PDA

View Full Version : Unconventional Defensive Schemes



mountainviking
04-14-2008, 11:35 PM
Just thought I'd start a thread for unconventional, defensive schemes.
Please feel free to add any ideas you've seen around or any experience you may have with old ideas like the 46 ect.



Here's my latest idea for some surprise twists...3 down lineman, 5 LBs, and 3 secondary.
The LBs spread out, 2 of them rush the passer on any given down with the other 3 playing the mid zones and the 3 secondary each taking a zone behind the LB zones.
You rotate the rush so the opponent can't lineup to their advantage.
The blitzing backers could also bump the WRs on their way in, at the LOS to further throw off the offenses timing.




















Winfield


M.Williams


Griffin



Johnston/Groves


Greenway




Henderson









Leber




Rufus





















KWill






PAT





Laws



Usually, EJ stays at home in the middle, in case they do run.
You could rush Leber and Rufus from the left side on one down, Greenway and Leber inside on the next, and then Rufus and the other speedy outside OLB/DE guy.
You could bring a guy in like a fourth DL, only to drop him back into coverage and send heat from the other side.
Most likely, not an every down defense, but some nice options to put pressure on the QB and keep the offense guessing.

dcboardr41
04-14-2008, 11:40 PM
When Marr see's this thread he is gonna go insane lol

I belong to the a cowboys site like PPO(PPO is better) and i tried to explain this exact thing to them, the 3-5-3, i dunno if would work for us. We could maybe use it 2 or 3 times a game, just to mess with the QB's head, get him confused as all hell with the blitzes. If we dont get to the QB we are basically eff'd.

I love the idea though, we just shouldnt use it alot in a game.

DustinDupont
04-14-2008, 11:43 PM
My 7th grade team could score on that defense... haha Jk looks interesting and like DC said it should only be used once or twice a game

The Dropper
04-14-2008, 11:43 PM
The immediate problem of course, is that you've got linebackers, who aren't as fast as corners, covering receivers.

I get that Griffin and Winfield would be in coverage, but it seems like you'd have a pretty big area near the sidelines where the coverage would get smoked. Would it be smarter to play a Cover 1 with the corners lined up on receivers? This would basically be like stacking 8 in the box to some degree, but with perhaps more room for disguises.

Either way, nice creative thinking!

(Like this:)





















M.Williams/Sharper






Winfield


Johnston/Groves
Greenway
Henderson

Leber

Rufus




Griffin





















KWill






PAT





Laws

DustinDupont
04-14-2008, 11:53 PM
How about just running the 3-4 when we get Groves and laws? ;D

mountainviking
04-14-2008, 11:58 PM
Yeah, I saw Marr had a very similar idea going, I think I expanded on it somewhat...?
All in all, it does look a little like the 46, or puts 8 in the box at any rate, so it should be OK against the run too.

So you're saying put the CBs in man coverage instead of having the 3-3 zone coverage?
Maybe.
The S we kept in would have to be able to cover a lot of ground then, and I do really like the idea of our LBs flying in and chipping the WRs while the secondary plays a step back.
Its still legal to hit them within the five foot line right?
Against some tougher WRs, maybe its not a fit, but most of the time, a LB is going to have the size and strength to push a WR around some
;D

ultravikingfan
04-15-2008, 12:02 AM
I see 400+ yard passing games vs this Defense.

A fourth DL for coverage is a waste.
What are they really going to do?

You are wasting the Williams twins strengths, getting into the backfield.
With 3 down lineman they are meant to take up a blocker and the LB's make the plays.

StillPurple
04-15-2008, 12:17 AM
Given our problem stopping the pass, I doubt that adding another linebacker will work...

Someone made the point on ESPN radio: "no matter what scheme NFL teams play, 0.5 seconds into the play, it turns into a 4-3". kind of true...

mountainviking
04-15-2008, 12:24 AM
The fourth DL dropping back to cover would actually be one of the OLBs.
So, not a CB, but a better choice than Phat Pat.
The big question would be can the Williams still be effective in a 3-something?
They face a lot of double teams as is, so I'm betting they would still get a good share of tackles.


Here's a different look.
3-3-3 Tampa2.
2 S back, 3 CBs on WRs, 3 LBs in short coverage/run support and 3 DL attacking the line.
It would require your backers to be able to do some decent coverage of the underneath routes and screens, but may provide a nice safety net behind...I don't want to call it a "prevent," cuz the term seems to be a curse, but kind of like that
;)

I'm with you on the .5 seconds to 4-3...The trick is that the Offense doesn't know who that 4th rusher is or where he's coming from until he's already on the way. ;D

singersp
04-15-2008, 04:29 AM
M.Williams














Sharper




























Henderson

Winfield












































Griffin












Greenway
















Leber





Robison









KWill







PAT








Taylor

Vikes_King
04-15-2008, 06:39 AM
"singersp" wrote:
















M.Williams














Sharper




























Henderson

Winfield












































Griffin












Greenway
















Leber





Robison









KWill







PAT








Taylor



i was waiting to see the first person to say that..
;D

we'll see about that come draft day

Marrdro
04-15-2008, 06:52 AM
What everyone misses is that the it is imperative to catch the Offense off gaurd when you throw a package like that, or anything other than our traditional 4-3 base scheme at them for it to work.

And for the guys who don't think a LB or a DE can drop back into coverage, you should watch a few more games other than just a Vikings game or two (especially teams that run 3-4 base Def) and you will see alot of DE and LB dropping into coverage.

Of course they don't run with the WR or TE, but rather drop into short zones in an effort to take away the 3 step drop/quick throws.

The problem with them is you have to get to the QB or your toast.
;D

By the way, a excellent idea for a thread.
To bad everyone will just pick the ideas apart and call them asinine.

;D

ultravikingfan
04-15-2008, 07:05 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


What everyone misses is that the it is imperative to catch the Offense off gaurd when you throw a package like that, or anything other than our traditional 4-3 base scheme at them for it to work.

And for the guys who don't think a LB or a DE can drop back into coverage, you should watch a few more games other than just a Vikings game or two (especially teams that run 3-4 base Def) and you will see alot of DE and LB dropping into coverage.

Of course they don't run with the WR or TE, but rather drop into short zones in an effort to take away the 3 step drop/quick throws.

The problem with them is you have to get to the QB or your toast.

;D

By the way, a excellent idea for a thread.
To bad everyone will just pick the ideas apart and call them asinine.

;D


Who called it asinine?

digital420
04-15-2008, 07:10 AM
the things i like most of yer ideas is that from that you could really shift into several packages.

i mean..

before snap count shift into the cover2 or 1..

set some blitz packages

really give the qb some far out looks.. and then with the new radio signal to the D.. packages could be re aligned without the qb/center ever being able to know besides the basics.

thought i doubt we'd actually do it. i luv the idea!!

DiGiTaL

ultravikingfan
04-15-2008, 07:14 AM
"digital420" wrote:


the things i like most of yer ideas is that from that you could really shift into several packages.

i mean..

before snap count shift into the cover2 or 1..

set some blitz packages

really give the qb some far out looks.. and then with the new radio signal to the D.. packages could be re aligned without the qb/center ever being able to know besides the basics.

thought i doubt we'd actually do it. i luv the idea!!

DiGiTaL



I believe that the defense utilizes hand signals, not radio.

If they were to change it once the QB goes under center, it is pre-planned.
You cannot have a defense looking at the sideline when the ball could be snapped at any moment and you do not want to get caught with the entire team shifting.
Usually you will see movement by the LB's or DB's prior to the snap.

digital420
04-15-2008, 07:18 AM
"ultravikingfan" wrote:


"digital420" wrote:


the things i like most of yer ideas is that from that you could really shift into several packages.

i mean..

before snap count shift into the cover2 or 1..

set some blitz packages

really give the qb some far out looks.. and then with the new radio signal to the D.. packages could be re aligned without the qb/center ever being able to know besides the basics.

thought i doubt we'd actually do it. i luv the idea!!

DiGiTaL



I believe that the defense utilizes hand signals, not radio.

If they were to change it once the QB goes under center, it is pre-planned.
You cannot have a defense looking at the sideline when the ball could be snapped at any moment and you do not want to get caught with the entire team shifting.
Usually you will see movement by the LB's or DB's prior to the snap.


yeah, the timing would have to be done perfectly..
and preknowledge i agree of assigned positions would be layed out. if something drastic changed.. then u'd have the probs of shifting into position. but then it also is something that would be used 2-3 times a game at most.
i'd never back doin it more then that.. just to risky..

but could be a great way to annoy the !#$%#!$ outta opponent qb's.

DiGiTaL

Vikes_King
04-15-2008, 07:19 AM
"ultravikingfan" wrote:


"digital420" wrote:


the things i like most of yer ideas is that from that you could really shift into several packages.

i mean..

before snap count shift into the cover2 or 1..

set some blitz packages

really give the qb some far out looks.. and then with the new radio signal to the D.. packages could be re aligned without the qb/center ever being able to know besides the basics.

thought i doubt we'd actually do it. i luv the idea!!

DiGiTaL



I believe that the defense utilizes hand signals, not radio.

If they were to change it once the QB goes under center, it is pre-planned.
You cannot have a defense looking at the sideline when the ball could be snapped at any moment and you do not want to get caught with the entire team shifting.
Usually you will see movement by the LB's or DB's prior to the snap.


The defense will have one player on the field that has radio communication just like the quarterback now in the new rule changes, in case you missed that.

VikingMike
04-15-2008, 07:24 AM
Any scheme or combination of schemes that helps to put added pressure on the QB to hurry his passes is fine with me. Great pass rush = hurries/INT's, and can be accomplished with adequate CBs.

I am a huge proponent of running a basic default D, and throwing in different looks to confuse the QB and mess up blocking assignments. And the more drastic the better...from 2, 3 or 4 DL to 5 LBs or 5 DBs in certain situations.

Put it this way, if we who are watching the game look at the defensive alignment and say "what the hell?"...so will the QB, and he might burn a timeout or make a bad play.

ultravikingfan
04-15-2008, 07:26 AM
"Vikes_King" wrote:


"ultravikingfan" wrote:


"digital420" wrote:


the things i like most of yer ideas is that from that you could really shift into several packages.

i mean..

before snap count shift into the cover2 or 1..

set some blitz packages

really give the qb some far out looks.. and then with the new radio signal to the D.. packages could be re aligned without the qb/center ever being able to know besides the basics.

thought i doubt we'd actually do it. i luv the idea!!

DiGiTaL



I believe that the defense utilizes hand signals, not radio.

If they were to change it once the QB goes under center, it is pre-planned.
You cannot have a defense looking at the sideline when the ball could be snapped at any moment and you do not want to get caught with the entire team shifting.
Usually you will see movement by the LB's or DB's prior to the snap.


The defense will have one player on the field that has radio communication just like the quarterback now in the new rule changes, in case you missed that.





I had thought I read about that but was not sure.
However, I believe they can only use this in the huddle and when the offense is under center they cannot use it; so my statement still stands.
Hand signals will still be employed.

Vikes_King
04-15-2008, 07:33 AM
"ultravikingfan" wrote:


"Vikes_King" wrote:


"ultravikingfan" wrote:


"digital420" wrote:


the things i like most of yer ideas is that from that you could really shift into several packages.

i mean..

before snap count shift into the cover2 or 1..

set some blitz packages

really give the qb some far out looks.. and then with the new radio signal to the D.. packages could be re aligned without the qb/center ever being able to know besides the basics.

thought i doubt we'd actually do it. i luv the idea!!

DiGiTaL



I believe that the defense utilizes hand signals, not radio.

If they were to change it once the QB goes under center, it is pre-planned.
You cannot have a defense looking at the sideline when the ball could be snapped at any moment and you do not want to get caught with the entire team shifting.
Usually you will see movement by the LB's or DB's prior to the snap.


The defense will have one player on the field that has radio communication just like the quarterback now in the new rule changes, in case you missed that.





I had thought I read about that but was not sure. However, I believe they can only use this in the huddle and when the offense is under center they cannot use it; so my statement still stands.
Hand signals will still be employed.


Correct.
I was just pointing it out incase you didn't know
;D

Marrdro
04-15-2008, 08:33 AM
"ultravikingfan" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


What everyone misses is that the it is imperative to catch the Offense off gaurd when you throw a package like that, or anything other than our traditional 4-3 base scheme at them for it to work.

And for the guys who don't think a LB or a DE can drop back into coverage, you should watch a few more games other than just a Vikings game or two (especially teams that run 3-4 base Def) and you will see alot of DE and LB dropping into coverage.

Of course they don't run with the WR or TE, but rather drop into short zones in an effort to take away the 3 step drop/quick throws.

The problem with them is you have to get to the QB or your toast.

;D

By the way, a excellent idea for a thread.
To bad everyone will just pick the ideas apart and call them asinine.

;D


Who called it asinine?

In another thread I plugged in one of these schemes and I was told it was asinine.
No big deal.
;D

Marrdro
04-15-2008, 08:37 AM
"VikingMike" wrote:


Any scheme or combination of schemes that helps to put added pressure on the QB to hurry his passes is fine with me. Great pass rush = hurries/INT's, and can be accomplished with adequate CBs.

I am a huge proponent of running a basic default D, and throwing in different looks to confuse the QB and mess up blocking assignments. And the more drastic the better...from 2, 3 or 4 DL to 5 LBs or 5 DBs in certain situations.

Put it this way, if we who are watching the game look at the defensive alignment and say "what the hell?"...so will the QB, and he might burn a timeout or make a bad play.

Exactly.

The problem still exists that once we run one of these plays/packages, it is now on tape for all to see/prep for but it does add a level of complexity that we currently don't see much with our base defense other than a few times we saw them throw some variations of the 3-4 in last year.

Again, all designed to confuse.
;D

i_bleed_purple
04-15-2008, 08:41 AM
Why not take a page out of the ravens playbook for obvious passing downs








Madieu










Frampton












Sharper


Griffin



Greenway

Henderson



Leber



Robison











Winfield



















KWilliams




Edwards

you could even rotate out of a 3-3-5 into this

Robison or Edwards (or whoever our faster end is) can move up to linebacker, with Kevin Williams and whoever our remaining End is on the line

Marrdro
04-15-2008, 08:49 AM
Madieu










Griffin












Sharper


Gordon



Greenway

Henderson



Leber



Robison











Winfield



















Edwards
Phat Pat

I took out K-will as Phat Pat seems to be getting more penetration of late than Kevin.
And I stuck Griff in the middle and added Gordon.

Same concept though, just some different players that I think fit better.

i_bleed_purple
04-15-2008, 08:52 AM
seems reasonable.
I'm sure that we'll pick up a safety somewhere in the draft and he would probably be the best fit for that 3rd safety spot.
but for now i just listed players we have on roster.
your way works a little better though I think

mountainviking
04-15-2008, 09:24 AM
I think I'd lean toward the coverage guys back there too.
Phat Pat seems to be our big, clog the middle guy, so I think he's the best fit at DT in a scheme with less DL.
Kevin can play some DE too, and would be a nice fit there in a 3-something.
Maybe in the 2-something too.
Imagine the praise the Williams would recieve if they still got pressure in a 2 DL vs. 5 OL situation!
The OL would have to be pretty athletic to be able to put more than a double team on them, and the Williams would have the option of shifting to one side or the other to prevent the OL from stacking up the way they'd like.

Example:
Pat anchors the middle, EJ has to be ready in the middle if they run, not much help coming from the DL in front of him.
KWill shifts all the way out to tye up the LT so maybe Greenway can turn the corner and hit the QB from the side.
That would leave 3 LBs and 5 secondary in coverage, with hopefully, our surprise rush LB getting some pressure quick.

C Mac D
04-15-2008, 09:29 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:








Madieu










Griffin












Sharper


Gordon



Greenway

Henderson



Leber



Robison











Winfield



















Edwards
Phat Pat

I took out K-will as Phat Pat seems to be getting more penetration of late than Kevin.
And I stuck Griff in the middle and added Gordon.

Same concept though, just some different players that I think fit better.



The dreaded 2-4-3.... Actually, I like the look of this.

ultravikingfan
04-15-2008, 09:42 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"ultravikingfan" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


What everyone misses is that the it is imperative to catch the Offense off gaurd when you throw a package like that, or anything other than our traditional 4-3 base scheme at them for it to work.

And for the guys who don't think a LB or a DE can drop back into coverage, you should watch a few more games other than just a Vikings game or two (especially teams that run 3-4 base Def) and you will see alot of DE and LB dropping into coverage.

Of course they don't run with the WR or TE, but rather drop into short zones in an effort to take away the 3 step drop/quick throws.

The problem with them is you have to get to the QB or your toast.

;D

By the way, a excellent idea for a thread.
To bad everyone will just pick the ideas apart and call them asinine.

;D


Who called it asinine?

In another thread I plugged in one of these schemes and I was told it was asinine.
No big deal.

;D


Because it was in your thread, it's asinine!
:o ;D

But seriously, how cute you can get with your Defense depends on the people on the field and the level of intelligence on the sideline.

For a team with a pathetic pass D last year, I do not think we should be taking any major leaps and bounds with scheme's.
What DL are we going to drop in coverage across the middle?
Fat Pat?
No.
We need his big butt getting pressure up the gut.
To go 3-4 or even more LB's you need one ley element...fast LB's that can cover.

Marrdro
04-15-2008, 09:46 AM
"ultravikingfan" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"ultravikingfan" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


What everyone misses is that the it is imperative to catch the Offense off gaurd when you throw a package like that, or anything other than our traditional 4-3 base scheme at them for it to work.

And for the guys who don't think a LB or a DE can drop back into coverage, you should watch a few more games other than just a Vikings game or two (especially teams that run 3-4 base Def) and you will see alot of DE and LB dropping into coverage.

Of course they don't run with the WR or TE, but rather drop into short zones in an effort to take away the 3 step drop/quick throws.

The problem with them is you have to get to the QB or your toast.

;D

By the way, a excellent idea for a thread.
To bad everyone will just pick the ideas apart and call them asinine.

;D


Who called it asinine?

In another thread I plugged in one of these schemes and I was told it was asinine.
No big deal.

;D


Because it was in your thread, it's asinine!

:o ;D

But seriously, how cute you can get with your Defense depends on the people on the field and the level of intelligence on the sideline.

For a team with a pathetic pass D last year, I do not think we should be taking any major leaps and bounds with scheme's.
What DL are we going to drop in coverage across the middle?
Fat Pat?
No.
We need his big butt getting pressure up the gut.
To go 3-4 or even more LB's you need one ley element...fast LB's that can cover.
Can you say, Chad and Rufus.
;D

Anyway, I think we saw a bit of creativity out of Leslie last year with some of the 3-4 stuff and some of the LB blitz schemes.
Heck we even saw ole Phat Pat (and some other DL) drop into coverage a few times in an effort to confuse.

Some additional manpower this year will surely give them the lattitude/luxury of coming up with a few that will have all of us, and opposing QB's scratching thier heads, thats for sure.

mountainviking
04-15-2008, 10:35 AM
Why they put Pat in coverage is beyond me.
He's got to be the slowest DL we have.
It seems to make so much more sense to let him draw the double on the line and back off a Robison, Edwards, or tweener DE/OLB guy like Groves or Brian Johnston.

Marrdro
04-15-2008, 10:37 AM
"mountainviking" wrote:


Why they put Pat in coverage is beyond me.
He's got to be the slowest DL we have.
It seems to make so much more sense to let him draw the double on the line and back off a Robison, Edwards, or tweener DE/OLB guy like Groves or Brian Johnston.

Because it was unexpected and it wasn't like he had to run far.
Not much speed required to drop back 5 yards.

Anyway, I am not so sure Phat Pat is our slowest D-Lineman.
Take alook at Kwill and Phat Pats numbers over the last 3 years and tell me who gets in the backfield more....... :o

i_bleed_purple
04-15-2008, 10:39 AM
"mountainviking" wrote:


I think I'd lean toward the coverage guys back there too.
Phat Pat seems to be our big, clog the middle guy, so I think he's the best fit at DT in a scheme with less DL.
Kevin can play some DE too, and would be a nice fit there in a 3-something.
Maybe in the 2-something too.
Imagine the praise the Williams would recieve if they still got pressure in a 2 DL vs. 5 OL situation!
The OL would have to be pretty athletic to be able to put more than a double team on them, and the Williams would have the option of shifting to one side or the other to prevent the OL from stacking up the way they'd like.

Example:
Pat anchors the middle, EJ has to be ready in the middle if they run, not much help coming from the DL in front of him.
KWill shifts all the way out to tye up the LT so maybe Greenway can turn the corner and hit the QB from the side.
That would leave 3 LBs and 5 secondary in coverage, with hopefully, our surprise rush LB getting some pressure quick.


if we were to ever run the 2-4, it would be in a strictly passing situation only, where you'd want better pass rushers in there.
I think Kevin Williams has the edge over Pat Williams here.
Pats a great nose tackle for a 3-4, but in the 2-4, we'd need penetration to pressure the quarterback, the opponents should not be in a situation where running is an option when the 2-4 is used.

i_bleed_purple
04-15-2008, 10:40 AM
"mountainviking" wrote:


Why they put Pat in coverage is beyond me.
He's got to be the slowest DL we have.
It seems to make so much more sense to let him draw the double on the line and back off a Robison, Edwards, or tweener DE/OLB guy like Groves or Brian Johnston.


They're hoping the qb will laugh when they see it and fumble the ball ;)

Marrdro
04-15-2008, 10:45 AM
"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"mountainviking" wrote:


Why they put Pat in coverage is beyond me.
He's got to be the slowest DL we have.
It seems to make so much more sense to let him draw the double on the line and back off a Robison, Edwards, or tweener DE/OLB guy like Groves or Brian Johnston.


They're hoping the qb will laugh when they see it and fumble the ball ;)

Again, its not like he is going to run with the WR or TE.
His job is to get to a space 5 yards or so off the line of scrimmage in what would be the passing lane so that the QB (as he is getting pressured) see's a Purple shirt.

He doesn't have the time to see if it is a CB, LB or S in that spot, just that someone is between him and the WR so he shifts to a different read.
Effort is to get him off of the quick slant and onto a deeper route allowing for a DE or a blitzing LB to get to him.

Marrdro
04-15-2008, 10:47 AM
"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"mountainviking" wrote:


I think I'd lean toward the coverage guys back there too.
Phat Pat seems to be our big, clog the middle guy, so I think he's the best fit at DT in a scheme with less DL.
Kevin can play some DE too, and would be a nice fit there in a 3-something.
Maybe in the 2-something too.
Imagine the praise the Williams would recieve if they still got pressure in a 2 DL vs. 5 OL situation!
The OL would have to be pretty athletic to be able to put more than a double team on them, and the Williams would have the option of shifting to one side or the other to prevent the OL from stacking up the way they'd like.

Example:
Pat anchors the middle, EJ has to be ready in the middle if they run, not much help coming from the DL in front of him.
KWill shifts all the way out to tye up the LT so maybe Greenway can turn the corner and hit the QB from the side.
That would leave 3 LBs and 5 secondary in coverage, with hopefully, our surprise rush LB getting some pressure quick.


if we were to ever run the 2-4, it would be in a strictly passing situation only, where you'd want better pass rushers in there.
I think Kevin Williams has the edge over Pat Williams here.
Pats a great nose tackle for a 3-4, but in the 2-4, we'd need penetration to pressure the quarterback, the opponents should not be in a situation where running is an option when the 2-4 is used.

Again, check out the "Tackles for Loss" stat before you discount Phat Pats abilities to get in the backfield.

mountainviking
04-15-2008, 10:51 AM
Well, it looks to me like Pat has more tackles, but Kevin has more sacks, passes defensed and INTs
every year.
I'm going to venture a guess, that Pat comes off his blocker better, but Kevin is still more disruptive, and probably sees more double teams.
You guys seen a stats page for doubles?
If we pull a guy back into short coverage that was going to see a double team on the line, does that eliminate 2 guys from the play?
At least temporarily, till they recover and find something to do...

The whole point of this conversation, is to find some ideas that improve our pass defense/pass rush with what we have now.
If we can add the right guys and Robison/Edwards continue to develop, the Williams won't get so doubled up in the middle.

i_bleed_purple
04-15-2008, 10:53 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"mountainviking" wrote:


Why they put Pat in coverage is beyond me.
He's got to be the slowest DL we have.
It seems to make so much more sense to let him draw the double on the line and back off a Robison, Edwards, or tweener DE/OLB guy like Groves or Brian Johnston.


They're hoping the qb will laugh when they see it and fumble the ball ;)

Again, its not like he is going to run with the WR or TE.
His job is to get to a space 5 yards or so off the line of scrimmage in what would be the passing lane so that the QB (as he is getting pressured) see's a Purple shirt.

He doesn't have the time to see if it is a CB, LB or S in that spot, just that someone is between him and the WR so he shifts to a different read.
Effort is to get him off of the quick slant and onto a deeper route allowing for a DE or a blitzing LB to get to him.


i'm not saying that Pat can't do the job, I know what would be required for him to drop into coverage, and it for the most part doesn't require much athletic ablility, just get in the way.
But are you telling me that if you looked and saw a 340 lb DT sitting in a zone, you wouldn't at least snicker a little bit?
I know i laughed when i first saw that.

Marrdro
04-15-2008, 10:55 AM
"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"mountainviking" wrote:


Why they put Pat in coverage is beyond me.
He's got to be the slowest DL we have.
It seems to make so much more sense to let him draw the double on the line and back off a Robison, Edwards, or tweener DE/OLB guy like Groves or Brian Johnston.


They're hoping the qb will laugh when they see it and fumble the ball ;)

Again, its not like he is going to run with the WR or TE.
His job is to get to a space 5 yards or so off the line of scrimmage in what would be the passing lane so that the QB (as he is getting pressured) see's a Purple shirt.

He doesn't have the time to see if it is a CB, LB or S in that spot, just that someone is between him and the WR so he shifts to a different read.
Effort is to get him off of the quick slant and onto a deeper route allowing for a DE or a blitzing LB to get to him.


i'm not saying that Pat can't do the job, I know what would be required for him to drop into coverage, and it for the most part doesn't require much athletic ablility, just get in the way.
But are you telling me that if you looked and saw a 340 lb DT sitting in a zone, you wouldn't at least snicker a little bit?
I know i laughed when i first saw that.

DT's actually drop into coverage alot these days.

i_bleed_purple
04-15-2008, 11:08 AM
yes, but those who do drop into coverage aren't often big run stuffing pat williams type players, they're usually more athletic players like kevin Williams

V-Unit
04-15-2008, 11:21 AM
I don't see how taking away a DE and adding a LB improves our pass rush. In the end, you are bringing the same amount of rushers, against the same amount of blockers. Also, The Ravens Defense is a prevent Defense. They don't generate rush, but thier coverage is so good that it works. To improve pass rush on any down, I propose the following.











Williams







Sharper
Winfield


























Griffin







Henderson







Greenway



Groves
Robison
KWill
PWill

Edwards

This allows you to maintain a solid run defense and sport many pass defense packages. You could play Groves standing up or in a 3-point stance, and drop him into coverage either way, switching you into a conventional Cover 2. Blitzing LBs is ok because you still have 4 DBs in coverage. You have to like Henderson's chance of generating pressure here. If they try to double either of the Williamses, we have 3 pass rushers who can take advantage of that.

I think the formation is beatable with a good TE/Slot receiver, but that was a problem last year anyways.

ultravikingfan
04-15-2008, 12:05 PM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"mountainviking" wrote:


Why they put Pat in coverage is beyond me.
He's got to be the slowest DL we have.
It seems to make so much more sense to let him draw the double on the line and back off a Robison, Edwards, or tweener DE/OLB guy like Groves or Brian Johnston.


They're hoping the qb will laugh when they see it and fumble the ball ;)

Again, its not like he is going to run with the WR or TE.
His job is to get to a space 5 yards or so off the line of scrimmage in what would be the passing lane so that the QB (as he is getting pressured) see's a Purple shirt.

He doesn't have the time to see if it is a CB, LB or S in that spot, just that someone is between him and the WR so he shifts to a different read.
Effort is to get him off of the quick slant and onto a deeper route allowing for a DE or a blitzing LB to get to him.


i'm not saying that Pat can't do the job, I know what would be required for him to drop into coverage, and it for the most part doesn't require much athletic ablility, just get in the way.
But are you telling me that if you looked and saw a 340 lb DT sitting in a zone, you wouldn't at least snicker a little bit?
I know i laughed when i first saw that.

DT's actually drop into coverage alot these days.


I realize this.
But what is Pat's strength?
I would rather have him holding up 2 Offensive Lineman than dropping back in coverage so we can have a LB blitz.

You have to have the personnel.

singersp
04-15-2008, 09:32 PM
"Vikes_King" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:
















M.Williams














Sharper




























Henderson

Winfield












































Griffin












Greenway
















Leber





Robison









KWill







PAT








Taylor



i was waiting to see the first person to say that..
;D

we'll see about that come draft day


At least my scheme screams, "Just try and get a touchdown you scumbags"

jessejames09
04-15-2008, 09:53 PM
WV anyone?































Sharper

























Greenway

EJ


Leber

Griffin




Madieu






Edwards


Pat



Kevin
















Winny






McCauley

Purple Floyd
04-16-2008, 12:41 PM
"singersp" wrote:


"Vikes_King" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:
















M.Williams














Sharper




























Henderson

Winfield












































Griffin












Greenway
















Leber





Robison









KWill







PAT








Taylor



i was waiting to see the first person to say that..
;D

we'll see about that come draft day


At least my scheme screams, "Just try and get a touchdown you scumbags"


From a Steve Martin album.
Wild and Crazy Guy. along with "Die, you gravy sucking pigs" ;)

singersp
04-16-2008, 10:34 PM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"Vikes_King" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:
















M.Williams














Sharper




























Henderson

Winfield












































Griffin












Greenway
















Leber





Robison









KWill







PAT








Taylor



i was waiting to see the first person to say that..
;D

we'll see about that come draft day


At least my scheme screams, "Just try and get a touchdown you scumbags"


From a Steve Martin album.
Wild and Crazy Guy. along with "Die, you gravy sucking pigs" ;)


He used to like to punt on 1st downs.

Schutz
04-16-2008, 10:52 PM
"ultravikingfan" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:




Why they put Pat in coverage is beyond me.
He's got to be the slowest DL we have.
It seems to make so much more sense to let him draw the double on the line and back off a Robison, Edwards, or tweener DE/OLB guy like Groves or Brian Johnston.


They're hoping the qb will laugh when they see it and fumble the ball ;)

Again, its not like he is going to run with the WR or TE.
His job is to get to a space 5 yards or so off the line of scrimmage in what would be the passing lane so that the QB (as he is getting pressured) see's a Purple shirt.

He doesn't have the time to see if it is a CB, LB or S in that spot, just that someone is between him and the WR so he shifts to a different read.
Effort is to get him off of the quick slant and onto a deeper route allowing for a DE or a blitzing LB to get to him.


i'm not saying that Pat can't do the job, I know what would be required for him to drop into coverage, and it for the most part doesn't require much athletic ablility, just get in the way.
But are you telling me that if you looked and saw a 340 lb DT sitting in a zone, you wouldn't at least snicker a little bit?
I know i laughed when i first saw that.

DT's actually drop into coverage alot these days.


I realize this.
But what is Pat's strength?
I would rather have him holding up 2 Offensive Lineman than dropping back in coverage so we can have a LB blitz.

You have to have the personnel.


I wouldn't mind seeing Kevin Williams dropping into coverage.
You can actually imagine K-Williams taking one to the house dropping into coverage.
Pat should never ever be put into coverage, he's much more valuable on the line, and it's easier and more effective to drop back a guy like K-Williams.

i_bleed_purple
04-16-2008, 11:19 PM
"Schutz" wrote:


"ultravikingfan" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:






Why they put Pat in coverage is beyond me.
He's got to be the slowest DL we have.
It seems to make so much more sense to let him draw the double on the line and back off a Robison, Edwards, or tweener DE/OLB guy like Groves or Brian Johnston.


They're hoping the qb will laugh when they see it and fumble the ball ;)

Again, its not like he is going to run with the WR or TE.
His job is to get to a space 5 yards or so off the line of scrimmage in what would be the passing lane so that the QB (as he is getting pressured) see's a Purple shirt.

He doesn't have the time to see if it is a CB, LB or S in that spot, just that someone is between him and the WR so he shifts to a different read.
Effort is to get him off of the quick slant and onto a deeper route allowing for a DE or a blitzing LB to get to him.


i'm not saying that Pat can't do the job, I know what would be required for him to drop into coverage, and it for the most part doesn't require much athletic ablility, just get in the way.
But are you telling me that if you looked and saw a 340 lb DT sitting in a zone, you wouldn't at least snicker a little bit?
I know i laughed when i first saw that.

DT's actually drop into coverage alot these days.


I realize this.
But what is Pat's strength?
I would rather have him holding up 2 Offensive Lineman than dropping back in coverage so we can have a LB blitz.

You have to have the personnel.


I wouldn't mind seeing Kevin Williams dropping into coverage.
You can actually imagine K-Williams taking one to the house dropping into coverage.
Pat should never ever be put into coverage, he's much more valuable on the line, and it's easier and more effective to drop back a guy like K-Williams.


Hey, he took 2 to the house this year alone, and he was ON the line then.
Its funny because Kevin Williams INT average of 36 yards is #1 on the Vikings.
next up is Dwight Smith at 28.
His 2 Interceptions is tied for #3 with Chad Greenway, only Smith and Sharper have more with 4 a piece.
Also the team leader with two pick-6's.
I would say Kevin Williams is more valuable than most think.
just because he doesn't have the sack numbers doesn't mean he's not valuable ot our defenses success.

DiehardVikesFan
04-16-2008, 11:28 PM
"mountainviking" wrote:


Just thought I'd start a thread for unconventional, defensive schemes.
Please feel free to add any ideas you've seen around or any experience you may have with old ideas like the 46 ect.



Here's my latest idea for some surprise twists...3 down lineman, 5 LBs, and 3 secondary.
The LBs spread out, 2 of them rush the passer on any given down with the other 3 playing the mid zones and the 3 secondary each taking a zone behind the LB zones.
You rotate the rush so the opponent can't lineup to their advantage.
The blitzing backers could also bump the WRs on their way in, at the LOS to further throw off the offenses timing.




















Winfield


M.Williams


Griffin



Johnston/Groves


Greenway




Henderson









Leber




Rufus





















KWill






PAT





Laws



Usually, EJ stays at home in the middle, in case they do run.
You could rush Leber and Rufus from the left side on one down, Greenway and Leber inside on the next, and then Rufus and the other speedy outside OLB/DE guy.
You could bring a guy in like a fourth DL, only to drop him back into coverage and send heat from the other side.
Most likely, not an every down defense, but some nice options to put pressure on the QB and keep the offense guessing.


I would put Ray Edwards or Robison for Rufus as a rush OLB/End.
With only three secondary guys though I think most QBs would audible to pass and any decent QB could probably tear it apart.
But I think it would be a good idea to try something unconventional if we can't improve our pass rush.

ps that's the defense my high school team ran.

dcboardr41
04-16-2008, 11:39 PM
"singersp" wrote:

















M.Williams














Sharper





























Henderson

Winfield












































Griffin












Greenway
















Leber





Robison









KWill







PAT









Taylor




why is EJ playing center field? lol

i_bleed_purple
04-16-2008, 11:40 PM
Thats what HEnderson often plays when they go into their Tampa-2.
MLB will drop back almost to safety level sometimes untill it almost turns into a cover 3

singersp
04-17-2008, 05:17 AM
"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


Thats what HEnderson often plays when they go into their Tampa-2.
MLB will drop back almost to safety level sometimes untill it almost turns into a cover 3


In the Singer 2 defense that is not the case. In that particular formation, both K-Will & P-Wiil are too take their respective guys down low &/or force them to the outside. As that happens, EJ come in with a LB blitz & takes the QB down for a sack if it's a pass or the RB down for the loss if it's a run.

i_bleed_purple
04-17-2008, 08:59 AM
we'll have to forward that to Fraizer, mabye' he'll take it into consideration
;)

V-Unit
04-17-2008, 09:15 AM
I'm reposting this because I don't think anyone saw it and I'd like some feedback.

"V" wrote:


I don't see how taking away a DE and adding a LB improves our pass rush. In the end, you are bringing the same amount of rushers, against the same amount of blockers. Also, The Ravens Defense is a prevent Defense. They don't generate rush, but thier coverage is so good that it works. To improve pass rush on any down, I propose the following.











Williams







Sharper
Winfield


























Griffin







Henderson








Greenway



Groves

Robison

KWill

PWill

Edwards

This allows you to maintain a solid run defense and sport many pass defense packages. You could play Groves standing up or in a 3-point stance, and drop him into coverage either way, switching you into a conventional Cover 2. Blitzing LBs is ok because you still have 4 DBs in coverage. You have to like Henderson's chance of generating pressure here. If they try to double either of the Williamses, we have 3 pass rushers who can take advantage of that.

I think the formation is beatable with a good TE/Slot receiver, but that was a problem last year anyways.

Marrdro
04-17-2008, 09:21 AM
"V" wrote:


I'm reposting this because I don't think anyone saw it and I'd like some feedback.

"V" wrote:


I don't see how taking away a DE and adding a LB improves our pass rush. In the end, you are bringing the same amount of rushers, against the same amount of blockers. Also, The Ravens Defense is a prevent Defense. They don't generate rush, but thier coverage is so good that it works. To improve pass rush on any down, I propose the following.











Williams







Sharper
Winfield


























Griffin







Henderson








Greenway



Groves

Robison

KWill

PWill

Edwards

This allows you to maintain a solid run defense and sport many pass defense packages. You could play Groves standing up or in a 3-point stance, and drop him into coverage either way, switching you into a conventional Cover 2. Blitzing LBs is ok because you still have 4 DBs in coverage. You have to like Henderson's chance of generating pressure here. If they try to double either of the Williamses, we have 3 pass rushers who can take advantage of that.

I think the formation is beatable with a good TE/Slot receiver, but that was a problem last year anyways.


Depends on what the offense has on the field.

Not sure how you think it would be tough against the run and the pass.
I would assume they would just audible out and run a draw right at Edwards outside shoulder.

mountainviking
04-17-2008, 09:35 AM
Seems, to some extent, we're saying the same thing differently.
The whole idea is to keep the offense guessing.
Whether its with a LB creeping up to the line and then dropping back, or a DE dropping back, and a LB rushing from the other side its pretty interchangable.
My original idea was that 2 of the 5 LBs would be rushing the passer, and that which 2 rushed on any given down was the surprise...its about equal to blitzing a S, cuz that is who is out, and it brings the total rushers to 5, but I feel a LB has a better chance of getting by a blocker at the line.

With our S in Tampa2 and our CBs on coverage, the middle looks wide open with all those guys on the DL.
As for vs. the run, the first thing I saw was right up the gut.
If they run a draw and our 2 LBs attack, the RB just has to shake and bake through the line and we're F'd.
Granted, folks don't often get past the Williams, but sometimes, they do get blocked.