I think the strength of our d-line is at DE, where we have some exceptional pass rushers and good depth.  The speed rushers are primed for shooting the C and D gaps, while our more run-stopping oriented DEs might be more oriented towards the B and C gaps.

At DT I don't know what we will end up with.  Despite Sam Adam's curious statement to the press (claiming that run-contain DTs don't play two gap), Denver was trying to bring in 2 gap type DTs to lock up the center of the line.  In either of the two systems I would expect from Slowik we could use 1 or 2 gap type DTs.  1 gap DTs would be a little lighter but quick at shooting the gaps and would be part of the blitzing schemes, while 2 gap DTs could tie up the OL and allow the LBs and DEs better chances.  We could also see a 1 gap paired with a 2 gap, which is pretty common.

If we use 1 gap type DTs they could hit A or B.  If B, watch for a LB blitz up the middle.

However, given our current abilities at DE and given Slow's love of aggressive play, I think it is reasonable to assume that he will implement an aggressive system.  My reason for the show blitz system is the familiarity under Coyer, and the zone blitz comes from further back in Slow's past.  I expect one of the two.  Also, the DTs can play 1 or 2 gap in those systems, so there wouldn't be any clues there.

I'm not sure how to describe Eng's technique.  Remember, technique is another word for "position".  Eng can really line up anywhere.  But the second part of your question is a yes; DLs are lined up based on if the play is expected to be run or pass.  However, the trick is that the defensive play may also be factoring in a mid run vs a wide run, and this can affect which technique the DLs will line up in too.

The examples I gave in the story of defining the individual techniques are tendencies.  For example, a 1 tech is almost always a 3-4 NT, but could be a DT in a 4-3.  And while some techs typicaly favor a certain type of assignment, it isn't always the case.  There is some overlap.

As far as the 3 technique lable getting thrown around:

I think it is most often done to impress readers, listeners, or viewers.  The vast majority of fans have no idea what the term means, so I see it as a way to speak over the heads of fans.  Remember, these sports writers and broadcasters should know their audience, and they should speak to majority of the fan base.  Some shows (perhaps Sirius NFL) may have a more sophisticated fan base, but it seems out of place on the networks and newspapers.

I don't know if the label is misused or not.  I've heard it more this year than in the past, so it is the new "big word" in broadcasting.

A player who lines up at 3 technique is valuable because of who he can pair with.  The big thing on defensive lines today is to have one of the DTs at 1 tech playing 2 gap (demanding a double team).  If you have that, PLUS a DT with the athleticism to shoot the tricky B gap, you have a storm in the making.  Most offensive lines are prepared to stop two big guys in the middle and prepare for the pass rush to the outside.  But an effective B gap rush from a 3 tech lined up DT means that the defense can use the LBs in roles other than blitzes.

Not many DTs have the ability to shoot a gap at the 3, and instead are called on to plug the gap.  It is a misnomer to call a player an X-technique player, because technique is just where they line up.  But in the case of the so-called 3 technique DTs, this is the best place to put a guy who is big enough to be a DT, fast enough to shoot the gap, and lucky enough to be paired with a giant 2 gap DT on the other side.

So such a player does have value, but with the caveat that he need to be paired with a DT that can demand double teams.

Correct.  Technique doesn't mean the player will shoot the nearest gap.  Technique is "where" the player will line up, but he may stunt over to a different gap or even play a two gap responsibility.

On your second point, correct again.  A 1 gap player should always shoot the assigned gap, but things happen.  Sometimes the player loses his confrontation on the line, perhaps by getting turned from his gap.  Perhaps the ball gets shovel passed before the player can break the line.  The catch is the philosophy of the defense coordinator:

Do you want your players to swarm to the ball, or to keep their assignments?  Both concepts have major advantages and disadvantages.  The coach's philosophy determines how long the player keeps trying for his gap versus when (or if) he breaks contact and goes for the play in progress versus the one on the drawing board.

Very good questions Squeaky!

When I get the answer I'll put it in this thread, or when this story drops off the front page I'll put it in a future MHR Football Univ. story.

There really is a balance both ways on the ZB versus a 3-4.  On the one hand, the slants taken by the OL really serve to beat up on the 1 gap DL as well as any unfortunate LB assigned a gap.  On the other hand, if the LBs are held back (as they should be against a ZB) they have the time to react against an OL penetrating to the next level.

On the whole, the ZB is a better match-up over 3-4 formations (even the 2 gap approach of NE).  As you point out, we have done well in the past.

I still agree that Meyers is not the answer at Center.  He is the only player (though) that can fill the role in a pinch, so we certainly need another Center.  I still believe Meyers is an effective guard who can fill any position in the event of injury, and should remain with us while we have the depth issues we have.

His strength combined with his mind and agility are near irreplacable in just one player.  

The incoming player almost always plays one gap (shooting a gap for the pass rush), while the existing DT 2 gaps and tries like heck to force double coverage.

Bringing in DEs for BOTH DTs is very unusual.  If the DTs are winded and there is a depth problem at DT, or if there is an OL or blocker (like a FB) who looks hobbled, you might have all four lineman as DEs shoot a gap and have a LB "jack" (put a hit on) the hobbled player.

Teams have three considerations in countering the rush.  Keep in mind that the pass rush is almost an all or nothing proposition, since there is one safety in the box, and he is not in a position to backpedal enough to assist in much pass coverage.

The first key is for offenses to make quick passes.  In obvious pass downs the 46 minded coach might change formations, but if he leaves in the 46 defense you can pretty much count on him bringing the house.  So the QB needs options for quick releases.  Long developing plays won't withstand the pressure the QB is under.

The second key is to keep your backs in to block.  You might send out your TE (since, as you point out the rush is geared to the weak side), but it depends on the defensive alignment.  In fact, you raise a good point about the 46.  Offenses frequently have to waste an extra few seconds against a 46 because the alignment of the SS, left DE and the SAM often creates the need to audible the TE to block or go short for a quick safety valve.  But the backs (RB and FB) have to pretty much stay back to pass block.

Last, on almost every pass play you want to pull the FS.  If the FS can be pulled enough you get one to one match-ups on the other side of the field.

Excellent question!  You have a pretty keen insight on a factor about the 46 most people don't think about.