Defensive Front Seven 101

[Ingtar33]

Alright, the season is over, and it's time to look to free agency and the draft to fix the myriad of problems confronting the Bills run defense.

To begin with, when you have a conversation about position and need, it's important we're talking the same language. I've seen the phrase 1 and 3 technique, as well as the phrase 1 and 2 gap tossed around rather inaccurately on these forums, and think it's time to focus the discussion a little.

As i always like to say, Football is not rocket science.

To begin with, we will start with defining what football scouts/coaches/insiders mean with the word "technique" when discussing the front 7 (mostly the DL)

1-Gap vs 2-Gap

1-Gap: A defensive player with a 1-gap assignment is ideally a smaller faster player. His duty is to knife upfield, in an assigned gap, gain penitration, and disrupt the play in the backfield. The overwhelming requirement for a 1-gap player is speed and quickness, he is, ideally, not playing to absorb blockers.

2-Gap: A defensive player with a 2-gap assignment is typically a larger, heavier and stronger defender. The 2-gap defender's job is to eat blockers, hold the line of scrimmage, wait for the ball carrier to commit to a side, and then react to the ball carrier's action. 3-4 defensive linemen and inside linebackers ( as well as their outside linebackers, depending on the scheme) are generally all 2-gap players.

Technique refers to the position the defensive linemen (or, less commonly, linebacker) lines up, at the snap. The following picture highlights the positions (or gaps) the linemen can line up at.


http://tkfiles.storage.msn.com/x1pjzF2-RYhxRVLuhnh7LObscfUBNne_TDN4wz_GPV47dIsLFVESXwTHki-hd2p69s1X7KJ6Xfm_6jR2qypa3U-mTssvaXe2g8duUO40tOfn2jX6t3laqv6Ww


On the Techniques
*note,I'll not cover all the positions for the sake of brevity. Most, due to the fact they are not base DL positions, rather situational ones.

0 - This is the technique the "classic" 3-4 Nose Tackle plays. Some 4-3 Schemes, like the 46, use an "unbalanced" defensive line and prefer to line a DT up over the center in the zero, either slanted or shaded to a side. Typically, the slant or shaded 0 is a pass rush or 1-Gap Alignment. Any DT who plays Nose Tackle in the NFL has to be huge, typically the bigger the better. Most alignments which utilize the NT (excepting when slanted) call for the NT to play 2-gap.

In the 4-3 the 0 technique MOST OF THE TIME is played by the Middle Linebacker with 2-gap responsibility. When the defense has a MLB playing the 0 technique, it will have a DT covering up the MLB with a 1 technique 2-Gap DT.

1 - The "classic" 4-3 DT plays the 1 technique 2-gap, primarily. This is Tim Anderson's responsibility in the Bills' Tampa 2

2 - The 2 technique is often the sole domain of the 3-4 MLB (both of them), it is a 2-gap position... (though some 'classic' balanced fronts for the 4-3 on passing downs will put it's DT's wide, and 1 gap them for a pass rush)

3 - This is a popular technique depending on the front and scheme can be played by any number of positions. In the Tampa 2 (and many unbalanced 4-3 fronts), this technique is covered by a DT, who is a 1-Gap defender. The 3-4 in many of it's fronts will have it's DE's sit here in a 1-Gap to clog the inside run, in short yardage.

5 - This is the most common technique played by 3-4 DEs, and "run stopping" 4-3 DE's in both unbalanced and balanced fronts. Trevor Pryce when he was on the Broncos was the best 5-technique player in pro football. Ideally, you want a 280-310 pound DE in the 5 technique, who can hold the point of attack. Depending on the scheme and abilities of the 5-technique DE, he will be called to play both 1 and 2 gap (though more 2 gap in the 3-4 and strong side 4-3 DE).

7- This is the most common technique for the pass rushing end in the 4-3 (1-gap) in an unbalanced front, or a passing down.

8- This is the most common technique for the 3-4 Strong Side Linebacker (2-Gap)


In the base Tampa 2 the Bills like to run, the assignments for the DL are ideally the following.

5/7/9 technique - Schobel
3 technique - Tripplet, McCargo
1 technique - Anderson
5/7 technique - Kelsey/Denney


How does all of this pertain to the Buffalo Bills?

-The main problems the Bills had this year were not penetration from it's 1 gap defenders. The basic problems the Bills had this year, was our 1 technique tackle rarely deserved a double team, and even more rarely, could hold the point of attack.

Without a 1 technique holding up a guard and center, the MLB cannot properly play his 0 technique, as his ability to cover his two gaps will be compromised by the fact he'll have to fight off blockers. When the center or guard is getting his hat on the MLB, most of the 4-3's run stopping ability is pretty much compromised.

Compound this with the fact, the Bills don't have a single DE who can 2-gap from the 5 technique effectively, and our run defense will look like it did.

[Devin]

AWESOME job Ingtar. That was a great explanation, appreciate the insight bud. Great read!!

[OpIv37]

Compound this with the fact, the Bills don't have a single DE who can 2-gap from the 5 technique effectively, and our run defense will look like it did.

because they compensate by putting the DE's wide, like outside the tackle to the side of the formation with no TE (the diagram shows two TE's although most offenses only use that set in short yardage situations).

Great info- thanks.

[Ingtar33]

well, in the Tampa-2 the DE's are in the 7 technique on a LOT of downs.

For a 7 technique, the general idea, is for the DE to get upfield in the "C" Gap, turning the play back inside to the MLB. The ideal, is the Tackle will be drawn away from the guard, creating an exploitable "b" gap for the 3 technique to hit.

When the DE is in the 9 technique, it's a long yardage passing down

The DE will play the 5 technique if the game plan calls for it (generally, against running teams), or on "running" downs.



There are a few ways to exploit the Tampa 2 on the ground, the easiest is to line up balanced with two TEs, and force the DL to commit to a side, then run at the weak side. (same strategy works well against the 46, and other unbalanced line schemes in the 4-3)

The other way, is to spread out, pulling the OLBs outside the tackles, and exploit the A or B-Gap with a pulling guard or FB.


*note the graphic has 2 TEs for illustration purposes. If the Offense lines up with a TE on the right side, those "techniques" apply to the weak side, even without a TE on the line.

[clumping platelets]

Excellent :up:

So, my question.........is how do we fix it?

Who can we get?

[Ingtar33]

well, if we're going to draft a DT to play 1 technique, we need someone who can 2 gap, with a large heavy body, who is not easy to move. Lots of teams are looking for those guys.

I highly doubt we're going to draft Okoye (unless we think he'll make a good DE, and are looking for a good 5 technique end), as we have several DT's who can play the 3 technique, and that is NOT our overwhelming need at the moment (not to say our 3 technique tackles were great, just that they were not the weak link on the line).

[clumping platelets]

Is DL Carriker from Nebraska a good fit?

[DraftBoy]

So would you at this point advocate going with a DE in Round 1 like Carriker, Anderson, Adams, Johnson, or Moses?

Also is this the main reason why we got burned alot on outside runs last year? The fact that, Tim Anderson blows, and that we were severly lacking on the LDE side?

Also where does Kyle Williams fit in?

I got a ton of more questions, but I dont want to bog you down.

[Devin]

Yeah I am def. curious to know what you think will at the very least help.

I know your NOT an advocate of going DT round 1.

[Coach Sal]

You did a good job of explaining, but not every team uses the same terminology for "techniques."

In fact, most systems I've been a part of and/or have watched coaches go over their schemes at clinics, use a slightly different numbering system than what you show here.

In most systems, the even numbers are al of the "head-up" techniques:

2 is head-up on the OG
4 is head-up on the OT
6 is head up on the TE

And the odd numbers would be the shades.

This makes it a lot less confusing and a lot more communicable for players/coaches.

To compensate for the #'s out of order, we have what we call a "4i technique" (which stands for 4-inside) for inside the OT.

Also, you wouldn't have three "0-techniques." It would be "strong shade" or "weak shade."

And just to clarify, when lining up in a "technique," it refers to either head-up (as I stated), or the "inside eye" or "outside eye" of the OL in front of you. It's important to note that because it's a precise alignment, not just "that general area."

So, in the system I just described, a playbook of definitions would read like this for a DL:

0 - Head-up on the Center
Strong shade - Eye of the Center to the TE side
Weak Shade - Eye of the Center away from the TE side
1 - Inside eye of the OG
2 - Head-up on OG
3 - Outside eye of the OG
4i - Inside eye of the OT
4 - Head-up on OT
5 - Outside eye of the OT
7 - Inside eye of the TE
6 - Head-up the TE
9 - Outside eye of the TE

There is no "8-technique" using this system of terminology....unless, of course, there is an unbalanced line.

Not trying to steal your thunder, you did a good job. Just trying to help out, elaborate, and explain the difference in systems.

[Saratoga Slim]

The main problems the Bills had this year were not penetration from it's 1 gap defenders. The basic problems the Bills had this year, was our 1 technique tackle rarely deserved a double team, and even more rarely, could hold the point of attack.

Without a 1 technique holding up a guard and center, the MLB cannot properly play his 0 technique, as his ability to cover his two gaps will be compromised by the fact he'll have to fight off blockers. When the center or guard is getting his hat on the MLB, most of the 4-3's run stopping ability is pretty much compromised.

Compound this with the fact, the Bills don't have a single DE who can 2-gap from the 5 technique effectively, and our run defense will look like it did.

With that said, what do you think about Fletcher? The prevailing wisdom around here blames him for not making enough plays at the line of scrimmage. But sounds like you think our 1 techinique DTs compromised Fletcher's effectiveness as a run stopper.

[EDS]

So we do need a fat bastard on the d-line!

[Philagape]

What a refreshing thread ... it illustrates the large gap between those who know the game and those who claim they do.

[Ingtar33]

You did a good job of explaining, but not every team uses the same terminology for "techniques."

In fact, most systems I've been a part of and/or have watched coaches go over their schemes at clinics, use a slightly different numbering system than what you show here.

In most systems, the even numbers are al of the "head-up" techniques:

2 is head-up on the OG
4 is head-up on the OT
6 is head up on the TE

And the odd numbers would be the shades.

This makes it a lot less confusing and a lot more communicable for players/coaches.

To compensate for the #'s out of order, we have what we call a "4i technique" (which stands for 4-inside) for inside the OT.

Also, you wouldn't have three "0-techniques." It would be "strong shade" or "weak shade."

And just to clarify, when lining up in a "technique," it refers to either head-up (as I stated), or the "inside eye" or "outside eye" of the OL in front of you. It's important to note that because it's a precise alignment, not just "that general area."

So, in the system I just described, a playbook of definitions would read like this for a DL:

0 - Head-up on the Center
Strong shade - Eye of the Center to the TE side
Weak Shade - Eye of the Center away from the TE side
1 - Inside eye of the OG
2 - Head-up on OG
3 - Outside eye of the OG
4i - Inside eye of the OT
4 - Head-up on OT
5 - Outside eye of the OT
7 - Inside eye of the TE
6 - Head-up the TE
9 - Outside eye of the TE

There is no "8-technique" using this system of terminology....unless, of course, there is an unbalanced line.

Not trying to steal your thunder, you did a good job. Just trying to help out, elaborate, and explain the difference in systems.

ah. well that is a terminology difference there.

I have seen the slant/shade in place of the three 0 techniques... though i did make mention of them briefly in my original post. When you're slanting over center you're 1 gapping.

Never quite seen the 'heads up' 4, vs a simple five.

Nor do i remember hearing, playing the TE heads up being called a 6, though we both are calling the inside shoulder of the TE a '7 technique.' and the outside shoulder a 9 technique.

Seems the most significant variation are on the Tackle, where a 5 in your list would be a 1 gap outside the shoulder, and a 5 in mine would be a 2 gap heads up.

But then I've never been a defensive coordinator, so i am, by no means an expert on all the variances in terminology.

[Ingtar33]

With that said, what do you think about Fletcher? The prevailing wisdom around here blames him for not making enough plays at the line of scrimmage. But sounds like you think our 1 techinique DTs compromised Fletcher's effectiveness as a run stopper.

that's pretty much the case.

It's hard for the MLB in ANY 4-3 to be effective when you're getting a center, a guard, a pulling guard, Fullback, or combination of all four, getting a clean block on the MLB every single running play.

no DC would expect his MLB to be effective in that situation. I know as an OC, i loved it when we could get a clean hat to the 2nd lvl on the MLB, it opened up a LOT of the running game, and usually was the difference between a 2 or 3 yard gain and a 7-20 yard gain.

Watch Ray Lewis or Brian Urlacher. The games they dominate, they do not have anyone in their face (that's the way of the 4-3 Mike). The Super Bowl, however, the Colts had a FB, or Guard... or on many plays, even the Center, getting his hat clean on Urlacher, which took him right out of the Super Bowl. I think BU had 1 tackle for a loss, the whole game (though it might have been for no gain).

If we want to make due, with the DT's we have, the only other solution would be to get a prototypical Mike out of a 3-4 (6'4", 260), and plug him in the middle, so that he can have a chance to fight off the blocks reaching him. The problem is, finding a prototypical 3-4 mike, who can run well enough to allow us to play the tampa-2

[Ingtar33]

Also is this the main reason why we got burned alot on outside runs last year? The fact that, Tim Anderson blows, and that we were severly lacking on the LDE side?

well, its a chain reaction.

Most of the gashing long runs against our D were through the B gap (between the guard and tackle), not the C (between the tackle and TE) or out to the D gap (outside the TE)

let me explain a little better.

When the 1 technique is not double teamed, and worse, CANNOT get off his block to fill the A gap, when the runner commits to a side, a four step chain-reaction happens.

1) the OC is confident the weak side guard can pull safely.
2) the strong side guard doesn't need to concern himself with blocking down to double team the center, and can take the 3-technique cleanly, and pretty much wherever he needs to, to open the intended running lanes.
3) the tackle doesn't have to worry about blocking down on the 3-technique, allowing him to take the DE right up the C gap, and into the backfield, out of the play.
4) With the DE safely handled, the TE can safely reach the 2nd level, to get a hat on the Sam (Strong Side Linebacker)

The result is, a gaping B or A gap (depending on the gap the 3 technique is trying to penetrate), which are the MLB's responsibility to fill.

The problem is, you now have a pulling guard/center who is likely accompanied by a fullback, who are leading the way into that gaping B-Gap.

The Bills were able to overcome this problem at times, due to match-ups that favored us enough, the blocking schemes had to be altered in "other" places, which limited our vulnerability. Mostly, when the other team's Guard couldn't manage our 3 technique solo, causing them to block down with their Tackle, and forcing them to try to take our end with a TE. Other-times their TEs couldn't get a clean hat on the OLB (sorta common), or their Tackle couldn't manage our DEs by himself (less common).

We were most successful stopping teams which would not go to a balanced alignment, with two TEs, to force us to pick the side we wanted to defend as strong, then run back into the A gap on weak-side cutbacks, or dives. With our DE out on the 5, and the DT in a 1, the weak-side guard would get a clean hat on the MLB.

Without a serious 1 technique 2-gap DT, the Bills can mitigate their problems with a dominant run stopping 5 technique 2 gap DE. This will, at least uncover our OLBs, which will allow us to clog the B gap.

However the weak-side A gap will remain a weakness, unless we get a 3-4 style MLB, who can run well enough to play the mike in a Tampa-2.

Not many of those dominant 5 technique guys around. If Trevor Pryce is a free agent, he might be an option. Even as a shell of his former self he's still pretty good.

[Tatonka]

so are you saying that kelsay and denny did poorly last season, or not? and how is schobel at his run stopping abililty?

[Ingtar33]

schobel is a typical 1-Gap right DE in a 4-3

Poor on the run, mostly because he's too light to play a two gap.

Few DE's who play in the 7 technique as often as he does, are any good against the run.

Kelsey and Denney are no more then backups in this league. Neither has shown me enough to prove he's a starting DE.

[clumping platelets]

Could Carriker fit into our D?

[DraftBoy]

schobel is a typical 1-Gap right DE in a 4-3

Poor on the run, mostly because he's too light to play a two gap.

Few DE's who play in the 7 technique as often as he does, are any good against the run.

Kelsey and Denney are no more then backups in this league. Neither has shown me enough to prove he's a starting DE.


So would you say any of the top 5 DE's are good fits for us? Or would a guy like Xsavie Jackson from Missouri be a better fit? A bigger quick DE.

[Statman]

It all inevitably boils down to one simple thing regardless of position, system, etc.

Talent!

Without players with the speed, quickness, and strength/power, it's all moot.

[Ingtar33]

Could Carriker fit into our D?


I've seen him 3 times now (on TV mind you), and i have to say i thought he looked amazing.

He's huge, quick and strong. What i liked was how he could 2-gap pretty much anyone he wanted, and in short yardage, never let the o-lineman get under him, despite looking like he was nearly 6'6"

I would be very pleased if he was one of our day one picks, as he has the makings of a dominant DE in the NFL.

[Ingtar33]

btw:

if you don't mind waiting a year or two, Carriker, also played, and dominated at DT during the Senior Bowl (from what i saw)

Let him add 10-20 pounds, another 2 years, and he might fill in at the 1 technique, DT (heck he's big enough and has good enough hands to probably step in his rookie year, and do no worse then tim anderson (probably be a great deal better for stretches), though i think he'd probably be a standout at the 3-technique, as well. just an amazing physical specimen)

[DraftBoy]

btw:

if you don't mind waiting a year or two, Carriker, also played, and dominated at DT during the Senior Bowl (from what i saw)

Let him add 10-20 pounds, another 2 years, and he might fill in at the 1 technique, DT (heck he's big enough and has good enough hands to probably step in his rookie year, and do no worse then tim anderson (probably be a great deal better for stretches), though i think he'd probably be a standout at the 3-technique, as well. just an amazing physical specimen)


Good to know, thanks for the insight. So would you say he's the 3rd rated DE? Higher, or Lower? I dont see much Big 12 ball out here, so I never really saw him at all.

[Ingtar33]

I'd be stunned if he lasts beyond the middle first round.

At least the three games i saw him in, he was like a man playing among boys, and was the key piece in what was a very good nebraska defense.

of course i've only seen him 3 times, so there might be some warts i've not seen. But in general, i'm pretty sure the nfl looks at his 6'6" size, very good quickness, great hand technique (something that dooms most DL in the NFL is they come out with poor hand fighting skills, and then prove to be incapable of ever learning them.)

[clumping platelets]

With the 12th pick of the 1st rd, the Buffalo Bills select..........Adam Carriker, DL, Universitt of Nebraska

:pray:

[DraftBoy]

With the 12th pick of the 1st rd, the Buffalo Bills select..........Adam Carriker, DL, Universitt of Nebraska

:pray:


Would not be a bad pick at this point.

[Night Train]

Carriker is OK. His teammate, DE Jay Moore, had a better season but Carriker has better measurables at 6-6 292.
Okoye lined up at DE in many drills during Senior Bowl week and saw some duty there during the season. His pass rush/spin move is cat quick and miles ahead of anyone else at this point.

[Phelge]

So with Unsigned FA Dissapointment Tim Anderson about to be released so he can reunite with Tim Krumrie for more wrasslin' matches, isn't Kyle Williams - the Surprise DT Player of the Year too small to play the nose? Doesn't this argue for drafting a DT early?

[Don't Panic]

Doesn't this argue for drafting a DT early?

Early as in day one, sure - but 1st round? I don't know about that. Also, not a knock on Carriker or Okoye (as a DE), but there seem to be a lot of DE's in the 30 to 45 range on a lot of the draft boards. That may effect how we think at #12.

[Devin]

Honestly right now unless someone falls id think we take Willis, but who knows with Marv.

[Devin]

Which for the record isnt a bad pick imo, but id much rather see us take a DE.

[mchurchfie]

Anything but another cornerback.:drool: