Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Clearly A 1-Gap D Now


Recommended Posts

Not that there was any doubt after Chapman and Hughes were let go yesterday, but the addition of T.Y. McGill really seals it.  You could see it in the play of the guys that were kept - they were penetrating during the preseason, not simply trying to occupy blockers - and McGill is not a player we'd have put on the roster last year.

 

There is some possibility that we will still 2-gap on the strong side with Langford, or do both with him because he can, but it looks pretty clear cut that we want to penetrate with the Nose and weakside DT.  Those are the players we kept.

 

Seattle used to 2-gap the strong side with Red Bryant and 1-gap everything else.  This feels like a much more versatile defensive approach.  It is also exciting to see adaptation from this staff - that was starting to feel like the only thing missing from Pagano's progression as a head coach.  He needs to show an ability to scheme, and this is a huge departure from the original scheme he installed.  In fact, this would have been a much easier scheme transition to in 2012, from a personnel standpoint, than the 2-gap heavy scheme we went with.

 

D Free might have retired a Colt....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that there was any doubt after Chapman and Hughes were let go yesterday, but the addition of T.Y. McGill really seals it.  You could see it in the play of the guys that were kept - they were penetrating during the preseason, not simply trying to occupy blockers - and McGill is not a player we'd have put on the roster last year.

 

There is some possibility that we will still 2-gap on the strong side with Langford, or do both with him because he can, but it looks pretty clear cut that we want to penetrate with the Nose and weakside DT.  Those are the players we kept.

 

Seattle used to 2-gap the strong side with Red Bryant and 1-gap everything else.  This feels like a much more versatile defensive approach.  It is also exciting to see adaptation from this staff - that was starting to feel like the only thing missing from Pagano's progression as a head coach.  He needs to show an ability to scheme, and this is a huge departure from the original scheme he installed.  In fact, this would have been a much easier scheme transition to in 2012, from a personnel standpoint, than the 2-gap heavy scheme we went with.

 

D Free might have retired a Colt....

 

Good post.

 

There's also been some adjustments with the ILBs. They've clearly been making more of an effort to make blockers miss at the second level, so they can fill the hole better. Both man and zone blocking schemes send OL to the second level to take on our ILBs, and if the DL isn't occupying the same as they have been in the past, it's even more critical for the LBs to stay clean.

 

Adding Sio Moore is a big deal, also. He has good short area quickness and also loves to destroy lead blockers on his way to the ball. 

 

I'm not sure we needed to get rid of Chapman and Hughes to make this transition, but I definitely agree that Parry, Kerr and Okine are better at shooting gaps. Keep the edges contained, penetrate, disrupt, and tackle. Let's see how it goes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good post.

 

There's also been some adjustments with the ILBs. They've clearly been making more of an effort to make blockers miss at the second level, so they can fill the hole better. Both man and zone blocking schemes send OL to the second level to take on our ILBs, and if the DL isn't occupying the same as they have been in the past, it's even more critical for the LBs to stay clean.

 

Adding Sio Moore is a big deal, also. He has good short area quickness and also loves to destroy lead blockers on his way to the ball. 

 

I'm not sure we needed to get rid of Chapman and Hughes to make this transition, but I definitely agree that Parry, Kerr and Okine are better at shooting gaps. Keep the edges contained, penetrate, disrupt, and tackle. Let's see how it goes.

As you are suggesting, I don't think that getting rid of Chapman and Hughes validates the frequent notion of so many around here that they are poor players.  I think it was simply a clear statement from Grigson that, for what they want to do moving forward, Chapman and Hughes don't provide production that they can't go and get on the open market at a moments notice, and that he'd rather be invested in depth players that might provide a lot more upside in a 1-gap scheme.  

 

I will be surprised if Chapmen, specifically, isn't active and playing significant snaps for someone in short order.  I'm kind of surprised that the Steelers didn't claim him.  He is a much better player than he is getting credit for around here. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm actually happy with the additions we made at ILB. We have four guys who could all be starters Jackson, Freeman, Moore and Irving. Swinging these four in and out of the lineup is going to be fun to watch, as they all bring a different style to our defense. Plus, Moore can play both inside and out.. which will be interesting when dialing up special blitzing packages.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One week before the start if the season seems like a horrible time to change course on a new type of defense.

They actually have been working on both but decided to stream line it since our lbs are better suited for the one gap than the two.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it makes a ton of sense for the Colts to move to a 1-gap defensive approach given their current personnel. Finding the right players for the 2-gap approach is harder and the Colts have been unsuccessful at doing so. Even if the Colts kept Chapman (who could eat up space to free up the LBs) the Colts haven't had the game wrecking LBs to make this successful. (Robert Mathis being the exception)

Link to post
Share on other sites

As one poster has already noted the idea of changing our defensive scheme one week before the start of the season seems.........  completely bizarre and unlikely to me.

 

I've never heard of this happening.    Not saying it hasn't,  just saying I'm not aware of it happening.

 

I'm open to the idea,  but it will be interesting to see if Manusky/Pagano confirm this........

Link to post
Share on other sites

As one poster has already noted the idea of changing our defensive scheme one week before the start of the season seems......... completely bizarre and unlikely to me.

I've never heard of this happening. Not saying it hasn't, just saying I'm not aware of it happening.

I'm open to the idea, but it will be interesting to see if Manusky/Pagano confirm this........

There's two sides to it:

On one side you have people who believe that a combination of the Art Jones injury and the play of the rookies forced the Colts to play their hand differently.

On the other you have the super optimists who laughed at anyone saying Chapman or Hughes would be released, and now to damage control they'll claim it was a scheme change, and not the players not meeting expectations.

Decide for yourself, but I think you can tell which is more logical.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's two sides to it:

On one side you have people who believe that a combination of the Art Jones injury and the play of the rookies forced the Colts to play their hand differently.

On the other you have the super optimists who laughed at anyone saying Chapman or Hughes would be released, and now to damage control they'll claim it was a scheme change, and not the players not meeting expectations.

Decide for yourself, but I think you can tell which is more logical.

If you have even the slightest clue how defense works and recognize the play style of the guys who were cut vs the guys who were kept, then yes it is easy to see which makes more logical sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i think what this staff is wanting is an interior that cam move, SLANT..  

 

Hughes and Chap were slugs...   I like the direction...   

As one poster has already noted the idea of changing our defensive scheme one week before the start of the season seems.........  completely bizarre and unlikely to me.

 

I've never heard of this happening.    Not saying it hasn't,  just saying I'm not aware of it happening.

 

I'm open to the idea,  but it will be interesting to see if Manusky/Pagano confirm this........

Link to post
Share on other sites

One week before the start if the season seems like a horrible time to change course on a new type of defense.

I think the Langford signing and the 3rd and 4th round picks (an undersized NT who we targeted with a trade up) all indicate that doing more one-gap was a decision made in the spring.

 

We were also supposedly interested in Fairley, who people here were questioning how he fit with the D.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This will be telling for Chuck if he can change scheme, overcome Art's loss and field a respectable defense. He will have earned a new contract. If not could be night night.

I'm not a big fan of Chuck, but why do,you expect him to shine a turd? Ok, maybe not a turd, but a defense with questionable talent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As one poster has already noted the idea of changing our defensive scheme one week before the start of the season seems.........  completely bizarre and unlikely to me.

 

I've never heard of this happening.    Not saying it hasn't,  just saying I'm not aware of it happening.

 

I'm open to the idea,  but it will be interesting to see if Manusky/Pagano confirm this........

Right, it would be bizarre. To the bolded.....

 

Nothing has changed in the last week, the shift began sometime this off season.  Pagano/Manusky aren't going to announce or confirm it until they get asked about it....at which time they'll say "Ya, we like to run a good diverse mix of hybrid schemes - you know what I always say...the more you can do...".  Of course their coaching opponents already know it because they scouted the players we kept on the DL, and know that their strength is penetration and we mostly only repped those guys with 1-Gap technique and dropped the 2-Gappers and they'll plan accordingly.  

 

We've always run enough 1-Gap here and there, and, of course, nickel, that the change wasn't really confirmable until they adjusted the roster to reflect it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, it would be bizarre. To the bolded.....

 

Nothing has changed in the last week, the shift began sometime this off season.  Pagano/Manusky aren't going to announce or confirm it until they get asked about it....at which time they'll say "Ya, we like to run a good diverse mix of hybrid schemes - you know what I always say...the more you can do...".  Of course their coaching opponents already know it because they scouted the players we kept on the DL, and know that their strength is penetration and we mostly only repped those guys with 1-Gap technique and dropped the 2-Gappers and they'll plan accordingly.  

 

We've always run enough 1-Gap here and there, and, of course, nickel, that the change wasn't really confirmable until they adjusted the roster to reflect it.

 

Good Post,  ZT....

 

Appreciate the thought behind it.    Hope you're right.   I think I'd prefer a 1-gap system to a 2-gap system.   Now we'll see how it works in the real world, the regular season for us......

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have even the slightest clue how defense works and recognize the play style of the guys who were cut vs the guys who were kept, then yes it is easy to see which makes more logical sense.

I don't think that's the whole story though. We may see different fronts since Parry and Anderson are comfortable there but that wasn't the whole reason. Chapman got outplayed. And if that lead to them changing the scheme then so be it, but it's just hard to imagine.

Just completely going from a 2 to 1 gap scheme based on 2 rookies? That's bold for any coach. That could possibly explain Chapman but Hughes didn't exactly have a definitive position, so he theoretically could play in multiple schemes. But like I said, I don't think the staff felt like they could meet expectations in whatever scheme and so they cut him.

A few months ago on here I remember Superman saying scheme fit means very little. If you have talented players you make them work in any scheme. I think it was in regards to Paul Dawson as a potential Colt draft but the point remains the same.

You don't cut 2 D-lineman (one of which was a starter) when you're already thin at that position just because they don't fit the scheme. Plus, how many times have we talked about the Colts running a lot of different fronts? I'm not saying that the scheme isn't changing, but it's absurd to say a Chap and Hughes got cut because they don't fit the new scheme we're trying to run.

Actually by saying that you're implying that they weren't good enough players since we run hybrid fronts all the time. So either way you look at it the result is the same.

Why so much damage control on the board over two players who weren't that good. Isn't this what Everyone wanted Grigson and Pagano?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that's the whole story though. We may see different fronts since Parry and Anderson are comfortable there but that wasn't the whole reason. Chapman got outplayed. And if that lead to them changing the scheme then so be it, but it's just hard to imagine.

Just completely going from a 2 to 1 gap scheme based on 2 rookies? That's bold for any coach. That could possibly explain Chapman but Hughes didn't exactly have a definitive position, so he theoretically could play in multiple schemes. But like I said, I don't think the staff felt like they could meet expectations in whatever scheme and so they cut him.

A few months ago on here I remember Superman saying scheme fit means very little. If you have talented players you make them work in any scheme. I think it was in regards to Paul Dawson as a potential Colt draft but the point remains the same.

You don't cut 2 D-lineman (one of which was a starter) when you're already thin at that position just because they don't fit the scheme. Plus, how many times have we talked about the Colts running a lot of different fronts? I'm not saying that the scheme isn't changing, but it's absurd to say a Chap and Hughes got cut because they don't fit the new scheme we're trying to run.

Actually by saying that you're implying that they weren't good enough players since we run hybrid fronts all the time. So either way you look at it the result is the same.

Why so much damage control on the board over two players who weren't that good. Isn't this what Everyone wanted Grigson and Pagano?

 

It's not damage control. Your argument is sensationalizing the opinion of people who didn't think Chapman (and Hughes) were bad players that needed to be dismissed.

 

I said after the Bengals game that I didn't think Chapman would be cut. I was wrong. No need for damage control, because it's not a big deal. I'll continue to say that Chapman was the only 2 gap NT on the roster, including Parry. Getting rid of Chapman makes it plainly obvious that the defense won't be utilizing a 2 gap NT anymore, because we no longer have one. 

 

I didn't ever say scheme fit doesn't matter. I said talent is more important. If you can't figure out how to fit very talented players into your front -- and I'm really talking about players better than Parry and Kerr; more like Aaron Donald, Ndamakung Suh, etc. -- then that's a coaching problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites

but it's absurd to say a Chap and Hughes got cut because they don't fit the new scheme we're trying to run.

WHAT???? how is it absurd to cut 2 players that don't fit a scheme you're changing to? Poor play or poor scheme fit are literally the 2 most logical reasons to explain why they were cut. And in Chapman's case, it was not poor play but rather poor scheme fit. He was the ONLY guy on the roster that could take on double teams with any effectiveness at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that's the whole story though. We may see different fronts since Parry and Anderson are comfortable there but that wasn't the whole reason. Chapman got outplayed. And if that lead to them changing the scheme then so be it, but it's just hard to imagine.

Just completely going from a 2 to 1 gap scheme based on 2 rookies? That's bold for any coach. That could possibly explain Chapman but Hughes didn't exactly have a definitive position, so he theoretically could play in multiple schemes. But like I said, I don't think the staff felt like they could meet expectations in whatever scheme and so they cut him.

A few months ago on here I remember Superman saying scheme fit means very little. If you have talented players you make them work in any scheme. I think it was in regards to Paul Dawson as a potential Colt draft but the point remains the same.

You don't cut 2 D-lineman (one of which was a starter) when you're already thin at that position just because they don't fit the scheme. Plus, how many times have we talked about the Colts running a lot of different fronts? I'm not saying that the scheme isn't changing, but it's absurd to say a Chap and Hughes got cut because they don't fit the new scheme we're trying to run.

Actually by saying that you're implying that they weren't good enough players since we run hybrid fronts all the time. So either way you look at it the result is the same.

Why so much damage control on the board over two players who weren't that good. Isn't this what Everyone wanted Grigson and Pagano?

It is fair to say that the staff didn't like the combined production of the defense that they knew with Chapman/Hughes as they hope to achieve with the players they kept...so they cut them.  That really isn't the same thing as saying that they weren't competent at their roles, because they are asked to do different things.  If you need the validation, then you can link it all together to say "I told you they weren't any good", but don't expect that to fly when others see more variables than that.

 

Good players get redeployed in schemes that complement their talents every year. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

WHAT???? how is it absurd to cut 2 players that don't fit a scheme you're changing to? Poor play or poor scheme fit are literally the 2 most logical reasons to explain why they were cut. And in Chapman's case, it was not poor play but rather poor scheme fit. He was the ONLY guy on the roster that could take on double teams with any effectiveness at all.

And what did Chap do most of the time with those double teams.... not much. He got washed out by double teams more often than not. Sometimes even by a single blocker. He was very average at his position. And that's probably being nice. It wasn't scheme fit for Chap at all. He did not do his job very effectively at all.

I'm not trying Chapman was bad 100% of the time. He had some moments and times where he looked good and did alright. But more often than not it was the other end of the story, not so good.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And what did Chap do most of the time with those double teams.... not much. He got washed out by double teams more often than not. Sometimes even by a single blocker. He was very average at his position. And that's probably being nice.

Chapman did better against double teams than anyone else on the roster. He did not get washed out "more often than not". Quite the opposite actually. I do agree he had not been much more than average as a 0 tech NT, but he was still better at it than anyone still on the roster, which is why I don't believe they will be using a 0 tech NT much, if at all, anymore.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Chapman did better against double teams than anyone else on the roster. He did not get washed out "more often than not". Quite the opposite actually. I do agree he had not been much more than average as a 0 tech NT, but he was still better at it than anyone still on the roster, which is why I don't believe they will be using a 0 tech NT much, if at all, anymore.

Ummm I can remember a number of times seeing him take on doubt teams initially, get turnt to the side and collapsed after that. Or he'd just get straight mauled by two guys. And it's not just about drawing the team either... you have to control that double team and both gaps. That's what he did not do very well.

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...