- Joined
- Jul 24, 2012
- Messages
- 19,503
What do we have to lose... we hate our LBs... so...
I’d tweak it a little, but something like this is what I’d like to see. My tweaks would be for passing vs running downs.You can run a 46 Defense with the line-up below:
DL: Harvey, Ford, Nesta, Johnson
LB/Strikers: Frierson, K. Smith, Flagg, Hall
DB: Stevenson, Bolden, Ivey
Rotation
DL: deep rotation
LB/STK's: Huff, Carter, Steed, J. Williams and/or C. Smith
DB: Couch, Blades, A. & J. Williams
You can find me in posts during last season asking to get K. Smith on the field at the same time as #3. Not because I necessarily thought he was a good LB or knew how he'd transition to that role, but because he's just a better football player than the alternatives. "Better football player" is ambiguous, so I'll look at three things: (1) he tackles better, (2) takes better angles, (3) and has better reactions to plays in front of him. "Positionless" defense is now a common term in the NFL and football circles because offensive formations have dictated significant adjustments from the days of 11, 12 and 21 personnel groupings (etc.) and what defenses had on the field to respond accordingly.
After I read "positionless" D, I woke up in a cold sweat last night screaming "be a cheeseburger".@DMoney comment got me thinking about this. Does anyone know of any team that actually does this?
It seems like every off-season we hear about all these subpackages (Chaney & Knighton together, for example) then it never happens.
We are clearly loaded in the secondary, and weak at LB. With Carter’s move to striker & K Smith to LB, it’s easy to see those 2 plus Bolden & Hall playing at the same time.
Would we play more DBs than that? Can you run it as a base package without getting gashed on the ground? Can guys learn the nuisances of essentially a new position, if they aren’t practicing it every day?
I think a lot depends on whether we get a quality LB in the portal. If not, I don’t see how there aren’t either more position changes, or a move towards a positionless defense. Too much DB talent, and not enough LB talent. If I see Ragone on the field while Tae is on the bench, I’m gonna punch my tv screen.
With that 46 D, you can be as creative you as you want. You can run multiple packages (4-3, 4-2-5, Dime) without subbing.I’d tweak it a little, but something like this is what I’d like to see. My tweaks would be for passing vs running downs.
Idk about Nesta vs the rush. Too undisciplined. But Nesta and JHH inside on pass downs.
I’d like to see some stand up rushers off the edge too. I’m notoriously anti-freshman early in the season, but I’d like to see what J Williams can do there. K Smith too.
I’m a broken record right now, but Tae has to play on passing downs. We need his range and versatility. He isn’t scared to come downhill and hit. Him and Bolden is what I want to see.
Flagg probably has to come off the field on pass downs. We need one of the athletic LBs to be able to play situational MIKE.
Rush downs, I guess Miller and Ford? I’m a huge JHH guy, hopefully he is stronger this year and can be an every-down DT.
I like Carter at striker/LB on rush downs. He is fearless and not afraid of contact. Rather than trying to decapitate WRs, I’d like to see him take on OLmen, smack them in the mouth, and let someone else clean it up.
Again, this is all premised on our LBs being subpar. If someone steps up in fall camp, we should be in a much better position and not have to get so creative.
If the players don't know the playbook, the problem is the teacher, not the students.Rogone was on the field last year because he was the only player at linebacker that knew the playbook and was dependable. We have lots of more talented young men but if you don't no the playbook your not getting quality minutes.
You can find me in posts during last season asking to get K. Smith on the field at the same time as #3. Not because I necessarily thought he was a good LB or knew how he'd transition to that role, but because he's just a better football player than the alternatives. "Better football player" is ambiguous, so I'll look at three things: (1) he tackles better, (2) takes better angles, (3) and has better reactions to plays in front of him. "Positionless" defense is now a common term in the NFL and football circles because offensive formations have dictated significant adjustments from the days of 11, 12 and 21 personnel groupings (etc.) and what defenses had on the field to respond accordingly.
As we put Nickel and Dime packages together to respond to modern offensive formations, I think it gave defensive coordinators an opportunity to get players doing things they'd simply do better than their peer (alternative). A big example that jumps out is Jamal Adams in the NFL. Sure, he's a Safety. On passing downs, he's often his team's best pass rusher. Should the defense not get the benefit of his "win above replacement" (term from another sport, used here to mean something different) likelihood because of position? Nah. Just send him at the QB from different launch points than the traditional pass rusher is all.
The bigger problem for me is "why" we, the Hurricanes, would start talking about it and doing it. It's nice to throw around buzzy terms, but I'm more concerned about being a "misaligned" defense than a "positionless" defense. I'm not in the film room and relatively disconnected from the program at this point, so I have no idea if that's happening because of design or because our players don't understand where to line up sometimes. Too often, it leads to being out-leveraged. "Positionless" football requires quick, lateral players who can still tackle and be physical.
It also requires players who are "good football players" - so when we're evaluating dudes, it'd be nice to see we have guys who understand angles, can fill, process, and generally be adaptable to the relative chaos of non-traditional subpackages. College teams don't have the time or competencies to do what NFL teams do with "positionless" defense. Again, before we get there, I think we'd all like to see more consistent fundamentals in terms of where we lineup and how our guys play within their assignments. Sure, we can see it in spurts and certainly in blitz packages, but I'd really just like to see athletic football players play sound defensive football in our important games.
Thanks for the reply.You can find me in posts during last season asking to get K. Smith on the field at the same time as #3. Not because I necessarily thought he was a good LB or knew how he'd transition to that role, but because he's just a better football player than the alternatives. "Better football player" is ambiguous, so I'll look at three things: (1) he tackles better, (2) takes better angles, (3) and has better reactions to plays in front of him. "Positionless" defense is now a common term in the NFL and football circles because offensive formations have dictated significant adjustments from the days of 11, 12 and 21 personnel groupings (etc.) and what defenses had on the field to respond accordingly.
As we put Nickel and Dime packages together to respond to modern offensive formations, I think it gave defensive coordinators an opportunity to get players doing things they'd simply do better than their peer (alternative). A big example that jumps out is Jamal Adams in the NFL. Sure, he's a Safety. On passing downs, he's often his team's best pass rusher. Should the defense not get the benefit of his "win above replacement" (term from another sport, used here to mean something different) likelihood because of position? Nah. Just send him at the QB from different launch points than the traditional pass rusher is all.
The bigger problem for me is "why" we, the Hurricanes, would start talking about it and doing it. It's nice to throw around buzzy terms, but I'm more concerned about being a "misaligned" defense than a "positionless" defense. I'm not in the film room and relatively disconnected from the program at this point, so I have no idea if that's happening because of design or because our players don't understand where to line up sometimes. Too often, it leads to being out-leveraged. "Positionless" football requires quick, lateral players who can still tackle and be physical.
It also requires players who are "good football players" - so when we're evaluating dudes, it'd be nice to see we have guys who understand angles, can fill, process, and generally be adaptable to the relative chaos of non-traditional subpackages. College teams don't have the time or competencies to do what NFL teams do with "positionless" defense. Again, before we get there, I think we'd all like to see more consistent fundamentals in terms of where we lineup and how our guys play within their assignments. Sure, we can see it in spurts and certainly in blitz packages, but I'd really just like to see athletic football players play sound defensive football in our important games.
Agreed.We need to convince James Williams he is not really a Safety, that he can play closer to the LOS move around much like Isaiah Simmons did at Clemson.