DMN Blog: Parts Are Always Moving (Defensive Personnel)

theogt

Surrealist
Messages
45,846
Reaction score
5,912
Parts are always moving

Maybe the most intriguing development to emerge from the Ranch over the last couple weeks is the evolution of a defense.

What seems to be happening is the coaching staff getting a very firm grasp on its personnel, and the players getting comfortable enough in the new scheme for the coaches to expand exponentially on it. And that's why during the Packers win, there was a massive amount of substituting (so much so that it led to a couple penalties).

Now, in a collective sense, this group has achieved the malleability to make adjustments to just about anything possible. Of course, it takes swallowing pride for it all to work, since players must accept roles, and the guys on the team have found a way to swallow hard.

"It's a lot easier when you're winning, I understand that," said coach Wade Phillips. "One begets the other. If you're not winning, they're gonna be talking -- 'Well, how come I'm not playing.' I think they see it when you win, what the results are. And that's what you're all playing for, to win. They want to be a part of it."

So what do you have? A versatile defense that can do a myriad of things.

On the defensive line, every player who dresses for the game -- usually six of them -- has a role on the defense, besides just providing depth. At linebacker, Kevin Burnett is a regular in the nickel, and Anthony Spencer's a dangerous pass-rushing weapon that can come off the bench. In the secondary, fourth corner Nate Jones is getting on the field defensively, third safety Patrick Watkins is like Barnett, a nickel regular, and Keith Davis has come on in some sub packages the last two games.

Count 'em up, and you have a total of nine backups seeing a good amount of snaps on defense. That means there are 20 players in the mix.

This dynamic has allowed a myriad of looks. Aside from the standard goal-line and base 3-4, you can see these fronts as sub packages: 3-3, 3-2, 4-1 and 4-2. And with versatile lineman/linebacker hybrids like Greg Ellis, DeMarcus Ware and Spencer, the coaches have moved players around pre-snap to keep the offense from identifying the front and rushers-vs.-cover men.

Meanwhile, in the secondary, you can see it in the safety alignments. They've played with a single-high safety over three corners, split safeties, three safeties (in a quarter look), and the old high-low look. That's allowed the team to seamlessly switch between coverages, based on the personnel on the field, and adjust to offensive formations.

It's all still a work in progress. Some of the substitution issues are evidence of that.

But in the long run, as the challenges from offense become stiffer, the Cowboys should be more and more ready to deal with whatever is thrown at them.

"Part of it is them learning the techniques, or us trying to fit the techniques that they can do well," Phillips said. "I feel more and more comfortable, certainly, with our defensive team. The things we play well, we're playing them over and over and getting better at those things. And the things we've added, we've added personnel groups for three wides, for four wides, we've played dime, we've play Cowboy, we've played single, we've played base.

"We're getting enough things that we can give the offense some problems when they try to change things. I feel more and more comfortable with it."

Posted by Albert Breer http://www.***BANNED-URL***/sharedcontent/dws/img/standing/icons/email.gif at 8:09 PM (E-mail this entry)
 

thekavorka

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,787
Reaction score
34
i hope all the different packages can defend a hurry-up offense (if teams choose to do so to mix things up in the middle of a game).
 

Tusan_Homichi

Heisenberg
Messages
11,059
Reaction score
3,485
thekavorka;1810690 said:
i hope all the different packages can defend a hurry-up offense (if teams choose to do so to mix things up in the middle of a game).

I believe someone asked Wade about that earlier in the year and he said something to the effect of "If the offense can substitute players between plays, we can too". So, even if they're in a hurry-up, if they change personnel packages, we will too.

If they don't? We're still matched up with them.
 

thekavorka

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,787
Reaction score
34
Ozzu;1810746 said:
I believe someone asked Wade about that earlier in the year and he said something to the effect of "If the offense can substitute players between plays, we can too". So, even if they're in a hurry-up, if they change personnel packages, we will too.

If they don't? We're still matched up with them.

I'm worried about situations where the offense may have an advantage.

For example, it's in the middle of the game with plenty of time remaining. It's 3rd and long. the offense brings out 3 wide and a RB in the backfield. they convert the 3rd down.

now it's 1st and 10, and both teams have not changed personnel packages because the offense is in a hurry up.

the defense is still in a dime package on a 1st and 10 because the offense chose to go to a hurry up with 3 wide and a RB the previous play and got the 1st down when it was 3rd down.

I feel the offense would have the advantage on 1st and 10 if the defense is still in the dime package.

Obviously, the coaching staff knows more than I do, but I just want to know what's done to counter a situation like that.
 

dmq

If I'm so pretty, why am I available?
Messages
7,436
Reaction score
941
Until the Jason Campbell's and Aaron Rodgers of the world stop lighting us up, I'm not sold on this Defense.
 

Doomsday

Rising Star
Messages
20,234
Reaction score
16,881
Watkins needs to step his game up, he over ran a couple of plays including Gennings TD right before the half. He has to make that tackle. Im all for substitutions and all but the guys on the field have to make plays.
 

hairic

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,724
Reaction score
650
dmq;1810996 said:
Until the Jason Campbell's and Aaron Rodgers of the world stop lighting us up, I'm not sold on this Defense.

Agreed.

QBs taken in the first round are supposed to be bad QBs.
 

Eddie

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,092
Reaction score
5,862
dmq;1810996 said:
Until the Jason Campbell's and Aaron Rodgers of the world stop lighting us up, I'm not sold on this Defense.

Don't fret garbage time yardage.
 

superpunk

Well-Known Member
Messages
26,330
Reaction score
75
This was the exciting promise we always had every offseason with Parcells. He stocked the cupboards with talent that could play significant roles, and then proceeded to just wear our starters out and keep guys like Burnett on the bench.

That doesn't mean Burnett didn't deserve to stay on the bench, but it sure is nice to see guys like that getting onto the field this year and really playing a big role in the defense. Sooner or later, maybe we see the same thing from Carpenter.
 

zeromaster

New Member
Messages
2,575
Reaction score
0
This is also the first year of this defense playing this way. If they've accomplished this much in less than a season, the future's going to be interesting.
 

dmq

If I'm so pretty, why am I available?
Messages
7,436
Reaction score
941
hairic;1810999 said:
Agreed.

QBs taken in the first round are supposed to be bad QBs.

Have you seen Campbell against other teams? Draft status has nothing to do w/ it. We don't have a very good secondary. I don't know if it is personnel or scheme. Probably personnel since we got torched a bunch last year also. We made S. Moss C. Cooley K. McCardell A. Randle El look like Pro Bowlers. If we want to become elite, we need to fix the problem.
 

superpunk

Well-Known Member
Messages
26,330
Reaction score
75
dmq;1811102 said:
Have you seen Campbell against other teams? Draft status has nothing to do w/ it. We don't have a very good secondary. I don't know if it is personnel or scheme. Probably personnel since we got torched a bunch last year also. We made S. Moss C. Cooley K. McCardell A. Randle El look like Pro Bowlers. If we want to become elite, we need to fix the problem.
Campbell played like crap against us.

OK - "crap" might be slightly harsh. Let's say that Campbell played excruciatingly mediocre against the Cowboys. Noone should be impressed by what he did.
 

dmq

If I'm so pretty, why am I available?
Messages
7,436
Reaction score
941
superpunk;1811109 said:
Campbell played like crap against us.

OK - "crap" might be slightly harsh. Let's say that Campbell played excruciatingly mediocre against the Cowboys. Noone should be impressed by what he did.

367 yards worth of crap.
 

superpunk

Well-Known Member
Messages
26,330
Reaction score
75
dmq;1811157 said:
367 yards worth of crap.

6.4 yards per attempt worth of crap. Which is slightly below his average for the year.

Heck, if he could keep that blazing pace up all year, he'd finish 27th in the NFL!

Championship.
 

coach316

Member
Messages
632
Reaction score
3
superpunk;1811185 said:
6.4 yards per attempt worth of crap. Which is slightly below his average for the year.

Heck, if he could keep that blazing pace up all year, he'd finish 27th in the NFL!

Championship.

:bow: It's funny (strange, not haha) when people don't take into account the greater picture but instead choose to only focus on a single piece of the puzzle.
 

dmq

If I'm so pretty, why am I available?
Messages
7,436
Reaction score
941
coach316;1811239 said:
:bow: It's funny (strange, not haha) when people don't take into account the greater picture but instead choose to only focus on a single piece of the puzzle.


Funny, I remember watching the game and know what I was watching. Even if it was a low average, it was open constantly. I am not saying Campbell is great. I am saying our secondary is suspect.
 

superpunk

Well-Known Member
Messages
26,330
Reaction score
75
dmq;1811241 said:
Funny, I remember watching the game and know what I was watching. Even if it was a low average, it was open constantly. I am not saying Campbell is great. I am saying our secondary is suspect.

It's the age-old perception vs. reality. Your perception is that 367 yards is bad, and Campbell completed alot of late passes on us (he did) - you remember those passes most because they occurred last. Reality is that it took Campbell 55 pass attempts to get 367 yards - which is woefully mediocre. He only accumulated those yards when we went into a soft zone, trying to work the clock out. (We played "not to lose" ;) )

All in all, a pretty fantastic performance by our defensive secondary, which is a HUGE strength for this team.

We allow 6.4 YPA - that is 6th in the NFL.

Opposing QBs post an average rating of 72.4 against us - 4th best in the NFL.

We have 18 INTs - 2nd best in the NFL.

Total yardage is a poor indicator of defensive performance.
 

dmq

If I'm so pretty, why am I available?
Messages
7,436
Reaction score
941
superpunk;1811249 said:
It's the age-old perception vs. reality. Your perception is that 367 yards is bad, and Campbell completed alot of late passes on us (he did) - you remember those passes most because they occurred last. Reality is that it took Campbell 55 pass attempts to get 367 yards - which is woefully mediocre. He only accumulated those yards when we went into a soft zone, trying to work the clock out. (We played "not to lose" ;) )

All in all, a pretty fantastic performance by our defensive secondary, which is a HUGE strength for this team.

We allow 6.4 YPA - that is 6th in the NFL.

Opposing QBs post an average rating of 72.4 against us - 4th best in the NFL.

We have 18 INTs - 2nd best in the NFL.

Total yardage is a poor indicator of defensive performance.

If this is playing not to lose then why is it that our coach said the secondary couldn't figure out who they were covering? Look, I am not bashing our team. Point is that I am seeing a very weak spot in our defense. Plus, we are playing this "play not to lose way too often". It totally got the Packers back into the game when Rodgers came in. It totally helped the Patriots convert on a bunch of 3rd downs.
 
Top