We are moving back to a 4-3 zone defense

[DougDew]

11 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

I could see Geathers doing really well at the WILL position in a Tampa2 type D.  I also think a line of  Woods, Hankins at DT with Anderson and Chubb(hopefully) at DE could really hold the POA in the run game with Anderson, Chubb and Hankins being able to provide consistent pressure in the pass game.

OT here.  Anderson is said by many to be a poor fit in a 43.  Maybe that's true on paper, but the guy gets consistent push into the pocket and I think he'll continue to do that regardless of where or how he lines up.

[BlueShoe]

25 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

I could see Geathers doing really well at the WILL position in a Tampa2 type D.  I also think a line of  Woods, Hankins at DT with Anderson and Chubb(hopefully) at DE could really hold the POA in the run game with Anderson, Chubb and Hankins being able to provide consistent pressure in the pass game.

 

It worked well for Cato June. 

 

He moved from safety and lit it up as a 43 WILL. 

[Coffeedrinker]

9 minutes ago, DougDew said:

OT here.  Anderson is said by many to be a poor fit in a 43.  Maybe that's true on paper, but the guy gets consistent push into the pocket and I think he'll continue to do that regardless of where or how he lines up.

Interesting.  But yeah, I was always amazed at how much pressure he got in the 34.  I could really see him being like Bratzke in a 43.  Someone who really shuts down the run to his side but will also give the team 8-12 sacks a year and like you stated consistent push into the pocket.

[BlueShoe]

9 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

Interesting.  But yeah, I was always amazed at how much pressure he got in the 34.  I could really see him being like Bratzke in a 43.  Someone who really shuts down the run to his side but will also give the team 8-12 sacks a year and like you stated consistent push into the pocket.

 

That is an interesting thought! 

 

While Bratzke played his best ball in Fangios 43 system, it would be very interesting to try Anderson out at DE in the 43. We could put him on the strong side, and kick him inside on passing downs. 

[jameszeigler834]

1 hour ago, dgambill said:

 Not necessarily...Seattle played a lot of zone with the legion of boom...it’s all about talent and execution.

I hope your right.

[krunk]

4 hours ago, #12. said:

People are jumping to conclusions.  Make no mistake, Eberflus was McDaniels' guy, and months ago was rumored to be Patricia's replacement in New England, so I'm having a hard time seeing some sort of conscious effort to return to "old Indy" here.  Nothing Ballard has said since arriving has led me to believe that.  His pursuit of McDaniels would suggest otherwise.  

 

As far as what Dallas did on D, Eberflus wasn't the DC. Who knows what he'll do as a DC, and the next HC and management will have plenty of influence on it.

 

4 hours ago, #12. said:

People are jumping to conclusions.  Make no mistake, Eberflus was McDaniels' guy, and months ago was rumored to be Patricia's replacement in New England, so I'm having a hard time seeing some sort of conscious effort to return to "old Indy" here.  Nothing Ballard has said since arriving has led me to believe that.  His pursuit of McDaniels would suggest otherwise.  

 

As far as what Dallas did on D, Eberflus wasn't the DC. Who knows what he'll do as a DC, and the next HC and management will have plenty of influence on it.

If you paid any attention to Ballards press conference you would understand the old Indy Cover 2 is coming back. Ballard made more than one mention of having great trust in the system they ran in Chicago under Lovie Smith. Same system with some tweaks they were running in Dallas. Eberflus wasn't the coordinator but that system is his most recent influence. If we hire Frank Reich we are bringing one of the old coaches back from the Peyton era. And I like that because he has live influence from Tom Moore and Peyton. This is what I meant by the Old Indy in the 2 points above.

[krunk]

10 hours ago, Coffeedrinker said:

I could see Geathers doing really well at the WILL position in a Tampa2 type D.  I also think a line of  Woods, Hankins at DT with Anderson and Chubb(hopefully) at DE could really hold the POA in the run game with Anderson, Chubb and Hankins being able to provide consistent pressure in the pass game.

I thought the same thing about Geathers. I just didnt feel like battling the no Geathers at LB crowd. If we do that I suppose we would have to get another box safety on the back end. I really like Ronnie Harrison from Bama. Kid is good in coverage too.

[Mr. Irrelevant]

7 hours ago, krunk said:

 

If you paid any attention to Ballards press conference you would understand the old Indy Cover 2 is coming back. Ballard made more than one mention of having great trust in the system they ran in Chicago under Lovie Smith. 

 

Slightly off topic, but it is interesting to note how Ballard seams to have a plan, or at least a strong preference, for what defensive scheme we should run. I have never heard him allude to any offensive schemes, and I think this is a big reason why he prefers to get an offensive-minded HC; to complement him. In that respect McSpineless was a perfect fit, but water under the bridge and all. 

 

I would be shocked if we don't get an offensive-minded HC. 

[krunk]

50 minutes ago, Mr. Irrelevant said:

 

Slightly off topic, but it is interesting to note how Ballard seams to have a plan, or at least a strong preference, for what defensive scheme we should run. I have never heard him allude to any offensive schemes, and I think this is a big reason why he prefers to get an offensive-minded HC; to complement him. In that respect McSpineless was a perfect fit, but water under the bridge and all. 

 

I would be shocked if we don't get an offensive-minded HC. 

Well if this goes anything like the first set of interviews it seems like the first guy Ballard interviews is the guy with the strongest possibility to get the job. We got Frank Reich on Friday as the first candidate sooooo.....

[Mr. Irrelevant]

56 minutes ago, krunk said:

Well if this goes anything like the first set of interviews it seems like the first guy Ballard interviews is the guy with the strongest possibility to get the job. We got Frank Reich on Friday as the first candidate sooooo.....

 

Hmmm, don't like the sound of that, krunk, as Dan Campbell interviews for the job first, today (Thursday).

[Coffeedrinker]

2 hours ago, krunk said:

I thought the same thing about Geathers. I just didnt feel like battling the no Geathers at LB crowd. If we do that I suppose we would have to get another box safety on the back end. I really like Ronnie Harrison from Bama. Kid is good in coverage too.

One, the no Geathers at LB crowd are old school but a lot of teams are going to one smaller, 220lbs or less LB, to offset the read option type offenses.  And Geathers is bigger than Cato June and a better tackler.  The downside is, obviously his health and he's not used to battling the blocking TE or olineman every play.  So there would be a bit of a learning curve there.

[Defjamz26]

I was excited by this news in the presser. Some of the reasons he gave out the same things I’ve been saying. It’s way better for young players (and the Colts are going to get even younger in a few month) and helps them out early. It’s a simpler scheme to draft for and it will force us to finally get athletic LBs.

 

Unless someone takes him before us, I think now it’s probably a lock that we take Bradley Chubb at #3. The other key will be getting athletic ILBs.

[BlueShoe]

13 hours ago, #12. said:

People are jumping to conclusions.  Make no mistake, Eberflus was McDaniels' guy, and months ago was rumored to be Patricia's replacement in New England, so I'm having a hard time seeing some sort of conscious effort to return to "old Indy" here.  Nothing Ballard has said since arriving has led me to believe that.  His pursuit of McDaniels would suggest otherwise.  

 

As far as what Dallas did on D, Eberflus wasn't the DC. Who knows what he'll do as a DC, and the next HC and management will have plenty of influence on it.

 

No jumping to conclusions. Chris Ballard spelled it out pretty well yesterday during his press conference. 

[TrueBlue12]

13 hours ago, Coffeedrinker said:

I could see Geathers doing really well at the WILL position in a Tampa2 type D.  I also think a line of  Woods, Hankins at DT with Anderson and Chubb(hopefully) at DE could really hold the POA in the run game with Anderson, Chubb and Hankins being able to provide consistent pressure in the pass game.

I don't know that Woods would be a good fit for the 4-3.

[Coffeedrinker]

18 minutes ago, TrueBlue12 said:

I don't know that Woods would be a good fit for the 4-3.

Why?  One of the biggest complaints about Dungy's D when he was here is the Colts didn't have a run stopping DT.  Booger helped especially come play off time.  And Woods has good movement for a guy his size.  Additionally, he won't provide much of a rush but he will collapse the top side of the pocket which will help the DEs.

[TrueBlue12]

3 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

Why?  One of the biggest complaints about Dungy's D when he was here is the Colts didn't have a run stopping DT.  Booger helped especially come play off time.  And Woods has good movement for a guy his size.  Additionally, he won't provide much of a rush but he will collapse the top side of the pocket which will help the DEs.

I don't see Woods as being nearly as quick or mobile as Booger. But, I also am drawing on my long term memory here.

[dgambill]

1 hour ago, krunk said:

Well if this goes anything like the first set of interviews it seems like the first guy Ballard interviews is the guy with the strongest possibility to get the job. We got Frank Reich on Friday as the first candidate sooooo.....

Which is how most people interview...myself included. You have researched their resume and cross checked them etc....then you listen to them to confirm what you know already. They are the leading candidate...that way when you go through your other interviews it should just confirm what you already believe...or it would take something just blowing you away to change your mind. You don't want to be wishy washy...trust your gut. If you get moved off it later then you know there is something really special about another candidate. I think Frank is our leading candidate...and as long as he wants the job and likes the fit...it will get done.

[krunk]

26 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

Why?  One of the biggest complaints about Dungy's D when he was here is the Colts didn't have a run stopping DT.  Booger helped especially come play off time.  And Woods has good movement for a guy his size.  Additionally, he won't provide much of a rush but he will collapse the top side of the pocket which will help the DEs.

Also if I'm not mistaken they ran a 4-3 for some time in Tennessee when Woods was there.   Also Woods  is another ball player from LSU and they have traditionally always played a 4-3 defense.

[krunk]

1 hour ago, Mr. Irrelevant said:

 

Hmmm, don't like the sound of that, krunk, as Dan Campbell interviews for the job first, today (Thursday).

I didn't see a date on Dan Campbells interview.     What I said was an assumption. I do hope we DON'T hire campbell though.

[Mr. Irrelevant]

28 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

Why?  One of the biggest complaints about Dungy's D when he was here is the Colts didn't have a run stopping DT.  Booger helped especially come play off time.  And Woods has good movement for a guy his size.  Additionally, he won't provide much of a rush but he will collapse the top side of the pocket which will help the DEs.

 

Yeah, you would think that Woods and Hankins would stop the run in the middle with ease in a 4-3.  They should be able to put pressure up the middle too, but they will probably not get much to the QB. But if they can collapse the pocket often, then that is good, right? Or is that a terrible simplification of the 4-3 duties? 

[krunk]

I'm interested to see Grover Stewart in this new penetrating one gap scheme.  I think he's going to look different being a penetrator versus standing there 2 Gapping.

[Mr. Irrelevant]

Just now, krunk said:

I'm interested to see Grover Stewart in this new penetrating one gap scheme.

 

I forgot about him, intriguing!

[Mr. Irrelevant]

OK, I got to read up on the 4-3 scheme, LOL

[krunk]

1 hour ago, Defjamz26 said:

I was excited by this news in the presser. Some of the reasons he gave out the same things I’ve been saying. It’s way better for young players (and the Colts are going to get even younger in a few month) and helps them out early. It’s a simpler scheme to draft for and it will force us to finally get athletic LBs.

 

Unless someone takes him before us, I think now it’s probably a lock that we take Bradley Chubb at #3. The other key will be getting athletic ILBs.

It's a better system for young players particularly when you plan on many of them starting.

[Coffeedrinker]

25 minutes ago, Mr. Irrelevant said:

 

Yeah, you would think that Woods and Hankins would stop the run in the middle with ease in a 4-3.  They should be able to put pressure up the middle too, but they will probably not get much to the QB. But if they can collapse the pocket often, then that is good, right? Or is that a terrible simplification of the 4-3 duties? 

It's a good simplification of the 4-3 duties.

 

The Dungy-2 or Tampa 2 defense was primarily a single gap D for the front 4, the phrase was often use that their primary responsibility was to get to the QB with a secondary responsibility of tackling the ball carrier on the way to the QB.  

 

Some modifications to that, that Frazier made in Minnesota and I've seen other places is, to have one DT play a more traditional NT position, meaning he is responsible for two gaps.  Frazier even went a step further and had both DTs responsible for two gaps at times.

 

So it's a personal preference of mine, I like having a DT that can handle two gaps in a 4-3 D.  And that is why i think Woods would be a good DT if the Colts switch to a 4-3 D.

[Jason_]

14 hours ago, DougDew said:

OT here.  Anderson is said by many to be a poor fit in a 43.  Maybe that's true on paper, but the guy gets consistent push into the pocket and I think he'll continue to do that regardless of where or how he lines up.

 

Not sure who's been saying that but I see no reason he couldn't thrive as a 3 tech in a 3 man front.

[aaron11]

i dont get why so many people want to move geathers to linebacker

 

he seems like a safety to me

[DougDew]

1 minute ago, J@son said:

 

Not sure who's been saying that but I see no reason he couldn't thrive as a 3 tech in a 3 man front.

I don't really get personal here or remember names, but several posts in the past have come up regarding switching to a 43 and who might be on the bubble more than others.  Anderson came up a lot as being an odd man out.

 

I think that would be a mistake.  I think he is a very good DLineman that can play well doing many things on the inside no matter what the alignment. 

[Defjamz26]

11 minutes ago, krunk said:

It's a better system for young players particularly when you plan on many of them starting.

Precisely. It’s a smoother transition. Especially for pass rushers, and to a lesser extent, LBs.

 

Bradley Chubb should do really good in a 4-3, which is hopefully ours.

[Coffeedrinker]

8 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

i dont get why so many people want to move geathers to linebacker

 

he seems like a safety to me

For me, in a 4-3 Cover 2 type D, I personally don't think Geathers has the range to handle half the field.  Also, the WILL LB in that type of D is more of a coverage LB rather than attack the LOS LB, which is why I think Geathers would be a good fit for that WILL LB in a Cover2 type D.

[Jason_]

15 hours ago, jameszeigler834 said:

Zone sucks never works all this means is we will continue to give up 300+ passing yards every week.

 

you should try to learn more about what you're talking about before posting.  that's absurd.  

[shasta519]

19 hours ago, krunk said:

If you're going to run a scheme like that you need premium pass rushers.   That to me means we'd be leaning more towards  Bradley Chubb than Barkeley.

 

Yep. I also think this is why the Colts are going to go after a DE in FA. Gives them flexibility heading into the draft.

[Jason_]

4 hours ago, krunk said:

I thought the same thing about Geathers. I just didnt feel like battling the no Geathers at LB crowd. If we do that I suppose we would have to get another box safety on the back end. I really like Ronnie Harrison from Bama. Kid is good in coverage too.

 

I'd only want geathers there in sub packages, not the base front.

[shasta519]

22 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

i dont get why so many people want to move geathers to linebacker

 

he seems like a safety to me

 

He is a safety. And he's a safety who suffered a major neck injury. Putting Geathers at LB won't end well for him or the Colts.

[shasta519]

I think the switch to 4-3 has been apparent since they interviewed Wilks and Richard (the only two defensive coaches they targeted). And I think it has been the plan all along. Last offseason, the guys that Ballard targeted with long-term deals were the guys that could easily transition...Simon, Sheard and Hankins.

 

That said, even with Simon at SAM, they will need to basically overhaul the LB position. Finally there will be an emphasis on athletic LBs that can cover...as opposed to the two-down LBs Pagano loved for some reason. 

[aaron11]

25 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

For me, in a 4-3 Cover 2 type D, I personally don't think Geathers has the range to handle half the field.  Also, the WILL LB in that type of D is more of a coverage LB rather than attack the LOS LB, which is why I think Geathers would be a good fit for that WILL LB in a Cover2 type D.

i see what you mean, i was thinking we would be doing more of a cover three

 

hooker and geathers would be a good safety duo for cover three

[jameszeigler834]

36 minutes ago, J@son said:

 

you should try to learn more about what you're talking about before posting.  that's absurd.  

You don't know anymore than I do pal so maybe learn more what your talking about before you run your mouth.

[krunk]

48 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

For me, in a 4-3 Cover 2 type D, I personally don't think Geathers has the range to handle half the field.  Also, the WILL LB in that type of D is more of a coverage LB rather than attack the LOS LB, which is why I think Geathers would be a good fit for that WILL LB in a Cover2 type D.

I understood exactly what you meant when you first said it!   Excellent explanation. Somehow Geathers ain't cut out for it, but a guy like Cato June is.  LOL!  They love the stuff about his neck, but this is football.  You can hurt your neck on XYZ play.   The man said he was going to play his game and we all know that he's violent.   I don't really see the increased risk.   The way Clayton plays is what gets him injured.

[Roger]

I would hope that the eventual choice as HC has input. It shouldn't be decided by the GM and DC. Otherwise, why have a head coach?

[Jason_]

42 minutes ago, jameszeigler834 said:

You don't know anymore than I do pal so maybe learn more what your talking about before you run your mouth.

 

Lmao. Not even remotely true.  I know enough to know that your comment that Zone defense never works is utterly ridiculous.