My Blueprint for the Defense

mayoclinic said:

Some miscellaneous responses and thoughts:

Click to expand...

What did you think of the draft overall, Mayo ?

mayoclinic said:

I would love to see a 5-2 "base" with a DL such as the following:

LDE Ninkovich/Hightower - 3/5-tech Kelly/Armstead - NT Wilfork/Siliga - 3T Easley/Chr. Jones - RDE Cha. Jones/Buchanan

In "sub" (70% of the time), either the NT, 3/5 tech or LDE would come off the field, depending on the specific opponent and scheme, morphing into a 4-2-5 (over or under, depending on who drops out) / 3-3-5 (with someone standing up) / 5-1-5 (with someone moving up on the line) / 4-1-6 (with a LB playing more of a hybrid LB/S role, or with a 6th DB playing a hybrid role).




- "Base DE's" who have the strength and power to anchor but also the athleticism and flexibility to stand up at times and play different roles. Shilique Calhoun (6'4" 250#), Dante Fowler (6'3" 266#, has played LB and all over the DL), and Bronson Kaufusi (6'6" 270#; moving from DE to OLB this year) all fall into those role. Cedric Reed (6'5" 258#), Marcus Golden (6'3" 260#) and Trey Flowers (6'3" 263#) could possibly also fit in here.

- "Edge rushers", who are mainly attacking players (pass rushers), whether as DEs or OLBs. Randy Gregory (more like Anthony Barr than Chandler Jones, IMO), Vic Beasley, Noah Spence I don't see this group as being as interesting to me as the other two groups, but that's JMO.

As far as LB/S space players, I should have included Landon Collins in my list. Josh Harvey-Clemons has transferred to Louisville and will sit out 2014 so I don't expect him to come out until 2016; Derrick Moncrief (who I think will be a big time player) is a JUCO transfer and also unlikely to come out until 2016, and Myles Jack is a true sophomore and not draft eligible. But between Landon Collins, Cody Prewitt, Justin Garrett, Shaq Thompson, Ronald Martin and Derrick Malone I think there is going to be a pretty deep group for 2015.

There's plenty of time to see how the 2014 defense pans out and what the needs are for 2015, but there is a ton of exciting talent coming down the pipeline.

Click to expand...

The spread offense makes the 5-2 a dinosaur. We are way, way, way too slow at de for that to work. You're taking a weakside lb out and replacing him with a de? Denver and many teams play 3 wr's and a te. The qb looks right and the rb flares out left to Chandler Jones side and he's gonna cover him? Not a chance. Wold be great against the wishbone. Just not against Peyton Manning. Te's and wr's would chew it up too.

patsfaninpa said:

The spread offense makes the 5-2 a dinosaur.

Click to expand...

No it doesn't, a 5-2-4 base is near perfect for a team going 3 WR, you have 3 corners and a single high safety and the OL are forced to match up one on one with the pass rush.

Let's use Denver as an example like you did:
D. Thomas: Browner (he hates being hit and loses interest, Browner is perfect for that)
Sanders: Revis
Welker: Dennard
J. Thomas: Collins/McCourty
Ball: Collins/McCourty

Press man to ruin the timing routes and the 5 DL force the OL to match up 1 on one with Easley, Chandler Jones and Kelly.

Big-T said:

No it doesn't, a 5-2-4 base is near perfect for a team going 3 WR, you have 3 corners and a single high safety and the OL are forced to match up one on one with the pass rush.

Let's use Denver as an example like you did:
D. Thomas: Browner (he hates being hit and loses interest, Browner is perfect for that)
Sanders: Revis
Welker: Dennard
J. Thomas: Collins/McCourty
Ball: Collins/McCourty

Press man to ruin the timing routes and the 5 DL force the OL to match up 1 on one with Easley, Chandler Jones and Kelly.

Click to expand...

You want to put Revis on their 4th best receiver?

Revis-D. Thomas-Takes him out of the game.

Browner-J. Thomas

Arrington-Welker

Dennard-Sanders

One thing that I keep thinking about Easley is that, although its not the same position, he will replace some of what we lost from losing Spikes. Spikes was constantly propped up as a playmaker, and was always trying to jump the snap count and make an impact at the line of scrimmage. Unfortunately, he didnt have the speed to recover in the play, making him a difficult player to keep on the filed consistently in a league that would tear apart defenses that are out of position. Easley brings a lot of that snap count impact, but from within his interior position, meaning he will be able to stay on the field more often and allow other people play their position more effectively.

Spikes was one of the few on our team that could swing a series and game by a few creative plays, but could also take a lot of things off the table. I think Easley will be do all of the positive without taking anything away from his team.

Big-T said:

No it doesn't, a 5-2-4 base is near perfect for a team going 3 WR, you have 3 corners and a single high safety and the OL are forced to match up one on one with the pass rush.

Let's use Denver as an example like you did:
D. Thomas: Browner (he hates being hit and loses interest, Browner is perfect for that)
Sanders: Revis
Welker: Dennard
J. Thomas: Collins/McCourty
Ball: Collins/McCourty

Press man to ruin the timing routes and the 5 DL force the OL to match up 1 on one with Easley, Chandler Jones and Kelly.

Click to expand...

You're covering 5 guys one on one with no help. Yeah, that'll work. Amazing some NFL teams haven't thought of it.

patsfaninpa said:

You're covering 5 guys one on one with no help. Yeah, that'll work. Amazing some NFL teams haven't thought of it.

Click to expand...

Seattle did it a lot last year, they even used a 6 man defensive line at times.

If you have the players talented enough to match up one on one in coverage, why not do it? One team was bold enough and they had a dominant defense in a league striving for passing superiority.

Mayo could cover Ball though if you match it up vs Denver leaving McCourty covering as a single high Safety, which works better.

Big-T said:

Seattle did it a lot last year, they even used a 6 man defensive line at times.

If you have the players talented enough to match up one on one in coverage, why not do it? One team was bold enough and they had a dominant defense in a league striving for passing superiority.

Mayo could cover Ball though if you match it up vs Denver leaving McCourty covering as a single high Safety, which works better.

Click to expand...

They did not play 5 DL at the same time. They may have blitzed a lb. But, I am calling horsebleep until you show me any NFL team that played 5 DL outside of goal-line or maybe a short-yardage play. I'm not talking about lining Bobby Wagner up outside your de. But, a regular DL lining up and playing it that way.

Don't make it seem like that's the reason Seattle's defense works. They have great coverage ability. Bobby Wagner runs about a 4.45 forty. NFL teams are trying to get faster and more coverage ability. The 4-2-5 is the base defense against good qb's. With a couple of exceptions. We don't have the speed at lb to do that. You intentionally make your defense slower by playing 5 DL, meanwhile 32 NFL teams are looking for ways to get faster puh-leez. If your olb's can run, the 4-3 will still work. Mayo and Hightower just do not play well enough in space for it to work for the Pats. Replace Hightower with Levonte David, maybe.

To give our nickel package a lot of flexibility, I'd like to see Hightower, ?LDT maybe Armstead, Easley and Chandler Jones on the DL. Hightower at Ninko's spot gives you the ability to rush him, play him inside with Mayo and move Jamie Collins around.

http://seattletimes.com/html/sports/2022836501_hughmillen05xml.html

Here's the super bowl highlights. Go to the 1:33 mark and look at the personnel in their 5 man pass rush. It's their DL; Avril, Bennett(Good idea lining him up at dt), McDonald, Clemons. Their 3 lb's standing up are; Wright 50, Wagner 54 and Smith 53. Their secondary is Sherman, Chancellor, Thomas and Thurmond. They blitzed a linebacker and stunted the RDE and RDT. They don't play 5 defensive linemen. They rush 5. A blitzing lb.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-...er-Bowl-XLVIII-Seahawks-vs-Broncos-highlights

patsfaninpa said:

They did not play 5 DL at the same time. They may have blitzed a lb. But, I am calling horsebleep until you show me any NFL team that played 5 DL outside of goal-line or maybe a short-yardage play. I'm not talking about lining Bobby Wagner up outside your de. But, a regular DL lining up and playing it that way.

Don't make it seem like that's the reason Seattle's defense works. They have great coverage ability. Bobby Wagner runs about a 4.45 forty. NFL teams are trying to get faster and more coverage ability. The 4-2-5 is the base defense against good qb's. With a couple of exceptions. We don't have the speed at lb to do that. You intentionally make your defense slower by playing 5 DL, meanwhile 32 NFL teams are looking for ways to get faster puh-leez. If your olb's can run, the 4-3 will still work. Mayo and Hightower just do not play well enough in space for it to work for the Pats. Replace Hightower with Levonte David, maybe.

To give our nickel package a lot of flexibility, I'd like to see Hightower, ?LDT maybe Armstead, Easley and Chandler Jones on the DL. Hightower at Ninko's spot gives you the ability to rush him, play him inside with Mayo and move Jamie Collins around.

http://seattletimes.com/html/sports/2022836501_hughmillen05xml.html

Click to expand...

I agree, they don't have the players at LB to pull that off. Shazier would have been another step in that direction but you have to have phenomenal cover ability at LB to play any kind of 5-2-4 scheme. Now if they want to bring browner into the box to play what would amount to a 5-3-3 that could work.


I am really starting to feel like i am posting on a soccer messageboard.

patsfaninpa said:

The spread offense makes the 5-2 a dinosaur.

Click to expand...

The old 5-2 "monster" is a dinosaur and went out a long time ago, but the 5-2 is alive and well as part of a multi-front hybrid defense. Many teams have used 5-2-4 bases mixed in among their hybrid packages, including Seattle - who's 5-2 package is termed their "bear" front - Ray Horton (DC with Cleveland last year, and now for Tennessee, who has openly spoken of it as part of his hybrid scheme), and the Patriots. See posts 918, 921, and 923-926 above, among others. See also:

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2013/10/1/4787546/the-seahawks-and-multiple-defensive-fronts
http://www.milehighreport.com/2013/5/1/3969150/strictly-my-opinion-the-5-2-defense

See particularly post 926, citing some of Mike Reiss' defensive snap analysis from 2013 where he identified numerous instances where the Pats ran a 5-2 base.

From my perspective, the 5-2 will be a significant part of the Pats's multi-front base defense given what they've done in the past 2 years, and it's only a question of evolving the personnel to make this hybrid defense more effective. Dominique Easley was one guy I singled out as being a particularly good fit on the DL for such an approach. I think that claiming that the 5-2 is a "dinosaur" or denying that teams play it is simply sticking your head in the sand.

With that in mind, I agree with several of the reservations listed, and would note:

1. The Pats will likely run a multi-front hybrid defense, using 3, 4 and 5 man fronts, and there will not be any single predominant formation. I certainly didn't mean to imply that the Pats would run a 5-2 base the majority of the time - I think they will use it selectively, and will make adjustments based on what seems to work against a given opponent. As Ray Horton has noted (in an article which I've cited above in this thread), what matters is not so much how many men line up on the line of scrimmage from play to play, but the general philosophy and approach of the defense.

http://www.musiccitymiracles.com/2014/1/21/5327854/ray-hortons-hybrid-defense-a-primer

I've suggested in this thread that the Pats are moving away from a more conservative gap-control "bend but don't break" approach to more of an aggressive mutli-front attacking defense such as Horton describes, and I think that the Jones, Easley and Collins picks are consistent with that movement.

2. The Pats will play a sub defense with 5 or more DBs about 70% of the time, anyway.

3. I agree with Ivan that the 5-2 defense puts a lot of pressure on your LBs to be able to cover a lot of ground. IMO Jerod Mayo and Jamie Collins can get the job done, but I would have preferred the team to make more of an investment in speedy LBs with range.

4. I personally agree with you that you probably wouldn't want to run a 5-2 base against Denver. The Pats have played almost exclusively in sub defense against the Bronco's spread, and that could continue. Seattle didn't use the 5-2 against Denver in the SB (as you note), but they did play mostly out of their 4-3 base rather than using a sub defense, which was a surprise. The 5-2 base is more likely to be useful against power running teams and teams with mobile QBs, including the Jets, Bills, 49ers and Seahawks than against more spread oriented teams like the Broncos. But I agree with Big-T that you can make it work if the personnel are good enough, and the back end of our defense is going to be very, very good this year.

I don't have a problem with taking a lb and moving him down to the line and blitzing him. He's still a lb lined up as a de. He can move back to lb if the defense calls an audible. I do not want 5 defensive linemen on the field. There's a big difference. The number of de's who can play in space isn't very large. That's my only problem with the 5-2 you proposed for us. The 5 you''re putting out there.

mayoclinic said:

I would love to see a 5-2 "base" with a DL such as the following:

LDE Ninkovich/Hightower - 3/5-tech Kelly/Armstead - NT Wilfork/Siliga - 3T Easley/Chr. Jones - RDE Cha. Jones/Buchanan

Click to expand...

Presumably, you meant "package", as in "one of many."

Even in this Modern Era of SubPackages, the "52" as a "base" ~ thus presumably getting the largest share of Snaps ~ would get obliterated by Aerial 21st Century Offenses.

As a SubPackage, though, it would be very intriguing in Short Yardage situations.

patsfaninpa said:

I don't have a problem with taking a lb and moving him down to the line and blitzing him. He's still a lb lined up as a de. He can move back to lb if the defense calls an audible. I do not want 5 defensive linemen on the field. There's a big difference.

The number of de's who can play in space isn't very large.

That's my only problem with the 5-2 you proposed for us: The 5 you're putting out there.

Click to expand...

Bingo!! I don't want Jones or Buchanon dropping into Coverage, if I can help it.

Off The Grid said:

Presumably, you meant "package", as in "one of many."

Even in this Modern Era of SubPackages, the "52" as a "base" ~ thus presumably getting the largest share of Snaps ~ would get obliterated by Aerial 21st Century Offenses.

As a SubPackage, though, it would be very intriguing in Short Yardage situations.

Click to expand...

Terminology confusion!!!

Pretty much everyone continues to use the term "base" to refer to defensive formations with 4 DBs, even though almost all teams run "sub" formations with 5 or more DBs 70% of the time, so I've continued to use those antiquated terms. Hence the use of " " to designate that the terms are terms of art, not accurate designations based on snap percentage.

As for "one of many", I've said several times - including a couple of posts above - that I would expect the defense to be "multiple", implying that the 5-2 would be only "one of many" fronts used in the "base" the minority of the time. I think I was pretty clear about that:

Mayoclinic said:

The Pats will likely run a multi-front hybrid defense, using 3, 4 and 5 man fronts, and there will not be any single predominant formation. I certainly didn't mean to imply that the Pats would run a 5-2 base the majority of the time.

Click to expand...

Since the "base" is only used about 30% of the time and the 5-2 would be one of many fronts used in this base, you might expect to see it used about 10-15% of the time at the most in terms of snap counts. I wouldn't expect many 5 man fronts in "sub" packages (with 5 or more DBs).

Take a 5 man "DL" of Ninkovich/Hightower - Kelly/Armstead - Wilfork - Easley - Jones and move Nink/Hightower out over the TE as the "SAM" LB (or bring Collins up on the TE and drop Hightower to MLB) and you are running a 4-3 under.

I think that far more important than the percentage of snaps lined up in any particular way is the ability to morph seamlessly between 3, 4 and 5 man fronts and different back end coverage schemes, using a lot of pre- and post-snap adjustments to confuse opposing defenses and to adapt to the specific calls. I certainly don't want Jones or Buchanan dropping into coverage a lot, but I'd like them to be capable of doing it from time to time when called for.

mayoclinic said:

Pretty much everyone continues to use the term "base" to refer to defensive formations with 4 DBs...

Click to expand...

Ah...no.

No, pretty much everyone uses the term "base" to refer to...their Base Defense.

1 ~ The fact that most "Bases" feature 4 Backs does not make the terms synonymous.

2 ~ Yes, in this Era of Amorphous D's, Base Defenses get a far thinner slice of the Pie Chart than before.

3 ~ But they still get the largest slice.

4 ~ Hence, their designation as the "Base Defense".

5 ~ And you specifically noted that, in your Vision, we'd be in your "base" 30% of the time:

"In "sub" (70% of the time)..."

6 ~ Post #1019: Those are your exact words, Bro.

7 ~ Like I said: I believe that that "base" Defense of yours would get torched.

8 ~ But it's intriguing as a Sub Package.

Big-T said:

No it doesn't, a 5-2-4 base is near perfect for a team going 3 WR, you have 3 corners and a single high safety and the OL are forced to match up one on one with the pass rush.

Let's use Denver as an example like you did:
D. Thomas: Browner (he hates being hit and loses interest, Browner is perfect for that)
Sanders: Revis
Welker: Dennard
J. Thomas: Collins/McCourty
Ball: Collins/McCourty

Press man to ruin the timing routes and the 5 DL force the OL to match up 1 on one with Easley, Chandler Jones and Kelly.

Click to expand...

Personally, I would go with –

Revis = D Thomas
Dennard = Welker
Ryan = Sanders
Browner = J Thomas
McCourty = centerfield

Do not get me wrong I like Browner a lot but his legend is exaggerated amongst the fans on this board. He is a very good CB and has the size to excel covering TEs but he is not Revis and should not be covering a top five WR like D Thomas when we have Revis.

Initially I think Easley will see time strictly in sub packages. I do agree with your thinking however. There are some variations of the 4-3/5-2, which Easley and Armstead will allow us to run.

-Sam LB-Ninkovich-Collins-Hightower
-5tech LE-Easley-Armstead-Jones (DE)-Smith
-1tech NT-Wilfork-Kelly-Siliga-Jones (DT)
-3tech DT-Kelly-Easley-Armstead-Jones (DT)
-Leo DE-Jones (DE)-Ninkovich-Buchanan-Smith-Moore

-Mike LB-Hightower-Mayo-Beauharnais
-Will LB-Mayo-Collins-Hightower

Question to the assembled Brains Trust.

How does the no-huddle affect all of this?

It's one thing to plan a series of varied packages to counter different formations, but it's no good if you can't get your personnel substituted onto the field. It strikes me that the option to substitute is becoming more valuable to the defense than to the offense -- a good reason to use the no-huddle even when your team isn't under time pressure.

Mike the Brit said:

Question to the assembled Brains Trust.

How does the no-huddle affect all of this?

It's one thing to plan a series of varied packages to counter different formations, but it's no good if you can't get your personnel substituted onto the field. It strikes me that the option to substitute is becoming more valuable to the defense than to the offense -- a good reason to use the no-huddle even when your team isn't under time pressure.

Click to expand...

Awesome Question!!

My Two Cents:

1 ~ The Salary Cap imposes Relentless Roster Churn upon us all.

2 ~ That means that we've got a very narrow Window of Time within which to develop our Talent.

3 ~ As such, I believe it behooves us to leverage our Talent as efficiently as possible.

4 ~ Yet at the same time, the Modern Era demands an Amorphous Defense.

5 ~ In English ~ for those joining in ~ that means Drafting & Developing an highly Talented, Highly Trained Defense with the Capacity to play highly effectively on all 3 Downs ~ without Substitutions.

6 ~ As I see it, we need to focus our Resources on a Defense that can indeed effectively play all 3 Downs, but is not so spread out in its myriad capabilities ~ as I'm afraid we've become, these last few Years ~ that we are Jacks of All Trades & Masters of None. Flexible But Focused, I say!!

7 ~ The SeaHawks have dramatically illustrated that a focused approach always works best.

8~ Putting all that together, I recommend going one of three possible ways:

9 ~ Forge a Defensive Roster built around the 434 with lots of Speed at the 2nd Level.

10 ~ Or forge a Defensive Roster built around the 344...with lots of Speed at the 2nd Level!!

11 ~ Or just Take The Next Step and build a 425 Base...one that can switch to a 245 instantly.

12 ~ Any of the 3 could produce amazing Success, if we focus on one!!