The "245" Amorphous D ~ The Next Great Defense??

[Off The Grid]

Some thoughts:

1. Movement skills and coverage ability will be more highly prized, so we'll see "front" players evolve who have better footwork and mobility. 6'7" 245# Dion Jordan plays almost exclusively standing up for Oregon, and is used to being moved around, including covering the slot and playing press CB. 6'7" 260# Devin Taylor is dropped into coverage a fair amount. Guys with "skill position" backgrounds - former RBs, WRs, and TEs - will be converted to the defensive side of the ball. Guys with cross-training in sports such as basketball, with an emphasis on footwork and quick change of direction as opposed to linear speed, with have an advantage.

2. Grappling and tackling skills will be emphasized at all positions. Defenses won't be able to rely on linemen to take on blockers and allow LBs to make tackles, or DBs who can just drop into coverage. DBs have to be able to support the run, and DEs have to be able to move inside as well as drop into coverage. Guys who are strong for their size and who have the hand skills to take on blockers will be at an advantage. Aldon Smith and Melvin Ingram both played a fair amount of DT in college.

3. Guys will be moved around to different positions and have to handle multiple assignments. It won't be enough to be a "one trick pony".

4. More defensive complexity and more schemes will favor guys who can process the complexity. We're already seeing kids coming out of college who are used to playing a variety of defensive schemes and packages. That will become more and more the norm.

We've already seen BB use Kyle Arrington rushing out of a 3 point stance, and the Ravens have had 340# Haloti Ngata stand up as a linebacker and occasionally drop into coverage. I wouldn't be surprised to see a guy like Dion Jordan used as a DB at times. And more players will evolve who can do those kind of things, if the evolution of the game requires it.

MayoClinic​

1. Movement skills and coverage ability will be more highly prized, so we'll see "front" players evolve who have better footwork and mobility. 6'7" 245# Dion Jordan plays almost exclusively standing up for Oregon, and is used to being moved around, including covering the slot and playing press CB. 6'7" 260# Devin Taylor is dropped into coverage a fair amount. Guys with "skill position" backgrounds - former RBs, WRs, and TEs - will be converted to the defensive side of the ball. Guys with cross-training in sports such as basketball, with an emphasis on footwork and quick change of direction as opposed to linear speed, with have an advantage.

2. Grappling and tackling skills will be emphasized at all positions. Defenses won't be able to rely on linemen to take on blockers and allow LBs to make tackles, or DBs who can just drop into coverage. DBs have to be able to support the run, and DEs have to be able to move inside as well as drop into coverage. Guys who are strong for their size and who have the hand skills to take on blockers will be at an advantage. Aldon Smith and Melvin Ingram both played a fair amount of DT in college.

3. Guys will be moved around to different positions and have to handle multiple assignments. It won't be enough to be a "one trick pony".

4. More defensive complexity and more schemes will favor guys who can process the complexity. We're already seeing kids coming out of college who are used to playing a variety of defensive schemes and packages. That will become more and more the norm.

We've already seen BB use Kyle Arrington rushing out of a 3 point stance, and the Ravens have had 340# Haloti Ngata stand up as a linebacker and occasionally drop into coverage. I wouldn't be surprised to see a guy like Dion Jordan used as a DB at times. And more players will evolve who can do those kind of things, if the evolution of the game requires it.

Off The Grid​

Outstanding!! :rocker:

Mostly, I just wanted to get your Post to the top'f the Page...

1 ~ The bit about Converting Glamor "Skill" Players to D makes a TON of sense. And of course BasketBall Players, with the emphasis on Fluidity, Short Speed, and FootWork. You and I'are both frothing CrossTraining fans, so it's no wonder we see eye to eye on this one...

2 ~ Yep!! Smaller Fronts means EVERYBODY has to take a bigger bit of the Tackling Pie, meaning: the Secondary!!

3 ~ Yep. "Specialists" are about to hit a severe Bear Market, I think.

4 ~ I fear for the health of Grizzlies who drop into Coverage, but I LOVE it!! :rocker:

 

[Off The Grid]

A couple of points this evening, the OP in terms of presentation & content is as good as any I have ever seen in the History of PatsFans, huge hat tip to the Almighty Gridmaster.

Amen to that. And all achieved without the benefit of caffeinated beverages. Truly staggering. Grid has been working on this for months, and the level of thought and amount of work put into this is awesome.

Whew!! A cache of responses to these highly gracious words, Gentlemen!!

1 ~ THANK you!! I had an insane, utter BLAST, writing this, but it wouldn't've been one TENTH as enjoyable if my Fellow Patriots Fanatics didn't enjoy it as WELL...and that y'all would take a moment to offer your kind words means the WORLD to me, Brethren: It's no secret that I'm a BIG Fan of both of your works!!

2 ~ It bears repeating: Reading the posts, hereabouts, has greatly enhanced and informed the creation of this Thread. It's no secret that the changes in Defensive Schematics've been boiling along for several years, and this Thread is simply the latest contribution to the discussion of this Evolution...So I just want to say THANK YOU to this Community, for you ALL had a part in the Thinking Process that produced this!!

3 ~ I HUMBLY bow to The Body of Work that Brother Mayo has forged, ere these last few months: Not only Volume, but INCREDIBLY Rich Content. It FAR exceeds my contributions to our Community!!

 

[Off The Grid]

Reposted for my own amusement and that of anyone who missed it, earlier: I know it's pathetic to cackle at your own Posts, but what can I say?? Cartman KILLS me!!

*****************************************************

One Aspect of what Coach Bill the Mad (Genius) did in April that I'm most JACKED about, is that we Patriot Fans ~ we who suffered for 826 years with the likes of Shawn Crable, Derrick Burgess, and Tully Hyphenator on the Edge...now boast ~ and I'm still shocked and amazed to be able to employ this term about us ~ arguably the deepest arsenal of legitimate Young Edge Talent in the League!!

* Trevor Scott
* Chandler Jones
* Jake Bequette
* Donte HighTower
* Rob Ninkovich
* Jermaine Cunningham

Our Edge Talent is so freaking deep ~ OURS!! The PATRIOTS!! ~ that we even cut Markell Carter, to the considerable annoyance of myself and ~ I believe ~ many of you.

And then there's Andre Carter ~ X Factor!! :rocker:

The possibilities are immense.

*******************************************************

As many'f discussed in this and previous Threads, one'f the most explosively exciting Aspects that this flood of Edge Talent has brought to the table is the potential for some wild Formational Alternatives!!

Or, in the words of Brother Eric Cartman, Sociopath + Fellow Pass Rush Fanatic:

"Let's Go, NASCAR!!!"

 

[mayoclinic]

The question I have, and I think it was mentioned in the 'amoeba' thread, is how well this works against the run? If people are up milling around, aiming to get set just milliseconds before the snap, doesn't that mean offenses can simply pound you? E.g., if you show me an amoeba, I'll show you a Willis McGahee.

Here's how you really beat the 2-4-5: you have 2 TEs like Gronk who can block like linemen and who are legitimate receiving threats; you have a WR who can stretch the field and also go over the middle like Brandon Lloyd; you have an H-back like Aaron Hernandez who can line up at WR, TE, FB or RB; and you have a "flex back" at RB who can move into the slot or split out wide as a WR. Then you keep the defense guessing whether you are going to pound it down their throats with 2 TEs and a FB in addition to 5 linemen, or spread it out wide with 5 receivers, or anything in-between, all without changing personnel.

Only one problem with this approach: finding the personnel to execute it. Including a QB with the ability to read the defense and find the best matchup.

 

[Deus Irae]

Here's how you really beat the 2-4-5: you have 2 TEs like Gronk who can block like linemen and who are legitimate receiving threats; you have a WR who can stretch the field and also go over the middle like Brandon Lloyd; you have an H-back like Aaron Hernandez who can line up at WR, TE, FB or RB; and you have a "flex back" at RB who can move into the slot or split out wide as a WR. Then you keep the defense guessing whether you are going to pound it down their throats with 2 TEs and a FB in addition to 5 linemen, or spread it out wide with 5 receivers, or anything in-between, all without changing personnel.

Only one problem with this approach: finding the personnel to execute it. Including a QB with the ability to read the defense and find the best matchup.

Unless there's been an unearthing of 300lb coverage linebackers that I don't know about, five good O-linemen and a good RB, and the 245 will get run off the field.

 

[Merril Hoge's Tie Knot]

Unless there's been an unearthing of 300lb coverage linebackers that I don't know about, five good O-linemen and a good RB, and the 245 will get run off the field.

Why do you say that?

 

[Deus Irae]

Why do you say that?

Because, over the course of time, that 5 v. 2 matchup is eventually going to end up with the defense getting crushed. The other players in the front aren't going to be big enough to help with the odds, which is different from the current 4-3 and 3-4 approaches.

 

[Merril Hoge's Tie Knot]

Because, over the course of time, that 5 v. 2 matchup is eventually going to end up with the defense getting crushed. The other players in the front aren't going to be big enough to help with the odds, which is different from the current 4-3 and 3-4 approaches.

So a nickel defense (the 245) is going to be worse against the run than a "base" defense like a 4-3 or 3-4? Well no kidding, there are more players in the box with a base defense, but your not comparing apples to apples.

The 245 isn't going to be any worse against the run than any other nickel defense.

Bill has been running a 245 nickel for a while now, it's not revolutionary.

 

[mayoclinic]

Unless there's been an unearthing of 300lb coverage linebackers that I don't know about, five good O-linemen and a good RB, and the 245 will get run off the field.

Why do you say that?

Because, over the course of time, that 5 v. 2 matchup is eventually going to end up with the defense getting crushed. The other players in the front aren't going to be big enough to help with the odds, which is different from the current 4-3 and 3-4 approaches.

So a nickel defense (the 245) is going to be worse against the run than a "base" defense like a 4-3 or 3-4? Well no kidding, there are more players in the box with a base defense, but your not comparing apples to apples.

The 245 isn't going to be any worse against the run than any other nickel defense.

Bill has been running a 245 nickel for a while now, it's not revolutionary.

If all it took was 5 linemen and a RB, the 2-4-5 wouldn't exist. It's not new. And as the OP has pointed out, the same has been said many times when defenses have moved towards less men committed to the front line. As I noted above, playing the 2-4-5 as a base requires 2 extremely stout and athletic tackles on the line, and it's not something you would use as the base against a ground and pound offense. And just because the other players are not pre-assigned to the line doesn't mean that they can't be capable or effective in run support. And if the offense wants to keep pounding the ball then 2 guys move up into a 4-2-5, with one of the DBs playing a DB/LB tweener role.

The question is not whether the 2-4-5 is the optimal base to use against a run-oriented team. It's obviously not. The question is whether it can effectively be used as a base in a pass-oriented league and still effectively handle the run. I personally think it can, with the right personnel and coaching, but it's a radical question, as the OP freely admits.

 

[Deus Irae]

So a nickel defense (the 245) is going to be worse against the run than a "base" defense like a 4-3 or 3-4? Well no kidding, there are more players in the box with a base defense, but your not comparing apples to apples.

The 245 isn't going to be any worse against the run than any other nickel defense.

Bill has been running a 245 nickel for a while now, it's not revolutionary.

My post was not about running it as a "nickel". It was about running it as a base, which is what the OP was discussing, and its ability against the run in general, about which Neuronet was asking and which led to this branch of the thread. The 245 can't shut down quality running teams with today's players, because the linebackers it would need in order to do that do not exist. You're looking at players that would need to be bigger than even the current 2-gap linebackers, yet agile enough to cover today's tight ends and running backs.

As for what BB runs, it's worth noting that Wilfork's been talking about the Patriots difficulties in stopping the run from the sub packages for a while now, and that's not even all about the 245. One of the real problems for defenses today is that the wide open passing game is making things a lot harder on run defenses when they play teams that can run the ball, because having to play with the extra DBs is weakening the run stopping power of the defenses. That's how Favre and the Vikings got to within a few yards of getting to the Super Bowl just a couple of years ago, its how the Saints offense puts pressure on opponents, and it's probably what the Patriots would do if they had a full size all purpose back like they hoped Maroney would be.

 

[Off The Grid]

If all it took was 5 linemen and a RB, the 2-4-5 wouldn't exist.

It's not new.

And as the OP has pointed out, the same has been said many times when defenses have moved towards less men committed to the front line.

As I noted above, playing the 2-4-5 as a base requires 2 extremely stout and athletic tackles on the line, and it's not something you would use as the base against a ground and pound offense. And just because the other players are not pre-assigned to the line doesn't mean that they can't be capable or effective in run support. And if the offense wants to keep pounding the ball then 2 guys move up into a 4-2-5, with one of the DBs playing a DB/LB tweener role.

The question is not whether the 2-4-5 is the optimal base to use against a run-oriented team.

It's obviously not.

The question is whether it can effectively be used as a base in a pass-oriented league and still effectively handle the run.

I personally think it can, with the right personnel and coaching, but it's a radical question, as the OP freely admits.

For the WIN, Brother Mayo!!

:rocker:

I just can't improve on that.

 

[Off The Grid]

You're in fine form, Brother Mayo!!

Here's how you really beat the 2-4-5:

You have 2 TEs like Gronk who can block like linemen and who are legitimate receiving threats; you have a WR who can stretch the field and also go over the middle like Brandon Lloyd; you have an H-back like Aaron Hernandez who can line up at WR, TE, FB or RB; and you have a "flex back" at RB who can move into the slot or split out wide as a WR.

Then you keep the defense guessing whether you are going to pound it down their throats with 2 TEs and a FB in addition to 5 linemen, or spread it out wide with 5 receivers, or anything in-between, all without changing personnel.

Only one problem with this approach: finding the personnel to execute it.

Including a QB with the ability to read the defense and find the best matchup.

Oh, MAN...Wouldn't that be SWEET??

Why can't we get Players like that??

 

[patchick]

The 245 can't shut down quality running teams

This brings up a question for me. How many genuine "quality running teams" would you say are out there today? Teams that can reliably win a game on the ground against a good opponent if the opponent doesn't totally stack the line? (Not being argumentative here, I'm genuinely curious.)

Let's assume we're talking about teams with a strong run-blocking OL, one or more major talents at RB, and nice blocker at TE or FB. And for good measure, we might also want to assume that the team does NOT have an elite passing game, since in that case you might be happy to keep them to their ground game even if they're effective with it (e.g. New Orleans).

 

[patsinthesnow]

This brings up a question for me. How many genuine "quality running teams" would you say are out there today? Teams that can reliably win a game on the ground against a good opponent if the opponent doesn't totally stack the line? (Not being argumentative here, I'm genuinely curious.)

Let's assume we're talking about teams with a strong run-blocking OL, one or more major talents at RB, and nice blocker at TE or FB. And for good measure, we might also want to assume that the team does NOT have an elite passing game, since in that case you might be happy to keep them to their ground game even if they're effective with it (e.g. New Orleans).

The Pats toughest game next year and the main obstacle between another serious undefeated run, week 3 @ Ravens. The team is a "quality team" without an elite passing game. I wouldn't recommend the 2-4-5 in that game.

 

[ForThoseAboutToRock]

Here's how you really beat the 2-4-5: you have 2 TEs like Gronk who can block like linemen and who are legitimate receiving threats; you have a WR who can stretch the field and also go over the middle like Brandon Lloyd; you have an H-back like Aaron Hernandez who can line up at WR, TE, FB or RB; and you have a "flex back" at RB who can move into the slot or split out wide as a WR. Then you keep the defense guessing whether you are going to pound it down their throats with 2 TEs and a FB in addition to 5 linemen, or spread it out wide with 5 receivers, or anything in-between, all without changing personnel.

Only one problem with this approach: finding the personnel to execute it. Including a QB with the ability to read the defense and find the best matchup.

Nice post- as I worked through the thread, I kept waiting to see if anyone posted about how a TE like Gronk would be a way to counter the change to a 65 base from the 74 look.

Gronk really is a game changer and I'll be very interested to see if he's "held back" a little at some point this season in order to pursue the running game out of a multiple offensive look - the name of that game will be the exploitation of the lack of run defenders (Deus' post), or at least of particular defenses that aren't built to be multiple (ie Mayo's post about defenders in 2020).

So, when you've got the field stretcher, 2 blocking/receiving TE's, H-back and the flex RB, how does the Welker style slot WR fit into the 2-4-5 beating equation? Perhaps the swap to lots of DB's on the field (Jets 11% of snaps = 7 DB! did I get that right?) negates the elusiveness of Welker 7-10 yds downfield? If so, then is the success of the Welker/Brady combo more individual rather than prototypical?

 

[patfanken]

This brings up a question for me. How many genuine "quality running teams" would you say are out there today? Teams that can reliably win a game on the ground against a good opponent if the opponent doesn't totally stack the line? (Not being argumentative here, I'm genuinely curious.)

Let's assume we're talking about teams with a strong run-blocking OL, one or more major talents at RB, and nice blocker at TE or FB. And for good measure, we might also want to assume that the team does NOT have an elite passing game, since in that case you might be happy to keep them to their ground game even if they're effective with it (e.g. New Orleans).

Well we are going to get to test your question in the first game of the year. With Kenny Britt likely to be missing that game and one of the best RB's in the game, I think we are going to get a great big dose of Chris Johnson. So we will see how a defense designed to combat elite passing offenses will do against a strong running attack.

 

[mayoclinic]

The Pats toughest game next year and the main obstacle between another serious undefeated run, week 3 @ Ravens. The team is a "quality team" without an elite passing game. I wouldn't recommend the 2-4-5 in that game.

Well we are going to get to test your question in the first game of the year. With Kenny Britt likely to be missing that game and one of the best RB's in the game, I think we are going to get a great big dose of Chris Johnson. So we will see how a defense designed to combat elite passing offenses will do against a strong running attack.

There are certainly going to be teams against whom the run is the first weapon to defend, and the 2-4-5 won't be the optimal base defense in such situations. BB is the most adept coach in the league at identifying the opposing teams' strengths and strategizing to neutralize them, and I can't see him letting Ray Rice or Chris Johnson out of his sight.

But I'm not sure that the issue with the 2-4-5 against the run is so much with that particular scheme as with a 6 man front. The trend in the NFL is towards more of an "aerial offense", as was discussed recently in a thread started by MoLewisrocks:

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...league-explaining-nfls-aerial-evolution.html

As Greg Cosell recently discussed, and as the OP argues as well, there will be an evolving chess match between offenses and defenses in which having 5 or more DBs on the field will be more and more common:

Cosell Talks: The Evolving Chess Match : NFL Films Blog

Assuming that Cosell is right, until the pendulum swings back towards the run there will be more of a switch towards 6-5 base formations and significant use of 5-6 formations. Less "front" players certainly takes away form the ability to defend against the run. There's no doubt that 7 front defenders is better than 6 against a ground and pound attack, just as 8 would be still better, and 9 better yet. But given the current aerial nature of the game, it seems inevitable that teams will be willing to trade off some run support in favor of more coverage ability. So the question becomes, what is the most versatile and effective way to deploy your front 6 players? The options are 6-0, 5-1, 4-2, 3-3, 2-4, 1-5 and 0-6. The extremes probably aren't terribly practical most of the time, but there are certainly situations in which all of the other options are quite useful in today's NFL. And with the right personnel, it should be possible to morph between them without substitutions. With 2 DTs plus 2 ends like Jones and Bequette/Ninkovich plus 2 LBs like Hightower and Mayo you should be able to run anything between a 5-1 and a 2-4 (possibly even a 1-5 if Jonathan Fanene is one of the interior linemen). So in some ways I think that what we are discussing is not some much a pure 2-4-5 base as a 6 man base that can be configured variably depending on the strengths of the opposing team and which can move between configurations to create confusion and adapt to offensive personnel and formations.