PDA

View Full Version : The Defensive scheme...


Chris Meck
10-18-2005, 12:30 PM
I was just thinking...

When Gun first rose to power in the 90's with his great defenses, a lot of it was predicated on the fact that he had book-end pass rushers with Smith and Thomas. Each player's presence helped the other, forcing either max-protect schemes (fewer receivers in the pattern) or risking disaster by trying to block them one on one.

Thomas, by the way, just for reference-sake was a linebacker, thereby indicating that for years the Chiefs essentially blitzed on nearly every passing down with at least ONE linebacker.

Those teams, like this one, stopped the run first-then got after the QB. The biggest difference in execution is that those teams could cover man up well enough to allow time for the rushers to get to the QB. This defense doesn't do it consistently-although the Washington game would indicate that they are capable of it (4 sacks).

Now, I think we can agree at this point that Jared Allen is a legitimate pass rusher. 9 sacks as a rookie and the 3 sack game last week against a pretty good tackle would indicate that he's a rising player. What we need is pressure from the opposite side, and the ability to play man coverage consistently.

Kendrell Bell's strength is as a rusher and run stuffer. He's so-so in coverage. DJ is just flat out a superior athlete and can rush or cover with equal physical ability (although he will make mistakes from time to time).

I guess my point is that ONE of the LB's should be coming on every pass play. You can either overload the left side or overload the right, but every time that QB drops back, heat should be coming. On the great Chiefs defenses of the 90's, we rarely rushed just four because Thomas, while being a superior pass rusher, was an inferior cover-backer.

At the moment, we appear to be blitzing safeties a lot, which would seem counterproductive as our biggest defensive liability is that we have only one corner that can cover worth squat.

If Warfield starts opposite Surtain it should help a LOT this week, but I'd like to see a 'backer coming on every non-playaction pass.

Chris

Douche Baggins
10-18-2005, 12:36 PM
You're off in your analysis. Derrick Thomas often lined up as a defensive end.

Warrior5
10-18-2005, 12:54 PM
Good analysis of the current D scheme. I agree Bell's crushing abilities are being wasted since he drops into coverage so much...he's just too big to keep up with quicker TEs or RBs out of the backfield. The guy's strength is crushing RBs; standing them up and slamming them down, creating more opportunities for turnovers.

I wish Gun had a scheme for situational downs where Mitchell and Bell swapped out at the last second. Not taking anything away from Mitchell at all, but I imagine Bell blitzing up the gut would get the attention of the Dolphins' backfield real quick.

Can imagine Bell blowing up the middle.

DeepSouth
10-18-2005, 12:58 PM
You're off in your analysis. Derrick Thomas often lined up as a defensive end.
GoChiefs is correct. On obvious passing downs, one of the linemen would be taken out and DT would line up on the line.

chagrin
10-18-2005, 01:06 PM
And we used the ole bump and run alot with our CB's

Mr. Laz
10-18-2005, 01:22 PM
The biggest issue in our scheme that i see(besides talent) is that we don't man up within the zones.

There's really no way a zone scheme can be successfull unless you actually cover the guy once he gets into the zone.

htismaqe
10-18-2005, 01:23 PM
GoChiefs is correct. On obvious passing downs, one of the linemen would be taken out and DT would line up on the line.

Actually, that's not entirely correct.

When Marty first arrived, we ran a 3-4 under Cowher. Dave Adolph came in and we switched to a 4-3. We ran that under Adolph and we also ran a 4-3 under Gunther in 1995 and 1996. The Falcon defense came in in 1997 and 1998.

htismaqe
10-18-2005, 01:25 PM
The biggest issue in our scheme that i see(besides talent) is that we don't man up within the zones.

There's really no way a zone scheme can be successfull unless you actually cover the guy once he gets into the zone.

Yep.

"Soft".

At issue here is not man vs. zone. Carolina plays zone, so does New England.

What is at issue is "soft and loose" vs. smacking somebody in the mouth.

Mr. Laz
10-18-2005, 01:33 PM
Yep.

"Soft".

At issue here is not man vs. zone. Carolina plays zone, so does New England.

What is at issue is "soft and loose" vs. smacking somebody in the mouth.
how many times have we had decent coverage deep only to have a RB or TE jump out into the flat or "post up" short over the middle and just sit there until the QB runs out of options and tosses it to him.

they still gain 5-8 yards and our good coverage was all for nothing.


after the initial zone pass coverage, the defensive players must be aware of the open man and adjust. If the middle linebacker doesn't have anyone in his zone he needs to shorten up and cover the RB/TE short.


ADJUST...


our coaches don't seem to know how to adjust and that carries over to the players who have apparently never been taught to adjust either.

keg in kc
10-18-2005, 01:34 PM
I'm confused. Parker and Laz...agreeing?

I must be asleep or something.

Douche Baggins
10-18-2005, 01:34 PM
Laz, your sig is out of control. Please change it.

siberian khatru
10-18-2005, 01:35 PM
Actually, that's not entirely correct.

When Marty first arrived, we ran a 3-4 under Cowher. Dave Adolph came in and we switched to a 4-3. We ran that under Adolph and we also ran a 4-3 under Gunther in 1995 and 1996. The Falcon defense came in in 1997 and 1998.


IIRC, wasn't the switch to the 4-3 made in-season when we brought Joe Phillips in, because we weren't stopping the run?

htismaqe
10-18-2005, 01:35 PM
how many times have we had decent coverage deep only to have a RB or TE jump out into the flat or "post up" short over the middle and just sit there until the QB runs out of options and tosses it to him.

they still gain 5-8 yards and our good coverage was all for nothing.


after the initial zone pass coverage, the defensive players must be aware of the open man and adjust. If the middle linebacker doesn't have anyone in his zone he needs to shorten up and cover the RB/TE short.


ADJUST...


our coaches don't seem to know how to adjust and that carries over to the players who have apparently never been taught to adjust either.

I've been saying this (particularly about our safeties) since Greg Robinsono was the scapegoat.

htismaqe
10-18-2005, 01:37 PM
I'm confused. Parker and Laz...agreeing?

I must be asleep or something.

Well you figure Laz had to wise up eventually...

:D

htismaqe
10-18-2005, 01:39 PM
IIRC, wasn't the switch to the 4-3 made in-season when we brought Joe Phillips in, because we weren't stopping the run?

That could have been. My memory isn't the greatest, but I know we ran a 4-3 for the great majority of Adolph's tenure. Phillips came in 4 games into Adolph's first season.

Mr. Laz
10-18-2005, 01:43 PM
Well you figure Laz had to wise up eventually...

:D
heh...

jspchief
10-18-2005, 01:46 PM
I'm not sure those schemes from the 90s would be that effective now anyways. Offenses are much better at recognizing their outlets in the face of the rush. Teams are better at exposing the blitz than they were 10 years ago.

That being said, I would like to see us send at least one blitzer more often. It's not like the extra man in coverage is stopping anyone from passing on us.

IMO, our biggest problem is that one half of the field is patrolled by incompetent pass defenders. Bell, Wesley(Sapp), and McCleon all on the same side of the field is just too much weakness in too large an area. If we would at least shift our CB to the #1 WR, we would lessen our opponent's ability to dictate match-ups.

htismaqe
10-18-2005, 01:55 PM
I'm not sure those schemes from the 90s would be that effective now anyways. Offenses are much better at recognizing their outlets in the face of the rush. Teams are better at exposing the blitz than they were 10 years ago.

That being said, I would like to see us send at least one blitzer more often. It's not like the extra man in coverage is stopping anyone from passing on us.

IMO, our biggest problem is that one half of the field is patrolled by incompetent pass defenders. Bell, Wesley(Sapp), and McCleon all on the same side of the field is just too much weakness in too large an area. If we would at least shift our CB to the #1 WR, we would lessen our opponent's ability to dictate match-ups.

Bill Maas said the same things during the preseason.

The new rules (or re-enforcement of old rules) are making the days of man-to-man coverage obsolete.

The use of zone coverages allows teams to disguise what they're doing alot more...

Chris Meck
10-19-2005, 07:35 AM
You've still got 5 yards to knock the crap out of a WR. Then you can't grab him. That is still the rule.

We've got good speed at LB; I'd just rather see it used to pressure the QB, force the throw before he's ready than float around out there and chase down WR's 10 yards downfield.

Chris