If we open in a 3-4, who starts?

[Huckleberry1]

1.) I'm not making things up and I didn't call anyone out.

2.) People here have pointed to their ppg and defended the defense as actually being "good/pretty good/whatever cheerily positive categorization they've chosen". It's a lousy defensive group that's getting excellent coaching. Deal with it.

3.) The "legions" are sick and tired of you homers who can't be bothered to see crap when crap's in front of you.

4.) Go stalk someone else. Jack didn't take offense and the post was a response to his. He and I have talked about the defense for much of the year and are probably a lot more in agreement than you'd bother to think about.

people have pointed to points against as evidence they aren't the worst defense in football, only one fan has said it proves they are a good defense. Show us the proof of your claim that people are calling this a good defense or stop saying it.

 

[mgcolby]

Well, we saw how crappy safety play bit Pittsburgh in the ass. I'm not that optimistic Chung/Ihedigbo would fare much better than Polamalu/Muncy.

Yup, but that to me was a three headed monster.

1. Muncy sucked deep forcing Troy to play deep safety.
2. Troy playing deep is bad...he can't help himself and always bites on the underneath stuff and/or the play action.
3. 'Ol **** sticking to the game plan even after it was obvious they would throw against it and putting 9 in the box with all 11 within 7 yards of the LOS twice (one being within 5 yards...OT TD)....result two huge plays. And a quick ticket to the offseason.

I don't think you will see our players and coaching staff put themselves in that position. The deep safety may not make the play, but he/they will probably be in the right area.

 

[Huckleberry1]

1.)
3.) The "legions" are sick and tired of you homers who can't be bothered to see crap when crap's in front of you.

4.) Go stalk someone else. Jack didn't take offense and the post was a response to his. He and I have talked about the defense for much of the year and are probably a lot more in agreement than you'd bother to think about.

I have challenged you on a number of occasions to show my "homer" posts, you can't because they don't exist. and i'm not "stalking you" I am just consistently responding to the really negative posters and you are a head cheerleader for them despite your claim to just being "objective," which is proven to be bullsh.t by your inability to produce the very people you claim to be arguing against-those saying it's a good defense. you made up a strawman to argue against, there is nothing "objective" about that.

 

[Huckleberry1]

1.) I'm not making things up and I didn't call anyone out.

Then show us the posts from those saying it is a good defense.

 

[VrabelJr]

Woah I just noticed that lineup has Fletcher over Ninko at the Sam spot. That seems likea huge mistake. If Fletcher gets on the field it's over Anderson at the Jack and Spikes at the Mike. Mayo is a Will in the 4-3 and the 3-4.

 

[JackBauer]

I don't think you will see our players and coaching staff put themselves in that position. The deep safety may not make the play, but he/they will probably be in the right area.

Normally I would agree with you, but the next time I see Ihedigbo in position on a given play will be the first.*





*obvious hyperbole, but you get the point...

 

[RobertWeathers]

Here's what I like about that idea.

I think a major key to this game is base flexibility. Denver doesn't strike me as a team that can nor will personnel you to death. They will, however, have different sets with that personnel group that they deploy. They will utilize this to take advantage of big play opportunity created by the run game. Consequently, you are going to need alignment flexibility from your base set.

I would change the free safety to McCourty and put Moore at the other corner. My logic behind this is that Spikes and Chung should makeup for the run inefficiencies, and I want ball skills in that defensive backfield for the cover-2 looks I'm certain they will utilize to get turnovers. Further, McCourty is a sure tackler and takes better pursuit angles than Ihedigbo. If something leaks out, I want speed back there to make it to the sideline and at least restrict the big run. McCourty can provide that, and do it better from the hash instead of the numbers. Having a better pass defending safety group also enables you to play outside technique on the corners should the need arise. That said, I would encourage Tebow to drive the ball to the far numbers by playing inside technique, as I think he can't complete those balls.

I love the Anderson/Fletcher mix because it gives you great flexibility. Bring Chung down for the 44 look, keep him back for the 34, and mix in 43 looks in passing situations without having to sub. I think that by having this type of flexibility in the front will enable you to effectively matchup with whatever look/situation is presented as I think Denver is going to try to push the tempo of the offense.

Agreed completely but would add the intent to force INTs and cover ground in the secondary once the game turns into a track meet (which it will)

I want ballhawkers out there and Kyle, Moore, DMc and Chung are the 4 best in the defensive backfield. Slide in Molden as a CB/nickel and you have 5.

Pitt was not a big INT team. Polamalu led the team with two. This was a gross miscalculation by Lebeau. He thought his guys could cover real estate w/o Clark. The thought wrong.

Tebow is an excellent talent but he is inaccurate.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Woah I just noticed that lineup has Fletcher over Ninko at the Sam spot. That seems likea huge mistake. If Fletcher gets on the field it's over Anderson at the Jack and Spikes at the Mike. Mayo is a Will in the 4-3 and the 3-4.

Agree. Ninko is the superior run defender and has more experience in recognizing passing plays.

 

[Dessalines]

Well, we saw how crappy safety play bit Pittsburgh in the ass. I'm not that optimistic Chung/Ihedigbo would fare much better than Polamalu/Muncy.

Pittsburgh's problem wasn't the safety play but the defensive scheme of cover zero, as well as many missing players. I'm not saying anything bad about the Broncos with this, they defeated what they saw on the field.

 

[Patspsycho]

I would prefer Spikes over Fletcher after watching him either get blown up or guess wrong in the run game during their first matchup.

However, if I'm Denver I come out and throw it more on first down/early downs. Try to catch the Pats creeping (which I hope they are disciplined enough not to do) and hit them up the middle with Fells in between the 2nd and 3rd levels. I honestly think that will be their best option moving the ball in big chunks.

I guess my question is: Do you see it this way as well, my impression is yes, seeing how you have Fletcher starting and not just subbing Spikes in sub packages.

Not sure I follow what you are getting at? I have both Spikes and Fletcher starting, with Fletcher in Sam which means he would be in the throwing lanes on Tebow's strong side, where he can chip or jam Thomas coming off the line. At Will, Spikes would crash the interior run play, especially when the Denver OL double-combo on the G (the G scheme they like to run). We can have Fletcher either drop or shoot the gap and still have Spikes to spy the run, and on top of that have Chung in run support.

I think BB will make it a point not to have anyone creeping because he's seen the Pittsburgh game and sees that Denver made it a point to have Tebow throw quick (he usually is slow to throw), which caught Pittsburgh in the middle of flashing a fake coverage then trying to switch to the one they want.

 

[Ring 6]

My guess:

RE - Brandon Deadrick
NT - Kyle Love
RE - Vince Wilfork
LOLB - Mark Anderson
WILB - Brandon Spikes
MILB - Jerod Mayo
ROLB - Rob Ninkovich
LCB - Sterling Moore
RCB - Kyle Arrington
SS - Patrick Chung
FS - Devin McCourty

What about you?

First, I don't expect us to play 34, because of the trouble we had with it the first game vs Denver.
Second, I don't expect McCourty to play safety.
Third, Anderson would be on the right and Ninkovich on the left, and Spikes most likely strong and Mayo weak.

 

[mgcolby]

Normally I would agree with you, but the next time I see Ihedigbo in position on a given play will be the first.*





*obvious hyperbole, but you get the point...

Can't disagree, I still can't pronounce that guy's name correctly. I think it is a mental block in anticipation that he won't be here long or if he is, it won't be in any thing other than a ST's category. Which he isn't to bad at.

 

[Patspsycho]

Here's what I like about that idea.

I think a major key to this game is base flexibility. Denver doesn't strike me as a team that can nor will personnel you to death. They will, however, have different sets with that personnel group that they deploy. They will utilize this to take advantage of big play opportunity created by the run game. Consequently, you are going to need alignment flexibility from your base set.

I would change the free safety to McCourty and put Moore at the other corner. My logic behind this is that Spikes and Chung should makeup for the run inefficiencies, and I want ball skills in that defensive backfield for the cover-2 looks I'm certain they will utilize to get turnovers. Further, McCourty is a sure tackler and takes better pursuit angles than Ihedigbo. If something leaks out, I want speed back there to make it to the sideline and at least restrict the big run. McCourty can provide that, and do it better from the hash instead of the numbers. Having a better pass defending safety group also enables you to play outside technique on the corners should the need arise. That said, I would encourage Tebow to drive the ball to the far numbers by playing inside technique, as I think he can't complete those balls.

I love the Anderson/Fletcher mix because it gives you great flexibility. Bring Chung down for the 44 look, keep him back for the 34, and mix in 43 looks in passing situations without having to sub. I think that by having this type of flexibility in the front will enable you to effectively matchup with whatever look/situation is presented as I think Denver is going to try to push the tempo of the offense.

Hard to argue with this.

 

[JackBauer]

Pittsburgh's problem wasn't the safety play but the defensive scheme of cover zero, as well as many missing players. I'm not saying anything bad about the Broncos with this, they defeated what they saw on the field.

I don't know how it's possible to watch that game and say safety play wasn't a problem.

I do agree that running a cover zero with Ryan Mundy (not Muncy, doh) was nothing if not ill advised.

 

[Ring 6]

LDE - Brandon Deadrick
NT - Kyle Love
RDE - Vince Wilfork
Jack - Mark Anderson
Will- Brandon Spikes
Mike - Jerod Mayo
Sam- Dane Fletcher
LCB - Devin McCourty
RCB - Kyle Arrington
SS - Patrick Chung
FS - James Ihedigbo

I would go with this lineup. I put Vince in at RDE where he almost never is, but Tebow is always going to his left so I want my best DE there.

I put Mark Anderson in Jack because I expect to see him on the line (making this a 44 look) and rushing more often than not, towards Tebow's blind side.

I put Fletcher in Sam behind Vince because I think that while he makes his share of mistakes, he is solid in coverage.

Also, going with Ihedigbo over Moore because Ihedigbo is solid in run support while we put Chung in robber or rover (probably bracket Thomas).

Why are you benching Ninkovich to put Fletcher in a position he hasn';t played? Also, I think you'll see Anderson on the right side, and Ninko on the left.

 

[JackBauer]

Can't disagree, I still can't pronounce that guy's name correctly. I think it is a mental block in anticipation that he won't be here long or if he is, it won't be in any thing other than a ST's category. Which he isn't to bad at.

Yeah. Can't blame Ihedigbo for the coaching staff putting him in that position.

 

[Deus Irae]

Pittsburgh's problem wasn't the safety play but the defensive scheme of cover zero, as well as many missing players. I'm not saying anything bad about the Broncos with this, they defeated what they saw on the field.

Pittsburgh's problem was that they thought Tebow couldn't beat man coverage and they thought they could get to the QB, and they were wrong on both counts.

 

[West Philly Patriot]

I don't know how it's possible to watch that game and say safety play wasn't a problem.

I do agree that running a cover zero with Ryan Mundy (not Muncy, doh) was nothing if not ill advised.

Safety wasn't the issue because they were essentially LB's all day.

 

[Ring 6]

I expect to see a 43 of:

LDE Ellis
LDT Love
RDT Wilfork
RDE Deaderick
LOLB Ninko
MLB Spikes
ROLB Mayo
LCB McC
RCB Arrington
SS Chung
FS Ihedigbo, Moore

 

[mgcolby]

Not sure I follow what you are getting at? I have both Spikes and Fletcher starting, with Fletcher in Sam which means he would be in the throwing lanes on Tebow's strong side, where he can chip or jam Thomas coming off the line. At Will, Spikes would crash the interior run play, especially when the Denver OL double-combo on the G (the G scheme they like to run). We can have Fletcher either drop or shoot the gap and still have Spikes to spy the run, and on top of that have Chung in run support.

I think BB will make it a point not to have anyone creeping because he's seen the Pittsburgh game and sees that Denver made it a point to have Tebow throw quick (he usually is slow to throw), which caught Pittsburgh in the middle of flashing a fake coverage then trying to switch to the one they want.

Whoops I missed that somehow. I guess I saw Fletcher inside and thought Spikes was out of your starting lineup. That is an interesting move and very good idea.

In that scenario you are essentially conceding the flat and daring Tebow to make an accurate throw outside the numbers, while being stout against the option. He has made the throw, but not consistantly and that is what he would be forced to do in order to move the chains over the course of the drive/game.