| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
TL-TwoWinsAway
Joined: 19 Feb 2008
Posts: 24074
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 10:05 pm Post subject: The Mirage of Missed Tackles? |
 |
|
|
After watching the TEN game, a thought came to me: is it possible that some missed tackles are actually great defensive plays?
A lot of times, we see missed tackles by linebackers who appear to be over-pursuing the ball-carrier. It doesn't look good... we'd all rather they just bring the ball-carrier down... but these missed tackles seem to always happen to the outside of the field. As a result the ball-carrier has no choice but to either get tackled or turn the ball inside, right into the teeth of the trailing defensive players.
It's actually very smart: this is a league where receivers and running backs ofter have tremendous quickness and ability. Taking those players head-on with a less agile defensive linemen or linebacker is a clear advantage for the offense. If they break it to the outside, they often have a ton of room, minimal pursuit and a much larger gain available to them.
Taking away the outside, and forcing this player inside, is a wise choice. It's something I'm seeing quite a bit of, and I'm beginning to think it's by design.
For clarity: I am strictly talking about instances where a defensive player over-pursues to the outside, forcing the ball-carrier back inside.
_________________
| kenney wrote: | | Stafford without Calvin Johnson is a mediocre QB |
- Said on 8/16/2012.
Last edited by TL-TwoWinsAway on Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:52 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
X_Factor_40
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 16149
Location: Hockeytown
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 11:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
When I coach soccer we use a similar principal. The 3 D's of defense. Delay, Deny, Destroy. In football it's the same basic idea. Delay the ball carrier's forward progress, deny them the ability to bounce the ball outside on the edge where they can turn it into a track race, and destroy the play. By delaying the ball carrier and forcing in back inside you give your teammates an opportunity to continue their pursuit to the ball and destroy the play. Instead of making it a 1 on 1 play on the outside where the defense may not physically match up with the ball carrier they're forced to turn the ball inside where they don't have the room to do what they want with the ball.
_________________
| Louis Friend wrote: | | How do you rid yourself of character concerns, draft a kid who cures cancer. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TL-TwoWinsAway
Joined: 19 Feb 2008
Posts: 24074
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2012 2:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| X_Factor_40 wrote: | | When I coach soccer we use a similar principal. The 3 D's of defense. Delay, Deny, Destroy. In football it's the same basic idea. Delay the ball carrier's forward progress, deny them the ability to bounce the ball outside on the edge where they can turn it into a track race, and destroy the play. By delaying the ball carrier and forcing in back inside you give your teammates an opportunity to continue their pursuit to the ball and destroy the play. Instead of making it a 1 on 1 play on the outside where the defense may not physically match up with the ball carrier they're forced to turn the ball inside where they don't have the room to do what they want with the ball. |
Absolutely. Great post... makes a lot of sense.
There was a play in the Tennessee game where both Levy and Houston over-pursued to the outside on a short pass, forcing Chris Johnson to turn it back inside... and get smacked by a number of waiting Lions.
It really sounds like the right way to coach situations like that.
_________________
| kenney wrote: | | Stafford without Calvin Johnson is a mediocre QB |
- Said on 8/16/2012. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jrugges
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 8238
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2012 2:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| This "idea" doesn't support plays where blown tackles/coverage I guess, could of saved TD's. John Wendling blew many tackles deep one caused a deep TD. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TL-TwoWinsAway
Joined: 19 Feb 2008
Posts: 24074
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Jrugges wrote: | | This "idea" doesn't support plays where blown tackles/coverage I guess, could of saved TD's. John Wendling blew many tackles deep one caused a deep TD. |
Actually, those plays are completely separate from the scenario explained in the OP. I am strictly talking about instances where a defensive player over-pursues to the outside, forcing the ball-carrier back inside. It happens quite a bit, and fans criticize the defensive player for missing a tackle, but I'm beginning to wonder if it's by design.
"Over-pursing and forcing the ball-carrier inside" is very much different from "taking a bad angle, being late to the play and jumping and flailing, missing everything in the process". There is no defense for that.
EDIT: I adjusted the OP for clarity.
_________________
| kenney wrote: | | Stafford without Calvin Johnson is a mediocre QB |
- Said on 8/16/2012. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
detfan782004
Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Posts: 39411
Location: Montana
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2012 11:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
It is actually a principle that is highly preached among some of best coaches. When our staff went to USC coaches camp it was covered.
However when I watch Det I don't see it! I see poor tackling being saved by it.
It's more of a system save then intentional with these guys. Just like when we evaluate at work. Sometimes teams screw up and end result is they get by. However we still fail them because they are not allowed to use system saves where they get bailed out not because they did it on purpose.
While I see how someone can see it I simply think they are just getting luck in this aspect
_________________
FFMD II AGM- DETROIT LIONS |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
detroitroar
Joined: 24 Jan 2011
Posts: 2890
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2012 11:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Misleading title, if you are indeed serious. Theres a big difference between missing a tackle, and not letting a guy get outside, which is defensive football 101.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
detfan782004
Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Posts: 39411
Location: Montana
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2012 11:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| detroitroar wrote: | | Misleading title, if you are indeed serious. Theres a big difference between missing a tackle, and not letting a guy get outside, which is defensive football 101. |
Concur. Think this is attempt to overlook poor defense by making it seem intentional which I simply don't see
_________________
FFMD II AGM- DETROIT LIONS |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TL-TwoWinsAway
Joined: 19 Feb 2008
Posts: 24074
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2012 12:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| detfan782004 wrote: | | detroitroar wrote: | | Misleading title, if you are indeed serious. Theres a big difference between missing a tackle, and not letting a guy get outside, which is defensive football 101. |
Concur. Think this is attempt to overlook poor defense by making it seem intentional which I simply don't see |
Uh, no. Not overlooking anything. I noticed on a number of occasions that players would miss tackles due to over-pursuit, refusing to give the outside. Fans often criticize these plays, when they're probably being made for a reason.
_________________
| kenney wrote: | | Stafford without Calvin Johnson is a mediocre QB |
- Said on 8/16/2012. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FootballPhreak
Joined: 09 Oct 2007
Posts: 30785
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2012 11:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| detfan782004 wrote: | | detroitroar wrote: | | Misleading title, if you are indeed serious. Theres a big difference between missing a tackle, and not letting a guy get outside, which is defensive football 101. |
Concur. Think this is attempt to overlook poor defense by making it seem intentional which I simply don't see |
Double concur. Of course you want to force them towards the rest of your defense. You still don't want to whiff.
_________________
| Draft_FanAddict wrote: | | If that doesn't concern you, I don't know what would...a missing head? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TL-TwoWinsAway
Joined: 19 Feb 2008
Posts: 24074
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2012 1:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| FootballPhreak wrote: | | detfan782004 wrote: | | detroitroar wrote: | | Misleading title, if you are indeed serious. Theres a big difference between missing a tackle, and not letting a guy get outside, which is defensive football 101. |
Concur. Think this is attempt to overlook poor defense by making it seem intentional which I simply don't see |
Double concur. Of course you want to force them towards the rest of your defense. You still don't want to whiff. |
If the emphasis of forcing them inside is the reason that you whiff, but you're coached to keep them inside at all costs, isn't it more than just "poor defense"?
_________________
| kenney wrote: | | Stafford without Calvin Johnson is a mediocre QB |
- Said on 8/16/2012. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LionsFTW
Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Posts: 17068
Location: Rock City, Arkansas
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2012 1:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| TL-TwoWinsAway wrote: | | FootballPhreak wrote: | | detfan782004 wrote: | | detroitroar wrote: | | Misleading title, if you are indeed serious. Theres a big difference between missing a tackle, and not letting a guy get outside, which is defensive football 101. |
Concur. Think this is attempt to overlook poor defense by making it seem intentional which I simply don't see |
Double concur. Of course you want to force them towards the rest of your defense. You still don't want to whiff. |
If the emphasis of forcing them inside is the reason that you whiff, but you're coached to keep them inside at all costs, isn't it more than just "poor defense"? |
You're taught to take an angle towards the outside shoulder. Not far enough to where you whiff and have no chance at all.
_________________
| YlionsY wrote: | | I hope you get banned so hard you can't walk right for a week. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
detfan782004
Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Posts: 39411
Location: Montana
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2012 1:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| LionsFTW wrote: | | TL-TwoWinsAway wrote: | | FootballPhreak wrote: | | detfan782004 wrote: | | detroitroar wrote: | | Misleading title, if you are indeed serious. Theres a big difference between missing a tackle, and not letting a guy get outside, which is defensive football 101. |
Concur. Think this is attempt to overlook poor defense by making it seem intentional which I simply don't see |
Double concur. Of course you want to force them towards the rest of your defense. You still don't want to whiff. |
If the emphasis of forcing them inside is the reason that you whiff, but you're coached to keep them inside at all costs, isn't it more than just "poor defense"? |
You're taught to take an angle towards the outside shoulder. Not far enough to where you whiff and have no chance at all. |
Exactly.
The concept is simple. Force them in but maintain a position where you can make a play too. The inside shoulder of defender should still be in front of the offensive player when forcing them in. This is something the Lions are not doing when they WHIFF.
Its the same concept as contain really. You go parallel with the play and force it in but you do not give up position to make the play.
There is no reason to believe they are whiffing by design. If that is case all these coaches need fired.
_________________
FFMD II AGM- DETROIT LIONS |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LionsFTW
Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Posts: 17068
Location: Rock City, Arkansas
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2012 2:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| TL-TwoWinsAway wrote: | | FootballPhreak wrote: | | detfan782004 wrote: | | detroitroar wrote: | | Misleading title, if you are indeed serious. Theres a big difference between missing a tackle, and not letting a guy get outside, which is defensive football 101. |
Concur. Think this is attempt to overlook poor defense by making it seem intentional which I simply don't see |
Double concur. Of course you want to force them towards the rest of your defense. You still don't want to whiff. |
If the emphasis of forcing them inside is the reason that you whiff, but you're coached to keep them inside at all costs, isn't it more than just "poor defense"? |
You're taught to take an angle towards the outside shoulder. Not far enough to where you whiff and have no chance at all.
_________________
| YlionsY wrote: | | I hope you get banned so hard you can't walk right for a week. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TL-TwoWinsAway
Joined: 19 Feb 2008
Posts: 24074
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2012 2:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| LionsFTW wrote: | | TL-TwoWinsAway wrote: | | FootballPhreak wrote: | | detfan782004 wrote: | | detroitroar wrote: | | Misleading title, if you are indeed serious. Theres a big difference between missing a tackle, and not letting a guy get outside, which is defensive football 101. |
Concur. Think this is attempt to overlook poor defense by making it seem intentional which I simply don't see |
Double concur. Of course you want to force them towards the rest of your defense. You still don't want to whiff. |
If the emphasis of forcing them inside is the reason that you whiff, but you're coached to keep them inside at all costs, isn't it more than just "poor defense"? |
You're taught to take an angle towards the outside shoulder. Not far enough to where you whiff and have no chance at all. |
Well, of course. In this league, with the weapons on the field, that outside shoulder moves. And that's my point: I have the feeling that pushing them back inside is more important than making the tackle, which is why they'd coach them to target the outside shoulder over doing what would best lead to a tackle (but expose them to possibly losing contain).
| detfan782004 wrote: | | There is no reason to believe they are whiffing by design. If that is case all these coaches need fired. |
Nowhere am I suggesting that they're "whiffing by design". That's nonsensical. I am, however, suggesting that they're coached to approaching the tackle in a way that gives them a greater chance to miss, but pushes the ball-carrier inside.
_________________
| kenney wrote: | | Stafford without Calvin Johnson is a mediocre QB |
- Said on 8/16/2012. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
