Defensive personnel combos for gimmick fronts

[ztboiler]

Don't know how much of it we'll play - especially given the availability of Mathis and Freeney to man a 4-2-5 nickel front, but I imagine we'll have a wrinkle or two in keeping with the trend toward gimmick fronts with 1 or 2 lineman and everyone else standing up on passing downs. What personnel combinations do you think we might try given our current roster? Probably a chance to get Hughes on the field at the same time as Mathis and Freeney....

[dgambill]

If we want to get Hughes on the field more we either need to score more or continue to give up points. His biggest playing time will come with special teams barring injuries.

To be honest....I still see us playing basically mostly 4 man fronts probably 80% of the time.

[21isSuperman]

I think we go Moala and Redding at DE, McKinney at DT and maybe AJ could sub in when McKinney is tired. For LB, I think we go Mathis and Freeney on the outside and Angerer and Connor in the middle with Hughes getting a solid number of snaps.

I think we use Freeney and Mathis mostly as standup OLBs, but I wouldn't mind seeing us sub Freeney to DE and let him stand up and let Hughes take over his pass rush spot at OLB. Just for a few plays to see how it goes. Have 2 down linemen, then Freeney, Mathis, and Hughes could all stand up and rush. But only on obvious passing situations, like 2nd and 3rd and long

[mvbighead]

If we want to get Hughes on the field more we either need to score more or continue to give up points. His biggest playing time will come with special teams barring injuries.

To be honest....I still see us playing basically mostly 4 man fronts probably 80% of the time.

Right, we bring in a 3-4 hybrid guy, and we're going to stick with 4 man fronts the majority of the time. I don't buy it.

50/50 I could see, but we have plenty of personnel for the 3-4 sets, so no way are they sticking to 4 man fronts on the majority.

[dgambill]

Right, we bring in a 3-4 hybrid guy, and we're going to stick with 4 man fronts the majority of the time. I don't buy it.

50/50 I could see, but we have plenty of personnel for the 3-4 sets, so no way are they sticking to 4 man fronts on the majority.

All I mean is I believe you will see Freeney with his hand in the dirt a majority of the time. Which likely would be a 4 man front with Redding, Moala?, and Chapman with their hands down too. I don't think we will see Freeney standing up 50% of the time as you kinda are implying.

[21isSuperman]

All I mean is I believe you will see Freeney with his hand in the dirt a majority of the time. Which likely would be a 4 man front with Redding, Moala?, and Chapman with their hands down too. I don't think we will see Freeney standing up 50% of the time as you kinda are implying.

And, to your point, Suggs played with his hand in the dirt for a handful of snaps, so I wouldn't be surprised to see Freeney do the same

[Coltman51]

the only things I am looking forward to being in the dirt are the opposing QBs butts and/or faces

[Balzer40]

I think we go Moala and Redding at DE, McKinney at DT and maybe AJ could sub in when McKinney is tired. For LB, I think we go Mathis and Freeney on the outside and Angerer and Connor in the middle with Hughes getting a solid number of snaps.

I think we use Freeney and Mathis mostly as standup OLBs, but I wouldn't mind seeing us sub Freeney to DE and let him stand up and let Hughes take over his pass rush spot at OLB. Just for a few plays to see how it goes. Have 2 down linemen, then Freeney, Mathis, and Hughes could all stand up and rush. But only on obvious passing situations, like 2nd and 3rd and long

Why wouldn't Chapman backup McKinney? IMO, unless AJ really impresses early on, I don't think he'll even make the team. He was terrible most of the time as a 4-3 DT. I sure don't see him being able to man the NT position in the 3-4. I would keep Anunoby over AJ anyday of the week.

[21isSuperman]

Why wouldn't Chapman backup McKinney? IMO, unless AJ really impresses early on, I don't think he'll even make the team. He was terrible most of the time as a 4-3 DT. I sure don't see him being able to man the NT position in the 3-4. I would keep Anunoby over AJ anyday of the week.

I forgot all about Chapman. If his knee is healed up and he is good to go, I would be all for him backing up McKinney

[CopenhagenColt]

I really believe in Chapman. I think he could be the best value pick of the bunch this draft. As a 5th rounder, he has tremendous upside. I still can't believe that we got him in the 5th round.

[dgambill]

I really believe in Chapman. I think he could be the best value pick of the bunch this draft. As a 5th rounder, he has tremendous upside. I still can't believe that we got him in the 5th round.

There is no guarantees in the draft but I like taking players from well coached/traditional powerhouses later in the draft. You usually have plenty of tape to know what they are capable of and obviously they were some of the most talented players in the country to play for the most talented teams in the country. Taking a NT that was very productive off the nations and possibly one of the most dominant defenses we have seen in college football in years to me is a great pick in the late 5th round. To me it may be the best value pick we got although I think we have some other sleepers too.

[atapcl]

I think we go Moala and Redding at DE, McKinney at DT and maybe AJ could sub in when McKinney is tired. For LB, I think we go Mathis and Freeney on the outside and Angerer and Connor in the middle with Hughes getting a solid number of snaps.

I think we use Freeney and Mathis mostly as standup OLBs, but I wouldn't mind seeing us sub Freeney to DE and let him stand up and let Hughes take over his pass rush spot at OLB. Just for a few plays to see how it goes. Have 2 down linemen, then Freeney, Mathis, and Hughes could all stand up and rush. But only on obvious passing situations, like 2nd and 3rd and long

Did you mean let Freeney put his hand on the ground instead of standing up? If Hughes looks promising during the preseason I could see your formation as Mathis and Freeney playing DEs in a 4-3 front with Hughes as a LB comming on a blitz. Maybe Edds replaces Agerer as MLB in the formation since he is a better pass defender and a CB comes in to replace Conner.

[21isSuperman]

Did you mean let Freeney put his hand on the ground instead of standing up? If Hughes looks promising during the preseason I could see your formation as Mathis and Freeney playing DEs in a 4-3 front with Hughes as a LB comming on a blitz. Maybe Edds replaces Agerer as MLB in the formation since he is a better pass defender and a CB comes in to replace Conner.

I assume we will be playing much more 3-4 than we will 4-3, so I focused on what our formation would look like when we play 3-4

[atapcl]

I assume we will be playing much more 3-4 than we will 4-3, so I focused on what our formation would look like when we play 3-4

Misunderstood your gimmick play. However in the hybride defense we will probably play the 4-3 as much as the 3-4.

[John Dee]

Don't know how much of it we'll play - especially given the availability of Mathis and Freeney to man a 4-2-5 nickel front, but I imagine we'll have a wrinkle or two in keeping with the trend toward gimmick fronts with 1 or 2 lineman and everyone else standing up on passing downs. What personnel combinations do you think we might try given our current roster? Probably a chance to get Hughes on the field at the same time as Mathis and Freeney....

Holmes... lets play ONE game first... then debate the STATE of the D.

It's May 30......... or 31. ... heeehhe...\

relax.

[mvbighead]

All I mean is I believe you will see Freeney with his hand in the dirt a majority of the time. Which likely would be a 4 man front with Redding, Moala?, and Chapman with their hands down too. I don't think we will see Freeney standing up 50% of the time as you kinda are implying.

Again, this is something I doubt. If we're to be a 3-4 hybrid team, I'd say the four man fronts are only going to be used in special situations. Perhaps when they need another true linebacker to cover the #2 TE.

As for Freeney standing up, well, we'll just have to see. Too many seem to be thrown when it comes to the concept of using former 4-3 DEs as 3-4 OLBs. Whether Freeney is standing up, or has his hand in the ground, his ability to maneuver around a lineman will not be negated. If we have Redding/Moala, McKinney/Chapman, and Nevis/Mathews/whoever as the front three, standing Freeney up would give an element of surprise. Teams wouldn't necessarily know for sure if he's coming or dropping back. More than likely, he'd be coming, but standing him up allows him to move around a bit easier to prepare for the snap, and get in the absolute best position.

In any case, you seem to be of the camp that Freeney was a 4-3 DE, so his primary contribution will be with his hand in the ground. Problem is, the coach has already gone on to say that Mathis and Freeney can be assets as 3-4 OLBs. Given that the scheme he ran before was just a bit more on the 3-4 side, I'd say that'd what they'll most likely do here as well. There will be situations where they want to change that and find more favorable matchups, but with our new coach being a defensive guy who had some very good success in the 3-4, I see no reason we won't be seeing a heavy dose of it this year.

[ztboiler]

Holmes... lets play ONE game first... then debate the STATE of the D.

It's May 30......... or 31. ... heeehhe...\

relax.

I'll be the first to admit that I'm overly absorbed with this rebuilding project by the Colts, the options, strategies - the whole thing. I'm also really, really enjoying it and well.....I guess I'm sorry for your loss.

[chad72]

Again, this is something I doubt. If we're to be a 3-4 hybrid team, I'd say the four man fronts are only going to be used in special situations.

You are getting caught up too much with the 3-4 part of the 3-4 hybrid term, IMO. Playing the hybrid, with a Haloti Ngata, Pagano used 4 man fronts 58% of the time last year. If that is not a majority, I am not sure what is. I do expect to see more 4 man fronts as well like dgambill. Being a 3-4 hybrid just means that you could start your base front as a 3-4 but vary the fronts as the game goes on. If history is any indication with Pagano, we use 4 man fronts at least 60% of the time, IMO, with our personnel we have. If we feel we dont have all the personnel to play the 3-4 portion of the hybrid well enough, we are not going to ram a square peg in a round hole, we will end up playing 4 man fronts more often.

[ztboiler]

You are getting caught up too much with the 3-4 part of the 3-4 hybrid term, IMO. Playing the hybrid, with a Haloti Ngata, Pagano used 4 man fronts 58% of the time last year. If that is not a majority, I am not sure what is. I do expect to see more 4 man fronts as well like dgambill. Being a 3-4 hybrid just means that you could start your base front as a 3-4 but vary the fronts as the game goes on. If history is any indication with Pagano, we use 4 man fronts at least 60% of the time, IMO, with our personnel we have. If we feel we dont have all the personnel to play the 3-4 portion of the hybrid well enough, we are not going to ram a square peg in a round hole, we will end up playing 4 man fronts more often.

I think you are right about folks getting caught up in the 3-4/4-3 fronts. What we know as a 4-3 isn't what Pagano has been assembling to play this year. We haven't been out chasing more 3 tech DT's - though we still have one or two. Our hybrid 4-3 looks will be based much more on 3-4 principles and players - functioning as a 3-4 with a weakside edge rusher with his hand down and the 4 man front is probably our base Defense this year.

[Superman]

Right, we bring in a 3-4 hybrid guy, and we're going to stick with 4 man fronts the majority of the time. I don't buy it.

50/50 I could see, but we have plenty of personnel for the 3-4 sets, so no way are they sticking to 4 man fronts on the majority.

The Ravens played four down sets 52% of the time last season. And they have much more 3-4 personnel than we do. I wouldn't be surprised to see the same kind of mix here, if not more, especially if there are issues with any of our hybrid personnel in their new roles.

[JoKeR]

I'd like to see the nickel package with our new 3-4 NT w/ Nevis, Freeney, and Mathis. Maybe even switch to a 2-4-5 before the snap at times.

[Superman]

I think you are right about folks getting caught up in the 3-4/4-3 fronts. What we know as a 4-3 isn't what Pagano has been assembling to play this year. We haven't been out chasing more 3 tech DT's - though we still have one or two. Our hybrid 4-3 looks will be based much more on 3-4 principles and players - functioning as a 3-4 with a weakside edge rusher with his hand down and the 4 man front is probably our base Defense this year.

We have two very capable 3-techs already, Nevis and Mathews. How many do you need? Why would we chase more? We know Pagano wants to use 3-down sets, obviously, and four months ago, we didn't have a single nose tackle suited for that alignment, and we only had one guy that you would typically use as a five-tech end (Moala), and he's very unproven in the NFL. We needed Cory Redding, Brandon McKinney and Josh Chapman, to augment what we already had.

The alignment you mention will allow us to run Under fronts without subbing, but will require Mathis to handle more traditional linebacker duties when we do so. Definitely something to look out for.

This is one year I don't think the term "base defense" will apply. I think we'll use a lot of different fronts, and I think they'll vary more for opponent and situation than we expect. The Ravens would be a base 3-4 against certain teams, but against a different opponent would use a four down front 70% of the time. They run a true hybrid defense, in every sense of the word. Which is why I keep saying that all the noise about us "switching to a 3-4" and Mathis and Freeney being outside linebackers is a bit overblown. Yes, we'll use three down fronts, and yes, Mathis and Freeney will play outside linebacker some of the time, but we're also going to use a traditional front a good amount of time.

[ztboiler]

We have two very capable 3-techs already, Nevis and Mathews. How many do you need? Why would we chase more? We know Pagano wants to use 3-down sets, obviously, and four months ago, we didn't have a single nose tackle suited for that alignment, and we only had one guy that you would typically use as a five-tech end (Moala), and he's very unproven in the NFL. We needed Cory Redding, Brandon McKinney and Josh Chapman, to augment what we already had.

The alignment you mention will allow us to run Under fronts without subbing, but will require Mathis to handle more traditional linebacker duties when we do so. Definitely something to look out for.

This is one year I don't think the term "base defense" will apply. I think we'll use a lot of different fronts, and I think they'll vary more for opponent and situation than we expect. The Ravens would be a base 3-4 against certain teams, but against a different opponent would use a four down front 70% of the time. They run a true hybrid defense, in every sense of the word. Which is why I keep saying that all the noise about us "switching to a 3-4" and Mathis and Freeney being outside linebackers is a bit overblown. Yes, we'll use three down fronts, and yes, Mathis and Freeney will play outside linebacker some of the time, but we're also going to use a traditional front a good amount of time.

I don't think you understood my post at all or need to re-read it.....

However, by reading yours, it appears that we agree on concepts in general. I tend to think our personnel lends itself to playing the 4 down hybrid at least as much as Baltimore did (58% of snaps), thus I refer to it as our base D, just as it was really their's.

[chad72]

I don't think you understood my post at all or need to re-read it.....

However, by reading yours, it appears that we agree on concepts in general. I tend to think our personnel lends itself to playing the 4 down hybrid at least as much as Baltimore did (58% of snaps), thus I refer to it as our base D, just as it was really their's.

I agree, you, Superman, and I are essentially endorsing the same concepts in general.

Against pass happy teams like the Pats or Packers that we play this year, I seriously doubt we use Mathis or Freeney in coverage, we will let them rush the passer, for sure in a 4 man front more . Against our run happy division teams, we might go 3-4 more. Just guessing there.

[ztboiler]

I agree, you, Superman, and I are essentially endorsing the same concepts in general.

Against pass happy teams like the Pats or Packers that we play this year, I seriously doubt we use Mathis or Freeney in coverage, we will let them rush the passer, for sure in a 4 man front more . Against our run happy division teams, we might go 3-4 more. Just guessing there.

So nice to have options this year!

[dgambill]

I don't think you understood my post at all or need to re-read it.....

However, by reading yours, it appears that we agree on concepts in general. I tend to think our personnel lends itself to playing the 4 down hybrid at least as much as Baltimore did (58% of snaps), thus I refer to it as our base D, just as it was really their's.

I agree with you and the others that are saying just because we brought in a 3-4 coach doesn't mean we are going to be playing with 3 down lineman a majority of the time. Fact is teams throw the ball more often now they ever before...to me this means we will be playing a nickle defense and likely see Freeney with his hands down a majority of the time he is playing. Sure we will mix it up...no doubt but Freeney is best with his hand in the dirt...why would you not let him do what he does best? I would expect our NT to be going in and out subbing for an extra cb a lot....especially on non-run downs. That would leave Mathis a chance to get his hand in the dirt as well. Anyways we will just have to see what we have. I am sure we will run more schemes that we have the players to run....we just aren't there with the 3-4 to run it a majority of the time. I don't think we have that other stud DT to pair with Redding and we aren't sure of our NT either. Our OLBs have questions about if them too so we won't get too crazy. I think we keep it pretty safe as we transition.

[Superman]

I don't think you understood my post at all or need to re-read it.....

However, by reading yours, it appears that we agree on concepts in general. I tend to think our personnel lends itself to playing the 4 down hybrid at least as much as Baltimore did (58% of snaps), thus I refer to it as our base D, just as it was really their's.

I wasn't disagreeing with you at all. Sorry it seemed that way.

[ztboiler]

I wasn't disagreeing with you at all. Sorry it seemed that way.

Probably missed your meaning then....was confused by your first paragraph where you said "We have two very capable 3-techs already, Nevis and Mathews. How many do you need? Why would we chase more?" Sounded like you thought I said we should chase more.

Back to the big picture, I think we very much agree on how and what the Colts are building defensively, having seen a lot of your posts in multiple threads that seemed spot on to me.

[Superman]

Probably missed your meaning then....was confused by your first paragraph where you said "We have two very capable 3-techs already, Nevis and Mathews. How many do you need? Why would we chase more?" Sounded like you thought I said we should chase more.

Back to the big picture, I think we very much agree on how and what the Colts are building defensively, having seen a lot of your posts in multiple threads that seemed spot on to me.

Yeah, my point was that we don't need to add 4-3 players because we already have them, especially at 3-tech. We might disagree slightly about what formation we'll use most often, but as you said, a 3-4 can become a 4-3 with a slight adjustment, without subbing, based on down and distance and the offense's personnel. So the "base defense" concept is going to be kind of muddy this season. I think the "amoeba" concept is going to be in play for us, with Freeney and Mathis starting from a two point stance but settling into a three point stance by the time the ball is snapped. There's more than one way to look at it.

We have been on the same line of thought pretty often. I think the defense is going to be much more fluid than people are saying.

[ztboiler]

Yeah, my point was that we don't need to add 4-3 players because we already have them, especially at 3-tech. We might disagree slightly about what formation we'll use most often, but as you said, a 3-4 can become a 4-3 with a slight adjustment, without subbing, based on down and distance and the offense's personnel. So the "base defense" concept is going to be kind of muddy this season. I think the "amoeba" concept is going to be in play for us, with Freeney and Mathis starting from a two point stance but settling into a three point stance by the time the ball is snapped. There's more than one way to look at it.

We have been on the same line of thought pretty often. I think the defense is going to be much more fluid than people are saying.

Right on.