Awesome Milehighreport article on Denver's Saftey and CB play.

[Natedogg]

http://www.milehighreport.com/2008/12/12/689428/mhr-university-how-safetie

I though it was a great read. Other maner's options?

[lex]

Im not buying it. He is blaming our struggles against the run but a huge problem of ours has been giving up first downs on 3rd and 5 because of a 10 yard cushion. Where is explanation loses traction is that we're playing with these cushions on passing downs.

[enjolras]

Im not buying it. He is blaming our struggles against the run but a huge problem of ours has been giving up first downs on 3rd and 5 because of a 10 yard cushion. Where is explanation loses traction is that we're playing with these cushions on passing downs.

Isn't that the point of the article? From what I can tell, we play that large cushion out of fear of the big play. When your safeties are slow, take bad angles, AND can't tackle...then your corners are in a insanely tough spot. On 3rd and 5 they can play close and take away the slant or comeback, but if it's a double move there is no real safety help over the top. Thus you play the deep ball and hope that the other team makes a mistake in trying to convert that 3rd down.

It's the bend-but-don't-break defense in a nutshell. I think it's tragically flawed, as NFL teams are just to damn good at converting within 15 yards. So you see these 10 minute drives against our defense that result in a TD anyways. I say you dare them to throw it deep, and just accept your going to give up a big play or two for a touchdown every game. At least it keeps the offense on the field.

Better would be to find some safeties that can play.

[lex]

Isn't that the point of the article? From what I can tell, we play that large cushion out of fear of the big play. When your safeties are slow, take bad angles, AND can't tackle...then your corners are in a insanely tough spot. On 3rd and 5 they can play close and take away the slant or comeback, but if it's a double move there is no real safety help over the top. Thus you play the deep ball and hope that the other team makes a mistake in trying to convert that 3rd down.

It's the bend-but-don't-break defense in a nutshell. I think it's tragically flawed, as NFL teams are just to damn good at converting within 15 yards. So you see these 10 minute drives against our defense that result in a TD anyways. I say you dare them to throw it deep, and just accept your going to give up a big play or two for a touchdown every game. At least it keeps the offense on the field.

Better would be to find some safeties that can play.
I dont get your reply. It doesnt really make sense, especially since you end up agreeing with me by the end of your post.

[ludo21]

Good article indeed....

Simple Version: when we have safety help CB's can make plays on the ball, when they are forced to be in run support we must play safer...

[s0phr0syne]

Im not buying it. He is blaming our struggles against the run but a huge problem of ours has been giving up first downs on 3rd and 5 because of a 10 yard cushion. Where is explanation loses traction is that we're playing with these cushions on passing downs.



I can't say for sure, but perhaps HT (the author) and maybe even our DCs are treating 3rd and 5 as a running down, and not necessarily a passing situation? Hence if we're playing 8 in the box with only 1 safety back, the CBs are going to be "off" or in "cushion mode".

But you're right--I think I've noticed times that we have 2 safeties deep (signalling that even t3h sl0wik is playing pass D) and yet have insisted keeping the "off cushion", and those situations are truly perplexing and unexplained by the article.

[Spider]

typical bend dont break defense ......

[Mediator12]

Im not buying it. He is blaming our struggles against the run but a huge problem of ours has been giving up first downs on 3rd and 5 because of a 10 yard cushion. Where is explanation loses traction is that we're playing with these cushions on passing downs.

I do not think you are really getting what he is saying here lex. The lack of having quality safeties KEEPS the CB's from playing "underneath" the WR on plays and passing the player to the safety's covering deeper. The inability to stop the run with a conventional base defense only makes this propensity to play "off" coverage more to limit the big plays. So, on those 3rd and 5 plays the CB remains in "over" coverage and limits the big play rather than attempting to play "under" and making the offense complete a ball at least in the intermediate level.

And, he is just getting to the tip of the iceburg as far as coverage goes. Denver does not play as much cover 3 zone the last 2 years when bringing a safety in the box, they end up playing cover one "Man Over" coverage. It is almost impossible to see from regular TV angles as you have to see if the DB watches the man or the QB at the snap for his reads. TV rarely gives a good enough angle to see DEN's DB's on the snap. Also, DEN plays a lot more cover 4 or Quarters Coverage on 3rd and long the last 2 years. It keeps the deep ball out of the play, but it does not stop the slants and out timing patterns most teams use on third down in the NFL.

Also, he does not explain the CB's orientation to the play. The CB can be open stance, covered stance, or inside stance at the NFL level. These are not as important at the college level and below, but very important to stop the inherant "exploit" routes of a particular coverage in the NFL. CB's also can and do move between Press/tight, On, and off Coverage pre-snap. They try to limit the presnap read of the QB.

What happens when the QB quick snaps on a DB feignting "On, inside" coverage to get the QB thinking he is playing "Underneath" when he is really supposed to be playing "Over, open stance"? The CB has to play the coverage and sometimes is instantly caught out of position for his assignment. This happens a lot when CB's are in "Over" coverage but get beat on intermediate patterns like a deep in, out, or cross. It also happens a ton when teams run the ball on sweeps and outside the tackles to get the DB in a less preferential run support angle.

Finally, playing "Off" coverage allows the DB to have better run support angles on outside runs and screen passes. With DEN's DE's being below average outside contain run defenders, this is used to minimize the need for the DE's to truly hold their gaps on outside runs.

The only beef I have with the article is he states that DEN has stopped putting a Safety in the box the last few games. I want to know what games he was watching ??? Against NYJ they were heavy safety in the box playing it against every formation except empty backfield. Against KC, who barely runs anymore except out of the shotgun, the safety was not as deep as a pure Cover 2 look, but not really in the box either.

[snowspot66]

So what you're saying is our lack of a set of real safeties is acting like a giant set of dominoes and completely ****ing us over.

[Mediator12]

So what you're saying is our lack of a set of real safeties is acting like a giant set of dominoes and completely ****ing us over.

Only because the Front seven rarely gets pressure. As he states in the article, it takes everyone doing their jobs to make a scheme work. DEN plays a very conservative scheme out of necessity in pass rush and Coverage limitations of the safeties. It takes 2 of their best defensive players away from their strength in Bailey and Bly playing Over coverages.

DEN could play more Cover 2 man under if their Pass rush was legit. They still play it, but not anywhere near as much as other teams in the league on third and medium. Defense at the NFL level is about being able to be balanced and unpredictable. When you are unbalanced, you get real predictable to cover your weaknesses situationally. This is what this defense has become. Inconsistent, unbalanced, and predictable when the game is on the line.

[snowspot66]

It sounds like a vicious cycle. We can't rush the passer but we can't keep the ball in the QB's hands long enough to have a chance...

[Tombstone RJ]

This article makes it more puzzling as to why Shanny has never put much stock in safeties. The only decent safety shanny has brought in is Lynch. Now, on this young defense, bad safety play is amplified.

[Mediator12]

It sounds like a vicious cycle. We can't rush the passer but we can't keep the ball in the QB's hands long enough to have a chance...

Welcome to bad defenses 101 ;D

Being a solid run stuffing team allows you to be less conventional in pass coverage and more aggressive with the scheme overall. Teams that can stop the run or pass can then compensate schematically for deficiencies without being too exposed.

As I said, NFL defenses need balance to be effective.

[Mediator12]

This article makes it more puzzling as to why Shanny has never put much stock in safeties. The only decent safety shanny has brought in is Lynch. Now, on this young defense, bad safety play is amplified.

Shanahan always thinks he can get the most out of his players, and on offense he does more often than not. IMHO, the problem is he thinks his players on defense are more talented and capable than they really are.

[Tombstone RJ]

I'd be real happy if the Broncos drafted a safety with their first pick...

[watermock]

But we have Cooked Crack in hand....no worries....

Hopefully Cutler will carry us to a lead early and we can attack and still play zone.

SD will win tomorow, and if we lose, it's still going to come down to the last game unless we win at home against Buff.

[theAPAOps5]

But we have Cooked Crack in hand....no worries....

Hopefully Cutler will carry us to a lead early and we can attack and still play zone.

SD will win tomorow, and if we lose, it's still going to come down to the last game unless we win at home against Buff.

It won't come down to San Diego. And if it does Denver doesn't deserve to go anyways because they will be 8-8. Denver better damn well beat Buffalo they are in a tail spin and have a crap QB in loseman playing. That and SD has a tough road game against Tampa Bay who is still trying to get to the dance. While it would be great for Denver to win a loss isn't as damaging this week. Its catastrophic next week.

[DivineBronco]

i think the week the playoffs come to light for us is in two weeks...we have Buff and SD has Tampa Bay........god help us if it comes down to the final game...cause the refs sure wont

[Tombstone RJ]

I think the Broncos know it comes down to one win to seal the deal. Get that one win and the SD game is meaningless. Carolina has way more to play for. I think it might come down to the buffalo game. Either way the Broncos have to win one of the next two games to be able to laugh at the chuggers...

[frerottenextelway]

SD will win tomorow, and if we lose, it's still going to come down to the last game unless we win at home against Buff.

If it gets to next week, we'll be favorites against Buffalo and San Diego will be underdogs against Tampa. Just looking at it objectively, the odds say at least one of those two games will go the way they're ''supposed'' to.

[Gcver2ver3]

From what I can tell, we play that large cushion out of fear of the big play.

yes this is true and it drives me nuts...

we are so afraid of the big play that we allow teams to nickel and dime us all day long and seemingly always allowing 3rd down conversions on us because of our fear of the big play...

for one game i'd like to see us play the corners up close (at least on 3rd downs) and take our chances on giving up the big play...

if we give up a big every now and then. at least our offense will be getting back on the field soon versus this bend but don't break defense that keeps Cutler and company on the sidelines for extended periods of time...

i feel like i can count on my hands the number of 3 & outs we've forced this season...

[The MVPlaya]

If we can stop the run with just 7 players, it would be a whole different ball game.

[lex]

I do not think you are really getting what he is saying here lex. The lack of having quality safeties KEEPS the CB's from playing "underneath" the WR on plays and passing the player to the safety's covering deeper. The inability to stop the run with a conventional base defense only makes this propensity to play "off" coverage more to limit the big plays. So, on those 3rd and 5 plays the CB remains in "over" coverage and limits the big play rather than attempting to play "under" and making the offense complete a ball at least in the intermediate level.

And, he is just getting to the tip of the iceburg as far as coverage goes. Denver does not play as much cover 3 zone the last 2 years when bringing a safety in the box, they end up playing cover one "Man Over" coverage. It is almost impossible to see from regular TV angles as you have to see if the DB watches the man or the QB at the snap for his reads. TV rarely gives a good enough angle to see DEN's DB's on the snap. Also, DEN plays a lot more cover 4 or Quarters Coverage on 3rd and long the last 2 years. It keeps the deep ball out of the play, but it does not stop the slants and out timing patterns most teams use on third down in the NFL.

Also, he does not explain the CB's orientation to the play. The CB can be open stance, covered stance, or inside stance at the NFL level. These are not as important at the college level and below, but very important to stop the inherant "exploit" routes of a particular coverage in the NFL. CB's also can and do move between Press/tight, On, and off Coverage pre-snap. They try to limit the presnap read of the QB.

What happens when the QB quick snaps on a DB feignting "On, inside" coverage to get the QB thinking he is playing "Underneath" when he is really supposed to be playing "Over, open stance"? The CB has to play the coverage and sometimes is instantly caught out of position for his assignment. This happens a lot when CB's are in "Over" coverage but get beat on intermediate patterns like a deep in, out, or cross. It also happens a ton when teams run the ball on sweeps and outside the tackles to get the DB in a less preferential run support angle.

Finally, playing "Off" coverage allows the DB to have better run support angles on outside runs and screen passes. With DEN's DE's being below average outside contain run defenders, this is used to minimize the need for the DE's to truly hold their gaps on outside runs.

The only beef I have with the article is he states that DEN has stopped putting a Safety in the box the last few games. I want to know what games he was watching ??? Against NYJ they were heavy safety in the box playing it against every formation except empty backfield. Against KC, who barely runs anymore except out of the shotgun, the safety was not as deep as a pure Cover 2 look, but not really in the box either.


No. I get why they have the CBs back. But what is not making sense is why they would do it on 3rd and 5. Thats like having your outfielders playing back with 2 outs and a runner at 2nd with the other teams worst hitter batting. Again, this is where he loses traction.

[gunns]

I love this article!

For those that know me from the ESPN boards, I've been bitching and moaning for a quality safety for at least five years. I posted something like this, the effect of our bad safeties and coaching schemes on our CB's and was attacked and laughed at over there letting me know that the safeties had nada to do with our CB's. I feel somewhat vindicated! I'd rather have Shanahan make the quality of our safeties more of a priority and the person running the D someone that recognizes this....and has a clue as to how to run a D.

[elsid13]

I still think Denver needs to pick a scheme and stick with it. I don't care if they are Cover -2, Cover 3,3/4 46 or whatever. Just figure out what they want to do and start picking players to that fit the freaking defense.

[Tombstone RJ]

I still think Denver needs to pick a scheme and stick with it. I don't care if they are Cover -2, Cover 3,3/4 46 or whatever. Just figure out what they want to do and start picking players to that fit the freaking defense.

Isn't that why the Broncos need stability at the defensive coordinator job? For better of worse, Slowik is the guy for now.

We just need to draft a solid safety, be it a SS or FS and then bring Barrett along and develop him.

All this might have been easier if Lynch was still on the team. Another puzzling training camp decision...

[Tombstone RJ]

I love this article!

For those that know me from the ESPN boards, I've been b****ing and moaning for a quality safety for at least five years. I posted something like this, the effect of our bad safeties and coaching schemes on our CB's and was attacked and laughed at over there letting me know that the safeties had nada to do with our CB's. I feel somewhat vindicated! I'd rather have Shanahan make the quality of our safeties more of a priority and the person running the D someone that recognizes this....and has a clue as to how to run a D.

That's because you have an exceptional football acumen...

[Mediator12]

No. I get why they have the CBs back. But what is not making sense is why they would do it on 3rd and 5. Thats like having your outfielders playing back with 2 outs and a runner at 2nd with the other teams worst hitter batting. Again, this is where he loses traction.

I am sorry, I explained that. When this team plays tight or on coverage, the QB just throws the ball up the seam and DEN does not have the safety play behind it to stop it. That happened all day against CAR when DEN played tight coverage.

What would be nice is to have the CB learn how to eat into the Cushion properly when playing off and make a play on the slants and quick outs to stop the 6 yard gains. It is more than possible, several teams do it with great success. The problem is the CB's are still playing "Over" coverage in cover one man on third and 5. This is where they need to let them play man under cover 2 from the off position.

[rastaman]

So what you're saying is our lack of a set of real safeties is acting like a giant set of dominoes and completely ****ing us over.

Not only that, the fact that the front Seven can't stop the run!!! The safeties and corners must now help out verses concentrating on defending the pass!!

Poor tackling, missed assignments-gaps, over running plays by the front SEVEN is also causing the implosion on Denver's defense.

[lex]

I am sorry, I explained that. When this team plays tight or on coverage, the QB just throws the ball up the seam and DEN does not have the safety play behind it to stop it. That happened all day against CAR when DEN played tight coverage.

What would be nice is to have the CB learn how to eat into the Cushion properly when playing off and make a play on the slants and quick outs to stop the 6 yard gains. It is more than possible, several teams do it with great success. The problem is the CB's are still playing "Over" coverage in cover one man on third and 5. This is where they need to let them play man under cover 2 from the off position.


No nothing was explained. Our approach is the equivalent of a baseball manager having the OF play deep with two outs and the runner at 2nd and the pitcher of some light hitting middle infielder batting. We dont try to take away whats easiest and most likely to occur because we're so fixated on the cushion, which undermines 3rd down stops and pass rush...plus plays to our weakness. Even if our Ss suck, making them convert a pass 15 yards down field has a higher degree of difficulty for them to convert. Yesterday, they misfired on a long pass because we were in bump and run. Put another way, Slowik is allowing our weakness to be the tip of the sword...and that should never be the case.

[Rohirrim]

No nothing was explained. Our approach is the equivalent of a baseball manager having the OF play deep with two outs and the runner at 2nd and the pitcher of some light hitting middle infielder batting. We dont try to take away whats easiest and most likely to occur because we're so fixated on the cushion, which undermines 3rd down stops and pass rush...plus plays to our weakness. Even if our Ss suck, making them convert a pass 15 yards down field has a higher degree of difficulty for them to convert. Yesterday, they misfired on a long pass because we were in bump and run. Put another way, Slowik is allowing our weakness to be the tip of the sword...and that should never be the case.

I wouldn't call Steve Smith and Mushin Muhammed "light hitting middle infielders."

[lex]

I wouldn't call Steve Smith and Mushin Muhammed "light hitting middle infielders."


But this is a problem that goes beyond one game. Go check the complaining after the Miami game if you dont believe me...or any other game. And whats sad is that the exact thing Slowik is trying to stop, didnt work. We still gave up the big play. For all the concern over the big play, has anyone noticed that we give up the big play a lot? MJD, Thomas Jones, and D. Williams have all had long runs against us. For all that we sacrifice on 3rd and 5s and in pass rush, we really arent stopping what he is hoping to stop.

[oubronco]

I am sorry, I explained that. When this team plays tight or on coverage, the QB just throws the ball up the seam and DEN does not have the safety play behind it to stop it. That happened all day against CAR when DEN played tight coverage.

What would be nice is to have the CB learn how to eat into the Cushion properly when playing off and make a play on the slants and quick outs to stop the 6 yard gains. It is more than possible, several teams do it with great success. The problem is the CB's are still playing "Over" coverage in cover one man on third and 5. This is where they need to let them play man under cover 2 from the off position.

and when bly tried jumping the slant smith schooled him for a big game takes better talent to be over aggressive

[oubronco]

But this is a problem that goes beyond one game. Go check the complaining after the Miami game if you dont believe me...or any other game. And whats sad is that the exact thing Slowik is trying to stop, didnt work. We still gave up the big play. For all the concern over the big play, has anyone noticed that we give up the big play a lot? MJD, Thomas Jones, and D. Williams have all had long runs against us. For all that we sacrifice on 3rd and 5s and in pass rush, we really arent stopping what he is hoping to stop.

DeAngelo Williams' 56-yard touchdown run was the ninth run of at least 30 yards that the Broncos defense has surrendered this season and the third touchdown run of at least 46 yards.

Justin Fargas, Oak. 42
Larry Johnson, K.C. 65
Larry Johnson, K.C. 34
Warrick Dunn, T.B. 38
Maurice Jones-Drew, Jac. 46*
Sammy Morris, N.E. 34
Ronnie Brown, Mia. 30
Thomas Jones, NYJ 59*
DeAngelo Williams, Car. 56*

[Mediator12]

No nothing was explained. Our approach is the equivalent of a baseball manager having the OF play deep with two outs and the runner at 2nd and the pitcher of some light hitting middle infielder batting. We dont try to take away whats easiest and most likely to occur because we're so fixated on the cushion, which undermines 3rd down stops and pass rush...plus plays to our weakness. Even if our Ss suck, making them convert a pass 15 yards down field has a higher degree of difficulty for them to convert. Yesterday, they misfired on a long pass because we were in bump and run. Put another way, Slowik is allowing our weakness to be the tip of the sword...and that should never be the case.

Well, it is become apparent you are no longer seeking an explanation of why or how it could be better. If you are just intent to criticize, Ok.

However, are you seeing the same game I am seeing? DEN got beaten all day long on the plays when they played tight. The long TD's came by playing tight coverages against the run and the pass. Pick your poison.

Keeping the player in front gives you another chance to make a play and keeps Field position. Allowing huge chunks of yardage at a time takes those away. Playing off is not a good strategy every third down, but neither did DEN play it every third down like you are implying or all game long as in the past. DEN has used different coverages on third and medium all season long, so generalizing the off coverage is no longer accurate.

BTW, Baseball analogies are worthless in a football sense. Baseball is a one on one analytical sport with ancillary team support variables like the situation you described. In those situations, there is clearly a stonger tactical situation available that translates to any team. The strategies and tactics are not comparable because the variables are not pitcher versus hitter situationally in the NFL.

Football is 11 on 11 every play. It can not be simply isolated like Baseball. Each team has to use what tactic works for their scheme and situation. GB would play press man cover 2 in 3rd and 5 more often than TB or INDY would. Situations are way more team scheme/personnel specific than baseball. Every team has to hide their weaknesses and play to their strenghts differently in every situation.

As for the weakness being the tip of the sword, pick your poison. Which weakness? Pass rush, not holding Run gaps, missed tackles, poor angles, poor coverage, poor play recognition, overrunning the play, or blowing coverages? This is no magic bullet situation. CAR was just 4/10 on third down on SUN. It is not like they compiled a bunch of chew up the clock third down converting drives to win the game. They made big plays on offense when DEN played tight coverage on the outside. I guess the question would be would you rather get chewed up slowly or give up big plays? It seems you would rather get gouged deep than slowly roasted. Problem is, this defense can do both equally well based on how they choose to get beaten.

[Florida_Bronco]

Med, check your PM's!

[~Crash~]

typical bend dont break defense ......

We have been in prevent D so Fn long I have gave up.

in the end if you have a MLB worth his salt you would not play this mess in the first place !

[elsid13]

Isn't that why the Broncos need stability at the defensive coordinator job? For better of worse, Slowik is the guy for now.

We just need to draft a solid safety, be it a SS or FS and then bring Barrett along and develop him.

All this might have been easier if Lynch was still on the team. Another puzzling training camp decision...

Yes we need stability, so we need to give Slowik some time to turn it around. But I also think Shanahan will take a hard look at some of the position coaches and make some changes this offseason.