Football 301

I decided to create this thread as there are a number of us out here that have a "pretty good" handle on all the ins and outs of how the game works but would like to learn more. I'm encouraging others to please ask questions that they have often wondered about the game and that those with the answers, please provide your best "polite" answers or links to website that has the answer. This is in my own self interest as I don't know half of what I'd like to know so I'll start with one:

Q: Not too long ago, Mangus posted that DT Jenkins is better suited for a 1 gap defense than a 2 gap assignment (or something similar). My question is twofold: What is the difference between a 1 and 2 gap defense, and; what makes a player better suited for one versus the other?

 

Refers to gap control. 1 gap, you have responsibility for a single gap on one side of you. Since someone else worries about the other gap, you can shoot upfield the one you are responsible for. We play 1 gap this year, like the Giants and Tampa. It's good to have athletic, quick guys on your line.

Two gap is more read and react. More shared responsiblity. You are responsible for both gaps on your left and right. This is what the Bears use, Ravens used prior to this season. This is where you get those big guys in the middle to clog up space.

Last couple of years we played a combo type system, where some were one gap, some two. Typically, Jenkins and Chester were out 2 gappers. This year we are stricly one gap.

Jenkins has slimed down this year to about 305, so he looks quicker off the ball. His body type not strictly a one gaper like a Glover, he's big enough to play 2 gap and explosive enough to get upfield in the one gap. But he's more comforatable playing 1 gap IMO, since that's what they played at Maryland.

Less to think about in one gap. Get upfield, get the guy with the ball.

 

So what are the benefits between the 2?

Why would a coordinator use one, and not the other?

 

That is EXACTLY the type of response I was hoping for. Thanks Piper. How about another one?

Q: Dear Abby, I'm familiar with the 4-3, 3-4, 46, nickle, dime, and goal line packages but until I received this year's Madden 2003, I had never heard of the "quarter." What the heck is this and in what situations would you use it?

 

Benifets on two gap: If you got guys like Sam and Goose, they can keep lineman off your linebackers. Plus, it's less risky. Shared responsibility, your guys should be in position.

Minus: If you have a tendancy to play high and take a peak to see which way you are going to go, you lose leverage. Plus, your waiting for the O to come to you.

Benifets of one gap: You are getting up the field, meaning greater chance of getting sacks and yards for a loss in the backfield.

Minus: More susceptable to draws, traps, and screens. Your lineman are up field, but get past them, and you got blockers on linebackers and safeties. You risk more big plays. One gap is more confining for the linebackers. They play more north south rather than sideline to sideline.

 

Personnel at DT, for one; what the scheme wants to achieve (does it read/react? Does it attack? Does it rely on penetration to disrupt?), and sometimes just what the coaches are more comfortable with. Ideally, more teams would use a two gap and blitz around it, though I do feel like there'd be enough representative one gap teams looking to generate rush and penetration.

There aren't that many successful two gap players inside, which is why for the most part you don't see as much two gap 4-3, or any 3-4 for that matter - I don't think in this league it's possible to run a successful single gap 3-4.

>>I had never heard of the "quarter." What the heck is this and in what situations would you use it?

I imagine that's 7 DBs. Basically drops to three DL, a linebacker, and a DB in the box, and then nickel personnel in the secondary. Allows for a fifth DB to get out and cover, or gives the ability to go with safeties covering as an umbrella or cloud in halves without putting a RB on a LB. Basically gives a 7th DB to alleviate matchup problems. Fairly rare.

BTW, I kinda miss some of the things I saw last year that I'd hoped we'd add. Philly was running a 3-3 nickel rather than a 4-2 front, and Detroit was having a limited amount of success with a 5-2 front that took best advantage of defensive line depth. Was hard for offenses to block each of the five and made up for lack of talent at LB. But it couldn't cover up the DB problems so it never caught on.

 

5-2 with Peppers winging would be sweet!

 

wouldn't be bad, no. To tell the truth getting peppers as far outside formation (the way the Titans used Kearse) would be beneficial. We could, technically, start Buckner along with gilbert and Jenkins.

On the other hand, our strength is more in the speed of our defense and without three linebackers out there we're not taking best advantage of that.

It'd be cool to see catch on - either or both of the ones I brought up - but not for anything past situational use in our case.

 

6 of one, 1/2 dozen of another... makes you wonder on def. passing downs do you (A) pull a linebacker and add another DB for coverage, or (B) bring in another lineman and run a 5-2 to provide more pass rush...

Furthermore... does anyone in the NFL run a 4-4?? With our DBs I wouldn't suggest it, but a team with quality LBs and D-Linemen I think this could be a VERY effective short yardage defense... it could damn near shut down the run and provide a great pass rush, but you leave yourself open to ge burnt on LONG passes... but with a quality coverage LB or 2 you may be able to pull it off.

 

>>makes you wonder on def. passing downs do you (A) pull a linebacker and add another DB for coverage, or (B) bring in another lineman and run a 5-2 to provide more pass rush...

Well, the 5-2 they were using was primarily a run-downs thing if I remember right. If they wanted to go 5-1 and bring in another rusher and another DB, that might be a way to go against the pass - the 5-2 against third down and 5+ would basically leave a safety one on one with a receiver and no help. The rush would be greater but the speed of the blitz wouldn't be there as if you were coming out of the 4-2 or 3-3 front of a nickel.

On the other hand, if one of our 5-2 was an undersized end, the zone blitz situations wouldnt' be unlike a 3-4, just with single gap responsibility overall.

The backside

I like the flexibility of the 3-3 Philly was using because it still afforded options for sophisticated blitz situations. Very innovative. I almost have to wonder when Jim Johnson will start getting HC offers.

I almost wouldn't doubt that we'd start seeing some 7 DB situations come up against teams like the Rams - without taking out the four DL. It's very rare that a team go without linebackers at all, but if a team has three safeties that are decent - especially a faster SS and two FS - I wouldn't doubt that a team could get away with a SS playing up and having back responsibility or a man under ("sun" or "buzz" type under) and still have good rush.

Some teams have used a 3-2 instead of 4-1 with dime, for more awareness, but a good safety playing short could as easily handle that. Of course, just for longer distance situations.

>>Furthermore... does anyone in the NFL run a 4-4

Very few teams run a base D that isn't 3-4 or 4-3 in the NFL. In college, some do run an 8th man in the box as a base D, so that would technically be a 4-4 or 5-3.
The Packers did, at a time, run something not unlike this with Leroy Butler under Fritz Shurmur during the Super Bowl years. Fritz was an innovator with his 5 LB defense (basically a hybrid 3-4 back before the standard 3-4 was to gain prominence again during the 80s) in which you had a ot of confusion and a lot of gap control coming in ways that couldn't be gameplanned.

As they got into the modern 4-3, they'd use a light weakside LB and bring the SS up for 3/4 of the plays and really just had a lot of pursuit and coverage flexibility. It'd have caught on better if there were more safeties talented the way Butler was, and if cover three wasn't becoming so out of vogue.