Call me crazy but...
-
Maybe I found some info to support otherwise.
The Ravens had 34 tema sacks last season
The Browns had 17
The Jets however, had 41!
I think were gonna have a slightly more aggressive D than people think
Maybe I found some info to support otherwise.
The Ravens had 34 tema sacks last season
The Browns had 17
The Jets however, had 41!
I think were gonna have a slightly more aggressive D than people think
Dude, your play design as a sig is sweet but please edit it and get Glue Hands Hubbard out of there unless this is supposed to be a lineup before the first cuts.
-
AdaM said:
I've heard a lot of raider fans argue that it was Davis who was passive, Ryan just did what Al told him.We'll find out.
Rob didn't want to work under Kiffin. He wanted to leave the Raiders and it was a three-way staredown between Al, Kiffin and Rob. Neither coach would quit ($) and neither liked the other. Rob wanted to leave before last year and come to the Jets to replace Sutton and he wasn't allowed out of his contract. So, in response, Rob really was Jekyll and Hyde from game to game. Make no mistake....no kid of Buddy's is going to play 100% vanilla and passive.
-
Yeah, it's really hard to tell what Ryan's style will be. Crazy Al wanted a passive defense and Kiffin wanted to run a blitz-free Tampa 2 (but Al said no).
But as Vegasdogg noted, the play of our rush backers will be key to how our defense performs. Veikune could help, but we need Wimbley or Hall to really step up. And when we go to a four man front, Corey Williams needs to rush like he did in Green Bay. Hopefully, our added d-line depth will help keep him fresh.
-
adam and shep, i hope you guys are right. it'd be great to have an aggressive defense. even a situationally aggressive D would give me some hope.
-
It's interesting to see how Rob Ryan responded to a question about his and Rex's situations back in February '08 (scroll to the 2:25 mark).
Not sure I've ever heard anyone say "happy to be a part of it" with so much ennui. Clearly, he was upset to be stuck in Oakland, where - as he says - Al Davis runs the show.
I've heard that Mangini likes to delegate a lot of responsibility to his coordinators, so Rob should have some leeway to act like a Ryan.
-
I'm pretty sure we're going to be running a 2 gap 3-4 this season.
3 factors that lead me to believe it are:
1. the 1 gap 3-4 relies more on athletic ability and less on intelligence of its players and we've been going after the "smart" types (passing on Rey was the big red flag for me).
2. the 1 gap 3-4 usually has a 280lb pass rushing DE and all we have are big guys.
3. It's what Bill Bellicheat would do.
So as much as we'd all love to see a the more aggressive 1 gap 3-4, I'm pretty sure we're going to be stuck with the same old boring bend but don't break D we've been seeing since Romeo squeezed his way out of the Dunkin Doughnuts and into a Browns job.
Any other red flags you guys have caught wind of?
I'm pretty sure we're going to be running a 2 gap 3-4 this season.
3 factors that lead me to believe it are:
1. the 1 gap 3-4 relies more on athletic ability and less on intelligence of its players and we've been going after the "smart" types (passing on Rey was the big red flag for me).
2. the 1 gap 3-4 usually has a 280lb pass rushing DE and all we have are big guys.
3. It's what Bill Bellicheat would do.
So as much as we'd all love to see a the more aggressive 1 gap 3-4, I'm pretty sure we're going to be stuck with the same old boring bend but don't break D we've been seeing since Romeo squeezed his way out of the Dunkin Doughnuts and into a Browns job.
Any other red flags you guys have caught wind of?
I think you might be confusing system with scheme... but only a bit. Whether a team uses a 1-gap or 2-gap 3-4 system has little to do with the "scheme". One doesn't specifically lend itself to creating more quarterback pressure than the other.
Well, actually, that's not exactly true. A 2-gap system will generally create more overall pressure and disruption (and the occasional unabated pass rusher, which is nice). But, it's all about how you use it.
The 1-gap 3-4 (a la Wade Phillips) is a bit more predictable. It's basically a 4 man rush on every play. And the alignment will often dictate which linebacker is coming. In fact, the Will linebacker is typically coming in the base set. And when he's not, the "blitz" packages really take on more of a 4-3 stunt look, than the mask-style 2-gap blitz packages.
Think of is this way, in a 1-gap 3-4 you'll typically line up with a 3-technique, a 1-technique, and a 5 technique up front. In that way, it's far more similar to the 4-3. The difference is, where a 4-3 would have a 1 technique on the weak side, in the 3-4 he's on the strong side. It's basically a 4-3 over look, with the Will linebacker playing the role of the weak side end, but a shade wider. It's basically a 7 technique. This leaves the Mike backer in the weak side trail position - he's a half-man to the weak side, on the outside shoulder of the weak side guard, protected by the weak side 3-technique. The Ted backer (or Sam depending on how you name them... either way he's the strong side inside linebacker) is in the scrape position 3-5 yards off the ball head up on the strong side guard. Your Sam (or "Jack" again, depending, blah blah blah...) is in the 9 technique.
The point is... one, not to go in to all of that.... but to point out the restrictions of the 1-gap. In the 1-gap 3-4, the Mike and Ted are protected by numbers, angle, and distance. The Ted is protected by the three defenders in front of him. And the Mike is protected by his vertical position (he's only a man and a half to the weak side of the center) and his depth (4-5 yards). If you close the gap with either inside backer by blitzing, you actually simplify the blocking scheme up front and shorten the angles of the linemen. If the Ted blitzes the B-gap, the guard picks him up, the center rides the 1-technique out, or simply cuts him. If the Mike blitzes, it's usually going to be the weak side A-gap (unless there's a stunt), and all you do is bring your most reliable defender within arms reach of the offensive center, who wants nothing more than to get close to that Mike backer.
So really your left with the same sort of roll blitzes and overloads that you have in the 4-3, with the OLB's doing most of the leg work. You basically get the benefit of the extra athlete on the field (a LB replaces a DT), but you lose the peekaboo blitz options that come with 2-gapping up front.
The 2-gap 3-4 is far more flexible. If you have a 0-technique that can play both A gaps, you've just occupied 3 offensive players about half the time. If you combine that with 2 solid 4-techniques (or 5's, or a 4 and a 5, depending on who's defense we're talking about), you've got free linebackers all over the place. You can zone blitz, overload, you can run whip techniques (with the ILB looping the OLB), chases, ILB crosses, you name it.
Understand, however, that the zone blitz games employed by virtually every 3-4 team (2-gap or otherwise) have some single gap elements to them. That's also where the distinction comes in regarding the 4 vs. 5 technique. This is why 3-4 DE's can be some of the most difficult athletes on the planet to track down. To slide in and out of that 1-gap or 2-gap technique, get depth when necessary, roll out and play the 7 technique, slide down to the 3 in the nickel... it's a lot to ask of a guy pushing 300 lbs., and in some cases more.
You know, I probably could've just said, "It's not whether it's a 1-gap or 2-gap system, it's how you call the game. But it's a little easier to be more aggressive with a 2-gap." I could've written this post in 10 seconds, and saved everyone who bothered from wading through the alphabet soup in the previous few paragraphs. I just re-read part of that, and it reads like stereo instructions...
-jj
-
You know, I probably could've just said, "It's not whether it's a 1-gap or 2-gap system, it's how you call the game. But it's a little easier to be more aggressive with a 2-gap." I could've written this post in 10 seconds, and saved everyone who bothered from wading through the alphabet soup in the previous few paragraphs. I just re-read part of that, and it reads like stereo instructions...
-jj
Its all good in the hood...
-
I'm pretty sure we're going to be running a 2 gap 3-4 this season.
3 factors that lead me to believe it are:
1. the 1 gap 3-4 relies more on athletic ability and less on intelligence of its players and we've been going after the "smart" types (passing on Rey was the big red flag for me).
2. the 1 gap 3-4 usually has a 280lb pass rushing DE and all we have are big guys.
3. It's what Bill Bellicheat would do.
So as much as we'd all love to see a the more aggressive 1 gap 3-4, I'm pretty sure we're going to be stuck with the same old boring bend but don't break D we've been seeing since Romeo squeezed his way out of the Dunkin Doughnuts and into a Browns job.
Any other red flags you guys have caught wind of?
I think you might be confusing system with scheme... but only a bit. Whether a team uses a 1-gap or 2-gap 3-4 system has little to do with the "scheme". One doesn't specifically lend itself to creating more quarterback pressure than the other.
Well, actually, that's not exactly true. A 2-gap system will generally create more overall pressure and disruption (and the occasional unabated pass rusher, which is nice). But, it's all about how you use it.
The 1-gap 3-4 (a la Wade Phillips) is a bit more predictable. It's basically a 4 man rush on every play. And the alignment will often dictate which linebacker is coming. In fact, the Will linebacker is typically coming in the base set. And when he's not, the "blitz" packages really take on more of a 4-3 stunt look, than the mask-style 2-gap blitz packages.
Think of is this way, in a 1-gap 3-4 you'll typically line up with a 3-technique, a 1-technique, and a 5 technique up front. In that way, it's far more similar to the 4-3. The difference is, where a 4-3 would have a 1 technique on the weak side, in the 3-4 he's on the strong side. It's basically a 4-3 over look, with the Will linebacker playing the role of the weak side end, but a shade wider. It's basically a 7 technique. This leaves the Mike backer in the weak side trail position - he's a half-man to the weak side, on the outside shoulder of the weak side guard, protected by the weak side 3-technique. The Ted backer (or Sam depending on how you name them... either way he's the strong side inside linebacker) is in the scrape position 3-5 yards off the ball head up on the strong side guard. Your Sam (or "Jack" again, depending, blah blah blah...) is in the 9 technique.
The point is... one, not to go in to all of that.... but to point out the restrictions of the 1-gap. In the 1-gap 3-4, the Mike and Ted are protected by numbers, angle, and distance. The Ted is protected by the three defenders in front of him. And the Mike is protected by his vertical position (he's only a man and a half to the weak side of the center) and his depth (4-5 yards). If you close the gap with either inside backer by blitzing, you actually simplify the blocking scheme up front and shorten the angles of the linemen. If the Ted blitzes the B-gap, the guard picks him up, the center rides the 1-technique out, or simply cuts him. If the Mike blitzes, it's usually going to be the weak side A-gap (unless there's a stunt), and all you do is bring your most reliable defender within arms reach of the offensive center, who wants nothing more than to get close to that Mike backer.
So really your left with the same sort of roll blitzes and overloads that you have in the 4-3, with the OLB's doing most of the leg work. You basically get the benefit of the extra athlete on the field (a LB replaces a DT), but you lose the peekaboo blitz options that come with 2-gapping up front.
The 2-gap 3-4 is far more flexible. If you have a 0-technique that can play both A gaps, you've just occupied 3 offensive players about half the time. If you combine that with 2 solid 4-techniques (or 5's, or a 4 and a 5, depending on who's defense we're talking about), you've got free linebackers all over the place. You can zone blitz, overload, you can run whip techniques (with the ILB looping the OLB), chases, ILB crosses, you name it.
Understand, however, that the zone blitz games employed by virtually every 3-4 team (2-gap or otherwise) have some single gap elements to them. That's also where the distinction comes in regarding the 4 vs. 5 technique. This is why 3-4 DE's can be some of the most difficult athletes on the planet to track down. To slide in and out of that 1-gap or 2-gap technique, get depth when necessary, roll out and play the 7 technique, slide down to the 3 in the nickel... it's a lot to ask of a guy pushing 300 lbs., and in some cases more.
You know, I probably could've just said, "It's not whether it's a 1-gap or 2-gap system, it's how you call the game. But it's a little easier to be more aggressive with a 2-gap." I could've written this post in 10 seconds, and saved everyone who bothered from wading through the alphabet soup in the previous few paragraphs. I just re-read part of that, and it reads like stereo instructions...
-jj
I could've written this post in 10 seconds, and saved everyone who bothered from wading through the alphabet soup in the previous few paragraphs. I just re-read part of that, and it reads like stereo instructions...
Nope.
Well, if it does read like that I must be a Geek because I loved it.
-
The whole one gap 3-4 idea came up when we were discussing the Browns' future late last season because guys like Wimbley & Hall wouldn't be anything more than situational guys in a 4-3 and we'd just invested a lot of money in Corey Williams, a guy who seems to be a better fit as a one gap d-tackle. However, we've since added a bunch of guys who are familiar with Mangini's defense and some, like Kenyon Coleman, who are exclusively two-gappers.
But even now, the folks at the OBR are hearing rumblings that the Browns plan to experiment a little with how they play their d-linemen. Not many details have made it out of Berea thus far, but I'm sure we'll be asking Jason to diagram them out for us when they do.
Great stuff.
-
Was just reading some reports from the Raiders' OTA's. Besides the talk of how bad Jamarcus Russell looks, the biggest story seems to be how much the linebackers are blitzing. And the team is said to be confident that they can improve their defense despite not making any big upgrades, with the argument being that coaching was the real problem last year.
Not sure what that says about how aggressive or good of a coach Rob Ryan is. Either way, the Raiders' defense is still going to suck. Hopefully, ours won't.
-
Ryan’s Influence: Mangini said that defensive coordinator Rob Ryan will definitely have an influence in the Browns' defense this year.
“It’s not my defense,” Mangini said. “It’s not New England’s defense. It evolves. You take the things that Rob learned in Oakland. What we’re trying to do is let it evolve into the Browns defense. The playbook is a starting point, but you let it evolve.”
.jpg.a1a2b9a0c33008fdaf4097d8fe2cfd64.jpg "Riffer X"){kind=avatar}
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better đź’—
Register Login