Giants D to show some new looks, including possible 3-4

an NFL defense.

Well that doesn't just happen. From the article:

"But I know they weren't happy with their inability to slow down the Redskins' offense last year. And Coughlin said at the owners' meetings in Phoenix in the spring that they were at work on new ways to try and slow down the new offenses that were making such a splash last year."

Damonster and Tracy on the outside

But we need 2 DT's out there. We have such big guys with talent to stuff the middle( Linval,Jenkins,Patterson,Hankins,Rogers). We would be wasting talent at DT.


Our LB's need to prove they can play a consistent 4-3 before you talk about going to a 3-4. We have to stop the run first. You would count on Connor and (name a LB we have) to be playing the middle LB'ing role in a 3-4??

We have all these big men up front to help out our LB'ers let stick with that . Hopefuilly being healthy will bring us back to having a tough D

In the looks at practice they have had 3 Jenkins playing DE if we played any 3-4 we would still have at least 2 of our dts out there and I would bet we would have 3.

It is a better defense to stop the read option. Yes, we need to play better overall so maybe this is one way to do it. On top of that, I don't see us putting 4 LBs on the field in this 3-4. This is one reason why Tuck was standing up and Jenkins has been playing some DE. Its all an evolution. Our defensive personnel will be the same but we can give different looks.

This is why you have coaches in the booth. They look to see what players are coming off the field and which ones are going in. Its not just to look at offensive personnel.

Also, when teams like the Eagles are going no huddle or with a hurry up offense you don't have time to make substitutions. If you can have your base defense give you different looks then we will better for that.

It sounds like this defense is growing and I'm starting to like that. If we can fix up the miscommunication that will be even better and maybe we can be a more consistent effort. I would still like to see us get a little swagger on defense pre-snap and challenge receivers more often at the line of scrimmage but one step at a time.

My son goes to college with a son of someone in the Giant's Front Office. I told this board that this was going to happen months ago.

I am not worried about RGIII. It will be harder for the Skins to protect RGIII from us than it will be for us to protect ourselves from RGIII.

In terms of warfare, the Skins have a short term tactical advantage and the Giants have a long term strategic advantage.

Quote:

This is why you have coaches in the booth. They look to see what players are coming off the field and which ones are going in. Its not just to look at offensive personnel.

Coaches on defense will say 21 personnel. It depends on your staff. I have been with different staffs that called this different ways. Lets just say this isa two back set with 1 TE. That means you have 2 WRs. If you had a 10 personnel you would hhave 1 RB, no TE and 4 WR.

To the 21 personnel you would probably call a play from your base defense. If the offense were to change to 10 personnel then you will get burned in your base defense so you would go to a nickle or dime defense to be able to match up.

Sales goes for a defense. If the defense has their base personnel out there a team may be more inclined to pass the ball. The could have a TE like Jimmy Graham who can have mismatches in the passing game. You could have a RB like Matt Forte who can run great routes ands would be matched up with a LB.

Maybe an offense likes to run the ball but wants to get more corners on the field so they go with 11 personnel (1 RB and 1TE). Lets say that TE is like Cooley who is more of an H-back and he goes in motion to become a lead blocker for your RB. Or maybe they flex the TE out and have a player like Randall Cobb or Percy Harvin in the backfield.

This is all part of the game. We call it the game within the game. The more looks your defense can give the better off they will be (assuming they play them well). I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

i remember that

and where guys are lining up... the 3-4 puts people in better position to defend the read option. it also is much more confusing for young QBs to go against imo. We wont be running it as our base package... i think that will be 4-2-5 more often then not, but we now at least have the ability to line up 3-4 with the beef upfront. a 3-4 OLB crashing down on the QB is much easier then a 4-3 DE with his hand in the ground.
the giants went after beef this offseason on D for a reason...to be able to stop the run against these read teams and have the outside guys crash on the QB.

like something Spags did on occasion as well as the much maligned Tim Lewis.. Giving an appearance of a 3-4.. I think this is a role that Damontre Moore could excel at since has has played as a stand up rush OLB.. Also Adrian Tracy should figure into that mix as well..

Hopefully the Giants create the kind of confusion they did in 2007.. Im sorry but in that Super Bowl I have never seen an OL that was as good as the Patriots was be that confused and out of sync..

that his job against the read was to set and delay committing. The idea is to force the QB to make a decision with no information as to who the DE will cover. That removes the option from the read. The longer the delay the more it favors the D as the OL cannot hold their blocks forever.

So this formation is not the typical 3-4.

I would not like to be Bob going vs. Cullen on the read.

That confusion had really nothing to do with the way we lined up. it really had to do with Spags really understanding their blocking schemes and attacking that which freed up guys to kill Brady. That is one of my big negatives with Fewell. he doesnt design anything to attack a teams OL. He just says a guy was one on one so he has to win that matchup. The offense is saying that they have a hat on a hat. You cannot double everybody. Its a piss poor excuse by our DC.

That is definitely what we did last year and, imo, 100% wrong. As a QB it is a give EVERY time if the DE doesn't come crashing down. That is what he is reading, lol. IF the DE stays home you give the ball to the back (or even QB). What I mean by that is the guy running inside gets the ball. If the DE crashes down then the outside runner gets the ball. Delaying does nothing.

Also when delaying your DE now is standing flat footed on a football field while both the RB and QB are on the move. That is a tough task for anybody.

Furthermore, you are asking your DE to play BOTH the RB and QB. Good luck with that. That is basically asking the impossible out of our DEs.

"Looks" are meaningless..

Our run D should be much improved(on paper at least) and that will domino the rest of the D imv

is actually more fun than being on the field. Those coaches are the under rated ones. No one can pin point what they do from the outside, but they play a large role game in and game out.

I am interested in seeing how this 3-4 defense works. I know we had the hybrid with Lewis, Spags once and a while, and Sheridan has the Ameoba stand around defense. Spags had 4 Aces I think too. So let's see how this one works.

I think the difference between this defense and Tim Lewis' defense would be that Lewis gave the illusion of a 4-3 but we were really playing a 3-4. Strahan commented about this a few times. He also liked to run a lot of zone blitzes so he would drop a player back and bring an extra guy or two. What they have in common is they both like to run a ton of Cover 3 and I don't get that.

I think Fewell is going to run a 3-4 at times but it is really just going to be a 4-3 in principal. He'll just drop a DE back, slide the LBs over and move the DTs over a little just to try to stop the outside runs from the read option.

Lewis basically ran a 3-4 D with one of his OLB down as a DE so it had the illusion of a 4-3.

I was never a good english guy. I think it should be principle.

it as a kid is PrinciPAL was your PAL..Principle is all other things..;)

was the hybrid term keep popping up. I remember posting tons of articles on his system and players hating it. Spags fired zoned a lot as well. I think we play single high a lot to keep the sky safety down. So teams then run their single high beaters and that's what gets us into trouble.

me too but then I went to college and I was an accounting major and when my professor was talking about principals in there he couldn't remember what it was either so I said it had to be principle because principal is your PAL. I was wrong though, it was principal.

.

;)

and those that can usually take several seasons to learn the position

playing Tuck at LB would be a disaster and I very highly doubt it happens. Maybe a few plays to give the offense a different look but never as a base package

Tuck has dropped back in coverage quite a few times over the years but I agree it isn't something that is going to be done often. Read my post about giving the illusion of a 3-4. All it is is basically to give the defense better angles at attacking the read option. In a 4-3 your widest guy is your DE. In a 3-4 your widest guys are your OLB. It is a much wider defense and helps contain the perimeter runs. If Tuck is lined up outside then he is basically just a DE that is aligned wider. That is all. I wouldn't expect him to be playing a traditional 3-4 OLB with major pass dropping responsibilities.

on one side and Strahan on the other. They were unable to pick an area of concern and protect against it. The 3-4 at first would just be another look to show. If as someone mentioned the execution is there, than it becomes a concern for opposing offenses. I like that it shows a desire to get more creative on defense.

Base personnel 4-3 about the same as last year. Less than 50%. But much more 4-2-5 this year. I don't know how in the world we are going to field all these Defensive players. We're going to have to pray that noone looks at the waiver wire for practice squad guys

How that is going to happen - I haven't a clue

I usually don't second-guess the Giants' Front Office, but if they knew in March that they'd use the 3-4 more often in 2013, then why didn't they draft a quality LB in April? True, in the Giants' 4-3 it's not the primary position, but in the 3-4 it has to be. Suddenly our weak LB corps becomes a glaring problem.

If any of our DEs are going to stand up when we go 3-4, look for it to be Kiwi, who already has a ton of experience at OLB and is probably the best cover guy we have on the DL. Tuck can talk about standing up all he wants, but I'd be surprised if he's doing much of it by Week 3 of the regular season.

Once again, it isn't a true 3-4. It is just a way to align our players to prevent the perimeter run. We also only have so many resources to improve our team and we had a lot of places to improve. I think we did a great job with our LB corps. We have talent there believe it or not.

you could have

("LBtuck")Hankins/Jenkins/Joseph/("LBkiwi)

(or the younger DE "LBs")

+

(one actuual roster LB) and (a third safety)

and still call it a '3/4 look', or a '5/1/5 big nickle'

If The DE sets and does not commit and the QB keeps and goes inside or hands off inside, the unblocked DE will eat him for breakfast.

The whole point of the read is to get the DE to commit and take himself out of the play without using up a blocker. That frees up a blocker for the O.

If the DE does not take himself out of the play, then someone will have to block him or if no one blocks him he destroys the ballcarrier.

If somone blocks the DE then the free blocker is used up and the read is no different from any other play.

the ball goes inside. If that was true then Morris wouldn't have killed us when we played. We had no answer for him.

You are also 100% wrong with the point of the read. The read option is to read the DE. It is simple. If the DE comes flying in then you pull the ball and go around the edge. If the DE doesn't come you hand it off inside. That is it.

If the DE sits at home like Fewell tried then it is a give every time.

Here is a video below:

At 1:03 you see JPP make attack it and RGIII has to make a split second decision and JPP makes the play. You have to attack it.

At 3:44 Osi slow plays it and both the inside run and outside run are available. RGIII takes it outside. Osi can't stop either because he is flat footed.

At 4:22 JPP crashes down to stop the inside run. The problem is that so does the OLB/S. Somebody didn't know their assignment there. IMO, JPP did the right think by making RGIII pull the ball. You need someone to have outside contain.

At 4:41 Osi doesn't crash down. He goes in between the QB and RB meaning it is a give and Morris kills us up the gut. That is why you need the DE in a 4-3 to crash down on that RB. Let another player pick up the contain. If Osi has contain there then where is the help inside.

At 4:53 Tuck crashes down and clogs the middle. There is no room for the inside run. It wound up being a pass and RGIII rolls out but he is covered and has nowhere to go. THIS IS HOW IT SHOULD BE PLAYED. THIS IS TEXTBOOK EVEN THOUGH IT IS A PASS

When you wait that doesn't confuse the QB.



Watch this video. It might help. Look at 2:01. Watch the DE slow play it. He cannot make either play on the RB nor the QB. It is useless to slow play it.

http://fishduck.com/the-chip-kelly-oregon-spread-offense-analysis/understanding-the-oregon-offense/first-fish-tutorial-the-inside-zone-read/

YOU HAVE TO MAKE THE OFFENSE MAKE A DECISION AND MAKE IT FAST. Slow playing it means that you have 10 guys on the field.


Giants - Redskins Highlights - ( New Window )

Listen carefully. If the DE stays put (what you think stops the read/zone option) it is a give to the running back. If the DE crashes down the QB pulls it. The ball is going away from that DE no matter what unless the QB messes up. That is the point. If you keep your DE outside then there are going to be gigantic holes to run through for the RB. You have to eliminate that first. Make the QB pull it and run with it that way you get another shot on the QB. The more hits you get on the QB the less effective the read option will be.

this morning..

seems BBI is always jumping all over the 3-4 defense stuff and has been for many years.. perhaps still a favorite of some from the 1st two Super Bowl years.. regardless.. Tim Lewis even employed some 3-4 looks I believe..

however.. in this sense.. I do agree.. we loaded up on some big DTs.. and I think a DT like Jenkins could easily play DE in some different looks.. and a "DE" like Kiwi or JPP or Moore could easily play "LB" in some different looks..

I think snap count wise.. this probably wouldn't be adding any extra snaps to linebackers like Rivers, Paysiner, Connor, Herzlich, Williams, and Curry..

just different fronts perhaps.. to disguise or accomplish different things.. utilizing the versatility and talent of our defense.. I'm optimistic about our 2013 Giants defense.. for some reason I really am.. time will tell..

by themselves dont make a 3-4 work obviously. you need quality LB's and we still dont know if we have that..

but I think we're talking more 3-4 alignment and less a true 3-4 defense perhaps the way you envision it..

as I mentioned above.. I don't think these 3-4 looks will add our technical "linebackers" of Paysinger, Rivers, Curry, Connor, Herzlich, and Williams on the field any more then they would be in our 4-3..

we'd probably see guys like Kiwi, Tuck, JPP, and perhaps Moore in more standup roles.. also Jenkins is plenty athletic enough to play DT or DE in a 3-4.. and we have the guys up front to use our personnel like this if the coaches in some way feel this alignment will help at certain times on defense..

Great link.

Tuck said he did not sit. He said he had to "shuffle inside and then set". By that I think he meant that the unblocked "optioned" off side DE has to be in a position to take on the inside ball carrier.

In the examples you gave, the offside DE just sat, and was way too far away to make a play on the run to the playside.

Having said that, I wonder if it is feasible for the " set " DE to make that tackle to the playside, as you have pointed out.

I also wonder whether after having "shuffled and set", the unblocked DE has lost his angle if the QB keeps and goes to the outside.

Having the unblocked read DE always crash down on the inside run, leaves the offside outnumbered. You now have the QB free to run or run-pass option. This is what the read offense wants. Your solution is simply to slaughter the QB. This does not seem to work in the Pac10 at least.

Assuming a 3 WR offensive formation, If you crash the offside DE and put the offside LB on contain, you have 6 on 5 blocking against the playside run. That is just what the offense wants, a hat on everyone and a double team.

To offset that you have to bring in a safety. That again is what the offense wants against a 3 WR set. And still you have 6 hats on 6, which still favors the offense.

I think Fewell's strategy vs the read is to "two gap" the unblocked DE after setting him to a "new line of scrimmage" position where he is plausibly able to play either option...and hope for a delayed decision by the QB giving the DTs a second or two to get off their blockers.

If the QB does not delay and decides either way immediately he risks having the unblocked DE make the inside tackle or string out the outside play.

Unfortunately the DE is unlikely to be able to catch the QB outside.

The offside LB will have to be fast as hell to react to an outside keep by the QB. Unfortunately our LBs seems to get hypnotized by the read.

I am not optimistic about us stopping the read.

What you are saying is nothing like I said. I want the DE to crash down and take away the inside runner not the QB. He is unaccounted for and it doesn't matter if the play side has a hat on a hat because that DE will, at the very least, cause chaos for the offense and more often than not make the tackle for a loss.The QB or outside runner should not be his responsibility. The safety, OLB and C will have to pick that up.

Please, show me one case when a DE was flat-footed and stopped the readooption. Just one.

What happens if the O just pulls a guard to pick up the crashing DE? With 6 on 5 they have a free blocker.

I take my previous comment back. The offense would not pick up the crashing DE. He takes himself out of the play as the read would automatically go to the QB keep to the offside. So the offside being outnumbered remains the problem with your solution.

Maybe that is the best solution though..or the least worst.

especially

hank/joseph/jenkins (hank and jenk being more mobile, all 3 with quicvks and size)

and (2) crashing down or speed rushing DEs one at each end

you can still have 3 CBs and only 2 safties or visaversa

or

a true 5-0-6 with 3 safeties and 3 true cover corners on 3rd and long...trust the 3 DTs to be strong and mobile enough inside and at least one of the 3 safeties to stop the 80 yard inside draw ala emmit smith

for example, is having our roster named DEs up on the line rather than roster named LBs...in case of run, they are bogger and stronger, or just since we have more talent on DE and want those guys to make plays, get on the field etc.

.