A True 46 defense is our best option

[Hostile]

You can bet if the Ravens have success with it this year that some teams will look to add some 46 features.

Ray Lewis recently said he expects that defense to cause havoc. The have a great secondary to be sure. McAlister and Samari Rolle might be one of the best CB tandems ever. Add Ed Reed.

Lewis is a killer. No pun intended.

Much of their success will depend on their front 4 and how much pressure Terrell Suggs can continue to provide.

Every defense can be negated. So can every offense. The uniqueness of being the only team running the 46 could really help them. Hard to game plan for what you haven't seen.

 

[NorthDalal]

dwMyers and JJones-I think you both have it figured out.

Those that think the 46 was a 4-6 alignement were mistaken. "46" was named for, I believe, Dave Duerson who was a mobile rover very prone to blitzing. True Roy Williams or Ray Lewis would be devestating in that role-but they're devastating in a regular 4-3 also.
The '85 Bears DEF was probably the best I've seen but it was based on a gambling style of pressure that left very ordinary DBs exposed, that is why Gibbs short passing game smurfs gave it fits and why Bill Walsh's quick read-short passing game also gave it fits eventually.

Passers who could roll out to throw on the run (the Washington waggle play, Joe Montana's and Steve Young's rollouts) and were accurate in the short zones were increasingly effective against the 46 in the late 80's.

It's also true from watching Buddy Ryan as Cardinal coach that "players make plays" not systems.

Good point on the Ryan son's though.

 

[Hostile]

dwMyers and JJones-I think you both have it figured out.

Those that think the 46 was a 4-6 alignement were mistaken. "46" was named for, I believe, Dave Duerson who was a mobile rover very prone to blitzing. True Roy Williams or Ray Lewis would be devestating in that role-but they're devastating in a regular 4-3 also.
The '85 Bears DEF was probably the best I've seen but it was based on a gambling style of pressure that left very ordinary DBs exposed, that is why Gibbs short passing game smurfs gave it fits and why Bill Walsh's quick read-short passing game also gave it fits eventually.

Passers who could roll out to throw on the run (the Washington waggle play, Joe Montana's and Steve Young's rollouts) and were accurate in the short zones were increasingly effective against the 46 in the late 80's.

It's also true from watching Buddy Ryan as Cardinal coach that "players make plays" not systems.

Good point on the Ryan son's though.

Can I get an amen?

 

[Cowboys&Caps]

Can I get an amen?

Amen

hopefully we have such players and if we do... 3-4, 4-3, 46, or something else it wont matter as much as we sometimes think.

 

[Nors]

dwMyers and JJones-I think you both have it figured out.

Those that think the 46 was a 4-6 alignement were mistaken. "46" was named for, I believe, Dave Duerson who was a mobile rover very prone to blitzing. NOT TRUE THE 46 WAS NAMED FOR #46 SAFETY GARY FENCIK. DUERSON WAS THE OTHER SAFETY.

True Roy Williams or Ray Lewis would be devestating in that role-but they're devastating in a regular 4-3 also. YES ON RY, NO ON LEWISThe '85 Bears DEF was probably the best I've seen but it was based on a gambling style of pressure that left very ordinary DBs exposed, that is why Gibbs short passing game smurfs gave it fits and why Bill Walsh's quick read-short passing game also gave it fits eventually.

Passers who could roll out to throw on the run (the Washington waggle play, Joe Montana's and Steve Young's rollouts) and were accurate in the short zones were increasingly effective against the 46 in the late 80's.

It's also true from watching Buddy Ryan as Cardinal coach that "players make plays" not systems.

Good point on the Ryan son's though.

Players, Coaching and schemes do matter. This is a team sport.

 

[Cowboys&Caps]

You can't argue that players don't matter more. Usually the schemes used at the pro level somewhat equal each other out, when compared to the diffrence made by the players. I hope what i said made sense to someone.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Number 46 was Doug Plank actually... And I like the avatar, Nors. At least it beats Quincy or Ty Law.

 

[Hostile]

You can't argue that players don't matter more. Usually the schemes used at the pro level somewhat equal each other out, when compared to the diffrence made by the players. I hope what i said made sense to someone.

He argues against personnel in the vain hope of closing ground.

:wink2:

 

[KDWilliams85]

Schemes, at the end of the day, don't matter. Players are the ones that make the plays. If it weren't a matter of matchups, I'm sure teams would use the good ol' "Use your best judgment" scheme... or... use a blind scheme.

 

[Nors]

http://experts.about.com/q/274/3689605.htm

My bad - it was indeed Plank. But named after a safety in the box.

 

[Nors]

Thats crap

A quote on Lombardi, He'd beat you with his team. Turn around and take your team and beat you. Coaching and schemes are part of the equation. To deny that is silly. See Bellichecks run with Pats.

 

[KDWilliams85]

Thats crap

A quote on Lombardi, He'd beat you with his team. Turn around and take your team and beat you. Coaching and schemes are part of the equation. To deny that is silly. See Bellichecks run with Pats.

Any good coach will tell you that. Scheming and plotting are part of the game but it isn't how you match up against that will let you win or lose. It's how the matchup is exploited.

 

[scottsp]

Of course coaching plays a part. But no coach can do much with absolute dung for personnel. There must be horses, especially on the defensive front.

 

[KDWilliams85]

Of course coaching plays a part. But no coach can do much with absolute dung for personnel. There must be horses, especially on the defensive front.

Not necessarily. You just have to be able to outmaneuver your offensive counterpart. That's all it is. If it came down to brute strength, Dallas' offense would have been friggin' awesome because of that mammoth front line.

 

[scottsp]

Not necessarily. You just have to be able to outmaneuver your offensive counterpart. That's all it is. If it came down to brute strength, Dallas' offense would have been friggin' awesome because of that mammoth front line.

Yeah, I dunno about all that. Never said anything about brute strength either. I just know that I see dominant defensive lines on most of the great teams throughout history.

Not always top notch QBs, offensive lines, receivers, runners, etc. Give me a great defensive front and the talent that can wreak absolute havoc.

 

[Cowboys&Caps]

If it came down to brute strength, Dallas' offense would have been friggin' awesome because of that mammoth front line.[/font]

Our line hasn't been "Mammoth" enough (especially at RG/RT before Rivera) to create a great running game for us so i would have to dissagree with you. I beleive that a Great, not always huge (see Denver) O-line is the biggest part of making any kind of consistant SuperBowl runs (A great defense is also neccesarry). Thats why i think in the next three years we have a great chance to win a SuperBowl i would say perhaps greater than the eagles have.

especially if we sneak some 46 formation in there

 

[Hostile]

I will never understand how people cannot understand that the #1 ingredient for success is to have talented players to work with.

Coaching matters. Of course it does. Never said it didn't. A team of Lynn Scotts is not going to beat a team of Darren Woodsons with coaching at this level.

Schemes can create matchup problems but in and of themselves they cannot make one cent worth of difference without the players to run the scheme. Our team is proof of that. We acquired the personnel this year to make a switch. If the scheme made any difference at all without the personnel it wouldn't have required 3 years to do given a Hall of Fame Head Coach is in the driver's seat.

Teams can struggle in any scheme. The reason is simple. If they don't have good personnel the other team is going to exploit it. That's a fact and no amount of spin control can refute it.

 

[Nors]

Bellicheck is a true Hall of Famer - 5 Super Bowl rings. He can scheme up a team and has. Wins with Earth Wind and Fire at CB, Injuries all over plugs players into his system and wins. Won without Seymour in playoffs last year.... Chattam at LB on and on. Yes players are important but coaching and schemes are a critical factor.

Coaching truly matters but thats just me.

 

[scottsp]

What was Bellicheck's problem in Cleveland again? Schemed that up, did he?

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Thats crap

A quote on Lombardi, He'd beat you with his team. Turn around and take your team and beat you. Coaching and schemes are part of the equation. To deny that is silly. See Bellichecks run with Pats.

This quote was from Bum Phillips on Don Shula. The exact quote is as follows?

"He can take his'n and beat your'n or he can take your'n and beat his'n."