Defensive Personnel Packages

[theogt]

Just thought I'd put together a thread showing all of the different packages we've been running. The "Dime Corner" and "Single Safety" packages are relatively new wrinkles designed to play against pass-happy teams. Obviously, the biggest difference in these packages vs. the normal package from which they vary is the removal of Roy Williams.

The packages read from defensive left to right. Generally, the first row represents down linemen, the second row linebackers, etc.

Base 3-4
Spears, Ratliff, Canty
Ellis, James, Ayodele, Ware
Reeves, Williams, Hamlin, Newman

3-3-5
Ellis, Ratliff, Hatcher
Ware, Burnett, Spencer
Reeves, Newman, Henry
Williams, Hamlin

Single Safety
Spears, Ratliff, Canty
Ellis, James, Burnett, Ware
Reeves, Newman, Henry
Hamlin

Dime Corner
Ellis, Ratliff, Canty, Ware
Burnett
Reeves, Jones, Newman, Henry
Hamlin, Watkins

Dime Safety
Ellis, Ratliff, Canty, Ware
Williams, Burnett
Reeves, Newman, Henry
Hamlin, Watkins

Short Yardage
Hatcher, Johnson, Ratliff, Canty
Ware, James, Ayodele, Ellis
Williams, Hamlin, Newman

Goalline
Ellis, Hatcher, Ratliff, Canty, Ware
Bradie, Burnett, Ayodele
Williams, Hamlin, Newman

------

Now, here's how we used the packages on every down and distance. It also gives you a good feel for how we rotate in our defensive line substitutes.

Another thing that struck me when viewing this is that Newman came out for a series after he limped off the field. It's been reported as just his plantar fascia injury, but after he came back in he looked remarkably sluggish, and Green Bay certainly took advantage of him to an extent. Hopefully this isn't a new injury.

1st Quarter

1st Drive
1st & 10 - Single Safety
1st & 10 - Base 3-4
2nd & 10 - Dime Safety
3rd & 10 - Dime Corner
3rd & 05 - Dime Corner
1st & 10 - Base 3-4
2nd & 04 - Base 3-4
3rd & 01 - Short Yardage

2nd Drive
1st & 10 - Dime Corner
2nd & 03 - Base 3-4
3rd & 03 - 3-3-5

3rd Drive
1st & 10 - Dime Safety (Johnson in for Ratliff; Bowen in for Canty)

4th Drive
1st & 10 - Dime Safety (James in for Burnett)
2nd & 06 - Base 3-4 (Hatcher in for Spears)
3rd & 06 - Illegal Play (12 Men on the Field)
3rd & 01 - Short Yardage

2nd Quarter

5th Drive
1st & 10 - Base 3-4 (Johnson in for Ratliff)
2nd & 07 - Base 3-4 (Johnson in for Ratliff)
1st & 10 - Base 3-4 (Davis in for Williams)
2nd & 10 - Dime Safety (Bowen in for Canty)
3rd & 10 - 3-3-5
1st & 10 - Base 3-4
2nd & 12 - Dime Corner (Bowen in for Canty)

6th Drive
1st & 10 - Base 3-4
2nd & 10 - Base 3-4
3rd & 07 - Dime Safety (Johnson in for Ratliff; Bowen in for Canty)
1st & 10 - Base 3-4
2nd & 10 - Single Safety
3rd & 07 - 3-3-5

7th Drive
1st & 10 - Dime Corner (Johnson in for Ratliff; Davis in for Watkins)
2nd & 11 - Dime Corner (Johnson in for Ratliff; Davis in for Watkins)
1st & 10 - Dime Safety (Jones in for Newman)
2nd & 01 - Base 3-4 (Bowen in for Canty; Henry in for Newman)
1st & 10 - Dime Safety (Bowen in for Canty; Jones in for Newman)
2nd & 09 - Illegal Play (Offsides)
2nd & 04 - Base 3-4 (Hatcher in for Spears)
1st & GL - Dime Corner (James in for Burnett)
1st & GL - Dime Corner (James in for Burnett)
2nd & GL - Dime Corner (James in for Burnett)

3rd Quarter

8th Drive
1st & 10 - Base 3-4
2nd & 18 - Single Safety
3rd & 11 - Dime Safety
1st & 10 - Base 3-4
2nd & 08 - Dime Corner (Johnson in for Ratliff; Bowen in for Canty)
1st & 10 - Base 3-4 (Johnson in for Ratliff; Bowen in for Canty)
1st & 10 - Base 3-4 (Hatcher in for Spears)
2nd & 09 - Dime Safety
3rd & 04 - Dime Safety
1st & 10 - Dime Safety
2nd & 02 - Goalline
1st & GL - Goalline

4th Quarter

9th Drive
1st & 10 - Single Safety
1st & 10 - Single Safety
2nd & 10 - Base 3-4
3rd & 05 - Dime Safety

10th Drive
1st & 10 - Dime Safety
2nd & 04 - Dime Safety
1st & 10 - Dime Safety
1st & 10 - Dime Safety
2nd & 10 - Dime Safety (Johnson in for Ratliff; Bowen in for Canty)
3rd & 01 - Base 3-4 (Hatcher in for Spears; Johnson in for Ratliff; Bowen in for Canty)

11th Drive
1st & 10 - Dime Safety
1st & 10 - Dime Safety
2nd & 01 - Grounded Ball
3rd & 01 - Dime Safety
4th & 01 - Dime Safety

-----------------------------

Base 3-4 - 21 Snaps
1st & 10 (1st Quarter)
1st & 10 (1st Quarter)
2nd & 04 (1st Quarter)
2nd & 02 (1st Quarter)
2nd & 06 (1st Quarter)
1st & 10 (2nd Quarter)
2nd & 07 (2nd Quarter)
1st & 10 (2nd Quarter)
1st & 10 (2nd Quarter)
1st & 10 (2nd Quarter)
2nd & 10 (2nd Quarter)
1st & 10 (2nd Quarter)
2nd & 01 (2nd Quarter)
2nd & 04 (2nd Quarter)
1st & 10 (3rd Quarter)
1st & 10 (3rd Quarter)
1st & 10 (3rd Quarter)
1st & 10 (3rd Quarter)
2nd & 10 (4th Quarter)
3rd & 01 (4th Quarter)

3-3-5 - 3 Snaps
3rd & 03 (1st Quarter)
3rd & 10 (2nd Quarter)
3rd & 07 (2nd Quarter)

Single Safety - 5 Snaps
1st & 10 (1st Quarter)
2nd & 10 (2nd Quarter)
2nd & 18 (3rd Quarter)
1st & 10 (4th Quarter)
1st & 10 (4th Quarter)


Dime Corner - 11 Snaps
3rd & 10 (1st Quarter)
3rd & 05 (1st Quarter)
1st & 10 (1st Quarter)
1st & 10 (1st Quarter)
2nd & 12 (2nd Quarter)
1st & 10 (2nd Quarter)
2nd & 11 (2nd Quarter)
1st & GL (2nd Quarter)
1st & GL (2nd Quarter)
2nd & GL (2nd Quarter)
2nd & 08 (3rd Quarter)

Dime Safety - 19 Snaps
2nd & 10 (1st Quarter)
2nd & 10 (2nd Quarter)
3rd & 07 (2nd Quarter)
1st & 10 (2nd Quarter)
1st & 10 (2nd Quarter)
3rd & 11 (3rd Quarter)
2nd & 09 (3rd Quarter)
3rd & 04 (3rd Quarter)
1st & 10 (3rd Quarter)
3rd & 05 (4th Quarter)
1st & 10 (4th Quarter)
2nd & 04 (4th Quarter)
1st & 10 (4th Quarter)
1st & 10 (4th Quarter)
2nd & 10 (4th Quarter)
1st & 10 (4th Quarter)
1st & 10 (4th Quarter)
3rd & 01 (4th Quarter)
4th & 01 (4th Quarter)

Short Yardage - 2 Snaps
3rd & 01 (1st Quarter)
3rd & 01 (1st Quarter)

Goalline - 2 Snaps
2nd & 02 (3rd Quarter)
1st & GL (3rd Quarter)

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Great research there theogt.

 

[scottsp]

Outstanding job of charting/trending. Our adaptation to use certain personnel packages for a specific gameplan, i.e. the dime/six DBs, is exciting as hell for me. It smacks of an outstanding job of preparation, that this team - this defense - was ready for the job at hand.

The game within the game, adjusments - both coming into the game and on-the-fly - are earmarks of a well-coached ballclub. We ran 30+ snaps with dime look, basically conceding the running threat. And vs. GB, that's just intelligent football.

I also continue to be impressed with how well we limit big plays to the opposition. Yes, Grant's run on 3rd and 1 was a long gainer, but it really doesn't bother me so much. Very much a correctable error and not cause for alarm.

Does this defense still have issues? Oh yes. But GB was a huge game. This unit showed very well considering. The pass rush was excellent. The coverage, particularly in the deep-third was on-point as well.

Again, great job on this, Theo.

 

[Wolfpack]

Wow...great post. Thanks!

 

[sbark]

did not the Pats go "No huddle" to combat our substitution packages......

could see a team w/ a vet QB attempt same in playoffs...........

one way to force Roy into coverage packages more........

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Outstanding job of charting/trending. Our adaptation to use certain personnel packages for a specific gameplan, i.e. the dime/six DBs, is exciting as hell for me. It smacks of an outstanding job of preparation, that this team - this defense - was ready for the job at hand.

The game within the game, adjusments - both coming into the game and on-the-fly - are earmarks of a well-coached ballclub. We ran 30+ snaps with dime look, basically conceding the running threat. And vs. GB, that's just intelligent football.

I also continue to be impressed with how well we limit big plays to the opposition. Yes, Grant's run on 3rd and 1 was a long gainer, but it really doesn't bother me so much. Very much a correctable error and not cause for alarm.

Does this defense still have issues? Oh yes. But GB was a huge game. This unit showed very well considering. The pass rush was excellent. The coverage, particularly in the deep-third was on-point as well.

Again, great job on this, Theo.

I'd love to see how the package distribution has changed since the New England game. My guess is that we were in the base 3-4 a higher percentage than we were against GB. But that's just a guess.

 

[theogt]

I'd love to see how the package distribution has changed since the New England game. My guess is that we were in the base 3-4 a higher percentage than we were against GB. But that's just a guess.

I was planning on charting that game because I have the same feeling you did. I think either Wade is gradually learning his personnel and how best to utilize them or our players or becoming more accustomed to his system such that we're able to do more progressively. Either way, the more the players get used to all of these packages, the more we can make in game adjustments.

 

[AsthmaField]

I was planning on charting that game because I have the same feeling you did. I think either Wade is gradually learning his personnel and how best to utilize them or our players or becoming more accustomed to his system such that we're able to do more progressively. Either way, the more the players get used to all of these packages, the more we can make in game adjustments.

Yep... you can see the amount of specialization increasing week to week. I love it, and it's really going to help us as the year progresses and the playoffs approach.

My guess is that it's a little bit of both. He's getting used to our players and they're getting used to his system.

Nice reasearch, BTW, theo.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

I was planning on charting that game because I have the same feeling you did. I think either Wade is gradually learning his personnel and how best to utilize them or our players or becoming more accustomed to his system such that we're able to do more progressively. Either way, the more the players get used to all of these packages, the more we can make in game adjustments.

I figure the charting is a pain, but I'd be grateful if someone did it. I'm betting it would tell a great deal.

While thinking "Super Bowl" is a little premature it might be a little fun to start thinking about how Wade would defend the Pats the second time around.

 

[scottsp]

I'd love to see how the package distribution has changed since the New England game. My guess is that we were in the base 3-4 a higher percentage than we were against GB. But that's just a guess.

Ya know, I was wondering that upon reading the original post. This thing looks to be a work in progress. You know how that goes. I did not chart nor have I checked out any similar breakdown of our personnel packages for the Patriot game. We all know what was unavailable to Wade and Stewart that day and who knows what will be if we meet those guys again.

I would venture a couple of things:

1. Dallas did not employ some of those options listed above, re: no Anthony Henry.

2. Had the Cowboys been as limited vs. the Packers, some of those same problems might have arisen the other night.

3. If we both get to SB Sunday (relatively healthy), we will have more to throw at Brady and Co. philosophically than we did Week Six.


The showing this defense threw out there Thursday night is something we all should be excited about. I believe this team learned something about itself. It can limit a potent passing attack.

For the five or so weeks leading into the Dallas game, Favre was playing as well as he ever had.

73%
328 yds per game
13 TDs / 2 INTs

The Dallas defense should be brimming with confidence after this one. Barring significant injury, there is absolutely no reason to believe it can't continue to improve as we hit the stretch run leading into the playoffs.

I think it can get a lot better.

 

[theebs]

good work theogt.

The one thing they need to improve on is sideline organization. They are barely getting these guys on the field with all the changes they make.

As teams prepare for us down the stretch we must really putting other teams in a bind. Like laufenberg said we use basically everyone who dresses on defense in some way.

and I think you are dead on about wade and brian stewart learning what each guy does better and then using that info for the packages. We should think that will lead to improvement each and every week.

I think the detroit game will be a test. If they lose to the vikings we will get their best effort with all the trick and gadget plays they have because it will be their last stand and at home.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Ya know, I was wondering that upon reading the original post. This thing looks to be a work in progress. You know how that goes. I did not chart nor have I checked out any similar breakdown of our personnel packages for the Patriot game. We all know what was unavailable to Wade and Stewart that day and who knows what will be if we meet those guys again.

I would venture a couple of things:

1. Dallas did not employ some of those options listed above, re: no Anthony Henry.

2. Had the Cowboys been as limited vs. the Packers, some of those same problems might have arisen the other night.

3. If we both get to SB Sunday (relatively healthy), we will have more to throw at Brady and Co. philosophically than we did Week Six.


The showing this defense threw out there Thursday night is something we all should be excited about. I believe this team learned something about itself. It can limit a potent passing attack.

For the five or so weeks leading into the Dallas game, Favre was playing as well as he ever had.

73%
328 yds per game
13 TDs / 2 INTs

The Dallas defense should be brimming with confidence after this one. Barring significant injury, there is absolutely no reason to believe it can't continue to improve as we hit the stretch run leading into the playoffs.

I think it can get a lot better.

Wade inferred after the Pat's game that we were looking to stop the run first... which I though was quite frankly goofy. That's why I think we played a lot more base 3-4 than we did against GB. Against GB we seem to be much more cognizant of their passing game, which I think made sense. And I'm hoping if we meet NE later on this season, that we'll focus more on stopping their passing game than we did the previous outing.

 

[scottsp]

Wade inferred after the Pat's game that we were looking to stop the run first... which I though was quite frankly goofy. That's why I think we played a lot more base 3-4 than we did against GB. Against GB we seem to be much more cognizant of their passing game, which I think made sense. And I'm hoping if we meet NE later on this season, that we'll focus more on stopping their passing game than we did the previous outing.

Aye. The stop-the-run-first statement left me a bit puzzled as well. Not sure whether or not Wade was totally forthcoming on that. At least, I hope not. I would concede just about everything on the ground (vs. NE), but that's just me.

Per the packages utilized vs GB, I would agree with your assessment of our game plan this past week.

 

[IndianaCowboyFan]

I think it will take the full year before everyone is up to speed. Another draft, some FA pickups and a few trades and more experience and I think they could be contenders for the next 5 years.

 

[kTXe]

Beautiful stuff, theo.

 

[AdamJT13]

Just thought I'd put together a thread showing all of the different packages we've been running.

I charted the same thing yesterday (mostly defensive sets, not particularly the entire personnel groupings). The only difference I had was the first play of the second half. I'll have to watch it again and see.

I think we'll eventually see more of this package ...

3-3-5
Ellis, Ratliff, Hatcher
Ware, Burnett, Spencer
Reeves, Newman, Henry
Williams, Hamlin

And less of this package ...

Single Safety
Spears, Ratliff, Canty
Ellis, James, Burnett, Ware
Reeves, Newman, Henry
Hamlin

The single-safety 3-4 is used most often on running downs (first down, second down), which is why Spears, Canty and James are on the field. But it seems that opponents have recognized its weakness against the pass -- with only one safety, they're pretty much guaranteed man-to-man coverage on the outside. Then they attack Reeves and Henry with quick slants, and if they can't make the tackle, there's only one guy to beat for a big play. And the tight end is left to be covered by either Bradie James or Kevin Burnett.

With the 3-3 dime, you can be a lot more versatile with coverage and blitzes, and you lose only a little against the run.

 

[cowboyz]

why is spears out on goalline and short yardage for hatcher?

 

[MichaelWinicki]

I charted the same thing yesterday (mostly defensive sets, not particularly the entire personnel groupings). The only difference I had was the first play of the second half. I'll have to watch it again and see.

I think we'll eventually see more of this package ...



And less of this package ...



The single-safety 3-4 is used most often on running downs (first down, second down), which is why Spears, Canty and James are on the field. But it seems that opponents have recognized its weakness against the pass -- with only one safety, they're pretty much guaranteed man-to-man coverage on the outside. Then they attack Reeves and Henry with quick slants, and if they can't make the tackle, there's only one guy to beat for a big play. And the tight end is left to be covered by either Bradie James or Kevin Burnett.

With the 3-3 dime, you can be a lot more versatile with coverage and blitzes, and you lose only a little against the run.

Good point Adam.


Other than very obvious running downs I'm not big on the Canty/Ratliff/Spears d-line.

 

[theogt]

The single-safety 3-4 is used most often on running downs (first down, second down), which is why Spears, Canty and James are on the field. But it seems that opponents have recognized its weakness against the pass -- with only one safety, they're pretty much guaranteed man-to-man coverage on the outside. Then they attack Reeves and Henry with quick slants, and if they can't make the tackle, there's only one guy to beat for a big play. And the tight end is left to be covered by either Bradie James or Kevin Burnett.

With the 3-3 dime, you can be a lot more versatile with coverage and blitzes, and you lose only a little against the run.

I haven't really looked to see what coverages we ran in those sets, but if I recall correctly, Henry played off, almost like a safety in the Single Safety package. Perhaps not (I'll go back and look at the coverages later), but I remember thinking that the result of these packages could be seen has (1) having Roy play a quasi-linebacker type role, and (2) Henry playing a quasi-free safety type role, with Hamlin at SS. Both of which, fans have been clamoring for at times.

 

[Big Dakota]

I was planning on charting that game because I have the same feeling you did. I think either Wade is gradually learning his personnel and how best to utilize them or our players or becoming more accustomed to his system such that we're able to do more progressively. Either way, the more the players get used to all of these packages, the more we can make in game adjustments.

Fantastic job!!! I would guess it's a little of both.