White Board: Football 1-0-1 for laymen like GHH. DL gap techniques and the Redskins new front.

[bedlamVR]

"MLSKINS Said : Posted Yesterday, 09:04 PM

Good post, but leave that proper English across the pond. This here is 'Merica!!!"

 

 

Damn colonists ,.... tish ....

 

Anyway good work GHH thanks for sharing the knowledge

[bradboyd80]

Now these are the threads I thoroughly enjoy reading. Excellent write-up, sir!

[Leonard Washington]

Now I'm ready to sign on as UDFA!!

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Now I'm ready to sign on as UDFA!!

 

I want 50 yard line tickets out of your players allocation. Like season tckts! 

 

Hail. 

[LD0506]

Anytime you can add or incite more football conversation (as opposed to the run-of-the-mill venting/screaming/spewing) you raise the level of the board GHH, atta boy!

 

The analytical, chess match aspect of the game is completely lost on some, maybe because they don't grasp it or never had it explained clearly or maybe because they're just dense, but it is the core of the game. Exposing the inner workings and explaining the mechanics of why one guy "fits" and another doesn't can only draw more fans in to appreciate the game better.

[KDawg]

dg brings up another good point that I didn't touch on last night.

 

Giving Rak/Kerrigan more two way go's could be due to allowing more stunting and movement, and I really hope we add more of that element. Moving pieces are much harder for offensive lines to track.

 

But the two way go could also be executed by adding force players to the mix. There's a few ways to do it, and they all can be effective.

 

This is where that 1-gap rumor comes into play for me. If it happens, I think it means we'll see us in more of that 2-4/4-2 look. With six box defenders, that means we'll need guys to play the force role. For those keeping track at home, force is basically the same thing as what many use the word "contain" to mean. Basically, you're "forcing" the running back to run inside into the teeth of the defense rather than outside. If you wanted the D to run outside, you're spilling.

 

One of those force players would likely be the SS, playing low in the box. They'd have coverage/run responsibilities. Against run, they have to force. Against pass, they have to get in their zone drops or man up.

 

The other force player could be an extra safety, extra corner, or extra linebacker. The safety for more of a hybrid look. The corner for more of a coverage look. The linebacker for more of a run stopping look.

 

I believe we have the personnel to do just that. Extra safety? Gumbs/Rambo/Thomas/Doughty [if re-signed] (especially if Rambo has improved at tackling). One of those four would likely be the SS. The other could play the other side force role. Extra corner? That's what Tracy Porter was brought in to do. Extra linebacker? Robinson and Hayward are both good coverage backers that can play the run.

 

Bascially, that gives Orakpo and Kerrigan the freedom to go get the quarterback. It doesn't matter which way they go, they're covered. If they go inside, the force defenders have their back. If they go outside, the ILBs have their backs.

 

Now... Couple that WITH stunts. That makes us a lot more dangerous. Especially considering that the two interior positions in the 2-4/4-2 could rotate. Bowen played there last year, Cofield, Hatcher, Baker, Jenkins... We'd be nice and fresh and able to collapse the pocket on quarterbacks. And where do they go when flushed? Hopefully into the waiting arms of 98 and 91.

 

I'm VERY excited with the possibilities, but I really do hope that dg is correct when he says we're going to stunt more. Stunting is fun!

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

.....

I'm VERY excited with the possibilities, but I really do hope that dg is correct when he says we're going to stunt more. Stunting is fun!

 

Would be a novel new change to what Haslett has shown thus far. And a very refreshing one. 

 

SO many questions to be answered. Is it September already?

 

Hail. 

[rick7423]

Wow, great post.

 

Since the Skins are a 34 D, do we really have a good enough NT for this scheme? I know Coffield fills this role, but is he really a true NT? Is Truck Nield ever going to be able to fill this role on a more reliable basis? Personally, I would rather have a big NT and slide Coffield over as a DT playing a 1 technique.

 

Thanks GHH.

[KDawg]

 Personally, I would rather have a big NT and slide Coffield over as a DT playing a 1 technique.

 

Thanks GHH.

 

Can I ask why you'd have a 0-tech and a 1-tech?

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Wow, great post.

 

Since the Skins are a 34 D, do we really have a good enough NT for this scheme? I know Coffield fills this role, but is he really a true NT? Is Truck Nield ever going to be able to fill this role on a more reliable basis? Personally, I would rather have a big NT and slide Coffield over as a DT playing a 1 technique.

 

Thanks GHH.

 

Thanks man. Greatly appreciated and humbling as with many responses here. 

 

I'm with you on a space eating nose in so far as I'd personally run more of a traditional 34 2-gap base the majority of the time and get inventive with the LB's and the okie/ nickel packages. 

 

But Cofield would be better served as 4 tech in that scenario surely?

 

Hail. 

[darrelgreenie]

...I'm VERY excited with the possibilities, but I really do hope that dg is correct when he says we're going to stunt more. Stunting is fun!

I am excited too, but I'm trying (you're not helping btw) trying to temper my expectations about the scheme adjustments.

Because afterall we're talking about Haslett. And I'm not one of the Haslett bashers; but he is who he is and he's a coach who is basically only as good as his personnel. I have to remind myself that scheme changes that seem logical may not actually happen. My speculation that they'll stunt more comes from looking at the schemes that similar 34 fronts use and Haslett's comment that the OLB will have fewer contain responsibilities.

 

But taken strictly literally where the only change in the front will be turning the OLB loose I still believe that schematic change coupled with the addition of Hatcher greatly improves the pass rush. If Rak and Kerrigan rush the passer as much as some of the other 34 OLB and with Hatcher posing another interior pass rush factor the pass rush will improve.

 

But man, its hard not to imagine the schemes other DCs would do with this front.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I just SO heard Dubya's voice saying that. 

 

Hail. 

 

You guys misspell everything correctly over there, don't you?

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

You guys misspell everything correctly over there, don't you?

Ha ha. We try. It's the English way to make things more, uhmmm, 'challenging.' -

But hey, it carry's our name so it's our perogative.

Hail.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Thanks a lot GHH.  This thread is an example of a what makes ES so great.

[KDawg]

I am excited too, but I'm trying (you're not helping btw) trying to temper my expectations about the scheme adjustments.

 

 

But man, its hard not to imagine the schemes other DCs would do with this front.

 

hah! Sorry. It would just make sense given the moves we've made. Although, things that make sense haven't always happened as of late in Redskin land. :laugh:

 

I do have to say, that even with stunts, I worry about the force player in an okie front. We could get the job done by only giving one of the guys, Rak or Kerrigan, the two way go and having the SS (or free safety, if we want to keep things a little more unpredictable) drop into the box to the two-way go side.

 

Stunts work, but if that stunt man gets walled or is slow and our OLB goes inside there's a lot of real estate to the outside. That's why I LOVE stunts from the 4-2 (or even a 4-3). There is someone there to cover for a mistake.

 

Having said all that, that's a cautious worry. As someone who coaches, I like to be aggressive, so I'd love to see us stunting from the okie and gamble a little. I just don't like to gamble too much (cover 0 blitz, anyone?)

[Jumbo]

Well done, amigo. 

 

I don't mind an intriguing gap mystery right now, in terms of our defensive strategies. I think we have several major mysteries far from solved on that side of the ball (the biggest of which needs no mention).

 

Hard to move backwards much from where we were, so I'll label it faint praise when I say we seem to be moving forward, if in baby steps at this point (like signing Jordan).

 

All we can do is make the best threads/posts we can.     

[darrelgreenie]

hah! Sorry. It would just make sense given the moves we've made. Although, things that make sense haven't always happened as of late in Redskin land. :laugh:

 

I do have to say, that even with stunts, I worry about the force player in an okie front. We could get the job done by only giving one of the guys, Rak or Kerrigan, the two way go and having the SS (or free safety, if we want to keep things a little more unpredictable) drop into the box to the two-way go side.

Ideally it would be on calls where the defense is expecting pass that the OLBs would be given freedom to rush at will.

But you're right if they are given that freedom on a run someone would have to assume that contain/force role and it would have to fall to a SAF strong or free depending on the call.

 

Couldn't find a good pic (not that you need one but people like pictures) but here is a pick of the Seahawks defense where they have their SS playing contain:

 

 

And with our current SAF options there is reason for concern; Meriweather misses a lot of tackles and Doughty gets out 'athleted' at times. I would love to see Gumbs in this role but at this point he's nothing more then a projection. You know which prospect I would love in this role? Deone Bucannon.

[rick7423]

Can I ask why you'd have a 0-tech and a 1-tech?

Mainly because I am not very smart and am trying to learn.

 

I apologize for this, trying to glean out the subtleties of this game.

 

GHH corrected me in stating that is the 4 tech, not 1.

[pjfootballer]

Wow, great post.

Since the Skins are a 34 D, do we really have a good enough NT for this scheme? I know Coffield fills this role, but is he really a true NT? Is Truck Nield ever going to be able to fill this role on a more reliable basis? Personally, I would rather have a big NT and slide Coffield over as a DT playing a 1 technique.

Thanks GHH.

If we play 1 gap we don't need a "Big fatass" space eater. I think that will play to the strengths of Cofield, Nield, Hatcher and Baker as penetrating NTs.

[KDawg]

Mainly because I am not very smart and am trying to learn.

 

I apologize for this, trying to glean out the subtleties of this game.

 

GHH corrected me in stating that is the 4 tech, not 1.

 

Hahah! Well, I asked because there are some stunt packages/stem packages that would call for a 0 & 1.  Thought you were getting creative!

 

Stunt is basically, in its simplest form, exchanging gap responsibilities between two or more DL.

 

Stem is simply moving around presnap and getting to where you're assigned post snap.

[darrelgreenie]

...Hopefully, it seems we've been asking our line to hold the line, which I assume is why we've remained good against the run, but asking just our OLBs to make plays while also doing the same, holding contain, but now were just telling our line to collapse a pocket, so our OLBs can crush it.

Makes more sense given our personnel. I think well fall off being good against the run, which should be okay if we can get close to the scoring we were doing in 12.

Instead of me trying to explain 1-gap vs 2-gap I'm gonna post a link and a excerpt from it that explains far better then I could.

But a 2-gap DL does more then hold the line:

                                                                                                                                                  

 

The 2-gap technique, by contrast, sounds physically impossible. How can one player occupy two separate gaps? He does it by controlling the blocker. At the snap of the football, a two-gapping defensive lineman does what Wilfork did to Birk. He leads with his hands, gets leverage on the offensive lineman, and takes control of the blocker. From there, the advanced techniques kick in. On run plays, the defender reacts to where the blocker tries to take him. If he is double-teamed, he’ll try to split the blockers and either shoot into the backfield or occupy the blockers, thus freeing up his teammates to make tackles.

 

In short, while a 1-gap player attacks gaps, a 2-gap player attacks people. Football’s conventional wisdom states that an effective 2-gap lineman, particularly one who lines up in the middle of the defense like Wilfork does, must be enormous. Coaches refer to them as “war daddies.” But size is actually less important than athleticism and smarts. The line between touchdowns and stops in the NFL is exceedingly thin, and it’s footwork and feel that are the difference. It is the most violent, most complicated, and most beautiful ballet I can think of.

 

http://grantland.com/features/bill-belichick-vince-wilfork-new-england-patriots-defense/

[rumplestilskin]

I wonder what technique Ron Jeremy used to fill gaps?

Seriously though, GHH nice work. Very informative.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Mainly because I am not very smart and am trying to learn.

I apologize for this, trying to glean out the subtleties of this game.

GHH corrected me in stating that is the 4 tech, not 1.

Meh, just wing it and smile and wave rick.

Between us we can fool KD into thinking we're 'super smart' as the great man would say.

We'll show these 'geeks' yet. -

Hail.

[KDawg]

Meh, just wing it and smile and wave rick.

Between us we can fool KD into thinking we're 'super smart' as the great man would say.

We'll show these 'geeks' yet. -

Hail.

 

I really thought he had some sick stunt/twist/blitz package schemed up. He should have ran with it

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

I really thought he had some sick stunt/twist/blitz package schemed up. He should have ran with it

He will next time ha ha.

You still over the LB's Coach or have they moved you again?

Hail.