Chalk Talk: Rush Outside Backers And Our Dilemma

[KDawg]

The problem with this thread is that it's incomplete until our secondary develops. If our young DBs develop into credible starters (remember, Phillip Thomas is out for the year too), then that will benefit what we're doing with our 2 OLBs. If our secondary stays bad-to-mediocre, then yeah, we'll have to adjust the front 7 to compensate.

Go and read the OP. Thanks.

[skinny21]

While it doesn't work the exact same way... it can have the same effect as one of Chip Kelly's offensive plays where there are two or three options from the some play. Only it's the opposite.

You either run Cover 2 zone or 1 over man and press. Maybe let the SS play robber to jump a post or help tackle a slant. That should be it, in my opinion. The offense has a 50% chance to guess right and gain some yardage. They also have a 50% chance of guessing wrong and that'll force the QB to hold the ball (helping Orakpo and Kerrigan) for an extra second or two OR he throws it into an occupied zone and we get a pick.

You build off of that. But that's how I'd have this team play the first quarter of every game.

Of course, this requires the defense to tackle. But if they do something consistently, they will become more comfortable in their areas of responsibility and that leads to better tackling.

Then of course, on 3rd down, you get KDawg in there with 1-5-5 personnel and line-up in 62 stack monster and go into one of your zone blitzes

I agree with all this... except that last line since its way over my head

Still can't believe the calls don't all go through London. Don't you want your "field general" to know what the heck the secondary is doing? Or am I making a mountain out of a molehill here?

[KDawg]

If you're a 3-4 end you're capable of playing a 4-3 tackle.  As far as I know so are NTs.  That means our interior line would be Cofield Bowen, Jenkins, Golston, Baker and Neild.  So interior line depth would be the opposite of a problem

 

I believe that Perry Riley was an OLB in college.  Keenan Robinson may have been as well.  And I loved Jackson in coverage last year.

 

I would argue that Cofield could play a 1 technique. He might be solid at a 3-technique. But we don't have the guy that could play a 1-technique for us, really. It's very similar to the nose. 3 techniques are usually better disruptors. We don't really have a DL like that. You can't just plug DL in. Bowen would probably be okay. Not sure about the other guys. Maybe Jenkins. So I still disagree with our DL being okay in a 4-3.

 

Riley would be fine at the Will, but who would be our Mike after London retires? And who is the Sam? Keenan Robinson has to stay healthy before he's dubbed as anything... Rob Jackson is a good 3-4 OLB, not sure how he'd play the SAM.

 

As far as DEs go, we don't have real DEs. Rak and Kerrigan would be okay against the pass, and sometimes they'd be athletic enough to make the play against the run, but they're small for DEs. A prototype 4-3 DE is about 6'5 and 280 pounds. Long and lean. They could play it, but they'd take much more of a beating there, too. And then what about DE depth?

[DC9]

If you're a 3-4 end you're capable of playing a 4-3 tackle.  As far as I know so are NTs.  That means our interior line would be Cofield Bowen, Jenkins, Golston, Baker and Neild.  So interior line depth would be the opposite of a problem

 

I believe that Perry Riley was an OLB in college.  Keenan Robinson may have been as well.  And I loved Jackson in coverage last year.

 

Jackson is way too big to be a sam or a will in the 4-3.  There is a lot of responsibility there.

As far as DEs go, we don't have real DEs. Rak and Kerrigan would be okay against the pass, and sometimes they'd be athletic enough to make the play against the run, but they're small for DEs. A prototype 4-3 DE is about 6'5 and 280 pounds. Long and lean. They could play it, but they'd take much more of a beating there, too. And then what about DE depth?

 

Yep.  The LE (or Run Side End because the majority of run plays go to the right) in the 4-3 is normally a big stud.  Like... Phillip Daniels big.  Because that's what he did for us.

 

The RE is the pass rusher (because most QBs are right handed and you want him on the blind side).  Orakpo is on the small side of that.

 

I'm with you all the way, Coach.  Both would be fine against the pass but I think both would struggle against the run.

I agree with all this... except that last line since its way over my head

Still can't believe the calls don't all go through London. Don't you want your "field general" to know what the heck the secondary is doing? Or am I making a mountain out of a molehill here?

 

I've noticed a lot of guys calling plays and making adjustments.  It appears Perry has done a lot of that this year as well.

 

Ideally you want "one voice".  I don't think you are making a mountain out of a molehill.  But I also think you can be successful either way.

[KDawg]

Out of curiosity, why doesn't our personnel fit a 3-3-5? And do you mean as a base D or a package... or both?

I could see going with the 3 safety look - Doughty close to the line, Rambo deep and Meriweather (being the closest safety we have to being well-rounded) getting moved around. Not sure that Doughty should be out there over whoever we'd take out though.

 

The total package personnel wise is off. Cofield is a good nose when it comes to maintaining the LOS, getting to his gap and diagnosing a play, but he doesn't push the interior of the pocket. The ends are the same, except our current ends in place of Jenkins have been very hot/cold. We basically have the same problem across the DL. The 3-3-5 uses more of a mix of 2-gap and 1-gap responsibilities up front than the 3-4 as well. Unless involved in a stunt, and even then, the DEs aren't charged with "protecting" their stack backers. They are reading and making a play. The only DL in this front that must eat up blockers and be able to destroy the opposing OL to draw doubles/triples is the nose guard. I think Bowen and Carriker would be okay within the scheme. But our depth is a concern to me there.

 

As far as the linebackers/safeties part is concerned: 1) We don't have the interior LBs to run it. 2) We don't have the safeties to run it.

 

The two "outside linebackers" are usually referred to as "Spurs". They're hybrid safeties/linebackers. Usually safety size or a bit bigger. They can play the run and coverage well. Generally extremely athletic. The weak spur will be used in more cover 2 looks and more deep zone coverages, while the strong spur will be used more as an overhang defender/curl/flat responsibility, but they both have to have the ability to do a little of all of it. Usually your spurs are two of your better football players.

 

Then you have one true free safety that has to be able to play a deep third and fill the alley on run with reckless abandon. In the 3-3-5, many teams make the FS the one who gets the defense lined up because they have the best view of the offense and the defensive personnel. The free safety doesn't have to be the best athlete, but they have to be smart and aware and able to play mistake free football.

 

The inside backers have to be incredibly versatile. On one play they may be 1x1 (shade) on a TE, on another they may be stacked on the DL, on another they may be shifted due to formation. That means they have to be able to play a little defensive end on top of being a coverage guy, a rusher and have the ability to blitz. And most importantly, they HAVE to be GREAT tacklers. They don't necessarily need to be studs, but they must be well rounded. Speed and instincts are key. The middle stack is the one player that needs to be a true overall stud. He's a TRUE linebacker.

 

Here's a base alignment:

 

                                                        O

                                            O         O

                                                                                                      O

O                                         O    O   X   O   O   O

                                            E          N         E       SS 

                       WS                    

 C                                         W         M        S                                  C

 

 

                                                        FS

 

 

The strong side doesn't have a second receiver (yes, the TE is a receiver, but we're talking split out players) so the SS plays over the TE (The SS obviously also has to be able to play a 1x1 technique).

 

The WS (Weak safety) plays in space because there is no #2 to that side. If there was another TE he'd be 1x1 as well. If there was a second receiver he'd be aligned over that receiver.

 

Obviously that's dependent on personnel. Some teams can't use their safeties in 1x1 so they actually swap alignments with the WILL/SAM backers. It varies from season to season.

 

So to answer the question:

 

1) We don't have the safeties at this point to run a 3-safety set. Rambo is too green and not ready. Doughty may be the best fit for one of the hybrid spots, particlarly the Strong Safety role. But we really don't have the personnel. To use the Redskins as examples, a solid set of safeties in the 3-3-5 would be: Sean Taylor, LaRon Landry and Ryan Clark. Landry and Taylor could bounce around well, and Clark could as well, but I'd leave him as primarily the FS or the WS.

 

2) We don't have the ILBs. London in his younger days would have been fine pretty much anywhere in the 3-3-5. Riley could probably work in the 3-3-5. We don't have much else in the way of ILBs that I would feel comfortable with.

 

3) I have no idea where Kerrigan/Orakpo would fit.

 

 

 

 

 

[Skins Wingman]

i think "prototype" is a term that is overrated and overused in the nfl. drew brees is too short, look how that is working out for him. i never saw him play but wasnt darrell green really short for a corner? cofield is too small to be a NT, but hes playing very well. I can go on and on about good players who weren't prototype for their position. how can you say that rob jackson is too big, or orakpo and kerrigan are too small to play a different position? technique and instincts can balance out strength and speed. the only way to know for sure is to try different things and see what happens. when something doesnt work, its time to experiment.

[KDawg]

You can never definitively say someone CAN'T do it. But you can watch them, see their skillsets, understand their limitations and make an educated guess.

 

I don't think anyone here has ever said, "DON'T EVEN TRY IT OMG!11!!!!!!!11!!!!!!!!"

[martytheman]

So wouldn't the obvious answer here be to slot Rak at DE, and have Jackson on the strong side, with Kerrigan on the weak?

I know Rak is a little small for DE, but he's plenty strong enough. I don't know how he'd hold up to the wear and tear though.

[KDawg]

So wouldn't the obvious answer here be to slot Rak at DE, and have Jackson on the strong side, with Kerrigan on the weak?

I know Rak is a little small for DE, but he's plenty strong enough. I don't know how he'd hold up to the wear and tear though.

 

I think Rak playing DE on a full time basis is a disaster waiting to happen against the run. And that's not a knock on his skillset. The G/T can double/base him out and they can single block Jackson pretty easy.

[PlayAction]

Thanks for the OP write-up that explained with supporting details why my gut was disliking the two rush LB approach of the Skins defense.  Reading through all of the posted ideas for fixing the issue I can see Haslett's dilemma.  All of the options will reveal personnel issues in the current Redskins roster.  Haslett is playing the players that he has and Kerrigan/Orakpo are arguably the best players on the team.  If you follow the "play your best players" mantra then the 2 Rush LBs is the best way to go despite the flaws.  Long-term the Skins need to decide which path will lead most quickly to improvement.

 

First key decision will be Orakpo's contract.  If he's paid big money then he's got to be on the field for a majority of the snaps - -ergo 2 rush LB approach is here to stay.  Can we get the other personnel quickly enough to make it work?  CBs, S, ILBs and a new NT.  Yikes.  Some or all of those other positions need to be upgraded regardless of the approach but a big Orakpo contract may make it more difficult to do so (versus trade if possible and using contract money on other free agents).   

[Voice_of_Reason]

One other thing that I've noticed: We bring 5 a lot.  Like a lot a lot.  Offenses know that.  They constantly leave people in to block it up.  So, you lose your advantage of blitzing.  They just pick it up, easy peasy lemon squeeze, and wait for somebody to get free.

 

To my uneducated eye, when the 'Skins bring 4, they get virtually no pressure, and they leave one of their 2 rush OLBs in coverage, which is also a weakness.

 

I think that Haz is trying to cover up for personnel deficiencies, but what he's doing is predictable.  Getting Robby J. back might help, as you said, due to versatility.

 

The best way to help this defense would be to be able to get pressure with 4. Any 4.  That leaves 7 in coverage, generally against 4 receivers, and they should be able to "win" that matchup most times.  

 

But, if you get no pressure with 4, even with 7 in coverage, you lose.  

 

Oh, and they just HAVE to tackle.  

[DC9]

Getting Robby J. back might help, as you said, due to versatility.

 

I was going to try and push "Bobby 4-bits".  Thoughts? 

[KDawg]

In our 2 man DL look, I think we should be doing more stunting up front. Bring Rak/Kerrigan on inside stunts, stunt Kerrigan around like he's a looper but have him drop and allow the ILB to blitz the outside edge the interior DT to come around the edge. Get creative with our pressure schemes. It doesn't always have to be an exotic blitz to get through.

 

Sure, NFL offenses know how to block pretty much everything... But if you disguise things well, and make some pressures look like others but then stem to a totally different pressure, you're going to catch teams off guard more often.

 

But the issue is still the coverage unit. They need to start being better. And quickly.

 

I suppose one way of doing that really could be moving Hall to safety and letting Wilson/Amerson play the corner spot. Meriweather/Doughty can play the SS role for now.

 

I'm not incredibly comfortable with Hall back there, and given a better safety situation I wouldn't ever suggest it... But he's not a dumb player, and he's athletic enough. I worry about him filling the alley hard, but it could work for us.

 

Having said that, I'm sure it's been tried and ultimately decided against.

 

*shrug*

[Veretax]

Since you mentioned Safety, I'll say it.  How much does having a hitter like Merriweather back there hurt us in coverage?  How many hits has he tried to lay, and ultimately missed the Tackle?  I felt in the last two games that he played with a lot of speed, but he was not only dropping his head risking injury, but dropping it and losing site of what was going on around him.

 

Am I wrong on that?

[KDawg]

1) Meriweather is not a hitter. You actually have to make solid contact to have that label.

2) I don't know how much it hurts us in the actual coverage department, but it hurts us in the ability to confine YAC.

[Puma Kane]

1) Meriweather is not a hitter. You actually have to make solid contact to have that label.

2) I don't know how much it hurts us in the actual coverage department, but it hurts us in the ability to confine YAC.

Meriweather tackles bout like Clinton Portis use to block.lol

[DaGoonie55]

In our 2 man DL look, I think we should be doing more stunting up front. Bring Rak/Kerrigan on inside stunts, stunt Kerrigan around like he's a looper but have him drop and allow the ILB to blitz the outside edge the interior DT to come around the edge. Get creative with our pressure schemes. It doesn't always have to be an exotic blitz to get through.

 

I watched the Cleveland game last night.  Their 4 man front was stunting all over the place and it caused the Bills fits.  Yeah, I know they are the Bills, but I really think you hit the nail on the head here.  Rak and Kerrigan in a stunt are so fast, they would be in the backfield in a second or two and really cause havoc.

 

I've been rewatching game film (broadcast film), and our defense looks out of place - almost shell shocked at times.  Other times, we are all over the offense.  We need consistency.  Hopefully during this bye week we refocus and get our heads right.

 

Thanks again Coach.

[DC9]

Meriweather tackles bout like Clinton Portis use to block.lol

 

This is untrue. 

 

Portis was an effective blocker.  Very violent, too.

 

Merriweather is not an effective tackler.  But he is violent.

 

So you are 50% correct

I'm not incredibly comfortable with Hall back there, and given a better safety situation I wouldn't ever suggest it... But he's not a dumb player, and he's athletic enough. I worry about him filling the alley hard, but it could work for us.

 

Yep.  We've gone over this previously.  Haven't seen him/noticed him back there this year, but he line up there twice last year. 

 

-Once in the preseason vs the Bears... it was a TD for the Bears.

-Once in the regular season vs the Ravens... it was a TD for the Ravens.

 

Let's quit while we aren't too far behind on that one, please

[TSO]

My only question is, why don't we overload on one side more when we blitz? 

 

Didn't we do that a lot last season when we had to get creative and it worked? 

 

And wouldn't that be a solution to the whole "bringing 5 every down predictably" problem that Voice of Reason mentioned above? Heck, if we overload we could technically send the slot DB on that side and rush only 3 guys on the line, which would be 4 guys rushing overall. And there'd be a lot less predictability to it.  

[KDawg]

So you don't want to bring Kerrigan or Orakpo?

[TSO]

So you don't want to bring Kerrigan or Orakpo?

 

Well, not all the time... but we could technically bring both with both of them lined up on end beside each other, something we've already done without overloading. That would probably automatically mean we'd be rushing 5 there, so it'd be more predictable, though.

 

I don't know, just seems like overloading works, lol. What am I missing?  

[DaGoonie55]

Well, not all the time... but we could technically bring both with both of them lined up on end beside each other, something we've already done without overloading. That would probably automatically mean we'd be rushing 5 there, so it'd be more predictable, though.

 

I don't know, just seems like overloading works, lol. What am I missing?  

 

Overloading works when you fool the offense into thinking you are not going to do that.

 

"Masking" the blitz as KDawg put it (IIRC).  We don't do that very often, but when we do it has good results.

[Puma Kane]

This is untrue. 

 

Portis was an effective blocker.  Very violent, too.

 

Merriweather is not an effective tackler.  But he is violent.

 

So you are 50% correct

You missed the sarcasm entirely.

What I was getting at is Merriweather tackles like Portis use to block, hammer contact, without wrapping up.

Loosen up your bow tie man, it was a truthful joke.

[TSO]

Overloading works when you fool the offense into thinking you are not going to do that.

 

"Masking" the blitz as KDawg put it (IIRC).  We don't do that very often, but when we do it has good results.

 

Yeah, I think "masking the blitz" goes without saying. I liked how last year we'd show a lot of zero coverage and line everyone up on the LOS in every gap, then have most guys back off what seemed like the majority of the time. The guy who did blitz would almost always be open because teams had to essentially guess. We've went away from that this season and we've went away from overloading.

 

I think, right? I'm not 100% sure... these games have all been such a blur to me.   

[KDawg]

Well, not all the time... but we could technically bring both with both of them lined up on end beside each other, something we've already done without overloading. That would probably automatically mean we'd be rushing 5 there, so it'd be more predictable, though.

 

I don't know, just seems like overloading works, lol. What am I missing?  

 

Rushing 5 means 3 seam coverage or cover 1 coverage. That means we need to have people that can actually cover out there. Not rushing Kerrigan/Orakpo in that situation is a liability issue if it happens repeatedly, though it needs to happen on a limited basis to keep balance.

 

If we do it from the 2 down linemen look and we rush Kerrigan and Orakpo from the "end" position, that means we're blitzing a fifth. Which puts us in 3 seam coverage or cover 1.

 

The coverage is the major obstacle, especially when rushing more than four.

 

That's why I think we need to get more creative with the how in the blitz rather than the who.

Yeah, I think "masking the blitz" goes without saying. I liked how last year we'd show a lot of zero coverage and line everyone up on the LOS in every gap, then have most guys back off what seemed like the majority of the time. The guy who did blitz would almost always be open because teams had to essentially guess. We've went away from that this season and we've went away from overloading.

 

I think, right? I'm not 100% sure... these games have all been such a blur to me.   

 We've done it quite a bit with our 3 deep shell lined up deep and everyone else on the LOS, then backing off at the snap. Sometimes all of them, sometimes some of them. Problem is it puts the coverage in fairly poor situations.