The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Orange Mane Discussion > Orange Mane Central Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-13-2014, 01:25 PM   #26
TheReverend
Permanent Facepalm
 
TheReverend's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 37,704

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Mike Shanahan
Default

There's not much of a difference between the under and the 34, anyway
TheReverend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2014, 01:30 PM   #27
Mediator12
OM analyst
 
Mediator12's Avatar
 
Roby AND Latimer?Who the Hell Knew?

Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: INDY
Posts: 10,135

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheReverend View Post
There's not much of a difference between the under and the 34, anyway
Truly just the DL/LB designation for a lot of how the NFL plays it. Hence the Hybrid designation....

Honestly, I would love to look at the LB alignments more this year than just the simple fronts and include the Safety locations in eight man fronts.
Mediator12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2014, 01:34 PM   #28
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,935

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iforgotmypassword View Post
Thank you for a logical, football talk, response.

3-4 is more of a read and re-act when you play up-field D-ends, or your NG sucks, because ultimately the guards are trying to get to the middles. Think Wade Phillips D... Bruce Smith... JJ Twat... they play up field, then your middle backers can't play aggressive because they actually have to beat their guard.

What I'm suggesting, is more a Baltimore Ravens 3-4, where we put 3 300 pound men up front, we know were going to occupy blockers, so our middle backers play fast and aggressive and usually untouched.
I think JDR has always been a 4-3, one gap kind of guy. I think that plays to Knighton's strengths as well. Now, with Vickerson coming back, it's even more likely that we stick to that base. I'm sure there are people on here who can talk more of the intricacies of this stuff (like Med), but I'm going more on what I think JDR is the most comfortable with. We'll probably line up in some kind of 3-4 set every once in a while to get Von and Ware on opposite ends, but we'll see. It seems to me that football is getting less rigid about schemes carved in stone. Versatility seems to be the new game.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2014, 01:35 PM   #29
iforgotmypassword
Pro Bowler
 
iforgotmypassword's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 889
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheReverend View Post
There's not much of a difference between the under and the 34, anyway
Exactly, really we would only be tweaking 3-positions on the field to make it a true 3-4.
iforgotmypassword is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2014, 01:40 PM   #30
iforgotmypassword
Pro Bowler
 
iforgotmypassword's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 889
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
I think JDR has always been a 4-3, one gap kind of guy. I think that plays to Knighton's strengths as well. Now, with Vickerson coming back, it's even more likely that we stick to that base. I'm sure there are people on here who can talk more of the intricacies of this stuff (like Med), but I'm going more on what I think JDR is the most comfortable with. We'll probably line up in some kind of 3-4 set every once in a while to get Von and Ware on opposite ends, but we'll see. It seems to me that football is getting less rigid about schemes carved in stone. Versatility seems to be the new game.
Knighton was purely playing 2-gap over the guard at the end of last year. Because it was over the G and not the C, they couldn't really double him... effectively atleast. Notice how he was constantly running into RB's in the backfield? He was simply selling out to the run and attacking the outside shoulder of where the guard wanted to take him... He wasn't just makin great angles, the gaurds were taking him to the RB. A true monster 2 gap NT can run into running back lanes with their eyes closed just by the feeling of how the guard is attacking them. The sacks were just a bonus, that big boy was playing the run 100%
iforgotmypassword is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2014, 01:43 PM   #31
BMORE
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,863

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Sure we ran a traditional 4-3 much of last year especially when we were Von less. But with him we ran our hybrid scheme similar to 12. In 12 we ran the hybrid scheme, which I fully expect this year. Hybrid typically refers to having a player who can slide to play DE or DT.
BMORE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2014, 01:45 PM   #32
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,935

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iforgotmypassword View Post
Knighton was purely playing 2-gap over the guard at the end of last year. Because it was over the G and not the C, they couldn't really double him... effectively atleast. Notice how he was constantly running into RB's in the backfield? He was simply selling out to the run and attacking the outside shoulder of where the guard wanted to take him... He wasn't just makin great angles, the gaurds were taking him to the RB. A true monster 2 gap NT can run into running back lanes with their eyes closed just by the feeling of how the guard is attacking them. The sacks were just a bonus, that big boy was playing the run 100%
Hard to know how much of last year's schemes were caused by injuries rather than preference. Hopefully, we won't have that issue this season.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2014, 01:48 PM   #33
iforgotmypassword
Pro Bowler
 
iforgotmypassword's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 889
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BMORE View Post
Sure we ran a traditional 4-3 much of last year especially when we were Von less. But with him we ran our hybrid scheme similar to 12. In 12 we ran the hybrid scheme, which I fully expect this year. Hybrid typically refers to having a player who can slide to play DE or DT.
I thought it stood for a fancy fuel efficient car.

The simplest yet fanciest way for me to say this while keeping people's favorite word hybrid out there is this.

We should run the exact same defense we ran in 2012, but go double hybrid! Hybrid on both sides of the center!!


Super double secret probation.
iforgotmypassword is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2014, 01:54 PM   #34
BMORE
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,863

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

So you want to talk X's and O's and you start talking douchey.
BMORE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2014, 01:55 PM   #35
TheReverend
Permanent Facepalm
 
TheReverend's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 37,704

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Mike Shanahan
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iforgotmypassword View Post
Exactly, really we would only be tweaking 3-positions on the field to make it a true 3-4.
But that's why it's irrelevant...
TheReverend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2014, 02:18 PM   #36
iforgotmypassword
Pro Bowler
 
iforgotmypassword's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 889
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheReverend View Post
But that's why it's irrelevant...
but that's why its NOT irrelevant. By tweaking 3 positions you get Ware playing where he needs to play... plus you get more of our DT/s 3-4 DE's out there, and you allow Trevathon to do what he does best, play side to side and not take on blocks.

Let me ask everyone this question... let's say we get a true 3-down middle backer... where do you suppose Trevathon plays all the time? Sam... all the time? Ok. If not... who is our third linebacker besides our true 3 down middle and our pass-rushing Von.

To grab a middle and play a 4-3 you're playing a lot of people out of position.... Ware, Wolfe, Trevathon.
iforgotmypassword is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2014, 02:22 PM   #37
Rabb
No Luca, No!
 
Rabb's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 8,034

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Dynamite Monkey
Default

I like when people ask a question then argue with people answering them.
Rabb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2014, 02:26 PM   #38
iforgotmypassword
Pro Bowler
 
iforgotmypassword's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 889
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabb View Post
I like when people ask a question then argue with people answering them.
Ha sorry... I love this stuff.

And the answers have been getting good, but maybe I'm looking for more of debate/argument than anything else.

I see both sides.

The best argument I haven't heard yet, that would work against me, is that Doom did it just fine in our D, why can't Ware....

but Doom was no doubt a liability in our run game in '12 and a complete monster in a 3-4
iforgotmypassword is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2014, 02:33 PM   #39
BMORE
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,863

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Don't you understand that our 4-3 Under is much like a 3-4? There's no need to change what we do.

Ware, Vickerson/Sly, Knighton, Wolfe

Tranny, MLB, Von
BMORE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2014, 02:34 PM   #40
BMORE
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,863

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Ware has played hand up and hand down. Chill out bro, Del Rio got this.
BMORE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2014, 02:36 PM   #41
iforgotmypassword
Pro Bowler
 
iforgotmypassword's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 889
Default

Gotcha.

One side of it is, one side isn't. VICK/SLY would 2gap and Ware would come free. Trevathon's role changes slightly. That's a pretty big difference.
iforgotmypassword is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2014, 02:41 PM   #42
Bronc0guy
50 Omaha Set Hut
 
Bronc0guy's Avatar
 
Get him in the HOF

Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,337

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Cody Latimer
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crush17 View Post
if the Broncos can get back to what they were doing in 2012, that's all I care about.

that D was the perfect compliment to the O.
This. And I think it will get there, if not be better. 2012....shoulda won it all that year.
Bronc0guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2014, 02:44 PM   #43
BMORE
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,863

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iforgotmypassword View Post
Gotcha.

One side of it is, one side isn't. VICK/SLY would 2gap and Ware would come free. Trevathon's role changes slightly. That's a pretty big difference.
It depends on down and distance. Our DTs on base downs play read and react. In 12 we two gapped alot! I expect much of the 12 D.

If its a base down Vick, Knighton, and Wolfe read and react two gap. Von and Ware control the edge. That covers all the gaps and allows our LBs to flow clean.

It's going to also depend who starts next to Knighton, who plays MLB, and who we draft.
BMORE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2014, 03:05 PM   #44
Fitzy47
Just Drafted
 
Fitzy47's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 42

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

I'll admit, I don't know as much about the technicality sides of things as others on this forum, but I'm willing to give my 2 cents. Plus, I'm always up for a good discussion, and hopefully that will help expand my football knowledge.

That said, the only pros I see from moving to the 3-4 that you are suggesting is that Ware, Von, Wolfe/Jackson slide into more natural positions. However, with Von, Wolfe/Jackson, that point is moot because that side of the line is run like a 3-4 anyway. Von plays like a 3-4 outside backer, and Wolfe plays like a 3-4 end with the way our defense is currently constructed. Thus, it really is only beneficial to Ware, and probably only slightly at that.

Personally, I think the cons outweigh the pros. Aside from having to change the base to a 3-4 instead of 4-3 (a slight tweak, but still), I think you put a lot of players out of position. I don't know that I like the idea of Knighton as a 3-4 NT. He would still be 2-gapping as you mentioned, but it would be over center which means he will most certainly be doubled on nearly every play. I don't know if he can handle that. Plus, I don't know how well Vick/Sly can 2 gap. I believe they are currently our 1 gapping under tackles. The other issue I have with it is our inside linebackers. How much would Trevathan's role change if we switched to a 3-4? He doesn't have the size to shed blocks from lineman moving upfield, and I feel like in a 3-4 he would be less protected, and would have less ability to move sideline to sideline which is what he does best. I could be wrong, but those are my initial thoughts.
Fitzy47 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2014, 06:52 PM   #45
Bronc0guy
50 Omaha Set Hut
 
Bronc0guy's Avatar
 
Get him in the HOF

Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,337

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Cody Latimer
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzy47 View Post
I'll admit, I don't know as much about the technicality sides of things as others on this forum, but I'm willing to give my 2 cents. Plus, I'm always up for a good discussion, and hopefully that will help expand my football knowledge.

That said, the only pros I see from moving to the 3-4 that you are suggesting is that Ware, Von, Wolfe/Jackson slide into more natural positions. However, with Von, Wolfe/Jackson, that point is moot because that side of the line is run like a 3-4 anyway. Von plays like a 3-4 outside backer, and Wolfe plays like a 3-4 end with the way our defense is currently constructed. Thus, it really is only beneficial to Ware, and probably only slightly at that.

Personally, I think the cons outweigh the pros. Aside from having to change the base to a 3-4 instead of 4-3 (a slight tweak, but still), I think you put a lot of players out of position. I don't know that I like the idea of Knighton as a 3-4 NT. He would still be 2-gapping as you mentioned, but it would be over center which means he will most certainly be doubled on nearly every play. I don't know if he can handle that. Plus, I don't know how well Vick/Sly can 2 gap. I believe they are currently our 1 gapping under tackles. The other issue I have with it is our inside linebackers. How much would Trevathan's role change if we switched to a 3-4? He doesn't have the size to shed blocks from lineman moving upfield, and I feel like in a 3-4 he would be less protected, and would have less ability to move sideline to sideline which is what he does best. I could be wrong, but those are my initial thoughts.
Only true con I see is ware being somewhat of a liability in the run game, similar to doom in 2012, as stated above. But our D killed it that year, (except for one obvious game, and that one wasn't on the run defense) and doom still did his thing, and I think Ware will possibly have even more success as long as he's healthy. Given our upgrades in the secondary, and providing we stay healthy, our defense can and should be a top 5, maybe top 3 unit next year in the current scheme. A MLB who isint 3 years away from a wheel chair would only bolster things.
Bronc0guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:03 PM.


Denver Broncos