re: John Chavis Defensive Scheme

I completely agree with you, the person I think that will take over that position is Brasil. I've watched a lot of film on this kid and he really reminds me of him with his football instincts and just unexplainable knack for the football


You never know what teams will be doing 3 years from now, he'll with all the spreads dime package could be base defense for teams soon

quote:

---

To clarify: we run NO 425. Not at all. Not one down of it. Only people who know football will understand this concept.

---

I knew this was true. So, it's essentially a nickel.

It is a 43 defense played with nickel personnel. Correct.

I'm glad it's seems like majority of know that we do not run a 4-2-5

Yes. Either him or the safety behind him. That's the quarters/palms coverage aspect I talked about earlier.

I didn't follow UTenn/John Chavis so I don't know how much he's changed if anything. But I'm a lot more excited 3+ years into his tenure than when he first became our DC.

Beyond just using a base scheme, he is being very creative in using our personnel. There were times last year (e.g. vs Auburn) when I think he had Mingo/Rasco lined-up over center on 3rd-n-long.

He faced every kind of O imginable last year and passed with flying colors. Kudos Chief. We're excited to see more.

Anyone notice how saban has changed up his tailback recruiting strategy to counteract our defensive personnel? He's now recruiting smaller, shiftier backs that can make guys miss in the open field. He knows Lacy won't get any love against our front but guys like Yeldon and Hart will probably be pretty effective. You gotta give him credit. That bastard is truly relentless. Oh, and Suck Faban.

quote:

---

I ha tried to explain this before to no avail, but here goes. Chavis does not run a 425. He runs a 43. We do play the majority of nickel personnel (5dbs) but the scheme is still a 43. Let me explain.

---

Y'all really are working very hard to overthink this.

Relax, realize this is not a coaching jargon contest, and think about what you are talking about. Why is the traditional 4-2-5 called a 4-2-5? Is it because it costs $4.25 to Xerox the playbook? Is it because there are 425 letters in the names of the positions? Is it because of the coverage and responsibility assignments involved in its execution?

No. It's because the scheme involves most consistently fielding a personnel package of 4 defensive linemen, 2 linebackers, and 5 defensive backs.

Chavis runs a scheme with the coverage and assignment responsibilities (basically) traditionally associated with a 4-3. But if he runs it consistently with 4 defensive linemen, 2 linebackers and 5 defensive backs, eventually it must be considered a 4-2-5 defense. Calling a defense a 4-3 that never once puts 3 lbs on the field would just be stubbornly putting a desire to show off sophistication in coaching jargon ahead of the common sense approach of calling things as they are.

With TM7's unprecedented abilities, Chavis is running a defense that literally has not existed before. It looks like the nickel package of a 4-3, but "packages" within schemes cannot be the base defense; otherwise they would not be "packages".

If (and I do not suppose to have tracked this carefully enough to say for certain) our base defense is 4 defensive linemen, 2 linebackers and 5 defensive backs, then our defense is a 4-2-5. That does not mean it is the same as the 4-2-5 defense run by Coach Patterson (or anyone else), any more than calling one basketball coach's defense a "zone" is saying it is exactly like any other coach's defense that is also a "zone".

4-2-5 is a personnel descriptor. That is the reason the "traditional" 4-2-5 is called that, and if Chavis runs a defense that consistently features that personnel set, then it will appropriately be called a 4-2-5 as well. It will likely be differentiated from other 4-2-5 schemes, just as some offensive formations with similar personnel groupings (like, for example, 4 wideouts) are distinguished. But no one looks at an offensive set where 4 receivers are split out wide and claims it is not a 4 wideout set.

Now, what I find most likely is that Chavis is running his typical 4-3 scheme with special playcalling accomodations to his particular personnel blessings (that is, TM7), and expects to return to his traditional playcalling setups when his personnel talent is more traditionally distributed. But if that is not the case, and he consistently runs a personnel set with 4 defensive linemen, 2 linebackers and 5 defensive backs play in and play out, no one with a lick of sense would continue to call it a 4-3.

quote:

---

I didn't follow UTenn/

---

When they had Haynesworth and Henderson on their D line, they were brutal against the run