MHR Chalk Talk -- Cleveland Browns at Denver Broncos

Good question! DCs will overload either side, and surprisingly, there doesn’t seem to be a preference for the weak side. Here are a few reasons why DCs overload, and the blind side of the QB actually doesn’t figure into it too much.

When offenses choose offensive tackles, the better pass blocker often gets the weakside (since most QBs are right handed, so the left is the blind side) and put the better run blocker at RT. On the other hand, defenses (in general) play most pass rushing players to the weakside, and run stoppers to the right. So there is a presumed balance so far.

When a DC overloads, he is often doing one of two things. Often, the overload is a “show blitz” to confuse the OL assignments. Other times, the overload is to compensate for a weakness on the defense (such as a deep depth substitution) or a strength on the offense. In such cases, the DC (depending on style) may choose to either shore up an area where he feels his team is weak, or to exploit an area on the offensive line where he feels the team is strong.

Outstanding question!

This game looks like a good test (like last week), and then we play our big rivalry game. After that, it is off to the races for how good the season really is.

…as he’s only started four or five games. But Denver’s defense (especialy at DBs) is very much upgraded, and the pass rush looks better.

Quinn and Orton will duke it out to see who looks better, but I’m betting on our defense to keep Quinn in check (unless, as I keep pointing out, we let a big play get by us).

Really, I think Quinn nearly beat last years Broncos… not a lot in common with this years squad. I don’t think he will be able to take much from last year to use this Sunday.

…than the units that have gotten burned the last couple of years, but Cribbs is a legit threat. If we respect him more than we did Hester or Sproels we will do better. The key to keeping him off the field is to convert on third downs, and to do that, we need to prevent 3rd and long situations.

I meant. Anyway, good to hear!

Thanks, and fixed.

Looking at how I expect both teams to approach this game (cautious – no shoot out and good defense), I think that a big play will make the difference.

Hillis looked like he had plays to the edge where he wasn’t supposed to cut back, and Moreno’s cut backs seemed to always be followed up with additional jukes. I thought Hillis’ problem was bad playcalling from the sideline, and Moreno’s was bad technique. Even for an old coach though, I admit that that’s not neccessarily a fair call from a comfy armchair.

Close game – Cincy a better team, but Cleve a better match-up. Good calls!

I must have missed that entirely. Everything I saw was live, and I haven’t seen any playbacks (except for the final play). A lot of time, the area where the safeties are at is outside of the camera angle too. If it happened, I completely missed it (and shame on me!)

I don’t expect it at all for this game. The QB we are facing is less of a threat than Palmer, and the threat is less at WR in my opinion. We already have three excellent CBs, two solid (one legendary) safeties, and a good pass rush. In nickles, we ought to play man instead of dropping a CB back, and in 3-4 (5-2 if you prefer), we can’t afford to drop a LB back too far.

Now that I think about it, when we went prevent we WERE in 3 deep (you’ll recall that Scheff was one of the three). Perhaps that’s where it came from. But from play to play during most of the game, I don’t think we had any cover 3 shells.

Altitude only has an effect if you wear down the other team. Passing games allow the other team time to catch their breath.

At home last year we threw the ball early and often. There was plenty of time for opposing defenses to recover. However, the classic Broncos teams used to run the ball early and often, and other teams burned out in the fourth quarter. Many folks thought that our RBs got stronger as the game went along, but the truth was that the opposing defensive lines wore out.

So yes, the altitude has an effect, but only if we run the ball at defenses.

…when I left the Regular Army for the Army Reserve, I had to do a PT test in San Antonio (basically sea level) one week, and a follow up in Denver the next. I was in the best physical condition of my life. My Denver run, over 2 miles, was 5 minutes slower than my San Antonio run. I thought I might die.

Altitude is huge, which begs the question: Why hasn’t home field mattered at all the last few years. I think if Denver plays as physically as they did in Cincy, it will be a huge factor in this game.

If you (or someone) can shoot me a link, I’ll take a look.

I do think Woodyard can cover, and I think he’s a good choice to bring in when we expect TEs out on routes.

Woodyard dropped back in zone coverage on that play if I remember right…then left his guy when the ball went in the air.

Have the OL and the RB just smack into the defense. In the second half, they could continue the run with more power, or bring in Moreno to switch up the tempo. Either way, I would love to see more running (and more cowbell).

I think what countered it the last few years, in addition to general defensive ineptitude, is Jay appears to play better on the road than at home, perhaps another indication that he doesn’t handle pressure well. The Buffalo game was a specific instance of a general pattern.

*for the reasons HT gave, in addition to crowd support, etc.

OLBs in a 3-4 should reach the edge before a RB. Minnesota’s RB is exceptional and fast, but the Browns should have gotten some containment. On the other hand, I like Denver better up the middle with the one cut.

The Browns can stop runs up the center, so a good compromise might be to challenge that middle early and, if there’s no gold, to challange the edges with our new screens.

The chess match should be a good one.

Would it take more energy to push a 300 pound guy 3 yards with resistance or to run 20 yards.

The CBs will get worn down either way. Whether the play is run or pass, the CBs have a lot on their plates, but they are also lighter than most LBs and DLs, so they can go longer.

The key is the DL (primarily) then the LBs. On pass plays, the DL is making the aggressive move, and the OL is trying to hold their ground. That’s bad enough. But on run plays, a few things happen that makes it worse for the DL than it is in pass plays.

First, they are taking hits from the OL and any run blockers. It is like body blows to a boxer in that it takes a toll. Second, the lineman is trying to fight out of the block, and get to a runner. Whereas pass rushing is a straight ahead motion, run stopping involves a lot of twisting and lateral movement. Sports kinesiology tells us that this is a greater strain. Third, CBs often have to limit themselves to one player, while the DLman has to watch for the runner, and watch out for himself (especialy against the kind of blocks one faces in zone blocking).

But the defense DOES suffer overall (including the CBs) on long drives. Here again, reacting is tougher than initiating. The WR knows what is coming, while the CB has to constantly adjust for whatever the WR does. It is much harder to keep up with a receiver than to be a receiver.

Good thinking 42!

passing plays eat up less time.

The no-huddle hs been one of Orton’s strengths since Purdue – that might be a great way to say, “Welcome to the Mile Hi City!”

If phenom is premature, I’m betting its only by a little…

…he looks great. That could all change, but so far I’m stoked.

The pass rush is harder to gauge. For me, I’ve become so used to inferior defensive lines that ANY pass rush looks good. Still, the pressures were there time and again, and the season is still young. I think we are in a very good position defensively.

Great read! Thanks for the breakdown!

If I had a quible, it would be that I would NOT double Cribbs. The reason is this -

Fast WRs that are deep threats are deadly in a foot race. They have a better chance of outrunning two DBs (a CB and a SAF) than getting past a deep posted safety. I would have the safety on Cribbs side prepared to drop back anytime Cribbs shows a burst ahead, with the other safety ready for either a slant from Cribbs or a play on his own side. Doubles are best against receivers who are great route runners IF neither is a particularly dangerous deep threat. I would place Cribbs CB in man in off coverage for much of the game, and take chances with the short passes. Just me.

…but the conclusions I draw are still only opinions, and no more valid than anyone else’s.

But I agree with your premise (and my only quibble is a minor one). I’ll take our defensive backfield over the Cleveland passing game too, and I’ll also do it with each CB in 1:1 coverage with our safeties back.

Answering your question, I think McD had a definite plan about the defense: hire Nolan and other 3-4 coaches; retain those players that fit a 3-4 defensive scheme; instill passion and dedication with proven leaders (BDawk).

One point on how I define the OLB / DE…

I don’t see any of our “DEs” truly making a transition to OLB. I think that they are primarily DEs (both in alignment and in their own historic identity as individuals). However, much like any lineman who may pull a coverage duty (zone blitz), they may act as a LB here and there.

You are correct about the movement from the old 3-4 alignment towards a newer (though it was done ages ago) 5-2 look. Most teams, whether they use “true” DEs or OLBs have been using them at the line. I see this as part of the overall transformation taking effect in the League with the phasing out of the FB position and the emphasis on TEs. In an odd way, the League is returning to its roots as it evolves.

Wonderful stuff Spock. I’m glad you’re the First Officer on our ship, and not with the bad guys. : )

I do like the idea that McD chose the defense to match our personnel, as well then I suppose the type of defender available in this years draft… this would make me happily wrong about a few of his decisions. I’d expect a smart coach/GM team to do this with any team they inherited with any measure of core talent. Some big names come to mind who’ve done this successfully.

“What, then, makes them linebackers rather than linemen, or vice versa? One of your answers seemed to suggest it was a matter of inherent identity, that if linemen are playing the position it’s really a 5-2, that if it’s linebackers it’s a 3-4.”

That one always gets me too, if you don’t know the players by position, you wouldn’t know the difference. Or I should say I wouldn’t know the difference. Size?

It seems to me in this day of such complexity in defense, the day of uni-dimensional defenders is more and more …ending. I’d still take a D Thomas on our team any day but unless you know a guy is going to dominate, he better be able to not only drop back in coverage but also be smart enough to know when.

I would rate the squad match-ups as you do, with the advantage to us in each category. In terms of just “who is better”, I give us the advantage. In terms of how each match-up looks, I see room for a close game.

For instance, I’ll take our OL over pretty much any team’s DL. I also thunk highly of our RBs. But the Browns specialize in stuffing the run (watch what they did to Adrian Peterson for the first half). They have a very good NT to anchor the formation, and they plug the gaps extremely well. And as much as I think of the Denver RBs, we haven’t seen the run game click yet in a regular game. I expect us to do better, but it isn’t a lock.

I’m expecting the type of game we play (and Cleveland) to be one of ball control and defense. For that reason, regardless of who the better team is (and I agree that it is Denver), I expect the game to be close on the score board (whether it is in stats or not). Sometimes the best way to win a game isn’t to dominate, but to play carefuly and try to ensure the win.

Here’s an example. I may be a much better chess player than my opponent, and could (perhaps) wipe the board with him. Depending on factors (such as “I need the win to ensure that I win the tournament”) I might choose to set aside my fancy sacrifices and other tactical flourishes and keep the game at a level where I take no chances. To others, it may look like I’m having a hard time, but in my mind, I’m keeping any dangerous variables out of the picture.

In the case of Cleveland, I wouldn’t say that they are inferior and we are domineering. I still have us pegged as an 8-8 team this year (though much, MUCH improved and getting better). But I would agree that I give us the edge in pretty much every category.

Winning by 10 sounds about right to me, and in my opinion is somewhere between close and moderate. (I voted close).

I’ve got my hopes mile high this week, another win (especially one we ‘should’ win) I believe would really go far to put the team on the same page!

I’ll ignore that last line. Too much like the thoughts in the back of my mind, nagging me.

The 3-4 is indeed a flexible creature. I prefer the 4-3, but not because it is any better. One of my axioms is that each system and even formation isn’t “better” than another because they each have weaknesses and strengths. It comes down to who runs their own program better.

In my case, I’ve always been “defensive” minded, whether in football, chess, or even studying military strategy. I kind of prefer static defenses (holed up in a bunker, forcing the enemy to come to me in the open). I don’t know how this developed in my strategic upbringing, but I see it in several areas.

In chess, I like to let my opponent come at me and to let him make the first mistake. I don’t like to force games, and I prefer closed postions (few captures, cluttered positions, locked up pawns, low manouverability, etc). I prefer strategy over tactics, and most observers would call this boring. I prefer to strangle my opponent rather than to chop of his head. (My favorite historical player was Victor Petrosian. People hated his style because it wasn’t “fancy”. But he just wore down his opponents).

Militarily, I would rather be Nato (with reinforced pockets of resistance) than Warsaw (pouring troops into an exploited gap). [Current doctrine would have the allies much more mobile than the cold wat plans for the defense of western Europe].

So the 4-3 fits me. The 3-4 is flexible, and much more fun to watch in action. But I like the idea of plugging the gaps (with four linemen), and protecting my LBs. My blitzes are rare, but I don’t disguise them – I challenge my opponent to stop what he sees. Most folks don’t watch the trenches, because the “real” excitement is where the ball is. But coaches watch the trenches more than anything. For fans, the 4-3 may not be as exciting because so much of it is focused up front.

Which brings us to the 5-2. It has something for everyone. For me, I like the strong line and the freedom of the 2 LBs (who have extreme protection). For most folks though, the extreme flexibility (is that DE going to be a DE this play, or an OLB?) makes the formation more fun to watch.

I’ll put it like this. If I were coaching, I’d probably run a 4-3 (with the right personnel of course) because it fits my view of how to defend a field the best. As a fan, I would rather watch a 3-4. If I had a basketball team, I might want an NBA team. But I’d rather watch the Globetrotters. In football, the 3-4, 4-3, and even the 5-2 and 46s are all good base formations. One isn’t better than another, though each has good and bad points. So while I prefer the 4-3 as fitting my own strategic personality, I very much enjoy the Broncos adopting something that is more entertaining to watch. For our personnel, I think we will find it is much more effective than the 4-3 has been too.

I could have saved a lot of time if I’de put it that well!

: )