Offense/Defense (Philosophy based)

[Dayze]

I'd take it.

[keg in kc]

I want aggressive on both sides of the ball. I don't really care what the specific system is on offense, but I want a scheme that utilizes motions and shifting to create mismatches and is balanced in terms of never knowing what's coming re: run and pass. Although, technically, by "balanced" I mean throws a bit more than runs. I do NOT want a run-based offense. Defensively I'd stay 3-4, but move out of the passive philosophy and have an attacking front seven. The risk means more potential for mistakes and big plays, but I'll take that as opposed to getting nickel and dimed to death by patient offenses. And we've been giving up big plays for years anyway.

I'm just sick of passive football, in general. We need to take it to other teams, rather than react to what they do.

[petegz28]

Vermeil offense...Marty defense

[Dayze]

I truly hate the 3-4.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by Dayze

I truly hate the 3-4.

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

[Mr. Laz]

Originally Posted by Dayze

I truly hate the 3-4.

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.

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.

[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.

[Mr. Laz]

Originally Posted by Aspengc8

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.

disagree

the main weapon of a DLineman is getting a good first step and in a 2-gap system that is neutralized because a 3-4 Dlineman HAS to engage the Olinemand first to protect the linebackers.

A 3-4,2-gap Dlineman is regulated to relying on handfighting,leverage and power to attack and that's only after stopping the Oline's momentum and reading the play.

How 3-4, 2-gaps guys are graded is by how few Olineman they allow through to the second level. Completely different skills used.

shedding to attacks is way harder than penetration to attack

it's also makes the blocking assignments for the Oline easier because the Olineman don't have to worry about quick feet ... just leverage,hands and power. Normally that blocking ease is supposed to be offset by zone blitzes but when you have a DC that doesn't like to blitz ...

[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 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...

[Sorter]

Originally Posted by Dayze

I truly hate the 3-4.

Care to elaborate? I value your opinion honestly. Do you truly hate it, or would prefer to see a 4-3 that utilizes a sub package consisting of 4 true DEs like the NYGs?

From a personal viewpoint, I think that while the 3-4 (1-gap or fire-zone based) requires moredifficult players to obtain that are effective but the payoff is greater. There are far more athletic LBs who can play in a 4-3, as well as pure-pass rushing DE's (240-270lbs that only focus on rushing the passer as opposed to 270-310 DEs who can rush the passer, play the run well and could occasionally drop depending on the blitz designed).


Just one person's opinion. I think the 4-3 is fantastic but doesn't provide as much variability. To me, it is more of a "we'll line up, show what we've got and try to ****ing beat us" front, typically. You can utilize some zone-blitz concepts effectively as the Eagles used to do, but to me it seems more difficult to incorporate effectively.

[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.

[Chris Meck]

hate the 3-4? All variants? That's weird. That's like saying, "I hate the 4-3".

Huh?

If you mean, I hate the read-and-react 2-gap 3-4, then I get you, and I feel the same way.

I like the one gap, ****-you-here-we-come-just-try-and-stop-us 3-4. Blow up the line of scrimmage and make plays in the backfield, disrupt blocking schemes, stunts and blitzes from anywhere at any time.

The one key to any 3-4 is having a true NT, which might be the rarest beast of all, but it appears we've finally got one so I say we stick with the 3-4.

[cyborgtable]

Originally Posted by Chris Meck

hate the 3-4? All variants? That's weird. That's like saying, "I hate the 4-3".

Huh?

If you mean, I hate the read-and-react 2-gap 3-4, then I get you, and I feel the same way.

I like the one gap, ****-you-here-we-come-just-try-and-stop-us 3-4. Blow up the line of scrimmage and make plays in the backfield, disrupt blocking schemes, stunts and blitzes from anywhere at any time.

The one key to any 3-4 is having a true NT, which might be the rarest beast of all, but it appears we've finally got one so I say we stick with the 3-4.

I can agree with the sentiment but its so hard to find a true NT anymore. If I had to chose a 3-4 it would be Wade Phillips version which is closer to a 5-2 anyway, and started as a group of players built for the tampa-2