Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

4-3 Starting Lineup


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, HTTRDynasty said:


That’s basically the 3-4...

It's not a 3-4 with 2 LBs on or near the line.  It's 3 DTs and 2 DEs because those are your top 5 defensive players (certainly excepting the secondary).  It's like when I was in ROTC summer camp and we were doing squad and platoon-level field maneuvers.  You could simulate the effect of any weapons system if you could demonstrate you knew how to incorporate it.  I wanted heavy artillery (you know, a battery of 155s).  Sure, cadet, like you know how to call in artillery.  Chuckle.  I noted our position on the map, "called" into my "supporting" arty battery, gave them a direction from my location to the target (degree of arc from north) and distance.  "Fire for effect".  (It's a little more detailed than that, but they didn't think I knew how to tell the cannon ****ers where to park their firecrackers.)  Cadre thought it was cute but it didn't really matter since these were simulated infantry exercises and they weren't going to let me Jim Kirk my way out of it.  My point is, when you really do have the ability to drop a battery of 155s on the enemy, you do it.

 

Edit:  holy cow, I had no idea that you can't use any word that contains slang for a rooster.  So, cannon cackers?

Edited by GothSkinsFan
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, GothSkinsFan said:

......

 

Edit:  holy cow, I had no idea that you can't use any word that contains slang for a rooster.  So, cannon cackers?

Yes it is pretty silly considering it is a widely used grouping of 4 letters and even as stand alone more often than naught it is used not as the word that is censored.

 

But don't let it get you all roostereyed. (Moderators please don't coldrooster me for this response). 

Edited by nonniey
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, GothSkinsFan said:

It's not a 3-4 with 2 LBs on or near the line.  It's 3 DTs and 2 DEs because those are your top 5 defensive players (certainly excepting the secondary).  It's like when I was in ROTC summer camp and we were doing squad and platoon-level field maneuvers.  You could simulate the effect of any weapons system if you could demonstrate you knew how to incorporate it.  I wanted heavy artillery (you know, a battery of 155s).  Sure, cadet, like you know how to call in artillery.  Chuckle.  I noted our position on the map, "called" into my "supporting" arty battery, gave them a direction from my location to the target (degree of arc from north) and distance.  "Fire for effect".  (It's a little more detailed than that, but they didn't think I knew how to tell the cannon ****ers where to park their firecrackers.)  Cadre thought it was cute but it didn't really matter since these were simulated infantry exercises and they weren't going to let me Jim Kirk my way out of it.  My point is, when you really do have the ability to drop a battery of 155s on the enemy, you do it.

 

Edit:  holy cow, I had no idea that you can't use any word that contains slang for a rooster.  So, cannon cackers?

 

 

I think we would be picked apart across the middle with that kind of set up.  Set up the shotgun, send your two WRs deep, keep in the TE if you have to as a blocker and the slot receiver and RB eats up small chunks of yardage.  And if you don't need the extra blocker and the TE add to it?  Tear us apart

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Schematically our defense was horrible last year.  Players looked confused of responsibilities and gap control was terrible.  A better system and better coaching should identify who can play and who can't.  I am cautiously optimistic that our front seven might actually be good.  On the back end, they gave up so many completions to guys running free, whether from zone break downs, busted coverage, poor communication or simply bad play (I think it was a bit of each).  It seemed they could not get off the field on third down.  I expect this years secondary schemes to be much simpler and better coached.  I'm not sure we have the talent that we need, but I do expect them to be better.  I have no doubt the defense will be better, how much better is the real question.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, carex said:

 

 

I think we would be picked apart across the middle with that kind of set up.  Set up the shotgun, send your two WRs deep, keep in the TE if you have to as a blocker and the slot receiver and RB eats up small chunks of yardage.  And if you don't need the extra blocker and the TE add to it?  Tear us apart

 

This was my thought as well. If we already had 2 super athletic LBs with sideline to sideline speed and really good coverage ability I could see it. But we don't have that at all. Offenses would use a spread shotgun formation and just kill us in the shallow to mid range middle of the field. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Burgundy Yoda said:

It's definitely going to be interesting to see how Payne transitions to the 4-3. I think we're going to be pleasantly surprised by his ability to get after the QB.   

 

He's going to perform at an All-Pro level this year.  Can't wait.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mistertim said:

 

This was my thought as well. If we already had 2 super athletic LBs with sideline to sideline speed and really good coverage ability I could see it. But we don't have that at all. Offenses would use a spread shotgun formation and just kill us in the shallow to mid range middle of the field. 

 

even if they were super athletic the lack of an extra body in the middle of the field would be a problem.  Essentially we'd be blitzing every play and we all know how badly things go when a blitz fails

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Burgundy Yoda said:

It's definitely going to be interesting to see how Payne transitions to the 4-3. I think we're going to be pleasantly surprised by his ability to get after the QB.   

 

I'm more interested in his ability to control the line as the weakside 1 tech.

Allen as the 3 tech will be the one to shine IMO.

27 minutes ago, carex said:

 

even if they were super athletic the lack of an extra body in the middle of the field would be a problem.  Essentially we'd be blitzing every play and we all know how badly things go when a blitz fails

 

The Patriots rush five almost every play.  It's all in understanding your scheme and having the right players. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Burgundy Yoda said:

It's definitely going to be interesting to see how Payne transitions to the 4-3. I think we're going to be pleasantly surprised by his ability to get after the QB.   


Payne is a damn good player. I expect a strong season from him.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mistertim said:

 

This was my thought as well. If we already had 2 super athletic LBs with sideline to sideline speed and really good coverage ability I could see it. But we don't have that at all. Offenses would use a spread shotgun formation and just kill us in the shallow to mid range middle of the field. 

Holcomb runs a sub-4.5 and Dion Hamilton has shown good cover skills.  Just saying, it's not a complete wasteland at LB we do have some athletic ability but don't discount brains.  Super-athletic ability can often result in running out of the play that much faster...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, FuriousD said:

Holcomb runs a sub-4.5 and Dion Hamilton has shown good cover skills.  Just saying, it's not a complete wasteland at LB we do have some athletic ability but don't discount brains.  Super-athletic ability can often result in running out of the play that much faster...

 

And KPL.

 

He is a darkhorse this year IMO

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Master Blaster said:

 

The Patriots rush five almost every play.  It's all in understanding your scheme and having the right players. 

 

The Pats also have possibly the best secondary in the NFL as well, so they can rush 5 guys almost every play because their DBs have guys locked down. Because of that they can afford to be super aggressive with their rush. We really don't have that luxury. But, we WILL possibly have a dominant 4 man front which means we could basically be the Pats in reverse. Support our mediocre secondary by being able to consistently get to the QB with 4 guys up front. It's no coincidence that SF's pass defense went from close to the bottom in 2018 to close to the top in 2019 once they had a dominant 4 man front that was able to get to the QB.

 

The Pats have always been a really good example of tailoring a defense to your team's strengths. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I love watching football and “I” think I understand it for the most part “I” know that I don’t know as much as most here so I have a few questions about how this 4-3 works and why there is so much concern about our team being able to cover players with the current roster, I’m sure I’m missing something but this is what I am thinking...

 

offensive line is (5) players of their allotted (11) that can be on the field on any given play. 

Pretty sure there is almost always a QB so that’s (1) more of their (11) players.

 

so that’s (6) players we “usually” don’t have to worry about catching or running the ball.

 

this is my assumption based on watching our D line the last few years that the opposition can’t stop Ion,Payne,Allen, and now with Young with just (5) lineman, you can’t double Payne and leave Ion alone, he can bull rush most everyone back fairly quickly if single blocked. That makes me think most teams will need to add a blocking TE on most every play just to allow their QB time to at a minimum a (3) step drop without having a Defensive Lineman in his face.

 

with the added TE that’s (7) players that won’t catch or usually run the ball ( running QB’s ) excluded.

 

so we use (4) they essentially have (7) players we don’t have to cover while our (4) rush the passer.

 

so don’t we have (7) players to cover their RB and 2nd TE and receivers (4) players?

 

Cant JDR scheme a way for us to on most plays be competent enough to minimize yards against us knowing we only need to rush (4) to get pressure on most plays ?

 

Obviously if it’s that easy nobody would ever score so would someone with way more expertise help me understand and by “ way more expertise “ I mean pretty much anyone.

 

thanks in advance for any insight y’all could provide.

 

🍻 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, A-Lost-Wolf said:

Although I love watching football and “I” think I understand it for the most part “I” know that I don’t know as much as most here so I have a few questions about how this 4-3 works and why there is so much concern about our team being able to cover players with the current roster, I’m sure I’m missing something but this is what I am thinking...

 

offensive line is (5) players of their allotted (11) that can be on the field on any given play. 

Pretty sure there is almost always a QB so that’s (1) more of their (11) players.

 

so that’s (6) players we “usually” don’t have to worry about catching or running the ball.

 

this is my assumption based on watching our D line the last few years that the opposition can’t stop Ion,Payne,Allen, and now with Young with just (5) lineman, you can’t double Payne and leave Ion alone, he can bull rush most everyone back fairly quickly if single blocked. That makes me think most teams will need to add a blocking TE on most every play just to allow their QB time to at a minimum a (3) step drop without having a Defensive Lineman in his face.

 

with the added TE that’s (7) players that won’t catch or usually run the ball ( running QB’s ) excluded.

 

so we use (4) they essentially have (7) players we don’t have to cover while our (4) rush the passer.

 

so don’t we have (7) players to cover their RB and 2nd TE and receivers (4) players?

 

Cant JDR scheme a way for us to on most plays be competent enough to minimize yards against us knowing we only need to rush (4) to get pressure on most plays ?

 

Obviously if it’s that easy nobody would ever score so would someone with way more expertise help me understand and by “ way more expertise “ I mean pretty much anyone.

 

thanks in advance for any insight y’all could provide.

 

🍻 

 

that would basically be the hope.  Generally speaking the D has the numbers advantage even without a team always needing extra blockers as it would still be seven on five

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, carex said:

 

that would basically be the hope.  Generally speaking the D has the numbers advantage even without a team always needing extra blockers as it would still be seven on five

And yet, year after year the passing and receiving numbers seem to always go up.  Head to head numbers seem to matter much more in the running game but when it comes to passing, there's only one ball and the advantage is to the offense and the play design.  Multiple receivers... multiple options and outlets, even if it's a RB who was chipping just a half second ago and is now drifting into a flat cleared of WR's and DB's

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, FuriousD said:

And yet, year after year the passing and receiving numbers seem to always go up.  Head to head numbers seem to matter much more in the running game but when it comes to passing, there's only one ball and the advantage is to the offense and the play design.  Multiple receivers... multiple options and outlets, even if it's a RB who was chipping just a half second ago and is now drifting into a flat cleared of WR's and DB's

 

that's because the O has the advantage of having an enacting a plan and the D has to react

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/15/2020 at 9:53 AM, carex said:

 

even if they were super athletic the lack of an extra body in the middle of the field would be a problem.  Essentially we'd be blitzing every play and we all know how badly things go when a blitz fails

You blitz, all night.  You make sure they remember, forever, the night they played the Redskins!

 

"And on that cold, rain-swept gridiron in the shadow of the nation's capital, the Washington Redskins blitzed all night.  Though many an opponent slipped through the defensive line for the toughest 2 or 3 yards of their lives, when the final gun sounded, it wasn't the Redskins who would spend the early hours of the following morning scanning the waiver wire for 3 new quarterbacks.  And while the Redskins' offensive line wasn't happy about being called mediocre, at least they weren't being put on season-ending injured reserve for psychological trauma so severe, the only thing that could save the Redskins' defensive line from legal liability is the State of Maryland's doctrine of assumption of the risk.  When the opposing offensive line lined up against the Redskins' front 5, with nothing but toxic body odor between them, that offensive line was assuming the risk of being destroyed by the greatest defensive line in NFL history, a line so feared that the week before, the wife of the opposing team's starting QB got a federal court to issue an injunction prohibiting him from playing in the game."  [Trumpets blare, etc.]

 

You have to read that paragraph with a slow, deep voice.  You know, as in "frozen tundra".

Edited by GothSkinsFan
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, carex said:

 

that's because the O has the advantage of having an enacting a plan and the D has to react

Not really. It has more to do with the rule changes that allow offenses to utilize space with much more ease. You can't touch guys for five yards now which lets all that speed and explosiveness go unchecked. That's why you see teams able to move 80 yards downfield in under 2 minutes so efficiently nowadays.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, carex said:

  that would basically be the hope.  Generally speaking the D has the numbers advantage even without a team always needing extra blockers as it would still be seven on five 

 

This is right.  A consistent four man rush is kind of the dream for your defensive coaches.  It gives them the ability to design coverages with very small gaps and being able to bracket two receivers can compensate for the weaknesses in your group of corners.

 

A dominant four man front also makes it easy to stop the run because the OL can't count on winning the numbers game to create lanes if your interior linemen are fitting successfully against doubles.

 

It still requires guys being able to execute in your back seven to be successful--linebackers and safeties flowing to the ball and making tackles and holding up in their zones and corners keeping containment and generally sticking with their match ups in man.  But if your linemen are doing the hard part and winning their match ups, then it's generally not too difficult or expensive to find competence in the back seven.

 

If we do end up getting that dominant DL play that provides high level gap control and a consistent four man rush, it will have been hard won.  We spent five first round picks on a four man position group plus spent a little bit of coin to keep a draft gem in Ioannidis.  It's an incredible commitment of resources.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

He's JAG IMO, but enjoyed reading this thorough breakdown.  If Bostic is as good as this guy thinks he is, we'll be solid at LB this year (I think SDH can be a stud).

 

 

Edited by HTTRDynasty
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...