Both defense's have the exact same base:
-4 DL
-3 LB and 1 DB in the box
-2 Corners
-1 Single high Safety
How does the defense differ and how is the Leo any different than a 46 de spreading out wide?
Im no coach but I would describe it as simply what is able to be done with the LEO position. Rush or drop back and cover a zone. To apply it to our situation, Branch has to be schemed into sacks, Clemons has been completely taken by father time. Virtually no production from the most important spot in our defensive scheme.
Help is on the way though. If fowler emerges as a solid pick then I see this team becoming scary.
In madden the difference between playing the defense with Fowler or without him is tremendous.
Quote:In madden the difference between playing the defense with Fowler or without him is tremendous.
I cant believe Im about to say this but for once in theory, I think the same could be said for reality.
The only 46 defense I can really remember is the Bears of 85 and I want to say the mid/late 90's eagles. Both those 46 defenses seemed to blitz alot more and played more man coverages... But that's just from my memory of it.
The Seattle Scheme is not aggressive, at least not Gus' version of it.. It's a passive defense that seems to react to the offense. On the other hand, the Bears and Eagles of Buddy Ryan was was aggressive and forced the the issue onto the offense.
What's the advantage of the Gus defense over a Tampa 2 defense? Seems like it needs a lot of pieces just to work effectively.
1 works the other doesnt lol
Quote:What's the advantage of the Gus defense over a Tampa 2 defense? Seems like it needs a lot of pieces just to work effectively.
The advantage is in the run defense. With the personnel we have we probably should have played more Tampa 2 but there would still be holes for the offense to exploit just not as big, but there would be much larger holes in the run game and we would have become a guessing defense like we were under Mike Smith. I think playing the Tampa 2 we would have been a better defense, but not by much.
Quote:The advantage is in the run defense. With the personnel we have we probably should have played more Tampa 2 but there would still be holes for the offense to exploit just not as big, but there would be much larger holes in the run game and we would have become a guessing defense like we were under Mike Smith. I think playing the Tampa 2 we would have been a better defense, but not by much.
Speaking of Mike Smith, I wonder if we can bring him back as DC?
Quote:Speaking of Mike Smith, I wonder if we can bring him back as DC?
Wouldn't be opposed to that
Quote:Both defense's have the exact same base:
-4 DL
-3 LB and 1 DB in the box
-2 Corners
-1 Single high Safety
How does the defense differ and how is the Leo any different than a 46 de spreading out wide?
They are nothing alike, other than they both have 11 players on the field.
Quote:The advantage is in the run defense. With the personnel we have we probably should have played more Tampa 2 but there would still be holes for the offense to exploit just not as big, but there would be much larger holes in the run game and we would have become a guessing defense like we were under Mike Smith. I think playing the Tampa 2 we would have been a better defense, but not by much.
Tampa 2 requires an MLB with the speed to play the deep middle. Hardy Nickerson was the very best at it because he could plug the line or play the ball 20 yards down field on a 3 step drop.
Quote:Tampa 2 requires an MLB with the speed to play the deep middle. Hardy Nickerson was...
Good try...
Nickerson's 40 yard dash - 4.78
Poz's 40 yard dash - 4.7
.
Quote:The advantage is in the run defense. With the personnel we have we probably should have played more Tampa 2 but there would still be holes for the offense to exploit just not as big, but there would be much larger holes in the run game and we would have become a guessing defense like we were under Mike Smith. I think playing the Tampa 2 we would have been a better defense, but not by much.
It would be no different. If you can't rush the passer any zone defense you run is going to get shredded by good QB's because they have all day to throw. Not to mention the fact that Gus' scheme has CB's covering WR's deep.
Imagine this team in a Tampa 2 style with Evans/Cyp/Brown responsible for WR's deep and Poz responsible for the deep middle. I've actually seen it too often this year and it's bad, very, very bad.
Bottom line, the team needs to rush the passer much better.
Quote:Both defense's have the exact same base:
-4 DL
-3 LB and 1 DB in the box
-2 Corners
-1 Single high Safety
How does the defense differ and how is the Leo any different than a 46 de spreading out wide?
The alignment is different and there aren't two DE's in the classic term. It's more of a 4-3 under look with a 3-4 end on the weak side and a 3-4 LB playing with his hand in the dirt on the strong side.
Quote:Bottom line, the team needs to rush the passer much better.
Jags, 34 sacks.
Seahawks and Cardinals, 35 sacks.
Quote:Jags, 34 sacks.
Seahawks and Cardinals, 35 sacks.
just so you understand some differences what is completely different is yards per attempt. Arizona avgs 6.9 Seattle avgs 6.7 an attempt. Which means qbs facing these 2 teams look shorter, take shorter drops, and avoid long pass plays for fear of the rush
Jacksonville avgs 7.6 an attempt. Which means qbs facing us take deeper drops and look deep far more often because they do not fear our passrush
another note Jax has allowed 4049 passing yards Arizona has allowed 3478 and Seattle has allowed 3159
Finally, yes it is actually easier to get sacks when your opponent is constantly taking deeper drops to generate big plays as opposed to them playing conservative for fear of a turnover.
Quote:Both defense's have the exact same base:
-4 DL
-3 LB and 1 DB in the box
-2 Corners
-1 Single high Safety
How does the defense differ and how is the Leo any different than a 46 de spreading out wide?
As I recall, the 46 defense brought a very heavy blitz constantly. It was very very aggressive in that way. The way I remember it, every play was like an avalanche and the QB had very little time to get the ball out and he knew he was going to take a pounding even if he got the ball off.
Quote:The only 46 defense I can really remember is the Bears of 85 and I want to say the mid/late 90's eagles. Both those 46 defenses seemed to blitz alot more and played more man coverages... But that's just from my memory of it.
The Seattle Scheme is not aggressive, at least not Gus' version of it.. It's a passive defense that seems to react to the offense. On the other hand, the Bears and Eagles of Buddy Ryan was was aggressive and forced the the issue onto the offense.
Seattles defense is very aggressive. Why? Because they have corners that can both press you at the line to disrupt timing of the play and keep high leverage so they don't get stacked on a 9 route.
Right now we have a third corner who was taking snaps under center in college last year, and a Free Safety with a Rick Flare Fetish (Okay, ill admit it. The dance is REALLY cool!)
Quote:Seattles defense is very aggressive. Why? Because they have corners that can both press you at the line to disrupt timing of the play and keep high leverage so they don't get stacked on a 9 route.
Right now we have a third corner who was taking snaps under center in college last year, and a Free Safety with a Rick Flare Fetish (Okay, ill admit it. The dance is REALLY cool!)
"... stacked on a 9 route..."
Please explain that phrase.