Chiefs The Primary Flaw with Romeo's 2-Gap

Sorter · 10-01-2012, 09:17 PM

A few have been asking "Why don't we switch to a 4-3" and most have been like myself and have been campaigning for a switch to the 1-gap.

Now, Direckshun has posted a nice breakdown of the difference between the two philosophies, and I'll link that later.

However, the 2-gap isn't a completely flawed scheme. To run it effectively in today's NFL, you need to have DEs like Tyson/Dorsey who are solid against the run but also can diagnose run vs. pass quickly and then provide an adequate pass rush (pushing the pocket or obtaining a double team while still progressing upfield).

For example, the Ravens and Mike Nolan (D-Coordinator for the Falcons) still run a 2-gap philosophy. (Nolan runs a hybrid 3-4 2-gap and a 4-3, but I can talk about that later).The difference is that while the Ravens run the 2-gap (albeit, having their DEs play the 4-tech instead of our 5), they utilize a fire-zone heavy concept. Meaning, they will pull DEs into coverage occasionally and bring pressure from safeties, nickel and dime backs. Their philosophy is to "Rush 5, drop 6".

For those that think our Defense sucks, you're entitled to your opinion but it is wrong. To those that think the 2-gap entirely sucks, you're wrong as well. The main problem with this defense IMO is the inability to get pressure from our base front (3-4 odd, DEs playing the 5-tech). To play our scheme effectively, you need smart DEs who can address the play quickly and accordingly. Simply put, our DEs are not smart enough or talented enough to do so in our base front. Granted, Allan Bailey is fine from our sub package (playing the 3-tech), but can't be relied on in our base front because he doesn't play well against the run or quickly diagnoses run v. pass enough to provide an adequate rush, much like our other DEs.

I know most will just see a wall of text, but this will probably help several understand some of our defensive flaws and why we struggle against the pass in our base set.

Cliffs:
1. Our 2-gap requires players we have not acquired; it can still be effective but is much more difficult to do than a 1-gap philosophy.
2. The responsibilities for a 2-gap DE and NT are much more difficult than those of a 1-gap.
3. I personally would like to see our team go to a 1-gap. Attacking defensive lineman are much better served than run-stoppers in today's NFL.

I know most will tl;dr, but if you disagree with it, post your thoughts. We have too much bitching on this site and not enough discussion about scheme, football philosophies, and concepts.

10-01-2012, 09:17 PM	Topic Starter
Sorter Caralho Join Date: Sep 2011 Casino cash: $9631474	The Primary Flaw with Romeo's 2-Gap A few have been asking "Why don't we switch to a 4-3" and most have been like myself and have been campaigning for a switch to the 1-gap. Now, Direckshun has posted a nice breakdown of the difference between the two philosophies, and I'll link that later. However, the 2-gap isn't a completely flawed scheme. To run it effectively in today's NFL, you need to have DEs like Tyson/Dorsey who are solid against the run but also can diagnose run vs. pass quickly and then provide an adequate pass rush (pushing the pocket or obtaining a double team while still progressing upfield). For example, the Ravens and Mike Nolan (D-Coordinator for the Falcons) still run a 2-gap philosophy. (Nolan runs a hybrid 3-4 2-gap and a 4-3, but I can talk about that later).The difference is that while the Ravens run the 2-gap (albeit, having their DEs play the 4-tech instead of our 5), they utilize a fire-zone heavy concept. Meaning, they will pull DEs into coverage occasionally and bring pressure from safeties, nickel and dime backs. Their philosophy is to "Rush 5, drop 6". For those that think our Defense sucks, you're entitled to your opinion but it is wrong. To those that think the 2-gap entirely sucks, you're wrong as well. The main problem with this defense IMO is the inability to get pressure from our base front (3-4 odd, DEs playing the 5-tech). To play our scheme effectively, you need smart DEs who can address the play quickly and accordingly. Simply put, our DEs are not smart enough or talented enough to do so in our base front. Granted, Allan Bailey is fine from our sub package (playing the 3-tech), but can't be relied on in our base front because he doesn't play well against the run or quickly diagnoses run v. pass enough to provide an adequate rush, much like our other DEs. I know most will just see a wall of text, but this will probably help several understand some of our defensive flaws and why we struggle against the pass in our base set. Cliffs: 1. Our 2-gap requires players we have not acquired; it can still be effective but is much more difficult to do than a 1-gap philosophy. 2. The responsibilities for a 2-gap DE and NT are much more difficult than those of a 1-gap. 3. I personally would like to see our team go to a 1-gap. Attacking defensive lineman are much better served than run-stoppers in today's NFL. I know most will tl;dr, but if you disagree with it, post your thoughts. We have too much bitching on this site and not enough discussion about scheme, football philosophies, and concepts.
Posts: 18,453