one-on-one situaton).

So it was a 4-3 Under, but with Cushing on the LOS (he's as big and as fast as some DE, even more so in certain cases) it was like a 5-2.

But then the TE went into motion to the other side.
We countered by bringing Pollard up outside Cushing on the LOS.
Now we became a 46 Defense with 3 rushers on one side (Pollard, Cushing, and Smith).

I'm not going to try to guess what the offense was trying to do (it wasn't basic stuff).
They sent the tackle to block help block Smith and left Cushing unblocked
(with the RB taking on Pollard and the FB going the other way.)
Cushing unblocked on the blind side, do I really need to describe what happened next?

I imagine they expected Cushing to drop back, but instead our 5-man zone dog had Mario as the one who dropped back.

At any rate, the point here is we started out in the 4-3 Under (but was just like a 5-2 with Cushing on the LS), then became a 46, and ended up as a 5-man zone dog (with our best pass rusher - Mario- dropping back).

At the very least, it wasn't simple, I'd say!