Isn’t he tied up with the TE?

I’ve been enjoying your posts too. Keep up the great work!

…and I love to hear from so many of English speaking friends from Denmark to Great Britain to Australia and even Japan. To me, the big honor from this e-mail was that someone actualy wanted to translate the articles into another language. I know all of the staff members are grateful for our American members, but I know we also get charged up when we hear from our friends around the world.

I personaly am grateful for each and every member who has a moment to post a comment or drop me an e-mail, and I’m also galddened that the e-mail traffic is still managable enough for me to respond to it.

Thanks Bowma101, and to everyone else for making MHR the best site going!

(If I had any, that is).

I would call it a certainty that this play will get run.

I think the defense will be in very, very good hands with Nolan. I also think the new guys will do a great job. There will be a learning curve, and there are many new faces (and guys playing positions they are new at). We also have a tough schedule. I’m really excitied to just watch our team improve as a group, regardless of how our record ends up. I think we will make a big jump going into ’10.

And yes, Ted rocks!

I appreciate the kind words. What I love about MHR is that there are so many talented writers, and the conversations in the comments sections are like talking to family (unlike the hate filled message boards on many sites).

I received an e-mail from a guy in Taiwan (which I shared with the staff), and the author of the e-mail was given the go ahead. He didn’t post a name (as in a proper noun). I addressed him by his mailing addr. I’m not even sure if he’s a registered member of MHR. I’m grateful he (she?) found the site, and grateful that this person wants to share a little about American Football with an audience that may not know a lot about the game.

At MHR, we want to help promote the Broncos. Promoting the game of football is a solid goal too. Each of the members of MHR does both of these things with their posts and comments. Each of our members are the reason why MHR continues to grow and to attract new people.

So while I’m proud that someone out there wants to translate the articles, I’m grateful that folks like you (who post and comment) make MHR such a great place so that folks from around the world want to come here and read and visit.

So, thank YOU aLuffbo!

And you’re right; without Ted’s great diagrams, it would be a lot rougher to understand.

A quick note:

I sent out a HELP e-mail to the other staff looking for artistic help with doing the diagrams for the article. Ted had these knocked out the same day. I’m terrible with diagrams (if you’ve seen my previous work, you know this), so Ted deserves all the praise you guys are giving him. He’s quite an Xs and Os guy, but he’s sharp with a pc and artistic too. Ted’s quite a guy, and MHR is very fortunate to have him with us.

Thanks for your comment!

Is that “hello”?

Count on it.

Williams is already going to be RILB (something I had written I was hoping for). Davis fits the blocking role (LILB) given his toughness, and Larsen (who plays FB and LB) already has demonstrated solid run blocking skills. Either of those two would be great candidates to play LILB (Ted).

play-action boot to the weakside, or a TE screen to the weakside.

There are others too.

But I would point out something else. The offense really doesn’t counter the defense (it is the other way around). If the defense has “tells” (player rotations or player physical habits that give away a play) a defensive play can be exploited. But in almost every sense of the game, the offense is calling plays without knowing the defensive play they would be countering. The burden on the offense is to run a play, and to execute it well. The burden on the defense is to counter as many contingencies as possible, but to vary how this is done so they aren’t predictable. The “winner” of each play (though) is likely to be the team that executed their play better than the other.

Sometimes a play is called by one side or the other that just happens (by total chance) to be a terrible match-up. In such a case, the offense or defense suffers terribly. Sometimes (rarer still), one side or the other reads the opponent so well on a play that the right play is called purposefuly. But just about all of the time, it is the execution by the players that determines the outcome, and we as coaches had only slight influence on the success of any given play.

I believe the biggest factor a coach has is in practice, NOT playcalling. Once the game starts, the players really determine the outcome. It’s kind of an odd thing (in my book). If the team wins, the players are responsible. If they lose, the coach probably isn’t conducting good practices. At least this is my view from the HS level. A good coach praises the kids when things go well, and accepts responsibility when things fall apart. I imagine at the pro level that we are talking about “men” as players, so more responsibility is shared all around. But I still think a good leader passes the win to his team, but accepts any loss as his own burden.

Went off on a tangent there, but there it is.

: )

The danger in any blitz is leaving holes. Pass rushers are supposed to go after the QB, but blitzers are additional folks that would normaly be in man or zone coverage.

A blitz can be exposed by a run play, and in a pass play there may be an uncovered player if the QB isn’t rushed quickly enough to err. Yes, the LG/LT gap is exposed. But too many blitzers leave too many holes. For example, if we blitz the FS, there isn’t anyone to cover the mid-field (or even deep zones). Remember, our SS is likely covering the strong side TE.

In defense, too much of a good thing increases the risk (and perhaps, TOO much).

But I very much like your point on the OL. Most folks just focus on the LBs or CBs in a play. As you correctly point out, it is really the defensive line that makes this play work, NOT the celebrated Ted blocker or even the blitzing RILB. That’s a wonderful observation, and the real wisdom of evaluating or creating plays. I’m a D-Backs homer myself (especialy safeties), but even I recognize that the trenches are where plays really happen. Good call!

No salmon for the Bear today! lol

I mentioned Larsen as being one of two players (Davis being the other one) that would be perfect for this position. Note the second or third paragraph in the introductory section. But even if you missed it, you still get a picnic basket. You recognized (as did I) that Larsen is perfect, having been a run blocker at FB. So you’re still good my friend!

Do I see a blushing Bear?

: )

Kind words like yours are the reason so many of us put in the time. I guess the main stream media types have to get paid, since they don’t get the love that we do.

Thanks Metal!

BTW, where did you get that sig? I love it!

I agree with the earlier commenter about the weakness at LG/LT. The problem is, the SS is not available (he should be cover the strongside TE), so we only really have the FS to cover the two CBs and the potential run. As with ny blitz play, risks go up (but so do the rewards). If the TE stas in to block, the sucess rate goes up because the SS can now drop into zone.

I’m not sure where Dawkins will end up. Moving to SS makes a lot of sense, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see him stay at FS. But let’s not rotate anyone for this play package. It would be a “tell” to the offense, and they would adjust accordingly.

…it may even be GOOD food. But between you and me, I’m still aching for camp to get underway (as well as the games).

Thank you so much Harv. You rock!

More of a philosophy than a system (we will have a categorical system on both sides of the ball), we will be very adaptive and flexible. Win or lose, it has been very effective for other teams (both NC and NE run the Ameoba concept).

I like the trend a lot.

When the L-TE goes in motion (to the strong side), the ROLB should zone the weakside. Zoning the weakside is the default role of the ROLB, and manning the L-TE (if there is one) is the coach’s choice. I don’t know which Nolan prefers (he might even do both), but I would rather the ROLB play zone, whether the L-TE is present or not.

In the article, I have the TE starting in zone, and only taking the TE if the TE goes into a route. If the TE stays in to block, the ROLB keeps his zone. If the TE motions, the ROLB should stay in zone because no route is shown.

All else stays the same. If the play is a pass, all is well (we are in a pass defense). If the pay is a strong side run, we have plenty of resources (all in the article about stopping the run stays the same). If the play is a weak side run, the offense just lost a blocker (that TE), and the ROLB is now dedicated to a zone on the weakside anyway.

As with all changes in a formation, there is good and bad. The worst potential for us (as the defense) is that the TE will be blocking at the new position, right where the blitz lane is. If it happened just once in a game, I wouldn’t call the Ted block again (in that game) and would ask the offensive coordinator if there are any “tells” we are signaling to the offenses. He would also let me know if we have been overusing the play.

Very good stuff Kdo!

…we saw last year. Nolan and McDaniels are both sharp guys, and both have something to prove (Nolan, a former HC; McDaniels in his first HC job).

Last year’s DC made little sense to me. I’m sure the guy knows much more about the game than I ever will, but I can often respect the gameplans, even if they are part of a losing effort. (For instance, I understood the Bates defense even though we were atrocious in ’07). But last year was just beyond anything explainable in terms of system.

More and more, we’re gettng pieces of what is to come. I don’t know if it will work or not, but I respect the plan.

I’m glad the previous stories have built such a good foundation.

All the best to you

Fair question, and no disrespect taken at all.

First, I wouldn’t call this an all out blitz. In a 3-4, each lineman will pass rush, and a fourth LB typicaly joins in. As with the 4-3, we have four men after the QB. But in the Ted we are only adding one man, the minimum number to qualify as blitz. (Some folks might call any pass rusher beyond the DL a “blitzer”, which is correct. But to to be labeled a blitz “play”, we typicaly define it as at least five players after the QB). The Ted block is a very minimal blitz.

The Ted block is not unique to the 49ers at all. However, just because multiple players enter a gap doesn’t make a play a blocking blitz. In most blitzes, the additional LBs in the gap are focused on the QB, with the DL trying to create gaps. In any blocking blitz, a player is assigned to block the path (much like a run block). This is important, because if the blocker loses his discipline and decides to make a play for the sack himself, the play can fall apart.

As to a better illustration, I appreciate the point that you’re making. But on most plays, one of the LBs (at a minimum) will be blitzing (even though this isn’t a blitz play). For a team to call a blitz play (a second LB), they are going to take some risks if the offense runs. This is why blitz plays are not called on what might be a running down. A Ted block is a good 3rd and long option (for example). If the defense expects run, and calls a blitz, they deserve to get run over.

You can run a smaller DE, and for the reasons you outline. The big keys are the following:

A) Do you want a 1 or 2 gap scheme?

B) Do you have the LBs for the adjustment?

C) Is the DE worth having to rely on having the right LBs?

All in all, teams will often go for big guys because they don’t want a LB “tied down” to “making up” for a smaller DE. In fairness to smaller DEs (in a 3-4 scheme), a coach can match his talent with a scheme that allows for a lighter DE. He’ll often be the R-DE, and pull the LT out by pass rushing wide while the ROLB plays zone. On blitzes, the ROLB will often shoot inside the LT if the DE is rushing wide most plays.

Can it be done? Absolutely; and teams do it too. But it still remains more common to see bigger DLmen in a 3-4.

A lot of folks that I respect come down on both sides of the argument. In my mind, I blame the coaching much more than the DL or the secondary. If I had to pick one, I might lean towards the line.

I think we were weak in both areas. The line didn’t seem to perform well, because pass rushes were non-existent even when we rushed four or more (our coaches seemed to want many 3 man rushes), and we seemed manhandled by OLs on runs. On the other hand, our safeties were misused badly (often playing one in the box) but still whiffed on some key tackles when put in the right position.

Our CB production wasn’t great, but I blame the DL and the safeties for that. (Champ was made to look average, and pro bowler Bly got ruined in Denver – unfairly in my opinion).

In short, we were bad everywhere. But given the choice of blaming the line or the secondary, I’ll pick “C”, the coaches.

I’m still on dial-up (NO LAUGHING OUT THERE!). When I can afford to upgrade, watch out!

It is something I’ve been looking into.