SI's Mike Lombardi: Time For Broncos To Beef Up O-Line
Mike Lombardi is a longtime NFL personnel man who most recently worked for the Broncos for about a year. I'm not sure what the circumstances surrounding his departure were, but he now writes for SI.com, and he's got a surprisingly nice writing style for a football man. Imagine Shannon Sharpe as a graduate of Syracuse University's broadcast journalism program.
I'm posting this, because he makes the point that if he ran the Broncos, he'd be looking to inject more size into the offensive line, and I fundamentally agree with his thinking. I'm kind of a QBs/WRs guy when it comes to where my real knowledge lies, but I've been doing a lof of posting about offensive line play on here. In this case, I'm going to talk about defense in order to explain my position.
Most of us know the basic difference between a 4-3 and a 3-4 defense, but for those who may not, a 4-3 defense (or 40 front as it's sometimes called) features 4 defensive linemen and three linebackers. The 3-4 (or 30 front) conversely features three defensive linemen and four linebackers. This sounds simple, but personnel-wise, there is a whole different type of player you're looking for in each scheme.
With a 4-3, because there are 4 linemen, each player tends to be leaner and quicker, rather than bigger and bulkier. Essentially, in a pass rush situation, you're playing 4 rushers against 5 offensive linemen, and it generally isn't too confusing, it's a case of the best man winning the individual battle up front. If you think of Jason Taylor, he's a prototype for the modern 4-3 defensive end, very long and tall, and very quick off the ball. The fact that he probably weighs 245 pounds at 6 foot 6 is not really an issue, because even if he gets blocked in the running game, he occupies a blocker, and the linebackers are clean to run to the ball.
There are differences in 4-3 schemes relative to what DTs are called upon to do. Some schemes play a nose tackle and a 1-gap three-technique. Any of the Tampa 2 schemes feature this. Think of classic Tampa Bay where Anthony McFarland played on the Nose and Warren Sapp was the penetrator. Others play with evenly spaced DTs lined up on both guards (two-technique,) and responsible for the gaps on either side of the guard they're lined up across from. The Jim Bates scheme (which didn't work out too well for us) was this sort of 40 front. As an aside, I actually favor this approach if you have the right kind of DTs, because its aim is to stop the run with only 7 in the box, thereby making you more sound against the pass. It's a really good idea if you can manage it, and at its best, you have the 2000 Baltimore Ravens. I don't exactly know how to find it in the archives, but Hoosierteacher had an excellent post detailing defensive line play, and what terms like three-technique and two-gap mean.
The overall point I am making is that a 40 front tends to feature a smaller, faster front 7. The linemen are penetrators, and the linebackers are pursuers. A 4-3 tends to be sound and non-gimmicky. Philosophically, it's about winning man-to-man battles on the line, covering a lot of groun in pursuit, and executing assignments.
Against the 4-3, what is at a premium is the ability for an offensive lineman to hit a 4-3 defender while he moves laterally. It's a matter of using a large, fast man's own leverage and momentum against him. The Broncos' zone blocking scheme was born out of this realization, and it was born at a time when all but a couple teams were using 4-3 defenses. This is not a coincidence, and neither is the fact that the Broncos had their best success running the ball against such a preponderance of 40 fronts.
Paradigms shift, and there has been a big shift back to the 3-4. The key player in this scheme is the nose tackle, who plays directly over the center, and whose primary job is to demand a double team and occupy two blockers, while getting push backward. A good NT almost singlehandedly makes a team difficult to run against. The two ends in a 30 look tend to be the size of tackles in a 4-3, and the linebackers are often the size of 4-3 defensive ends. Whereas the LBs in a 4-3 are typically run-and-hit pursuit players, a 3-4 LB has to be a more of a gap plugger, and must be good at directly taking on blocks from guards and tackles. The linemen penetrate less and occupy blockers more. This is how a good 4-3 player like Jonathan Vilma or Dewayne Robertson struggles in a 3-4 for the Jets, and then gets sold off for pennies on the dollar. The players aren't interchangeable, and I frankly have some doubts about Kris Jenkins and Shaun Rodgers as 3-4 Nose Tackles.
If you look at the state of the league, 9 teams presently feature 3-4 defenses. This is in contrast to the late 90s when only Pittsburgh and Carolina ran the 3-4. A further look shows that six of the nine 3-4 teams reside in the AFC (New England, NY Jets, Miami, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and San Diego.) It's no secret that the Broncos struggle to run against the 3-4, and the reason is because of size and strength. When a 350 pound man is trying to move laterally, you can knock him down using his own momentum and lack of balance. When he is two-gapping you straight up, trying to control YOUR movement, all you can do is wrestle with him, and the Broncos linemen lose those battles all the time.
In pass protection, the size deficit is especially evident. All of the Broncos' linemen are particularly vulnerable to bull rush techniques and rip moves. Lombardi makes a good point that our QB is best suited for dropping straight back and having a clean launch point from which to throw the ball. Jay's definitely a good enough athlete to bootleg a lot, but his best attribute is the way that he can stand tall and fire the football accurately. The present makeup of the O-Line is not really conducive to this kind of protection.
To cut to the chase, I'm not calling for the abandonment of the zone blocking scheme. What I am calling for is the rethinking of size prototypes, and the willingness to incorporate some athletic, mobile, larger, stronger linemen into the fold. We don't have to be good at either run blocking or pass protection. We should aim to be good at both, and we haven't seen consistently good pass protection since the days of Gary Zimmerman and Tony Jones. I'll take a guy who has to work hard to be a good zone run blocker, but is a good pass blocker, over a a good ZB guy who sucks in pass protection. I just think this is something that needs to happen. I've been reluctant to do this so far, but I've done all the research and watched all of the video available to me. I'll take Ryan Clady or Jeff Otah tomorrow afternoon.
This is a Fan-Created Comment on MileHighReport.com. The opinion here is not necessarily shared by the editorial staff of MHR
4 recs |
6 comments
Comments
Nice analysis...
I am no longer irritated with Mike Lombardi, but I still think he is shooting from the hip. One bad year doesn’t mean anything…the Broncos have been in upheaval the past two years. If things don’t straighten out over the next year or so then I might be more open to listening about changing our schemes. Our ZB scheme has been wildly successful, let’s not abandon it because of one bad year…remember Jim Bates! We got away from what made our defense successful for just 6 games and look at the mess we are in now!! ;)
by Tim Lynch on Apr 25, 2008 3:06 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
I am sure Ted isn't advocating dumping ZB
or are you talking about Lombardi?
To Ted: It is possible Denver was flirting witht he idea you are talking about when they targeted Foster. I think their only mistake in that case was not getting a good enough read on his work habits. But he definitely had more “sand in his pants” and could hold the point. But he never put in the extra work you are talking about to pick up on the subtleties of the scheme (or he was unable to, same difference).
The OG/OT Albert is a good example of how Denver might go about drafting to meet your criteria. The only other thing I would add is that Zim and Jones were savvy veterans, so altering their style and picking up ZB were relatively small challenges for them to overcome.
Awesome writeup and I’m giving it a rec!!
Mountains, forest, sea: these render man fierce, but yet do not destroy the man.
by Jeremy Bolander on Apr 25, 2008 7:54 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
WOW!
Great in-dept analysis. Thank you TedBartlett905. I’ve read HTs lessons several times and still learned more from this. Are Kuper and Harris part of a move in the direction of bigger beefier linemen?
by firstfan on Apr 25, 2008 7:06 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Great stuff (and recommended)
Solid work Ted. I agree with the conclusion that we need not let go of the ZB, but might try to place a bigger emphasis on size to go with the quick feet and agility.
While the 3-4s can be a problem against our ZB system, there are some differences in 3-4 player types that CAN be exploited in different 3-4 schemes with the ZB. I’ll be doing a University article in a couple of weeks on the three main systems being run by 3-4 teams in today’s game, and the differences.
The three systems (Lebeau Zone Blitz, Fairbanks-Bullough, and Phillips) vary even as to type of DLmen used (though the classic approach is to have a dominant 2 gap NT). Further, while the 3-4 is on an upswing right now, there is a pendulum effect with the popularity of the 3-4 over the decades.
I hold to a school of thought that system A can beat system B, which in turn can go back and beat system A. Overall, I believe that there is no “better” system, just how well a team executes their own system. Of course (as you point out) some systems are better built to defeat other systems. It is circular in my mind.
Thanks again for the post. Fans hunger for more technical and deeper writing on football, and they don’t get much from the sports media. You do a great job balancing technical thought without speaking over folks heads, and I know its appreciated.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by Steve Nichols on Apr 25, 2008 9:47 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
nice post
i agree. there are some long-standing issues with our offensive line, despite our great running success. for instance, when was the last time you saw denver pound the ball in inside the 5-yard line? still thinking? remember the niners 2 years ago? we get man-handled in close, and our red-zone production is the proof. we have to pass it in from the 1, for god’s sake. and yes, the 3-4 has always given us trouble, and most of the better defenses in the afc-playoff teams-use it. i don’t know if we need road-graders for this, which would mean a change in direction for our sheme, but if we could get better pass protection, AND short-yard success, then i am for abandoning the zone sheme, if that is what it takes. marching between the 20’s does nothing for me, and jay is going to have some great targets to throw to in the years ahead. with young linemen coming in, now would be the time to change, if necessary. let’s open it up a little. i really doubt we will change our bread-and butter, though, with shanny aboard. we would need different types of rb’s, too, no? however, i am comfortable even throwing to set up the run with cutler at the helm. i think he is that good. protect cutler and pound the ball in short-yardage, whatever that entails we should do it, even at the expense of our zb success. but that may be 2 different things, entirely, i don’t know. bigger guards might help running in close, but will they be better pass-protectors? i guess only the best can do everthing well. any insight on this?
by davecheffy on Apr 25, 2008 10:39 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs

by 






























