re: John Chavis Defensive Scheme

It is true that you can have two different teams run a 4-3 defense and have them be different from one another. But this usually comes from what they choose to play as their "base" coverage. Chavis is a 2 hi safety guy. Meaning he is going to play cover 2, quarters and the hybrid of the two, Palms, made famous by Bo Pilini. If he were a 1 hi safety team, playing the majority cover 3 and man free, ie Saban, I would be way more likely to let you call it a 4-2-5.

Again, identifying a defense's structure is WAY more complex than just counting the number of positions on the field. Let's try it this way:
If you diagrammed a base 4-3 package against a 2 by 2 set out of 11 personnel, and marked all your defensive players as an "X", it would look identical and play identically to a nickel package if you marked all the players with "X". In other words, who cares who is doing what job? The fact is that the same jobs are being done.

If you owned a McDonalds, and every Friday night you decided to bring in the personnel staff from Commander's Palace to run the McDonalds for the night, would you call yourself Commander's Palace? No! Youre still serving Big Macs and Fries! Its still a McDonalds!

quote:

---

Despite the fact that rantards are the majority here, there are a few intelligent people who could answer this question.

I think, I saw it once.

---

Also, it a must that you have cornerbacks that can play man-to-man coverage. Your corners will be on an island almost exclusively in 4-2-5 scheme (yes, i know it is a modified 4-3 )

So the 4-2-5 scheme requires 2 things:
1.) D-linemen that can demand a double team
2.) Cornerbacks that can play great man-to-man

for all the talk of our 4-2-5 personnel (nickel package), I'd love to know how often we use it vs. the base 4-3 or 3-2-6.

quote:

---

King Joey

---

I'll try to address the majority of your points. You bring up decent questions when it comes to the origin of football nomenclature, and in many fields your claims would be true. However, know that football coaches aren't astrophysicists. The majority of their nomenclature stems from tradition and has only slowly adapted.

quote:

---

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?

---

The reason coaches run nickel packages is because of personnel matching. Instead of having an OLB covering a TE, a RB, or a slot WR you now have a safety or a CB (some teams chose to add a safety and some chose to add a corner).

quote:

---

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.

---

For other teams, nickel is a package. For us, it's base. Let me reiterate, this is a difference in personnel groupings only, not in scheme. Think about it this way. The Saints, with an extremely athletic TE in Graham and a fast RB in Sproles will run their "Flood" route combination much different than other teams. Most teams will split 3 WRs to a side, have the outside WR go vertical, the middle WR will run the 15 yard out and the interior WR will run the 5 yard out.

The Saints, however, in an effort to get a mismatch with guys like Grahama and Sproles will run this same exact concept with one WR split wide, Grahama at TE on the same side and Sproles offset to the same side in the backfield. They'll run the exact same concept (WR going vertical, Grahama going 15 yard out, and Sproles running the arrow) only their personnel gives them a likelihood of having Graham or Sproles matched up on a S or an OLB, advantage Saints. Exact same tried and true pass concept, completely different personnel grouping. Same thing with the nickel.

quote:

---

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.

---

No, no one will ever develop another defense that is known simply as the 4-2-5. As people said, the 4-2-5 is a schematical distinction used by over half the high school teams in America and many college teams, most notably TCU. You ask if all 4-3 defenses are the same, and they're not. The differences are typically described using additional nomenclature terms such as Over, Under, Flex, Double Eagle, etc. Someone could add one of these to a 4-2-5 to designate it as a different scheme, but the 4-2-5 will never be known as anything as it's now too synonymous with too many teams' defense.

Okay, so y'all keep saying that personnel is irrelevant, so I'll ask this: if the Saints start off next season running every defensive snap with 6 Safeties and 5 Cornerbacks on the field, but they are lined up in the spots of the 4-3 scheme and playing the responsibilities of the 4-3 scheme, will knowlegable commentators simply ignore this as being exactly the same defense the Saints have been running? Or will they note some difference in the defense from Gregg Williams'?

As for the new nomenclature, it seems that you are all saying that if, say, Mike Stoops were to invent a wholely new defense, with entirely new coverages and reaction responsibilities, and that defense featured a base personnel set of 4 defensive linemen, 2 linebackers and 5 defensive backs, that for some reason no one would label it as a 4-2 defense. So I put it to you, would they call it a 4-3? A 5-2? Which number would they falsify? Or would they go the Prince route and just make up an unpronounceable symbol, rather than risk duplication of the 4-2 nomenclature (despite the fact that at least one other name, the 4-3, is already used to describe multiple defensive schemes)?

Also, why is the aversion to calling a defense with 4 defensive linemen, 2 linebackers and 5 defensive backs a "4-2-5" so extreme? Is this just an issue for you guys, or are the coaches themselves really this panicked about people using common sense to describe their defenses?

quote:

---

The reason coaches run nickel packages is because of personnel matching.

---

Yes, I know this. I was sort of puzzled why some others seemed to think the nickel package had no effect on personnel matching, but was instead exactly the same as the base defense. That's why I was asking what they thought the reason for it was. And I understand that substituting personnel for a better matchup is not the same as changing your scheme. What I am contemplating though is a personnel change that is not driven by matchups. When the personnel change is no longer for the purposes of achieving matchups, that is a substantively different situation than what we perceive now as a nickel package (which, as you pointed out, is driven by personnel matchups).

quote:

---

Are 4-3 defenses typically set up this way?

It almost sounds like a 3-4s' scheme

---

4-3 defenses are not dissimilar in functioning to 3-4s, just personnel and philosophy. In a 4-3, you can have 2 athletic DTs, but more commonly one is the NT (plays closer to the center) while the, usually the lighter, more athletic one, plays DT (across from a guard). While only 1 of the ends in a 3-4 is typically a pass rusher, both DEs in a 4-3 have to be able to rush the passer credibly (especially in college, where QBs tend to be more mobile). LBs in both systems control gaps, but to the degree the DL can be responsible for 1 or 2 gaps will determine how much more you can do with the LBers - 1 is typically a pass rusher in a 3-4, while in a 4-3, LBers usually only rush the passer in a blitz call.

An oversimplification of the differences would be -- to change from a 4-3 to a 3-4, you remove your smallest DE and replace him with a stand up OLB, who is typically a pass rusher first. You have larger ILBs, a huge, 0-technique, 2 gap NT, and you effectively play a defensive tackle at one of your DE spots (the spot outside of which your pass rushing OLB will normally line up).

quote:

---

Our defense is based on speed, and it doesn't seem like we are geared to stop the run. But, we do

---

Stopping the run isn't just about size. A 320lb DT that's out of position is no more likely to make a tackle than a 260lb DT that is out of position. We stop the run so well usually with numbers and matchups. We have enough studs at the DL to disrupt a lot of the nuance of blocking schemes, and our speed can get a lot of numbers to the point of attack before a play really opens up.

I'm sure others can give you a lot of technical (or at least technical-sounding) explanations of it, but basically he just takes really great athletes and teaches them really good technique on getting to the right spot at the right time.

I am amazed, no SFP to tell all of you that you are wrong.

If anyone would like for me to share it, I excahnged an e-mail w/Chris Brown at Smart Football & asked him if he'd weigh in on this discussion.

I know he's watched a good bit of tape on Football in general, but also on Chavis' defense in specific.