4-2-5 Not as crazy as you think

by monstersbox on Jan 27, 2009 10:23 AM EST

So sometimes I do defensive scheming on my own not knowing some people actually really try to run this crazy stuff. I have a good amount of plays that I've drawn up but it was really just "Ooo, wouldn't this be cool." 1-5-5s, UFOs, etc. And I'm not saying I know defensive scheming even 1% of these guys in the NFL, I just sort of like to mess around with coverage. So when I heard that they were talking about Hamlin and everyone was flipping out, I was thinking to myself, "Why WOULD they want another safety with Bethea, Bullit, Sanders, Giordano and Silva unless they were letting one of them go?" My initial impression was that they probably weren't going to resign Silva or Giordana and wanted to keep some depth. But then I started to think back to some of my old schemes and remembered I had some stuff that used 3 safeties, the 4-2-5. I remember I pretty much dismissed it, even though I thought it'd be crazy good, because I didn't think anyone could have 3 safeties and the speed to pull it off. And then one of those names kept lingering around, shake mentioned him:

"Oklahoma S Nic Harris played a lot of outside linebacker Tuesday, and the decision to do so should improve his draft stock, especially with teams that stress speed and athletic ability over bulk and power at linebacker (think Indianapolis). Of course Harris hit a few speed bumps and understandably showed some indecisiveness. However, he also showed above average closing speed and agility in pursuit. "

And while I was driving in today, they had Ronde Barber on Sirius this morning and he was talking about how there could possibly be an evolution of the safety/linebacker position. So everything just kind of started clicking in to place. I remembered some of the schemes I had drawn up, I remembered the comment about Nic Harris, and I remembered why I didn't think someone could run it and that, yes, the Colts actually could have the players to run this system with the addition of maybe 1-2 players. In fact, I think we might be one of the only teams that could pull it off.

Then I started looking to see if anyone actually tried to run this. I know that I heard TCU ran a version of it, but I ended up finding

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-879624221501361099

http://sitekreator.com/brophy/main_page.html

And I'm sure shake's seen at least a version of this considering:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-374309998879990403

Yeah, Iowa uses it.

So I did a little digging and found out;

"The TCU defense is ranked No. 2 in the country in scoring and No. 1 in rush defense. The Broncos averaged nearly 40 points per game and beat opponents by nearly four touchdowns."

And here's an in depth analysis of TCU's defense:

http://cfn.scout.com/2/647550.html

And you might think "We'd have to completely rebuild our roster to be able to do this." And I'd say flat out, I think we already have it minus a DT, per usual. I believe the third safety in the system would be a LB/SS hybrid like a Nic Harris or a...

Philip Wheeler:

http://warroomreport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=143&Itemid=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnLqb2FP2_U&feature=PlayList&p=07336C6AF07FA655&index=0&playnext=1

The only problem with Wheeler is that he runs a slow 40. But he's supposedly quick on the field, so take that for what it's worth.

Defensive alignment would typically be :

[DB] [DE] [UT] [NT] [DE] [DB]

[LB] [LB]

[SS] [SS]

[FS]

[DE] [UT] [NT] [DE]

[LB] [LB]

[SS] [SS]

[DB] [FS] [DB]

[DE] [UT] [NT] [DE]

[LB] [LB]

[DB] [SS] [SS] [DB]

[FS]

This text lineup isn't doing it justice because I can't show you how they'd be moving without it being really annoying. But anyway, basically there's a ton you can do and I think you could do so much with the speed, swarming, hitting type guys we have. Maybe I'll get it all online one day.

I don't know if that's going to show up right, but I think it looks cool.

Anyway, I'm sure it'll never happen. But I think if they wanted to try some new CRAZY type of defense, just like how the 3-4 and T2 were considered, this would be the team to try it out with. Here's a pdf of someone's notes, not mine, about it. Maybe I'll scan mine one day and show you what I have.

http://www.coachteed.com/freedl/Defense/4-2-5%20Defense%20by%20Tom%20Brandow.pdf

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Stampede Blue's writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Stampede Blue's writers or editors.

Tweet Comment 53 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Oh

And if you don’t remember what TCU did:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj7gUZb_Zcs

Jim Sorgi runs a 4.6 40. That's all I've got to say about that.

by monstersbox on Jan 27, 2009 10:30 AM EST reply actions

Sorry for repeatedly posting in my own thread

But screw Coyer, let’s get one of these dues:

http://gofrogs.cstv.com/sports/m-footbl/mtt/patterson_gary00.html

http://gofrogs.cstv.com/sports/m-footbl/mtt/bumpas_dick00.html

His name’s DICK BUMPAS, how awesome is that?

I heard the Vikings offered Patterson a job in 2005 or 2006 for 2 mil/yr, but didn’t take it. And he got an extension through 2012. On the flip side, Bumpas is also a D-line coach…..

Jim Sorgi runs a 4.6 40. That's all I've got to say about that.

by monstersbox on Jan 27, 2009 10:44 AM EST reply actions

looks like fun

who knows how well it would work but it seems like something that would really take advantage of the players we have. I definitely like the idea of having a couple strong safety’s roaming the field, run-stopping, blitzing, dropping in coverage, etc. Especially the way Bullitt played this way and with Giordano’s speed, it could be fun (along with Bethea and Sanders of course). Add in Coyer’s “show blitz” scheme with a pair of SS’s potentially blitzing and it just sounds like an interesting D with a good chance of working.

by psvirsky on Jan 27, 2009 10:56 AM EST reply actions

Bullit is the key

I just think the types of blitzes and disguising you could do with this would be great. We already know Bob and Bullit can blitz like crazy, we have some depth at safety and in our secondary. And it’d still be a zone coverage system. I actually think it could work. I mean, TCU shut down probably the most potent offense in NCAA in football this year. If we could get Nic Harris in like the third round on top of a DT. Plus the bonuses from Okwo (the LB we signed after the bears released him)

“Has excellent closing speed and does a fine job of staying low in his pads to take on and neutralize the lead blocks in attempts to plug the inside rush lanes … Players his size usually struggle to shed against offensive linemen, but Okwo is very efficient at shedding and splitting the double teams … Shows a keen desire to get to the ball and make the play, reacting with a quick first step to attack at the point … It is very rare to see him fooled by misdirection … Has a knack for being around the ball and does a very good job of avoiding blockers and taking good angles on the move …”

It just sounds like a good fit with what Caldwell has hinted at with blitzing etc. This system would require much less “tweaking” than some others we might try. And puts some of our best players (our safeties) on the field without having to wait until Bob got hurt. Plus Giordano and trying to get a decent prospect. The pure speed would be insane. It’d basically add a degree of misdirection, take advantage of our hard hitting safeties and still use our biggest strengths (zones, speed, ball swarming) to our advantage.

Too bad I couldn’t call up Caldwell and be like “Hey dude, if you’re not looking at this guy, you might want to think about it.” But, those guys know alot more than I do so they’d probably just laugh at me.

Jim Sorgi runs a 4.6 40. That's all I've got to say about that.

by monstersbox on Jan 27, 2009 11:10 AM EST up reply actions

And notice

The size of their DTs. Look familiar?

Jim Sorgi runs a 4.6 40. That's all I've got to say about that.

by monstersbox on Jan 27, 2009 11:15 AM EST up reply actions

I'd definately be in favor of using it in place of a traditional nickel

It wouldn’t even be that different coverage wise. The FS takes the MLB’s zone, the SS’s play the deep halfs, OLBs and CBs have the same zones.

as a base it would get run on too well.

Shonn Greene for Heisman
Doak Walker award winner
144 yards per game
6.2 yards per carry
08 TDs per game > 06 GPA

by shake n bake on Jan 27, 2009 11:41 AM EST reply actions

got distracted a bit more

I’d want it as a nickel, because I’d much much much rather have Bullitt on the field than Jennings and moving Bethea to the slot didn’t work well, so this would be the way to do it if you were putting all 3 safeties out there.

I don’t like it as a base because with 3 LBs and a legit NT in the game with everyone playing well Indy still tops out as being an above average run D. Pulling a LB out is going to lower the ceiling (and the floor) on the run D even further.

Shonn Greene for Heisman
Doak Walker award winner
144 yards per game
6.2 yards per carry
08 TDs per game > 06 GPA

by shake n bake on Jan 27, 2009 11:52 AM EST up reply actions

That's not the point of this defense

Watch the clip of the TCU game, it’s actually designed for smaller, faster defenses to be good against the run and spread offenses.

“The TCU defense is ranked No. 2 in the country in scoring and No. 1 in rush defense.”

Now look at the size of their DTs and LBs and tell me what looks familiar. #1 in the nation with undersized, fast players sounds good to me.

TCU roster
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/teams/roster?teamId=2628

Colts roster
http://www.colts.com/sub.cfm?page=roster

Average weight for TCU –
DB – 187.6
LB – 219.45
DE – 241.8
DT – 282.2

Average weight for Colts –
DB – 196.8
LB – 233.6
DE – 251.6
DT – 283.8

I’d actually have to say that I completely, 100%, disagree with you.

Jim Sorgi runs a 4.6 40. That's all I've got to say about that.

by monstersbox on Jan 27, 2009 12:34 PM EST up reply actions

Pro Players are so much bigger and stronger than college players

just because they are a bit bigger than a college D, doesn’t mean they can match up against a pro O.

Explain to me how, other than a college D did it*, putting in a smaller player further from the line, wouldn’t hurt the run D.

*by that logic the spread O should kill in the pros. Not everything that works in college, even if it works fantastically well, works in the pros.

Shonn Greene for Heisman
Doak Walker award winner
144 yards per game
6.2 yards per carry
08 TDs per game > 06 GPA

by shake n bake on Jan 27, 2009 12:41 PM EST up reply actions

So what's the solution?

So what you’re saying is that a 230 lb guy that can play safety and LB but is lined up how a 4-2-5 would lineup would be inferior to what we’re doing now? Or somehow a 4-3 with 2 safeties on the field would be better? And I’m sorry, but I don’t care how much bigger or smaller a college team is, they allowed 1.72 ypc.

http://web1.ncaa.org/mfb/natlRank.jsp?year=2008&div=B&rpt=IA_teamrushdef&site=org

And further from the line? You’re talking about putting Bob Sanders/Bullit, or Harris about 2 yards behind where a LB would normally line up, which would be moving our 2 safeties into the box and having them able to play defense against a quick pass team or the opposing team would have to be able to recognize the blitz (which could come from several different positions) and still have a safety over the top. Did you watch the link of the Texas Tech game? It’s pretty self explanitory. They’re not dropping back, in fact they’re solidifying the box and bringing different looks. You don’t know where the blitz, if any, is coming from, you’re using incredible speed, which we have, to put pressure on the QB, and you’re still in position to react to zones without overcomitting to the run.

I don’t see how, with the current players we have, and the chance to get a 220-230 lb fast hybrid LB/safety it wouldn’t be FAR superior to what we’re doing now. In fact, I think it’d be much much better than a 4-3 blitz package that teams exploited whenever we tried to do it.

Maybe it won’t work in the NFL, but the T2, 3-4, West Coast offense weren’t supposed to either. And where did you get that I think TCU’s defense would match up against a pro offense? I’m not an idiot. They have the same TYPE of players on their team considering who they match up against. As a general rule of thumb, college players weigh about 10 lbs less at their positions than pro players do.

I’m not going to keep arguing with you over it, you’re not going to change how I think about it. If we’re set on attempting to blitz, without overhauling the personnel we have now, I feel this would be vastly superior than trying to use our current personnel to blitz from a 4-3 base. Especially when our safeties are quite a bit better than our LBs. I’d say our safeties are the deepest part of our team on defense. Even more so than our DEs, because once you get past Mathis and Freeney, we’re not going to intimidate anyone with Brock.

I think it’d be worth a shot and could be insane, you don’t.

Jim Sorgi runs a 4.6 40. That's all I've got to say about that.

by monstersbox on Jan 27, 2009 1:00 PM EST up reply actions

it's less insane than when you were saying they could run a 3-4 by only adding a NT or two.

Shonn Greene for Heisman
Doak Walker award winner
144 yards per game
6.2 yards per carry
08 TDs per game > 06 GPA

by shake n bake on Jan 27, 2009 1:05 PM EST up reply actions

I did not say that

"It would really come down to how we think our secondary could handle it and what we do in the draft. Watch it closely. If we draft a Cody or a Raji with Marks or Jerry still there, there’s a good chance you just might see that. Or if they get a shut down DB or a 3-4 style LB. It’s really too early to assume, but it’s within reason with a couple tweaks to our personel. That wasn’t a play on words to the above mentioned statement. But all you’d have to do is do a rotation with Brock and Foster on one end with Freeney opposite, Cody or that type of big 3-4 NT, put Mathis at SAM and Wheeler at Will, and Brackett or Session at Mike. I think Session would make a great 3-4 Mike, he’s more of that type of LB anyway. Hayden has demonstrated he MIGHT be able to hang on an island with a zone to the opposite and Sanders playing over him to catch things.

And we have to see what happens with Meeks. If Meeks goes, the replacing coordinator will definitely tell us something along with the draft. We could do it with a couple well scouted picks very easily. In fact, I think with our personel, a couple tweaks would make us a very dominant, insanely fast 3-4.

With that said, we’re very close to locking down the T2. It’s not like we weren’t 1st in defense in 2007 and 2nd in 2005 or anything right after we shut down everyone in the 2006 playoffs. In fact, our defense looked like the stronger of the two in the SD game. Why fix what isn’t broken?"

And I could see more holes against that argument than “College schemes, even if not tested, don’t work in the pros.”

Common statement :
“The WIldCat would NEVER work int he pros.”

This year with team totals in ():

New Mexico – 32 attempts, 56 yds, 1.8 ypc (2499 yds, 4.6 ypc)
S.F. Austin – 17 attempts, 3 yds, 0.2 ypc (839 yds, 3.4 ypc)
Stanford – 29 attempts, 71 yds, 2.4 ypc (2395 yds, 4.9 ypc)
South Meth – 12 attempts, -8 yds, -0.7 ypc (497 yds, 2.3 ypc)

Oklahoma – 36 attempts, 25 yards, 0.7 ypc (2779 yds, 4.7 ypc)
S.D. State – 15 attempts, -13 yds, -0.9 ypc (878 yds, 3.1 ypc)
Colorado St. – 28 attempts, 11 yds, 0.4 ypc (1919 yds, 4.2 ypc)
BYU – 28 attempts, 23 yards, 0.8 ypc (1738 yds, 4.1 ypc)
Wyoming – 43 attempts, 113 yds, 2.6 ypc(2140 yds, 4.3 ypc)
UNLV – 33 attempts, 108 yds, 3.3 ypc (58 long) (1460 yds, 3.6 ypc)
Utah – 25 attempts, 45 yards, 1.8 ypc (2034 yds, 4.1 ypc)
Air Force – 37 attempts, 150 yds, 4.1 ypc (3470 yds, 4.5 ypc)
Boise St. – 20 attempts, 28 yds, 1.4 ypc (1980 yds, 4.4 ypc)

Totals -

355 attempts, 612 yds, 1.72 ypc

Rush by team minus TCU matchup -

New Mexico – 2443 yds, 511att , 4.8 ypc, 222.1ypg

S.F. Austin – 836 yards, 230 attempts , 3.6 ypc, 76ypg
Stanford – 2324 yards, 460 attempts, 5.05ypc, 211.3ypg
South Meth – 505 yards, 204 attempts, 2.5 ypc, 46ypg

Oklahoma – 2754 yards, 555 attempts, 4.96 ypc, 250.4 ypg
S.D. State – 891 yards, 268 attempts, 3.32 ypc, 81ypg
Colorado St. -1908 yards, 429 attempts, 4.45ypc, 173.45 ypg
BYU – 1715 yards, 396 attempts, 4.33 ypc, 156 ypg
Wyoming – 2027 yards,455 attempts, 4.46 ypc,184.3 ypg
UNLV – 1352 yards, 373 attempts, 3.62 ypc, 123 ypg
Utah – 1989 yards, 471 attempts, 4.22 ypc, 180.8 ypg
Air Force – 3320 yards, 734 attempts, 4.52 ypc, 301.8 ypg
Boise St. – 165 ypg

Rushing ranks above 50 – rushing

6 Air Force
13 Oklahoma
24 New Mexico
31 Stanford
42 Wyoming
46 Utah
(Boise State is # 52, Colorodo St. is # 54)

2007- #15 overall, Rush Rank 11, 2.92 ypc:

2006 – # 2 overall, Rush Rank 2, 2.16 ypc

2005 – # 25th overall, Rush rank 15, 2.84 ypc

2004 – #99 overall, Rush rank 26, 3.20 ypc

2003 – # 38 overall, Rush rank 9, 2.75 ypc

I could go back further, but the archives take too long to load.

http://web1.ncaa.org/stats/StatsSrv/rankings?doWhat=archive&sportCode=MFB

So tell me exactly where this is vulnerable to the run? Or is that just an assumption? Seems to me it’s easier to pass on a 4-2-5 than to rush on it.

And you’re right, the NFL isn’t like College. Our players are not only bigger, but they’re faster and stronger than TCU’s. Not to mention, I combined the CBs and Safeties because the Colts did. TCU averages 196, the Colts are 203. In fact, aside from their CBs, the entire TCU starting lineup is actually slightly bigger and slower than the Colts.

TCU/Colts
LE – 248 LE – 245 (And don’t say Brock’s the starter because he’s not)
NT – 292 LT – 265
DT – 290 RT – 254 (or johnson -310)
RE – 232 RE – 268
SLB – 228 LLB – 235
MLB – 234 SLB – 235
SS – 212 RLB – 226
FS – 204 RCB – 185
WS – 203 LCB – 195
LCB – 174 SS – 206
RCB – 163 FS – 203

TCU – 216.4
Colts – 206.5

Just because I included every player on each roster doesn’t mean I was pointing out that the Colts D is bigger. In fact, the difference between our “LB” and their “SS” is 14 lbs.

40 yard dash times for our guys:
Freeney – 4.38-4.42 (official 4.42)
Mathis – 4.3ish-4.45 (official 4.45)
Sanders – 4.36
Jackson – 4.49
Hayden – 4.45
Bullit – 4.47
Jennings – 4.32
Keiaho – 4.76 (didn’t run at combine)
Session – 4.6 – 4.7
Bethea – 4.42
Foster – 4.70
Johnson – 5.08

So you’re telling me we couldn’t get William Moore (223 lb safety, 4.45ish 40) or Nic Harris (233 lb SS 4.55ish 40) or like 5-8 other safeties that run faster and have better coverage skills, along with about the same or better hitting/tackling than our LBs now because why? I mean damn, you could even use Laurinaitis to do that, 243 4.54ish 40 with great coverage. Or just go get Jason Phillips from TCU.

I really don’t see where you’re coming from other than “I don’t think it’ll work.”

Jim Sorgi runs a 4.6 40. That's all I've got to say about that.

by monstersbox on Jan 27, 2009 4:29 PM EST up reply actions

The very start of the quote you posted

We could run a 3-4, If we wanted to.

and the important part from the massive block of text you posted

it’s within reason with a couple tweaks to our personel.

with drafting a big NT as the main tweak.

Shonn Greene for Heisman
Doak Walker award winner
144 yards per game
6.2 yards per carry
08 TDs per game > 06 GPA

by shake n bake on Jan 27, 2009 4:47 PM EST up reply actions

No crap it's the main tweak

Any defensive scheme we decide to do would have to start with a DT regardless if it’s a 3 technique UT or a two gap NT.

Jim Sorgi runs a 4.6 40. That's all I've got to say about that.

by monstersbox on Jan 27, 2009 5:15 PM EST up reply actions

A great philosopher once said

“There’s a time and a place for everything, it’s called college.”

That especially goes for usual formations/schemes as a base.

Shonn Greene for Heisman
Doak Walker award winner
144 yards per game
6.2 yards per carry
08 TDs per game > 06 GPA

by shake n bake on Jan 27, 2009 6:56 PM EST up reply actions

And that's what the 3-4 was

If you’re set with the 4-3 or the 3-4 and don’t believe any other formation can be created, then that’s your opinion.

The T2, 3-4, and the majority of defensive schemes used today were under the exact same scrutiny that you’re using now.

If all the coaches in the NFL went by that creed, they’d all be running 4-3’s and still be running 90% of the time.

Jim Sorgi runs a 4.6 40. That's all I've got to say about that.

by monstersbox on Jan 27, 2009 7:00 PM EST up reply actions

firstly, it was a South Park reference

but my point is that a lot of what works in college doesn’t work at all, or in large doses in the Pros.

Shonn Greene for Heisman
Doak Walker award winner
144 yards per game
6.2 yards per carry
08 TDs per game > 06 GPA

by shake n bake on Jan 27, 2009 7:10 PM EST up reply actions

Are you not reading my posts?

I’m pretty sure I just put :

“"The Broncos use the speed they have at outside linebacker in D.J. Williams and Ian Gold to negate some of the matchup troubles, but they also have used safety Sam Brandon as a fifth defensive back – a formation the Broncos call their "big nickel" – extensively the past two seasons against the impact tight ends.”

“It’s not a new concept; in fact, Bill Belichick had great success using this principle in his early days as the Patriots head coach.”

It’s not a college to pro experiment. They’ve been doing it. But no team has been as fast, or been on the verge on having one of the deepest groups of safeties (if they draft one) like the Colts do.

Jim Sorgi runs a 4.6 40. That's all I've got to say about that.

by monstersbox on Jan 27, 2009 7:15 PM EST up reply actions

as an adjustment or a special package

not as a full time D. Moving to it full time from a D that isn’t great against the run to begin with, will be terrible against the run.

Shonn Greene for Heisman
Doak Walker award winner
144 yards per game
6.2 yards per carry
08 TDs per game > 06 GPA

by shake n bake on Jan 27, 2009 7:29 PM EST up reply actions

"And where did you get that I think TCU’s defense would match up against a pro offense? I’m not an idiot."

Where did you get the idea I said that?

just because they are a bit bigger than a college D, doesn’t mean they can match up against a pro O.

The they is talking about the Colts D, which you showed, is a bit bigger across the board than the TCU D.

Sanders and Bullitt are not all the effective taking on blocks and blitzing. What this D is doing is just adding more speed at the expense of size to an already fast undersized D.

You can pull the two outside safeties into the box, but they are on the back and the edge of it. It’s 6 (or 7 with a blocking back) on 6 on an inside run. The safeties can never react immediately to the run because they can’t let a WR behind them and when they do they aren’t near the inside run. It would just get pound, pound, pounded up the middle even moreso than the D does now.

Shonn Greene for Heisman
Doak Walker award winner
144 yards per game
6.2 yards per carry
08 TDs per game > 06 GPA

by shake n bake on Jan 27, 2009 1:12 PM EST up reply actions

Oh

And I already said that we’d need to still get a DT or Harris in the draft. I understand that. A person who can play safety/LB hybrid. That’s the point of this. 230 lb 4.5(4.55) guy that can cover ground and hit.

Jim Sorgi runs a 4.6 40. That's all I've got to say about that.

by monstersbox on Jan 27, 2009 12:36 PM EST up reply actions

I've used a similar scheme on NFL Head Coach with success

Except it was 3 down lineman, 3 linebackers. Worked fairly well, although we all know video games mean nothing.

Visit FanIQ.com for sports news, bloggings, polls, and more!

by MrNFL on Jan 27, 2009 2:09 PM EST reply actions

Practice D scheming

If you really want to tinker in a real-life lab, you can always volunteer as a coach.

I’ve had some fun coaching youth football and, while I had to draw up all the plays and coach both sides of the ball this year for a 6-on-6 flag league (1st/2nd graders), the D I used was as close to the cover-2 as I could get (with no rushing the QB allowed)—a 2-3-1 formation in a league with rudimentary passing. I physically placed each defender in his zone for each play regardless of where the O was, and let them play. Considering how little time we spent practicing on D (O is much more complicated at this level), they were awesome. I suppose next year, when my oldest starts a full-scale tackle league, I can mess with various formations like you suggest above.

One lesson I learned late in the season: Speed can kill on the DL even more than it can kill in the secondary (at least in rudimentary passing leagues). I started out putting the bigger, slower kids on the DL to contain runs and get their hands up on passes, and had the more athletic guys at LB/S. Then one game my kid was messing around and I sat him down for a series, and when he came in I “punished” him with a DL spot. Three tackles for a loss later, I leaned my lesson and started putting all the faster kids at DL and what an improvement. In a league where there is no blocking and no pass rush, I’d liken putting the fastest guys on DL to having a fast safety or two come up in run support—they flow to the ball and force an outside run right out of bounds or catch an indecisive or cut-back runner to eat the ball behind the line.

Of course, like college, the disparity between top and bottom talent at lower age levels is much greater than the disparity between talent in the pros (unless your name is Larry Fitzgerald or Peyton Manning).

Bobman

by Bobman on Jan 27, 2009 3:06 PM EST reply actions

Hell, let's just get rid of all the LBers

We seem not to do so well with them anyway. 5 down linemen rushing to the QB/HB, 2 CB’s, and 4 Safeties. Oh and we let Sanders and Bullit do whatever they want all the time. No assignments for them.

That’ll throw them off. lol

by MarkFive05 on Jan 27, 2009 4:21 PM EST reply actions

So crazy it just, might, work.

This line will remain in my signature until the Colts draft Rashad Jennings in 2009.

by KingRichard on Jan 27, 2009 4:45 PM EST up reply actions

sounds good to me. but…….I’M CRAAAZZZZZY

by skywalker on Jan 27, 2009 6:32 PM EST up reply actions

Oh, and just fyi as BBS just posted

Ray Rychleski was just hired as our Special Teams coach. I wonder what type of defense South Carolina’s been trying to run recently….Oh that’s right…

"6. How Often Will USC Defense Employ The 4-5-2 Formation?: Based on how the scrimmages have unfolded, you can expect the Gamecocks to play the new-fangled defense a lot. Ellis Johnson has been coaching for a long time and he understands that speed wins in the SEC. The defense essentially puts another safety on the field. In USC’s case, that would be Chris Culliver once Darian Stewart returns from his heel injury. The 4-2-5 defense is also the best option for defending the spread option offense, which is becoming more and more popular across the country. When Auburn’s Tommy Tuberville hires a spread option guru to become his new offensive coordinator, you have to sit up and take notice.

Answer: More than you think. "

"Defense

Ellis Johnson is the new defensive coordinator after coming over from Mississippi State. He inherits a very talented defense that could be one of the top groups in the conference. The key will be stopping the run, as this was one of the major reasons for the 5 game collapse at the end of last season. Johnson has been using a 4-2-5 defense to help counter the spread and plans to use it as his base defense. "

“Johnson brought a 4-2-5 defense (using an extra DB as more of a linebacker) to Carolina this season and it’s been a success. The Gamecocks rank in the top 40 in every defensive category, including a No. 3 in pass efficiency defense (110.05).”

So will a 4-2-5 work in the pros? No clue. Do I think it could? Yes. Do I think we’re one of the only teams that could run it? Yes. Would we need a DT regardless of any type of defensive scheme we’d want to run, be it 3-4, 4-3, 4-3 Cover 2, T2, 4-2-5? Yes. Does hiring a special teams coach mean anything about defense? No. Do I think it’s interesting that I just went over this defense, Caldwell said we’re going to blitz more, the personnel we have now doesn’t really fit many blitzing defensive schemes well and we just got a guy from a team that runs a 4-2-5? Yes. Does it mean we’re going to do it? No.

Jim Sorgi runs a 4.6 40. That's all I've got to say about that.

by monstersbox on Jan 27, 2009 5:24 PM EST reply actions

And I wonder what crazy cooks tried it

Well, apparently BB had a degree of success with it. And..

"’Big Nickel’ is getting bigger

Speaking of Tyrell Johnson, there is a growing desire in the NFL for defenses to play more “Big Nickel” defense. You often hear about teams substituting a corner for a linebacker when their opponent sends in an extra wide receiver. Nickel defense is still a very critical part of any NFL defense, but — with the large influx of athletic tight ends that present a vertical threat in the passing game but also handle a 5-foot-9, 190-pound nickel corner in the running game — teams are looking to develop a three-safety package.

It’s not a new concept; in fact, Bill Belichick had great success using this principle in his early days as the Patriots head coach. Vikings GM Rick Spielman and I had a good conversation about Johnson and the desire to sometimes get a bigger player on the field when the offensive personnel grouping dictates it’s the right thing to do. Johnson has corner skills but at close to 6-foot and 207 pounds, he can handle a tight end in coverage and be a force player if the opponent decides to run the ball. It’s interesting to think about a defensive package that would put Darren Sharper, Madieu Williams and Johnson on the field at the same time with two corners."

And you can read this article:

http://blog.footballguys.com/2007/07/16/idp-is-2007-the-year-of-the-big-nickel/

Oh, and this is very very interesting: quote circa 2006

“The Broncos use the speed they have at outside linebacker in D.J. Williams and Ian Gold to negate some of the matchup troubles, but they also have used safety Sam Brandon as a fifth defensive back – a formation the Broncos call their "big nickel” – extensively the past two seasons against the impact tight ends."

If only I could figure out off the top of my head who was the DC in Denver from 2003-2006….And if only someone had a high degree of knowledge in both the T2 and the 4-2-5….I wonder if anyone would be able to do such a crazy thing…Oh that’s right…. LARRY COYER.

Boom. If we run a 4-2-5 you guys owe me a beer.

By the way, Mike Nolan starting using the 4-2-5 after he took over for Bill Belichick in New York in 2000. Nolan was using it in Baltimore when they had the 3rd and 6th ranked defenses. He tried to use it in SF, but from looking at it, he didn’t have the 3rd safety to make it work. No wonder his two strong safeties were 222 lbs. Yep, I remember them talking about both the Lewis’ being great, but they didn’t have the 3rd safety or the pass rush we do. Not saying we have the 3rd safety yet…just saying we have the pass rush.

And if I recall, it was brought up that Keiaho wasn’t very good on TEs.

Jim Sorgi runs a 4.6 40. That's all I've got to say about that.

by monstersbox on Jan 27, 2009 6:31 PM EST up reply actions

I love it in place of a traditional nickel

but it’s replacing the base 4-3 with it wouldn’t work.

Shonn Greene for Heisman
Doak Walker award winner
144 yards per game
6.2 yards per carry
08 TDs per game > 06 GPA

by shake n bake on Jan 27, 2009 6:48 PM EST up reply actions

The other night when I wanted to bring something up with you

this is what I was gonna bring up. I felt that Bullitt was so good that you had to get him on the field, and Bethea is good enough to start, and if Sanders is our best or second best defender, you need to let him make plays. My first thought was a 3-3-3-2 (3 linemen, 3 LBs, 3 Safeties, 2 CBs), and thats why I made the comment, "I wanted to talk about something I’m always rallying against’, because I don’t think a 3-x will work with the Colts personnel. But then after thinking about it, the only plus to the 3-3-3-2 was the bigger linemen, which would allow Bob to play pretty much a rover position. He could read and react at his own will, with no real assignment, and the back 7 (3 LBs, Bullit, Bethea, and the 2 CBs) could still play a traditional cover 2 zone if they so desired.

After thinking about it more, I thought they could go to a 4-2-5, and Bob could still play a rover position, making plays at the LOS or following his reads and dropping back. And when the Colts decide to play man coverage, he could give a blitz look and then drop back into a zone over the middle of the field.

I didn’t email you because I just gave up on the idea, but I think it would be the best way to get Bob some freedom. Teams clearly planned for Bob this year in the run game. As soon as Bob was in the box, which was usually the weak side, they would run strong and just chip Bob and he was out of position a lot.

I doubt we’ll ever see anything like this happen, but I’m all for getting Bob more ability to make plays.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmGdAPjcgaM&eurl=http://www.only17points.com/&feature=player_embedded

by Nideak on Jan 27, 2009 7:18 PM EST reply actions

Yeah

They call the rover position a couple different words but the one I’ve been seeing is “Apache”. Check out this this pdf, it explains the system pretty well. I found a couple others, but this one’s pretty good.

http://www.coachallen.com/PDFs/defense.pdf

Granted, it’s a “college” system and apparently “college” football isn’t football and no system ever designed in college will ever work in the NFL, but it’s an interesting read if you like defense. I’m also about to put up kind of a summary. Nobody likes to read my walls of text.

Jim Sorgi runs a 4.6 40. That's all I've got to say about that.

by monstersbox on Jan 27, 2009 7:22 PM EST up reply actions

Didn’t the Chiefs have a position they called “rover” for derrick thomas? I can’t remember exactly, they had a special name for what he did (switching between LB and DL during plays), and I think it was rover. Maybe not. Wonder if I can google it.

Anyhow, There should be a way to get 3 of your best players onto the field at the same time. I think Bethea is better than he played last year, but I’m starting to think Bullitt has clearly passed him. Either way, if you listed your 7 best players on defense (forgoing listing anyone on the DL) I think 5 of them would be defensive backs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmGdAPjcgaM&eurl=http://www.only17points.com/&feature=player_embedded

by Nideak on Jan 27, 2009 7:31 PM EST up reply actions

And our weakest

Would probably be our LBs and DTs at the moment. Aside from Brackett.

Jim Sorgi runs a 4.6 40. That's all I've got to say about that.

by monstersbox on Jan 27, 2009 7:38 PM EST up reply actions

yah, like I said, if laurinaitis is still there in round 1, it would have to be a damn good DT on the board that I passed him up for, because I strongly feel that he would be a significant upgrade to the LBs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmGdAPjcgaM&eurl=http://www.only17points.com/&feature=player_embedded

by Nideak on Jan 27, 2009 7:42 PM EST up reply actions

He'd improve us

Regardless of what defensive scheme we did. But just think if we used Larry and Brackett or Keiaho (since he wouldn’t have to cover TEs) and had Bob and Nic Harris coming down with Bullit over the top? Add in Ron Brace or Ziggy Hood and the speed would be insane. The coverage would also be pretty good. Mathis and Freeney would probably be free to do quite a bit more.

Jim Sorgi runs a 4.6 40. That's all I've got to say about that.

by monstersbox on Jan 27, 2009 7:47 PM EST up reply actions

ok this shit isn't going anywhere, just like the retarded 3-4 argument

you are putting a smaller defensive unit on the field while moving players away from the front/middle towards the edges/deep, that is going to give you a worse run D unless the personnel switch is a massive upgrade.

I think it’s a awesome idea to use in the nickel. I hate it in a role where it’s expected to defend the run regularly.

Shonn Greene for Heisman
Doak Walker award winner
144 yards per game
6.2 yards per carry
08 TDs per game > 06 GPA

by shake n bake on Jan 27, 2009 7:32 PM EST reply actions

Okay wait

Before you hate too much, what if you just called it a 4-3, and you had Bob in a hybrid safety/LB role. Bob would clearly be an ugrade over any LB and I think that bringing Bullitt on the field full time would be an upgrade over most of their LBs, too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmGdAPjcgaM&eurl=http://www.only17points.com/&feature=player_embedded

by Nideak on Jan 27, 2009 7:34 PM EST up reply actions

Or Nic Harris

Who I keep trying to bring up but keep getting ignored.

Jim Sorgi runs a 4.6 40. That's all I've got to say about that.

by monstersbox on Jan 27, 2009 7:36 PM EST up reply actions

Even if we did draft him,

he’d be a rookie next year.

I can’t imagine why they’d start a rookie in place of someone we already know is good (Bullitt)…

Bullitt is quite good, and last year he proved that. I thought that’s why all this 4-2-5 nonsense (not that I wouldn’t want to see it) was coming up… “put the best players on the field” and all?

by hahasound on Jan 27, 2009 8:05 PM EST up reply actions

I don't like Sanders up at LB depth

he gets blocked to easy. When he comes into the box teams are making sure he gets blocked.

and you aren’t really replacing a LB with Sanders, he’d be on the field anyway. You are replacing him with Bullitt, who is a downgrade against the run from any of the Colts LBs. Or if you want to look at it as replacing the LB with Sanders then you are replacing a great cover LB in Sanders with a so-so one in Bullitt and your 7th man in the box is easier to block.

Shonn Greene for Heisman
Doak Walker award winner
144 yards per game
6.2 yards per carry
08 TDs per game > 06 GPA

by shake n bake on Jan 27, 2009 7:46 PM EST up reply actions

Dude

It’s a coverage/zone system. What you’re adding is the fact that you can blitz from anywhere and they don’t know where it’s coming from. You could drop back into zones the entire time and never blitz. Bob blitzes pretty often, so that’s not really a strong case. They use him in the run game ALOT. And I’m not saying Bullit is the other SS. I keep saying over and over “If we draft Nic Harris, if we draft a strong big/fast/good prospect at safety, if we draft a fast LB.”

Jim Sorgi runs a 4.6 40. That's all I've got to say about that.

by monstersbox on Jan 27, 2009 7:50 PM EST up reply actions

either bob didn't blitz nearly as often as you think

or he wasn’t at all effective at it. He’d didn’t record a single hurry for the season (I know he missed time, but 0) if he was blitzing pretty often (which the Colts haven’t even done as a team) he’d get some.

What I don’t believe here is you are touting this as a free lunch. They can stay the same, or even improve against the run without sacrificing pass D just by using the awesome alignment you thought of.

Shonn Greene for Heisman
Doak Walker award winner
144 yards per game
6.2 yards per carry
08 TDs per game > 06 GPA

by shake n bake on Jan 27, 2009 7:57 PM EST up reply actions

two images and I'm retiring from this one for my own good

Shonn Greene for Heisman
Doak Walker award winner
144 yards per game
6.2 yards per carry
08 TDs per game > 06 GPA

by shake n bake on Jan 27, 2009 8:18 PM EST up reply actions

I believe I covered that

I understood that it would be Bullitt as the ‘replacement’ (but not really, more on that in a minute), and even said ‘Bringing bullitt on the field full time would be an upgrade over most of their LBs, too’.

Go to DVOA and see how the Colts looked with Bullitt in there vs Sanders. Mevlin is clearly the #2 safety on the team, and I think (opinion) that he’s a better coverage safety than Bob.

Now, having Bob as a linebacker is replacing a LB. Are you saying that the dropoff from Bob to Mevlin is greater than the drop off from Session, Keiaho or Brackett to Bullitt?

I think if you put a gun to Polian’s head right now, he’d rather let Bethea go and give Melvin Bullitt an extension. I have nothing to base this off of, other than watching each play.

As for not liking Bob at LB depth, why not? Go look at the games he was in this year. Having him at LOS depth is sponsored by Bad Idea Jeans, inc. I can’t count the number of times he was lost in space or completely out of position because he was too close to the LOS this year. The Colts defense would slide to the strong side of the formation and they’d bring Bob down to the LOS on the weakside and teams would just merrily merrily merrily merrily run away from Bob.

This would only be helpful if you had players on the strong side capable of making plays when the offense runs to the strong side.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmGdAPjcgaM&eurl=http://www.only17points.com/&feature=player_embedded

by Nideak on Jan 27, 2009 11:30 PM EST up reply actions

I just have a question

Are you not reading through and check the links I’ve been posting? Because I’ve covered that. You sound like you’ve made up your mind before looking at what I put up and refuse to read it because you already have your opinion on the situation. Because you said “wouldn’t translate to the pros” which I just pointed out it did, and you said “makes the run defense worse” which I’ve pointed out that it actually improves it. Now if you’re talking about going from a regular 4-3 to this, then yes, it would make the run worse. But the fact that in a T2 the safeties and LBs line up about 5-10 yards behind where they normally would in a regular 3-4, you’re actually moving 3 people closer to the line of scrimmage and still playing the FS closer. It actually covers the seams that the T2 is exposed to and prevents the DEs from being taken out by double teams because even if you don’t blitz, you can’t commit to a double team and have a safety blow right by you.

Jim Sorgi runs a 4.6 40. That's all I've got to say about that.

by monstersbox on Jan 27, 2009 7:43 PM EST up reply actions

I actually meant 4-3, not 3-4 about the lining up part

Jim Sorgi runs a 4.6 40. That's all I've got to say about that.

by monstersbox on Jan 27, 2009 7:45 PM EST up reply actions

the points are related

the translation is why you haven’t proved that the run D improves. That a college D was very good running it doesn’t prove that a pro D could and that some Pro Ds have used it as a specialty package doesn’t prove that it could work full time.

Shonn Greene for Heisman
Doak Walker award winner
144 yards per game
6.2 yards per carry
08 TDs per game > 06 GPA

by shake n bake on Jan 27, 2009 7:49 PM EST up reply actions

Yes I did

You made the argument yourself. The Run D in Denver went to crap when Coyer left, I just pointed out that Coyer used a 4-2-5. His “show me” blitz was the 4-2-5. He alternated between a T2 and this. And Nolan used it in Baltimore, and as I pointed out their run D was 3rd and 6th ranked run defenses. So yes, actually I did put points towards how it would improve it. Especially over a T2 defense that’s notorious for “you beat the T2 by running.” Is it as good as a regular 4-3? No, I didn’t say that at all, that’d be straight stupid. But is it better than a T2 run defense? I think just due to positioning it is. It’s a gang tackling speed defense. How many times do you see us NOT do that in our current defense? But now we have 3 players about 10 yards closer to the line of scrimmage. I just really don’t get what your argument is. You haven’t put anything out that has been proof of anything you’re saying.

Jim Sorgi runs a 4.6 40. That's all I've got to say about that.

by monstersbox on Jan 27, 2009 7:54 PM EST up reply actions

the Broncos ran it as an anti-Gates and Gonzo D

it wasn’t their base or a thing they did just because.

""The Broncos use the speed they have at outside linebacker in D.J. Williams and Ian Gold to negate some of the matchup troubles, but they also have used safety Sam Brandon as a fifth defensive back – a formation the Broncos call their “big nickel” – extensively the past two seasons against the impact tight ends."

It wasn’t used to stop the run. It was to get a guy that was good enough in coverage to take a TE on the field while not totally sucking against the run.

and maybe the Broncos D fell apart because the (recently fired) guy that was picking the players wasn’t good at building a defense.

Shonn Greene for Heisman
Doak Walker award winner
144 yards per game
6.2 yards per carry
08 TDs per game > 06 GPA

by shake n bake on Jan 27, 2009 8:12 PM EST up reply actions