Defensive Formations for Dummies

[San Jose Bills Fan]

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

 

Could it play special teams?

[ColdBlueNorth]

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.

 

Dareus fits that 2-gap NT mold nicely. Branch and Troup (if he is ever off of IR) could fit the other 2-gap DT roles, but Kyle, Mario, and Carrington are not ideally suited for either the 2-gap DT roles or the Leo role in that defense. Mario may be able to pull the Leo role off, but it seems to me to be more of a speed rush role vs the arsenal that Mario brings to the table which is his strength, leverage, and using his hands to get free of blockers up close and personal. He is still a freakish athlete and the one I would play in that position if I had to fill it with our current roster.

Edited April 8, 2013 by ColdBlueNorth

[BillsBytheBay]

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.

what if D Ware, & Clay Mathews were your two outside line backers. I wouldn't worry about the run, who is covering the wideouts? You would need faaaast coverage linebackers.

[NoSaint]

 

 

Dareus fits that 2-gap NT mold nicely. Branch and Troup (if he is ever off of IR) could fit the other 2-gap DT roles, but Kyle, Mario, and Carrington are not ideally suited for either the 2-gap DT roles or the Leo role in that defense. Mario may be able to pull the Leo role off, but it seems to me to be more of a speed rush role vs the arsenal that Mario brings to the table which is his strength, leverage, and using his hands to get free of blockers up close and personal. He is still a freakish athlete and the one I would play in that position if I had to fill it with our current roster.

 

you might even be able to slide him in a little from the wide 9 spot to use more of his power in a short space instead of speed around the edge... but as you mention, hes a bit of a freak athlete, the likes of which are hard to compare - hes a 300 lbs guy thats actually athletic enough to be out on the edge. few and far between.

 

thats what i think will allow a lot of versatility for this defense if they can figure out how to take advantage of his immense gifts. you can disguise/create a lot when you have a guy like that.

Edited April 8, 2013 by NoSaint

[boyst]

Is there a question anywhere in this thread?

[ColdBlueNorth]

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.

 

I do think we have the elements in place on the defensive line to play a more traditional 3-4 with all the variations one would expect. As everyone who has watched the Bills has noticed, the major flaw in our current defense is the play of the linebackers and the lack of a playmaking DB opposite Gilmore. The Seattle defense is interesting in that if the Bills can pick up another 2-gap wide body in the draft and can get Troup on the field we could certainly incorporate elements of it into our defense.

 

One of the benefits of their defense is that it creates simple reads for the linebackers. With the way the front loads up the strong side teams are very tempted (particularly in the 4-3 over alignment) to run at that weak side and the Leo but they find that with the NT playing a 2-gap 1-technique he is occupying the center and the weak side guard, the tackle is occupied with the Leo, and you have the middle and weak side linebackers able to come up clean to stuff the running lanes. What looks like a weak point ends up being a numbers game that the defense wins. However, I have read and the some of the plays they gave up last year seem to prove that with the linebackers coached to come up hard on those runs, this defense is very susceptible to giving up big plays with screens.

 

Is there a question anywhere in this thread?

 

Not really:)

 

I think it started out asking if you can have a defense where just two guys have their hand on the ground and it has kind of taken on a life of it's own for those of us who love talking about the defensive side of the ball.

[....lybob]

Didn't the Giants play with just two down-linemen against us in our 1st SB- my memory is they never shut down our running game but we refused to just run the damn ball.

[NoSaint]

 

 

I do think we have the elements in place on the defensive line to play a more traditional 3-4 with all the variations one would expect. As everyone who has watched the Bills has noticed, the major flaw in our current defense is the play of the linebackers and the lack of a playmaking DB opposite Gilmore. The Seattle defense is interesting in that if the Bills can pick up another 2-gap wide body in the draft and can get Troup on the field we could certainly incorporate elements of it into our defense.

 

One of the benefits of their defense is that it creates simple reads for the linebackers. With the way the front loads up the strong side teams are very tempted (particularly in the 4-3 over alignment) to run at that weak side and the Leo but they find that with the NT playing a 2-gap 1-technique he is occupying the center and the weak side guard, the tackle is occupied with the Leo, and you have the middle and weak side linebackers able to come up clean to stuff the running lanes. What looks like a weak point ends up being a numbers game that the defense wins. However, I have read and the some of the plays they gave up last year seem to prove that with the linebackers coached to come up hard on those runs, this defense is very susceptible to giving up big plays with screens.

 

sometimes i have a tough time figuring out what to do with KW and Dareus as theyve been asked to fill so many different roles the last few years - its hard to piece together where the most consistent success has been.... and then theres mario, who despite being able to fill several different positions i dont know that hes best suited in a 34 role really, despite being able to excel at it in brief glimpses. I think we could definitely fill all those spots, but i dont know that in a traditional 34 we would be maximizing the talent and getting the most synergy out of the skill sets that we have - i think itll be something a bit creative and off the norm that we see. not revolutionary, but like you referred to this, evolutionary. we have a lot of talent up front even if it didnt shine last year for a variety of reasons (health, scheme, etc..). itll be interesting to see what they come up with.

Edited April 8, 2013 by NoSaint

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Didn't the Giants play with just two down-linemen against us in our 1st SB- my memory is they never shut down our running game but we refused to just run the damn ball.

 

Correct.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

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"

 

Fergy, I think you're describing what Green Bay calls its "psycho" formation: 5 LB, 5 DB, 1 down lineman, a lot of movement before the snap

Here is a film link to GB players describing it Here is a link to some X's and O's.

 

It's fundamentally an overload blitz package designed to create confusion with guys moving and then just before the snap, overload one side of the line with blitzers and drop others back into coverage. The "trick" is the QB (and the linemen) don't know who's coming and who's dropping back or which way they're coming. That's why the QB can't "take a stroll like the president" or wait for his WR to get even 10 yds downfield; the overload can bust protection PDQ, and there are still 5 DB and usually 1 LB drop into coverage.

 

It's vulnerable to the run and to the quick dump-off passes to the non-overloaded side, though, which is why it's a specialty package not something you'll see all game.

 

If you go to the film link, you'll see a "psycho" formation burned for 25 yd gain from a little dumpoff

 

Is there a question anywhere in this thread?

 

I think so, it started out asking if it's possible to have 5 or 6 LB and <3 down linemen, then speculating on which of our players could fill different roles in this situation.

At least that's the question I was trying to answer

[Ramius]

Didn't the Giants play with just two down-linemen against us in our 1st SB- my memory is they never shut down our running game but we refused to just run the damn ball.

 

Yeah. Parcells, belicheat and the giants played a good chunk of SB XXV with only 2 DL, in a 2-4-5 alignment. The biggest problem is exactly what happened in that game. Thurman averaged roughly 45 yards per carry. (Ok, not quite, but he did pile up right near 9 ypc for the game on 15 carries).

[BringBackFergy]

 

 

Fergy, I think you're describing what Green Bay calls its "psycho" formation: 5 LB, 5 DB, 1 down lineman, a lot of movement before the snap

Here is a film link to GB players describing it Here is a link to some X's and O's.

 

It's fundamentally an overload blitz package designed to create confusion with guys moving and then just before the snap, overload one side of the line with blitzers and drop others back into coverage. The "trick" is the QB (and the linemen) don't know who's coming and who's dropping back or which way they're coming. That's why the QB can't "take a stroll like the president" or wait for his WR to get even 10 yds downfield; the overload can bust protection PDQ, and there are still 5 DB and usually 1 LB drop into coverage.

 

It's vulnerable to the run and to the quick dump-off passes to the non-overloaded side, though, which is why it's a specialty package not something you'll see all game.

 

If you go to the film link, you'll see a "psycho" formation burned for 25 yd gain from a little dumpoff

 

 

 

I think so, it started out asking if it's possible to have 5 or 6 LB and <3 down linemen, then speculating on which of our players could fill different roles in this situation.

At least that's the question I was trying to answer

Thanks Hopeful...and my apologies to 20 Years of Fan hood. He said it was called psycho and I thought he was just busting my chops. Those are great links and appreciate the assistance.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Thanks Hopeful...and my apologies to 20 Years of Fan hood. He said it was called psycho and I thought he was just busting my chops. Those are great links and appreciate the assistance.

 

You are most welcome. If we put up the "Cow" signal perhaps we can get jboyst to expatiate upon the benefits and drawbacks of the scheme from the DC perspective?

[San Jose Bills Fan]

You are most welcome. If we put up the "Cow" signal perhaps we can get jboyst to expatiate upon the benefits and drawbacks of the scheme from the DC perspective?

 

As long as you two don't turn this into another conversation about animal husbandry.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[boyst]

I tried to perform each response as if speaking directly to the OP...

 

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"

It is easy to think of football and realize the benefits and downfalls of each position and situation. There is a reason you want fast strong running backs, to beat the big fat defenders. There is a reason you want physical agile LB's - to beat the OL and get to the carrier. Speedy WR's to beat the defenders and defenders who are smart enough to beat the angles, speed and play of the offensive units.

 

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.

To get speed you sacrafice size and strength. To get strength you sacrafice speed. The intangibles are smarts and athletic ability. To figure out which athletes are smart look at the end of the play and look at which players are always in the vinicity of the ball at the end of the play. Those are the players who know the angles, studied the film and learned how to play the game.

 

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.

If you do not have the adequate players and poor coaching you are correct. This system works with poor players if coached right. This system works better with good players coached well.

 

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.

Last year we often dropped Anderson to cover and he played LB in NE. Kelsay, also, played LB in some time here in Buffalo. Just because you are a DE does not mean you must play it.

 

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.

Well said. When you play a hurry up offense there are many tricks. As you bring that up I bring up this. If the offense makes a substitution then the defense must be given time to make a substitution, thus slowing down any hurry-up that might be attempted. We saw many teams employ this last year, I believe we did this against the Pats, too.

 

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

 

A Leo here would be interesting, but it would be asking a lot of Dareus and KW to hold an edge and front. For the simpler explanation: Think of a bulldozer. If you push too hard on one side it pushes pressure on the opposite side. The defense works the same way - if the DL pushes too hard it will shift the play to the other side and if there is a weak link there it will be exposed. Last year we saw Wanny use our DL as a straight edge, no pressure, holding a wall to stop the progress of the line. Our DL was not strong and big enough to do this and we saw our guys pushed around and this let the OL reach the LB's. The LB's in last years scheme were supposed to be able to come up and pick up the ball carrier but got mugged by blockers.

 

If you'd like I can further expose how last year was just an abomination of strategy.

 

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.

Dareus and KW are not strong enough, IMO to perform this strategy. MD has an opportunity to play a more natural position, using balance and strength as he did in college - but I do not know if it will match up against NFL OL, yet. KW has lost a few steps but remains a quality player; there is no way he could swallow enough space, and he would actually get lost in it. The holes generated from this would generate running lanes that I am not sure our LB's could effectively cover.

 

Dareus fits that 2-gap NT mold nicely. Branch and Troup (if he is ever off of IR) could fit the other 2-gap DT roles, but Kyle, Mario, and Carrington are not ideally suited for either the 2-gap DT roles or the Leo role in that defense. Mario may be able to pull the Leo role off, but it seems to me to be more of a speed rush role vs the arsenal that Mario brings to the table which is his strength, leverage, and using his hands to get free of blockers up close and personal. He is still a freakish athlete and the one I would play in that position if I had to fill it with our current roster.

Bruce Smith would have been your Leo. If you want to picture a modern player you'd know, OP, Smith is your guy. He did not play the position of Leo, but he played the way the position would need to be - fast, strong, and right through players.

 

I do think we have the elements in place on the defensive line to play a more traditional 3-4 with all the variations one would expect. As everyone who has watched the Bills has noticed, the major flaw in our current defense is the play of the linebackers and the lack of a playmaking DB opposite Gilmore. The Seattle defense is interesting in that if the Bills can pick up another 2-gap wide body in the draft and can get Troup on the field we could certainly incorporate elements of it into our defense.

 

One of the benefits of their defense is that it creates simple reads for the linebackers. With the way the front loads up the strong side teams are very tempted (particularly in the 4-3 over alignment) to run at that weak side and the Leo but they find that with the NT playing a 2-gap 1-technique he is occupying the center and the weak side guard, the tackle is occupied with the Leo, and you have the middle and weak side linebackers able to come up clean to stuff the running lanes. What looks like a weak point ends up being a numbers game that the defense wins. However, I have read and the some of the plays they gave up last year seem to prove that with the linebackers coached to come up hard on those runs, this defense is very susceptible to giving up big plays with screens.

I have not seen anyone mention that Seattle may have the best CB in the game right now. That provides you a lot of flexibility when you can make the game 10-10. When you scheme a defense you find ways to eliminate players. You take the best players you have and match their strengths against the opponents. That is why some times you will see different players on the field for different offensive packages or different schemes and formations on defense. If you're playing Lloyd with a slower smarter CB you want him off the line. If you're playing him with Richard Sherman you want Sherman right up there to jam him and take away his initial blast, because he'll keep up. You have to match, to the best you can, each player.

 

You are most welcome. If we put up the "Cow" signal perhaps we can get jboyst to expatiate upon the benefits and drawbacks of the scheme from the DC perspective?

Moo.

------------------------------

The Pysho defense is very common. If you are going to run it in Buffalo, then you must put Dareus and Branch/Troup on the field Behind that, you can move MW anywhere and you know he is going to blitz. As soon as you see him playing over the LG then you know that LG is going to need extra help from the OC. With someone like Dareus shading the outside of the OG the LT must account for him. On the other side you have the RG and the RT handling Branch. Perhaps the RT can move around and keep extra protection on the QB or lead a block. With Lawson on strongside (because I want him on the strong side!!!) you would ensure that outside containment could be maintained while he covers the flat. Gilmore and McKelvin on CB island, and Searcy and Byrd back deep we have 8 players. That's 3 more we can find to match up.

 

Lets take a typical team here. We have to match up against a RB, a TE, 3WR's, QB, 5OL.

 

Gilmore and McKelvin can cover the two WR's. The FS follows the eyes of the QB. 5 OL are covered by 3 committed rushers. A 4th rusher could come from one of three positions not brought up yet. Those are LB's. Maybe on the weakside we put Anderson back in, way out past the T. The weakside is whatever side the TE is not on. Way out there, whether the TE is there or not, you often hear this called the wide 9's. Anderson could see if anyone comes his way at the snap, perhaps the RB stays in and blocks, then Anderson goes all in on a weakside blitz from his hybrid LB scheme.

 

Two guys left.

 

We have no MLB yet, we might even need two. Shephard in the middle on the strong side. Lets hope he steps his game up this year. Have faith. A second MLB like Morrison could come in, of course this would take away our pass defending ability but with this scheme I do not think a team is going to be able to run on us or move the middle. If our DB's covered we'd do well - this would be the defense I'd have fielded against us last year, since no passes were going over 20 yards. If they did, bend don't break.

 

How about defending the pass? Shephard and Bryan Scott. Scott can cover, strong side, against the TE, you're going to do well. If Lawson sees the 3 WR's and TE release he could drop in to coverage with them, as well.

 

 

 

 

I have to hit the hay. 5:30 comes easy.

[BringBackFergy]

Thanks jboyst. A lot to digest there but you guys have cleared a lot of things up. The main point being that we could have 2 down linemen and 5 (or even 6) LB's so long as the LB's all are versatile enough to either stand on the line or drop back into the traditional LB spot depending upon what the offense shows.

[thebandit27]

One thing this thread has made me curious about: anyone think that Bradley's possible usage of the Leo package puts Dion Jordan in play for Jacksonville at No. 2 overall?

 

He'd make a heck of a Leo lined up alongside Alualu, Roy Miller, and Sen'Derrick Marks.

[ColdBlueNorth]

One thing this thread has made me curious about: anyone think that Bradley's possible usage of the Leo package puts Dion Jordan in play for Jacksonville at No. 2 overall?

 

He'd make a heck of a Leo lined up alongside Alualu, Roy Miller, and Sen'Derrick Marks.

 

I also think that Jacksonville is not done with the Gabbert experiment and they have too many holes on defense to reach for offense in a draft that is flush with defensive players that can fit their new scheme.

 

They will not take a QB high this year. This may actually be the year that all the trumped up QB projects actually go into free fall, I would not be overly surprised if the first QB is not taken till the end of the 1st round or very beginning of the 2nd round. There is always one team out there that sees something in a QB that they feel they cannot pass up on and reaches...I hope it is not us.

[Beerball]

Is there a question anywhere in this thread?

Yes, I just found one.

[BobChalmers]

Many years ago (the 80's?) the Rams had so many DL injuries they went to a 2-5 scheme they called the "Eagle" if I remember right. It was literally 2 DL's and 5 real LB's - again, they did it because they were running out of linemen.

 

As others have pointed out - it does leave you a bit small against run plays behind those 5 big OL who aren't going anywhere.