Offense/Defense (Philosophy based)

[Sorter]

We've done several "If you were the GM/HC etc." threads here. However, I'm curious to see what kind of base offensive or defensive philosophies you would choose to try and design the Chiefs with. I know a majority will and should chose to utilize a 1-ga principle defensively but am curious as to the other aspects.

Personally, I would hire coaches to install a 1-gap Phillips based 3-4. While I love the fire-zone philosophies, I think that they require even more athletic players than we have currently to run at an elite level constantly and would prefer man-coverage rather than zone on downs/scenarios that dictate a pass. In the future, I would love to be able to incorporate these concepts once personnel has been adjusted accordingly.

Offensively, it would depend on the QB we draft. If Barkley, I'm hiring an OC who is based in the WCO and a HC that understands (generally) those philosophies, even if it is a defensive minded coach. Additionally, I would want him to emphasize YAC and back shoulder throws consistently.

If Smith or Wilson, I would likely hire someone who continues with a zone-based blocking system (as I feel it fits our smaller, athletic OL better and our backs in Charles/Cyrus better in a 1-cut philosophy). The OC would also utilize PA consistently (via bootlegs off of our stretch play) and would encourage a deeper approach in terms of route concepts, specifically attacking the seams off of motion with our WRs/TEs and and the corners of the field (corners/deep outs, back shoulder throws).


I'm curious to see what you all would like to have as there are several talented minds here, IMO.

[Sorter]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Ok, not saying he is anything as good but it really reinforces my point. Warren Sapp who I think no one would argue was a beast in a 4-3. When he go moved to a 3-4 he sucked and he sucked badly. Some guys are just not cut out to play a 3-4. Dorsey is one of them.

Dorsey isn't cut out to be anything but a run-stopper, until he proves otherwise. He had chances here and didn't do anything with them.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by Sorter

Dorsey as displayed throughout his career that he can't provide a pass rush on sub packages in the 3-tech or in a shaded 1. He has played both at different times throughout his tenure here. I don't think he needs to stay.

I trust that. I just don't know that he's been coached it in the way he should. He has been trained primarily to play 2-gap in a read-and-react way. I don't know that he's been trained proper 1-gap attacking technique. I don't know if he can do it. I'd just like to give him a year where this is all that he does.

[Sorter]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

I trust that. I just don't know that he's been coached it in the way he should. He has been trained primarily to play 2-gap in a read-and-react way. I don't know that he's been trained proper 1-gap attacking technique. I don't know if he can do it. I'd just like to give him a year where this is all that he does.

The technique for a 1-gap DE playing the 3-tech is the same as our 3-tech in our sub package. Stunts can provide some variance, but as far as movement,body position, leverage, hand-fighting skills they are relevant. Additionally, Dorsey played the 3-tech his first year here exclusively, IIRC.

[Woodchuck]

Originally Posted by scott free

I Honestly Swear on my Grandfather, that exact thought hit my mind about 1 minute after that post.

My bad, you go!

I seriously thought he was a girl for the first couple of weeks I was here. It's the gifs. I mean yesterday he posted James Vanderbeak and Tom Cruise gifs. What are you supposed to think?

[JASONSAUTO]

Originally Posted by scott free

Honest question...

How in the blue hell did a girl your age ever become so football intelligent?

Its been bugging the shit out of me for days, i've never seen a girl with such informed takes.

You need to apply for a pr job with some college or pro team.

her dad coached the titans before denzel
Posted via Mobile Device

[JASONSAUTO]

Originally Posted by Woodsponge Chuckpants

I seriously thought he was a girl for the first couple of weeks I was here. It's the gifs. I mean yesterday he posted James Vanderbeak and Tom Cruise gifs. What are you supposed to think?

That you are an idiot that can't understand what he reads...
Posted via Mobile Device

[Aspengc8]

Originally Posted by Laz

If we would just run a hybrid 3-4 system i think we would be fine.

1-gap/2-gap

Right now the offense knows exactly what our Dline is going to do. If we were to switch it up and run 1-gap some too, opposing offense would have to play more honestly in their blocking assignments.

It would also help with motivation along the Dline imo. It's got to be boring as shit to 'engage' the Oline but not be allow to attack. Being a human punching bag has to suck.

Not sure where your coming up with some of this stuff, but the line is definitely allowed to attack. Whether they have 1 gap responsibility or 2, you shed the block and make a play. Where the 2 gap system shines, is if your line is successful at reading the play, shedding and making plays, they then require a double team from the o-line. Not sure where this whole 'soak up blockers' mentality is coming from. There not going to get double teamed if it isnt needed.

[Dayze]

Originally Posted by petegz28

I personally like the 3-4 when it is more attacking. I don't like the version of the 3-4 we run.

I can agree with that.

One reason I don't like it is it seems like you need more playmakers than in the 4-3.
I mean, a huge NT (which, there just aren'[t too many humans alive that fit the bill); a incredibly smart MLB. (though it could be argued you need that regardless); and I think big OLBs that can take on the run AND drop into coverage. Hard to find both traits IMO.

our current "3-4" sucks balls.

[Aspengc8]

Originally Posted by Dayze

I can agree with that.

One reason I don't like it is it seems like you need more playmakers than in the 4-3.
I mean, a huge NT (which, there just aren'[t too many humans alive that fit the bill); a incredibly smart MLB. (though it could be argued you need that regardless); and I think big OLBs that can take on the run AND drop into coverage. Hard to find both traits IMO.

our current "3-4" sucks balls.

Having a dominant NT, and OLB's that can get to the QB, will anchor a good 3-4. You can always find 'tweener' 4-3 DT's/DE's that can convert to 3-4. Also your ILB's need to be able to shed a block if lineman get to their level. Thank god DJ takes good angles.. him nor belcher shed very well. The other big problem is if we want to bring Houstin & Hali, then belcher is in coverage. Dude is bad in coverage. I really think Powe & Poe need to be on the field when we are in any 3-4 alignment. I'd put smith out there over tjack or any of those other clowns.

[rabblerouser]

Originally Posted by T-post Tom

Some of us old-timers remember Dan Saleamua dropping back in coverage. Now that was messed up.

shit, I remember him getting a pick or two, didn't he even return one for a TD??

[Rausch]

Would prefer a Capers/Cowher 3-4 defense with a power running compliment to Charles and a strong-armed QB...

[rabblerouser]

Originally Posted by Aspengc8

Having a dominant NT, and OLB's that can get to the QB, will anchor a good 3-4. You can always find 'tweener' 4-3 DT's/DE's that can convert to 3-4. Also your ILB's need to be able to shed a block if lineman get to their level. Thank god DJ takes good angles.. him nor belcher shed very well. The other big problem is if we want to bring Houstin & Hali, then belcher is in coverage. Dude is bad in coverage. I really think Powe & Poe need to be on the field when we are in any 3-4 alignment. I'd put smith out there over tjack or any of those other clowns.

What it all comes down to is...our D-line SUCKS, for having, what, 3 1st round picks and a 3rd?? it's woeful.

I think that the 2-gap RAC runs is a fine defense, if you have the people to pull it off. Tyson Jackson, Glenn Dorsey, Jovan Belcher, Kendrick Lewis, Javier Arenas...I don't care if Buddy Ryan was running a 46, or if Tony Dungy himself were here putting in the Tampa 2, or if Dick LeBeau came over and put the zone blitz in - the defensive talent here right now is terrible. We have Houston, Hali, DJ, Berry, Flowers, and (maybe) Poe. That's it. That's the only talent on that defense, period.

Improve the talent, and it almost doesn't matter what system you run (though, this roster is ideally suited to the Phillips-esque classic 1-gap.)

As for offense, I'm a big fan of the Coryell/Gillman/Turner tree of attacking offense, going after the Defense through mismatches created by sub packages, shifts and motions, sending 5 receivers, 2 TE/H-back power running, etc. To make that work, there really needs to be an intelligent QB who can make all the throws (guys who have success in that system - Aikman, Fouts, Warner, Green, Jaworski, Theismann, etc. - were all very intelligent QBs, and classic dropback passers. Didn't need to run around much...because they usually didnthe right thing with the ball.)

I think the Coryell offenses really draw elements from every other offense - elements of the WCO and the Run and Shoot are there (timing, QB/WR reads, spot throws, etc), as are elements of the power running game found in the Perkins-Erhardt, which is what we run now.

Bigger fan of the Saunders-variant; Al was a bit more conservative, a bit more balanced than, say, Mike Martz, who was going to get Kurt Warner killed - but Al wasn't as conservative with it as, say, Joe Gibbs. Cam Cameron would be a good choice for OC...but I don't even know where he coaches anymore.

The problem with us using the Coryell is (here it comes) : that offense is so complex, it really does take 3 years to get it down. Alex Smith had some good success with it when Norv was his OC that one year, but Smith had already been in the league a few years when that got thrown at him, and I'm sure Norv 'dumbed it down' some. Idk...whatever happens, it's gonna take a new QB. And a new GM, with a new HC and new coordinators. That's all I really know...

[bobbything]

Originally Posted by Driving Wheel

As for offense, I'm a big fan of the Coryell/Gillman/Turner tree of attacking offense, going after the Defense through mismatches created by sub packages, shifts and motions, sending 5 receivers, 2 TE/H-back power running, etc. To make that work, there really needs to be an intelligent QB who can make all the throws (guys who have success in that system - Aikman, Fouts, Warner, Green, Jaworski, Theismann, etc. - were all very intelligent QBs, and classic dropback passers. Didn't need to run around much...because they usually didnthe right thing with the ball.)

I think the Coryell offenses really draw elements from every other offense - elements of the WCO and the Run and Shoot are there (timing, QB/WR reads, spot throws, etc), as are elements of the power running game found in the Perkins-Erhardt, which is what we run now.

Bigger fan of the Saunders-variant; Al was a bit more conservative, a bit more balanced than, say, Mike Martz, who was going to get Kurt Warner killed - but Al wasn't as conservative with it as, say, Joe Gibbs. Cam Cameron would be a good choice for OC...but I don't even know where he coaches anymore.

This.

Saunders' version was about as complete as I've seen an offense. You don't see what he did at all in the NFL anymore. All the pre-snap motions and shifts really revealed what the defense was doing and they were able to exploit it.

They'd line Hall, Gonzalez, and Kennison up in the backfield, then have Priest in the slot. Then, they'd shift and you'd see exactly who was covering who, what kind of defense they were running, etc. I loved watching the pre-snap as much as the offense itself because it forced the defense to reveal their intentions (for the most part).

Biggest drawbacks I saw were that with all the motions and formation shifts, it used up nearly all of the playclock. And we used a lot of unnecessary timeouts because of it. Also, the play that was called was the play that was ran. There were multiple reads in this offense, but there was no audible allowed.

It really demonstrated how smart Trent Green was. Rarely did we run a play and wait for someone to get open. We'd throw a pass into a spot where the receiver was supposed to be. Early on, that resulted in lots o' interceptions. But in time, it worked great because it allowed the receivers to adjust their patterns on the fly and Green was in such harmony with everyone on the offense that it worked out very well.

I loved our run blocking scheme too. All the pulls we did to the left were great. Fortunately, we had arguably the best offensive line in the league which allowed that. Holmes was great, but the line did all the heavy lifting.

I'd take Saunders back in a heartbeat. Give him 2 years to implement the system, trade/FA/draft accordingly, and I bet he'd have this offense on a roll by year two.

[cyborgtable]

Originally Posted by Dayze

I truly hate the 3-4.

Me too. The kind of players needed for it are just so rare, the kind of versatility if offers is good but so much harder to find the players required for it to work properly.

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by bobbything

I'd take Saunders back in a heartbeat. Give him 2 years to implement the system, trade/FA/draft accordingly, and I bet he'd have this offense on a roll by year two.

He had Kennison and Morton for 2 years and fielded a top 5 offense.

That alone is amazing.

He took what he had and made something of it.

You always heard how big an azzhole he was but nothing other than that.

Haley was a spittle spewing tirade monster and dreams of having the output Saunders managed...