Wait they used the Psycho package with one defensive lineman, two weeks ago? I only saw it used in the final dive last night.

---

Even IF we noticed it wasn't working all that great, we'd likely be employing a logical fallacy if we blamed that particular defensive formation.

This isn't that hard. Hypothetically an offense comes out in a base offense and they throw a pass for 30 yards. The base defense was in a 4-3. In the course of the game, this defense is only used a handful of times, and in three of the five times the offense converts a first down.

What's the conclusion? Did the 4-3 fail in this situation? How about, HOW THE HELL COULD YOU POSSIBLE KNOW THAT FROM FIVE PLAYS? What about the OFFENSIVE PLAYS that were called. There are 22 players on the field at one time, a lot of moving parts. What if the play call was a draw play that went for 15 yards? Does that mean 4-3 defenses are susceptible for draw plays? Seriously. How can you draw conclusions about a defensive set when its used sparingly in a game?

---

Ya im pretty sure we got 2 sacks and a lot of pressure out of this..why take it away it works.........

---

the psycho package is with one down lineman and five LB's. They only played in this package a couple times.

---

I love this package. Loved it in New England, as well. I wrote an article about this package. I'd hug Capers for installing the package.

Of course it's not a failsafe scheme. Nothing is. I think that this is a risk-reward package. Do you get the confusion you want? In that case, there'll be pressure on the QB before he can do a thing. If you don't, you're screwed, barring a miraclous safe from your covering crew.

It's the kind of thing we keep shouting for when we play prevent. And the thing that makes half the forum shout for prevent.