jmt57

When you hear the term 'gap', think the space - or 'gap' - between offensive linemen. One-gap and two-gap refers to a defensive player either being responsible for one of those gaps, or two of those gaps.

Hopefully this alpha-numeric illustration aligns enough to help.


OT ... OG ... C ... OG ... OT ... TE
... DE ... DT ... DT ... DE ...


In the illustration above you can see the defensive end (DE) in the 'gap' between the tackle (OT) and guard (OG), the defensive tackle (DT) in the gap between the guard and center (C), etc.

If the only responsibility of those defensive players was that gap directly in front of them, that would be a one-gap system.


But what if, for example, the defense lines up something like this?

OT ... OG ... C ... OT ... OG ... TE
DE ... DT ... DT ... _ ... DE .... OLB

In a two-gap system, that DT on the left-hand side is responsible for the gap to his left (between the tackle and guard) and also the gap to his right (between the guard and center.)


The pros and cons:

A one-gap system allows a player to just go off, shoot the gap, and make a play. It allows for the team to take advantage of a players aggressive athleticism and should result in more big plays, whether it be a sack, tackle for a loss, or a hit on the opposing QB resulting in a turnover.

The downside is that while a defensive player is rushing upfield the opponent is running right past him in another gap, or the protection for the quarterback is set up that he runs right past the QB while he steps up in the pocket and completes his pass.

Essentially it is a high-risk, high-reward style of defense.


A two-gap defense is more difficult for a defensive player because he has more responsibility: two gaps. That player can't just bull rush forward; he has to read and react, all while being attacked by 300-lb behemoths opposite him. The redundancy of having two players responsible for most gaps means that even even if one player is beat, another is there to fill in the gap. By design it means there will probably be fewer sacks and tackles for a loss, but at the same time fewer long runs and there should in theory be fewer times when the opposing QB can step up in the pocket with lots of time to throw (though as we have seen the last couple of years, that is not always the case.)



... back to your original question: what Sciz was referring to was that the Pats had set up a play where Haynesworth was only responsible for one-gap - i.e., take advantage of his skill set and let him just push forward rather than read and react - while the rest of the defense was still in a two-gap mindset.



Hope that's not too technical and makes sense; but I will say that is a very good question.

If I didn't answer correctly some of the other X's and O's guys will hopefully expand and clarify.

neuronet

That was an amazingly clear and helpful post!!!!

__________________
Ice_Ice_Brady writes:
The difference is that Brady calmly calls audibles while Manning flaps like a chicken, barks 11 code words, and makes sure every camera in the stadium has documented his once-in-a-generation (and patented, I believe) ability to see a defensive formation and change the play. Both have the same effect, but Manning transcends measurable human intellect while Brady merely chooses a different play.

chicowalker

I don't think I had ever heard until tonight that illegal contact rules don't apply if the QB is out of the pocket.

Given that, is it a free for all on receivers if the QB scrambles at all, or is it just that the rules are somewhat modified?

jmt57

I hadn't heard that before either. Apparently once the QB is out of the pocket it is treated like a running play, where receivers can block and defenders get off of those blocks. But it's a strange rule because what happens once the QB passes the ball when he's outside the pocket? It seems as though the way the rule is that in that scenario there's no penalty for illegal contact prior to a pass being thrown, but you can still have pass interference after the ball is thrown?

If the call was correct - and that is a very big if - I'm surprised it doesn't happen more often, especially with quarterbacks like Roethlisberger or Vick.

I am looking forward to an explanation from the league offices this week, to see if the officials made the right call or not.

rlcarr

Better yet, after any fair catch the receiving team can elect to attempt a field goal from the spot of the catch, even if time expired before the catch.

And even better than that, the kick is a free kick -- the defense has to stay behind a line 10 yards away from the ball until it is kicked. Basically, it looks just like a kickoff, except no tee can be used. If the ball goes through the uprights, it's 3 points. (Google for "fair catch kick" or "fair catch free kick".)

rlcarr

QB being out of the pocket does not cancel pass interference (doesn't cancel defensive holding, either). So that's the danger with mauling receivers when the QB is on the run. As soon as he throws it you're committing PI. And you could be called for holding if you grab too much.

chicowalker

same goes for hitting receivers w/in 5 yards, though -- and it would only be pass interference is your man is the intended receiver, right?

Wax Frog

A notion that's been coming to mind alot lately - would it totally screw up the game if, at least in the case of major penalties, a half-the-distance assessment would instead be a safety?

chicowalker

I was surprised by the roughing call on the Pats yesterday that nullified the INT. I know there's a rule regarding low hits ("Brady rule," right?), but I didn't think it applied to all hits below the knee -- I thought it was for defenders who had already been knocked down or something.

Are all hits below the knee now illegal? Does that mean that tripping up a scrambling QB by his foot, for example, now warrants a personal foul?

neuronet

Good question. I was shocked by that penalty.

__________________
Ice_Ice_Brady writes:
The difference is that Brady calmly calls audibles while Manning flaps like a chicken, barks 11 code words, and makes sure every camera in the stadium has documented his once-in-a-generation (and patented, I believe) ability to see a defensive formation and change the play. Both have the same effect, but Manning transcends measurable human intellect while Brady merely chooses a different play.