Defensive Formations for Dummies

[BringBackFergy]

I do not have a strong working knowledge of football schemes but, for obvious reasons, I enjoy watching the game and this Board immensely. That being said, I was wondering why it is required that a defense always show at least three down lineman. Is it possible (and feel free to tell me this is absolute craziness) to have 5 or 6 linebackers (two of smallish stature but fast as drop back coverage LB's, two of larger stature as run stuffers, and two that are quick and strong as pass rushers).

 

This obviously means Marcel Dareus, Branch and Kyle Williams have no home...but perhaps something like 2 down lineman (hole cloggers) and 6 various sized LB's is something that is new and unheard of?? We don't have the LB's at this point but I could see this type of formation screwing up QB's from time to time. Mario Williams could still rush the passer but play off the line about two yards...he would be a linebacker rusher, whereas Lawson would remain off the LOS by 4 yds as a run stuffer, Kelvin as a drop back type LB and Bradham as a drop back or rusher.

 

Like I said, flame away, I can take it, but just putting it out there. Perhaps Pettine will incorporate this somehow and call it the "anti-Stache"

[Jauronimo]

I imagine that formation would be just a little vulnerable to the run and also ineffective against the pass.

[BringBackFergy]

The rushing defense is questionable, but in passing downs you are gaining more coverage.

[BillsWatch]

It is not required to have 3 down linemen. One of the teams used to leave almost all of their linemen standing up to try to confuse QBs. Having two linemen down is not that uncommon on plays such as 3-25.

[NoSaint]

the jets under pettine actually used just one with the hand down often.

 

ultimately, any scheme could potentially work but there are some truisms about balancing speed vs size, and rush vs coverage that cant be ignored in designing a scheme that is effective week in and week out.

Edited April 8, 2013 by NoSaint

[Armchair GM]

It's hard to say anything without coming off as a total D, so sorry in advance...

 

To put it simply, it doesn't work. With the size and athleticism of todays offensive lineman, an offense would be virtually unstoppable. Even on passing downs, as you suggested "more coverage," what's to stop an offense from emptying out the backfield, sending everyone out in patterns, waiting for everyone to be 10yds or more down field then the QB taking a stroll gaurded like the president? This has nothing to do with knowledge of defensive alignments, it's simple football.

[BringBackFergy]

It's hard to say anything without coming off as a total D, so sorry in advance...

 

To put it simply, it doesn't work. With the size and athleticism of todays offensive lineman, an offense would be virtually unstoppable. Even on passing downs, as you suggested "more coverage," what's to stop an offense from emptying out the backfield, sending everyone out in patterns, waiting for everyone to be 10yds or more down field then the QB taking a stroll gaurded like the president? This has nothing to do with knowledge of defensive alignments, it's simple football.

Hey, no sweat on the preface you included.

 

Re. the alignment, nothing says the drop back LB's will always drop back...with spies and other stunts, the idea is to keep the offensive lineman guessing which (if any of the 6 LB's) will be rushing the line or which ones will spy the QB or drop back.

[NoSaint]

 

Hey, no sweat on the preface you included.

 

Re. the alignment, nothing says the drop back LB's will always drop back...with spies and other stunts, the idea is to keep the offensive lineman guessing which (if any of the 6 LB's) will be rushing the line or which ones will spy the QB or drop back.

 

to some degree you see this even with teams running zone blitzes and dropping down lineman into coverage, the pack and jets often keep everyone roaming presnaps (we even have in the past) etc... i think your philosophies are generally accepted and used as subpackages in a wide number of defenses, but just not as a "base" as it would take extremely versatile guys that are hard to find to pull off for a huge number of snaps.

Edited April 8, 2013 by NoSaint

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

Dude that is phycho... Literally

[BringBackFergy]

to some degree you see this even with teams running zone blitzes and dropping down lineman into coverage, the pack and jets often keep everyone roaming presnaps (we even have in the past) etc... i think your philosophies are generally accepted and used as subpackages in a wide number of defenses, but just not as a "base" as it would take extremely versatile guys that are hard to find to pull off for a huge number of snaps.

 

Versatility is Bryan Scott's middle name

 

Dude that is phycho... Literally

 

Thanks bro....Is "phycho" a few levels above "psycho" or a more relaxed version??

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

 

 

Versatility is Bryan Scott's middle name

 

 

 

Thanks bro....Is "phycho" a few levels above "psycho" or a more relaxed version??

 

Ugh.... Spelling police. No psyco is the name of the d alignment you describe. Green Bay ran it their superbowl year under Capers. They had all these great line backers. They'd put Raji as a down lineman and the linebackers would constantly move around before the snap.

 

New England has done it on occasion as well even standing up wilfork. Come to think of it I think the jets did too.

Edited April 8, 2013 by over 20 years of fanhood

[ColdBlueNorth]

I do not have a strong working knowledge of football schemes but, for obvious reasons, I enjoy watching the game and this Board immensely. That being said, I was wondering why it is required that a defense always show at least three down lineman. Is it possible (and feel free to tell me this is absolute craziness) to have 5 or 6 linebackers (two of smallish stature but fast as drop back coverage LB's, two of larger stature as run stuffers, and two that are quick and strong as pass rushers).

 

This obviously means Marcel Dareus, Branch and Kyle Williams have no home...but perhaps something like 2 down lineman (hole cloggers) and 6 various sized LB's is something that is new and unheard of?? We don't have the LB's at this point but I could see this type of formation screwing up QB's from time to time. Mario Williams could still rush the passer but play off the line about two yards...he would be a linebacker rusher, whereas Lawson would remain off the LOS by 4 yds as a run stuffer, Kelvin as a drop back type LB and Bradham as a drop back or rusher.

 

Like I said, flame away, I can take it, but just putting it out there. Perhaps Pettine will incorporate this somehow and call it the "anti-Stache"

 

There is no rule as to how many defenders have to be on the line, as long as they are behind the neutral zone a coach could have all of his defense standing up.

 

Not completely unheard of for teams to have two linemen with their hands on the ground, and a linebacker who starts with a hand on the ground but backs off into a shallow zone at the snap. The most common place for that kind of formation would be when protecting a lead, with little time on the clock and no timeouts for the opposing offense, where the defense is just trying to keep the passes in front of them and away from the sidelines. Basically, making them dink and dunk their way down the field.

 

Someone like Pettine may also do something like this to confuse a QB into throwing into coverage if he is pretty sure the opposing team is in passing mode, but I think he is more of the school that you bring pressure in those certain passing situations. You may see a situation where they bring a corner or safety blitz and drop that linebacker or end with his hand on the ground into a QB's most common zone or first read to take away the hot read and dump.

 

I went back and took a look at the official NFL rule book to see if there was anything new, there wasn't. What I did find really interesting was the restrictions on offensive substitutions and that by rule officials are supposed to allow defenses to match substitutions by the offense. I guess I always assumed it was a best effort scenario for the defenses and if they got caught with too many men on the field it was their problem. Turns out it should be called as an unsportsmanlike penalty on the offense - go figure.

 

Sort of takes the fun out of the hurry-up offenses, but I guess teams can achieve similar results by using multiple formations with the same personnel to create the mismatches.

Edited April 8, 2013 by ColdBlueNorth

[BringBackFergy]

Ugh.... Spelling police. No psyco is the name of the d alignment you describe. Green Bay ran it their superbowl year under Capers. They had all these great line backers. They'd put Raji as a down lineman and the linebackers would constantly move around before the snap.

 

New England has done it on occasion as well even standing up wilfork. Come to think of it I think the jets did too.

 

LOL...spelling police.

 

I didn't realize that was the name of the defense. As you guys have suggested, it isn't a base defense I guess, but it can be audibled out of a base 3-4 IF (as NoSaint said) you have two extremely versatile linemen or a bulky safety I suppose.

[TheLynchTrain]

Ever since we hired Pettine and he said he wanted to run a "hybrid" defense, I kept thinking about the "Leo" defense Gus Bradley and Pete Carroll have developed out in Seattle. Basically, Seattle runs three fatass defensive tackles to clog up the lanes with a pass rusher named the "Leo" mano a mano a tackle in almost wide nine stance. I've been thinking about posting this here for a while but had not fleshed out my thoughts yet. This looks like a perfect thread to throw it in. Do you guys think this defense could work here? After signing Alan Branch, I think the possibility of this happening might have moved from "you're crazy level" to "maybe you're not that crazy."

 

Just for kicks, here's a really interesting breakdown on how the Leo works. I'm fascinated because it looks like Carroll and Bradley have cooked up a completely new defense distinct from the 3-4 and 4-3. Only time will tell if it will stick

 

http://www.bigcatcountry.com/2013/1/19/3890928/gus-bradley-defense-leo-position

[thebandit27]

Ever since we hired Pettine and he said he wanted to run a "hybrid" defense, I kept thinking about the "Leo" defense Gus Bradley and Pete Carroll have developed out in Seattle. Basically, Seattle runs three fatass defensive tackles to clog up the lanes with a pass rusher named the "Leo" mano a mano a tackle in almost wide nine stance. I've been thinking about posting this here for a while but had not fleshed out my thoughts yet. This looks like a perfect thread to throw it in. Do you guys think this defense could work here? After signing Alan Branch, I think the possibility of this happening might have moved from "you're crazy level" to "maybe you're not that crazy."

 

Just for kicks, here's a really interesting breakdown on how the Leo works. I'm fascinated because it looks like Carroll and Bradley have cooked up a completely new defense distinct from the 3-4 and 4-3. Only time will tell if it will stick

 

http://www.bigcatcou...se-leo-position

 

Sure, I could see it...Branch lining up at NT, with Kyle and Dareus manning the 3-tech & 4/6-tech spots and Mario & Anderson capable of playing the Leo (Moats too in the case of an injury).

Edited April 8, 2013 by thebandit27

[TheLynchTrain]

Sure, I could see it...Branch lining up at NT, with Kyle and Dareus manning the 3-tech & 4/6-tech spots and Mario & Anderson capable of playing the Leo (Moats too in the case of an injury).

 

Yeah, I could see Branch, Kyle, and Dareus switching around too - possibly Dareus playing the 3-4 DE Red Bryant position? What really makes that defense work though is the Bruce Irivn roving linebacker - do we have a player like that on the roster, or maybe go after him in the draft?

 

I really like this defense and I hope Pettine at least incorporates some of it next year. I have a feeling (with Bradley heading to Jax) more teams might adopt some elements of this hybrid D.

[NoSaint]

Ever since we hired Pettine and he said he wanted to run a "hybrid" defense, I kept thinking about the "Leo" defense Gus Bradley and Pete Carroll have developed out in Seattle. Basically, Seattle runs three fatass defensive tackles to clog up the lanes with a pass rusher named the "Leo" mano a mano a tackle in almost wide nine stance. I've been thinking about posting this here for a while but had not fleshed out my thoughts yet. This looks like a perfect thread to throw it in. Do you guys think this defense could work here? After signing Alan Branch, I think the possibility of this happening might have moved from "you're crazy level" to "maybe you're not that crazy."

 

Just for kicks, here's a really interesting breakdown on how the Leo works. I'm fascinated because it looks like Carroll and Bradley have cooked up a completely new defense distinct from the 3-4 and 4-3. Only time will tell if it will stick

 

http://www.bigcatcountry.com/2013/1/19/3890928/gus-bradley-defense-leo-position

 

well, really its not distinctly different as much as one of the dozens of variations. the terms 34 vs 43 are incredibly huge umbrellas that contain a ton of variations based on gap assignments, and coverage shells. the first thing that pops to mind reading your post is it sounds like it has a lot in common with a basic 34 with a "jack" or "joker" linebacker, but with a hand on the ground. while im sure that he has plenty of his own wrinkles, using 3 big bodies to stop the run and create a matchup advantage for an edge passrusher isnt totally revolutionary either. just a bit of a hybrid in philosophies with a few of his own terms to describe it.

 

i dont think it would be crazy to see some of those fronts with branch, KW, and Dareus eating space(or even Mario as he can play 34end, 43end, 34 olb) getting an edge rusher (mario or anderson) premium pass rushing matchups on the outside.

Edited April 8, 2013 by NoSaint

[ColdBlueNorth]

well, really its not distinctly different as much as one of the dozens of variations. the terms 34 vs 43 are incredibly huge umbrellas that contain a ton of variations based on gap assignments, and coverage shells. the first thing that pops to mind reading your post is it sounds like it has a lot in common with a basic 34 with a "jack" or "joker" linebacker, but with a hand on the ground. while im sure that he has plenty of his own wrinkles, using 3 big bodies to stop the run and create a matchup advantage for an edge passrusher isnt totally revolutionary either. just a bit of a hybrid in philosophies with a few of his own terms to describe it.

 

i dont think it would be crazy to see some of those fronts with branch, KW, and Dareus eating space(or even Mario as he can play 34end, 43end, 34 olb) getting an edge rusher (mario or anderson) premium pass rushing matchups on the outside.

 

Sorry for the long read folks - I kept coming back to this over the course of my boring work day and it kept growing and growing...

 

I have read some on the Seattle defense ever since they beat the Patriots when they were hot last year.

 

I think the thing that is maybe not revolutionary but evolutionary about Seattle's Leo defense is the way they line up and attack the gaps with their down linemen and their adaptation of a DT into a more traditional NT role via their off balance fronts. It really does resemble most of the 3-4 defenses folks have seen where an extra linebacker is brought up to rush from the edge, but with the Seattle defense the extra rusher is always there lined up wide on the weak side of the formation and he can have a hand on the ground or not - there seems to be a lot of flexibility in that Leo or Elephant role.

 

They also have a twist in that their down linemen with the exception of the Leo are ideally big wide bodies with the primary role of filling gaps, occupying two blockers, and not giving up ground rather than the normal gap penetration roles used in a traditional 4-3.

 

From what I have read they base most all of their defense off of 3 primary alignments the "4-3 Under" the "4-3 Over" and "the Bear". There are a lot of subtle differences in these alignments, but the easiest way for us amateurs to spot their base alignments is to understand that there are two somewhat static roles "the Leo" and the "the NT". Remember that traditional 4-3 defenses do not have a NT, but in the Seattle defense one of the defensive tackles always plays over center in either a 2-gap 1-technique, or a 2-gap 0-technique (heads up on the center). The Leo is always lined up wide on the weak side - against a balanced formation (two-TE set) the strong side is the QB's natural throwing side - not sure where the Leo would line up in that formation but probably a wide-9 technique.

 

Either way, in the "4-3 under" the NT is lined up in the strong side gap in a 1-technique and there is a DT lined up in a 3-technique on the weak side between him and the Leo. In the "4-3 over" the NT is lined up in a 1-technique on the weak side gap and there is no DT between him and the Leo. Their "Bear" formation looks like a traditional 5-man front with a NT, 2 DT's , and 2 DE's (Leo and SLB).

 

Carroll has to have just the right personnel to pull off this defense, but I think it can be effective with the right personnel. At the end of the day the defensive line play depends a great deal on having those stout wide bodies that do not give up ground and against this pass-happy league the Leo has to be able to generate pressure when he is isolated against the weak side tackle.

 

I personally thought the physical play of Seattle's safeties and corners had more to do with their win against NE as they gave up a lot of yards in the first half but kept hammering the receivers. But it was also apparent in the second half of that game that the non-traditional defensive fronts caused a good deal of confusion with NE's protection schemes. We all know when Brady gets hit, he becomes very human very fast and Seattle was able to stop NE on 4 consecutive possessions (twice I believe in the red zone) and intercepted Brady twice.

 

Teams that lack the right personnel would really expose themselves trying to force this scheme, but if a team finds that it lacks pass rushing DE's but have an abundance of 2-gap D-linemen then they should seriously consider incorporating elements of it into their playbook.

Edited April 9, 2013 by ColdBlueNorth

[BringBackFergy]

Nice Cold Blue - I understood about half of what you wrote...but very interesting. You think Dareus could be that man that lines up head on? Might make sense why they brought Branch in...he has learned how to adjust in this scheme and Pettine may modify it a bit.

[NoSaint]

 

 

Sorry for the long read folks - I kept coming back to this over the course of my boring work day and it kept growing and growing...

 

I have read some on the Seattle defense ever since they beat the Patriots when they were hot last year.

 

I think the thing that is maybe not revolutionary but evolutionary about Seattle's Leo defense is the way they line up and attack the gaps with their down linemen and their adaptation of a DT into a more traditional NT role via their off balance fronts. It really does resemble most of the 3-4 defenses folks have seen where an extra linebacker is brought up to rush from the edge, but with the Seattle defense the extra rusher is always there lined up wide on the weak side of the formation and he can have a hand on the ground or not - there seems to be a lot of flexibility in that Leo or Elephant role.

 

They also have a twist in that their down linemen with the exception of the Leo are ideally big wide bodies with the primary role of filling gaps, occupying two blockers, and not giving up ground rather than the normal gap penetration roles used in a traditional 4-3.

 

From what I have read they base most all of their defense off of 3 primary alignments the "4-3 Under" the "4-3 Over" and "the Bear". There are a lot of subtle differences in these alignments, but the easiest way for us amateurs to spot their base alignments is to understand that there are two somewhat static roles "the Leo" and the "the NT". Remember that traditional 4-3 defenses do not have a NT, but in the Seattle defense one of the defensive tackles always plays over center in either a 2-gap 1-technique, or a 2-gap 0-technique (heads up on the center). The Leo is always lined up wide on the weak side - against a balanced formation (two-TE set) the strong side is the QB's natural throwing side - not sure where the Leo would line up in that formation but probably a wide-9 technique.

 

Either way, in the "4-3 under" the NT is lined up in the strong side gap in a 1-technique and there is a DT lined up in a 3-technique on the weak side between him and the Leo. In the "4-3 over" the NT is lined up in a 1-technique on the weak side gap and there is no DT between him and the Leo. Their "Bear" formation looks like a traditional 5-man front with a NT, 2 DT's , and 2 DE's (Leo and SLB).

 

Carroll has to have just the right personnel to pull off this defense, but I think it can be very effective. At the end of the day the defensive line play depends a great deal on having those stout wide bodies that do not give up ground and against this pass-happy league the Leo has to be able to generate pressure when he is isolated against the weak side tackle.

 

I personally thought the physical play of Seattle's safeties and corners had more to do with their win against NE as they gave up a lot of yards in the first half but kept hammering the receivers. But it was it was also apparent in the second half of that game that the non-traditional defensive fronts caused a good deal of confusion with NE's protection schemes. We all know when Brady gets hit, he becomes very human very fast and Seattle was able to stop NE on 4 consecutive possessions (twice I believe in the red zone) and intercepted Brady twice.

 

I do not know if it is all that as far as defenses go, if teams lack pass rushing DE's but have an abundance of 2-gap D-linemen then they should seriously consider incorporating elements of it into their playbook.

 

agreed on pretty much all fronts. i think you will see elements of that at times in our defense. due to our switching back and forth, were almost forced to create some sort of weird hybrid 34/43.... and not in the sense most discuss of switching back and forth, but incorporating principals of each into a singular base defense, kind of like this.

 

We have used premium resources on guys that dont really fit together in one of the more traditional schemes but due to (believe it or not) an abundance of raw talent along our line and edge rushers, we may be able to piece something really effective together... or we could flop. im very curious about the defense this year.