IlluminatusUIUC
08-01-2013, 12:52 PM
http://www.itsalloverfatman.com/broncos/entry/introducing-the-defensive-scheme-type-indicator
I thought this was a really interesting article.
Dimension 1 – Front Play(S) Stack vs. (P) PenetrateMuch more important than how many defensive linemen have their hands down is the consideration of what they’re doing. Tactics are more important than alignment, and the truth is that alignment varies a great deal within all defensive schemes.
Another term for stack is “two-gap.” The defensive lineman who is two-gapping will tend to align in an even-numbered technique, head up on an offensive lineman, so that they can engage the guy, try to stand him up, and play both gaps to either side of him. You know how defensive ends in 3-4 schemes are often called “five-techniques?” More often than not, they align as four-techniques, head-up on the OT.
A scheme that is looking to penetrate can be said to be playing a one-gap approach. The linemen will tend to align in odd-numbered techniques, which will put them directly in gaps between offensive linemen. At the snap of the ball, they’re trying to penetrate that gap, and get in between those linemen.
Dimension 2 – Run Game Orientation(D) Downhill vs. (F) FlowThis is a question of how defenses combat a running game, and that tends to come in two flavors. In both, there’s an accounting that happens for eight gaps, but there’s a significant difference in how the cat is skinned. That difference plays out mainly in the type of linebackers you need.
Most of us have heard the term downhill running, and what I mean by downhill run defense is that the second-level defenders (linebackers and often, a safety) are aggressively filling run fits, and trying to get upfield first, and ask questions later. In a downhill gap containment concept, it’s all about winning the battle in as many gaps as possible, and giving a running back nowhere to go. The benefit is that you can more often win the run game battle when you guess right; the downside is that you make yourself extra-vulnerable to play-action.
A flow approach, on the other hand, calls for defenders to stay back a bit, read the play as it unfolds, and then run to the ball and make the tackle. This approach favors defenders with range and quick recognition ability. It’s a bit less aggressive in nature than a downhill approach, but once the defender makes his read, it gets pretty aggressive.
Dimension 3 – Coverage Orientation(M) Man to Man vs. (Z) ZoneHere’s something important that’s addressed not at all in the standard 3-4 vs. 4-3 nomenclature – what is a team doing in coverage to stop passing games?
This is a fairly simple distinction – does a team defend the pass primarily with man coverage or zone coverage? The question has a lot of implications for personnel acquisition, but one thing it doesn’t signify as much as it used to is how often the defense will blitz. Many zone teams now play fire-zone schemes, and blitz as frequently (or more) as predominantly man-coverage teams.
One thing I want to say in this category is that the type of zone that teams play is less important than whether they play man or zone. You’ll hear a team called a Tampa 2 team, and that’s somewhat descriptive, pointing to one specific wrinkle - the MLB carries an inside receiver down the field and basically ends up playing a deep third, making Tampa 2 really an uncommon version of Cover 3. The principal type of zone isn’t important enough to rate its own dimension, though, even if it does have a catchy name.
Dimension 4 – Pressure Orientation(B) Blitzing vs. (C) CoverageThis is probably the easiest dimension to discern from watching a game as a casual fan – how often does the team blitz? It’s a very important consideration if you’re trying to get to the character of a defense.
Think about it like this – If a defense is rushing four men, which is standard, they have seven men left over to defend the pass in some way. Are they more often bringing extra rushers beyond the four? If they are, we’re going to call that a blitzing team for this purpose.
If the defense is mostly dropping seven men into coverage on passing downs, we’re going to call that a coverage-focused team. Of course all teams blitz sometimes, but the ones which favor soundness in coverage more often than not are going to be C’s.
PFZC – Penetrating, Flowing, Zone, Coverage – 5 teamsAtlanta Falcons (4-3)
Buffalo Bills (3-4)
Chicago Bears (4-3)
Houston Texans (3-4)
Minnesota Vikings (4-3)
These defenses tend to be pretty similar to the PDZC group, but they’re oriented toward handling the run game by flowing from sideline-to-sideline. Here are still more 4-3 teams, and a couple of 3-4 defenses that play more like traditional 4-3 defenses.
Anyone think that's a correct prediction? I would think with Gilmore and McKelvin that we'd be moving towards a man to man scheme in the back end.
I thought this was a really interesting article.
Dimension 1 – Front Play(S) Stack vs. (P) PenetrateMuch more important than how many defensive linemen have their hands down is the consideration of what they’re doing. Tactics are more important than alignment, and the truth is that alignment varies a great deal within all defensive schemes.
Another term for stack is “two-gap.” The defensive lineman who is two-gapping will tend to align in an even-numbered technique, head up on an offensive lineman, so that they can engage the guy, try to stand him up, and play both gaps to either side of him. You know how defensive ends in 3-4 schemes are often called “five-techniques?” More often than not, they align as four-techniques, head-up on the OT.
A scheme that is looking to penetrate can be said to be playing a one-gap approach. The linemen will tend to align in odd-numbered techniques, which will put them directly in gaps between offensive linemen. At the snap of the ball, they’re trying to penetrate that gap, and get in between those linemen.
Dimension 2 – Run Game Orientation(D) Downhill vs. (F) FlowThis is a question of how defenses combat a running game, and that tends to come in two flavors. In both, there’s an accounting that happens for eight gaps, but there’s a significant difference in how the cat is skinned. That difference plays out mainly in the type of linebackers you need.
Most of us have heard the term downhill running, and what I mean by downhill run defense is that the second-level defenders (linebackers and often, a safety) are aggressively filling run fits, and trying to get upfield first, and ask questions later. In a downhill gap containment concept, it’s all about winning the battle in as many gaps as possible, and giving a running back nowhere to go. The benefit is that you can more often win the run game battle when you guess right; the downside is that you make yourself extra-vulnerable to play-action.
A flow approach, on the other hand, calls for defenders to stay back a bit, read the play as it unfolds, and then run to the ball and make the tackle. This approach favors defenders with range and quick recognition ability. It’s a bit less aggressive in nature than a downhill approach, but once the defender makes his read, it gets pretty aggressive.
Dimension 3 – Coverage Orientation(M) Man to Man vs. (Z) ZoneHere’s something important that’s addressed not at all in the standard 3-4 vs. 4-3 nomenclature – what is a team doing in coverage to stop passing games?
This is a fairly simple distinction – does a team defend the pass primarily with man coverage or zone coverage? The question has a lot of implications for personnel acquisition, but one thing it doesn’t signify as much as it used to is how often the defense will blitz. Many zone teams now play fire-zone schemes, and blitz as frequently (or more) as predominantly man-coverage teams.
One thing I want to say in this category is that the type of zone that teams play is less important than whether they play man or zone. You’ll hear a team called a Tampa 2 team, and that’s somewhat descriptive, pointing to one specific wrinkle - the MLB carries an inside receiver down the field and basically ends up playing a deep third, making Tampa 2 really an uncommon version of Cover 3. The principal type of zone isn’t important enough to rate its own dimension, though, even if it does have a catchy name.
Dimension 4 – Pressure Orientation(B) Blitzing vs. (C) CoverageThis is probably the easiest dimension to discern from watching a game as a casual fan – how often does the team blitz? It’s a very important consideration if you’re trying to get to the character of a defense.
Think about it like this – If a defense is rushing four men, which is standard, they have seven men left over to defend the pass in some way. Are they more often bringing extra rushers beyond the four? If they are, we’re going to call that a blitzing team for this purpose.
If the defense is mostly dropping seven men into coverage on passing downs, we’re going to call that a coverage-focused team. Of course all teams blitz sometimes, but the ones which favor soundness in coverage more often than not are going to be C’s.
PFZC – Penetrating, Flowing, Zone, Coverage – 5 teamsAtlanta Falcons (4-3)
Buffalo Bills (3-4)
Chicago Bears (4-3)
Houston Texans (3-4)
Minnesota Vikings (4-3)
These defenses tend to be pretty similar to the PDZC group, but they’re oriented toward handling the run game by flowing from sideline-to-sideline. Here are still more 4-3 teams, and a couple of 3-4 defenses that play more like traditional 4-3 defenses.
Anyone think that's a correct prediction? I would think with Gilmore and McKelvin that we'd be moving towards a man to man scheme in the back end.