Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

excellent analysis of the Eagles defensive philosophy

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

  • excellent analysis of the Eagles defensive philosophy

    ...from a Texans blog, of all places:

    http://www.atexansblog.com/2008/06/17/a ... ve-theory/

    You can skip the first and last third of this very long post, but the middle part has a great X's and O's breakdown of how Jim Johnson's scheme works.
    The definition of insanity is to continually repeat the same action and expect different results.

    Thus the Redskins and their fans are, by definition, insane.

  • #2
    Re: excellent analysis of the Eagles defensive philosophy

    Wow, that guy is on some kind of amphetamines or something. I'm not sure everything he said is 100% accurate but it sure sounded right.
    I think it is natural for coaches to try to take the singular thing that worked best for the last SB winner and try to implement it in some way. Tracing it back to it's roots it comes from JJ's scheme. We have to not let anymore defensive coaches go on to other teams!

    I would say this though, If that guy thinks Jaques Reeves can do what lito or Sheldon can do he has a little wishful thinking going on. I guess that's why he compares the situation more to the giants but still Jaques Reeves?

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: excellent analysis of the Eagles defensive philosophy

      For the most part that was right on the money, I only spotted a couple of discrepancies.
      Whatcha Gonna Do Brother, When the Eagles run wild on you?

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: excellent analysis of the Eagles defensive philosophy

        Great find CLM. You really have to know your football to debate with Matt. I looked for some holes in his theory, but I think he answered my only questions in his responses (big plays are up the middle and the safety HAS to make the tackles).

        I believe I saw some games where the D either stopped the O for nothing or gave up 7 yards. It seemed to happen quite often. Those games give Matt's analysis a lot of credibility.

        I liked what he said about the importance of each lineman getting penetration. Our guys may not be big, but their speed and lower body strength allows them to do just that. You can't have a stay home fat guy in the middle with the other guy penetrating three yards into the line the HB is good at sliding into gaps. They both have to disrupt the play and keep the gaps closed.

        With the safety HAVING to make his tackles...to prevent a really big play, it makes me think about Considine. I still think Consi is a good safety....he is smart, fast and seems to get to the right place. His biggest problem has been his missed tackles which led to biiiiig plays. Well, as tough as we all seem to get on him, I think about how many safeties in the league I've seen burned by HB's in the open field. Consi has some bad shoulders and Mikel seems to have the spot locked up, but I think he was valuable in playing in this scheme when he was healthy. Let's hope Dawk returns better than last year and Quinton takes another step in progression, because I think safety is going to be the key position to making JJ's D go this year (since we have great corners and a very solid front 7).
        Pedro

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: excellent analysis of the Eagles defensive philosophy

          A) You are a true fan for digging that up
          B) That dude is way too smart and understands the defense of a non division rival that's not even in his conference wayyy too well. He does not have a wife.
          Carson Wentz ERA


          NFC East Titles:
          Playoff Appearances:
          NFC Title Games:
          Super Bowl Titles:

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: excellent analysis of the Eagles defensive philosophy

            I thought I'd plagiarize the Eagles analysis. I can say with conviction that I am a smarter man for reading this.

            Which brings us to the Eagles’ scheme. And, even better, brings us to an Xs and Os breakdown of said scheme.

            The Eagles ostensibly run a 4-3 defense. Their system differs from the standard 4-3, though, in a number of ways, all of them significant.

            1. The Outside Linebackers. Instead of having a true SLB and WLB, they make the two OLBs interchangeable in terms of responsibilities and positioning. Using these fungible LBs, on nearly every play one of the OLBs rotates up, creating a five-man front and showing blitz while the other rotates back, creating additional space between himself and the line. Despite being on the line, however, there is no guarantee that that linebacker will blitz; the Eagles will sometimes bring the other OLB, a CB, a safety, or nobody at all (though bringing no one is rare–the Eagles blitz almost 65% of the time), with the up linebacker dropping into coverage either by hitting a specified zone or by picking up the TE or RB or FB in man coverage.

            On the other hand, there will obviously be times when the up linebacker does blitz. In this system, though, he might be joined in the rush by the other OLB, by either corner, or (one of the Eagles’ favorite moves) by the safety. Or maybe he’s joined by two or three of those guys. Or maybe you think he’s going to be joined by the safety, only to find the safety back in coverage right as you release the ball…see where I’m going with this?

            Another facet of the Philly scheme is that OLB speed is not as important as instincts and the ability to get where you need to be in coverage. This is not to say that speed isn’t an asset–of course it is. Rather, it just means that a player like Greenwood who has shown great instincts (see, e.g., the Atlanta game when he realized Faggins had blown the underneath coverage and tried to get there from his spot on the edge) becomes more valuable in this system.

            2. The Middle Linebacker. The Eagles’ system simultaneously limits the MLB and gives him greater freedom to impact the game, which sounds illogical but isn’t. In your standard 4-3, the MLB generally reads the offensive line and the FB and then flows to a hole, whether that hole is in the A-gap or all the way out in the D-gap. But his flow to the hole is limited by his added responsibility of maintaining interior defensive positioning until he is sure there is no cut-back run. Only after making all of the proper reads is your MLB free to use his speed and be the sideline-to-sideline playmaker.

            In the Philly scheme, the MLB has two responsibilities–the A-gaps–because all of the other holes are filled with rushing bodies. If the play goes away from these gaps, the MLB’s defined responsibilities are done and he is freed to roam the field, ad-lib, and create plays, meaning that he doesn’t have to have the same great recovery speed that the standard 4-3 MLB does. It is this simultaneous limiting and freeing that makes someone like Jeremiah Trotter a dominant MLB in this system; ask him to play sideline-to-sideline like a typical 4-3 MLB as they did in Washington and he sucks immensely, but put him in Philly where he only has to play the A-gaps and he’ll consistently get 100 solo tackles and 3-5 sacks a year.

            3. Defensive Line Theory. In Philly’s scheme, the only player in the front seven who has true two-gap responsibility is the Nose Tackle, and even he only has to do it every once in a while. (The MLB is responsible for two gaps, but they are really just the same gap on either side of the center and not a two-gap responsibility in the same sense that the NT has.) Now, on the face of it, that is not so different from a standard 4-3. The devil is in the details, though.

            A typical 4-3 is a read-and-react defense for everyone except a blitzer (and, really, even he is supposed to do this). Now, while the linemen in a 4-3 only have one gap responsibility, the difference between their one-gap requirements and Philly’s DL one-gap requirements is one of intent and initial movement. For example, in the read-and-react approach, his primary responsibility is to read the lineman blocking him because, while he has C- or D-gap (depending on alignment and shift) requirements as well as contain, he has to remain in position to go either direction with respect to his blocker–on an inside run, he has to be able to shed the block and crash down; on an outside run, he needs to get free of the block and seal the edge. To do this successfully, the lineman must stand his blocker up and stay square with him long enough to read the play and react to it (hence the name).

            In an attacking, Philly-style system, which is a one-gap attacking approach, the first responsibility for the DE as well as all the other lineman is to get 1.5 to 2 yards upfield, then flow to the ball. What this means in practice (assuming perfect execution) is, in a read-and-react D, every lineman stands his blocker up, then flows along the face of the blockers down the line of scrimmage to the ball, while, in an attacking one-gap system, the defensive linemen get behind the blockers and then flow (or, more accurately, crash) to the ball.

            As a quick aside, obviously, each system will have its flaws and benefits. The read-and-react defense expect the linebackers to make most of the tackles, which means consistent positive yardage for the opposing team, yet it also gives you a safety net of a clogged line and three backers moving to the ball. The attacking defense runs a risk of giving up the big play if the linemen or LBs miss their tackles, but it also gives you a near certainty of consistently stopping the opposition for no gain or a loss.

            A second difference in D-line theory between the two schemes is movement of the front four by way of stunts and whatnot. Because it is a one-gap system, the linemen are freed to do any number of a variety of stunts so long as the movement ends with one of them in each gap. While such stunts are theoretically possible in a standard 4-3, you can’t do it too much when the DTs may have multiple gaps or when you are worried about breaking contain on the outside. When you are sending the house on a blitz, however, all that matters is (a) that a body ends up in each of the gaps and (b) that you can count on your MLB to make tackles on anyone who comes thru the A gaps or slips around the edge (which goes back to the freedom of the MLB’s responsibilities).

            4. Coverage. Much like the front seven, the coverage in a Philly scheme is incredibly fluid. If you watch the Eagles (or the Giants, who are actually a better comparison given their lack of a super secondary), the coverage calls might change two or three times before the ball is snapped. An initial coverage is called based on down and distance. Once the offense breaks its huddle, the coverage is changed if necessary to account for the personnel and the formation. Even better, the coverage can change on the fly after the ball is snapped. So, while the Cover 2 (which is pretty much a one-gap system up front) has players moving to specified zones and has some discrete coverage schemes within the larger system, the Philly system moves seamlessly from zone to man to zone again.

            I just re-read that paragraph and it is not overly clear. By way of an incredibly simplistic example (that doesn’t account for some coverage variables): In the Philly system, assume the defense has called a 5-man blitz based on the offense’s personnel of two WR and two TE on third-and-long and that the OLB who has rotated up to the line is supposed to cover one tight end, the nickel corner is coming on the blitz, and the other OLB is picking up the second TE. Now, presnap, the offense shifts the second TE out wide, so the coverage audibles for the third CB to pick up the second TE and the OLB who was going to pick up that TE to blitz. At the snap, the TE who was to be picked up by the up linebacker stays in to block, so that OLB instantly becomes a blitzer as well. You’ve gone from a 5-man corner blitz to a 6-man two-LB blitz without changing your alignment or your package. By bringing out the extra TE, the offense has caused more blitzers to come. That’s some beautiful stuff right there–it’s the beauty of the system that, should the defense recognize the initial blitz and audible into something else, your system accounts for that by changing your blitz altogether.

            The second part of the scheme is that it does not pigeonhole your coverage into a certain system. So often, teams that run a Cover 2 design their blitzes based on the principles and assignments of the Cover 2. You will almost never see them come with a safety blitz because that leaves a hole in the coverage they are comfortable running and it is impossible to disguise from the Cover 2 alignment. A corner blitz is disguiseable because the CBs line up on the line, but it requires an OLB to cheat out and cover the area where the corner vacated, which is always dangerous.

            But, as Philly showed against New England and Dallas last year, their system doesn’t force you into any specific pass defense. Against the Pats, the Eagles blitzed constantly, from all sorts of angles, and played straight up man coverage behind it and very nearly won that game. In the first half against the Cowboys, Philly again brought extra rushers, but alternated between man and zone behind it. Then, in the second half, they continued to show blitz on every play, but dropped everyone into coverage. The first half pressure had gotten to Romo, though, and he could not find a rhythm even when the blitz didn’t come.

            Underlying each of these differences are the basic tenets of the system–create confusion by showing lots of different looks pre-snap and by bringing pressure from all sorts of locations, never let the offense know who is coming or how many are coming (anywhere from 5-8, but more than 4 about 2/3 of the time), and plug every hole while confusing the O-line and causing them to make mistakes. Basically, it’s an offensive take on defense: an attempt to create plays rather than reacting to what the offense is doing. Get upfield, and then play football.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: excellent analysis of the Eagles defensive philosophy

              Very well-said and well-thought out. Who is this guy again? Vince who?

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: excellent analysis of the Eagles defensive philosophy

                That was a really good article, and that guy has defintely got way to much time on his hands.

                One thing that has been on my mind lately is that it would appear that JJ really has the players to run his system now. If you look, top to bottom, the players we currently have all fit the JJ mold. We've got the quicker, penetrating DTs. We've got the speed rushers. All of the linebackers can run sideline to sideline, cover, and blitz, which is a combination we've never had at that position. And we've also got the players in the secondary that can all cover, blitz, and tackle. JJ probably can't sleep nights nowadays, cause he's brain is constantly scheeming these players.

                Comment

                Working...
                X