Pats playing a game of "Pepper"

[Box_O_Rocks]

http://www.bostonsportsreview.com/200609_story_patriots.asp

..."ball disruption."

Your New England Patriots didn't quite invent the term, but they do have a pretty respectable claim to being ardent practitioners of the "art." Understandably, in the seasons when the Pats do the most stripping, pass-deflecting and flat-out intercepting, they have traditionally had their most success.
-----
Here at the Big Razor, though, those scales get tipped with heavy thumbs. And a dash of Pepper.
-----
...New England Patriots 2006 media guide...offers the insufficient heading of "defensive line" coach for 42-year-old Detroit native Thomas "Pepper" Johnson, the 20-year NFL veteran (13 seasons playing and seven as a Belichick assistant).

While Johnson most certainly spends the bulk of his time with the D-line (anchored by four-year Pro Bowler Richard Seymour), it may be his role as the ball disruption instructor (BDI, for our purposes) that most accurately represents his significance to this Patriots "reign."

"Peps is Peps," cornerback Randall Gay said with a smile to fill his facemask. "The drills he does is to get us to focus on the ball — stripping it, tipping it.
-----
So exact is the art of ball disruption, that Seymour told the Boston Globe in 2003 that the team watched video specifically to assess ball-carrying vulnerabilities in opponents: "Pepper is in charge of ball disruption. It's fresh in our minds who we can get the ball out of, how the quarterback holds the ball when he's running trying to scramble around. So we're conscious of it. It's definitely a conscious effort to try to take the ball away."

 

[Tunescribe]

That's why I don't wear boxer shorts.

 

[CrazyDave]

Thanks for the link. Good read.
Ball disruption. Turnovers were conspicuosly absent last year. Or so it seemed. Studying the way different players carry the ball? Far Out.

 

[patsfan55]

all jokes aside, thats pretty amazing

 

[PlattsFan]

Every once in a while, sort of by accident, we get a glimpse at the way Belichick really thinks about things. Here in this article, we get:

We set up different drills to make our players aware of those situations so they can try to, what we call, disrupt the ball or take the ball off whatever course it is on, whether it be a runner carrying it or a quarterback passing it or whatever, it is to be somehow disruptive specifically to the ball, how to dislodge it, how to affect the passing lanes.

That's a good insight into how the man thinks about defense. The offense wants to follow a certain path, and the job of the defense is all about disrupting that path, whether it's setting a good edge on a running play to redirect the path the ball is taking, making receivers take different paths in a route, or even disrupting the play-calling flow of an offense by taking away the one or two things it does best.

That's a good look at how his defense, with its read-n-react linemen, is different from a smaller, one-gap style defense. Those defenses are all about attacking the ball with as many people as possible and flowing to the play, meeting the ball carrier at the point of attack of the play. Belichick's defenses are about a big, strong front seven destroying the shape of the play so that the point of attack never really forms.

It's why the LBs in his system take on the guards rather than just attack the ball carrier. They're taking on the play, not the running back. It's why, when the Patriots defense is really on, you don't see guys running free to make big hits as much as you do in other defenses when they are playing well. You just see huge pile-ups at the line, chaos in the offense, and QBs gesturing to their receivers about the route they were supposed to take (Peyton Manning, anyone?). The offense has no shape to it. Too many offenses make the mistake of thinking that they could've just executed their plays better, but what really happened is that the Patriots D destroyed the plays the offense was running on a fundamental level, it disrupted the path the ball was supposed to take.

The reporter wrote a story about ball disruption making the usual mistake of thinking that "ball disruption" equals turnovers. What Belichick is trying to tell the guy is that turnovers are a result of ball disruption, but that's not what ball disruption really means for the Pats.

 

[Brownfan80]

I still remember Pepper's drills where he stands ten yards away from the LBs and DRILLS the ball right at them. I still remember where that exact situation came up in a game, and Bruschi snagged the Dolphin pass and ran the short way back into the snow filled endzone and helped shape Patriot history.

 

[flutie2phelan]

PlattsFan, that's a very fruitful interpretation
of what's going on
when the D is going right.

 

[PlattsFan]

PlattsFan, that's a very fruitful interpretation
of what's going on
when the D is going right.

Thanks. It's one thing I really like about Belichick ... if you listen carefully, you get some really interesting insights. He keeps them hidden really well, but it's better than a guy who talks a lot but has nothing to say.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Every once in a while, sort of by accident, we get a glimpse at the way Belichick really thinks about things. Here in this article, we get:


That's a good insight into how the man thinks about defense. The offense wants to follow a certain path, and the job of the defense is all about disrupting that path, whether it's setting a good edge on a running play to redirect the path the ball is taking, making receivers take different paths in a route, or even disrupting the play-calling flow of an offense by taking away the one or two things it does best.

That's a good look at how his defense, with its read-n-react linemen, is different from a smaller, one-gap style defense. Those defenses are all about attacking the ball with as many people as possible and flowing to the play, meeting the ball carrier at the point of attack of the play. Belichick's defenses are about a big, strong front seven destroying the shape of the play so that the point of attack never really forms.

It's why the LBs in his system take on the guards rather than just attack the ball carrier. They're taking on the play, not the running back. It's why, when the Patriots defense is really on, you don't see guys running free to make big hits as much as you do in other defenses when they are playing well. You just see huge pile-ups at the line, chaos in the offense, and QBs gesturing to their receivers about the route they were supposed to take (Peyton Manning, anyone?). The offense has no shape to it. Too many offenses make the mistake of thinking that they could've just executed their plays better, but what really happened is that the Patriots D destroyed the plays the offense was running on a fundamental level, it disrupted the path the ball was supposed to take.

The reporter wrote a story about ball disruption making the usual mistake of thinking that "ball disruption" equals turnovers. What Belichick is trying to tell the guy is that turnovers are a result of ball disruption, but that's not what ball disruption really means for the Pats.

Bump - this analysis is a must read!

:rocker:

Edit: If Ian does get around to creating a football knowledge forum, this needs to be there.

 

[Patriots4Ever]

Thats a nice article.Im Curious,Are we among the only teams that designate member of the staff for Ball stripping and tipping techniques?It seems as though this is what they ask of him side from being LB Coach.Or Am I wrong in this assumption?

 

[patsox23]

Every once in a while, sort of by accident, we get a glimpse at the way Belichick really thinks about things. Here in this article, we get:


That's a good insight into how the man thinks about defense. The offense wants to follow a certain path, and the job of the defense is all about disrupting that path, whether it's setting a good edge on a running play to redirect the path the ball is taking, making receivers take different paths in a route, or even disrupting the play-calling flow of an offense by taking away the one or two things it does best.

That's a good look at how his defense, with its read-n-react linemen, is different from a smaller, one-gap style defense. Those defenses are all about attacking the ball with as many people as possible and flowing to the play, meeting the ball carrier at the point of attack of the play. Belichick's defenses are about a big, strong front seven destroying the shape of the play so that the point of attack never really forms.

It's why the LBs in his system take on the guards rather than just attack the ball carrier. They're taking on the play, not the running back. It's why, when the Patriots defense is really on, you don't see guys running free to make big hits as much as you do in other defenses when they are playing well. You just see huge pile-ups at the line, chaos in the offense, and QBs gesturing to their receivers about the route they were supposed to take (Peyton Manning, anyone?). The offense has no shape to it. Too many offenses make the mistake of thinking that they could've just executed their plays better, but what really happened is that the Patriots D destroyed the plays the offense was running on a fundamental level, it disrupted the path the ball was supposed to take.

The reporter wrote a story about ball disruption making the usual mistake of thinking that "ball disruption" equals turnovers. What Belichick is trying to tell the guy is that turnovers are a result of ball disruption, but that's not what ball disruption really means for the Pats.

great post, Plattsfan.

 

[teamplay]

Every once in a while, sort of by accident, we get a glimpse at the way Belichick really thinks about things. Here in this article, we get:


That's a good insight into how the man thinks about defense. The offense wants to follow a certain path, and the job of the defense is all about disrupting that path, whether it's setting a good edge on a running play to redirect the path the ball is taking, making receivers take different paths in a route, or even disrupting the play-calling flow of an offense by taking away the one or two things it does best.

That's a good look at how his defense, with its read-n-react linemen, is different from a smaller, one-gap style defense. Those defenses are all about attacking the ball with as many people as possible and flowing to the play, meeting the ball carrier at the point of attack of the play. Belichick's defenses are about a big, strong front seven destroying the shape of the play so that the point of attack never really forms.

It's why the LBs in his system take on the guards rather than just attack the ball carrier. They're taking on the play, not the running back. It's why, when the Patriots defense is really on, you don't see guys running free to make big hits as much as you do in other defenses when they are playing well. You just see huge pile-ups at the line, chaos in the offense, and QBs gesturing to their receivers about the route they were supposed to take (Peyton Manning, anyone?). The offense has no shape to it. Too many offenses make the mistake of thinking that they could've just executed their plays better, but what really happened is that the Patriots D destroyed the plays the offense was running on a fundamental level, it disrupted the path the ball was supposed to take.

really nice, Plattsfan!!

Ian, I'd second a forum or special archive for Football Knowledge...

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Every once in a while, sort of by accident, we get a glimpse at the way Belichick really thinks about things. Here in this article, we get:


That's a good insight into how the man thinks about defense. The offense wants to follow a certain path, and the job of the defense is all about disrupting that path, whether it's setting a good edge on a running play to redirect the path the ball is taking, making receivers take different paths in a route, or even disrupting the play-calling flow of an offense by taking away the one or two things it does best.

That's a good look at how his defense, with its read-n-react linemen, is different from a smaller, one-gap style defense. Those defenses are all about attacking the ball with as many people as possible and flowing to the play, meeting the ball carrier at the point of attack of the play. Belichick's defenses are about a big, strong front seven destroying the shape of the play so that the point of attack never really forms.

It's why the LBs in his system take on the guards rather than just attack the ball carrier. They're taking on the play, not the running back. It's why, when the Patriots defense is really on, you don't see guys running free to make big hits as much as you do in other defenses when they are playing well. You just see huge pile-ups at the line, chaos in the offense, and QBs gesturing to their receivers about the route they were supposed to take (Peyton Manning, anyone?). The offense has no shape to it. Too many offenses make the mistake of thinking that they could've just executed their plays better, but what really happened is that the Patriots D destroyed the plays the offense was running on a fundamental level, it disrupted the path the ball was supposed to take.

The reporter wrote a story about ball disruption making the usual mistake of thinking that "ball disruption" equals turnovers. What Belichick is trying to tell the guy is that turnovers are a result of ball disruption, but that's not what ball disruption really means for the Pats.

Bump back to the front page - Platt's analysis needs to read by all who care about the details.

 

[arrellbee]

Every once in a while, sort of by accident, we get a glimpse at the way Belichick really thinks about things. Here in this article, we get:

Quote:
We set up different drills to make our players aware of those situations so they can try to, what we call, disrupt the ball or take the ball off whatever course it is on, whether it be a runner carrying it or a quarterback passing it or whatever, it is to be somehow disruptive specifically to the ball, how to dislodge it, how to affect the passing lanes.


That's a good insight into how the man thinks about defense. The offense wants to follow a certain path, and the job of the defense is all about disrupting that path, whether it's setting a good edge on a running play to redirect the path the ball is taking, making receivers take different paths in a route, or even disrupting the play-calling flow of an offense by taking away the one or two things it does best.

That's a good look at how his defense, with its read-n-react linemen, is different from a smaller, one-gap style defense. Those defenses are all about attacking the ball with as many people as possible and flowing to the play, meeting the ball carrier at the point of attack of the play. Belichick's defenses are about a big, strong front seven destroying the shape of the play so that the point of attack never really forms.

It's why the LBs in his system take on the guards rather than just attack the ball carrier. They're taking on the play, not the running back. It's why, when the Patriots defense is really on, you don't see guys running free to make big hits as much as you do in other defenses when they are playing well. You just see huge pile-ups at the line, chaos in the offense, and QBs gesturing to their receivers about the route they were supposed to take (Peyton Manning, anyone?). The offense has no shape to it. Too many offenses make the mistake of thinking that they could've just executed their plays better, but what really happened is that the Patriots D destroyed the plays the offense was running on a fundamental level, it disrupted the path the ball was supposed to take.

The reporter wrote a story about ball disruption making the usual mistake of thinking that "ball disruption" equals turnovers. What Belichick is trying to tell the guy is that turnovers are a result of ball disruption, but that's not what ball disruption really means for the Pats.

As has been said by several posters, this is REALLY good perspective getting into some of the aspects of the front 7 play.

Let me propose to you that there are a couple more schemes that develop.

First, we can observe that in a 3-4 defense (in contrast to 4-3) the OLBs have several very important contributions. They are responsible for sealing the edge against possible runs over tackle. They must hold the end of the line so that the OT can't move them outside and create another running lane. However, they must also protect against getting tied up by the blocker so that they can release effectively to be free to attack a screen or an outside run around the end. Obviously this is not easy and takes a lot of strength and experience. The third thing they are primarily responsible for contributing is to put rush pressure on the QB - moreso than in the 4-3 since, in the 3-4, it is more difficult for the DLmen to actually get penetration to reach the QB. 4-3 teams can also release LBs to rush but it is more regarded as a blitz (prime example - Steelers). One of the strengths of the 3-4 is that, in a non-blitzing situation, it makes it more difficult for the OL to get completely effective blocking. The OL is never certain which OLB might be rushing. Classic examples of this difficulty were in two different Colts playoff games on short and goal where McGinest took advantage of this and was able to rush unabated to sack Manning in one game and was able to catch James in the backfield in the other.

Considering the ILB assignments, the situation you outline is one where in it's simplest form the OL take on DL in one-on-one blocks - the OC take the NT and the OGs take on the DEs. This leaves the guards free to block past the line of scrimmage and take out ILBs. As you point out, if either or both of the OGs blocks forward, the ILB(s) have to take on those blocks and keep the OGs as close to the LOS as possible. However, another OL scheme adds double teaming into the mix. If the OGs double team in some combination the NT or DEs, this can leave a gap(s) over the OG position (AB gap). This can be especially used if the offense uses a FB (and/or motion TE) to lead block. The FB picks the gap (or one of the gaps) created by the OL blocking scheme. In this case, the ILB assignment becomes one of meeting the FB/TE coming through the gap in order to, again, close down the running lanes and make the tackle or allow a DL an opportunity to tackle. In the case of the ILB taking on either the OG or FB/TE, he actually needs to play a 2-gap type block because he is responsible for the RB possibly coming thru on either side of the blocker. Once in a while, the OL blocking scheme can simply leave gap(s) over OG(s) and, without a lead block (FB or motion TE) the RB tries to pick a gap and get across the LOS to get yards in spite of the ILBs. With some of the heavier backs (Bettis) this can be a reasonable scheme and success is defined as 4(+) yards in a cloud of dust. A highly successful ILB play in this case would be to 'shoot the gap' and meet the RB to stop the run for no gain or a loss. Another variation would be an OG helping on an initial double-team and quickly sliding to take out the ILB. In this case, the ILB has to be careful to not let the OG seal him away from the gap to one side or the other. Really effective ILB play also includes being able to release from a block when the run is going to the other inside gap of the line so as to be able to pursue and help out. ILBs have an additional complexity of responsibility that keeps their job from being just a simple one of protecting gaps in the middle of the line. If the OLB on their side has a rushing assignment, they also have to be able to release from any block in the middle and get toward the outside (CD gaps) to assist in a run on that end of the LOS. If they are not successful in doing that, then the run will pick up yardage until a DB can come up to make the stop. One of the central characteristics of Belichick's 3-4 scheme is described as 'complexity'. In large part, this relates to the multiple responsibilities some of which are mentioned above and the need for LBs to be able to 'read' the play so as to know which responsibility is critical for the play developing and/or to be able to avoid or release from blocks so as to be able to execute these other responsibilities. Critical to the top level of play is the drive to keep fighting to execute primary responsibilities or pursue to complement others' execution until the whistle blows. (Or now, this year, even after the whistle blows !! )

(Then there is the whole aspect of the LBs' additional responsibility in short pass coverage zones or even man-on-man assignments against RBs or TEs coming out - but that's probably a topic for another discussion.)

Just a few extra thoughts on what is indeed a 'complex' execution environment.