Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

The Wide-Nine
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Detroit Lions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
TL-TwoWinsAway


Joined: 19 Feb 2008
Posts: 25771
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 1:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stylish313 wrote:
TL-TwoWinsAway wrote:
stylish313 wrote:
TL-TwoWinsAway wrote:
It, by design, sacrifices run-stopping for pass-rushing, and absolutely requires two great DEs to be a great scheme (which is what we lack). It also requires strong LBs that can shed tackles and make plays.

I don't have a problem with the wide-9 at all, and I actually think it's a scheme that could thrive here with Suh and Fairley in the middle. We just need to improve the DE position (and have some health in the secondary).
That's a complete 180 from your views of the scheme one year ago.

Please explain. Vague, bold statements really hold no weight.
The"requires two great DEs" proclamation is a complete 180 from how you sold the wide 9 last off-season.

Wait. Because I said that Young could have nearly the same production as Avril, with a fraction of the cap hit, I didn't think we needed great pressure from the position?

(To be clear: we don't need two great all-around DEs... clearly not, as they are rarely tasked to stack-and-shed. We need two DEs great at generating pressure, which is what the scheme calls for. We don't have that right now. Without those pieces, the scheme is mediocre.)
_________________


Team Stylish
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LionsFTW


Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Posts: 18073
Location: Rock City, Arkansas
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 2:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BLick12 wrote:
SadLionFan00 wrote:
Im fine with it. I mean, our defense has been pretty decent this year. Its just these late game situations (which is where you would think the wide-9 would be at its best).

The problem with the wide-9 is that, like was said earlier, can make it really hard to stop the run. But we havent been run on too bad this year.

So I think the wide-9 is working well for us. I dont think we'd be doing much better in any different scheme.


4.5 YPC and 24+ PPG begs to differ.


Every week it seems like opponents score two TDs on us in the final 4 minutes. Hardly gives the complete story of how our defense is truly playing this year.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BLick12


Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Posts: 25106
Location: South Jeezy fo sheezy
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 2:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

LionsFTW wrote:
BLick12 wrote:
SadLionFan00 wrote:
Im fine with it. I mean, our defense has been pretty decent this year. Its just these late game situations (which is where you would think the wide-9 would be at its best).

The problem with the wide-9 is that, like was said earlier, can make it really hard to stop the run. But we havent been run on too bad this year.

So I think the wide-9 is working well for us. I dont think we'd be doing much better in any different scheme.


4.5 YPC and 24+ PPG begs to differ.


Every week it seems like opponents score two TDs on us in the final 4 minutes. Hardly gives the complete story of how our defense is truly playing this year.


5.0 YPC and 24+ PPG last year.

Hell, even Arian Foster who never averages much had 5+ YPC against you guys.

And also, what difference does it make if a team scores in the first quarter or at the end of the game?

Believe it or not the Eagles have let up a ton of points in the 4th quarter as well, at the time where you would think the Wide-Nine would be at its most effective. Riddle me that.
_________________
johndeere1707 wrote:

Another Ginger QB in the AFC North.

Looking forward to the "No Soul Bowl" twice a year
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
LionsFTW


Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Posts: 18073
Location: Rock City, Arkansas
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 2:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BLick12 wrote:
LionsFTW wrote:
BLick12 wrote:
SadLionFan00 wrote:
Im fine with it. I mean, our defense has been pretty decent this year. Its just these late game situations (which is where you would think the wide-9 would be at its best).

The problem with the wide-9 is that, like was said earlier, can make it really hard to stop the run. But we havent been run on too bad this year.

So I think the wide-9 is working well for us. I dont think we'd be doing much better in any different scheme.


4.5 YPC and 24+ PPG begs to differ.


Every week it seems like opponents score two TDs on us in the final 4 minutes. Hardly gives the complete story of how our defense is truly playing this year.


5.0 YPC and 24+ PPG last year.

Hell, even Arian Foster who never averages much had 5+ YPC against you guys.

And also, what difference does it make if a team scores in the first quarter or at the end of the game?

Believe it or not the Eagles have let up a ton of points in the 4th quarter as well, at the time where you would think the Wide-Nine would be at its most effective. Riddle me that.


It tells me that we are schematicly bad. We hold them until we go in prevent. We give up points in prevent.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BLick12


Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Posts: 25106
Location: South Jeezy fo sheezy
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 2:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

LionsFTW wrote:
BLick12 wrote:
LionsFTW wrote:
BLick12 wrote:
SadLionFan00 wrote:
Im fine with it. I mean, our defense has been pretty decent this year. Its just these late game situations (which is where you would think the wide-9 would be at its best).

The problem with the wide-9 is that, like was said earlier, can make it really hard to stop the run. But we havent been run on too bad this year.

So I think the wide-9 is working well for us. I dont think we'd be doing much better in any different scheme.


4.5 YPC and 24+ PPG begs to differ.


Every week it seems like opponents score two TDs on us in the final 4 minutes. Hardly gives the complete story of how our defense is truly playing this year.


5.0 YPC and 24+ PPG last year.

Hell, even Arian Foster who never averages much had 5+ YPC against you guys.

And also, what difference does it make if a team scores in the first quarter or at the end of the game?

Believe it or not the Eagles have let up a ton of points in the 4th quarter as well, at the time where you would think the Wide-Nine would be at its most effective. Riddle me that.


It tells me that we are schematicly bad. We hold them until we go in prevent. We give up points in prevent.


Well, with the schematics of the Wide-9 blitzes are far less utilized, because you leave your self so susceptible to getting burned. So most of the defenive sets will be pretty vanilla to begin. Having said that, you can still disguise some coverages and do different things, I'd be pretty surprised if the Lions were solely running a prevent defense, especially in OT against the Texans.

The Lions defense as a whole hasn't been anything to write home about this year it seems.
_________________
johndeere1707 wrote:

Another Ginger QB in the AFC North.

Looking forward to the "No Soul Bowl" twice a year
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
imyourGM


Joined: 03 Dec 2012
Posts: 190
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 3:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

two words from me___HATE IT
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BLick12


Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Posts: 25106
Location: South Jeezy fo sheezy
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 3:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

imyourGM wrote:
two words from me___HATE IT


Yeah, to be honest I'm surprised to see how many still support it despite not putting out much in the form of a respectable defense.

Maybe you all just think it is just a talent thing. Like I mentioned, plenty of Eagles' posters thought that as well. But even after upgrading our LB core we were still getting destroyed this year. Any defense that has talent at every single position can succeed, we saw the Wide-9 succeed in TN with an elite DT in Haynesworth a strong DL around him and some great LBs. They pretty much ditched it as soon as they lost Big Al. It just doesn't add up to me, and from an Eagles fan's perspective we were essentially wasting Trent Coles' ability to defend the run with this scheme in place. I feel as though the same can be said for Suh.
_________________
johndeere1707 wrote:

Another Ginger QB in the AFC North.

Looking forward to the "No Soul Bowl" twice a year
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
TL-TwoWinsAway


Joined: 19 Feb 2008
Posts: 25771
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 3:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BLick12 wrote:
imyourGM wrote:
two words from me___HATE IT


Yeah, to be honest I'm surprised to see how many still support it despite not putting out much in the form of a respectable defense.

Maybe you all just think it is just a talent thing. Like I mentioned, plenty of Eagles' posters thought that as well. But even after upgrading our LB core we were still getting destroyed this year. Any defense that has talent at every single position can succeed, we saw the Wide-9 succeed in TN with an elite DT in Haynesworth a strong DL around him and some great LBs. They pretty much ditched it as soon as they lost Big Al. It just doesn't add up to me, and from an Eagles fan's perspective we were essentially wasting Trent Coles' ability to defend the run with this scheme in place. I feel as though the same can be said for Suh.

In other words: with the right personnel, it can be great. Doesn't that apply to most schemes?

We have a pretty large chunk of the personnel in place: Suh and Fairley to collapse the pocket and a decent group of linebackers. We need DEs that can generate pressure, and a healthy secondary.

One benefit of this scheme is that you don't need great all-around DEs... just pass-rushing DEs, which isn't nearly as difficult to find as great all-around DEs. So, looking at it that way, we're actually pretty close to having an ideal group for the scheme.
_________________


Team Stylish
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
imyourGM


Joined: 03 Dec 2012
Posts: 190
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 3:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TL-TwoWinsAway wrote:
BLick12 wrote:
imyourGM wrote:
two words from me___HATE IT


Yeah, to be honest I'm surprised to see how many still support it despite not putting out much in the form of a respectable defense.

Maybe you all just think it is just a talent thing. Like I mentioned, plenty of Eagles' posters thought that as well. But even after upgrading our LB core we were still getting destroyed this year. Any defense that has talent at every single position can succeed, we saw the Wide-9 succeed in TN with an elite DT in Haynesworth a strong DL around him and some great LBs. They pretty much ditched it as soon as they lost Big Al. It just doesn't add up to me, and from an Eagles fan's perspective we were essentially wasting Trent Coles' ability to defend the run with this scheme in place. I feel as though the same can be said for Suh.

In other words: with the right personnel, it can be great. Doesn't that apply to most schemes?

We have a pretty large chunk of the personnel in place: Suh and Fairley to collapse the pocket and a decent group of linebackers. We need DEs that can generate pressure, and a healthy secondary.

One benefit of this scheme is that you don't need great all-around DEs... just pass-rushing DEs, which isn't nearly as difficult to find as great all-around DEs. So, looking at it that way, we're actually pretty close to having an ideal group for the scheme.
So what we have the DTs to do this whoopie. what about the rest? Avril is not doing anything speical thats for sure. T.O. are down and sacks too right? whats the benifit of running this scheme? Our dam secondary can't even hold up long enough to let the DEs get there..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BLick12


Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Posts: 25106
Location: South Jeezy fo sheezy
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 3:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TL-TwoWinsAway wrote:
BLick12 wrote:
imyourGM wrote:
two words from me___HATE IT


Yeah, to be honest I'm surprised to see how many still support it despite not putting out much in the form of a respectable defense.

Maybe you all just think it is just a talent thing. Like I mentioned, plenty of Eagles' posters thought that as well. But even after upgrading our LB core we were still getting destroyed this year. Any defense that has talent at every single position can succeed, we saw the Wide-9 succeed in TN with an elite DT in Haynesworth a strong DL around him and some great LBs. They pretty much ditched it as soon as they lost Big Al. It just doesn't add up to me, and from an Eagles fan's perspective we were essentially wasting Trent Coles' ability to defend the run with this scheme in place. I feel as though the same can be said for Suh.

In other words: with the right personnel, it can be great. Doesn't that apply to most schemes?

We have a pretty large chunk of the personnel in place: Suh and Fairley to collapse the pocket and a decent group of linebackers. We need DEs that can generate pressure, and a healthy secondary.

One benefit of this scheme is that you don't need great all-around DEs... just pass-rushing DEs, which isn't nearly as difficult to find as great all-around DEs. So, looking at it that way, we're actually pretty close to having an ideal group for the scheme.


Except, the right personnel has to be nearly every single person on the defense. By your standards Cliff Avril is exactly the type of DE that should succeed in a Wide-9, no?

But I agree you do have two of the fundamental building blocks for the Wide-9 but I think they would be served just as well if not more effectively playing in your standard 4-3.
_________________
johndeere1707 wrote:

Another Ginger QB in the AFC North.

Looking forward to the "No Soul Bowl" twice a year
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
TL-TwoWinsAway


Joined: 19 Feb 2008
Posts: 25771
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 4:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Avril is a good fit, but having an underwhelming player across from him prevents the defense from capitalizing on the rest of the unit's pressure. If teams know that only one DE is a threat, they can block accordingly, buying time and essentially neutralizing the scheme. It has to come from both sides.

As with great pressure, the demand for great players in the secondary is lessened, but certainly helps. If we can find quality pressure-generating DEs, we should have a very good defensive unit.
_________________


Team Stylish
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stylish313


Joined: 17 Jan 2009
Posts: 15019
Location: Flat Rock, Mi
PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 7:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The OP is right. The wide 9 sucks.

It's a gimmick formation that allows offenses to slice and dice you're interior. You've gotta have a great DL, great LB-core, great secondary.......

You can't have great players at every position. And as thin as we are on talent on the defensive side of the ball, we can't afford to just let teams run at will against us with that stupid gimmick formation.
_________________
Oh no, we suck again
- Calvin's out
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
TL-TwoWinsAway


Joined: 19 Feb 2008
Posts: 25771
PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 8:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

stylish313 wrote:
The OP is right. The wide 9 sucks.

It's a gimmick formation that allows offenses to slice and dice you're interior. You've gotta have a great DL, great LB-core, great secondary.......

You can't have great players at every position. And as thin as we are on talent on the defensive side of the ball, we can't afford to just let teams run at will against us with that stupid gimmick formation.

I don't agree with the part in bold. We don't need "greatness" from each of those positions, just players that fill a certain role. (Our secondary is depleted right now... it's tough to expect them to perform like a capable unit.)

We will never be able to see the benefits of the wide 9 until we field two DEs that can get to the QB, and pair them with our DT duo. Those DEs don't have to be great... they just have to be able to apply pressure. Once that happens, the quality of the scheme will be clear.
_________________


Team Stylish
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
imyourGM


Joined: 03 Dec 2012
Posts: 190
PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 2:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TL-TwoWinsAway wrote:
stylish313 wrote:
The OP is right. The wide 9 sucks.

It's a gimmick formation that allows offenses to slice and dice you're interior. You've gotta have a great DL, great LB-core, great secondary.......

You can't have great players at every position. And as thin as we are on talent on the defensive side of the ball, we can't afford to just let teams run at will against us with that stupid gimmick formation.

I don't agree with the part in bold. We don't need "greatness" from each of those positions, just players that fill a certain role. (Our secondary is depleted right now... it's tough to expect them to perform like a capable unit.)

We will never be able to see the benefits of the wide 9 until we field two DEs that can get to the QB, and pair them with our DT duo. Those DEs don't have to be great... they just have to be able to apply pressure. Once that happens, the quality of the scheme will be clear.
If our DEs don't have to be that great then whats the real problem? Avril looked horrible 95% of the time last night. Why you wanna field 2 players that can't defend the run or get off TE blocks. And if what you say is correct why are we paying the DEs we have 10mill a year? Doesn't 10mill buy you more pressures these days?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AlexGreen#20


Joined: 13 Jun 2012
Posts: 5440
PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 2:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TL-TwoWinsAway wrote:
stylish313 wrote:
The OP is right. The wide 9 sucks.

It's a gimmick formation that allows offenses to slice and dice you're interior. You've gotta have a great DL, great LB-core, great secondary.......

You can't have great players at every position. And as thin as we are on talent on the defensive side of the ball, we can't afford to just let teams run at will against us with that stupid gimmick formation.

I don't agree with the part in bold. We don't need "greatness" from each of those positions, just players that fill a certain role. (Our secondary is depleted right now... it's tough to expect them to perform like a capable unit.)

We will never be able to see the benefits of the wide 9 until we field two DEs that can get to the QB, and pair them with our DT duo. Those DEs don't have to be great... they just have to be able to apply pressure. Once that happens, the quality of the scheme will be clear.


You need great LBs, it opens you up against the run and at the same time gets teams checking down to the second level more so your backers need to be able to cover. Guys that can fight off blocks and cover don't grow on trees.

Really helps to have good Safeties too, in the same regard. It's easier to scheme your interior lineman clean when the TEs take care of the DEs. You never want to see a 4 on 4 as the DC that's a recipe for getting gashed and that happens a lot in the Wide-9. Those Safeties have to be able to come up and make plays if you don't wanna get gashed for days. Then you get a team like the Packers where you're worried about getting beat deep and two downs and a kick has the back to the third level. You saw it on the TD run.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Detroit Lions All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group