Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Would this defense be better off as a 3-4? « previous next »
Page: 1 2 3

Skull and Bones

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 23266
Offline
: May 08, 2013, 11:34:03 AM

Now I'm not going to pretend that I am an expert at the  x and os of the game since I never played past junior high.  I was a 6" string bean in high school.  But I've read some post from several posters who I respect that this defense isn't designed for the front four to generate a lot of pressure.   More of a contain the gaps up front and let the back 7 make plays and utilize blitzes.  Well wouldn't a back 8 be better than a back 7 then?  With a couple of different moves I think we could have converted.  Give us a big ass NT, move McCoy to DE and maybe draft more of a pass rushing LB and we would pretty much be there.  Just seems to me what Schiano wants to do goes against the grain of what all other NFL teams are doing. 


tatmanfish

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 7661
Offline
#1 : May 08, 2013, 11:41:31 AM

Nope. Bucs dont have the olbs to run a 3-4. David would likely be useless and mccoy, clayborn, and bowers are more suited to succeed in a 4-3. Bucs would have to rebuild almost their entire front 7.

This was more plausible a couple years ago than it is now.



Quote from: Illuminator
You were simply too smart for me.

freddy

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3608
Offline
#2 : May 08, 2013, 11:44:16 AM

No

Skull and Bones

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 23266
Offline
#3 : May 08, 2013, 11:54:32 AM

So is this defensive scheme flawed then?


beardmcdoug

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1430
Offline
#4 : May 08, 2013, 11:56:10 AM

trying to make it work in my head... just don't see it

think we'd have to start gholston at lde for size
bowers to lolb - I think he's too stiff to play standing up
lavid at rolb would get washed under, hes not going to fight off oline blocks
mccoy is really peaking at what he's doing now, shouldn't hit the reset button on him
and can we really rely on spence to anchor the line?

yeah, like tataman said I think we were more set up to switch a couple years ago

now we just go with an attacking man-to-man 4-3, for which we have almost perfect personnel


beardmcdoug

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1430
Offline
#5 : May 08, 2013, 11:58:36 AM

So is this defensive scheme flawed then?

I think the trend in recent years that the 3-4 defenses have a higher ceiling for sure

but if you've got great personnel for a different scheme (much like we had for the tampa 2 years back), then you go with what your players can do and if you do it REALLY WELL,  it may not be the "highest ceiling" defensive set, itll still work
: May 08, 2013, 12:00:19 PM beardmcdoug


BucsnNoles

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1217
Offline
#6 : May 08, 2013, 11:59:29 AM

Now I'm not going to pretend that I am an expert at the  x and os of the game since I never played past junior high.  I was a 6" string bean in high school.  But I've read some post from several posters who I respect that this defense isn't designed for the front four to generate a lot of pressure.   More of a contain the gaps up front and let the back 7 make plays and utilize blitzes.  Well wouldn't a back 8 be better than a back 7 then?  With a couple of different moves I think we could have converted.  Give us a big ass NT, move McCoy to DE and maybe draft more of a pass rushing LB and we would pretty much be there.  Just seems to me what Schiano wants to do goes against the grain of what all other NFL teams are doing.
Like other have said, "No" for many reasons.  Also, even though it's a 3-4, you're still usually rushing 4.

dexmonkey

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3319
Offline
#7 : May 08, 2013, 12:57:39 PM

we could do it but wed really need to reconfigure the roster

clayborn could play 3-4 DE just fine. honestly hes stronger against the run than the pass anyway. hed just need to gain a little more weight and get closer to 290 or so
bowers would definately have to gain weight if we wanted to keep him because hes not fluid enough to play OLB in space
mccoy would be wasted as a 3-4 DT, hes a natural 4-3 DT and moving him to more of  a run contain role is a waste of his talent
lavonte david could probably be an ILB but hes a tad bit small
we dont have a guy who could play as a true NT

everyone complains that we dont have good enough backers but now we want to put 4 on the field? yeah i dont think so

the scheme is do-able, just not likely considering schiano hasnt run a 3-4 before. id actually like us to run the 3-4 and think it would work pretty well in this division  but we lack the horses to make it run

lowlife

*
Starter
****
Posts : 869
Offline
#8 : May 08, 2013, 01:18:27 PM

Teams play their base formation less than half the time nowadays so it's not as big a deal as it used to be.
Also, modern day one-gap 3-4 defenses and one gap 4-3 over/under (like this one) are practically identical schematically nowadays. Hence why so many teams run hybrid defenses.

If you're talking about an old school 2-gap 3-4, then no this team isn't equipped for that lacking a true over the center Nose to anchor on run downs and big, yet nimble, stand up OLBs to set the edge.


tatmanfish

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 7661
Offline
#9 : May 08, 2013, 01:18:37 PM

So is this defensive scheme flawed then?

yes and no. The scheme was flawed last year because they didn't have the guys to run it and it requires a huge commitment to the run leaving the secondary exposed. If theres not quick pressure, it breaks down quickly if you don't have great coverage guys. Add in the play calling was very questionable at times, it made it even worse. Selling out against the run and playing not to lose with a lead in soft coverage a single high Ss will get you the results we saw last year. #1 run and #32 pass Ds. The only way they can continue to run this scheme with positive results is to have guys like Revis and Goldson. Even then, its puts a big strain on the secondary if the pressure isn't there. Especially when your blitzing LBs on top of the front 4 and Schiano did a good amount of that too.

I think Schiano needs to adjust his scheme some, but I also think Revis and Goldson allow him to run it more to what they ran last year and have a lot more success. How much that improves is going to largely lie in the hands of the pass rush and situational play calling. It allows them to keep the aggressive defense and they shouldn't be getting torched anymore. Last year they were aggressive, but didn't have anyone on the backend who could make it work effectively. On paper it looks like they will still be able to be aggressive with much more success.

The only thing then would be the situational play calling and that's all on the staff. They had a quite few points last year where they got too aggressive or too conservative and it cost them games. There were tons of small things like that. I remember a few games where they were so commited to the run, that it would be run, run, pass on 3rd and 7+. Freeman would throw 1 pass every 6-7 minutes. Run commitment is fine but you have to get your QB in some sort of rhythm. There were times when Martin was struggling and getting tons of carries and never spelled him even for just a few snaps to reduce his wear and see if someone else could get something going. On defense there were games where the opposing team drove down the field because the were in sift zones and the there were games where they blitzed ineffectively with sing high Ss leaving every defender on an island to be burned.

Hopefully they have learned from these situations, but they had several chances last year so Im still a little worried. A years worth of tape and playcalling should hopefully improve this area. im not surprised either as it was Schianos first year in the NFL  and he came in with questionable game management. This is one of my only worries this staff.



Quote from: Illuminator
You were simply too smart for me.

Skull and Bones

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 23266
Offline
#10 : May 08, 2013, 02:35:08 PM

So is this defensive scheme flawed then?

yes and no. The scheme was flawed last year because they didn't have the guys to run it and it requires a huge commitment to the run leaving the secondary exposed. If theres not quick pressure, it breaks down quickly if you don't have great coverage guys. Add in the play calling was very questionable at times, it made it even worse. Selling out against the run and playing not to lose with a lead in soft coverage a single high Ss will get you the results we saw last year. #1 run and #32 pass Ds. The only way they can continue to run this scheme with positive results is to have guys like Revis and Goldson. Even then, its puts a big strain on the secondary if the pressure isn't there. Especially when your blitzing LBs on top of the front 4 and Schiano did a good amount of that too.

I think Schiano needs to adjust his scheme some, but I also think Revis and Goldson allow him to run it more to what they ran last year and have a lot more success. How much that improves is going to largely lie in the hands of the pass rush and situational play calling. It allows them to keep the aggressive defense and they shouldn't be getting torched anymore. Last year they were aggressive, but didn't have anyone on the backend who could make it work effectively. On paper it looks like they will still be able to be aggressive with much more success.

The only thing then would be the situational play calling and that's all on the staff. They had a quite few points last year where they got too aggressive or too conservative and it cost them games. There were tons of small things like that. I remember a few games where they were so commited to the run, that it would be run, run, pass on 3rd and 7+. Freeman would throw 1 pass every 6-7 minutes. Run commitment is fine but you have to get your QB in some sort of rhythm. There were times when Martin was struggling and getting tons of carries and never spelled him even for just a few snaps to reduce his wear and see if someone else could get something going. On defense there were games where the opposing team drove down the field because the were in sift zones and the there were games where they blitzed ineffectively with sing high Ss leaving every defender on an island to be burned.

Hopefully they have learned from these situations, but they had several chances last year so Im still a little worried. A years worth of tape and playcalling should hopefully improve this area. im not surprised either as it was Schianos first year in the NFL  and he came in with questionable game management. This is one of my only worries this staff.
good post.  What I was looking for as a response. 


Sailing2smth

****
Starter

Posts : 474
Offline
#11 : May 08, 2013, 02:38:22 PM



We really do not need to change the defensive scheme, I would just say its mainly game management, playcalling, and execution.  That and I hope that we see less stunts upfront and allow the DL to get upfield, they are better suited doing that.  That and our pass rush (which still concerns me the most) because I do not care what defense you run, if you can't get after the QB then its going to be a long 60 minutes with a Schiano's signature "Victory crash"

blind melon

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 15706
Offline
#12 : May 08, 2013, 03:19:00 PM

Better Off?  Probably not.   Although compared to the team a few years ago - we've gotten a lot bigger and stronger in our front seven (which is the key)

They could probably pull it off with some bigger linebackers.   Our current group (although talented) are hardly a fit for a 3-4 base.   I'd be curious what Yucc thinks about this one.

Who knew how good it would feel as a fan when we now know what it\'s like for our team to have a direction, an attitude, and dare I say an offense?.  

Good time to be a Bucs fan.

NotDeadYet

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 6863
Offline
#13 : May 08, 2013, 03:46:15 PM

   I think that was the direction Raheem envisioned, but we never had the right personnel to come close to making it work...

BucfanNC12

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2031
Offline
#14 : May 08, 2013, 03:53:48 PM

   I think that was the direction Raheem envisioned, but we never had the right personnel to come close to making it work...


............and McCoy struggled at DE.
Page: 1 2 3
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Would this defense be better off as a 3-4? « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools