forums

“Positionless” Defense

This got me think
skyman said:
You might see sub package against a predominantly passing type team
Click to expand...
This got me thinking - obviously defenses will play more DBs when a team is lining up more Wrs and an offense may pass more if they think the other team is weak in the secondary, but something I don't believe I have seen very much is teams playing playing different players based on matchups.

For example, let's say that the other team has really fast DBs, but they are all short and you have a big bodied taller WR who is maybe the 5th best WR on your team on a given day, but he matches up really well against their DBs because he can out muscle/jump them. Or in the case of our abundance of strikers and safeties, maybe a different player gets the start each week not b/c they are necessarily better than the other player, but b/c they match up better to that week's competition.

Do teams do this? Do they maybe do it, but it's not as obvious to me (ex: the normal starter starts, but then the better match up gets more play)?
 
Advertisement
Zbrod95 said:
I don’t like it. They can try and be ahead of the curve all they want but you still need LBers to be LBers. You need at least 2 guys who can find the ball carrier or UNC is your fate. They don’t have to be the traditional 6’2 240 guy anymore but you still need a bit of size and instincts.
Click to expand...

This; and this is my problem w/ analytic guys in all sports....it’s over thinking chit or trying to be “ahead” of the curve, when it’s a curve they, themselves, are creating.

Football is football. Has the game changed regarding contact (or type of contact), and becoming more QB/Offense friendly? Yes. But you know what both The Bucs & Bama showed us? Stop over thinking chit & attack the QB! LBs are still LBs. U need those guys...go ask Mahomes what he feels about David, & White. Go ask Fields how he felt about Moses or Anderson.

We’re positionless b/c our recruiting has been “meh” on the LB & secondary front. We have a team full of strikers. That makes zero sense, not w/ what we’re trying to run. Which is why I asked all of u last season, what is our identity? Recruiting is two parts.

1. Recruiting the best
2. Recruiting to fit schematic needs

It’s felt like square pegs in round holes for a minute.
 
dodaniels said:
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
Click to expand...
Brooks is going to be in the mix at LB as long as he’s full go in fall.
 
Damiencane86 said:
A 6 db package with Flagg in the middle can work if the right personnel is selected. Would need the bigger DT's on the field & better edge setting d ends to not be so vulnerable vs the run. I'd have Keontra & J Will on the field together as my ideal pairing flanking Flagg.
Click to expand...
That’s a dime look..you can’t survive running A dime package as base. U just can’t
 
scrantoncane said:
What you are referring to would be a basic dime defense, which you’d typically see against 4-5 wide sets. I don’t think that is what D$ meant, as he didn’t mention passing situations like you did. And it’s not what I was getting at when I started the thread.

I’m talking more about guys taking on new roles... specifically some of the safeties and strikers as LBs. We’ve been moving towards it for 2 years now: first, with the implementation of the striker position, and now with K Smith to LB. I’m talking about going full Madden mode, where we call plays like it’s a 4-3/nickel base, but sub in strikers/safeties for LBs. I just question whether it can actually work.

Even if coaches had a playbook for it, idk if the players would be able to pick up on it. Knowing your keys would be difficult. Motion and pre-snap shifts would require a lot of communication and intelligence to run it effectively. You’d definitely need a Shaq, QB of the defense type guy to line guys up properly.

Im going off the rails here a little, but I think it’s an interesting concept. Essentially, get our best players on the field, regardless of position. The NBA evolved into that, and with modern offenses, I’m not sure CFB is too far behind. It’s what makes guys like K Smith so valuable.
Click to expand...
He did mention on passing downs. Y’all guys just take from things what you want. Here is what he said.

Striker- This position is a strength, despite Gilbert Frierson coming in a little out of shape. Amari Carter has always played closer to the ball and this move opens up a spot in a crowded safety room. Chase Smith is 6’4, fast, fluid, instinctual and a good tackler. In the first scrimmage, he had a pick in man coverage. High-end, NFL tools. Don’t be surprised to see multiple “striker” body types on the field on passing downs. We will try to make up for our linebacker weakness with versatility and deception.
 
Advertisement
dodaniels said:
****. My mistake, I forgot about him. We've some quality, yet unproven, depth.
Click to expand...
That’s the problem. Lot of unknown at the position. Getting a guy through portal that’s proven and real quality can make a difference to bridge gap, while young ones get feet wet.
 
It's an interesting concept...But I believe you are playing with fire at corner and against power running games.
 
Advertisement
The type of defensive package you're calling can be pretty subjective as well. While some of us might call a package with Keontra at WLB a dime package, others could argue he is the new era WLB at 5'11" 225 lb and it's really just a nickel. Cuz to be honest, that is not too far off from Roquan Smith's size.

It's all how you interpret a player's size and skillset.
 
Advertisement
Advertisement
I think you're more likely to see variations of 3-2-6 or 3-3-5 fronts against spread option and RPO teams where you prioritize securing the edges and filling from depth. Texas ran that style of defense with Todd Orlando and I wasn't a fan of it. Too often they gave up huge creases on simple zone runs and they still had corners on islands so it doesn't help negate talent issues in the secondary.

You can't afford light boxes against RPO teams that use a lot of Power and Counter like UNC because you'll be outleveraged at the point of attack. Tackling is still an issue for a lot of the DBs on the roster and I'd hate to see scenarios where the scheme funnels them tackles.

I think Miami has the right idea with their base alignment and the Striker position. I'd like to see more of a focus on mixing up fronts (over/under/tite/etc) to take away certain run schemes rather than stunts and run blitzes and upfield tactics that create gap integrity issues and unsound run fits. Save the amoeba fronts for obvious pass downs or Air Raid opponents with spread vanilla run games, but you can't run those if they're more confusing for your players than the opponent. It takes a lot of reps and opponent-specific scouting to time blitzes correctly and we rarely see that work out for us.

My concept of positionless defense is to be flexible with personnel. Find matchups for Leonard Taylor and Thomas Davis to rush. Utilize your best coverage LBs like Troutman or maybe Carter. Play someone like JHH or Roberts at DE if you need extra bulk in the run game. If you're facing a pro-style team like ND that uses 13 personnel maybe give Jennings a shot to be a thumper. Just take advantage of actually having depth and put in the best players for each situation.
 
scrantoncane said:
Thanks for the reply.

I suppose I was looking for your thoughts on this specific Miami team. As I’ve said in this thread (in a nutshell), positionless would get our best players on the field. I have the same concerns about complexity, NFL guys having more time to learn it, etc.

I’m not necessarily advocating for it, it’s more of a conceptual discussion. Intricacies of a safety playing in the box more than he is used to, liability against the run, etc. Seems to me like all our quick, lateral players are logjammed at striker and safety. Win above replacement value is basically the whole premise (and a perfect way to phrase my point).

Can, and should, we do it? If our LBs don’t step up in the fall, we can be 10 deep at safety and still have a defense outside the top 30. All whilst 5 star safeties sit on the bench.
Click to expand...
Yeah, we should absolutely get the players with the best attributes to execute against modern spread offenses on the field. But, everyone already agrees with that, right? What it means in terms of execution exactly and why is almost another thread topic altogether. Perhaps I need to better understand what you mean by "positionless" because I don't think we can consistently replicate the complexity NFL teams do with, for example, their use of Safeties as pass rushers and zones behind certain fronts, etc. - again, outside of one-off blitzes.

If we mean become better at matchup football, then I'm with it and would love to see it. Just don't really expect it when we're seeing other core issues. With different perspectives on the defensive staff, perhaps things will change and our subpackages will be proactive to what the opposing O-coordinators roll out against us. Manny's best year calling plays (here, and probably anywhere), he actually simplified his approach from the previous season. Less gratuitous zone blitzes, more man calls, more trust.
 
The most potent offenses in cfb history was held in check by this defense. And when I mean by check I mean compared to the rest of the opponents they played that season.
It also helps when you’re starting linebacker can run a 44. It also helps when you have two returning senior high draft picks in the trenches.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top