Football University - The '08 Defensive System(?)

Welcome to another installment of Football University. Today we have a difficult task, but one that many people wanted in a recent poll at MHR. Today we are going to cover the likely system that will employed by the Denver Broncos in '08.
The obvious difficulty is that we don't really know what defensive coordinator Bob Slowik will do. He has a history (albeit lackluster) in running defenses, but hasn't established himself into a set pattern. He ran the Bears defense from '93 to '98, the new Browns expansion team in '99, the Packers in '04, and the Broncos in '07 (though not really in charge that year because the assistant head coach, Jim Bates, ran the defense).
After tenures as a defensive coordinator he has been demoted to a position coach's job, and worked his way back up. This tells me that he is no doubt a terrific positions coach, but hasn't hit his stride as a defensive coordinator. So why did Shanahan promote him?
In my mind there are three reasons for Slowik's promotion.
- He is popular with the players.
- He will maintain continuity with terms and other in house approaches that make for an easier transition.
- He is flexible (and willing) enough to run programs deemed "best" for Denver, and not to insist on a particular scheme.
Given Slowik's reputation for aggressive defenses, and given the Denver schemes over the years before Bates departure, I have come up with two reasonable possibilities for schemes. One is the "Show Blitz" most noticeably used by Coyer. The other is the "zone blitz" system. Both systems as run by Slowik have had a strong safety in the box.
Slowik may go with the Show system because of the speed on the team and the recent familiarity of the system with Denver players. Given the youth, depth, and speed at DE Slowik may also opt to use the Zone Blitz system because the DEs are capable of dropping back into coverage while the OLBs blitz in.
I can't really predict what Slowik will do. He has familiarity with both systems, and arguments could be made either way. But I'm going to address the Zone Blitz system for a few reasons.
- Slowik has more familiarity with it.
- I've written quite a bit on the Show system at MHR, so there is more to learn about the Zone Blitz.
- It's a system Shanahan himself is comfortable with.
- We have the personnel to run it effectively.

The zone blitz system is a scheme predicated on aggressiveness and deception. On most plays there will be one or two LBs blitzing, and these will almost always be OLBs. On a good number of plays the DEs will not join in the pass rush, instead dropping back into zone coverage. This causes the OL to lose a second in determining who to pass block. When effective, OTs are caught off guard trying to block a non-rushing DE while the OLB gets the jump on the outside.
There are multiple advantages and disadvantages of the system.
Advantages:
- Highly effective at rushing the QB (high chance of turnovers).
- Often takes RBs and TEs out of the game since they are needed in pass blocking.
- Does not lose effectiveness when the other team runs the ball (unlike most blitzes).
- Gives the defense a thicker playbook than many other systems, and is difficult to read.
- Puts the DEs in a position that they are not really built for.
- Takes the OLBs out of many plays in the midfield where they are most effective.
- High risk, High reward.
For the remainder of the column I'm going to explore each of these advantages and disadvantages so that you can make up your own mind about what you think of this system.
Overview
The first advantage of the system is that the defense gets a lot of hurry-ups against the QB. While many fans love sacks, most coaches prefer hurry-ups. A "hurry" gives the QB the chance to throw an interception. But because the LBs are often running down a QB (while the OTs are out of position), there is often a better chance of a sack at any rate.
Because of the constant pressure on the outside, effective receiving TEs are often taken out of their game. This is terrific in the AFC West. TEs like Gates and Gonzales have to tone down their strength of going out for a pass, since their absence on the line of scrimmage gives the Zone Blitz a higher chance of success.
One danger of blitzing is that defensive players overshoot the run. The nice feature of the Zone Blitz is that the DEs drop back, or back and out to account for the run. Also (as run in Denver's past) a strong safety is often brought into the box for added protection. It is also difficult for runners to run the middle with the DTs, a MLB, a SS, and two nearby DEs for run protection.
There are also multiple combinations of plays that can be run out of this system. The coach can make the system as specialized or as complex as his team is fit for. The SS can be used in multiple roles, the DTs can change their gap assignments, the DEs can zone or hit any gap they want, the MLB can make a surprise blitz, etc. The team isn't beholden to the base play shown in the above diagram. Any assumptions being made by the other team gets an adjustment in real time. The offensive coordinator is constantly having to guess instead of plan.
Clearly, the biggest disadvantage of the system is the gamble of taking players out of their best roles and placing them in foreign territory. DEs aren't raised to play zone coverage. And while LBs love to blitz, the team as a whole loses a lot of the man and zone coverages a LB brings to the game. In Denver's case, where two speedy OLBs didn't have a great year in '07 this may not matter. They may be better used as blitzers.
Because players are purposefully taken out of position, and because a strong safety is in the box, the system is high risk, high reward. More often than not the system is effective in limiting both runs and passes. Even in the midfield range the QB is not only facing two DEs "trying" to play a zone, but an experienced MLB and a strong safety. But the deep play faces only a free safety in support of one or both CBs, and an effective wide run play that can beat a DE near the sideline can go for a long play.
So is it a good system or a bad one? Like all systems at the pro level, it depends on the execution of the system, the personnel in the system, and the opposing team's execution. I don't like the system overall because I am a more cautious coach (preferring systems that use bend don't break). But that's only a personal view. Factually the system is a great fit for the AFC West because of the pressure exerted to keep elite TEs at the line of scrimmage, and because of the speed of both our OLBs and DEs. While I have advocated Lynch's retirement, he would be a great fit for this system if he has one more year of gas in his tank.
Fire away with any questions or comments you may have!
0 recs |
24 comments
Comments
What sort of skill set
by Jeremy Bolander on Feb 16, 2008 4:39 AM MST reply actions 0 recs
Speed and more speed.
Speed is essential for the multiple blitz packages in the system. Whether the DEs are pass rushing are holding back there should be at least one OLB blitzing every play.
With Denver having underperforming OLBs (who are still very fast) this system takes advantage. The OLBs don't have to play man and zone as much, but instead spend a great amount of time going after the QB. Simple work for OLBs that aren't up to snuff.
On the other hand, the better our OLBs perform in '08 (or the higher the quality we pick up) the more the playbook opens up and the more deception we can throw out.
But to answer your question we need OLBs who have the speed and agility to hound the QB play after play. As to the second half of your question it looks to me like the pick-ups made by Denver would fit either system I would predict (Zone Blitz or Show Blitz). Both require the same type of LB.
(And as author of the terrific Lynch series, you will be glad to know that both feature a SS in the box more often than not).
by Steve Nichols on Feb 16, 2008 5:26 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs
Which teams are
Oh yeah, and once again - fantastic job! Allthough it's getting pretty booring to say that every time! :D
by Claaaaas on Feb 16, 2008 8:41 AM MST reply actions 0 recs
It doesn't get boring hearing it!
Keeping that in mind, I would look for quality OLBs that happen to be fast rather than look for the system they come from. Sometimes a team running Zone Blitz has poor but quick OLBs (but not always poor).
Show Blitz OLBs tend to have more responsibilities and are typically better.
by Steve Nichols on Feb 16, 2008 1:33 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
They way you described
by Tim Lynch on Feb 16, 2008 9:01 AM MST reply actions 0 recs
The DEs do a lot of pass rushing.
One thing I've noticed about hearing systems described is that they often sound great until the next one is described. Every conference or seminar I attended I learned something new and thought it was fantastic, until I either learned something newer or saw the drawbacks of what I had just learned (whether it was a technique, a system, or even just a team management skill).
The system is a good one. But while it fits the Broncos in '08 (potentialy) there ARE major drawbacks. For me, I hate the idea of keeping a safety in the box (something Denver has an affinity for) and I don't like taking four players (the DEs and OLBs) and risking them out of position and numerous plays.
by Steve Nichols on Feb 16, 2008 1:40 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
I tend to agree with Zappa...
by ArturoBandini on Feb 16, 2008 11:50 AM MST reply actions 0 recs
No.
If all else fails and the TE does go out for a short route one of two things can happen. Either a quick sack or a decent hurry-up. If the TE is in a short route there are at least four players (MLB, SS, and both DEs) already in place.
A solid SS can be put in man on a good TE also. If the TE stays in to block the SS can either add himself to the blitz or drop into a zone. The FS often stays in a deep zone, but with an eye towards the TE IF no WRs are going deep.
The real danger for the offense is plays that take too long to develop. A deep route for a TE probably won't get going because of the agressiveness of the defensive scheme.
While some of our DEs aren't "Moss and Doom speedsters" they are still important to the system. Remember that in every scheme you don't run the "bread and butter" plays every down. We still need DEs that are solid for short yardage. (The way to go after the Zone Blitz is to burn clock and pick up multiple short yardage downs, as well as using a lot of slants for midfield passes). Change-ups in how a DE type plays his position adds to the confusion.
Imagine slower DEs tying up with the OTs to let the OLBs by (as opposed to the faster DEs hitting the gap between the OT and the OG). Or imagine the slower DEs dropping into zone, when the QB was "certain" the defense wouldn't do that.
You have to have a core group of fast DEs, but you still want good situational guys. But to answer your question, no. We don't put a DE in man coverage. THe drop back should always be zone "unless" you are certain you have a DE/OLB hybrid player.
Great question!
by Steve Nichols on Feb 16, 2008 1:55 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks Again
by studbucket on Feb 17, 2008 6:20 PM MST reply actions 0 recs
Thanks!
by Steve Nichols on Feb 17, 2008 8:22 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
A Couple Questions
Do you think a player like Ali Highsmith would work well in this system, given it may be what we run this year?
Is there another OLB in the draft that might better lend himself to this kind of system?
Is this the kind of system Jarvis Moss would play well in?
Thanks!
by studbucket on Feb 18, 2008 2:02 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not up on the draft prospects.
The main thing you want in an OLB for a Zone Block system is speed. Often times teams with poor but fast OLBs use the system because speed is the key. An OLB who can get into the offense's backfield, even if he doesn't get a sack, is disrupting the play.
As far as Jarvis Moss goes, yes, I think he is a terrific fit. We don't know much about his pro potential given his injury last season, but he has (in theory) the qualities that you want. A good DE should not only be effective enough to get the OTs attention on pass rushes, but have the ability to (reasonably, for a DE) cover a small zone against runs and (to an extent) some passes. A perfect fit would have been Kearny, who is a DE/OLB hybrid.
If the DE can consistently sell the pass rush (along with the frequently blitzing OLBs), then the OT should be expecting to try to block him play after play. On plays where he drops back he should have the athleticism to at least slow down plays until a SS or MLB arrives. With the intense pass rush (and the trickery of the OT blocking the wrong player) it is to be hoped that a pass play doesn't get off. The DE should be ok with stopping any runs.
Most DEs in zone blitz plays (whether part of the zone blitz system or not) are typicaly coached to bat the ball down or make the tackle, and not to intercept or tip the ball. This is because in his area of responsibility there is a reasonable chance that a muffed INT try will end up tipped to the receiver.
by Steve Nichols on Feb 18, 2008 2:33 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, but ...
Just think about it this way... You are playing the San Diego Chargers. Base formation. Gates motions to the left side. They run the ball behind their Left Tackle. The LG and C lock up your DT. So you have a 330 Lb OT (McNeal), a 250 Lb TE (Gates), a 250 Lb FB (Neal), and a 220 Lb RB (Tomlinson) coming at you full speed.
And all you have standing in front of these guys is a 250 Lb DE (Moss), a 220 Lb LB (Gold or Highsmith), a 240 Lb MLB (DJ), and maybe the 220 Lb safety.
Anyway you look at it, the defense is going to be heavily out muscled. Speed isn't going to be much help in that situation.
I just don't want our D to become the walking dead by week 17.
by amirebram on Feb 18, 2008 6:21 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
Execution is everything.
For example, big guys can run block effectively (as you point out), but don't have the speed to adjust for every angle an agile tackler can make. Just as a light Denver offensive line regularly moves heavy defensive lines (by tacking good angles) so to can speed compensate for mass.
I'm not saying speed is the answer for everything. But good tackling technique beats mass when applied properly. Tacklers (and those pushing blockers to the side) are not likely to meet their opponent head on.
Another consideration is "heavy hitting", often thought to be in the realm of mass and strength. In fact, it is often times speed and momentum that causes the most bone crushing hits.
In the end, both teams will play to their strengths (mass for SD, and speed for DEN), and the team that better executes will prevail. It shouldn't come down to who is bigger or who is faster, even though that seems like it should. If Denver executes assignments well, their speed will prevail. If SD executes with power well, they will prevail.
Bear in mind also that there are adjustments that take into account the seeming weakness of a defense against the run that is designed to stop passes. Most notably, a SS in the box and four players often zoned close behind the line.
by Steve Nichols on Feb 19, 2008 3:09 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs
Some more on mass vs speed
The use of "mass" is useful in limited space. In the space of a couple of feet a big guy will move a smaller guy. There are some variables though. As we see from zone blocking, angles (not meeting the opposing player head on) becomes an issue. Other issues like a lower center of gravity, and "firing off of the snap first" swing the pendulum back to speed. But for the most part, the first variable is mass.
In the open field it is often a battle between the momentum of a big guy moving fast (the RB) versus the momentum and technique of the tackler. Big run stoppers are great near the line (in limited space), but less effective further downfield.
A terrific example of speed over mass is Champ Bailey, who combines lightning speed and "turn on a dime" agility with some of the best tackling form I've seen EVEN from many pro level LBs. Champ has never had a problem assisting in the run game, and is a superhuman force in breaking down his tackles.
Another example is the former trio of Williams, Gold, and Wilson. All three were known for being the fastest LB trio in the game, but their production didn't slip because of it.
Keep in mind that everything is a trade off. We could have bigger DEs, but we wouldn't have the pass rush that Doom (and hopefully Moss) brings us. A large part of the NFL does feature speed at DE and OLB, saving bulk for the DTs and MLB. There are exceptions all over the place.
A central tennant in stopping the run is to plug up the center (the straightest line to the down marker or the endzone) and to get running plays to go to the outside. This slows the play, gives faster players the edge, and creates more favorable angles for tackling. That's the theory anyway. In answer, offenses use big linemen and FBs to chip away at the middle to wear down the defense. Most run plays are near the middle of the formation.
Where this makes my point is that teams with big run blockers and power RBs choose NOT to run to the outside, because on contact the tackler should have the advantage. On a sweep against a fast defense, the offense is telegraphing it's intention and allowing speedy players to get to the play.
SD will continue to run weakside (as they are oddly prone to do). But the real threat they bring is a multiple pronged attack (LT, Gates, and now Chambers). This keeps teams from focusing on any one of SDs three offensive threats. LT is an awesome back, but like all great players he owes part of his success to other elements (in his case, the distraction that Gates creates). If we can take Gates out of the game with blitz packages (forcing him to run/pass block) we can focus more on having players in position to stop LT. With Bailey on Chambers we would be ok.
What we have to worry about is Gates going out on routes. We don't have the SS or OLBs to cover him, and we really need Bailey on Chambers (in the past we switched him to Gates). Denver's approach (whether we use Zone Blitz or some other system) will be to try to make SD one dimensional by taking away the pass, and keeping Gates against the line. Then we can focus on LT.
by Steve Nichols on Feb 19, 2008 11:58 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs
It isn't a binary trade off HT
We had the fastest trio in DJ, Wilson, and Gold... but DJ is a 240 Lb player who runs faster than Ali Highsmith, and Highsmith is 220 Lbs. Wilson wasn't just fast, he was fast for his size (although he was slightly undersized).
So I am looking at a combination of Mass and Speed.
While you are correct in your statement that execution wins, you have to look at it over a 17 (or hopefully 20) week season. Speedy LBs can win games, but if they are too light then they get worn out by the end of the season. What's the point in winning a regular season game if you can't get it done in Jan?
Of course power isn't a function of how much a player weights, and most of tackling is in the technique (keep your feet, get your pads down, take a good angle, time it right ...), but more muscle often leads to better durability.
by amirebram on Feb 19, 2008 2:14 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
A lot to chew on there.
In fact, taller guys with longer legs are often the fastest (like WRs and DBs). But these builds are not often suited for LB and RB work.
Of course we would all like to have speed and size, but that is still a relative rarity. You and I share a desire for speed and size in one package, but because these players are infrequent we shoot for the players who best fit our structure.
~~~~~~
There is also a little to consider about endurance over a 17 week season regarding size too. It is not completely a matter of a player's size, but also how that size is used (ie the position he plays):
- A big RB has the power to hit a defensive line play after play during the course of a game and often seems to get better as the game goes on. In fact, what is really happening in most cases is that the defensive line (read DTs) wears down as the game goes on.
- A lighter RB generaly doesn't have the stamina to stay in a game play after play. He doesn't endure the punishment as well as a lighter RB does. On the other hand, a lighter RB also has a longer shelf life over the course of a season and career, either because he is used less or because he is more "athletic".
I disagree a little about the "speedy LBs who win games and wear down" by the end of the season. In fact, lighter LBs should flourish at the end of a season. Heavier players are more prone to injury, and this is a key factor.
Durability is (in my opinion) a function of overall health, muscle included. Those muscles are fed by oxygenated blood, and the less heavy (more athletic) players have the advantage here as well. This isn't to say that there isn't a crucial place for big uglies on a football team! They are the heart and soul of most Off and Def lines. But my point is that there are trade offs when going with lighter players that don't always get seen.
A lot of scouts didn't like Doom's size, but he has become a household name for Denver fans. I don't mean to sound like an "Extenz" infomercial, but size isn't everything.
We really need to run a system based on the people we have. Bates tried to run an excellent system, but didn't have the pieces (and learned that one reloading season of FA won't solve your problems). With Slowik (who has backgrounds in Show Blitz, Zone Blitz, and Bates Run Contain) it is likely he will go with a system that takes advantage of speedy OLBs and DEs.
If you want bigger OLBs and/or bigger DEs that's ok too. But then you have to do what Bates tried to do. You'll have to run out and get a new group of guys and come up with yet another scheme.
by Steve Nichols on Feb 19, 2008 4:36 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
Really?
So here is a more specific one.
Just to be clear, for a LB small is 220, midsize is 240, and big is 260... Yes, the guy who is 260 is more likely to wear out at the end of the game due to having less stamina. But the guy who is 220 is more likely to be dead meat by week 10, just from the physical beat down they could get.
A small running back can be elusive and avoid contact (somewhat). A LB has to go for contact on every play... different game. To me it seems like the mid-sized LB who strikes a nice balance between stamina and physical endurance.
Now if you want to talk D-line, it's a different animal. Small DT is 290, large is 330. And whether they wear down or not depends entirely on the type of offense they are dealing with. I would think that the 330 Lb DTs would bave an easier time dealing with a smath-mouth running game of the Steelers, while the lighter DTs would have an easier time creating pass-rush vs a pass happy team like New England.
For them it's satmina that's key. For the small LB is just the physical beat-down they face.
by amirebram on Feb 21, 2008 3:49 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
You aren't incorrect in your observations.
For example, let's take this portion:
"A small running back can be elusive and avoid contact (somewhat). A LB has to go for contact on every play... different game."
Amir, a RB gets hit on almost every play (and is the player being hit). If he isn't running with a ball (as happens on most Denver offensive plays), he is pass blocking against bigger players.
By contrast, each LB isn't in many of the defense plays. If the play is a pass play the LB may be nowhere near the play. Even if he is blitzing the hits are on his terms. On runs he may or may not be in on the play, but unless he gets run blocked, the tackle is (again) on his terms.
LB is a much safer position than RB.
A large part of the injury equation that you may not be factoring in is size and weight and the resultant pressure on a player's joints. Impact injuries (such as hits and tackles) on a small or even big guy can heal from week to week, but many of the joint injuries that wipe a player out towards the end of the season (such as knee injuries) happen to larger guys because of the weight they have to carry.
by Steve Nichols on Feb 21, 2008 5:44 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
Good point.
I have to say one more thing; a lot of LBs get hit on plays they aren't a part of. As Broncos fans, we should know how an O-lineman can take out your LB.
Good studd
by amirebram on Feb 22, 2008 5:20 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs
typo
by amirebram on Feb 22, 2008 5:21 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs
LOL!
LOL : )
by Steve Nichols on Feb 22, 2008 7:03 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
Possible Subject
There are basic differences such as playing tight or off the line, but I've also noticed some big differences after that. Champ often runs with the receiver the whole time looking into the backfield at the QBs eyes. Is this taught to CBs or more of a style thing for him?
I guess I'm just thinking an analysis of CBs would be nice, and a great complement to the info we learned about safeties in the John Lynch articles.
by studbucket on Feb 19, 2008 8:49 AM MST reply actions 0 recs
That's an excellent suggestion!
by Steve Nichols on Feb 19, 2008 11:28 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

by 

































