re: John Chavis Defensive Scheme

quote:

---

Go ask an opposing offensive coach what kind of defense we run and NONE of them will say 425.

---

Exactly. A 4-2-5 is totally different than a nickel 4-3. A nickel 4-3 swaps an LB with a CB but a 4-2-5 puts 3 safties on the field, from my understanding. From my knowledge I don't remember LSU having Brandon Taylor, Eric Reid, and Craig Loston on the field at the same time. LSU did have Mo, Tharold, and Tyrann on the field at the same time.

In a 4-2-5, the third safety is like a Spur LB/Jack LB of sorts who plays in the box quite a bit.

quote:

---

But it's not. Not trying to get into a jargon contest, as you put it, but a 425 is an 8 man concept. Same as a split 4, odd stack, etc. I will give you that chavis does play with 4 linemen, 2 lbs and 5 DBS the majority of the time. But this is how you create a nickel package out of a 43 defense. If we're just counting numbers of positions on the field then you are correct. But we aren't. It's a different animal. Go ask an opposing offensive coach what kind of defense we run and NONE of them will say 425.

---

This x1000

We do not run a 4-2-5 we run a completely different scheme

But you gonna tell all your buddies your smarter than everyone no matter what truth you are told on here so think what you want

He still runs a 4-3 with nickle packages. We are good against the run cus our dbs can actually tackle, couple that with speed on the ends and at lb and the rbs just get run down. Rotating guys on ths line keep us fresh, power run teams cant just pound us.

The guy knows how to coach and evaluate talent. He does use what people call tweeners, but it has been successfull. He just had 3 guys drafted in the 1st 3 rounds that plaued a diff position before stepping foot on LSUs campus.

quote:

---

We do not run a 4-2-5 we run a completely different scheme

---

I agree. And I think this different scheme has the potential to evolve over time into something that is recognized as also being different than the traditional 4-3. And if that happens, and people are looking for a way to distinguish it from the hundreds of traditional 4-3 schemes being run, I think it is likely they might turn to the fact that our base set is 4 defensive linemen, 2 linebackers and 5 defensive backs to apply the term 4-2-5 to it. Just like they did when people started running what is now considered the traditional 4-2-5 set. As mentioned earlier, there is a reason it's called the 4-2-5. And if Chavis really does implement something new, and it uses a 4-2-5 personnel distribution, it is likely to be also called a 4-2-5. It's not like there's a trademark on the name and nothing else can ever be called that.

To those who posted in this thread.

Glad to see the rant can be so normal and civil.

quote:

---

But you gonna tell all your buddies your smarter than everyone no matter what truth you are told on here so think what you want

---

You talkin ta me?

Thought so but just making sure. I know football pretty well, but my social skills are lacking sometimes. Call me the Sheldon Cooper of football!

quote:

---

The numbers used in describing a defensive scheme can be misleading.

---

So why do they use the number "3" in a 4-3 if it does not refer to the number of linebackers in the scheme? You are insisting that Chavis is doing nothing different than the traditional 4-3, but can you name a single 4-3 defense run anywhere in football that lines up less than 3 linebackers on more than 80% of its snaps? At some point, the difference is more than just a package; its a different scheme. And different schemes can eventually be given different names. I don't know any simpler way of explaining this to you, but you just keep repeating things that are not the point. I understand his scheme is not Gary Patterson's 4-2-5. Chavis' scheme is not the 4-2-5 that Gary Patterson runs. I don't know if that's any clearer on the subject than I was earlier, but I guess it's worth a try.

What I am suggesting, and it is fairly self evident in the fact that new scheme names have developed over time in football already, is that if you do something differently -- and running a nickel package every down in every situation is doing something differently -- long enough, people began to recognize and label it differently. It would never be Gary Patterson's 4-2-5. But if Chavis coaches a defense for 10 years that never puts 3 linebackers on the field, I guarantee you people will be calling it something other than a 4-3 defense. If you can't grasp that, then maybe you should review your football knowledge of how football terminology evolves and is created.

quote:

---

When football coaches talk about schemes, and they use numbers to describe the setup, they are referring to how a defense plays as opposed to how many of each type of players there are.

---

Then why is it called a 4-3 instead of a 4-2, or a 6-1, or a 9-2? If the personnel involved made no difference, the 4-3 would be called simply "the 11". If the nickel package was no different than the base 4-3, then it would not be called a "nickel package."

I know that there are coverage and responsibility elements to the scheme that are from the base 4-3 rather than what you are calling a 4-2-5. But are you seriously suggesting that there is no difference between having a 5th DB on the field and having a 3rd LB on the field, despite the fact that this lineup is implemented so often that there is a special name for it, the "nickel package"?

Maybe you're right, and football is incapable of ever changing any terminology or recognizing any innovation ever again. I seriously doubt that, but I don't pretend to know everything, especially the future. Maybe you do.

By the way, you do understand that this is purely hypothetical, right? I mean, I've not suggested that Chavis ever will run a defense that won't be known as a 4-3. I'm just making the point that the personnel selections could, eventually, lead to a change in nomenclature. I'm not saying Chavis ever has or ever will run a defense that never utilizes 3 LBs. I'm just saying that if he did it long enough and prominently enough, it would eventually garner new terminology.

quote:

---

I'm very seriously suggesting that very thing!

---

:notsureifserious

I guess I have to ask this, then: if you really think there is no difference between having a 5th DB on the field and having a 3rd LB on the field, what do you think is the reason coaches run nickel packages? Don't you think there is a reason they put that extra DB out there instead of a LB?

quote:

---

I understand what you are saying and from a totally nomenclature or vernacular standpoint, I guess one day someone may refer to a 43 nickel package as something different.

---

That is not what I am saying at all. A package is a variant of a base defense. If you run a particular set 90% of the time, it is not a "package". When someone develops a defense that is based on playing nickel personnel against all offensive formations and situations, rather than as an adjustment to particular offensive formations and situations (or, as in our case, an adjustment to our own personnel), it ceases to be a package and becomes a different scheme.

quote:

---

However, I seriously doubt they would call it a 425 because that term is already taken by the scheme that tcu currently runs

---

So you really don't think anyone could ever develop another defensive scheme that would also be called a 4-2? Are all 4-3 schemes really exactly the same defense, such than no one ever uses any different terminology to describe them? I find that difficult to believe, but I'm not an expert. I just know I have heard professional coaches describe two different teams running 4-3 defenses as using two different schemes. I just can't see why it would be so hard to imagine the same thing happening with the term 4-2.

quote:

---

To use another example, most 3-4 teams use one outside linebacker to rush the qb and the other to drop into coverage. Because they always use one of them to rush, they usually employ a larger type body capable of playing the run and putting his hand on the ground. He is basically like having another "defensive end" on the field. I don't think anyone would ever call this a 43 though

---

Okay, since you say "most", I am assuming that means you believe there are other teams running a 3-4 that do not use this scheme. And yet, their defense is also called a 3-4. And the reason both of those defensive schemes are called 3-4 is because they utilize a base personnel set of 3 defensive linemen and 4 linebackers, even though they use them in different ways running different coverages and different responsibilities. What I'm suggesting is that the same thing can happen with base personnel sets of 4 defensive linemen and 2 linebackers; even though they are used in different ways with different responsibilities, they both could end up being referred to as 4-2 defenses.