First, I agree that we aren't deep at LB.  But we are if compared to the DT position where we are very thin.  I belive that we could use Winborn, Williams, and Boss at the OLB spots in a 3-4, and Williams and K2 at ILB.  We also have Webster as a back-up for OLB.  For depth in a 3-4 we need one good NT and at least one back-up.  I don't see anything like this on the roster at the NT position.  We just need one solid NT in the draft (and a decent back-up from our existing group) and one or two back-up LBs for a 3-4.

On the other hand, I feel we have a decent starting group for a 4-3, but now we need two good picks for DT to make the 4-3 viable.

In sum, that is why I think a 3-4 is a possibility if Denver wants to explore it.  Again, I still think it is a remote possibility.

I think Boss will be a good upgrade over either either Webster or Winborn (recall that Gold is a WLB, and I think that is what you meant to type).  I also think that Williams will be a good upgrade over Gold.  The big question is K2.  But the more I am reading the more I like him.  Seattle didn't want to give him up because they thought he was a legitimate starter (even though he was stuck in the depth chart).  He is a vocal leader, and has good speed for our potential systems.

The idea of a 1 gap NT wasn't a typo, but you are on the ball to think so.  Most 3-4 schemes used to be 2 gap.  Right now the three systems being run out 3-4 include the "Phillips", the "Fairbanks-Bullough", and the "Zone Blitz".  The Phillips is a 1 gap attacking scheme, the Fairbanks is a 2 gap, and the Zone Blitz (as run by PITT) can be run either way.  Right now our division rival Chargers are using a 1 gap NT scheme, and most noticably, so is DAL.

I agree that Robertson didn't fit the 3-4 system he was in, but as you mentioned, he is not a 2 gap NT.  He would be a better fit for most (not all) 4-3 formations, but would be a good fit for SD too.  (Robertson would be a failure in the 2 gap NE 3-4 system).

We did try to pursue Kearney last year, perhaps one of the more well know hybrid DE/OLB players in the game.  But again, this is one reason I think this draft is something to watch.  There are some ILB and DE/OLB types available, and this could be a signal to our intentions.  While hybrids aren't common at DE/OLB, they aren't a requirement either.

Speaking of typos, I think you meant to type that we will stay in the 4-3.  I also agree with you here (4-3).  Doom is the real deal, and we have great potential with Moss.  And though it is a "boring" type of player, I believe we also have some solid run stoppers at DE as well (Crowder at the top).

I am hoping we stick with the 4-3.  But if our draft gets us in a position where the chart dictates a 3-4, Slowik will pull the trigger.  I had hoped Williams would stay at MLB.  But after a few FA moves I had to recant and now accept that with the current chart Williams really has to be at WILL.  But bottom line, at this point I think the odds are very much in favor of sticking with a 4-3, and we will likely run either a zone or show blitz system.  (Styg is leaning towards zone, and I'm starting to move in that direction too).

With Vick in ATL we saw bootlegs to some degree, but ATL also used a lot of run heavy formations and even jumbo formations to spring Vick.  The problem with Vick was his accuracy, so the bootleg was there but not so much as in HOU and DEN.  With Vick out (as well as ZB master line coach Alex Gibbs) I imagine the offensive identity of ATL will change radicaly.

GB, MINN, and even BUF run a ZB, but don't have the right QB type to run the bootleg plays much at all.  

At least as far as Slowik is concerned we have continuity.  The players like him, and he has been around our organization for awhile.  I also think he will do what Shanahan advocates, which is to take Denver back to what it has always done best.

You are certainly right that the new players will have an adjustment period.  But I think this is a calculated move.  We are bringing in FAs that don't have large salary requirements (and are improvements individualy) to buy time for the massive numbers of young guys we'll be getting with our current 9 picks (perhaps 11 if we trade down).  I agree that we'll have an adjustment period, but I think the move to a typical zone or man based system won't be as difficult as the move to a contain system like we did last year.

Although, I do enjoy an occasional jack/coke or vodka/oj...not big on straight shots.  It's one tequila...floor for me. :D

Yes and no on the gap issue.  While pro players should be able to (and do) play both one and two gap, most players are more in tune with one or the other.  Add in a system where one takes prominence and you have a player leaning towards one or the other.  Yes, it definetly refers to the call.  But the call will usually go more one way or the other based on which system the defense is running.

As an example, Denver's OL is "built" to run zone blocks.  It is what the players are physicaly built for, and what they train to do.  But not every down is run as a zone block either.  When you take the fact that the players are "zone block types", and factor in that the coordinator will be calling a lot of zone block plays, it would be gramaticaly correct to call each of our OLs a "zone block player", even though (as you point out) it depends on the call, and they should be familiar with both approaches.  

Excellent point!

The current DTs fit the mold of the previous defensive coordinator (technicaly the assistant head coach / defense according to his official title).  The system run was a "run contain" scheme, and the DTs were supposed to play 2 gap most of the time.

If you go back a couple of University articles ago I covered "gaps", and and I think I mentioned what you advocate here - the desirability of combining a 1 and 2 gap player (and shooting for a 3 tech DT in the process).  Same wavelength brother!

I use a paint program (standard with Windows operating systems), then upload my diagram to photobucket.com  It's free, and gives you the diagram on the net so you can copy and paste to the article.  With the knowledge you clearly have of the game you can certainly do some great posts on MHR, and the diagrams would be a big boost.

You are correct about me not having the defense on the field.  As I mentioned in another comment with you, I'm really trying to walk the balance between being technicaly accurate and not losing the audience (it's a teacher and even coach thing).  If I'm a doctor explaining surgery to a patient (or the family) I want to educate and not neccassarily use every technical term or over detail the techniques.

As to the idea of facing a 3-4, you are correct.  The allignment of the ROLB makes the QB much more endangered.

With the diagram, you'll notice I used a disclaimer just under the diagram to clear up that I was purposefully oversimplifying the diagram to make an illustrative point.

I could have done everyone a favor by not including the pullers, but the play is still sound and still a bootleg as found in the diagram.  As you are aware, on a simple level the option and the bootleg have a few things in common.  Most apparent is the scrambling QB holding the ball and having the option of continuing for yards or passing (if still behind scrimmage).  Cutler has stated that he hates option plays (no doubt because it is a terrifying prospect for a QB to have to run one).  But he looks at home in the bootleg.

There are also elements of the counter involved.  Again, on a simple level we see the QB start in motion one way, then reversing course (though there is no hand off to a player moving in the opposite direction).

I don't have the FB filling in for the pulling LT because the illustration is a naked boot.  The "sell" in this case involves a total risk/reward.  After numerous ZB sells strongside, it is to be hoped that the pulling LT, and the movement of the entire RB corps telegraphs another strongside run.  Remember too that Denver and HOU both run the Boot with the OL ZBing in the direction of the sell (strongside).

You are correct that the diagram doesn't make clear the off scrimmage player.  Denver would most likely have the TE as Z (off).  The rest of your paragraph is valid for some good variants, but goes into more technical ground and gets away from a simple article for covering the Boot.

As far as what I think of those variants, my background is high school level (and defensive coord at that).  I wouldn't be a good judge of what plays would work at the pro level, so it wouldn't be wise for me to comment on them in that context.  As high school level plays I think they look valid on first glance, but you want a good QB to make the reads.

Again, great job!    

I hope I don't sound like I'm really apologizing for my HS experience.  I coached defense for several years and had some good success while I was at it.  I also had the benefit of being budgeted to attend some outstanding seminars put on by groups that included both pro and college staff members (primarily coaching staff) as instructors.  But I always try to make clear that my knowledge is light years from the pro level.  A HS coach may have more insight into some aspects of the game than the average bear, but the leap from HS to college (and again to the pros) is unreal.  The basics are in place, but there is so much more to know that it is staggering to catch glimpses here and there.

On Defoe, I picked up the quote while working on my poli sci masters.  Defoe was a facinating individual in several spheres, including theology, intelligence (the cloak and dagger type), as well as his written work in the 16th century.  The quote is a curiosity, because there is a small but very dedicated community that debates the source of the quote and that is all that they do!  It started with a small, academic secret society from either Oxford or Cambridge (I forget which; both have several debating societies).  I was intigued by my prof's mention of the matter en passant in a class and jokingly took the position that Defoe had originated the term (as some of the society members did).  I can't recall what the inside joke was back then, but several students took positions and I barely remember that several classes started with some funny jibes about the matter.  The author is unknown, but I believe that Defoe has some adherents in the debate.  There is a much more famous debating society that focuses on the concept of who really wrote Shakespear's works (I think Raleigh is one of the contenders for author).  There is an old spy thriller movie called "The Amateur" that has the subject of the debate as a subplot (it's a good movie too).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Amateur

I'm not up to speed about Napoloen like I probably should be (though I had to do a little bit of work on French political history in undergrad).  While military history is a hobby of mine, I have mostly centered myself on a few conflicts (most recently the the Eastern front of WW2, as well as the modern era Falklands campaign).

Thanks again, and best to you!

Welcome to the community!