offde-fence Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Obviously, with my attendance here, I'm a football fan. I read the posts everyday looking for some new way to entertain my thoughts about the Bills. Mostly I just like talking and reading football. I was thinking. There is the 3-4, and the 4-3. There's variations of the two. There's the old 4-6. What other forms might the defenses take in the future? Right now the 3-4 is envogue. What changes could be made to a defense to make it better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FluffHead Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Obviously, with my attendance here, I'm a football fan. I read the posts everyday looking for some new way to entertain my thoughts about the Bills. Mostly I just like talking and reading football.I was thinking. There is the 3-4, and the 4-3. There's variations of the two. There's the old 4-6. What other forms might the defenses take in the future? Right now the 3-4 is envogue. What changes could be made to a defense to make it better? some teams in high school and college play a 5-2-4. Some teams (WVU) play a 3-3-5 as well as their base defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChasBB Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Don't forget "The Prevent Defense" -- the one where teams inexplicably scrap the defense that worked just fine for the first 59 minutes of a game in exchange for one that allows a good QB to dissect the defense in about 3 or 4 plays to setup for the winning TD or FG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 32. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Don't forget "The Prevent Defense" -- the one where teams inexplicably scrap the defense that worked just fine for the first 59 minutes of a game in exchange for one that allows a good QB to dissect the defense in about 3 or 4 plays to setup for the winning TD or FG. It's actually been statistically proven that the prevent defense works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLZFAN4LIFE Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 It's actually been statistically proven that the prevent defense works. Yes. It prevents you from winning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 It's actually been statistically proven that the prevent defense works. Proven what, that teams with huge leads late in games often win? Is there a link to this science? I'm not saying it doesn't, or that the stats don't exist, I'd just like to know what they are measuring in this analysis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartacus Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 There are only 2 kinds of defenses 1. one that has an aggressive, attacking philosophy that can be run out of a multitude of fronts (3-4, 4-3, 46, etc) This is used by good teams that content for championships because they intend to impose their will on the offense and dictate tempo of the game. 2. Then there all of the other passive, bend but don't break excuses for defense that keep games close and allow teams to compete with less than average talent. This defense is just as ineffective out of multiple formations and fronts. Teams playing not to lose, like the Bills, use a passive philosophy and are consistently mediocre but usually not downright awful and never consistent contenders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WVUFootball29 Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 There are as many different defenses as there are coaches, truthfully. Here's a list of the foundations I can think of off the top of my head: 4-3 3-4 3-3-5 4-2-6 46 52 4-4 Then you can break it down a bit farther with basic philosophies within each foundations such as the Cover 2 in the 4-3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Don't forget about the Chewbacca Defense or the Twinkie Defense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 There are only 2 kinds of defenses 1. one that has an aggressive, attacking philosophy that can be run out of a multitude of fronts (3-4, 4-3, 46, etc) This is used by good teams that content for championships because they intend to impose their will on the offense and dictate tempo of the game. 2. Then there all of the other passive, bend but don't break excuses for defense that keep games close and allow teams to compete with less than average talent. This defense is just as ineffective out of multiple formations and fronts. Teams playing not to lose, like the Bills, use a passive philosophy and are consistently mediocre but usually not downright awful and never consistent contenders. This, of course, is an extreme over-dramatization from a bitter fan that does not at all reflect the reality of the game of football. Certain teams play really aggressive defense, mixing zone blitzes and various other kinds of pressure. These teams include Baltimore, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and New England--and it works. Other teams play less aggressive schemes that involve little to no blitzing, relying more heavily on their front 4 to get pressure and their back 7 to force coverage sacks. These teams include the N.Y. Giants, Atlanta, Indianapolis, and Tennessee--and it works. It comes down to personnel, really. Smaller, quicker defenses tend to play less aggressive styles because they feel they can beat teams with speed (up front and in back). Bigger, stronger defenses play more aggressive to counteract their relative lack of speed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartacus Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 This, of course, is an extreme over-dramatization from a bitter fan that does not at all reflect the reality of the game of football. Certain teams play really aggressive defense, mixing zone blitzes and various other kinds of pressure. These teams include Baltimore, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and New England--and it works. Other teams play less aggressive schemes that involve little to no blitzing, relying more heavily on their front 4 to get pressure and their back 7 to force coverage sacks. These teams include the N.Y. Giants, Atlanta, Indianapolis, and Tennessee--and it works. It comes down to personnel, really. Smaller, quicker defenses tend to play less aggressive styles because they feel they can beat teams with speed (up front and in back). Bigger, stronger defenses play more aggressive to counteract their relative lack of speed. there are only 2 ways to play defense - 1. attack and be aggressive with whatever personnel you have or 2. take whatever personnel you have and sit back, be passive and react to what the offense dictates Even though he had one of the best pass rushers of all time, Walt Corey wasted Bruce Smith's talents by playing a poorly conceived passive 3-4. Teams that attack, play for titles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PushthePile Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 there are only 2 ways to play defense -1. attack and be aggressive with whatever personnel you have or 2. take whatever personnel you have and sit back, be passive and react to what the offense dictates Even though he had one of the best pass rushers of all time, Walt Corey wasted Bruce Smith's talents by playing a poorly conceived passive 3-4. Teams that attack, play for titles There are only two types of posters on this board. 1. The poster who has moderate to advanced football knowledge, and uses what they know to participate in football discussion. This type of poster has pros and cons to the way they view this team. It's called being a constructive member of a discussion. 2. The second type of poster is more troll than anything. This poster is usually armed with a very minimal amount of football knowledge and is always blindly positive or blindly negative on every issue concerning the Bills. This poster offers very little to any discussion and kills threads upon arrival. Take a second to review your last 100 posts and figure out which group you belong in. Thanks for the parity and thought! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartacus Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 There are only two types of posters on this board. 1. The poster who has moderate to advanced football knowledge, and uses what they know to participate in football discussion. This type of poster has pros and cons to the way they view this team. It's called being a constructive member of a discussion. 2. The second type of poster is more troll than anything. This poster is usually armed with a very minimal amount of football knowledge and is always blindly positive or blindly negative on every issue concerning the Bills. This poster offers very little to any discussion and kills threads upon arrival. Take a second to review your last 100 posts and figure out which group you belong in. Thanks for the parity and thought! not sure why you are confused. Football is not rocket science Good teams control the line of scrimmage and impose their will on the other. They are aggressive and attack on both offense and defense. Bad teams are passive, make up a lot of excuses and "take what the other team dishes out" and end up watching the playoffs on TV - happy with their 7-9 record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PushthePile Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 not sure why you are confused. Football is not rocket science Good teams control the line of scrimmage and impose their will on the other. They are aggressive and attack on both offense and defense. Bad teams are passive, make up a lot of excuses and "take what the other team dishes out" and end up watching the playoffs on TV - happy with their 7-9 record. No confusion here, keep up the good work. Who are you quoting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
offde-fence Posted May 31, 2009 Author Share Posted May 31, 2009 I was just wondering, if we had a new coach come in in the near future (we probably will), they'd implement a new scheme. Many teams are switching to the 3-4, and I'd expect a coordinator to strongly consider that; but, I wouldn't mind seeing someone come up with something different, maybe a new brand of defensive - be the innovator instead of the copy cat. Because, lately, it seems the Bills jump on bandwagons when the trend is beginning to get old, and when teams are beginning to come up with specific styles to beat it. I'd hate to get locked into a system, say the 3-4, at a time when offenses are doing things to specifically beat that system. Our Cover 2 seems like it had that timing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 There are only two types of posters on this board. 1. The poster who has moderate to advanced football knowledge, and uses what they know to participate in football discussion. This type of poster has pros and cons to the way they view this team. It's called being a constructive member of a discussion. 2. The second type of poster is more troll than anything. This poster is usually armed with a very minimal amount of football knowledge and is always blindly positive or blindly negative on every issue concerning the Bills. This poster offers very little to any discussion and kills threads upon arrival. - excerpts from The Superior Man, Confucius 551 – 479 B.C.: "The superior man is liberal towards others' opinion, but does not completely agree with them. The inferior man completely agrees with others’ opinions, but is not liberal towards them." "The superior man is firm, but does not fight; he mixes easily with others, but does not form cliques." "The superior man is always candid and at ease with himself or others; the inferior man is always worried about something." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 - excerpts from The Superior Man, Confucius 551 – 479 B.C.: Confucius say it is good for girl to meet boy in park. But better for boy to park meat in girl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLZFAN4LIFE Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 - excerpts from The Superior Man, Confucius 551 – 479 B.C.: "The superior man is liberal towards others' opinion, but does not completely agree with them. The inferior man completely agrees with others' opinions, but is not liberal towards them." "The superior man is firm, but does not fight; he mixes easily with others, but does not form cliques." "The superior man is always candid and at ease with himself or others; the inferior man is always worried about something." The superior man drinks Dos Equis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PushthePile Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 - excerpts from The Superior Man, Confucius 551 – 479 B.C.: "The superior man is liberal towards others' opinion, but does not completely agree with them. The inferior man completely agrees with others’ opinions, but is not liberal towards them." "The superior man is firm, but does not fight; he mixes easily with others, but does not form cliques." "The superior man is always candid and at ease with himself or others; the inferior man is always worried about something." Confucius was full of himself and would have made a great Pats* fan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts