A revised look at 4-3 defensive theory
Jun 17, 2008 2008 Season, Broken Record, Colvin, Curious Coaching, DeMeco Ryans, Dunta Robinson, Football 101, I love defensive football, Morlon Greenwood, Okam's Razor, Posts that list too many players, Rendhel and Sid, Teams that aren't the Texans, The Fred, Will Demps makes love to the...ladies?
Because two of my good friends are Giants and Redskins fans, respectively, I find myself engaged in more conversations about NFC East football that one would expect for a Texans fan. However, because I am obsessed with defensive football–especially defensive line play–I actually enjoy these chats and, more often than not, come away with some new ideas about our team.
Anyway, one idea that we’ve been kicking around lately is that the Texans should run a variation on the Eagles’ defense because (a) our personnel is tailor-made for such a system and (b) that system would allow our front seven to protect the weaknesses in our back four, just like it did for the Super Bowl Champion Giants. Sounds good, no?
Let me back up a bit, though, and lay this out. Back in late October of last season, I wrote a long post advocating, first, that we blitz, and, second, that we come up with some creative fronts and utilize the zone blitz more often.
2b. So, then…how should we go about blitzing (other than with the aforementioned proper use of the WLB)? The answer is simple: the zone blitz
[4-3 defense 102 here. Feel free to skip ahead.]
The idea behind the zone blitz is two-fold. First, duh, create pressure. Second, however, it tries to confuse the offense’s blocking calls by sending any of the three linebackers (or, occasionally, a safety) while someone else fills the space left by the vacating backer. In that way, the defense does not lose the extra hands in coverage, but should still be able to get penetration because the offensive line will not know where the blitz is coming from on a given play.
For example, the zone blitz allows the MLB to blitz through the A-gap, while the nose tackle stunts over through the B-gap. In coverage, the WLB fills the space vacated by the MLB and the RDE drops back and out into the space that WLB would fill in a standard two deep zone. So, when the QB sees the MLB attack, his natural reaction is to look to throw at where the blitz came from (or, if he’s guessing that the WLB will fill, to where the WLB came from), only to find the ball thrown right at a defender.
Then, on the very next play, with the very same package, the team could go with a more traditional WLB blitz, but have the RDE slide back to fill. We saw this play once or twice in the preseason with Shantee Orr lined up outside the RDE and it was effective.
An added bonus of blitzing out of a two-deep zone is that it allows our best defensive player to make even more of an impact on the game. DeMeco Ryans has two sacks this season, both of which have come on a straight blitz. On both plays, he came more or less untouched (one against Harrington late in the game when we decided to actually play D and the one last week where he nearly killed Kerry Collins) because he was allowed to read the offensive line and choose between the A- and B-gap and he smacked the QB right in the mouth. He has also been asked to run blitz a couple times and he’s found success there. So, if we start using him on some zone blitzes, teams will have to account for him more. Meaning that blitzes from other positions–say Danny Clarkstunting over the LDE with Morlon Greenwood dropping back to the middle and DeMeco filling the space where the SLB would normally be–a team throwing over the blitz would be throwing the ball right at our best defensive weapon. Likewise, letting DeMeco creep up and show blitz, especially if he’d already had success, would create more chances for the d-linemen on either side of him to get ignored by an overzealous o-lineman. And so on, and so forth.
[/4-3 Defense 102]
I cannot state this strongly enough. Blitzing is a necessity when you have 1/4th of a real secondary.Zone blitzing allows for our strong front seven to create mismatches while still keeping two or three extra bodies in coverage and allowing our best defensive player to better impact the game. While you cannot necessarily use the zone blitz on every down (it becomes less effective at some point), how is this not a better option than dropping the three LBs, relying entirely on your front four for any pressure on the QB, and watching the QB have time to locate and throw at Petey Faggins?
3. Why do we use our front four in such a vanilla manner?
Just like you can’t run the zone blitz on every defensive snap, if you do anything over and over, eventually everyone in the NFL will know your tendencies. (By “eventually,” I mean “by next week.”) Right now, we have the same formulaic defensive line positions. Mario at RDE on running plays, Mario at LDE on passing plays, blah blah blah.
Why?
First of all, backing up a step, why when Mario moves to LDE–a move I really, really like–do the tackles not flip-flop so that Amobi Okoye is not beside Mario? We’ve covered this before. Yes, I am fully aware that Amobi has four sacks and that, on three of those, Mario is clearly occupying at least two blockers. That’s all well and good, but, like we said before, it’s not really the highest, best use of their talents. Flipping Amobi puts your two-gap, big-bodied tackle between Mario and Okoye. It is this player’s goal to pick up two blockers, which means that either Amobi or Mario (or, possibly, both) would draw single blocking more often than not. Meaning, oh I don’t know, that we would get more consistent penetration from both sides of the line.
But, back to where we started question 3: why even have a definite set order for your defensive linemen? I mean, sure, if you are going to have set positions based on down and distance, then for god’s sake, do it correctly within the constraints of the 4-3. But do you really even have to have set positions? Right now, you have Mario Williams who, though Richard Justice would disagree, is actually playing very well [This sentence is hilarious in retrospect. --Ed.]. You have Amobi Okoye, who is playing the pass-rush role as well as we hoped and playing the running game better than we hoped. AND you have Travis Johnson who is just playing some inspired football right now, hustling, hitting people, and playing like you would hope a first-round DT would [Did I really write that? Jeez. --Ed.]. That’s three real pass rushers, plus we haven’t even touched on Kalu,Weaver, Maddox, etc.
With that kind of ability up front, why become so predictable that teams can game plan and negate some of the advantage you have? Mix it up a little. Go big on one play and have Mario, Maddox, Johnson, and Amobi from left to right. Next time out, go with your more traditional base. Then turn around and go small (relatively speaking) with Mario, Okoye, Cochran, and Orr [Replace "Orr" with "Colvin" or "Thompson" --Ed.]. Create a mismatch by putting Mario at under tackle and then having him twist-stunt with Weaver lined up at DE. The possibilities are vast…if you will just use them.
Note: I am fully aware that Mario moved around a lot last year and that some of the coaching staff thought that might have been his “problem.” You know, rather than just having an injured foot and being a rookie at a tough position. That’s all well and good, but setting up your front so that he is guaranteed to get doubled on every single play is hardly the answer.
I guess the bigger point here for question three is JUST DO SOMETHING. Don’t keep running out there with a predictable front four rotation, no blitz packages to speak of, and a secondary that can’t cover for as long as you are asking them to. DO SOMETHING.
The great thing about the 4-3 is the balance. But that balance is in terms of playing the run versus playing the pass, meaning you still have to play to the strengths of your D. Consistency in game planning will always equal regression in the NFL; worse, consistently planning in the same incorrect manner will always equal failure.
While a number of you bought into my arguments, there were a good number who argued that “we’d blitz if we could” and “Richard Smith is doing the best he can with what he has.” Of course, my whole argument was that, no he wasn’t, but that’s beside the point. The point is the team did start blitzing the very next week (I know you are reading this, Smith!) and did so with success, I might add. Unfortunately, it never really got into the idea of true zone blitzing or, more importantly, blitzing teams with high-octane offenses (read: the Colts game) and there was little or no creativity shown in our alignments and packages.
Now, I still stand by my assertions that my approach to the defense would work and work well given our roster. However, upon further review, I see that there is an even better approach we could take.
Which brings us to the Eagles’ scheme. And, even better, brings us to an Xs and Os breakdown of said scheme.
The Eagles ostensibly run a 4-3 defense. Their system differs from the standard 4-3, though, in a number of ways, all of them significant.
1. The Outside Linebackers. Instead of having a true SLB and WLB, they make the two OLBs interchangeable in terms of responsibilities and positioning. Using these fungible LBs, on nearly every play one of the OLBs rotates up, creating a five-man front and showing blitz while the other rotates back, creating additional space between himself and the line. Despite being on the line, however, there is no guarantee that that linebacker will blitz; the Eagles will sometimes bring the other OLB, a CB, a safety, or nobody at all (though bringing no one is rare–the Eagles blitz almost 65% of the time), with the up linebacker dropping into coverage either by hitting a specified zone or by picking up the TE or RB or FB in man coverage.
On the other hand, there will obviously be times when the up linebacker does blitz. In this system, though, he might be joined in the rush by the other OLB, by either corner, or (one of the Eagles’ favorite moves) by the safety. Or maybe he’s joined by two or three of those guys. Or maybe you think he’s going to be joined by the safety, only to find the safety back in coverage right as you release the ball…see where I’m going with this?
Another facet of the Philly scheme is that OLB speed is not as important as instincts and the ability to get where you need to be in coverage. This is not to say that speed isn’t an asset–of course it is. Rather, it just means that a player like Greenwood who has shown great instincts (see, e.g., the Atlanta game when he realized Faggins had blown the underneath coverage and tried to get there from his spot on the edge) becomes more valuable in this system.
2. The Middle Linebacker. The Eagles’ system simultaneously limits the MLB and gives him greater freedom to impact the game, which sounds illogical but isn’t. In your standard 4-3, the MLB generally reads the offensive line and the FB and then flows to a hole, whether that hole is in the A-gap or all the way out in the D-gap. But his flow to the hole is limited by his added responsibility of maintaining interior defensive positioning until he is sure there is no cut-back run. Only after making all of the proper reads is your MLB free to use his speed and be the sideline-to-sideline playmaker.
In the Philly scheme, the MLB has two responsibilities–the A-gaps–because all of the other holes are filled with rushing bodies. If the play goes away from these gaps, the MLB’s defined responsibilities are done and he is freed to roam the field, ad-lib, and create plays, meaning that he doesn’t have to have the same great recovery speed that the standard 4-3 MLB does. It is this simultaneous limiting and freeing that makes someone like Jeremiah Trotter a dominant MLB in this system; ask him to play sideline-to-sideline like a typical 4-3 MLB as they did in Washington and he sucks immensely, but put him in Philly where he only has to play the A-gaps and he’ll consistently get 100 solo tackles and 3-5 sacks a year.
3. Defensive Line Theory. In Philly’s scheme, the only player in the front seven who has true two-gap responsibility is the Nose Tackle, and even he only has to do it every once in a while. (The MLB is responsible for two gaps, but they are really just the same gap on either side of the center and not a two-gap responsibility in the same sense that the NT has.) Now, on the face of it, that is not so different from a standard 4-3. The devil is in the details, though.
A typical 4-3 is a read-and-react defense for everyone except a blitzer (and, really, even he is supposed to do this). Now, while the linemen in a 4-3 only have one gap responsibility, the difference between their one-gap requirements and Philly’s DL one-gap requirements is one of intent and initial movement. For example, in the read-and-react approach, his primary responsibility is to read the lineman blocking him because, while he has C- or D-gap (depending on alignment and shift) requirements as well as contain, he has to remain in position to go either direction with respect to his blocker–on an inside run, he has to be able to shed the block and crash down; on an outside run, he needs to get free of the block and seal the edge. To do this successfully, the lineman must stand his blocker up and stay square with him long enough to read the play and react to it (hence the name).
In an attacking, Philly-style system, which is a one-gap attacking approach, the first responsibility for the DE as well as all the other lineman is to get 1.5 to 2 yards upfield, then flow to the ball. What this means in practice (assuming perfect execution) is, in a read-and-react D, every lineman stands his blocker up, then flows along the face of the blockers down the line of scrimmage to the ball, while, in an attacking one-gap system, the defensive linemen get behind the blockers and then flow (or, more accurately, crash) to the ball.
As a quick aside, obviously, each system will have its flaws and benefits. The read-and-react defense expect the linebackers to make most of the tackles, which means consistent positive yardage for the opposing team, yet it also gives you a safety net of a clogged line and three backers moving to the ball. The attacking defense runs a risk of giving up the big play if the linemen or LBs miss their tackles, but it also gives you a near certainty of consistently stopping the opposition for no gain or a loss.
A second difference in D-line theory between the two schemes is movement of the front four by way of stunts and whatnot. Because it is a one-gap system, the linemen are freed to do any number of a variety of stunts so long as the movement ends with one of them in each gap. While such stunts are theoretically possible in a standard 4-3, you can’t do it too much when the DTs may have multiple gaps or when you are worried about breaking contain on the outside. When you are sending the house on a blitz, however, all that matters is (a) that a body ends up in each of the gaps and (b) that you can count on your MLB to make tackles on anyone who comes thru the A gaps or slips around the edge (which goes back to the freedom of the MLB’s responsibilities).
4. Coverage. Much like the front seven, the coverage in a Philly scheme is incredibly fluid. If you watch the Eagles (or the Giants, who are actually a better comparison given their lack of a super secondary), the coverage calls might change two or three times before the ball is snapped. An initial coverage is called based on down and distance. Once the offense breaks its huddle, the coverage is changed if necessary to account for the personnel and the formation. Even better, the coverage can change on the fly after the ball is snapped. So, while the Cover 2 (which is pretty much a one-gap system up front) has players moving to specified zones and has some discrete coverage schemes within the larger system, the Philly system moves seamlessly from zone to man to zone again.
I just re-read that paragraph and it is not overly clear. By way of an incredibly simplistic example (that doesn’t account for some coverage variables): In the Philly system, assume the defense has called a 5-man blitz based on the offense’s personnel of two WR and two TE on third-and-long and that the OLB who has rotated up to the line is supposed to cover one tight end, the nickel corner is coming on the blitz, and the other OLB is picking up the second TE. Now, presnap, the offense shifts the second TE out wide, so the coverage audibles for the third CB to pick up the second TE and the OLB who was going to pick up that TE to blitz. At the snap, the TE who was to be picked up by the up linebacker stays in to block, so that OLB instantly becomes a blitzer as well. You’ve gone from a 5-man corner blitz to a 6-man two-LB blitz without changing your alignment or your package. By bringing out the extra TE, the offense has caused more blitzers to come. That’s some beautiful stuff right there–it’s the beauty of the system that, should the defense recognize the initial blitz and audible into something else, your system accounts for that by changing your blitz altogether.
The second part of the scheme is that it does not pigeonhole your coverage into a certain system. So often, teams that run a Cover 2 design their blitzes based on the principles and assignments of the Cover 2. You will almost never see them come with a safety blitz because that leaves a hole in the coverage they are comfortable running and it is impossible to disguise from the Cover 2 alignment. A corner blitz is disguiseable because the CBs line up on the line, but it requires an OLB to cheat out and cover the area where the corner vacated, which is always dangerous.
But, as Philly showed against New England and Dallas last year, their system doesn’t force you into any specific pass defense. Against the Pats, the Eagles blitzed constantly, from all sorts of angles, and played straight up man coverage behind it and very nearly won that game. In the first half against the Cowboys, Philly again brought extra rushers, but alternated between man and zone behind it. Then, in the second half, they continued to show blitz on every play, but dropped everyone into coverage. The first half pressure had gotten to Romo, though, and he could not find a rhythm even when the blitz didn’t come.
Underlying each of these differences are the basic tenets of the system–create confusion by showing lots of different looks pre-snap and by bringing pressure from all sorts of locations, never let the offense know who is coming or how many are coming (anywhere from 5-8, but more than 4 about 2/3 of the time), and plug every hole while confusing the O-line and causing them to make mistakes. Basically, it’s an offensive take on defense: an attempt to create plays rather than reacting to what the offense is doing. Get upfield, and then play football.
How Does This Apply To Us?
Which brings us to the point of this post. Namely that your Houston Texans possess enough talent and flexibility in their front seven to run a modified version of this system and run it well.
Our defensive line would thrive in the one-gap approach. Imagine telling Mario Williams and even Anthony Weaver, “ok, first we want you to just get in the backfield, then worry about where the ball is.” Could anyone stop Mario in that situation if he didn’t have to react to the play before choosing a lane? Hell, could any TWO people consistently stop him in that situation? I think not. Weaver, likewise, would thrive because he would not have to react to left tackles–something he lacks the speed to do consistently–as much as just beat them off the line and get past them on whatever line he wants. Amobi and Frank Okam on the inside would also be fantastic in this scheme–you wouldn’t be asking two young players to read the play and their blockers. Amobi has already shown a nose for the ball, so you’d be telling him to follow those instincts. And Okam would actually be better than anything Philly uses on the inside–both of their starting DTs are much smaller than he is–and as the only two-gapper would have the girth to really eat up the blockers in his path. Hell, this system would even make Travis Johnson valuable again as the backup for both tackle positions. Love him or hate him (and I did both last year), his biggest problem is that he’s too small to really be a two-gap NT. This system would make him just put his head down and go upfield rather than trying to take on two blockers, so you could spell Okam with him when you didn’t need a two-gapper at all, or Johnson could back up Okoye. Oh, and Rosie Colvin? He could be the second D-end in nickel situations because, like Weaver, his success would not depend on being able to react and beat a LT. Much like Mathias Kiwanuka was for the Giants, he would be the pin-your-ears-back rusher in pure passing downs.
Like I said way back up there, this defense would make Greenwood even better than he has been for us. (And he has been very good, but that’s a whole other article.) Opposite him, it would make life both easier and more fun for Zac Diles–he would be freed from playing the standard run-stopping role of the SLB and would be allowed to use his speed and ability more freely. Plus, you are simplifying the game for a young guy learning a new position because you are giving him specific assignments–rotate up and blitz, rotate up and cover the TE (but blitz if he tries to block you), rotate back and cover the TE/RB, rotate back and blitz. Simple, straightforward. You could also sub in Chaun Thompson in pure passing downs if you thought he was a better blitzer than Diles because teams would then assume he was coming, even when he wasn’t.
I’ve mentioned the Giants a few times through this thing as a more apt comparison for us and a better model to build from. This is because the Eagles have one piece that we do not have–Brian Dawkins. Dawkins role in the Philly system is manifold: he is an additional linebacker, he plans man-up on WRs, he blitzes, and he patrols the deep middle. We don’t have a player that can do that unless and until Dunta comes back as a FS. (Which would be amazingly perfect for this system.) The Giants don’t have the dominating safety, nor do they really have an impressive secondary, but they run a version of this same Philly defense up front (Steve Spagnolo is from the Philly organization) and they won the Super Bowl with it! All without a great secondary. Sound familiar?
The important thing is, if you lack the physical presence of a Brian Dawkins, you have to have a safety back there who is smart enough to make the right reads for the coverage. For the Super Bowl Champion Giants, it was Gibril Wilson. For us, it could just as easily be Will Demps, who might not be Dawkins but is a smart, instinctive safety nonetheless. In fact, to paraphrase my buddy Rendhel, the Giants have not had a great secondary in years, but they always have a good defense because they understand the value of pressuring the QB. When they got Spagnolo and the Philly system, they took this appreciation of pressure to a new level.
Right now, we don’t have a very good secondary, but we seem to also lack the proper appreciation for just how much QB pressure can improve the coverage. Jacques Reeves is blindingly fast, meaning he could come on corner blitzes. But he could also stay with anyone in the league for two or three seconds. It’s when you start asking him to cover longer that he becomes a liability. Fred Bennett is an instinctive young player and will probably become pretty good, but he has still shown that he can be beat if you ask him to cover too long–why not remove that liability more often than not?
I could go on and on, but the point is that we have the personnel to do this and we have first-hand evidence that this kind of defense turns an otherwise non-spectacular team into a playoff team and a real contender. Unfortunately, we also have a defensive coordinator who wouldn’t blitz at all until around Halloween and then backed of his blitzing any time it stumbled a bit. That is the absolute worst attitude a d-coordinator can have. Now, maybe the presence of Ray Rhodes (phormer Philly coach!) will give Smith the testicular fortitude to at least be more aggressive. I can dream, I guess. Because, until we get a new coordinator or our coordinator gets a new outlook, this post is nothing but navel gazing to a disgusting degree.
Like always, though, just because they won’t do it, doesn’t mean I am wrong.
(click arrow to reply)
June 17th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
i agree 100%. i love that defensive theory. i implement it with the Texans in Madden all the time. the biggest thing about just getting up field is that it kills so many plays just by nature. if you’ve got 3-4 guys coming down the middle, you can’t run up the middle. if you bounce it outside the MLB and SS will chase you down. lots of plays get blown up like that.
the other thing i really like about this scheme is that ‘the shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line’. the QB is really only a few yards from the front 7 at the snap. having Mario explode across them to smack the QB every down would be nasty. whether or not Mario hit him, the QB would know he only has about 2 seconds before 290 lbs is crushing him.
No more QB’s in rocking chairs at Reliant.
(click arrow to reply)
June 17th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
What? No “I’ve got Jim Johnson Envy” tag?
Nice work.
(click arrow to reply)
June 17th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
needs more tags.
(click arrow to reply)
June 17th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
@ g’dave: How about a “I love my readers…except for dave” tag?
(click arrow to reply)
June 17th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
You had me at “Because”.
(click arrow to reply)
June 17th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Question about this scheme – how does it account for a couple situations?
—
If the TE stays in on a delayed pattern by showing block (thus baiting the now blitzing OLB) – doesn’t the QB just hit him quick? Is the defense just giving up those yards? I feel like then there’s a hole in the coverage and a guaranteed 3-6 yard pick-up.
—
I get the impression this scheme is predicated on collapsing the pocket, and does a good job of shutting down north-south runners – but how does it react to speedy backs? Ones who can get outside? Is this where the freer MLB comes into play? Also how does this stack up against a disciplined ZBS?
—
Not arguing against it. I actually agree with you 100% – my theory in Madden is blitz, blitz, blitz. You’re only asking for death by 1000 cuts by playing a safe, standard 4-3 defense. I’m just curious what sorts of schemes the offense can use to trip this system up.
(click arrow to reply)
June 17th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
Taking your questions in reverse order because I like the ZBS question best…
1. This one-gap attacking D works amazingly well against a ZBS. Here’s why: Ideally, in a ZBS, you get the entire D-line (or the whole front seven) flowing with your line, setting them up for a cut back. It’s this flow of the read-and-react 4-3 that makes the ZBS effective. In the attacking one-gap, on the other hand, the defensive front doesn’t react to the slide of the ZBS line–it just blows up the gaps and reacts, meaning every hole is plugged and you have people in the backfield to disrupt the cutback.
-
2. Reacting to speedy backs. This system utilizes the OLBs in the D-gaps (off tackle) as well as the MLB chasing the ball AND the DE penetrating straight up field. To avoid the penetrating DE, the RB trying to get to the outside will have to take a longer route (even if just slightly), meaning the LBs will have time to get there. Plus, because of the penetration, this defense virtually eliminates pitches in the running game, so the outside run can’t develop until the QB gets all the way back to the RB for the hand-off. If the RB runs to the side where there is a LB blitzing, he is playing right into the D. If he runs away from the blitzing LB, the OLB who is in coverage should collapse back down toward the edge. If anything, running outside should be harder than running straight up the middle–by going north/south, you are limiting the number of people you have to beat to hit daylight.
-
3. As for the pass to the TE who runs the delay, that is a possibility. However, it is mitigated by the length of time that play would take to develop. The TE who doesn’t come straight off the line is forcing his QB to hold the ball that much longer before he can get off the pass. You have Mario Williams in your face and you are having to hold the ball an extra second to float the ball over him to your TE? Not fun. And, because the LB is blitzing, that’s another set of hands to avoid in making that throw. Yes, it could be done, but it would be risky. PLUS, and here’s my favorite part, because you never know where the blitz is coming from, it is totally possible that the LB you think has vacated the TE was blitzing from the start and the TE is accounted for by someone else, so you are throwing right into the coverage.
(click arrow to reply)
June 17th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
I’m pretty sure this post is enough to get you a coaching job anywhere in Arkansas. I mean, it’s too long to expect them to actually read it, but they’ll be blinded by the depth and knowledge. Just add some X’s and O’s and blow your whistle before you answer every question at your interview.
-
Great post. I have always loved blitzing defenses, and it kills me that we’re not one of them. I used to blame Richard Smith for that, but I really think a lot of it was lack of personnel – but like you said, now we have the personnel so I expect to see us roll the dice – more so when Dunta comes back. I think Ray Rhodes will have a much bigger influence on this defense than most position (non-D. coordinator) coaches.
(click arrow to reply)
June 18th, 2008 at 8:55 am
Great post Matt. This is the stuff I love to read. Of course, I have a few things to add. One of the weaknesses with something like this is that it really magnifies the whole the chain is only as strong as it’s weakest link because if one player doesn’t penetrate their gap. In other words it is susceptible to a big play….that’s really just common sense though. It’s a risk reward thing. I think one of the reasons we did so much read and react is it is easier to cover for the weak link in that style of defense…although you make a good point about how this would actually help someone like Petey. In a case like that I think the coaches have to trust that the rest of the team will do their job well enough to not leave Petey exposed. I don’t think that trust was there last year. Maybe it is now.
I like the idea of freeing up DeMeco, and I think he is already given some freedom. what I don’t like is in this scheme there is going to be times that it forces Mario to drop into a zone. I don’t know how comfortable I would be with that not because he couldn’t handle it, but because I hate to not have him barreling through the line. You would have to do it enough to keep the offense honest, and I would be OK with that, but you have to consider that you will be taking your best lineman off of the line occasionally.
I think the zone blitz is nowhere near as useful as a scheme as it was when it first became popular. Like you said, do anything enough times and teams learn to shut it down. Running a variety of different types of plays is the key…whether it’s blitz packages, coverages, line stunts, whatever. Just make sure that the offense has a hard time knowing what’s coming. There’s always the do one thing and do it well school of thought, but eventually somebodies going to be able to do it well enough to beat you. You do have to have the personnel who are smart enough to handle running different styles of defense, but look at New England. You never know what they are going to do from one play to the next. I think that has as much to do with their effectiveness as their players.
I hate labels like a “west coast offense” or “Tampa Two” because every NFL team has at least a few pages in their playbook with these types of schemes. Most teams even have some form of a zone running play, the only difference is how much they operate out of it as their base. So I’m less concerned with the “scheme” we run as how much variety there is in it. If we’re a zone blitzing team, great. Just make sure that you keep changing up the zones enough to confuse the offense.
One other thing, and I’m not trying to pick on anyone here. I actually got into a huge argument on this at a bar about a week ago with a drunk Canadian. Just because it works in Madden doesn’t mean it will work in the real world. I play too. I’m sure I’ll end up pre-ordering it this year as well. It has even gotten advanced enough where if someone wanted to learn about the x’s and o’s of football it wouldn’t be a bad place to start….it doesn’t make me qualified to be a coordinator for football team at the big time level.
(click arrow to reply)
June 18th, 2008 at 9:01 am
@dhc: I concur on the Rhodes comments. Not only is he a great coach, who should help our DBs immensely, but he can also take on a mentor role for Smith, much like Gibbs is doing on offense with Shanny Jr. The writing could be on the wall for Smith that, if your play-calling doesn’t improve, we’ve got someone on staff more than capable of doing your job. You just never hope it comes to that.
(click arrow to reply)
June 18th, 2008 at 9:10 am
@ Papabear: Actually, the big difference between this system and a true zone-blitzing system is that the D-linemen never drop into coverage in this one. In my mind, that is a huge plus because, as you point out, it means Mario is always coming after the QB. In the Philly system, all four defensive linemen are always moving forward at the snap, which limits the exposure and the holes that zone blitzing can create.
-
On the other hand, you are exactly right about the potential for the big play, which is kind of what I was saying in my response about how north-south runners fare better than edge runners against this system; they only have to beat one man and a safety. That’s a risk, no doubt. So you have to decide whether giving up 3-5 yards on most plays but protecting yourself against the homerun outweighs consistently stopping the other team at or behind the line but giving up the occasional 25 or 30 yard play. However, when you are weighing that, you have to be honest with yourself–our read-and-react hasn’t exactly done a great job of keeping points off the board because it exposes our weakest link (the secondary) for longer stretches.
-
I think you are slightly overstating the weakness of one player not penetrating. So long as the player is still plugging the hole and not knocked on his ass, he is moving forward and limiting the ability of a runner to go through that hole. The weakness, as I see it, is going against a team with a really strong left side (or right side) that can consistently knock you off your lanes. Even then, though, the amorphous nature of the defense means that you can compensate by sending your blitzers more often from that side or, if they are a running-heavy team like Pittsburgh, sending 6-7 blitzers more often than 5. Basically, there is a reason that Philly, despite having sub-300 lb DTs and some non-descript LBs most of the time, can consistently stymie Dallas and New England. I will go so far as to say our personnel is better than their personnel for this system in the front seven.
-
“Just make sure that the offense has a hard time knowing what’s coming.” That is the biggest underlying principle of this whole thing. It says, while we are not going to zone blitz because we think the highest best use of our D-linemen is in moving forward, other than that you have no idea who is coming or from where. On top of that, the people who are showing blitz might not be the people who do blitz, meaning the protection audibles you would normally make when the linebacker creeps up are worthless.
(click arrow to reply)
June 18th, 2008 at 10:00 am
@Matt. Yea, I sort of generalized zone blitzing there. I think we agree that variety is…..I was going to say the spice of life, but that sounds gay. Variety is stuff that will make QB’s crap their pants….and I mean real QB’s, not just David Carr.
I did exaggerate the idea of one player not penetrating….but if a LB is responsible for a gap, and he gets blown up by a pulling guard or a full back then you run the risk of having the rest of the DL/LB’s being too deep to make a play. Of course in your example Demeco has a lot of freedom so that he will probably clean that up. We’re more or less in agreement. I was just addressing one of the weaknesses.
I think we did a poor job of disguising the blitz when we did do it last year. I would like to see that improved. For what it is worth, I have read that we plan on moving Mario around again. I would like to see more, but at least it is step towards mixing things up a little.
(click arrow to reply)
June 18th, 2008 at 10:05 am
Yeah, I think we are in agreement on the underlying theory.
-
Oh, one other point about this system–it basically eliminates the offense’s ability to pull a guard. If the guard vacates at the snap, that means he won’t even put a hand on the DT. And, instead of the DT flowing down the line on the read and react, he’s going to blow forward at top speed with nothing to slow him down. Think Haynesworth ringing Schaub’s bell last year.
-
You are completely correct, though, that we did a horrible job of hiding the blitz last year. The only reason it was successful in November is because we’d avoiding blitzing for so long that teams still weren’t expecting it. Richard Smith’s idea of blitzing is (a) have a linebacker creep up outside of a DE and (b) have him blitz from that position. Every. Single. Time.
-
God, I hate Richard Smith.
(click arrow to reply)
June 18th, 2008 at 11:29 am
In my best Daryll Hammond doing Hardball’s Chris Matthews: HOLY CRAP.
-
Just so you know I read that entire post – out of sheer appreciation for your effort.
-
I would like to see more five man fronts. It’s a look I’ve only seen us throw out there when trying to stop the run on 3rd and short. With the athleticism of our LB Corp, it would behoove us to go with that look more often. Line up Weaver, Amobi, Okam, Mario, with Colvin creeping to the line or run the same line with Colvin in place of Weaver and have Chaun creep to the line. Either way, it’s a scheme that will keep OCs and QBs guessing all day long.
-
The caveat to running that defensive alignment, is that it needs to be shown early and often. That’s the only way they are going to keep opposing offenses guessing. I don’t know if Ol’ Dick Smith has it in him to run early and often enough. Here’s hoping that him and Ray Rhodes have a ‘come to Jesus’ meeting about making the defense the tone setters for the team.
(click arrow to reply)
June 18th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Great post. I’m a Philly native so I get to see the system up close and personal. It’s great and you pretty much describe it well.
My only thing to add is that the system falls apart against good QB’s and disciplined offenses. There’s a guy in your division who killed the Eagles’ defensive scheme in 2002. (He didn’t have to during the last meeting cause Addai went nutso.)
I think Johnson’s defense looks exponentially better as the offense gets worse. Against Brady, Manning…even a 2nd tier guy like Brees…it falls off in effectiveness.
That being said, it’s probably true of any defense and Houston certainly has the players to run it well.
(click arrow to reply)
June 18th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
@Andy:
You don’t happen to be Andy REID, do you?
(click arrow to reply)
June 18th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
@ Andy: Yes and no. Philly’s D dominated the Pats for most of the game this past year by way of constant 5- and 6-man rushes. Too bad their O was beyond awful or they might have won that game. And they did beat Dallas with a similar strategy, though once they got in Romo’s head, they went to a 4-man rush. I know the game you are talking about against Indy and Manning did light it up, but that was due in part to the two turnovers AND was due in even larger part to the “big play” risk of the defense. Still, that D has been a top-11 unit every year but one since 2000 and has fared well against many top Os, so I’ll take that chance.
-
Thanks for reading and commenting.
(click arrow to reply)
June 18th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Phenomenal post. (I love learning the football nitty gritty and it’s just so hard to find a readable guide that doesn’t (1) assume way too much knowledge on the reader or (2) hold my hand and never go beyond the basics.) – Everything you say makes sense. A lot of sense. So much sense, in fact, that I wonder why the vast majority of NFL teams have stuck with the read-and-react defense. – The NFL is a copycat league above all else (running back by committee anyone?) and if all you say is true, I’m shocked that more teams haven’t chosen to copy the Eagles (or Giants) approach. I doubt that the coaching staff at the 30 other teams in the league are doing their best Dickie Justice imitation by turning a blind eye to performance on the field. -So what gives? -I’ll be the first to say that I’m thoroughly an amateur and it sounds like you could talk Xs and Os around me in your sleep. But I wonder if you’re downplaying the big-play risk of an attacking defense or overplaying the positive yardage gained in a read-and-react defense. Otherwise, what am I (and those 30 front offices) missing?
(click arrow to reply)
June 18th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Well, first, I think you will see more teams move toward it now that the Giants won the Super Bowl using this D and little else.
-
On the other hand, the main reason I think more teams don’t do it is that it does take the right kind of personnel. It takes certain kinds of OLBs who can both blitz and cover and who are smart enough to adjust on the fly. More importantly, though, it starts with a really good front four. You have to have one guy (and hopefully two) who would be dominant in any system, then you build off of them and create opportunities for the other linemen…but it always comes back to the superstar. This is because, more often than not, the Mario Williams will be the one who is destroying his blocker and creating havoc. When the teams react to stop this guy, that’s when the others get their shots. Plus, you need fast DTs to do it well; this system won’t totally remove the pulling guards if the DTs aren’t fast enough to take advantage of the vacated space, meaning you will suddenly have two blockers hitting at the point of attack. Moreover, you need enough speed at the corners and safety that you have the option of blitzing from those spots, otherwise you limit how many guys you can really send. AND you have to have total commitment to the system. If you pull a Richard Smith and abandon the big blitzes as soon as you give up one big play, the five-man front doesn’t really mean much–it just becomes a 4-3 Over.
-
The big-play risk is definitely there. That’s the one bugaboo. Still, it’s hard to argue with results. The Eagles have consistently been a top defense every year (despite having different people run the system) since 2000. And the Giants you know about. That’s why I think it will slowly catch on.
-
One other thing that keeps teams from doing it: it requires D-front 7 players to relearn football and discard most of what they know about technique. It takes some balls to make the change and tell guys to ignore what they’ve done since Mighty Mites.
(click arrow to reply)
June 18th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Two other thoughts:
-
First, part of the reason you don’t see more of this is that it is in many ways a throwback to the blitzing 4-3s that were around before the Cover 2 Hybrids became de rigeur. Hell, it’s really kind of a throwback to the old 5-2 Ds of yesteryear, only with more intricate variations. Give it time.
-
Second, the success of this system in philly has been consistent even when they’ve had draft picks like Brodrick Bunkley flop. That’s impressive.
(click arrow to reply)
June 18th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Well now you went and got me all excited. Sweet Jesus. Can you imagine how the Texans would clean house if we go against the grain on offense (ZBS) *and* defense (emphasizing the zone-blitz)??? Our ideal players shouldn’t be on the top of other teams’ big boards, leaving them free to snatch with a value pick. If we rarely have to go earlier than round 3 to stock up for our ZBS or our zone-blitzing D, then we’ll be loading the fuck up on tremendous players at the rest of our positions. Excuse me while I go clean up.
(click arrow to reply)
June 18th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
And thanks for the extra info. Shame that this style of D requires more testicular fortitude than Smith’s shown so far.
(click arrow to reply)
June 19th, 2008 at 10:30 am
HtownJuggernaut,
In response to your question: yes the NFL is a copycat league but it’s also one made up of human beings. The reasons not to use the kind of attacking schemes Matt is mentioning are mainly that many people are much more comfortable with the “keep everyone in front of you and don’t give up big plays” school of defense. Some of that is tradition, some of that is philosophical and a lot of it is simply a lack of balls. It’s like this; everyone knew that Drew Bledsoe somewhat sucked and crumbled if you got pressure but on the flip side he had a cannon for an arm and if you didn’t get close enough to rattle him he could take you up top every play. Year in and year out people would start the year playing very conservative even against Bledsoe and he’d have tremendous success then later in the year as people got desperate they would start to take chances (or in some cases they just saved their good stuff for late in the year) and then bledsoe would be crap (look at his years in Dallas and the significant difference between his early season performance and the last 3 – 5 weeks of the year. It’s hard for some people to risk their jobs and reps by taking chances. It isn’t new at all though. Jim Johnson’s D is a new imagining of Buddy Ryan’s 4-6. The scheme is different but the philosophy is the same. ‘You have 2 – 2.5 seconds to get this play off or you’re toast. get it off and you probably got me. don’t and i will punish you.” i like that.
Like with all things in this world and in football it’s a risk reward equation and there’s no sure thing. In the same way that offensively there are mike martzs and there are Bill Cowhers defensively for every Jim Johnson there’s a tim lewis who doesn’t believe in taking those kind of risks.
Personally as a Giants fan and a devotee of defensive football I like to take most of my chances on D and am perfectly comfortable running a traditional “boring” offense. As Matt will tell you this past year’s SB and playoff run is exactly how I wanted my team to look/play from the get go. Can things go wrong? Certainly. Will it give up big plays? definitely. It’ll also keep you in games you have no business being in (see last year’s PHI – NE game or frankly the giants in the playoffs). Pass rush wins games.
(click arrow to reply)
June 19th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Hmm. That makes sense. NFL coaches are tremendously risk averse and would probably think long and hard about this before backing away. After all, it’s a lot harder to get fired for being conservative than it is for taking a risk that doesn’t pan out.
I’m psyched though. I’ve always been a huge fan of teams that play hard defense and build off of the run on offense. (At least, those are the teams I always use in Madden.) Again, thanks for the responses from both of you.
(click arrow to reply)
June 28th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
I was avoiding this because I knew I’d have to read the comments too, but really nice job!