ARTICLE: Death of the Strongside Linebacker by John Clayton

[Rack]

Their style of D held Pittsburgh to 21 points, it was their offense that **** the bed (as it has in every playoff loss)

Did you even watch the game? Did you at least check the box score?

It was OBVIOUS Pittsburgh's goal that game was to keep the Pats offense OFF the field. They had 42 rush attempts (despite only averaging 2.7 per carry). They could of score more, but they had a game plan and stuck to it.

You don't beat the Colts by exchanging punches, you use your jab and cover up (play defense).

What a revelation.

If you know of a bunch of guys who not only have the speed and versatility of the Colts defense combined with the size and strength of the prototypical 3-4 personnel, I'm sure Tony Dungy (and 31 others) would love to hear from you...

You obviously took that quote out of context. I'd suggest you debate with a little more civility in the future.

The "much stronger defense" they faced in the post-season this year being the same D they dismantled (in Pittsburgh) in week 12? Their loss in the playoffs had everything to do with being unable to protect Manning. You yourself said their undersized 4-3 adequately handled the Steelers running offense... I'm not sure how bigger players on the defensive side of the ball would have helped them out.

Hey thanks, but I don't need any help proving my point.


The Steelers only ran the ball 25 times in that game.

They ran the ball 42 times in the playoff game. They obviously learned something from their first game against the Colts. And don't tell me it had to do with the Colts jumping out to a big lead. It was 16-7 at halftime. Hardly a big lead.

In the playoffs they stuck to their game plan (win TOP, keep the colts off the field) and it paid off.

You're right, they won't. But if you look at the 13 meaningful regular season games they played

You still aren't getting it. There's a difference between a good defense, and a championship caliber defense. The colts don't have a championship caliber defense. Period. If they did, combined with that offense, they'd ROLL through the playoffs and easily win a superbowl.

Whether or not you care to admit it, their "undersized" 4-3 was instrumental in getting them to the playoffs

OMG. Easily one of the most ignorant statements I've ever read.

Their defense started off amazing, but sucked down the stretch.

In 2 of their last three games they gave up 26 and 28 points. In that 3rd game they got lucky cuz they played Arizona.

That's not exactly the way your want your defense to play when going into the playoffs.

By the way, the Steelers scored 21 points only cuz the Bus fumbled at the 1 yard line. Plus, "holding" someone to 21 points in a playoff game at home isn't exactly "Great" defense.

You can dislike the 4-3, you can dislike defenses that use smaller, faster players, but you can't legitimately construe the Colt's abberational offensive collapse in the Divisional playoff as being related to their defensive scheme

First of all, where the hell did I say I hate the 4-3? PLEASE do a search and find one quote from me ever saying that.

Go ahead, have fun.

Second of all, I never said having fast players was a bad thing. Again, PLEASE do a search and find one single post where I said fast defensive players is a bad thing.

Go ahead, have run.


I only criticized the Colts run defense (mainly due to them being undersized).


To say that the colts defense is good cuz it's built around their offense usually having a 2+ TD lead is completely ignorant (to say the LEAST).

 

[Hater]

Did you even watch the game? Did you at least check the box score?

It was OBVIOUS Pittsburgh's goal that game was to keep the Pats offense OFF the field. They had 42 rush attempts (despite only averaging 2.7 per carry). They could of score more, but they had a game plan and stuck to it.

The Steelers only ran the ball 25 times in that game.

They ran the ball 42 times in the playoff game. They obviously learned something from their first game against the Colts. And don't tell me it had to do with the Colts jumping out to a big lead. It was 16-7 at halftime. Hardly a big lead.

I'll say it anyway: the Steelers ran it 25 times in round 1 because they were down. 16-7 might not be a very big lead, but when you are facing an offense that can very quickly double it, you need to close the gap. Are you suggesting that if the Steelers had stuck to their game plan and ran it 42 times the first time around, the outcome would have been different? The Steelers passed their way to 2 early TD's in the playoffs, then used the running game to sit on their lead... pounding the ball isn't what got them ahead, its what kept them ahead.

In the playoffs they stuck to their game plan (win TOP, keep the colts off the field) and it paid off.

That game plan goes out of the window when you are down by 2 touchdowns at halftime, sort of like the Steelers were the first time around. If your gameplan is to "win TOP, keep the colts off the field" and run the ball over 40 times in a game where you are down by 2+ TD's then you don't know very much about football.

You still aren't getting it. There's a difference between a good defense, and a championship caliber defense. The colts don't have a championship caliber defense. Period. If they did, combined with that offense, they'd ROLL through the playoffs and easily win a superbowl.

I never said the Colts had a "championship caliber" defense, I said they had a good one that complemented their offense well, and I think being 14-2 and having the #2 O and the #2 D (possibly #1 in both if they don't sit the 1st stringers and run vanilla schemes in their last 3 games) is more than enough proof of that.

Their defense started off amazing, but sucked down the stretch.
In 2 of their last three games they gave up 26 and 28 points. In that 3rd game they got lucky cuz they played Arizona. That's not exactly the way your want your defense to play when going into the playoffs.

In the NFL they have this crazy thing where if you win your first 13 games, they let you play all your playoff games at home.

Safe to say their "A" game wasn't being brought vs Seattle and San Diego, and I'm going to go waaay out on a limb and say that if the Colts weren't playing Arizona in week 17, with a division title and home field throughout clinched, they might have been able to squeek it out by more than 4 points. If only they had been less concerned about resting starters and preventing injuries, you wouldnt have to rely on 3 meaningless games played at the end of the season to reach for examples to support your claim that they "sucked down the stretch." That's like saying the '95 Cowboys got off to a slow start because they lost all their preseason games.

By the way, the Steelers scored 21 points only cuz the Bus fumbled at the 1 yard line. Plus, "holding" someone to 21 points in a playoff game at home isn't exactly "Great" defense.

Actually the Steelers scored 21 points only because Cowher wanted to get his homeboy some more glory instead of playing it safe and sitting on the ball... If Vanderjagt nails that field goal and Indy wins the coin toss in OT, that may go down as one of the biggest coaching blunders in the history of the league. And I believe the reason they had the ball so deep in Colts' territory in the first place is because Indy gave it up on downs the previous possession in desperation... again, the poor play of the Indy O. And I'm not sure where you got that "great" from because I never used that word to describe the Colts D.

First of all, where the hell did I say I hate the 4-3? PLEASE do a search and find one quote from me ever saying that.

Never said you said that, I said you "can" dislike the 4-3 if you want, because that's what your posts on this thread seemed to indicate. Not being overly familiar with your 8,000+ posts on this board, I don't really have anything else to go on.

Second of all, I never said having fast players was a bad thing. Again, PLEASE do a search and find one single post where I said fast defensive players is a bad thing.

Never said you said that either

The ideal player would be one that is both big and fast. Instead of just going with the undersized fast guys.

I'm sorry, is it in its correct context now? Because it still looks as idiotic when I added the sentence fragment that followed it.

I only criticized the Colts run defense (mainly due to them being undersized). To say that the colts defense is good cuz it's built around their offense usually having a 2+ TD lead is completely ignorant (to say the LEAST).

I never said the colts defense was good specifically because its built around them having a 2+ TD lead, I said that's one of the reasons why it's successful. They were GOOD because they were the #2 scoring defense in professional football... but if you'd rather measure effectiveness based on 3 meaningless end of season games, and a playoff game that the offensive line blew then maybe I'm wasting my time even having this conversation.

 

[JPostSam]

shadowfax is right on -- jimmy johnson stressed speed over size, which is why we had three linebackers who couldn't be beaten to the sideline and who could fill up those running lanes in a blink.

anyway, it isn't as if clayton is "discovering" anything here... i mean, when was speed NOT the issue? the answer, of course, is NEVER!

why? because it isn't just speed that you're talking about, but speed WITH SIZE. i mean, deion sanders was not going to be a defensive end just because he had blazing speed. but dwight freeney is so special because he has great speed AND is big and strong enough to fight off offensive linemen.

a similar issue holds true on the other side of the ball. the "new breed" of tight end like tony gonzalez, jeremy shockey, antonio gates, jason witten, etc. are exciting because they mix good speed and pass-catching ability in a big body. ditto for the 6'2" 220-pound wide receivers.

...there has ALWAYS been a premium on athletes who are big, strong and fast -- the thing is that athletes are getting bigger, stronger, and faster RELATIVE to their predecessors. offensive linemen aren't just taller and heavier today than they were 10 and 20 years ago -- they are just as agile as their predecessors were (excluding exceptions; i'm talking generally). i mean, you wouldn't care that you found a 7-foot, 400-pound offensive tackle if he couldn't move to save his life, because he'd be a liability.

some teams may be moving away from 255-pound linebackers to faster 235-pounders, but that doesn't mean that there were never 235-pound linebackers. what it DOES mean is that today's 235-pounders are faster than their predecessors, so the 255-pounders lose their competitive advantage relative to the faster, lighter guys. until now, the heavier guys won their jobs by being just as fast (or nearly so) as the lighter guys but bringing more bulk to the table. obviously, as soon as a crop of 255-pounders who can run like the lighter guys shows up, THEY will replace the lighter guys.

...by the way, our new 255-pounder runs the 40 in 4.6 seconds.

 

[Rack]

I'll say it anyway: the Steelers ran it 25 times in round 1 because they were down. 16-7 might not be a very big lead, but when you are facing an offense that can very quickly double it, you need to close the gap. Are you suggesting that if the Steelers had stuck to their game plan and ran it 42 times the first time around, the outcome would have been different? The Steelers passed their way to 2 early TD's in the playoffs, then used the running game to sit on their lead... pounding the ball isn't what got them ahead, its what kept them ahead.

Absolutely. They may not have won, but they wouldn't of lost 26-7.

That game plan goes out of the window when you are down by 2 touchdowns at halftime, sort of like the Steelers were the first time around. If your gameplan is to "win TOP, keep the colts off the field" and run the ball over 40 times in a game where you are down by 2+ TD's then you don't know very much about football.

Here we go with the numbnut "you don't know much about football" idiocy.

I'm only 34 years old and I've FORGOTTEN more about football then you know, Nancy.


They were down by 9 point at halftime of that game, not 2 TDs. They got away from their gameplan and ended up losing by 19. Do the math, Genius.

I never said the Colts had a "championship caliber" defense, I said they had a good one that complemented their offense well, and I think being 14-2 and having the #2 O and the #2 D (possibly #1 in both if they don't sit the 1st stringers and run vanilla schemes in their last 3 games) is more than enough proof of that.

Yes, the ignorant always go straight to stats and say "there's the proof".


Their #2 D couldn't stop a mostly one dimensional offense at home in the playoffs.

In the NFL they have this crazy thing where if you win your first 13 games, they let you play all your playoff games at home.

Complete ignorance. The 13 win mark was the cutoff number, huh? Couldn't of done the same at 11 wins or 12 wins, huh?


These guys are competitors. They go out and try to win just as much as the other team. You don't think an undefeated season was any motivation for them?

If only they had been less concerned about resting starters and preventing injuries, you wouldnt have to rely on 3 meaningless games

Yet the way their defense played in those "meaningless games" carried over into the playoffs (at home no less).

If Vanderjagt nails that field goal and Indy wins the coin toss in OT, that may go down as one of the biggest coaching blunders in the history of the league

If If If If ...

IF the Bus doesn't fumble the game isn't even close and the Colts D ends up giving up 28 points at home instead of 21. What a great compliment that D was to their offense in that game.

again, the poor play of the Indy O

Oh it was just the Colts O playing poorly huh? The Steelers D has nothing to do with that.

Here's another for you.

Never said you said that, I said you "can" dislike the 4-3 if you want, because that's what your posts on this thread seemed to indicate.

Only someone completely clueless would feel that my posts indicated I "hate" the 4-3.

Yes, I just called you completely clueless.

I'm sorry, is it in its correct context now? Because it still looks as idiotic when I added the sentence fragment that followed it.

You're quickly approaching moronic levels.

but if you'd rather measure effectiveness based on 3 meaningless end of season games, and a playoff game that the offensive line blew then maybe I'm wasting my time even having this conversation.

If you're gonna be blaming the Colts OL for that loss then 1) I'm wasting MY time debating with you, and 2) you're the biggest Ignoramous (again, to say the LEAST) I've ever come across.

 

[Billy Bullocks]

Seems like those ole' antiquated sticks in the mud like Pittsburgh and New England have been doing just fine recently. If I were writing an article about the trend of dominating NFL defenses, I'm not sure I would use the Colts, Rams and Titans as my examples.

Hahhaah. Good point man.

 

[CrazyCowboy]

Since we run the 3-4, Big LB's are important......

 

[morasp]

Those fast smallish linebackers are great until the fourth quarter when their out of gas and you only have a three point lead and than watch out. The game is won in the trenches and the big and fast guys we're putting together give us the best of both worlds.

 

[baj1dallas]

Seems like those ole' antiquated sticks in the mud like Pittsburgh and New England have been doing just fine recently. If I were writing an article about the trend of dominating NFL defenses, I'm not sure I would use the Colts, Rams and Titans as my examples.

The Colts are coming along....what about the Bears and Bucs instead?

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Ding ding we have a winner

Jimmy always had a theory speed could make up for the mental break down or errors that happen in games

Yep.

Jimmy was doing it a long time before Dungy.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Those fast smallish linebackers are great until the fourth quarter when their out of gas and you only have a three point lead and than watch out. The game is won in the trenches and the big and fast guys we're putting together give us the best of both worlds.

Huh?

OK.

 

[Eddie]

Uh, I think Jimmie Johnson made this famous in Big D before Dungy started using his cover 2.

I agree. This is nothing more than the Miami Hurricane 4-3 from the early 90's.

They laughed at the miniature LB's we had.

The beauty of those D's were that we didn't need Pro Bowlers at LB to excel ...we simply needed speed. Small LB's were a dime a dozen. We were able to restock and not miss a beat for years.

 

[ravidubey]

Ding ding we have a winner

Jimmy always had a theory speed could make up for the mental break down or errors that happen in games

The Cover-2 requires the middle linebacker to cover the deep middle of the field. He has to be a beast in coverage. Dave Waanstadt's defense did not do that.

I'm excited about this trend because it's easier for TE's in a two-TE offense to block smaller linebackers, and if you're 5'11" tall you aren't going to have a good time covering 6'6" TE's no matter how fast you are.

Against run-first teams, this trend relies on the little LB's not getting beat up. Seattle and Pittsburgh were both run-first teams last year and I think they did OK.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

All that applies to 4-3 defenses... not 3-4 defenses. You gotta have big LB's for the 34.

Not only that, but there's some inherit weaknesses with the Cover 2 or going for small, but fast guys. In the Cover 2 you're relying on your front 4 to get pressure on the QB and since your LB's are small, they usually struggle when they blitz. So unless you get a good front 4 that can rush the passer, you can be in trouble on defense. See Dallas during the Campo era and the first two seasons under Parcells where they played a ton of Cover 2 but didn't have the pass rushers up front to really make it work.

Furthermore, since the Cover 2 focuses so heavily on getting a pass rush from the front 4, often times the D-Linemen give up their lanes for stopping the run. KC Joyner did a nice write up on the coveted Bears D-Line and showed over a three game stretch were they were getting killed by Tommie Harris and Alex Brown losing their run defense responsibilities in order to get to the passer. Teams took great advantage of this and ran at them for big yards at will.

The other problem is that you usually wind up heavily rotating the entire front 7 since the smaller guys tend to wear down more easily. Furthermore, most Cover 2 defenses can't tackle to save their lives.

The Bears defense was so good last year because they have rare personnel to fit into the scheme and also play in the NFC North, which is the worst division in football.

The Bears had nice depth at D-Line last year, but they have these rare LB's that are both big and fast. They are fast enough to play in the Cover 2 and they don't wear down and are better blitzers than your normal Cover 2 LB.

It's not that I don't like the Cover 2, but like any defense it's great when you have a coach who knows what personnel to get and how to coach it. When you don't have those two things going for you, it can be torn apart.


Rich........

 

[silver]

All that applies to 4-3 defenses... not 3-4 defenses. You gotta have big LB's for the 34.

4-3 needs speedy linebackers across the board. case in point our '93 lb's core all had 4.5 speed: SLB Dixon Edwards, MLB Ken Norton, WLB Darrin Smith. None were bigger than 6-2 235.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

I mentioned this before, NFL goes through swings in schemes, offense (defenses) try or adjust to new schemes and then defenses (offenses) react and it takes several years for teams to draft and groom players. all these smallish fast LBs are suspect against power running games and you will see a lot of teams try that and just bulldoze over these players and find ways to match up these smallish fast LBs against bigger TEs and guards.

then the pendelum will swing back (as it is with all the teams switching to the 3-4) and LBs get bigger to counter the power running games and power formations and then offenses react and its never ending.

it use to be the timing offense, then WCO then now back to timing offense with two TE sets and on it goes.

so Clayton maybe right,but in 5 years he will right just the opposite article about death of the WLBs.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

this theory only applies to 4-3 Ds, in a 3-4, tweeners, converted DEs, the, "6'3" 255 strongside OLBs", are a premium, and are highly coveted, example: Wimbley and Lawson going higher than many people felt they should

 

[Bob Sacamano]

and the only problem with the Tampa cover-2 D many teams are emulating now, is that they tend to struggle when ran at, that was Tampa's biggest knock on D when they were dominating, reason why? having 3 starting WLBs, who struggle taking on blocks, which is even magnified with quick, penetrating tackles in front of them

 

[Bob Sacamano]

All that applies to 4-3 defenses... not 3-4 defenses. You gotta have big LB's for the 34.

 

[dfense]

Jimmy Johnson brought small fast LB's into the league. After they were successful, every team started. When teams start running on the smaller guys, they'll start to change their thought process.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Jimmy Johnson brought small fast LB's into the league. After they were successful, every team started. When teams start running on the smaller guys, they'll start to change their thought process.

the NFL is a copy-cat league, whatever is the most successful, is the new "in"