Is a defensive 4-3 change coming to KC?

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by O.city

It's easier to draft for I think, and fill spots in.

I just don't think these days theres much damn difference. Teams aren't sitting in the base d very much anymore.

Look at the top D's in the league. They just have so much talent. I think that's the only way to slow down these offenses. Just stack your D with crazy talent everywhere and hope.

Essentially, good luck

Exactly right.

[O.city]

Has Ford been that bad vs the run this year though?

The issues I've seen are just where guys guess gaps wrong or play undisciplined up front.

I'd look at trying to get another super athletic ILB to put next to Ragland, beef up the front a little and secure the back end.

I don't think you're that far off.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by O.city

Has Ford been that bad vs the run this year though?

The issues I've seen are just where guys guess gaps wrong or play undisciplined up front.

I'd look at trying to get another super athletic ILB to put next to Ragland, beef up the front a little and secure the back end.

I don't think you're that far off.

He hasn't, no. But he's largely been effective trailing plays. He made a fantastic play on one of the first JAX drives last weekend simply staying out of the wash and reaching the runner as he was getting to the corner. He's made a lot of strides there that make him much more effective in the running game.

But if you put him in-line, he can't use that athleticism to stay out of the scrums. That's just abandoning his best attribute and asking him to lean heavily on one of his worst (basic core strength).

That's why I'd be just fine with him as a Will but less sure of his ability to play the Sam. If the TE can get around him and turn him into the wash, he's in trouble. But on the weak side, he can stay clear of that and if nothing else, use that athleticism to present a credible obstacle out there. And he can keep the play in front of him so the 'rush/stay' decision is a lot easier for him to make than it presently is playing mostly uncovered in a 3-4.

Then again, I get paid precisely dick to have these answers so I could be completely wrong.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

He hasn't, no. But he's largely been effective trailing plays. He made a fantastic play on one of the first JAX drives last weekend simply staying out of the wash and reaching the runner as he was getting to the corner. He's made a lot of strides there that make him much more effective in the running game.

But if you put him in-line, he can't use that athleticism to stay out of the scrums. That's just abandoning his best attribute and asking him to lean heavily on one of his worst (basic core strength).

That's why I'd be just fine with him as a Will but less sure of his ability to play the Sam. If the TE can get around him and turn him into the wash, he's in trouble. But on the weak side, he can stay clear of that and if nothing else, use that athleticism to present a credible obstacle out there. And he can keep the play in front of him so the 'rush/stay' decision is a lot easier for him to make than it presently is playing mostly uncovered in a 3-4.

Then again, I get paid precisely dick to have these answers so I could be completely wrong.

I'd just keep the set you've got him doing now, if you plan to keep him.

I hate guys doing this in contract years, but **** he's been good. Like, legit top 3 pass rusher in the league. I don't know that he will keep it up or if injuries will let him.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by O.city

I'd just keep the set you've got him doing now, if you plan to keep him.

I hate guys doing this in contract years, but **** he's been good. Like, legit top 3 pass rusher in the league. I don't know that he will keep it up or if injuries will let him.

He's gotta be considered for a long-term deal but I wouldn't franchise him. I know that's somewhat counter-intuitive but I just don't see a justification for paying him $17 million next season.

I'd see if something that puts $36 million in his pocket over the first three seasons with some nominal dead money after that would get the job done. If it doesn't, I'd transition tag him and see if the market ends up soft for him somehow.

The franchise tag has just skyrocketed so much that it doesn't make sense to use it on guys who you can't expect to be truly elite. He's played well to this point, but we'll never truly trust his health and in the NFL health is absolutely a skill (one of the most critical ones).

[O.city]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

He's gotta be considered for a long-term deal but I wouldn't franchise him. I know that's somewhat counter-intuitive but I just don't see a justification for paying him $17 million next season.

I'd see if something that puts $36 million in his pocket over the first three seasons with some nominal dead money after that would get the job done. If it doesn't, I'd transition tag him and see if the market ends up soft for him somehow.

The franchise tag has just skyrocketed so much that it doesn't make sense to use it on guys who you can't expect to be truly elite. He's played well to this point, but we'll never truly trust his health and in the NFL health is absolutely a skill (one of the most critical ones).

Yeah, it just doesn't really make sense anymore. Plus it's essentially killed all these mid level deals as guys now us the tag number as the guaranteed money.

I don't really know what you do with ford.

[FAX]

Originally Posted by O.city

Has Ford been that bad vs the run this year though?

The issues I've seen are just where guys guess gaps wrong or play undisciplined up front.

I'd look at trying to get another super athletic ILB to put next to Ragland, beef up the front a little and secure the back end.

I don't think you're that far off.

Actually, no. I don't believe so.

If you take away the TWO BLATANT (UNCALLED) HOLDS against the donks and the multiple times he's forced inside only to watch the ILBs fail to fill their gaps, he's played pretty darn stout.

FAX

[dirk digler]

I am no defensive expert by any means but I think with the way the league is mostly all passing the 4-3, 3-4 is kind of out dated. I would think teams would start using more hybrid defenses like the 3-3-5 and 2-4-5. I saw the Ravens D against the Steelers running some 2-4-5 and they pretty much stuffed them.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

I am no defensive expert by any means but I think with the way the league is mostly all passing the 4-3, 3-4 is kind of out dated. I would think teams would start using more hybrid defenses like the 3-3-5 and 2-4-5. I saw the Ravens D against the Steelers running some 2-4-5 and they pretty much stuffed them.

And as more teams continue developing their RPO packages, those odd/small fronts will get abused.

You try to run a 2-4-5 against the Chiefs and you'll get obliterated.

Lets not forget that the OL has 5 guys plus the quarterback. Unless you're sending 6 guys, you have a numbers advantage in your secondary. Moreover, we've seen full well how ineffective sending 3 is. So whether you start in a 4-3 or a 3-4, the odds are high that at least 4 guys are going after the QB the vast majority of the time.

I don't think the concept of a 'base' defense is outdated at all. I think the idea of sticking with it 80% of the time is. That's why I think your best bet is to develop a base defense that dovetails nicely with your sub-packages. The best way to do that is a base with 4 down lineman, IMO, because I don't want my sub packages sending 3 or fewer even in obvious passing down situations.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

And as more teams continue developing their RPO packages, those odd/small fronts will get abused.

You try to run a 2-4-5 against the Chiefs and you'll get obliterated.

Lets not forget that the OL has 5 guys plus the quarterback. Unless you're sending 6 guys, you have a numbers advantage in your secondary. Moreover, we've seen full well how ineffective sending 3 is. So whether you start in a 4-3 or a 3-4, the odds are high that at least 4 guys are going after the QB the vast majority of the time.

I don't think the concept of a 'base' defense is outdated at all. I think the idea of sticking with it 80% of the time is. That's why I think your best bet is to develop a base defense that dovetails nicely with your sub-packages. The best way to do that is a base with 4 down lineman, IMO, because I don't want my sub packages sending 3 or fewer even in obvious passing down situations.

Makes sense and I agree running your base d alot is not a good idea at all. I was just thinking while watching the Ravens D some you just don't know where the guys are coming from in a hybrid D, so you can send 5-6 from all different positions and they are all mostly fast guys.

I just think a player like Ragland is way out dated in this league. You need more fast\hybrid guys than thumpers for LB's.. Just imo.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

I just think a player like Ragland is way out dated in this league. You need more fast\hybrid guys than thumpers for LB's.. Just imo.

I agree.

[The Franchise]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

I agree.

I think the Chiefs are seeing that as well.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

I agree.

watching him get abused on that wheel route against the Jags I was thinking why is that guy in because he is so ****ing slow. If he plays alot on Sunday night he is going to give up multiple TD's.

[The Franchise]

Eagles run what.....the wide 9?

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by The Pest

Eagles run what.....the wide 9?

I think everyone occasionally busts out some wide 9 alignments but I don't think it's anyone's 'base' package. And really, it's not a personnel group as much as an alignment; the way you set your splits.

I think the Wide 9 is far easier to run with 3-4 personnel and I'm pretty sure Schwartz is a 4-3 guy. He was in Detroit anyway.