When we first saw Shane Bowen on Hark Knocks describe his defense he said it was a 3-4. Since then I don’t believe I have seen a single defensive set that has 3 DLs. It seems we’re playing a 2-4-5. And when you see it on the field it looks like a 4-2-5 with the OLBs playing DE. Am I missing something.
I get that in the league now the nickel CB is a starting position as 3 WR sets are standard. But traditionally when the nickel came on one of the ILBs would go off leaving essentially a 3-3-5. Now one of the DLs is off the field. That leaves us is 2 DLs matched against 5 OLs and a TE. We’ve seen the results.
And where have we seen this before. Last year with Wink! It was a constant criticism of his scheme and a reason we got run all over. So, we change the DC and up front nothing changes. Our “DEs” are “mano a mano” on 320 lb OTs. I see complaints about them not being able to set the edge. This scheme gives them no chance.
So, for the BBI cognoscenti can you explain what’s going on. Has this become prevalent in the league. We’ve now had two DCs in a row use it. Are we following a trend or breaking new ground or lost our minds. I don’t know other team’s personnel well enough to know what they’re doing. Trying to stop run games with two DLs though seems like madness.
To be fair this would work for any team not named the giants.
That’s the problem I’m talking about. He’s 250 lbs. He’s not a DE he’s an OLB. And Thibs as well. We see them standing on the ends head up on 329 lb OTs with no cover. They’re getting killed.
Its why the talk was about needing CBs who could tackle.
we have a lot of NT type DL need more of an upfield penetrator.
Washington did a good job spreading us out, keeping us in Db heavy looks and the running with power.
It’s up to Bowen to fix it, but personnel acquisition has been a problem.
Pressure doesn’t matter when you’re trying to defend the run.
It’s up to Bowen to fix it, but personnel acquisition has been a problem.
How does your front do the “dirty work” with a pair of 250 lb “DEs”.
Quote:
which they're clearly not. Also the front 7 stopping the run, which they're not!
Pressure doesn’t matter when you’re trying to defend the run.
Or on quick bubble screens. Not defending the front 4 but how many quick passes to a wideout with blockers in front .
KC has two IDLs, Jones and Wharton. And two primary ends that are in the 260 range in Karlaftis and Dana.
KC has two IDLs, Jones and Wharton. And two primary ends that are in the 260 range in Karlaftis and Dana.
christian. Thanks for this. Karlaftis is 6’4” 266 and Danna 6’2” 257. A bit stouter types but still in the OLB range. They, of course, have Chris Jones. Does he play as one of the 2 DLs or with 2 other DLs. That’s would change a lot.
Quote:
They can call it whatever they like, but it's a 4 man line and nickel coverage. It's not really, terribly different than what KC runs as their base DL personnel wise.
KC has two IDLs, Jones and Wharton. And two primary ends that are in the 260 range in Karlaftis and Dana.
christian. Thanks for this. Karlaftis is 6’4” 266 and Danna 6’2” 257. A bit stouter types but still in the OLB range. They, of course, have Chris Jones. Does he play as one of the 2 DLs or with 2 other DLs. That’s would change a lot.
Sorry, you answered this. Do you know of any other teams that use the 2 DL, 2 OLB look.
we can't even think 1 move ahead on an old kicker with a groin.
Dru Phillips is a better edge setter than our edges through two games. This was a risk I pointed out when Burns was acquired. The cost of Burns' contract also portends KT needs to significantly raise his level of play, or is unlikely to see a second contract here, imv.
Scheme-wise, bend but don't break typically means a lot of zone, contain the run and funnel back inside, keep the pass completions short to medium and in front of you, use the boundaries as extra defenders, etc. Often times, you become almost reliant on forcing the offense to drive the length of the field with 10+ plays and waiting for penalties to stall them out, if you're unable to make one pivotal play.
But he's not, and neither is Thibs.
Dru Phillips is a better edge setter than our edges through two games. This was a risk I pointed out when Burns was acquired. The cost of Burns' contract also portends KT needs to significantly raise his level of play, or is unlikely to see a second contract here, imv.
Scheme-wise, bend but don't break typically means a lot of zone, contain the run and funnel back inside, keep the pass completions short to medium and in front of you, use the boundaries as extra defenders, etc. Often times, you become almost reliant on forcing the offense to drive the length of the field with 10+ plays and waiting for penalties to stall them out, if you're unable to make one pivotal play.
Can always count on you Jon for football knowledge. Thank you.
And I got it with Wink, he ran an unconventional D. But Bowen was supposed to be a more traditional DC. Yet, we are looking at a 2 DL alignment with true OLBs as our DEs. Makes no sense and if I can see it why can’t the football folks on the team see it.
Right now I think Rakeem Nunez-Roches might be the biggest weakness. You can say "Lawrence/Burns/Thibodeaux could be a great line", but they can't be if there is a giant hole in the middle, and it is dragging down the entire unit.
KC has two IDLs, Jones and Wharton. And two primary ends that are in the 260 range in Karlaftis and Dana.
christian. Thanks for this. Karlaftis is 6’4” 266 and Danna 6’2” 257. A bit stouter types but still in the OLB range. They, of course, have Chris Jones. Does he play as one of the 2 DLs or with 2 other DLs. That’s would change a lot.
Sorry, you answered this. Do you know of any other teams that use the 2 DL, 2 OLB look.
Our old friend Patrick Graham basically runs a 4-2-5 as well.
The Raiders use rotate 2 IDLs and 2 edge players. Crosby, Robinson, and Snowden are all in the 250-260 range at the edges.
I don't think size is necessarily the issue with the Giants edge players, I think they're just not as productive as many fans would like to see from the 5th overall pick and 3rd highest paid edge player.
Quote:
as a DE..
That’s the problem I’m talking about. He’s 250 lbs. He’s not a DE he’s an OLB. And Thibs as well. We see them standing on the ends head up on 329 lb OTs with no cover. They’re getting killed.
If 250 is too small, your head is gonna spin when you find out Strahan and Osi's playing weights in 2007.
Dru Phillips is a better edge setter than our edges through two games. This was a risk I pointed out when Burns was acquired. The cost of Burns' contract also portends KT needs to significantly raise his level of play, or is unlikely to see a second contract here, imv.
Scheme-wise, bend but don't break typically means a lot of zone, contain the run and funnel back inside, keep the pass completions short to medium and in front of you, use the boundaries as extra defenders, etc. Often times, you become almost reliant on forcing the offense to drive the length of the field with 10+ plays and waiting for penalties to stall them out, if you're unable to make one pivotal play.
this is a good post - id add one thing to it, the point of a bend but dont break is to get the opposition into negative situations (3rd and long) and win there. either with pass rush or a forced mistake.
in contrast a more aggressive defense (like wink's was) is constantly trying to create negative splash plays (all downs) and hoping to win on the overall balance. his didnt because he gave up a lot of big plays.
neither defense is going to work if you are gashed in the running game because the running game generally features very few negative plays (fumbles < int, sack, etc). those are free yards and free first downs.
bowens defense right now is a bend and break which is the worst of all worlds.
Quote:
In comment 16612148 jvm52106 said:
Quote:
as a DE..
That’s the problem I’m talking about. He’s 250 lbs. He’s not a DE he’s an OLB. And Thibs as well. We see them standing on the ends head up on 329 lb OTs with no cover. They’re getting killed.
If 250 is too small, your head is gonna spin when you find out Strahan and Osi's playing weights in 2007.
Osi and Strahan were true DEs who slimmed down late in their careers as their skills and styles developed. They weren’t OLBs ever. Both Thibs and Burns are.
Burns and Thibs are kind of settled into their roles where Burns is the rush LB and Thibs plays more as an OLB from the Edge position. Thibs needs another player, DE type, to play next to him to help reinforce that side of the line.
I think we have to give Bowen 4 games to get his defense working effectively. Going back to Spags, it took 4 games for his defense to jell. Unfortunately, that’s the same 4 games it appears that Jones has been given to be somewhat effective.
If 250 is too small, your head is gonna spin when you find out Strahan and Osi's playing weights in 2007.
From my very naive vantage point, it looks like this system is asking Thibs and Burns to play a similar dedicated edge rush in the spirit of the 4-3 lines from a few decades ago.
That Thibs and Burns formally played and /or excelled at OLB is certainly a topic for debate and criticism.
neither defense is going to work if you are gashed in the running game because the running game generally features very few negative plays (fumbles < int, sack, etc). those are free yards and free first downs.
And how are we not going to get gashed in the run game with our OLBs playing DE. I think both our guys can be good players in the right scheme. But playing them at DE isn’t it.
(I missed some of the game while in transit).
Quote:
That’s the problem I’m talking about. He’s 250 lbs. He’s not a DE he’s an OLB. And Thibs as well. We see them standing on the ends head up on 329 lb OTs with no cover. They’re getting killed.
If 250 is too small, your head is gonna spin when you find out Strahan and Osi's playing weights in 2007.
From my very naive vantage point, it looks like this system is asking Thibs and Burns to play a similar dedicated edge rush in the spirit of the 4-3 lines from a few decades ago.
That Thibs and Burns formally played and /or excelled at OLB is certainly a topic for debate and criticism.
Exactly. Bowen said it was a 3-4 but we never see the “3”. Instead we see a 4-2 which isn’t even a variation of a 3-4 best I can tell.
If 250 is too small, your head is gonna spin when you find out Strahan and Osi's playing weights in 2007.
From my very naive vantage point, it looks like this system is asking Thibs and Burns to play a similar dedicated edge rush in the spirit of the 4-3 lines from a few decades ago.
That Thibs and Burns formally played and /or excelled at OLB is certainly a topic for debate and criticism.
Exactly. Bowen said it was a 3-4 but we never see the “3”. Instead we see a 4-2 which isn’t even a variation of a 3-4 best I can tell.
With the resources allocated to those two players, they are obviously going to play significant snaps.
The rough alternative with 3 IDLs is taking a middle linebacker off the field and dropping Thibs into coverage more, or taking a DB off the field and presumably playing more man.
Quote:
while the KC players do, they're a more rugged duo. They're running a front that's closer to a traditional 4-3 Nickel with a lot of Man Under (remember who Spags is).
Dru Phillips is a better edge setter than our edges through two games. This was a risk I pointed out when Burns was acquired. The cost of Burns' contract also portends KT needs to significantly raise his level of play, or is unlikely to see a second contract here, imv.
Scheme-wise, bend but don't break typically means a lot of zone, contain the run and funnel back inside, keep the pass completions short to medium and in front of you, use the boundaries as extra defenders, etc. Often times, you become almost reliant on forcing the offense to drive the length of the field with 10+ plays and waiting for penalties to stall them out, if you're unable to make one pivotal play.
Can always count on you Jon for football knowledge. Thank you.
And I got it with Wink, he ran an unconventional D. But Bowen was supposed to be a more traditional DC. Yet, we are looking at a 2 DL alignment with true OLBs as our DEs. Makes no sense and if I can see it why can’t the football folks on the team see it.
Well, the two edges should be the studs, along with Dex. Follow the money. But, it's entirely possible they overrated the run stop ability of the edges. They also didn't do much upgrading the DL parts around Dex.
I watched a little of that Washington/Tampa game in week 1 and Tampa did the same thing. Take away any deep opportunities and forced JD to take the openings underneath. And why not, right? Todd Bowles is one of the best defensive minds in the NFL.
What they did better than us, however, was stop the run - a lot of their rushing yards came in garbage time - and won the third down battle.
Quote:
neither defense is going to work if you are gashed in the running game because the running game generally features very few negative plays (fumbles < int, sack, etc). those are free yards and free first downs.
And how are we not going to get gashed in the run game with our OLBs playing DE. I think both our guys can be good players in the right scheme. But playing them at DE isn’t it.
i think the ideal solution on run downs would be 3 DL and them on the edges in a more traditional 3-4. maybe even rotating 1 of them off the field in those situations since no DL plays the entire game any way. the problem is they came into the season way too thin at DL to do that. Nunez is over his skis as the 2nd DL. they overpaid a very mediocre player there.
on the chunk plays they are giving up gap discipline and bad tackling seem like bigger issues than getting caved in at the POA, but im not rewatching closely so could be wrong about that.
Quote:
In comment 16612309 Eric on Li said:
Quote:
neither defense is going to work if you are gashed in the running game because the running game generally features very few negative plays (fumbles < int, sack, etc). those are free yards and free first downs.
And how are we not going to get gashed in the run game with our OLBs playing DE. I think both our guys can be good players in the right scheme. But playing them at DE isn’t it.
i think the ideal solution on run downs would be 3 DL and them on the edges in a more traditional 3-4. maybe even rotating 1 of them off the field in those situations since no DL plays the entire game any way. the problem is they came into the season way too thin at DL to do that. Nunez is over his skis as the 2nd DL. they overpaid a very mediocre player there.
on the chunk plays they are giving up gap discipline and bad tackling seem like bigger issues than getting caved in at the POA, but im not rewatching closely so could be wrong about that.
Agree completely. Trouble is, like you said, we don’t have enough decent DLs to consistently have 3 on the field. But when you’re drafting/signing OLs, WR, DBs, RB and edge players, something doesn’t get done.
(I missed some of the game while in transit).
Yes, they reached the red zone 7 times out of 7 possessions, not counting the one time they took a knee at the end of the half.
Well, the two edges should be the studs, along with Dex. Follow the money. But, it's entirely possible they overrated the run stop ability of the edges. They also didn't do much upgrading the DL parts around Dex.
I thought even in the first few games Patterson being 'allowed' to work with the entire front would change what the eye test told us on game day, but it feels like 5&0 both show the same tendency to make OTs on the other side look strong and in-position.
On the other hand, the Giants also don't seem to have anyone on the defensive line who can play outside against the offensive tackle; all the backups seem to be for Dexter Lawrence with the possible exception of Chatman, who strikes me as more of a designated rusher for the inside.
It’s up to Bowen to fix it, but personnel acquisition has been a problem.
IF that's the case, why did we trade for Burns?
And this #8 fella runnin' rough shod thru the secondary,
I thought it was a good game!
It’s up to Bowen to fix it, but personnel acquisition has been a problem.
I’ve always felt good coaches come up with schemes to fit their personnel and put them in positions to do what they excel at.
It seems right now Bowen is trying to fit players into his scheme and it’s a square peg round hole type of thing. Eg, It doesn’t look to me like he’s putting Thibs or Burns in position to do what they’re best at.
Quote:
It doesn’t look to me like he’s putting Thibs or Burns in position to do what they’re best at.
What would thst 'look like'?
Quote:
In comment 16612181 Section331 said:
Quote:
It doesn’t look to me like he’s putting Thibs or Burns in position to do what they’re best at.
What would thst 'look like'?
It seems to me like they’re being used more as hand in the dirt DE’s than OLB’s which I think is probably more to their strengths. I realize we don’t have much on the DL to help Dex, but those two were more of an example.
It just looks to me like Bowen is married to his scheme and fitting players into it, rather than finding the best scheme to fit his players strengths.
It’s early and maybe they all are having some growing pains, but I’m not a fan of the DC with what I’ve seen so far. Hopefully that changes soon.
I seem to remember Umenyiora playing at 261 and Tuck playing at 274 in the late 2000s/early 2010s.