Defensive package usage the last 4 years

[chad72]

Very cool article on PFF:

http://www.profootba...2%80%93-part-1/

I personally think the 4-2-5 and 3-3-5 would be perfect for us to play for our 4 man and 3 man fronts for the hybrid more often instead of the pure 4-3-4 and 3-4-4.

Division rivals - mix the 4-3-4 and 3-4-4 due to the run heavy offenses

Elite passing teams - switch between the 3-3-5 and 4-2-5

You can see the 4-2-5 and 3-3-5 are growing in usage percentage as the league becomes more passing oriented, nickel in the secondary is almost a starting formation for a lot of teams right off the bat.

Thoughts??

[Coffeedrinker]

Very cool article on PFF:

http://www.profootba...2%80%93-part-1/

I personally think the 4-2-5 and 3-3-5 would be perfect for us to play for our 4 man and 3 man fronts for the hybrid more often instead of the pure 4-3-4 and 3-4-4.

Division rivals - mix the 4-3-4 and 3-4-4 due to the run heavy offenses

Elite passing teams - switch between the 3-3-5 and 4-2-5

You can see the 4-2-5 and 3-3-5 are growing in usage percentage as the league becomes more passing oriented, nickel in the secondary is almost a starting formation for a lot of teams right off the bat.

Thoughts??

I think the 3-3-5 D is the way to go. I've been working on one for the last couple of years that I think is needed in the passing league. That looks like this

S1 S2

S3 LB1 LB2

LB3

CB1 DT1 NT DT2 CB2

With

DT1&2 - These are DTs in the mold of a cover 2 NT. They primarily play directly over the tackles

NT - Typical 3-4 type NT. Plays over the center but will shift to a shoulder depending on D

CB1&2 - Man cover corners

LB3 - Like a 3-4 OLB, kind of the role people are talking about for Mathis. His primary job is to line up where he thinks it will be best based on the defense and film study.

LB1&2 Like a cover 2 MIKE, primarly responsibility will be zone pass coverage but with run responsibility based on the D called.

S3 - Is kind of a safety/CB tweener, someone who is perhaps not fast enough to be a CB but has good agility and good at supporting the run. Responsible man coverage on TE or 3rd WR

S1&2 - Traditional FS/SS roles.

The front 3 are mainly responsible for occupying blockers. The three of them should consistently occupy 5 lineman. It doesn't matter if they get any tackles as long as they are keeping the oline busy.

LB1&2 and S1&2 have zone responsibilities.

S3 as I said has man on 3rd WR or TE. If no 3rd WR or TE then he has zone coverage as well.

LB3 is the 4th rusher.

There is a lot more to it, but that's the gist of it. So I am a firm believer in the 3-3-5 type D, I think it provides the most flexibility from down to down and if you have smart LBers that can read the play it can really be a stifling D.

**EDIT**Boy, I don't know how to do the players, when I type them in they are all nice and neat and how they would line up on the field but when it sets it they are all left justified with no spacing. Sorry **EDIT**

[The Peytonator]

I like the 3-3-5 too. You get some big behemoths on the line to clog the running lanes. One really good pass rusher coming around the edge, hopefully without having to worry about a chip block because blockers are occupied. Two MLBs whose specialty is coverage, but they still have to be able to read the run and tackle. Then obviously the 5 DBs should be able to hold off the WRs and TEs longer than they would in a base package.

You're basically getting the best of all three worlds; run defense, coverage, and pass rush.

[chad72]

I like the 3-3-5 too. You get some big behemoths on the line to clog the running lanes. One really good pass rusher coming around the edge, hopefully without having to worry about a chip block because blockers are occupied. Two MLBs whose specialty is coverage, but they still have to be able to read the run and tackle. Then obviously the 5 DBs should be able to hold off the WRs and TEs longer than they would in a base package.

You're basically getting the best of all three worlds; run defense, coverage, and pass rush.

You cant play that all the time, otherwise teams will go 6 OLs or 2 blocking TEs on you to nullify your advantage and run it down your throat. Your behemoths on the line better be REAL GOOD for that to work.

The 3-3-5 works best vs passing teams as it gives you flexibility with the no huddle, should be used as base formation vs teams that are elite passing teams. For running teams in the division, one is better off with the 3-4-4, IMO.

[Coffeedrinker]

You cant play that all the time, otherwise teams will go 6 OLs or 2 blocking TEs on you to nullify your advantage and run it down your throat. Your behemoths on the line better be REAL GOOD for that to work.

The 3-3-5 works best vs passing teams as it gives you flexibility with the no huddle, should be used as base formation vs teams that are elite passing teams. For running teams in the division, one is better off with the 3-4-4, IMO.

Let's not get alignment confused with defensive philosophy and I agree that no alignment can be used all the time. A couple of interesting things from that breakdown.

One) No team ran out of the 4-3-4 alignment than the Colts at 61% and then their nickel package 4-2-5 at 36%, so 97% of the time the Colts were in a 4 front formation. That is why I did not like Coyer... he was too predictable.

Another interesting thing is looking at what Baltimore did in 2011. Pagano definitely mixed it up more than Coyer, but he ran a 4 front 58% of the time and a 4-3-4 was the most used alignment overall at 36%.

So you have Pags running a 4 front most of the time and him already stating that he envisions Freeney having his hand in the dirt more than dropping back; I don't think the Colts are moving to a 3-4 like so many are hoping.

Of course, if you look at SD and Manusky's D they did not run a 4 front at all, the 3-4-4 was their most used at 50% followed byu the 2-4-5 at 37%, so 87% of the time they played with 4 LBers and at least 4 DBs. So, as the DC he should have the defensive that HC wants, so hopefully we will see more of Pags ideas and unpredictability and less of Manusky's.

[Coffeedrinker]

Sorry Chad, it appears not many people are interested in talking football. Or maybe it's just because I responded, I don't know.

Perhaps I should end my post with, "Irsay tweeted Andrew likes Boysenberry Syrup on his pancakes." Then it would probably get 500 responses. :D:D

[Icelandic_Colt]

Let's not get alignment confused with defensive philosophy and I agree that no alignment can be used all the time. A couple of interesting things from that breakdown.

One) No team ran out of the 4-3-4 alignment than the Colts at 61% and then their nickel package 4-2-5 at 36%, so 97% of the time the Colts were in a 4 front formation. That is why I did not like Coyer... he was too predictable.

Another interesting thing is looking at what Baltimore did in 2011. Pagano definitely mixed it up more than Coyer, but he ran a 4 front 58% of the time and a 4-3-4 was the most used alignment overall at 36%.

So you have Pags running a 4 front most of the time and him already stating that he envisions Freeney having his hand in the dirt more than dropping back; I don't think the Colts are moving to a 3-4 like so many are hoping.

Of course, if you look at SD and Manusky's D they did not run a 4 front at all, the 3-4-4 was their most used at 50% followed byu the 2-4-5 at 37%, so 87% of the time they played with 4 LBers and at least 4 DBs. So, as the DC he should have the defensive that HC wants, so hopefully we will see more of Pags ideas and unpredictability and less of Manusky's.

But isn't SD's 2-4-5 simply our version of a 4-2-5? Freeney and Mathis would be classified as LB's in San Diego whilst here they've been defensive ends. SD gave up a D-lineman when they went nickle, we gave up a linebacker.

But I agree with the first part, I think people are going to be surprised at the lack of 3-4 plays we'll run. Of course it will depend some on the draft, if we get in a dominant NT and figure out who can and can't play DE, but ultimately it depends on the teams we'll face. I have a feeling most teams will want to test our depth at cornerback early and often, and so we'll be seeing alot more nickle and dime than 3-4.

[Coffeedrinker]

But isn't SD's 2-4-5 simply our version of a 4-2-5?

Yes and no, That is their nickel but the responsibility of the players is different.

Freeney and Mathis would be classified as LB's in San Diego whilst here they've been defensive ends. SD gave up a D-lineman when they went nickle, we gave up a linebacker.

I guess you can say all defenses are the same they just give the players different names, but it's the roles of those players that are different. Yes Freeney and Mathis may be called LBers in Pags D but they will not be Defensive ends called LBs, their responsibilities will be different.

But I agree with the first part, I think people are going to be surprised at the lack of 3-4 plays we'll run. Of course it will depend some on the draft, if we get in a dominant NT and figure out who can and can't play DE, but ultimately it depends on the teams we'll face. I have a feeling most teams will want to test our depth at cornerback early and often, and so we'll be seeing alot more nickle and dime than 3-4.

I don't think the dominant NT will have much to do with it. The Ravens had a dominant NT (actually two so they moved one to the DE spots) and this still ran a 4 front most of the time.

[The Peytonator]

Sorry Chad, it appears not many people are interested in talking football. Or maybe it's just because I responded, I don't know.

Perhaps I should end my post with, "Irsay tweeted Andrew likes Boysenberry Syrup on his pancakes." Then it would probably get 500 responses. :D:D

People don't like to talk about football. They like to talk about players that aren't even on the team and how good they would look with a horseshoed helmet. Sure talking X's and O's doesn't appeal to everyone, but it does to me, and I wish more people would involve themselves in these threads.

[Warhorse]

People don't like to talk about football. They like to talk about players that aren't even on the team and how good they would look with a horseshoed helmet. Sure talking X's and O's doesn't appeal to everyone, but it does to me, and I wish more people would involve themselves in these threads.

I started a thread a couple of months ago where people could explain basic football concepts so more would get involved. I would be happy to dredge it up if people are interested.

[Warhorse]

**EDIT**Boy, I don't know how to do the players, when I type them in they are all nice and neat and how they would line up on the field but when it sets it they are all left justified with no spacing. Sorry **EDIT**

Did you try saving you post as an Adobe file or other type doc and then pasting it here? Check with the mods, there is likely a way that your format can be pasted and unaltered when you post.

[SafetyValve]

Teams are only moving to Nickel because that's what the offense is dictating. Just like Peyton saw primarily Nickel when he was here w/Dallas being treated as a WR. Pagano will adjust to what the personnel dictates.

[chad72]

I started a thread a couple of months ago where people could explain basic football concepts so more would get involved. I would be happy to dredge it up if people are interested.

Sure, bring it up!!! The dust has somewhat settled here in the forum and enough people would talk football like a breath of fresh air .

[Coffeedrinker]

I started a thread a couple of months ago where people could explain basic football concepts so more would get involved. I would be happy to dredge it up if people are interested.

I remember that thread, you had a nice break down of offensive plays and formations if I remember correctly (which at my age is not always a given)

[Warhorse]

It stated with descriptions of personnel packages. I think it went into weak/strong side, and I posted a route tree. I'll go find it. I loved your defensive alignment break down.

[a06cc]

5-2-4 would be a great idea as well. With our speed on defense I think it would be a great idea to rush 5 guys on every play. When we blitzed over the past 2 years it was very effective. Rewatch the Giants game in 09. That was the best game I seen our defense play. We blitzed based off of our speed. It paid off great. So I wondered why we stepped away from it? Now with a bigger defensive line begin insteaded I think we can look to taking more chances. We need one solid corner to make it work. Jerraud Powers is on the watch list for me as well. I know he's been hurt and thats the problem. No one talks about it, but he has been getting hurt for the past 2 or 3 seasons.

[TennEngr]

I started a thread a couple of months ago where people could explain basic football concepts so more would get involved. I would be happy to dredge it up if people are interested.

I enjoy reading X's and O's type comments but tend not to comment about them. I did not play the game of football but have been around many years and could probably carry on a half-way decent conversation but 1 "stupid" comment can get you "killed" on here. GO COLTS!

[Warhorse]

I enjoy reading X's and O's type comments but tend not to comment about them. I did not play the game of football but have been around many years and could probably carry on a half-way decent conversation but 1 "stupid" comment can get you "killed" on here. GO COLTS!

Well, it is sad that that you don't add to the conversation because of those concerns. I remember feeling that way when I first started posting in the mid 90's at the start of the internet era. I was following the NBA then and I didn't feel comfortable. For what it's worth, the ignore tool works wonderfully. I use it after I have felt disturbed enough about a particular posters content. The result is a nice feel most every time I come here. I really admire many of the posters knowledge of the game that post. Perhaps you would add to what is posted here.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to respond. I was little sad at the time that thread died so quickly because it failed to gain life at the time that there were many vibrant threads involving nothing other than side taking and supermarket tabloid mentality. I quickly realized that the majority of the posting here did not involve the discussion of the game, but of the lives of the people in the NFL outside of the game. This is likely because of the lack of actual game understanding. Thus the attempt to help educate us all to the game. If anyone really wants to learn more about it, get Sirius XM radio and listen to the NFL channel.

[Larry Horseman]

Another interesting thing is looking at what Baltimore did in 2011. Pagano definitely mixed it up more than Coyer, but he ran a 4 front 58% of the time and a 4-3-4 was the most used alignment overall at 36%.

So you have Pags running a 4 front most of the time and him already stating that he envisions Freeney having his hand in the dirt more than dropping back; I don't think the Colts are moving to a 3-4 like so many are hoping.

I was reading that somewhere else. I do think people will be surprised that the D isn't in a traditional 3-4 almost all the time. I really like Pagano's philosophy...he used his personnel very well in Baltimore last year, and based schemes around player's talents. I look for him to do the same in Indy this year, and I'm really looking forward to it since that was one of the worst things about the coaching staff last year. While it may not be a drastic shift to a 34, it is going to be fun to watch a D that isn't so predictable (while a better coordinator...cough, cough...Meeks was as predictable as Coyer). I really think there will be a drastic improvement on that side of the ball.

[KaylaD]

I'm happy to be reading a thread that is actually about football. I have been busy lately and not on much. When I do log on it seems like a lot of posts are pretty much things that have already been discussed.

I agree that Pagano will do whatever plays to our talents. I think we have been very predictable for a long time. I would like to see people actually have to dissect our defense for once. Blitzing? Someone said we used to blitz? I would love to see that again! I really don't care what we do, 3-4/ 4/3 anything in between as long as it works for us and against the opponent. I think Pags will be good for determining that. Overall I'm just happy we will be doing something different for once.

I started a thread a couple of months ago where people could explain basic football concepts so more would get involved. I would be happy to dredge it up if people are interested.

I think that is a great idea. Don't know if you have posted this or not, but would love to know if/when you do. I could see how more people may get involved if they understood more. I am always looking to learn something new and appreciate the knowledge on here.

[Coffeedrinker]

I enjoy reading X's and O's type comments but tend not to comment about them. I did not play the game of football but have been around many years and could probably carry on a half-way decent conversation but 1 "stupid" comment can get you "killed" on here. GO COLTS!

I agree, in a lot of threads but, even though they are few and far between, you will find that the people who post in a football thread like this do not attack posters, especially if they are asking a question or wanting clarification.

And the OP on this thread is one of the best football minds on this forum and he can either explain things very well or direct you to an article that can answer your question. Also other posters like Warhorse, Larry Horseman, Superman have a wide range of knowledge and I don't think I have ever seen them attack a poster. So don't be afraid, post your thoughts on this topic. If someone comes in here and tries to do anything, we'll team up and give that person and internet beat down.

[Coffeedrinker]

I was reading that somewhere else. I do think people will be surprised that the D isn't in a traditional 3-4 almost all the time. I really like Pagano's philosophy...he used his personnel very well in Baltimore last year, and based schemes around player's talents.

I am reluctantly optimistic about what Pags can do. One, he seems to talk a good game and Baltimore's D, from the times I watched it last year, seemed to be very innovative. But then you look at it that he had a stacked Defense. People claim Caldwell rode Manning's shirt-tails, well the same could be said for Pagano... how many people could mess up a defense with Ngata, Lewis, Suggs and Reed? But like I said he seemed innovative and he did what I think all defensive coaches should do, he attacked an offenses strengths and you really didn't know what alignment you were going to see from one series to the next. Plus, I don't think the Colts were as devoid of talent as many on the forum. Of course people can read my thoughts on Freeney in the Freeney thread but then you have Mathis, Nevis (who I think can become an excellent DE/DT under Pags), Moala (I'm probably the only one who like Moala), Angerer, Conner, Bethea. I'm not a big fan of Powers but only because of his injuries but I am excited to see what the secondary can do under a new coach.

I look for him to do the same in Indy this year, and I'm really looking forward to it since that was one of the worst things about the coaching staff last year. While it may not be a drastic shift to a 34, it is going to be fun to watch a D that isn't so predictable (while a better coordinator...cough, cough...Meeks was as predictable as Coyer). I really think there will be a drastic improvement on that side of the ball.

I disagree about Meeks, after dropping the MIKE back 2 or 3 times and allowing 8 yard dump offs to the RB, he would change it up and not have the MIKE drop back.

[chad72]

I am reluctantly optimistic about what Pags can do. One, he seems to talk a good game and Baltimore's D, from the times I watched it last year, seemed to be very innovative. But then you look at it that he had a stacked Defense. People claim Caldwell rode Manning's shirt-tails, well the same could be said for Pagano... how many people could mess up a defense with Ngata, Lewis, Suggs and Reed? But like I said he seemed innovative and he did what I think all defensive coaches should do, he attacked an offenses strengths and you really didn't know what alignment you were going to see from one series to the next. Plus, I don't think the Colts were as devoid of talent as many on the forum. Of course people can read my thoughts on Freeney in the Freeney thread but then you have Mathis, Nevis (who I think can become an excellent DE/DT under Pags), Moala (I'm probably the only one who like Moala), Angerer, Conner, Bethea. I'm not a big fan of Powers but only because of his injuries but I am excited to see what the secondary can do under a new coach.

I disagree about Meeks, after dropping the MIKE back 2 or 3 times and allowing 8 yard dump offs to the RB, he would change it up and not have the MIKE drop back.

You make valid points. I did like Meeks for his pass coverage in the secondary that he played. He mixed up his zones pretty well, IMO. If we had to make a comeback, the pressure was ratched up a bit (2008 Steelers game) though Dungy kept it to a minimum, something Caldwell gave Coyer more freedom to do. However, after year 1 of Coyer., the things that happened in the secondary or LB corp in coverage when the pressure was brought sometimes were puzzling. Coyer however stunted way too much, for my liking.

The ability of a CB to carry a wideout just long enough before they pass him over to the safety help, rolling safety or LB help very quickly to the direction of a hot read, and several other things could be done better, IMO. Pags has had a record of improving secondary play everywhere he went. That could also be the reason why he is keeping around Freeney. He knows he can improve the secondary with his coaches that he has and if Mathis & Freeney can meet the ceiling of his expectations, the pressure with an improved secondary is improved results for the D.

[Larry Horseman]

I am reluctantly optimistic about what Pags can do. One, he seems to talk a good game and Baltimore's D, from the times I watched it last year, seemed to be very innovative. But then you look at it that he had a stacked Defense. People claim Caldwell rode Manning's shirt-tails, well the same could be said for Pagano... how many people could mess up a defense with Ngata, Lewis, Suggs and Reed? But like I said he seemed innovative and he did what I think all defensive coaches should do, he attacked an offenses strengths and you really didn't know what alignment you were going to see from one series to the next. Plus, I don't think the Colts were as devoid of talent as many on the forum. Of course people can read my thoughts on Freeney in the Freeney thread but then you have Mathis, Nevis (who I think can become an excellent DE/DT under Pags), Moala (I'm probably the only one who like Moala), Angerer, Conner, Bethea. I'm not a big fan of Powers but only because of his injuries but I am excited to see what the secondary can do under a new coach.

Good points...Pags did have a lot of talent in Baltimore. I also agree that the Colts roster has more talent than a lot of people think. At this point, I'm more concerned with the Colts turning into a run heavy team on offense than what the defense will be like.

I disagree about Meeks, after dropping the MIKE back 2 or 3 times and allowing 8 yard dump offs to the RB, he would change it up and not have the MIKE drop back.

Fair enough, but this still made me chuckle. If not dropping back the MIKE is your biggest mix-up, then you are running a pretty vanilla scheme.

[schwamm]

I agree, in a lot of threads but, even though they are few and far between, you will find that the people who post in a football thread like this do not attack posters, especially if they are asking a question or wanting clarification.

And the OP on this thread is one of the best football minds on this forum and he can either explain things very well or direct you to an article that can answer your question. Also other posters like Warhorse, Larry Horseman, Superman have a wide range of knowledge and I don't think I have ever seen them attack a poster. So don't be afraid, post your thoughts on this topic. If someone comes in here and tries to do anything, we'll team up and give that person and internet beat down.

Regardless of how much knowledge people have, I think more threads that share clear explanations of formations, reads and plays would be extremely entertaining and informative. While I may not contribute to those threads very often, I'm definitely there reading along!

I really enjoyed your post about your proposed defensive alignment, Coffeedrinker, even where formatting made it a little challenging to understand. Is there any chance you could create a graphic/image of the formation and embed it? I'd like to better understand your logic for it.

[chad72]

Here is a cool one I like about fire zone blitzes. The zone blitz was considered to be one of the best innovations of NFL football, implemented heavily by Dick LeBeau. Ravens have done their share as well, under Pagano.

http://smartfootball.blogspot.com/2009/01/fire-zone-blitzes.html

Here is a nice article on the usage of the 3-3-5 as well:

http://footballschemechalktalk.blogspot.com/2008/09/3-3-5-defensive-scheme.html

Here are some 4-2-5 alignment articles (TCU has made a living out of the 4-2-5 over the years):

http://runcodhit.blogspot.com/2010/07/4-2-5-alignments-part-i.html

http://runcodhit.blogspot.com/2010/07/4-2-5-alignments-part-ii.html

[pacolts56]

I'm no expert at any of this deep X's and O's stuff, I played ice hockey and not football, and 60 hour work weeks don't allow me a whole lot of free time to really dig in and learn it.

But from my understanding of the linked article/video, it almost sounds as if the "Wide 9" would be a good way to use Dwight Freeney.... as long as he's probably staying with the team and since his forte has been speed, quickness and strength.

http://smartfootball...alled-wide-nine

I guess the Eagles use it but catch is that this defense sounds heavily dependent upon having good cover CBs.... am I wrong? And is this defense dramatically different than what Pagano has used in the past or might use for us?

Because it sounds like a set that Freeney could really maximize his speed and strength with.

[chad72]

I'm no expert at any of this deep X's and O's stuff, I played ice hockey and not football, and 60 hour work weeks don't allow me a whole lot of free time to really dig in and learn it.

But from my understanding of the linked article/video, it almost sounds as if the "Wide 9" would be a good way to use Dwight Freeney.... as long as he's probably staying with the team and since his forte has been speed, quickness and strength.

http://smartfootball...alled-wide-nine

I guess the Eagles use it but catch is that this defense sounds heavily dependent upon having good cover CBs.... am I wrong? And is this defense dramatically different than what Pagano has used in the past or might use for us?

Because it sounds like a set that Freeney could really maximize his speed and strength with.

Stud LBs, it is all about stud LBs. Eagles' LBs inadequacies got exposed when they used the wide nine, IMO. Besides, the age old draw plays is still available with the wide nine unless your LBs make up for those gaps.

As the article above said, 3-3-5 will work great if you have LBs that are good vs the run AND the pass. Not sure if we can say we have 3 such LBs without substituting situationally.

[pacolts56]

Stud LBs, it is all about stud LBs. Eagles' LBs inadequacies got exposed when they used the wide nine, IMO. Besides, the age old draw plays is still available with the wide nine unless your LBs make up for those gaps.

As the article above said, 3-3-5 will work great if you have LBs that are good vs the run AND the pass. Not sure if we can say we have 3 such LBs without substituting situationally.

You mean good vs the pass as in dropping into coverage? If so, how do Mathis and Freeney factor in to a 3-3-5 as LBs then?

Or would that be the time for LB substitutions you mentioned?

[chad72]

You mean good vs the pass as in dropping into coverage? If so, how do Mathis and Freeney factor in to a 3-3-5 as LBs then?

Or would that be the time for LB substitutions you mentioned?

I dont think we can run the 3-3-5 without the right personnel, at least not with both Angerer and Conner in there together because Conner is not instinctive or athletic enough to drop back and be effective. I think we might be able to run a 4-2-5 better. Jerry Hughes has played in that TCU 4-2-5, remember?

If I am not mistaken, the Giants played nickel with 2 LBs and 4 D-linemen in the SB vs Brady to cover their 2 TEs and wideouts. So, they did play enough 4-2-5 there. It does help when Chase Blackburn, one of your LBs can run and intercept a ball intended for Gronk .

Until the pre-season arrives, we might have a hard time finding out what our base personnel might be, IMO.

[pacolts56]

I dont think we can run the 3-3-5 without the right personnel, at least not with both Angerer and Conner in there together because Conner is not instinctive or athletic enough to drop back and be effective. I think we might be able to run a 4-2-5 better. Jerry Hughes has played in that TCU 4-2-5, remember?

If I am not mistaken, the Giants played nickel with 2 LBs and 4 D-linemen in the SB vs Brady to cover their 2 TEs and wideouts. So, they did play enough 4-2-5 there. It does help when Chase Blackburn, one of your LBs can run and intercept a ball intended for Gronk .

Until the pre-season arrives, we might have a hard time finding out what our base personnel might be, IMO.

Interesting, are there any LBs in the draft that are particularly well-suited for that 4-2-5?

I like Mychal Kendricks but I don't know all the nuances of Cal's 3-4 defense that he played in. They say he projects well at both ILB or OLB though and has good awareness when he drops into coverage plus really good speed.

[chad72]

I do like Bobby Wagner and Audie Cole for the same too, much like Mychal Kendricks for their versatility. My sleeper is that workout warrior Miles Burris of the Aztecs (I have a separate thread on him in the draft section).

[RGIII]

Whether you play more of a base front or more of a nickel front (you could argue that for some teams, like the Packers, the nickel front is the base front but let's keep this simple) depends on your personnel/strategy and the personnel/strategy of the opposing team. It's important not to overthink things and forget that it is the opposing offense that tends to dictate defensive personnel first and foremost.

For the sake of clarification, the difference between a 4-2-5 and a 2-4-5 is simply whether or not the guys at the edges of the line have a hand in the dirt. That is all that the x-x-x notation entails. It does imply additional information based on what commonly occurs in the league but there are no hard and fast rules beyond what I just said.

Roles and responsibilities are left entirely to the head coach/defensive coordinator's own prerogatives. A 4-2-5 DE can drop back into coverage just as easily (on paper) as a 2-4-5 OLB but (in the real world) there are advantages and disadvantages to each stance as well as the type of player you typically select for the role.

Now, with that said...

5-2-4 would be a great idea as well. With our speed on defense I think it would be a great idea to rush 5 guys on every play. When we blitzed over the past 2 years it was very effective. Rewatch the Giants game in 09. That was the best game I seen our defense play. We blitzed based off of our speed. It paid off great. So I wondered why we stepped away from it? Now with a bigger defensive line begin insteaded I think we can look to taking more chances. We need one solid corner to make it work. Jerraud Powers is on the watch list for me as well. I know he's been hurt and thats the problem. No one talks about it, but he has been getting hurt for the past 2 or 3 seasons.

The 5-2-4 is more of a goal line defense and would be extremely vulnerable to the pass, it's not something that you want to run outside of limited situations. The 3-4 is often very similar alignment-wise but offers more flexibility at the edges that make it better against the passing game. The edge rushers represent more of a threat to the throwing lanes from a pre-snap read perspective even if both are known to rush with fairly high frequency. The QB has to be held accountable for them in a way he is not with a guy in a three or four point stance and the more accountable a QB is, the more time he has to spend reading the development of the play.

Interesting, are there any LBs in the draft that are particularly well-suited for that 4-2-5?

I like Mychal Kendricks but I don't know all the nuances of Cal's 3-4 defense that he played in. They say he projects well at both ILB or OLB though and has good awareness when he drops into coverage plus really good speed.

I think everyone likes Mychal Kendricks. I doubt he'll make it to the third round at this rate. He'd make for a good 3-4 ILB and 4-2-5/2-4-5 LB if the scouting reports are to be believed, though.

**EDIT**Boy, I don't know how to do the players, when I type them in they are all nice and neat and how they would line up on the field but when it sets it they are all left justified with no spacing. Sorry **EDIT**

Try using code tags, it preserves the spacing better (still not perfectly). I'm curious as to exactly what you're envisioning but here's my best attempt based on what quoting you showed:

---------------S1------------S2
--------S3------------------LB1------LB2
-------------------LB3
CB1-------DT1---------NT-------DT2-------CB2

Edit: Even with code tags it's difficult... we'll see if I can improve it any

Edit 2: Bingo. The dashes are the key. Doubt I got it right, though.

[Coffeedrinker]

Here is a basic of the D I was talking about against a 3 WR, 1 back set. (I have a feeling I could waste a lot of time with this Football Playbook Online site.)

Thanks to every one for the tips. I do appreciate it.