Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Wild Idea: 4-4 and 5-2 a possibility?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by stnzed
    Yeah but Phil Simms say's that if you use coverage players (8 men in the box) to stop the run, that's "cheating"!

    "....the Broncos have to cheat to stop the run"--Phil Simms (I put a heavy emphasis on the word "cheat" here because Simms did)

    Besides making these formations work full time in the NFL is probably best left to geniuses like Bill Belichick and Rex Ryan.

    Not sure Bates is on the same level....
    He wasn't referring to 'cheating' as being something that is unfair. Its VERY VERY common in most sports to refer to a player moving 'up' as "cheating forward."

    In tennis....in particular doubles... the second player can often 'cheat' forward closer to the net than normal. In baseball, you might have the third baseman 'cheat' forward if they feel a bunt may be a possibility. So Phil Simms was NOT saying that 'cheating' the safeties forward to stop the run was some how wrong or unfair. He was simply referring to it in this manner.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by TXBRONC
      College teams can get away with running 4-4 and 5-3 but that wont work in the pros.
      First heard about the 4-4 last year when Baltimore played SD, giving the Bolts their first loss. Up until this game, Chargers were running LT pretty heavily (so much so, that he was even beginning to complain). Ravens contained the run, making Rivers try to beat them. He had some early turnovers which eventually cost them the game. After this loss, the conservative "Martyball" play-calling supposedly was ended, and Rivers was given more freedom in the passing game.

      Against KC and SD (strong run and TE, weak WRs), I think this formation would give them problems. Main concern would be IMO the mismatch of their TE (Gonzalez/ Gates) on a LB.

      Comment


      • #33
        These are not unique ideas....the Patriots, for example are largely considered a 3-4 team, yet I remember watching the SB against the Eagles, and they played alot of 4 man and 5 man fronts. This was because they did not respect the Eagles ability to run, and wanted to put as much pressure as possible on McNubb.

        That is why I continue to say, the best Defenses in the NFL don't do one thing. The best Defenses are truly hybrids capable of giving multiple looks to their opponents. That was my biggest problem with Coyer, he just had no creativity to his Defenses.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by MindField
          These are not unique ideas....the Patriots, for example are largely considered a 3-4 team, yet I remember watching the SB against the Eagles, and they played alot of 4 man and 5 man fronts. This was because they did not respect the Eagles ability to run, and wanted to put as much pressure as possible on McNubb.

          That is why I continue to say, the best Defenses in the NFL don't do one thing. The best Defenses are truly hybrids capable of giving multiple looks to their opponents. That was my biggest problem with Coyer, he just had no creativity to his Defenses.
          Remember the Patriots also ran a 2-3 and a 2-5 against the Colts in their SB years as they didn't respect the Colts run offense. I agree that a great defense needs to adapt to the down and distance as well as the opponent. Very few defenses become great by playing vanilla D he whole game.

          Comment

          Working...
          X