NFL coaches do not conform the scheme to their players' talents (1 Viewer)

[Lash]

Imagine Phil Jackson demanding that MJ and Pippen feed the post every possession because he ran the Triple Post offense

how many times have we seen it in the NFL?

Draft Vince Young and make him stay in the pocket...

Aaron Kampman went from a beast to an afterthought...

Tampa 2 MLB's that can't get depth needed

and now just the latest ... Mario Williams

WHY can't a coach run a 4-3 at first, then a hybrid 3-4, the a full 3-4 if they just HAVE to change?

WHY can't a coach develop a rollout passing game?

WHY can't a coach with a medicore MLB just ditch Tampa 2 for a year or two until he gets one that can handle the duties

/disclaimer ... i don't own any of the above players or team defenses (i dislike Vince Young immensely matter 'o fact), just wanting discussion on this

is it that hard to change from a 3-4 to a 4-3 as a coach? seems to me changing 25 rostered defensive players that were drafted for a certain scheme would be harder that for ONE guy to change

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I think that's why there's a lot of former head coaches.

As a corollary - Why aren't GM's and coaches more on the same page?

 

[DawnBTVS]

I think there are several issues with your take of building around a player or a handful.

#1: Injuries. Say you build a roll out based QB attack around Vince Young. Now he goes down and you are relying on Kerry Collins, a not so mobile pocket QB. You not only have to gameplan for that week against the specific team you are playing, but now you have to completely remake your offense to fit Collin's abilities instead.

#2: Schemes are schemes for a reason. If you draft a talent, that's great but he has to work within the scheme and within the team. Otherwise you are either constantly changing your offense/defense every year based on a certain draft pick/FA signing or you are constantly conforming to the whims of the talent and letting them run the team instead. QBs and WRs love to throw the ball whereas the RB and OL wants to run the ball more. Something has to give.

#3: There are 53 roster spots and 45(?) on game day. Every single player in the NFL has skill and can produce if given the right situation (see Terrell Davis in the zone scheme. See Peyton's ability to audible). It is great to concede to the talents of a player but the NFL is as clear a team sport as any of the big 4 and arguably the most team based.

#4: In terms of the 4-3 vs. 3-4 vs. Hybrid discussion... you don't know until you try out the defense. Look at Elvis Dumervil in Denver. He was a 4-6 sack DE in the 4-3 scheme and suddenly Denver converted to the 3-4 D. Next thing you know, Dumervil has something like 14 Sacks during the season.

#5: It's nearly impossible to tell what kind of scheme those players will fit in. IMO, Vernon Gholston struck me as a clear 4-3 DE when he came out of the draft. The Jets took him as a 3-4 OLB and he "busted" whereas Pittsburgh has had a ton of success converting DEs to OLBs for their scheme. Look at Nnamdi who converted from S to CB for the Oakland Raiders and was a massive hit because they largely design their scheme around man-to-man coverage and knew what Nnamdi offered them with regards to that aspect.

#6: The NFL is incredibly complex. Schemes, terminology, and criteria are massively different from team to team and even just coach to coach. Expecting a coach to adapt to a player places their career in more jeopardy if that player busts as opposed to trying to fit the player into the overall offensive scheme where weaknesses can be covered up. Also that is why teams pass over "higher" ranked prospects during the draft because they may not fit the scheme/coach's requirements as much. Just look at NE passing on Mark Ingram and taking Shane Vereen, a more versatile all around back better suited for their scheme as opposed to taking Ingram and trying to completely alter the offense (running wise) to reflect on him.

 

[massraider]

I think there are several issues with your take of building around a player or a handful.

#1: Injuries. Say you build a roll out based QB attack around Vince Young. Now he goes down and you are relying on Kerry Collins, a not so mobile pocket QB. You not only have to gameplan for that week against the specific team you are playing, but now you have to completely remake your offense to fit Collin's abilities instead.

#2: Schemes are schemes for a reason. If you draft a talent, that's great but he has to work within the scheme and within the team. Otherwise you are either constantly changing your offense/defense every year based on a certain draft pick/FA signing or you are constantly conforming to the whims of the talent and letting them run the team instead. QBs and WRs love to throw the ball whereas the RB and OL wants to run the ball more. Something has to give.

#3: There are 53 roster spots and 45(?) on game day. Every single player in the NFL has skill and can produce if given the right situation (see Terrell Davis in the zone scheme. See Peyton's ability to audible). It is great to concede to the talents of a player but the NFL is as clear a team sport as any of the big 4 and arguably the most team based.

#4: In terms of the 4-3 vs. 3-4 vs. Hybrid discussion... you don't know until you try out the defense. Look at Elvis Dumervil in Denver. He was a 4-6 sack DE in the 4-3 scheme and suddenly Denver converted to the 3-4 D. Next thing you know, Dumervil has something like 14 Sacks during the season.

#5: It's nearly impossible to tell what kind of scheme those players will fit in. IMO, Vernon Gholston struck me as a clear 4-3 DE when he came out of the draft. The Jets took him as a 3-4 OLB and he "busted" whereas Pittsburgh has had a ton of success converting DEs to OLBs for their scheme. Look at Nnamdi who converted from S to CB for the Oakland Raiders and was a massive hit because they largely design their scheme around man-to-man coverage and knew what Nnamdi offered them with regards to that aspect.

#6: The NFL is incredibly complex. Schemes, terminology, and criteria are massively different from team to team and even just coach to coach. Expecting a coach to adapt to a player places their career in more jeopardy if that player busts as opposed to trying to fit the player into the overall offensive scheme where weaknesses can be covered up. Also that is why teams pass over "higher" ranked prospects during the draft because they may not fit the scheme/coach's requirements as much. Just look at NE passing on Mark Ingram and taking Shane Vereen, a more versatile all around back better suited for their scheme as opposed to taking Ingram and trying to completely alter the offense (running wise) to reflect on him.

I think it's easier to change a scheme to a player than vice versa. If my coach cannot figure out how best to use his talent, or won't alter his gameplan to best utilize his weapons, then I want a new coach. I always think of Don Shula. He loses points for never building a defense to complement Marino, but this is a guy that had Griese, Zonk and Mercury, so he ran the ball all day long. He gets Marino, and in Marino's 2nd year, he set a record for TD passes. He ran a completely different offense, because he had one of the best arms ever.

If a coach likes to pound the ball, so he can't find a role for a Chris Johnson, then I have serious doubts about that coach.

 

[DawnBTVS]

I think it's easier to change a scheme to a player than vice versa. If my coach cannot figure out how best to use his talent, or won't alter his gameplan to best utilize his weapons, then I want a new coach.

I always think of Don Shula. He loses points for never building a defense to complement Marino, but this is a guy that had Griese, Zonk and Mercury, so he ran the ball all day long. He gets Marino, and in Marino's 2nd year, he set a record for TD passes. He ran a completely different offense, because he had one of the best arms ever.

If a coach likes to pound the ball, so he can't find a role for a Chris Johnson, then I have serious doubts about that coach.

I realized after the fact what the OP's argument was more geared at. With that said... I think it's really hard to conform to a particular player's talent due to some of the pre-mentioned aspects (namely injuries).I do think that the OP is simplifying things immensely as every coach adapts to the players. They may not do it perfectly or as good as fans would like but the attempts are there (see the Colts letting Manning essentially go no huddle/audible).

The point on Marino is interesting because in the long term, I think it hurt the Dolphins more than helped them. Yeah, they had a big arm in Marino and great WRs in Duper and Clayton but they could never really change back to a run focused format because Marino was relied on so heavily. Even when they had halfway decent RBs in Bernie Parmalee and Karim Abdul-Jabber in the mid to late 90's, they had geared the OL to pass protect so they struggled when they tried to bring balance to the offense.

The same thing almost happened with Elway in Denver until Shanahan got lucky with Terrell Davis and leaned as heavily on Davis as he used to lean on Elway.

 

[Couch Potato]

IMO it's ownership ignorance that causes all sorts of dysfunction down the line. If GMs and HCs weren't dumped the second a team had a losing season, there would be continuity which would allow for a philosophy of quality building. But they are impatient and constantly churn, and there's no consistency in schemes or team building from year to year. There are exceptions such as PIT, IND, NE, etc., and it's no coincidence these teams are winners over time. PIT for example could have dumped Cowher after a losing year and didn't, and it paid off.

 

[fatness]

Imagine Phil Jackson demanding that MJ and Pippen feed the post every possession because he ran the Triple Post offensehow many times have we seen it in the NFL?Draft Vince Young and make him stay in the pocket...Aaron Kampman went from a beast to an afterthought...Tampa 2 MLB's that can't get depth neededand now just the latest ... Mario WilliamsWHY can't a coach run a 4-3 at first, then a hybrid 3-4, the a full 3-4 if they just HAVE to change?WHY can't a coach develop a rollout passing game?WHY can't a coach with a medicore MLB just ditch Tampa 2 for a year or two until he gets one that can handle the duties

Why would Mike Shanahan trade 2 draft picks for a veteran starting QB whom his offensive coordinator didn't want, and wanted to bench most of the year until finally getting permission to do so?Why would Mike Shanahan have Jim Haslett switch the Redskins from an adequate 4-3 defense to an abysmal 3-4 defense when they knew they didn't have the personnel for a 3-4, didn't draft (last year) people for the 3-4, and hinged their hopes on getting Albert Haynesworth to play nose tackle while getting into a year-long pissing match with Albert Haynesworth?What's the NFL record for stupid coaching/personnel decisions in one year?By the way, I agree with the person above about GM's and head coaches often not being on the same page for what they want for the team.

 

[netnalp]

I recall an announcer saying Don Shula was unique in that he tailored the scheme to his players rather than trying to force players into a specific scheme.

 

[Wadsworth]

I think that's why there's a lot of former head coaches.

As a corollary - Why aren't GM's and coaches more on the same page?

Good example of this was Jacksonville in 2003. The GM drafts Byron Leftwich, a strong armed gunslinger who played in the shotgun in college and strengths were throwing the medium and deep routes. They then put him under center in a play action heavy west cost offense wanting him to be a game manager with dink and dunk short passes. Why spend a top 10 pick on a QB and put in an offense that focuses on his weakness and rarely uses his strengths?

 

[FantasyTrader]

IMO it's ownership ignorance that causes all sorts of dysfunction down the line. If GMs and HCs weren't dumped the second a team had a losing season, there would be continuity which would allow for a philosophy of quality building. But they are impatient and constantly churn, and there's no consistency in schemes or team building from year to year. There are exceptions such as PIT, IND, NE, etc., and it's no coincidence these teams are winners over time. PIT for example could have dumped Cowher after a losing year and didn't, and it paid off.

I completely agree with this. I think the dirty little secret among owners is that most of them don't have the first clue about what they want in a HC and staff to run their organization. So they take a shotgun approach - hire, lose, fire, hire, lose, fire, hire, win...UREKA! We found our man! Problem is, when you churn like that and a HC finally comes in and wins, you still know NOTHING about his ability to identify and develop talent because most of the time he won with previously failed coaches players. It's no coincidence that the most successful franchises bring in a guy and give him several years to implement his system.

 

[FantasyTrader]

I think that's why there's a lot of former head coaches.

As a corollary - Why aren't GM's and coaches more on the same page?

Good example of this was Jacksonville in 2003. The GM drafts Byron Leftwich, a strong armed gunslinger who played in the shotgun in college and strengths were throwing the medium and deep routes. They then put him under center in a play action heavy west cost offense wanting him to be a game manager with dink and dunk short passes. Why spend a top 10 pick on a QB and put in an offense that focuses on his weakness and rarely uses his strengths?

 

[FUBAR]

IMO it's ownership ignorance that causes all sorts of dysfunction down the line. If GMs and HCs weren't dumped the second a team had a losing season, there would be continuity which would allow for a philosophy of quality building. But they are impatient and constantly churn, and there's no consistency in schemes or team building from year to year. There are exceptions such as PIT, IND, NE, etc., and it's no coincidence these teams are winners over time. PIT for example could have dumped Cowher after a losing year and didn't, and it paid off.

I completely agree with this. I think the dirty little secret among owners is that most of them don't have the first clue about what they want in a HC and staff to run their organization. So they take a shotgun approach - hire, lose, fire, hire, lose, fire, hire, win...UREKA! We found our man! Problem is, when you churn like that and a HC finally comes in and wins, you still know NOTHING about his ability to identify and develop talent because most of the time he won with previously failed coaches players. It's no coincidence that the most successful franchises bring in a guy and give him several years to implement his system.

which is why I respect and even like the Steelers so much. They're not my favorite team but you can't help but respect a franchise that has had 3 head coaches since 1969.

 

[FantasyTrader]

IMO it's ownership ignorance that causes all sorts of dysfunction down the line. If GMs and HCs weren't dumped the second a team had a losing season, there would be continuity which would allow for a philosophy of quality building. But they are impatient and constantly churn, and there's no consistency in schemes or team building from year to year. There are exceptions such as PIT, IND, NE, etc., and it's no coincidence these teams are winners over time. PIT for example could have dumped Cowher after a losing year and didn't, and it paid off.

I completely agree with this. I think the dirty little secret among owners is that most of them don't have the first clue about what they want in a HC and staff to run their organization. So they take a shotgun approach - hire, lose, fire, hire, lose, fire, hire, win...UREKA! We found our man! Problem is, when you churn like that and a HC finally comes in and wins, you still know NOTHING about his ability to identify and develop talent because most of the time he won with previously failed coaches players. It's no coincidence that the most successful franchises bring in a guy and give him several years to implement his system.

which is why I respect and even like the Steelers so much. They're not my favorite team but you can't help but respect a franchise that has had 3 head coaches since 1969.

Feel the same way. I cannot STAND the Steelers, but they're a team you love to hate as a fan because they run that franchise so incredibly well. Like them or not, I respect the hell out of how that team is managed from the top down.

 

[ConnSKINS26]

This thread brought to you by Donovan McNabb.

Actually, he didn't say it. His agent says he did, though. But he'll deny it later, and allow his agent to take the heat.

 

[TheWheel]

What you see on the field is a combination of scheme and cultivated conduct.

You cannot say that scheme does not conform when you don't see upper echelon QBs handing the ball off all day or stud running backs blocking all game and all that jazz. The question is whether a players conduct is worth adjusting the scheme. You can adjust around a player and have him fail. If a player produces, you can bet that scheme will take advantage of that production because that is how wins are made.

You say that Mario Williams is not a fit for the 3-4? Why? This guy is a beast and guess what? He now has a big DLman in front of him to eat up a tackle. The whole line will have to shift to keep a TE or RB off him. Beast mode D.Ware.

The scheme is constantly evolving with the players whom you rely on being relied upon.

Now factor in the gameplan, where different parts of an overall scheme must be adjusted to take advantage of opponent weakness.

Now certain coaches place different importance in different places. Belichick for instance has scheme and gameplan as one for each opponent. Lombardi believed execution of the scheme was the key.

And believe it or not, many coaches are optimistic that a player's skill set can be placed in a different spot and be even more advantageous. If often doesn't work, but the dividends can really pay off.

Wherever you read player multiply by 22.

 

[Drunken Cowboy]

I think this is by no means unique to football. I think it a select few elite coaches who really use their team's talents.

 

[jurb26]

Imagine Phil Jackson demanding that MJ and Pippen feed the post every possession because he ran the Triple Post offensehow many times have we seen it in the NFL?Draft Vince Young and make him stay in the pocket...Aaron Kampman went from a beast to an afterthought...Tampa 2 MLB's that can't get depth neededand now just the latest ... Mario WilliamsWHY can't a coach run a 4-3 at first, then a hybrid 3-4, the a full 3-4 if they just HAVE to change?WHY can't a coach develop a rollout passing game?WHY can't a coach with a medicore MLB just ditch Tampa 2 for a year or two until he gets one that can handle the duties/disclaimer ... i don't own any of the above players or team defenses (i dislike Vince Young immensely matter 'o fact), just wanting discussion on thisis it that hard to change from a 3-4 to a 4-3 as a coach? seems to me changing 25 rostered defensive players that were drafted for a certain scheme would be harder that for ONE guy to change

In general I agree with what you're saying. I'd like to point out though that there are some very good coaches who have certainly altered their traditional scheme to maximize their players capabilities. BB has been doing it for years in NE. Tomlin has been doing it in Pitt. As a matter of fact everyone said that Tomlin would be changing the Steelers to his traditional cover 2 D when he arrived but he never did. He's maintained the zone blitz 3-4.Those are just the 1st 2 that came to my mind. I'm sure there are others.

 

[Sabertooth]

I think that's why there's a lot of former head coaches.

As a corollary - Why aren't GM's and coaches more on the same page?

This is one of the mainm reason Green Bay is going to be a powerhouse for many years to come. Thompson and McCarthy "get" each other and work together.

 

[Ilov80s]

Imagine Phil Jackson demanding that MJ and Pippen feed the post every possession because he ran the Triple Post offense

Imagine it? We saw it for a number of years and they won a bunch of titles doing it.

 

[massraider]

You say that Mario Williams is not a fit for the 3-4? Why?

Because there aren't any 6'7", 290 lb OLBs? Part of the effectiveness of the 3-4 is that you aren't sure where the rush is coming from. Williams is either coming all the time, or a target in the passing game. I think he is about 35-40 lbs heavier than Ware.

 

[TheWheel]

The same way you didn't see 6'6 250lb QBs until recently.

You are acting like Williams is just some guy. He is not. He is one of the best defensive players in the league.

And not all 3-4s are run the same. Williams is basically a stronger, just as quick D. Ware.

Comparing Williams to anybody is a slight to him. Aaron Kampman was pretty good but should not be mentioned in the same sentence as Williams. You are, in a way, fitting Williams talents and skills into your own schemes.

The reason most GMs and coaches aren't on the same page is 1) real life doesn't work on paper, 2) there are egos and lack of compromise between the two, 3) bad ownership who put either or both in difficult positions.

 

[Catbird]

I think it begins with most coaches and coordinators having a scheme they think is the best offense or defense possible. Few intentionally coach a system they think works less well than another - or they would be coaching the other. And their depth of knowledge about an offense is so far beyond how most of us think about it that they have areas or systems of expertise - the hand pressure and balance and responsibilities in every situation for every defensive lineman ... the system they have learned, know and have perhaps helped invent. They typically don't have that depth or knowledge about a much different system. They can learn it, but they naturally want to coach what they believe in, think is the best system and the one they know best.

The other huge thing is 11 players and backups on a side. What might be optimal for 2 or 3 of your players might not fit at all with the rest of your talent. This becomes less of an issue the longer an oC or RC is with a team, steering the draft choices and coaching guys in a system, but for anyone who hasn't been there a while, the way the players fit into a new system is likely to be all over the board. And if you believe a 3-4 offers the best defensive attack and ability to stop an offense, or the offenses in your division ... you might go there even though its only a great fit for half of your players.

I don't think everyone can or even wants to coach every system, or has 11 perfect fit players for any new system.

 

[delusional]

andy reid is a prime example of this on offense and defense through the years. some coaches are plan old stubborn and have egos involved. which is why some are former head coaches and some don't have a ring as a HC

take mcnabb...he was a running qb with a strong arm...what offense did reid put him in? one that needed to have accurate short to medium passes & stay in the pocket.

take the wrs over the years...sure handed wrs who needed yac...what did he have? crap lol.

same on defense with him trying to fit 3-4 type LBs into 4-3 DE roles...or players playing at positions they never played period

 

[zed2283]

Because, as we've suspected, most NFL coaches really aren't very smart.

 

[renesauz]

The OPs premise is overstated, but it does have some measure of truth.

NFL playbooks are THICK...they contain hundreds of plays each with 2-4 variations, leading to over a thousand plays. A good playbook wil have plays which can best utilize the skillset of any specific player that comes along. The OP is right in some ways because NFL coaches often DON'T use those plays in their playbook that best utlize a specific players skillset.

But a specific player is only 1 of 11. If his play is one which counters the specific skillset of 3 other guys on the field, than it's senseless to use it. If it's counter to what the team NORMALLY runs, than it's not practiced much, and the ther guys won't be as proficient running it. Getting every player involved, and getting peak productivity from everyone, is not such an easy task.

I do think some coaches are a little better at it than others (Belichek). Bill drafts players that fit well with what the other guys on his team do. Some other coaches simply draft the best available player regardless of skillset, and then try to fit them in. SOmetimes, they don't fit well. These coaches make their jobs harder.

 

[Lash]

Why would Mike Shanahan trade 2 draft picks for a veteran starting QB whom his offensive coordinator didn't want, and wanted to bench most of the year until finally getting permission to do so?Why would Mike Shanahan have Jim Haslett switch the Redskins from an adequate 4-3 defense to an abysmal 3-4 defense when they knew they didn't have the personnel for a 3-4, didn't draft (last year) people for the 3-4, and hinged their hopes on getting Albert Haynesworth to play nose tackle while getting into a year-long pissing match with Albert Haynesworth?What's the NFL record for stupid coaching/personnel decisions in one year?By the way, I agree with the person above about GM's and head coaches often not being on the same page for what they want for the team.

i can't believe i forgot the most obvious example in my OPHaynesworth (albeit he has mental issues that caused much/most of the problem) went from the most devastating 4-3 DT to a non-factor NT in the 3-4

 

[Lash]

Imagine Phil Jackson demanding that MJ and Pippen feed the post every possession because he ran the Triple Post offense

Imagine it? We saw it for a number of years and they won a bunch of titles doing it.

good catch!as soon as i posted that i thought to myself that the Triangle Offense is also known as the Triple Post but i figured being a football board no one would catch that snafu LOL

i actually was referring to a true Triple Post (like Pat Summit's Lady Vols ran in the 90's) with two low posts and a high post flasher that would effectively shut down all driving lanes for Jordan and Pippen

 

[BusMan]

Two points:

1. As previously stated, continuity is a major factor. These are franchises that need to be cultivated over years, not stop-start-stopped every three years or so. Patience is at an all-time low among NFL ownership. The relative parity of the last two decades of free agency has something to do with it. But I think there is something bigger going on...

2. Unqualified Owners. What do you think is the ONE thing you need to be an NFL owner? Lots and lots of money. Being extremely rich has zero correlation to being a good decision maker as an NFL owner. Sure, some owners come from business backgrounds where they may have exhibited and/or grown the skills they would need. And yes, maybe some of them have great instincts. But in general, it seems like owners don't know how to create a successful franchise and apparently don't do even the most basic research that an FBG would do. Just as an example: study how the best teams, historically, achieved their success. Learn those lessons and apply them to their current situation. Continuity matters. Coaches matter.

These days, head coaching candidates show up for job interviews with pre-packaged PowerPoint presentations that include their schemes, methods, processes, etc. Owners are swayed by how well a coach sells himself. Which really has nothing to do with how they'll perform as a head coach. I doubt you'd get hired anywhere in the league these days if you showed up to your interview and said your scheme is "dependent on the talent."

The owners/GMs/head coaches are workers. As such, there are some of them who get to where they are, not because they're necessarily qualified or skilled, but because they've just been doing it a long time. Or they're still suckling off the teat of past success (Shannahan). Just because these men have high-profile, high-paying jobs doesn't mean they're any good at it.

 

[sho nuff]

Funny...because you mention Kampman.

And he struggled a bit at 3-4 OLB...but was starting to pick it up ok and got hurt.

Now, the conventional wisdom blasted GB for going to the 3-4 when their supposed best player was a rush 4-3 end.

Fast forward and the switch and the hiring of Capers was a key in them winning the Super Bowl. His defense was a huge part of the success they have had. Not just with the switch, but then drafting guys they feel can fit with what they do.

You can't just scheme totally around one guy (especially on D).

 

[Lash]

and now Martz loses a top TE because he can't conform

 

[GregR_2]

Imagine Phil Jackson demanding that MJ and Pippen feed the post every possession because he ran the Triple Post offense

how many times have we seen it in the NFL?

Draft Vince Young and make him stay in the pocket...

Aaron Kampman went from a beast to an afterthought...

Tampa 2 MLB's that can't get depth needed



and now just the latest ... Mario Williams

WHY can't a coach run a 4-3 at first, then a hybrid 3-4, the a full 3-4 if they just HAVE to change?

WHY can't a coach develop a rollout passing game?

WHY can't a coach with a medicore MLB just ditch Tampa 2 for a year or two until he gets one that can handle the duties

/disclaimer ... i don't own any of the above players or team defenses (i dislike Vince Young immensely matter 'o fact), just wanting discussion on this

is it that hard to change from a 3-4 to a 4-3 as a coach? seems to me changing 25 rostered defensive players that were drafted for a certain scheme would be harder that for ONE guy to change

It's kind of ironic that you mention Mario Williams to try to make this point, because Mario's planned use is an example of a coordinator adapting his scheme to fit his team's talent, not the other way around. That's supposed to be one of Wade Phillip's best traits actually.For example, here's some details from Wade himself: http://www.houstontexans.com/news/article-3/Phillips-clarifies-plans-for-Williams-in-%E2%80%9C5-2%E2%80%9D-front/22e614bb-8639-4cee-834c-ee09ee32910a

The Texans’ decision to move Mario Williams to outside linebacker has sparked plenty of hoopla and debate. Williams has been one of the most productive pass rushers in the NFL as a 4-3 defensive end, and he’ll be an unconventionally large linebacker at 6-6, 290 pounds.

On Monday, defensive coordinator Wade Phillips said that Williams essentially will still be an end in his defense – he’ll just be on his feet more.

“They say ‘3-4’, ‘4-3’, all that,” Phillips said at the Texans' annual Charity Golf Classic. “We really play a 5-2. We play five defensive linemen that can rush the passer and two inside 'backers who can tackle people. And we think Mario certainly fits in there.”

In that 5-2 front, Williams will often be standing up on the right edge of the defensive line as the Will (weakside outside) linebacker.

Along the line to Williams’ left will likely be Antonio Smith at right end, Earl Mitchell or Shaun Cody at nose tackle, J.J. Watt at left end and Connor Barwin or Brooks Reed at Sam (strongside outside) linebacker. Standing behind them will be inside linebackers DeMeco Ryans and Brian Cushing.

“We have a lot of versatility,” Texans head coach Gary Kubiak said. “Cushing gives us a lot of versatility. Connor Barwin gives us a lot of versatility. If Mark Anderson… ends up being ours throughout this (free agency) process, he gives us versatility.

“So we’ve got a lot of good athletes on the defensive side of the ball, and the combinations we just added to it (in the draft) with J.J. and Brooks and those guys give Wade a great a lot of great talent to work with. We’ll have to see how it all fits, but there’s a couple of guys that can play multiple positions.”

Phillips often says that he fits his defense to the players, not the other way around.

“The more you can do with players scheme-wise helps you,” he said. “We’re going to put Mario down some, but we’re not going to tell them when. And same thing with Cushing: We’re going to play him inside most of the time, but sometimes he’s going to be rushing outside.”

Asked how much concern he has about Williams dropping into coverage, Phillips replied, “None.”

“We’re not going to drop him,” Phillips said. “We’re going to rush him. That’s why I say we’re more of a 5-2, in that those five guys are coming a lot of the time, especially the position Mario plays. DeMarcus Ware played that position, Bryce Paup – on and on, guys that have led the league. They didn’t lead the league in sacks by dropping a whole lot.”

Williams has 43.5 sacks since 2007, but he hasn't finished a season in the top-10 in sacks since 2008. Phillips said that he has coached outside linebackers who have led the league in sacks from both the Sam and Will positions.

“We put (Williams) in the premier position,” Phillips said. “You’re rushing the passer more at Will, and so that’s where we put him. We were looking in the draft for the best pass rusher. Well, we had him on our team, and so we just moved him to that position rather than going the other way around.”

 

[twistd]

I think Parcells always did an excellent job of building teams for his scheme. He always had preferred a power running game. But in NE when he had Bledsoe, that was his strength. So he built an offense around Bledsoe and was very successful. You don't often see coaches that have that level of flexibility.

Belichick has always done an excellent job of finding players who were miscast by their teams, or underutilized, and grabbing them. Welker is the example that stands out to me. But they have picked up older players who could be effective in a limited role. Not all these projects work, but enough of them are effective to really improve their team. They are sticking to a scheme, but they are finding players that will fit that scheme that are unwanted, or cast off by other teams.

In this same vein, I hope Gholston turns out to be an example like that. A guy who could be effective as a 4-3 DE, but was miscast as a 3-4 OLB.

 

[nysportsfan]

I think Parcells always did an excellent job of building teams for his scheme. He always had preferred a power running game. But in NE when he had Bledsoe, that was his strength. So he built an offense around Bledsoe and was very successful. You don't often see coaches that have that level of flexibility.

Belichick has always done an excellent job of finding players who were miscast by their teams, or underutilized, and grabbing them. Welker is the example that stands out to me. But they have picked up older players who could be effective in a limited role. Not all these projects work, but enough of them are effective to really improve their team. They are sticking to a scheme, but they are finding players that will fit that scheme that are unwanted, or cast off by other teams.

In this same vein, I hope Gholston turns out to be an example like that. A guy who could be effective as a 4-3 DE, but was miscast as a 3-4 OLB.

Vernon Gholston is the worst. He might be cut before week 1.