What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

IDP 101 -- Discussing Defensive Schemes (1 Viewer)

Jene Bramel

Jene Bramel

Footballguy


IDP 101 – Storytime With Warren Sapp

Understanding defensive football is a passion of mine, so I’ll try not to get to long-winded and :confused: here. And I’m no Ron Jaworski, just a self-taught football fan. But hopefully, some of you will find my ramblings interesting and useful.

I’m going to try to cover all sorts of ground with this series. I’ll try to strike a balance between technical playbook concepts and the art of team defensive football. We’ll do plenty of player-specific details, but look to bring everything back to a big picture approach. We could probably start just about anywhere, but I’m going to start with a look at the career of Warren Sapp.

Apologies to Raider fans who know what’s coming. ;)

Everyone knows Warren Sapp. Seven time Pro Bowl defensive tackle, Defensive Player of the Year in 2000 after a 16.5 sack season, key anchor of the perennial top ten Tampa Bay Buccaneer defense of the 1990s and one of the league’s loudest trash talkers. That Warren Sapp. Now quick, name me five other defensive tackles in the league today. Unless you’re much more than a casual football fan, you probably hesitated somewhere along the way.

Just how good was Sapp in Tampa Bay? This good:

Warren Sapp 1995-2003 >> 49 solo tackles, 8.5 sacks (as an interior lineman) per 16 games

Arguably still within the prime of his career in 2004, Sapp signed with the Oakland Raiders and was moved to defensive end in new defensive coordinator Rob Ryan’s multiple front, but mostly 3-4, scheme. Sapp struggled to have any impact, finishing with just 2.5 sacks in 2004, two of which came late in the season after the Raiders went back to a mostly four man front with Sapp back at defensive tackle. Before you argue that Sapp was just a washed up old man by that point at age 31, consider that Sapp would later have yet another double digit sack season in 2006.

Sapp would later call 2004 “the hardest year of my life.”

So, what’s the big deal. Everybody has bad years. What made Sapp so successful in Tampa but hate life in Oakland?

We can get our answer from none other than the colossally disappointing David Carr. After a rare play in 2004 in which Sapp got near enough to the pocket to chat up the opposing quarterback, Carr looked at him and said, “You need to be in a 3-technique.” Okay, so maybe that’s not the punchline that brings down the house. But come back and read that line again later this week after you finish the string of posts to follow.

Why exactly did Sapp’s stats drop so harshly? What is a 3-technique anyway? Wouldn’t you like to be as insightful as David Carr? :confused:

Well, that’s the thrust of this series. It’s one thing to nod your head when a commentator says that Warren Sapp was a poor fit in the 3-4. It’s another thing to have an intelligent discussion about why. None of us are likely to ever be capable of designing and coordinating an NFL defense. But it’s fun to learn a little bit of what those guys know.

This week, we’re going to look into why certain defensive tackles are more likely to end up on SportsCenter than others, how some defensive ends are given a pass rushing edge by their coordinators and why Bruce Smith was perhaps the rarest of all defensive ends.

Before we can do that, however, we need to build a quick foundation of defensive line terminology.

Next up: Defensive Line "Alignments" and "Techniques" (aka Making Things More Difficult Than They Probably Need To Be)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
IDP 101 – The Confusing World of Defensive Line Alignments

I’ve pledged to keep this from getting too technical. But it’s too difficult to understand why Warren Sapp was so successful and Bruce Smith so rare without at least trying to understand some basic defensive line terminology.

Bear with me, this will be the :confused: -iest post in the entire series.

Code: 
5\4/4i  3\2/2i  1\O/1  2i\2/3  4i\4/5   7\6/9	8				  T	   G	   C	   G	   T	   E
First, a couple of quick disclaimers. :confused:

1. Without getting into all kinds of history, Bum Phillips and Bear Bryant each have been credited with versions of these numerical alignments. Currently, there are many different variations. It’s well beyond the scope of this series to discuss all those variations. Just know that they exist and the “1” designation above might not be the same in every playbook. The alignments we’ll discuss specifically in this thread, however, are pretty much the same in every playbook.

2. The words alignment and technique are often used interchangeably. It’s most correct to call the above numbers alignments. However, you’ll much more often hear that “Rod Coleman plays a 3-technique.” Some may see it as splitting hairs, but others may be rather anal about the distinction.


A quick way to summarize the above diagram is that even numbers (usually – see #1 above) denote an alignment that is head-up or helmet to helmet with the opposing offensive lineman. Odd numbers (usually – see #1 above) denote an alignment that is offset over the outside shoulder of the opposing offensive lineman. To make it confusing, the 7-technique refers to an alignment on the inside shoulder of the tight end, the 9-technique refers to an alignment on the outside shoulder of the tight end or a specified distance outside the tackle, while the 8-technique refers to an alignment outside the tight end altogether ("over air"). Again, different playbooks may use different numbering schemes.

While the terminology is worth understanding, the responsibility of the linemen in those alignments is what’s important. My apologies for the Bill Cosby-esque, “I had to tell you that story to tell you this one,” deal.

For the most part, players in even numbered alignments are responsible for the gap to both the right and left of them – i.e. a 2-gap technique. Specifically, a nose tackle playing head-up in a 0 alignment on the center is responsible for the gap between the left guard and center and the right guard and center. Players in odd numbered alignments are responsible for the gap directly in front of them – i.e. a 1-gap technique. Specifically, a defensive tackle in a 3-technique alignment is responsible for the gap between the guard and tackle on his side of the ball.

Traditionally, defensive linemen in a four man front play 1-gap techniques and those in a three man front play 2-gap techniques. Despite what you’ll read in some places, however, it’s not so simple in today’s NFL. Some defensive tackles in a 4-3 front play 2-gap nose tackle-like techniques and many defensive ends in 3-4 fronts play 1-gap techniques. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves.

Coming Soon: Why over-under isn’t just a gambling term and how Tony Dungy made Warren Sapp a star.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
IDP 101 – How to Make a Defensive Tackle a Star (and a huge amount of :shrug: )

There are a number of ways to slide your defensive tackles to allow them to be more aggressive. One of those ways has been made popular by Tony Dungy and Monte Kiffin over the past two decades because of the success of their Tampa-2 defensive scheme.

It’s called the “under” front, because the strength of the defensive line is shifted away from the strong side (TE side) of the offensive formation. Teams that use it will often refer to their defensive tackles as a nose tackle and an undertackle. The undertackle is in a 3 alignment on the weak side, and you’ll hear the terms “undertackle” and “3-technique tackle” used interchangeably.

For those of you who like diagrams, here’s what it looks like.

Code: 
“Under” Front				   				  TE	  T	   G	   C	   G	   T						DE			  NT		 UT	   DE
The under front has been a mainstay of Cover-2 teams for decades. If you’re going to keep your back seven in coverage, you have to get pressure up front. It helps to have stud pass rushing ends, but undershifting your line allows you to get your hand-picked, quick, powerful defensive tackle isolated on a guard. Essentially, you’ve schemed yourself a third defensive end. And, in fact, many of the players who have been successful as undertackles played defensive end at some point during their careers.

Warren Sapp is generally considered the prototype undertackle today. But there were a number of impressive names before him. Bud Carson, whose Steel Curtain defense was based on the Cover-2 and a major influence on Dungy, continually schemed ways to get Mean Joe Greene isolated on a guard. Floyd Peters, under whom Kiffin worked in Minnesota before Dungy, made Keith Millard one of the first true undertackles. Millard went on to set the record for single season sacks by an interior lineman – 18 in 1989 – a record that still stands today.

After Millard in Minnesota came John Randle, the undertackle in the first version of the Dungy/Kiffin Tampa-2 defense. Randle had eight consecutive double digit sack seasons as a defensive tackle, not including his 9.5 sack output in his first season as an undertackle under Dungy and Kiffin.

La’Roi Glover and his 17 sacks in 2000? Undertackle. Rod Coleman, Kevin Williams and Vonnie Holliday have racked up numbers in recent seasons as undertackles. Tommie Harris has already made two Pro Bowls as Lovie Smith’s undertackle. And Cory Redding just took the Detroit Lions for a seven year, $49 million dollar deal after moving to undertackle and putting up seven sacks during the second half of his contract year.

IDP newbies need no longer wonder why we continually pimp undertackles as viable roster options. Seek out the teams with a seemingly undersized, quick DT that use a lot of underfronts and you have a potential goldmine. Keep an eye on what the Rams decide to do with Adam Carriker this offseason. He’s a Keith Millard waiting to happen.

What of Warren Sapp? Much smarter men than I have noted that you fit your scheme to your talent rather than trying to force a known talent into an unfavorable scheme. In the next post, we’ll see why a simple change in scheme can so significantly affect a seven time Pro Bowler. We’ll learn why David Carr may have made a better defensive coordinator than quarterback. And we’ll talk about why you should be more impressed with Bruce Smith’s 200 career sacks than you already were.

Next up: Why Warren Sapp "Hated Life" in the 3-4 Defensive Front
 
Last edited by a moderator:
By the way, though I used the cheesy curriculum gimmick to organize my thoughts, feel free to throw questions, corrections, suggestions for more or better information into these threads.

I'm trying to keep the format more short essay/column than playbook in nature, but these threads can take whatever direction folks want.

 
Keep it coming, Jene, you're doing great! This student is captivated and still digesting all the information so please stay with your current curriculum, no need for overload.

 
Jene Bramel said:
continually schemed ways to get Mean Joe Greene isolated on a guard.
Click to expand...
Not sure if you want to get too much into how offenses counter these alignments/techniques, but I had a possible stupid question. Your statement that I quoted makes it sound like they'd scheme one way to isolate him, then the O would counter with something, and the D would then have to scheme another way to isolate him, and back and forth each side counters. But, from your drawing, it seems like you simply line him up in the 3 technique and there's no need to "continually scheme ways."So, what do offenses do to counter scheme? Are there offensive philosophies/sets that combat the 3 technique better than others or is it simply about the talent of the guard?
 
dgreen said:
Jene Bramel said:
continually schemed ways to get Mean Joe Greene isolated on a guard.
Click to expand...
Not sure if you want to get too much into how offenses counter these alignments/techniques, but I had a possible stupid question. Your statement that I quoted makes it sound like they'd scheme one way to isolate him, then the O would counter with something, and the D would then have to scheme another way to isolate him, and back and forth each side counters. But, from your drawing, it seems like you simply line him up in the 3 technique and there's no need to "continually scheme ways."So, what do offenses do to counter scheme? Are there offensive philosophies/sets that combat the 3 technique better than others or is it simply about the talent of the guard?
Click to expand...
Greene really wasn't a true undertackle. Like many of the 4-3 defensive tackles of his day, I believe he played a lot of 2-gap technique, head up on a guard. By "scheming ways to free Greene" Carson used to stunt Greene regularly and I believe he slanted Ernie Holmes on the nose to keep Greene free from a center-guard double team. I mentioned Mean Joe because I'm I'm sure Dungy (his teammate in Pittsburgh) and Kiffin (who was exposed to Floyd Peters "under" fronts) talked about what Greene did when they put their Tampa-2 playbook together.With respect to combating a 3-technique, it's probably mostly about the talent of the guard. You can max protect with two TEs or use a back to chip the defensive end. Still, if you've got a stud edge rusher next to you, there's only so much you can do. You can leave the TE to block the end and double with the tackle, but then you've raised another set of issues. It's a little easier to vary your blocking scheme in the run game.
 
"La’Roi Glover and his 17 sacks in 2000? Undertackle."

does this explain why Glover seemed so ineffective once he moved to Dallas ?

similiar to Sapps move to Oakland.

I always wondered why Glover was not utilized different in Dallas.

he sure didn't fit once they moved to the 3-4.

 
kellumsboys said:
"La’Roi Glover and his 17 sacks in 2000? Undertackle."does this explain why Glover seemed so ineffective once he moved to Dallas ?similiar to Sapps move to Oakland.I always wondered why Glover was not utilized different in Dallas.he sure didn't fit once they moved to the 3-4.
Click to expand...
To be fair, Glover's 17 sacks were an anomaly, as he only reached double digits one other time during his career. He did average over six sacks during his three seasons in Dallas as a 4-3 player, and Zimmer probably played at least as many over fronts as under. He even managed three sacks as a NT for Parcells, though he certainly wasn't a prototypical nose tackle.
 
IDP 101 – So You Want To Be a 3-4 Defensive End?

Here are the six pure defensive ends that totaled at least 120 sacks during their careers. If you’ll excuse the Sesame Street question, which one of them is not like the other?

Bruce Smith 200
Reggie White 198
Richard Dent 137.5
Michael Strahan 132.5
Clyde Simmons 121.5
Simeon Rice 121

I’ve teased it enough in the earlier posts in this thread. It’s Bruce Smith, the only one of the six who was a 3-4 end for the majority of his career. We’ll come back to Smith later in this post. For now, let’s close the loop on Warren Sapp.

Why couldn’t Sapp have the same impact as a defensive end in Oakland’s 3-4 front as he did as an undertackle for the Bucs? A quick look at a diagram of what some would call a “true” 3-4 provides part of the answer.

Code: 
“True” 3-4				   				  TE	   RT	   RG	   OC	   LG	   LT						  /DE\			  /NT\			  /DE\
The traditional 3-4 alignment puts three defensive linemen against five offensive linemen, lined up helmet-to-helmet on both tackles and the center playing 2-gap technique. To keep the linebackers behind free from the blocks of the guards, traditional 3-4 linemen needed to be tough to move and force as many double teams as possible. Their job wasn’t to move upfield, it was to hold the point of attack and clog the line of scrimmage.

You can see how that might cramp Sapp’s style.

It wasn’t quite that bad for Sapp, though. There’s another school of thought on the 3-4, a second flavor if you will. We’ll get into this a lot more in our 3-4 thread to come, but starting in the late 1970s, a small group of defensive coordinators started to play a 3-4 front with 1-gap techniques. Despite the 3-4 personnel, those 1-gap 3-4 schemes played a lot like a 4-3 front. Each lineman aligned on a shoulder of their opposing lineman, allowing them to play a more aggressive technique. The Raiders used a lot of 1-gap principles in 2004.

Though Sapp played a lot of 1-gap technique, he still went from being a cat-like 300 pounder isolated on a guard to a guy expected to hold the edge against a very good left tackle. It didn’t help that the Raiders didn’t have much of a pass rushing threat at OLB to help. Sapp wasn’t a bust in the role, but the once feared pass rusher was gone.

So how was Bruce Smith able to rack up more than 170 of his 200 career sacks as a 3-4 defensive end?

Playing in the 1-gap 3-4 under Wade Phillips had something to do with it. Playing with a front seven that included Ted Washington, Phil Hansen, Cornelius Bennett and Bryce Paup certainly helped. But the list of 3-4 ends talented enough to play the run and wreak havoc in the backfield is extremely short. Jack Youngblood, Howie Long, Leslie O’Neal and Neil Smith all had great years in the 3-4, but none had the peak or the longevity that Bruce Smith had.

Excluding the Arizona hybrid linemen, no 3-4 end had more than six sacks in 2007. The consensus best 3-4 end in the league today, Richard Seymour, has had more than six sacks only once in his career.

Bruce Smith was a once-in-a-generation talent.

That’s a wrap on IDP 101. IDP 201 will hit on some highlights of the 4-3. I’ll try to get that thread started by week’s end.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jene Bramel said:
IDP 101d – So You Want To Be a 3-4 Defensive End?

Here are the six pure defensive ends that totaled at least 120 sacks during their careers. If you’ll excuse the Sesame Street question, which one of them is not like the other?Bruce Smith 200

Reggie White 198
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm missing the point here Jene. Are you implying that Reggie White wasn't strong versus the run? I thought it was obvious that he was so I'm guessing the difference between Smith and the rest I'm missing?Thanks!

 
obxlegends said:
Jene Bramel said:
IDP 101d – So You Want To Be a 3-4 Defensive End?

Here are the six pure defensive ends that totaled at least 120 sacks during their careers. If you’ll excuse the Sesame Street question, which one of them is not like the other?Bruce Smith 200

Reggie White 198
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm missing the point here Jene. Are you implying that Reggie White wasn't strong versus the run? I thought it was obvious that he was so I'm guessing the difference between Smith and the rest I'm missing?Thanks!
Click to expand...
Jene Bramel said:
I’ve teased it enough in the earlier posts in this thread. It’s Bruce Smith, the only one of the six who was a 3-4 end for the majority of his career. We’ll come back to Smith later in this post. For now, let’s close the loop on Warren Sapp.
Click to expand...
Reggie White played end/tackle in a 3-4 early in his career, but was a 4-3 end for the large majority of his career.
 
Jene Bramel said:
obxlegends said:
Jene Bramel said:
IDP 101d – So You Want To Be a 3-4 Defensive End?

Here are the six pure defensive ends that totaled at least 120 sacks during their careers. If you’ll excuse the Sesame Street question, which one of them is not like the other?Bruce Smith 200

Reggie White 198
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm missing the point here Jene. Are you implying that Reggie White wasn't strong versus the run? I thought it was obvious that he was so I'm guessing the difference between Smith and the rest I'm missing?Thanks!
Click to expand...
Jene Bramel said:
I’ve teased it enough in the earlier posts in this thread. It’s Bruce Smith, the only one of the six who was a 3-4 end for the majority of his career. We’ll come back to Smith later in this post. For now, let’s close the loop on Warren Sapp.
Click to expand...
Reggie White played end/tackle in a 3-4 early in his career, but was a 4-3 end for the large majority of his career.
Click to expand...
Blame my disdain of Simeon Rice failing to ever play the run for my mind being in a box on that one. Thanks for clearing it up.
 
Jene, I know this is about the D-line fronts, but something I was wondering: Are teams usually in the nickel in the under front with 2 LBs? If so, and with the tendancy of many teams to run draws in that situation would the weak linebacker(right in your drawing) be in a much better place to make a tackle since it seems the left backer has an uncovered guard in front of him.

I doubt this makes a big difference in total numbers, but if being weakside in the nickel averages an extra tackle a game it could bump up his value.

 
Gamma1210 said:
Jene, I know this is about the D-line fronts, but something I was wondering: Are teams usually in the nickel in the under front with 2 LBs? If so, and with the tendancy of many teams to run draws in that situation would the weak linebacker(right in your drawing) be in a much better place to make a tackle since it seems the left backer has an uncovered guard in front of him.I doubt this makes a big difference in total numbers, but if being weakside in the nickel averages an extra tackle a game it could bump up his value.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure it has much to do with whether there's a draw tendency or not. Whichever OLB stays on the field in the nickel package is in a better position to make tackles regardless of the front and alignment. Draw plays, short passes, screens, etc against a nickel package all give that linebacker some extra opportunity. It's why we've made a much bigger deal about knowing the nickel backers. I've seen some argue that it's a minor issue. It's not.But you're right, in the under front, it's hard to get a body on the Will backer on any down. That's a major reason why WLB on teams that use a lot of under alignments (i.e. Tampa-2) have good tackle numbers.
 
Jene Bramel said:
Gamma1210 said:
Jene, I know this is about the D-line fronts, but something I was wondering: Are teams usually in the nickel in the under front with 2 LBs? If so, and with the tendancy of many teams to run draws in that situation would the weak linebacker(right in your drawing) be in a much better place to make a tackle since it seems the left backer has an uncovered guard in front of him.I doubt this makes a big difference in total numbers, but if being weakside in the nickel averages an extra tackle a game it could bump up his value.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure it has much to do with whether there's a draw tendency or not. Whichever OLB stays on the field in the nickel package is in a better position to make tackles regardless of the front and alignment. Draw plays, short passes, screens, etc against a nickel package all give that linebacker some extra opportunity. It's why we've made a much bigger deal about knowing the nickel backers. I've seen some argue that it's a minor issue. It's not.But you're right, in the under front, it's hard to get a body on the Will backer on any down. That's a major reason why WLB on teams that use a lot of under alignments (i.e. Tampa-2) have good tackle numbers.
Click to expand...
Good articles here for the average Joe. I coach little kids tackle football and as this might be a bit too much for the average 9-10-11 yr old to know it's right on.To answer the question about the LB'ers in a nickel package, usually they are lined up behind the front-4 to cover off the draws or screens. If they are playing man they cover the people beside/behind the QB or they could be blitzing. If in zone then they drop back into coverage.
 
Jene Bramel said:
IDP 101 – How to Make a Defensive Tackle a Star (and a huge amount of :goodposting: )

There are a number of ways to slide your defensive tackles to allow them to be more aggressive. One of those ways has been made popular by Tony Dungy and Monte Kiffin over the past two decades because of the success of their Tampa-2 defensive scheme.It’s called the “under” front, because the strength of the defensive line is shifted away from the strong side (TE side) of the offensive formation. Teams that use it will often refer to their defensive tackles as a nose tackle and an undertackle. The undertackle is in a 3 alignment on the weak side, and you’ll hear the terms “undertackle” and “3-technique tackle” used interchangeably.

For those of you who like diagrams, here’s what it looks like.

“Under” Front TE T G C G T DE NT UT DEThe under front has been a mainstay of Cover-2 teams for decades. If you’re going to keep your back seven in coverage, you have to get pressure up front. It helps to have stud pass rushing ends, but undershifting your line allows you to get your hand-picked, quick, powerful defensive tackle isolated on a guard. Essentially, you’ve schemed yourself a third defensive end. And, in fact, many of the players who have been successful as undertackles played defensive end at some point during their careers.Warren Sapp is generally considered the prototype undertackle today. But there were a number of impressive names before him. Bud Carson, whose Steel Curtain defense was based on the Cover-2 and a major influence on Dungy, continually schemed ways to get Mean Joe Greene isolated on a guard. Floyd Peters, under whom Kiffin worked in Minnesota before Dungy, made Keith Millard one of the first true undertackles. Millard went on to set the record for single season sacks by an interior lineman – 18 in 1989 – a record that still stands today.

After Millard in Minnesota came John Randle, the undertackle in the first version of the Dungy/Kiffin Tampa-2 defense. Randle had eight consecutive double digit sack seasons as a defensive tackle, not including his 9.5 sack output in his first season as an undertackle under Dungy and Kiffin.

La’Roi Glover and his 17 sacks in 2000? Undertackle. Rod Coleman, Kevin Williams and Vonnie Holliday have racked up numbers in recent seasons as undertackles. Tommie Harris has already made two Pro Bowls as Lovie Smith’s undertackle. And Cory Redding just took the Detroit Lions for a seven year, $49 million dollar deal after moving to undertackle and putting up seven sacks during the second half of his contract year.

IDP newbies need no longer wonder why we continually pimp undertackles as viable roster options. Seek out the teams with a seemingly undersized, quick DT that use a lot of underfronts and you have a potential goldmine. Keep an eye on what the Rams decide to do with Adam Carriker this offseason. He’s a Keith Millard waiting to happen.

What of Warren Sapp? Much smarter men than I have noted that you fit your scheme to your talent rather than trying to force a known talent into an unfavorable scheme. In the next post, we’ll see why a simple change in scheme can so significantly affect a seven time Pro Bowler. We’ll learn why David Carr may have made a better defensive coordinator than quarterback. And we’ll talk about why you should be more impressed with Bruce Smith’s 200 career sacks than you already were.

Next up: Why Warren Sapp "Hated Life" in the 3-4 Defensive Front
Click to expand...
Keep an eye on the Washington Redskins defensive front this year. They may be looking to add a true 3-technique DT who could put up some IDP points.
Defensive Line

This is the primary area of concern on the defense, with Blache, a longtime line coach, adamant about adding depth. He aims to retain Griffin and veteran end Phillip Daniels, who team sources said may play more at tackle and is willing to rework his contract. But Blache's first priority it to groom a quicker, faster and more versatile tackle (referred to as a 'three' technique). Blache is also looking for a pass-rushing end who can line up opposite Andre Carter.
Click to expand...
Link
 
Great read! Im a Giant fan and my buddy is a Dallas fan. The info here will help my argument that Canty can excel for the Giants as a UT and why his numbers didnt stand out for the cowboys as a DE. Kinda the opposite situation of Sapp, i hope Canty can put up Sapp numbers!

 
Frank Costanza said:
Thanks for posting this Jene.Is there a site out there that lists the schemes each team uses? Or even the alignments/techniques of individual linemen?
Click to expand...
I've posted a general idea of each team's current defensive scheme in a thread that's pinned within the IDP Warehouse thread above. The rest of this series (originally posted in the winter of 2008) is in there, too, if you're interested or you can find direct links in my sig.It'll be a little crazy for me with the draft coverage today, but I'll try to put the teams into loose 1-gap 3-4, true 3-4, widebody 4-3 and penetrating 4-3 (for lack of better terms) sometime in the next few days. If you've got questions about specific linemen, post some names and I'm happy to add opinions.
 
Here are my general thoughts on current defensive line philosophies around the league.

Arizona: Hybrid front with a penetrating 4-3 and 1-gap 3-4 alignment

Atlanta: 4-3 with big-bodied tackles and widened ends

Baltimore: Hybrid front with any potential alignment from any front

Buffalo: 4-3 with penetrating tackles, more frequent underfronts

Carolina: 4-3 penetrating front, some underfronts

Chicago: Likely back to 4-3 with penetrating tackles and more frequent underfronts

Cincinnati: Mix of penetrating fronts with big bodies, rare underfronts

Cleveland: 3-4, mostly two-gap concepts, with some 1-gap hybrid

Dallas: 3-4 1-gap front

Detroit: 4-3 transitioning to big tackles and widened ends

Green Bay: 3-4, mostly two-gap concepts, with some hybrid and zone blitz

Houston: 4-3 with penetrating fronts, some underfronts

Indianapolis: 4-3 penetrating, though probably fewer underfronts than under Dungy

Jacksonville: 4-3 with big tackles and widened ends

Kansas City: Likely hybrid front, either mostly base 3-4 with 2-gap tendency or hybrid, attacking 3-4/4-3

Miami: 3-4 with mostly 2-gap philosophy

Minnesota: 4-3 attacking philosophy, some underfronts

New England: 3-4 with mostly 2-gap philosophy, able to stem into any hybrid look

New Orleans: 4-3 likely with big tackles and widened ends, though some underfronts

New York Giants: Penetrating 4-3 with underfronts on passing downs

New York Jets: Trending toward hybrid front with any potential alignment

Oakland: 4-3 with big tackles, rare underfronts possible

Philadelphia: Penetrating 4-3, but fewer read/react despite big bodied tackles with widened ends

Pittsburgh: 3-4 with mix of 1-gap and 2-gap in zone blitz packages

San Diego: Probably sticks with 1-gap 3-4 philosophy

San Francisco: Hybrid 3-4 1-gap with 4-3 underfronts at times

Seattle: Likely to transition to more penetrating scheme and some underfronts

St. Louis: Penetrating 4-3 with some read/react, some underfronts

Tampa Bay: 4-3 with big tackles and widened ends

Tennessee: 4-3 with big tackles and widened ends

Washington: 4-3 with big tackles, widened ends and lots of read/react

In general, the penetrating 4-3s are going to use a lot of three-technique/slanted nose tackle looks, though they won't always be underfronts. The big bodied tackle systems will have both tackles over the shoulder of a guard. Ends in the penetrating 4-3s will often a hair outside the left tackle and outside the tight end. The 3-4 thread in my sig has a lot of discussion about the differences in 1-gap and 2-gap alignments. Essentially, though, the 2-gap 3-4 puts linemen head up on the tackles and center and the 1-gap 3-4 shades at least the nose tackle and one end on the shoulder of an offensive lineman.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Z
IDP startup
Replies
2
Views
638
kewin316
K
N
1 spot open for Year 21 of IDP Dynasty (FREE, Y!)
Replies
0
Views
386
nverderamo
N
S
League Wrinkle
Replies
3
Views
472
SSA
S

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top