Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rank the DTs

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Rank the DTs

    [quote user="slipknottin"]Raiders after attempting to run a 3-4 with Sapp decided it was not working and went back to a 4-3 for the most part.

    And its not a matter as much of if a guy when forced into it can play alright there, its a matter of finding a guy that best fits the system and is most effective there.

    As for Chargers and KC. Different systems completely. Chargers run more of a 50 front, 1 gap 3-4. Size isnt as critical to their 5 techs. All of their DEs are on the smaller size height wise.

    KC on the other hand doesnt really even use 5 techs, they use two 4 techs and a 0 tech. Traditional 2 gap 3-4. Dorsey was drafted by the previous regime, when they were running the 4-3. While Dorsey has played 4 tech probably better than anyone expected, its far from an ideal position for him. Just watching him play you can see the disadvantages he has with a lack of height trying to 2 gap. He is fortunate he has 33"+ long arms.[/quote]

    Just refresh my memory on this one. It's been over 4 years now since I've played football. If you are playing a two gap system, doesn't it make it difficult to do so playing both ends in a 4 tech? That puts a lot of pressure on the ends to cover two gaps from that position or is that strictly referring to the nose tackle's responsibility?

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Rank the DTs

      [quote user="WR4Life"]
      Just refresh my memory on this one. It's been over 4 years now since I've played football. If you are playing a two gap system, doesn't it make it difficult to do so playing both ends in a 4 tech? That puts a lot of pressure on the ends to cover two gaps from that position or is that strictly referring to the nose tackle's responsibility?[/quote]

      Well from what Ive seen from the Chiefs the DEs align at either 3, 4, or 5, even occasionally at 6. They are asked either to engage both guard + tackle, or two gap over the tackle.

      They might be aligning more on the inside shoulder because of a lack of talent at NT. Having the DEs engaging or at least threatening the guards may help keep the guards off the NT, making the NTs 2 gapping job easier to accomplish. If they had a wilfork type at NT, maybe they align the DEs more often at 5 tech?

      From what Ive seen of the chargers, they align their DEs as 3 techs an awful lot, they try to get penetration from their DEs quite a lot.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Rank the DTs

        [quote user="slipknottin"]Raiders after attempting to run a 3-4 with Sapp decided it was not working and went back to a 4-3 for the most part.

        And its not a matter as much of if a guy when forced into it can play alright there, its a matter of finding a guy that best fits the system and is most effective there.

        As for Chargers and KC. Different systems completely. Chargers run more of a 50 front, 1 gap 3-4. Size isnt as critical to their 5 techs. All of their DEs are on the smaller size height wise.

        KC on the other hand doesnt really even use 5 techs, they use two 4 techs and a 0 tech. Traditional 2 gap 3-4. Dorsey was drafted by the previous regime, when they were running the 4-3. While Dorsey has played 4 tech probably better than anyone expected, its far from an ideal position for him. Just watching him play you can see the disadvantages he has with a lack of height trying to 2 gap. He is fortunate he has 33"+ long arms.[/quote]
        Never heard of a traditional 2 gap 3/4 where they have there ends playing the 4tech? Traditional 2 gap 3/4 is with 5 techs, hence the two gap ( B and C) responsibility of a 5 tech. A 4 techs sole gap is the B gap.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Rank the DTs

          [quote user="juice33s"]Never heard of a traditional 2 gap 3/4 where they have there ends playing* the 4tech? Traditional 2 gap 3/4 is with 5 techs, hence the two gap ( B and C) responsibility of a 5 tech. A 4 techs sole gap is the B gap.
          [/quote]

          It looks like on film the Chiefs DEs are asked to engage the guard and OT. But unless its a known pass play, they arent asked to push up field at all, just to engage both players.

          Seems like they either are 2 gapping, or engaging guard + tackle.

          They do run a lot of slants as well, so its hard to tell a lot of it.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Rank the DTs

            Also I did not get to see any Chiefs games this year, they werent broadcast in florida and my internet was not fast enough to stream them, so I didnt get to see how the defense changed this year if it did. I do know that when the chiefs originally installed the 3-4 that Dorsey was lined up at 4 tech nearly every play.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Rank the DTs

              [quote user="slipknottin"][quote user="WR4Life"]
              Just refresh my memory on this one. It's been over 4 years now since I've played football. If you are playing a two gap system, doesn't it make it difficult to do so playing both ends in a 4 tech? That puts a lot of pressure on the ends to cover two gaps from that position or is that strictly referring to the nose tackle's responsibility?[/quote]

              Well from what Ive seen from the Chiefs the DEs align at either 3, 4, or 5, even occasionally at 6. They are asked either to engage both guard + tackle, or two gap over the tackle.

              They might be aligning more on the inside shoulder because of a lack of talent at NT. Having the DEs engaging or at least threatening the guards may help keep the guards off the NT, making the NTs 2 gapping job easier to accomplish. If they had a wilfork type at NT, maybe they align the DEs more often at 5 tech?

              From what Ive seen of the chargers, they align their DEs as 3 techs an awful lot, they try to get penetration from their DEs quite a lot.[/quote]

              That's why I was curious. From a 4 it would be very difficult to play 2 gaps. If its the case that it's compensating for the NT then it would almost be as if the NT has a two gap responsibility while the ends do not. It'd almost be impossible to cover the C gap from the 4 spot.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Rank the DTs

                [quote user="WR4Life"]

                That's why I was curious. From a 4 it would be very difficult to play 2 gaps. If its the case that it's compensating for the NT then it would almost be as if the NT has a two gap responsibility while the ends do not. It'd almost be impossible to cover the C gap from the 4 spot.[/quote]

                It could have been playcall too, asked to either 2 gap over the OT (occasionally you see them 2 gap over the guard too) or to engage both guard + tackle, and while they arent two gapping, they arent supposed to be penetrating, either. Simply occupy blockers.

                They do have some really good talent at OLB too, so perhaps they are less concerned with the C gap.

                They do run an unusual scheme, at least they did under Pendergast. Arizona ran similar concepts when he was there

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Rank the DTs

                  Went back and watched some of there defense and it seems like if one DE played 4 tech and tied up that gap by drawing guard+ tackle the other DE just two gapped over his OT. They switched up which DE did which. I suppose that is sort of like a line slant. Interesting concept. The DE which played 4 tech would almost always have a LB come in behind him going outside, which takes care of that C gap

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Rank the DTs

                    [quote user="slipknottin"]Went back and watched some of there defense and it seems like if one DE played 4 tech and tied up that gap by drawing guard+ tackle the other DE just two gapped over his OT. They switched up which DE did which. I suppose that is sort of like a line slant. Interesting concept. The DE which played 4 tech would almost always have a LB come in behind him going outside, which takes care of that C gap[/quote]

                    That makes sense to me. Did the alignment have anything to do with how the offense came out? (I.E. Did the 5 tech always play to the strong side and the 4 on the weak side or vice versa?)

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Rank the DTs

                      Not sure. Two games I've been looking at are against 49ers and chargers. 49ers have used two TEs nearly every snap. And chargers have flexed Gates out wide nearly every snap.

                      The Chiefs have brought their safetys up on the line over the TEs quite a few times too

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Rank the DTs

                        Interesting. Unfortunately some of us will never be able to fully grasp or understand the complexities of how these coordinators run their defenses. Requires more hours of study and film than many of us can afford or have access to.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X