The Jim Bates System - Pros and Cons

by Steve Nichols on Oct 15, 2007 2:11 PM MDT Comment 4 comments

There is a lot of complaining about the players in Denver, and some complaining about the new defensive coordinator (Jim Bates) in the media and by some fans.

I'd like to take a very simplified look at the Bates system. Forgive me for not getting too deep. I know most of the fans at Mile High Report know their Xs and Os better than the average fan, but my goal is to make this readable for the average fan. The discussion should still be worh our time.

First off, is it a good system? I wouldn't run it, because I wasn't brought up to run a defense with the areas off emphasis that Bates uses. But that doesn't mean it is a bad system at all. Really, would you rather have a former high school defensive coordinator (me) or an NFL coordinator running the Broncos' defense? This brings up my first point to consider:

1. No system is necessarily better or worse than any other system. It depends on three factors. How competant is the coordinator, do the players fit his scheme, and is the system a good match against the type of offensive system being run by a team you're playing against in a given week?

I like fast players on defense. I also like containment by OLBs to steer the play to the inside. I also favor deep safeties, man coverage for CBs, and a bend don't break philosophy. All of that depends on the three issues. Do I know my stuff to teach my kids how to play the system well, do I call good plays, do I have a good play book, and does my opponent this week have an offense that is built to tear up my system? If the last point is yes, am I good at making adjustments both pre-game and in game?

Let's look at Bates as a coach before we judge his system. He meets the three criteria, and has proved it in MIA and GB. He has a good reputation on building up and sustaining defensive programs, so competancy is not an issue. The players that Bates has are not all built for his system right now because he just got here, so having the right players is not yet a knock on him. The teams we've played against have been good match ups so far for the system, but our players don't all fit the system, and the rest have a learning curve. Against Indy Bates made a good adjustment switching to a 3-4 using a DE as a second ILB. Frankly I don't think the Bates system will be a good match up against the PITT style of rush offense, but no system matches everyone well. I think Bates will run his system against PITT because getting the players practice in the system is more importnat than making an adjustment. It will pay off in future games.

2. Under the new system, the DTs are the key to the whole program. In the past Denver has gotten used to speedy LBs with big reps (from Wilson, Williams and Gold and dating back to our golden years in the late 80's and late 90's). It's time for us to get used to big names at DT.

Yes, there is a place for DTs in defense planning. The (younger) Warren Sapp, the Strouds and the Hendersons. We just aren't used to it being a key like it is going to be now. And the hard thing to get our minds around is that if the DTs do their job properly, they won't get noticed!

Under the Bates system the DTs don't really go after the QB, nor do they even go after the play in the offensive backfield. They just occupy the Center, Guards, and hopefuly either a Tackle or a Back being used as a run blocker. They have the additional burden of making lateral tackles on runs that go to their side (a likely scenario because the DEs will be lined up so wide that the runner is vectored into the resulting gap).

We have the big men at DT, but it will take more time for them to pick up this program than any other of their team mates.

If the DTs don't do their job, none of the following points matter so much.

3. The job of the DEs in the Bates system is to rush from the edge, or on runs to contain the outside and let the MLB do his job. The MLB can only do his job if the DTs protect him by holding up the center of the O-line. The DEs line up wider than under most systems for several reasons. They take any remaining Tackles or TEs out of the game not occupied by the DTs, and they constantly pressure the QB.

Good news for Denver. We have the young players to learn this system (easier for young guys than vets). Dumerville is a perfect match, while Moss and Crawford were the draft picks needed just for this type of program. We are set at DE, and for some time to come.

4. The MLB is only as good as the DTs. He has to depend on them to protect his zone because the OLBs are going to be wider (for the most part).

Williams is an athletic gift to the Broncos. He just has two problems (and they aren't really his fault). He started playing on one side of the LB corps, then Gold came back to the Broncos and wanted his old side back (it was a condition of his return because Gold felt so strongly about it) so Williams got moved to the other side. Now the poor guy is playing in the middle due to Wilson's injury / departure. The other problem is that the DTs aren't yet doing their thing.

I think Williams is NOT the prototype for the Bates system (which places more emphasis on strength). But Williams has so much speed, smarts, endurance, and tackling ability that I think he more than makes up for it.

5. The OLBs contain runs to keep them from going towards the sideline. They force the runs inside of the DEs, where the other 9 or so players should be waiting.

6. The CBs play man for the most part. They are also expected to be ready for inside runs (a strength for Bailey, a weakness for Bly). Given the probowl caliber of both CBs and the ability of our nickle back in passing situations, we are set here as well.

7. Safeties. Typicaly one safety takes a middle zone to support the run (Lynch) while the other safety playes deeper or helps dbl team (not a concern with Bailey and Bly out there.

So what are the pros and cons of the system? Remember, every system has good and negative points.

A) Pro - The system places an emphasis on rush defense. This is great for Denver, because we already have superstars at the CB positions to handle the pass.

B) Con - The positioning of the OLBs and the DEs takes two of them very out of the play on runs to the other side of the field.

C) Pro - The system, when run properly, seldom gives up plays on the edges of the field or in the middle zones. Teams have to run for small yardage or throw long, resulting in takeaway opportunities.

D) Con - The scheme forces teams to throw long, but that can be a two edged sword.

E) Pro - Matches against teams with good RBs, accurate but weak armed QBs, scrambling QBs, and teams that place an emphasis on speed in rushing.

F) Con - Not as good against teams that use Receivers as blockers on the outside (PITT, and DENs own offense come to mind), quick release QBs (like a Manning), pocket QBs, and deep pass threats (although having Bailey and Bly knocks this issue down). Also a problem for teams that have TEs and FBs who are good receivers (but again, taking out the RBs is typicaly more important).

Remember, each of the cons can be adjusted for in game preparation against certain teams.

Will we still get burned by Gates? Yes. But LT should be less of a threat. Will Indy continue to give us problems? Not as much. Manning will have it easier (and Clark), but oddly enough the receivers and the play action system will suffer for the Colts (since the rushing game won't have as much effect and the receivers will get covered more). Oakland and KC should be much worse off under the new style, and SD will be less of a threat.

This is a good system against the AFC West division. It's not my favorite system, but it's a great fit for the people we have on board right now, and the makeup of our opposition. Bate is the right man at the right time.

Solid piece, Hoosier!!! -TSG

Poll

The Bates defense system

1 - A good system for Denver.

9 votes

2 - A good system, just not for Denver.

5 votes

3 - A bad system.

1 votes

4 - I don't know yet.

14 votes

29 votes | Poll has closed

This is a Fan-Created Comment on MileHighReport.com. The opinion here is not necessarily shared by the editorial staff of MHR

0 recs | Comment 4 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Great Analysis

And it is backed up by what we have been seeing on the field.

Questions:

Why the poor tackling in the first few games? It looked to me like the SD game was a step in the right direction, even though the front was stacked several times. But it still looked like good tackling from the LBs and even Bly after Baily left the game. Would this fit under the first of your three criteria for judging the coach, i.e. Is he competent? Maybe he has trouble with the basics? But isn't that the job of the line and LB coaches? Doesn't Denver have a new LB coach this year?

Why are we getting WRs matched up on our LBs? The Vincent Jackson catch in the SD game jumps to mind, but I've seen it several times, except in the Indy game, almost like they said for that game, "Absolutely do not let the LB cover the WR!"

Where does a healthy Simeon Rice fit into this scheme? He is a veteran who ran the Tampa 2 for a while, but he is(was?) one of the best at end, and he is similar to Doom who you say is a good fit.

Do you know what other teams currently run this system? GB, Miami probably. Anyone else?

Also, Ferguson just seems like an extra corner in this system, and Foxworth is definitely an extra corner, even though he can line up at safety. Is Denver destined to run this "mutant-base-nickel" until they draft another safety, or can Ferguson and Fox play different to be closer to a true safety position as described under this system. And is it advisable in this system to have the Safeties be able to switch back and forth between run and coverage support?

Along the same lines, If they can't, does this mean that Denver is going to draft 2 or more safeties next year? No FAs come to mind at the position...

by Jeremy Bolander on Oct 15, 2007 3:52 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs

Answers for styg50 Part 2

Ok I'm back. Thanks again for your comments and questions.

5. I don't like mixing safeties and corners. I know the positions are simular, and they can be crossed over. Never the less I think they have different mindsets, different skills, and different strengths. When you have to use a player in two roles like that it makes me think that you don't have a lot of skill at one of the positions. Your paragraph on Ferguson and Fox hits the nail on the head.

Foxworth should line up at Nickleback in my opinion. He's a good receiver and young enough to get even better. I think he is being misused in the safety role when used that way. For one, he is the third best corner on the team in my opinion. Second, we have safeties already. If they can't play the position we should get someone who can. The system doesn't really matter in this regard.

Denver runs two types of nickle formations for the most part. They like the "strong nickle", which is lining up one of the two LBs directly over the TE (it's more complicated than that, but that's the basic idea). The other is a 3-3 nickle (with 3 down linemen, three LBs and three CBs), sometimes also called a 3-3-3.

I'll be surprised if Bates sticks with the 3-3 nickle. With the new emphasis on DTs over LBs we aren't putting our best players on the field if we take out a DT. Also it's much harder to vector an opposing player if the play turns out to be a rush. Then again bates may want to play to our current strength in personel (speedy LBs).

The strong nickle is what we are seeing right now, not a base nickle. The assignments in the strong nickle for the linemen stay the same (which makes it easy for the linemen of course). In this formation the LB over the TE generaly tries to jam the TE (either because he is going out to receive or because he will be run/pass blocking). The other LB can be used to zone the middle (I expect this most often) or to cover one of the running backs (half or full). This is a good scheme unless the other team has an exceptional FB who can catch the ball, or if the offense is willing to pick up short yards on screens.

Because our guys haven't fully caught on it will be nice to have Lynch back from his injury. This means the "monster nickle" should be phased out over time. I expect Lynch to act as a fourth linebacker, playing a zone either somewhere behind or to the side of the MLB. Once Denver's defense starts to click I don't see Lynch having as much of a role though. You need two fast safeties to cover the deep threat (run or pass) and Lynch is not a speed guy (even though he is great at everything else). He is more of a strong safety type (and not even that in this system) so I'm surprised that he is listed as a free safety. Maybe it's because we have some incredible TEs in our division, and Lynch can't match their speed. Shanny will stay loyal to Lynch (that's one of the reasons our guys play hard; we have a coach who is loyal to players who have a long track record with the team). When Lynch goes we should definetly go after a coverage kind of safety.

Ferguson does seem like an extra corner. He's being played as a hybrid, and like I said earlier I don't like it. We have three great corners right now, and we don't have the safeties to play the Bates program. Lynch is a help until we get the rush defense fixed. After that though we need to get two better safeties.

I think the entire rest of the defense is pretty much set. We might want to keep an eye on a couple of guys. Webster is overpursuing, and that's not a problem I might associate with learning a system. I don't think we have depth at LB either (as demonstrated by special teams). I'm also concerned about Gordon at DT. It has nothing to do with sacks or tackles (remember that our DTs shouldn't be getting sacks and tacles much in the system). He just isn't holding his ground. I don't know why. I think Thomas, Adams, and McKinley look rough around the edges, but they look better than they have so I'm hoping they'll be ok at DT. Adams of course is a perfect fit. Problem is that he is so big he has to be rested a lot. Teams can also torch him with no-huddle and watch him puke all over the field. But I'm excited to have him.

6. Is it advisable to have safeties switch between run and pass support? No. They are the last line of defense against a long run, but they should be zone deep for the deep passes. The Bates system tries to take away the run and force the pass. Teams put the ball up in the air and we let the dynamic duo do their thing. But because we take away the run (as well as the edges and center of the field for the short and middle passes) we have to ENSURE that the deeps passes don't contect. That's where our safeties are supposed to come in.

This is why I don't like our matchup with PITT. They don't care about the containment. They WANT to pound away at the gaps between our DTs and DEs. They also have receivers who can run block well, so the occasional rush to the edge (like a sweep play) has a good chance because they can break down the containment on the side. We have the CBs to stop their receivers, but we don't have the safeties to cover Big Ben's arm. Their smash mouth style of rushing should prevail because it's hard to think about how to play when the other team is beating on you. When our guys get the scheme down PITT will still be a tough match up because each team is doing what the other team wants them to do, and now it just comes down to how good each individual is. Against many other teams our system is trying to impose our will on the opponent, but PITT's approach is to go ahead and do it our way. And they've been doing it longer.

By the way, I told you earlier that I'm not up on who is running what on defense around the league. I do, however, try to keep up on opposing offenses because I like to keep tabs on how we match up with them. That's why PITT has me worried this year.

7. The draft and safeties.

Tough one here. Just looking at the Defense I would like to see a high pick on a safety, a good pick on a LB, and a middle and late round pick on DTs. Our present weakness is at DT, but that is because of a learning curve. I hope that this gets resolved by the offseason so we can fix the safety position. I would like a high pick on a safety if we have a high pick, and a trade for another decent safety (not a great one because we can't have it all; we still have an offense to worry about). I'd like at least one of them to be a good returner for special teams. The LB we need both for special teams and potentialy for Webster. Either way we need depth at LB. The middle and late rounds on DT because we need young people to learn the system and grow with the team to take over when the older guys leave. The team is clearly stacked at CB and I feel really good about where our DE's are going.

But we have needs on offense too. We are set at QB (and in depth), at TE (and in depth), and WR (and in depth). Can Young pick up the slack if we lose Henry? I hope so. The whole Henry thing makes me sick. With the money we recover it would be nice to get a good one-cut runner. We also need depth on our line. The zoneblock scheme is tough to learn, and we need youth on an already thin line plauged with injuries.

Well I hope I answered most of your questions. I'm sorry about the ones I couldn't. I don't have a crystal ball on Rice at DE (but he'll be a superman if he gets his groove back), and I don't know which defenses other teams are running because I'm a defense geek who likes to see what offenses they are running against my favorite team. Some of my ramblings are based on years of watching defenses, but some of it is still opinion and guys with more experience may agree or disagree. My teams always had elite defenses and I never really experienced any down years. On the other hand we are talking high school coaching experience, and if Jim Bates corrected me on something about the pro level I would bow to him because he's light years beyond what I was doing.

There may be some guys here at Mile High Report that may want to take issue with my diary or my comments and I'd love to hear it because I want to learn anything that's out there. Maybe some folks want to ask questions and I enjoy sharing what I know too. What I have admired about Mile High Report is the sheer knowledge that folks here have about the game. It took me awhile to get registered and start posting, but I'm glad I did. So thanks again for giving me the opportunity to share thoughts on the Bates system. It's great to be in touch with Denver fans even though I'm miles away from Mile High.

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe

by Steve Nichols on Oct 16, 2007 7:29 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks for the comments styg50

I'll answer as best as I can. Remember, I'm giving you my take as a high school coordinator without college or pro experience (though I did play college rugby and stayed in a Holliday Inn Express last night).

1. Why the poor tackling? Good question. These guys are pros, and have been learning how to break down and tackle since their Pee Wee city league games.

Here's my opinion (I have nothing to back it up). Poor tackling by an otherwise solid player means distraction. If it's an individual than maybe there's a personal problem. But when it's a large group it means one of two things. It's either a team wide attitude problem or the players are thinking too much. In Denver's case (I believe) the players are solid vets for the most part, so the problem is probably that the new system hasn't sunk in and the players have to think instead of reacting. So I don't think this issue goes to the coordinator as an issue of fault (although he assumes the responsibilty if he is a good coach).

I'm not sure if Denver has a new LB coach or not. You're right; the LB coach is the primary source to get the LBs to tackle properly. On the other hand it is the responsibility of the coordinator to diagnose the problem (tackling) and to direct the LBs coach to get it straightened out.

2. Why are we getting LBs matched with WRs? Several possibilities here.

One reason might be the wide line up of the LBs who are taking zones that WRs get into. I don't like it either, but that will happen from time to time. In his prime Gold could cover many of the NFL's WRs, and so could Williams. But they shouldn't be.

Another reason may be the match up (no, really). Against SD (who doesn't have the greatest WRs) it might not be a bad idea to put Champ on Gates (we've done it in the past). Let an LB and a Safety cover an average WR. Phillips hadn't thrown well until the Denver blowout, so that might have been a legit plan at the time. But that doesn't explain the Indy game.

Another reason is player error. OLBs used to playing man or zone have a hard time grasping containment. It is common for a LB new to containment to have the desire to tackle a player or to pursue a player instead of vectoring a player to the inside. So possibly these guys see a WR get their outside and they feel they have to cover them (because the rule is "No one must get outside ever!").

The Rice pick up excited me, but I have to be honest with you and say I don't know how well he will do. Will he bounce back from an injury / bad year? Who knows. Does he fit the system? Absolutely (and more so than most DEs). Is he used to containement? No (not good for rushing plays). Is he a good outside rusher for pass plays? Yes. It all depends on injury recovery and if he still has gas in the tank for the game. That's such an individual thing that i can't honestly tell you if he will do well. He fits the scheme physicaly, so he should fit in well. If he gets containment down he'll be solid on the rush too. We'll have to see.
What other teams run the system? Here again you'll have to forgive me. I won't give an answer just to pretend I'm an expert. I follow Denver and really don't follow anyone else. So I'm not sure I can tell you who is doing what this year in terms of defense (except maybe for the Dungy version of the Cover Two. Living in Indiana I watch Indy quite a bit). When I watch a game I can tell you what system a team is running, player roles, and even quite a bit about about the formations and variations of those. Where it becomes difficult sometimes is deciphering the plays as they unfold because the pros are clearly light years beyond the (reletively) simple plays we use at the high school level.

I'll answer the rest of your questions in about two hours. I have to go across town and will be back around 7:06 eastern 10-16-07.

See you then...

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe

by Steve Nichols on Oct 16, 2007 5:07 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs