Offense/Defense (Philosophy based)

[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 ...

[rabblerouser]

Originally Posted by Laz

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 ...

Gibbs sure called a few more blitzes Mon than RAC normally did.

[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...

[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.

[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...

[rabblerouser]

Originally Posted by bobbything

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.

Those Al Saunders/Trent Green offenses were artistic masterpieces, as perfect and assured as a Monet or a ****ing Rembrandt.

Roaf, Shields. Weigman, Roaf, and Tait, kicking out on the screen as Trent baits the defenders just long enough for Preist to fake a block and slip behind the big guys, then Trent flips the ball over to him perfectly...

*sigh* They made every screen beautiful, every sweep, every toss. Power 90 O ISO was perfect...every single time.

Those pre-snap motions and adjustments would give Belichick and the Ryans FITS, because it would reveal the defense's true intentions - it took away what is really the defense's biggest advantage.

We lost 1 fumble in 2003, iirc...one. One fumble lost. Or maybe it was one fumble TOTAL and NONE lost..

Point is, it was explosive AND ball control...conservative AND aggressive. We could control the clock and run the ball, OR run a fast-break down the field to score quick. We used the ENTIRE field, always. Outside, the seam, the flats - nothing was off limits.

That was a GREAT offense...but we had the players to pull it off. We had the QB...

[Aspengc8]

Originally Posted by Driving Wheel

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

Nail, meet hammer.

[Woodchuck]

Good analysis driving wheel. I agree about the talent problem. So many people think that a coach, gm, and qb will fix everything and all of our problems will magically go away. That really isn't the case. We are along way off imo. We are about to be rebuilding. Not as much as last time but, it's going to happen imo.

As for the offense. The offense you want to run is a longshot imo. You practically have to have a bad ass HOF QB to run it. Also, our o-line has already gotten two QBs killed this year. Imagine what it would be like if we ran 5 WR sets?

I am not against this type of offense but, it requires having a ton of talent on that side of the ball on the o-line, WR position, and especially the QB.

I think that is why it's so rare.

I think success will come the fastest if we keep things as simple as possible.

[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.