Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Josh Chapman Gone, David Parry The Starting Nt?


Recommended Posts

I think some of you are underestimating Parry.  As a rookie, he jumps off the screen on some plays.  Gets much better penetration, stands up blockers, and makes plays.  Chapman might do that once a game. So for a guy who has played four NFL games, he has nowhere to go but up.  I think Parry will be very good.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Manusky learned under Wade Phillips so if it's a one gap I'd expect it to be similar to what Wade does.  Could be wrong.

 

I did not realize that about Manusky..thanks for pointing it out.  This could be very interesting. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll wait to see what happens over the weekend, but the personnel currently on the roster seems much better suited toward a 1 gap front.

So please excuse me if this comes across as moronic (my understanding of the D side of things is far worse) but when you say 1 gap front are we talking like a 3-4 Under such as Wade used to run with the Texans. That is a 5 tech/1 Tech/2/3 Tech with the ILBs having responsibility for a gap too?

I guess it makes some sense if we're weaker up front and have improved the ILBs. Which 3 would you go for up front? I think you said before you see Anderson more as a 5 Tech so would that leave Langford as the 2/3 tech? It would make sense as he's played 4-3DT with the Rams.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So please excuse me if this comes across as moronic (my understanding of the D side of things is far worse) but when you say 1 gap front are we talking like a 3-4 Under such as Wade used to run with the Texans. That is a 5 tech/1 Tech/2/3 Tech with the ILBs having responsibility for a gap too?

I guess it makes some sense if we're weaker up front and have improved the ILBs. Which 3 would you go for up front? I think you said before you see Anderson more as a 5 Tech so would that leave Langford as the 2/3 tech? It would make sense as he's played 4-3DT with the Rams.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d82a595a0/article/examining-houston-texans-defensive-rise-under-wade-Phillips

 

Brooks explains it well

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever is going on, I'm just happy to see they are actually trying hard to change the defense for the better. There is a massive change on DL and ILB (with Ivring and Moore), and it certainly looks to be more explosive/dynamic unit in the heart of the D. Loosing Art Jones is the only real downside so far, so lets see who they bring in as the last DL.

 

With such a massive change to DL/ILB I'm not sure we will be ready for SB, but at least something had to be done, and I'm excited to see how good they will be this year.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I fully agree we need a true NT...or at least another D-lineman for the NT.  

But I think The brass is starting to rebuild the entire front 7. The acquisitions of Irving and Moore give us fast run thumping 'attackers' in the LB dept. and Walden seems to be another.  Attacking LB's are perfect for penetrating linemen-aka Parry/Anderson/Langford combo-.  So they may be changing things around alot.  

If so, that style of defense is going to have A LOT of tackles for short/no yards, and losses.  But the problem is that first and second line of defense is at the point of attack,..puts alot of responsibility on the safeties.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think some of you are underestimating Parry.  As a rookie, he jumps off the screen on some plays.  Gets much better penetration, stands up blockers, and makes plays.  Chapman might do that once a game. So for a guy who has played four NFL games, he has nowhere to go but up.  I think Parry will be very good.

The guy has movement......  Chapman just stood there........  

 

I am excited to see him get a shot

 

But..... I feel likewe need someone..... better .. to rotate in with him

Link to post
Share on other sites

The more i think about it..the more i am drinking my  own kool-aid.

I think there is a VERY good chance by week 6, there our starting front 7 won't have a single guy who were starters last year---

Anderson-Parry-Langford

Mathis-Irving-Moore-Walden/Cole

 

If the d-line proves they can perform an a regular basis, Irving is a younger faster DQ, Moore can do it all-including pass coverage-, and Walden/Cole have shown upside as run stopping and holding an edge.

 

this to me has the potential to be a special recipe.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how only 5 D linemen will be enough throughout the season? Keeping 5 running backs

is silly to me also.

Hence why I said we need to add at least one more to make it 6.

Also, we won't be keeping 5 RBs this season. This isn't the final roster.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The more i think about it..the more i am drinking my  own kool-aid.

I think there is a VERY good chance by week 6, there our starting front 7 won't have a single guy who were starters last year---

Anderson-Parry-Langford

Mathis-Irving-Moore-Walden/Cole

 

If the d-line proves they can perform an a regular basis, Irving is a younger faster DQ, Moore can do it all-including pass coverage-, and Walden/Cole have shown upside as run stopping and holding an edge.

 

this to me has the potential to be a special recipe.

 

I like red

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let the other teams have him.  We don't need him.  Also, do we know that he is still the same player he was?

Exactly. Ballard WAS a good player, and hopefully still is. But I don't think there's enough evidence to say he's STILL a good player. I would have kept Carter over Ballard. Another Grigson head-scratcher.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. Ballard WAS a good player, and hopefully still is. But I don't think there's enough evidence to say he's STILL a good player. I would have kept Carter over Ballard. Another Grigson head-scratcher.

I think injuries to Boom and Robinson may have played a role too.  Right now, aren't the only healthy RBs Gore and Varga?  We'll see if we keep 5 RBs for very long.  We may only need 5 DLs and 5 WRs to beat Buffalo.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So please excuse me if this comes across as moronic (my understanding of the D side of things is far worse) but when you say 1 gap front are we talking like a 3-4 Under such as Wade used to run with the Texans. That is a 5 tech/1 Tech/2/3 Tech with the ILBs having responsibility for a gap too?

I guess it makes some sense if we're weaker up front and have improved the ILBs. Which 3 would you go for up front? I think you said before you see Anderson more as a 5 Tech so would that leave Langford as the 2/3 tech? It would make sense as he's played 4-3DT with the Rams.

 

Wade Phillips 3-4 has a lot of 1 gap principles, absolutely.

 

The basic difference up front is that the defensive linemen are only responsible for controlling one gap, and they more often try to penetrate that gap. In a 2 gap front, the linemen play the blocker straight up, and try to control the gaps on either side of the blocker. There's less penetration because you can't shoot one gap and maintain control of another gap at the same time.

 

And of course, if your linemen are only responsible for one gap, then that leaves more gap responsibility for the linebackers behind them, like you said.

Here's why a 1 gap front might be more preferable. 1) Penetrating 1 gap linemen are probably easier to find and coach up than stout 2 gap linemen who can hold the point of attack and stand strong against constant double teams. We've all talked about how hard it is to find a dominant NT. 2) Particularly in the run game, a play can only go to one side or the other, with respect to cutbacks and counters. So even in our "2 gap front," the weakside linemen often shoot gaps anyways. 3) I think a front that emphasizes penetration has greater potential to be disruptive and force negative plays than a more disciplined but less aggressive 2 gap front. Either front requires good tackling, but a 1 gap is more likely to have multiple defenders arrive at the ball.

 

So if David Parry and Zach Kerr can get into the backfield easier and more often than Josh Chapman can hold up against double teams, then letting them play 1 tech NT makes sense. We still need some strong 2 gap play in short yardage situations, and I would rather have Chapman at least on the roster. I'm really kind of surprised at his release. He was at his best in 2013 when he was playing limited snaps in a reserve role.

 

The first play against the Rams jumped out at me. We had Cole and Langford at DE. Jones was at 3 tech on the strong side, and Chapman was shaded to the weak side of the center, at 1 tech. Walden was off the ball at Sam, Jackson was at Mike and Freeman was at Will. It was basically a 4-3 Over package. Chapman played straight up and blew the center into the backfield, toward the strong side where the play went. Jones shot the gap where Chapman was depositing his man; that's how Jones got hurt. Langford on the strong side penetrated, and Walden beat the TE and stopped the play in the backfield. Total disruption.

 

We can do a lot of stuff with more 1 gap principles. I wanted to see that kind of front from the beginning. I still think there's room for a non-flashy 2 gap, 0 tech NT. I wonder if Chapman will stay on the team's radar for a while. He didn't get claimed today.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wade Phillips 3-4 has a lot of 1 gap principles, absolutely.

 

Sorry for they delay, I'd not had chance to sit down and properly digest this until now. Thank you for such a detailed answer, it makes the difference between 1 gap and 2 gap a lot clearer. Given the personal we currently have then it does seem to make a lot more sense. 

 

My question then is what advantages would a 2 Gap have over a 1 Gap as it seems to me if you've got talented enough players on the D-Line/ILBs a 1 Gap would work out better and be more effective defense. Is it a Risk Vs Reward balance? 

 

I'm surprised too that we didn't keep Chapman as well, given his cap hit wasn't massive and would give us flexibility in choice of fronts. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wade Phillips 3-4 has a lot of 1 gap principles, absolutely.

 

The basic difference up front is that the defensive linemen are only responsible for controlling one gap, and they more often try to penetrate that gap. In a 2 gap front, the linemen play the blocker straight up, and try to control the gaps on either side of the blocker. There's less penetration because you can't shoot one gap and maintain control of another gap at the same time.

 

And of course, if your linemen are only responsible for one gap, then that leaves more gap responsibility for the linebackers behind them, like you said.

Here's why a 1 gap front might be more preferable. 1) Penetrating 1 gap linemen are probably easier to find and coach up than stout 2 gap linemen who can hold the point of attack and stand strong against constant double teams. We've all talked about how hard it is to find a dominant NT. 2) Particularly in the run game, a play can only go to one side or the other, with respect to cutbacks and counters. So even in our "2 gap front," the weakside linemen often shoot gaps anyways. 3) I think a front that emphasizes penetration has greater potential to be disruptive and force negative plays than a more disciplined but less aggressive 2 gap front. Either front requires good tackling, but a 1 gap is more likely to have multiple defenders arrive at the ball.

 

So if David Parry and Zach Kerr can get into the backfield easier and more often than Josh Chapman can hold up against double teams, then letting them play 1 tech NT makes sense. We still need some strong 2 gap play in short yardage situations, and I would rather have Chapman at least on the roster. I'm really kind of surprised at his release. He was at his best in 2013 when he was playing limited snaps in a reserve role.

 

The first play against the Rams jumped out at me. We had Cole and Langford at DE. Jones was at 3 tech on the strong side, and Chapman was shaded to the weak side of the center, at 1 tech. Walden was off the ball at Sam, Jackson was at Mike and Freeman was at Will. It was basically a 4-3 Over package. Chapman played straight up and blew the center into the backfield, toward the strong side where the play went. Jones shot the gap where Chapman was depositing his man; that's how Jones got hurt. Langford on the strong side penetrated, and Walden beat the TE and stopped the play in the backfield. Total disruption.

 

We can do a lot of stuff with more 1 gap principles. I wanted to see that kind of front from the beginning. I still think there's room for a non-flashy 2 gap, 0 tech NT. I wonder if Chapman will stay on the team's radar for a while. He didn't get claimed today.

 

Thanks a lot for the explanation, Superman. It was a great read and things make more sense to me now. Much obliged. :thmup:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for they delay, I'd not had chance to sit down and properly digest this until now. Thank you for such a detailed answer, it makes the difference between 1 gap and 2 gap a lot clearer. Given the personal we currently have then it does seem to make a lot more sense. 

 

My question then is what advantages would a 2 Gap have over a 1 Gap as it seems to me if you've got talented enough players on the D-Line/ILBs a 1 Gap would work out better and be more effective defense. Is it a Risk Vs Reward balance? 

 

I'm surprised too that we didn't keep Chapman as well, given his cap hit wasn't massive and would give us flexibility in choice of fronts. 

 

To me, one is more disciplined, like building a wall and cutting off the back's running lanes when he comes your way. The other is more aggressive, chasing after the ball and trying to wreak havoc. Pagano often talks about game wreckers; those guys are usually the penetrators, not the wall builders. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, one is more disciplined, like building a wall and cutting off the back's running lanes when he comes your way. The other is more aggressive, chasing after the ball and trying to wreak havoc. Pagano often talks about game wreckers; those guys are usually the penetrators, not the wall builders. 

 

For my own preference I'd rather a more aggressive D that makes plays rather than being bend not break? I have confidence the O can overcome it if the D gives up a big play score, but we've never really had the killer instinct D that Pagano has been preaching since he arrived. 

 

Would it be fair to say it's easier to find guys who can play a 2 gap occupying role, solid but not spectacular? People sometimes forget the transition we had to make on D and it does take time to build a core of young talented players. Aside from Suh or Manning it's not common for difference makers to hit FA and we've not really hit so far on any stand out talent on the D side of the ball in the draft, though I hope this season will change that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For my own preference I'd rather a more aggressive D that makes plays rather than being bend not break? I have confidence the O can overcome it if the D gives up a big play score, but we've never really had the killer instinct D that Pagano has been preaching since he arrived. 

 

Would it be fair to say it's easier to find guys who can play a 2 gap occupying role, solid but not spectacular? People sometimes forget the transition we had to make on D and it does take time to build a core of young talented players. Aside from Suh or Manning it's not common for difference makers to hit FA and we've not really hit so far on any stand out talent on the D side of the ball in the draft, though I hope this season will change that.

 

Personally I'd say it's the other way around...easier to find guys to play a 1-gap role.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I'd say it's the other way around...easier to find guys to play a 1-gap role.

 

I did put the disclaimer in my first post about sounding moronic right? :P

 

Without wishing to sound stupid, if it's harder to find players to fit a 2 Gap scheme and it's only benefit over a 1 Gap is to be more solid by ways of being more conservative then why would you ever try to run it? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some scouting stuff on David Parry, most interesting a comparison to Kyle Williams: 

 

I say let's slow down on that, but still, that's strong. But the same guy compared Trent Richardson to Adrian Peterson, so...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I did put the disclaimer in my first post about sounding moronic right? :P

 

Without wishing to sound stupid, if it's harder to find players to fit a 2 Gap scheme and it's only benefit over a 1 Gap is to be more solid by ways of being more conservative then why would you ever try to run it? 

 

Because if you run it well, no one can run on you (Jets in 2009, 2010, although they had a hybrid front).

 

And if you happen to plug in an absolute destroyer in that front, then your entire defense gets that much better. Basically, you get the stability and low risk of a well-run 2 gap front crossed with the high rate of disruption of a well-run 1 gap front. But that's 101 -- great players transcend scheme. And, as it pertains to the Colts, we haven't had any great players on our DL in the Pagano era.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly yes... I like the kid but feel like he needs time to be a rookie. I hate to see this kid with so much talent be placed in the sink or swim situation he's in. I don't want to see him make rookie mistakes and be deemed as a "bust" I think it would be a lot better for him and the team to use him as a rotation player until he and the staff know he's ready to be the guy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because if you run it well, no one can run on you (Jets in 2009, 2010, although they had a hybrid front).

 

And if you happen to plug in an absolute destroyer in that front, then your entire defense gets that much better. Basically, you get the stability and low risk of a well-run 2 gap front crossed with the high rate of disruption of a well-run 1 gap front. But that's 101 -- great players transcend scheme. And, as it pertains to the Colts, we haven't had any great players on our DL in the Pagano era.

 

I agreed that talent outweighs scheme, and aside from Mathis and Davis we've not had any game changers on the defensive side of the ball. Some solid players certainly but no one to keep Offensive coordinators up at night especially on the defensive line. What I will say though, due to some fine secondary play last season we could replace talent to an extent by being so aggressive with our blitzing to manufacture pressure. If our DBs play to at least the same level and we've got more talented players up front, I'm actually kind of excited to see what this D can do this year. I'm not a great fan of Manusky, based solely on my limited understanding of D so a very high level "We suck at D!", but he has had limited pieces to work with so far. With slightly better talent we might see and different beast this year. Sorry I mean monster of course :P.

 

Off on a tangent somewhat, I do think too on the D side of the ball you can get away with not having as much talent as long as the players are solid in sticking to their assignments and playing well as a team, the whole being greater than the sum of it's parts and all that. I don't think that this is as true on the O side of the ball as the QB is always going to be a talent bottleneck of sorts. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because if you run it well, no one can run on you (Jets in 2009, 2010, although they had a hybrid front).

And if you happen to plug in an absolute destroyer in that front, then your entire defense gets that much better. Basically, you get the stability and low risk of a well-run 2 gap front crossed with the high rate of disruption of a well-run 1 gap front. But that's 101 -- great players transcend scheme. And, as it pertains to the Colts, we haven't had any great players on our DL in the Pagano era.

Oddly enough I'm reading the Essential Smart Football by Chris Brown currently (very short, more like an anthology of articles), and one chapter is all about 1 gap vs 2 gap.

Describes very well the history of two gap systems evolving because of the Wishbone offenses in college and the advent of the 4-3 of Jimmy Johnson before moving on to talk about the Pats hybrid fronts.

The key he points out was Wilfork, having that anchor around which to slot various cogs that suited situations allowed multiple looks all while knowing you had a solid guy in the middle taking away the A gaps.

Good read actually.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...