93z, what warhawk is describing is what i was trying (not very successfully) to get at a couple weeks ago when i said that he had to think rather than follow his instinct. there have been so many times where he could've pounced on a guy but in sanders' friggin "gap control" defense, your responsibility was straight in front of you, and following that responsibilty was more important than making the play. the gap control defense works on the assumption that you have to stay home so the cutback doesn't happen, and if the guy isn't in your gap, then you don't attack. problem is, everyone was counting on somebody else to make the play. makes me want to puke just thinking about it now.
"bozz_2006" wrote:
Okay, let me explain it another way, boy I wish I had my hands on the premise behind his scheme and how far he extended the lanes of the linebackers.
Most 4-3 Gap defenses are built upon the premise that the Dline controls the gap responsibilities in the run defense, the notion of playing gap as I was taught was the dline attacked different oline gaps to ensure that the offensive lineman didn't get free lanes to block the backers.
In turn, the backers have a primary responsibility to read the play (run/pass) effectively, once it is determined to be a run play, they have specific lanes based on the defensive fronts package. Example, a 22 was where both DT pinched in and attacked the centers gap.. their goal to tie up not only the center but the inside shoulders of the guards.. 2 on 3 mentality, but the DT's job was to get as wide as possible and chip the hell out of the guards. This clogged the middle of the offensive and allowed the middle backer to flow off either guards outside shoulder. On a 22, the DE had one on one matchups and the strong side backer had normally the Tightend to beat.. Strongside safety in this case always had outside responsibility in the running game and was the key to the defense.. he had to be rangy and smart..
Outside backers, primarily the will had the most freedom in the scheme.. ideally he should be able to freely flow in the scheme.. granted, guys get beat, but in the box, you are expected to hold up and within 3 seconds get free from the block..
Gap control as I was taught, was always the line clogging and the backers flowing..
Maybe it was Sanders scheme to have the backers sit and react... instead of flowing.. if that was the case, and not sure how we will ever know for sure the design of the scheme, then it was garbage..
Why I think it wasn't in the scheme, was watching Bishop play verse Hawk play the Wil.. Bishop was playing downhill once he read run in the scheme and attacking the lanes.. Hawk in the same role was sitting back and waiting for the play to come to him.. same position... maybe that is why they didn't play Bishop in the middle, maybe Bishop was playing outside the scheme and that pissed Sanders off.. BTW.. that is part of the reason Bishop got exposed in the passing game.. a little to aggressive in run support then trying to turn around and play man coverage. That is the design flaw in the defense.
In all the footballs camps I attended in the 3 years I hit them hard, I never was asked to play a sit and wait approach as a linebacker.. you had specific lanes that were your primary responsibilities, but you never were taught to wait as a backer unless you had back door responsibility on an edge play.. flow, keep the play ahead of you and protect the edges of the defense.. make the runner go east and west as much as possible and pretend the corners can't tackle.. I learned to play DE and Backers in 3-4, 4-3 and Buddy Ryan's 46 scheme (the rave at the time in youth camps)... never was I taught to wait and not attack once I properly read run..
Maybe, I expect too much plain logic that Sanders wasn't holding the backers from attacking.. but either way.. I am not impressed with the play of the backers in general.. but I could be placing too much blame upon their shoulders.
Want a true opinion.. I think the backers, primarily Hawk as I focused on him, had a heck of a time diagnosing the play properly... I buy more into the coverage scheme that backers were forced to play if the play was pass.. they played almost a strictly man to man coverage, so if you had a hard time diagnosing the play properly, you had to sit back and wait to ensure it wasn't a play action.. if you bit up on the fake, with the man to man responsibility in coverage, you were toast. IMHO, that is where these backers struggled.. and why I place so much of the struggles upon Moss as the position coach.
The backers IMO, struggled in two key areas that stem back to the position coach.. playing effectively with their hands in the box and reading the plays effectively.. there aren't that many teams in the NFL that run a "lights out" play action passing game.. most teams have a tell sign that can be read moments prior to the play on what the play is going to be.. on the field you should be able to see them.. a simple thing like how the oline is setting up, quarterbacks eyes moments before the snap, a backs eyes most of the time will key a running play.. etc...
Again, maybe I am giving Sanders too much credit and maybe it all laid upon his shoulders.. but the rational side in me says it doesn't all fall there.
"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"