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 1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Detroit Lions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
BLick12


Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Posts: 25026
Location: South Jeezy fo sheezy
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 10:56 am    Post subject: The Wide-Nine Reply with quote

There is a raging debate going on in the Eagles' forum right now regarding this scheme. I'm curious to get some perspective from the only other team that runs it in the NFL (that alone tells me something). What are your guys thoughts? You have never boasted a particularly sound defense since this scheme has been implemented despite having an offense (at least last year) that put up a lot of points. The Philly media has had a field day bashing it, yet a quick google search yields me very little from a Detroit media perspective. You guys have a far better DT tandem than we do, yet seem to have just as little success stopping the run. Is this scheme inherently flawed? Does it put way too much pressure on the LBs and safetys to account for a d-line that makes little to no effort in run support? Let me know your thoughts. Thanks guys!
_________________
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
oda


Joined: 11 Apr 2007
Posts: 997
Location: Michigan
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 11:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't believe the scheme is the problem. I think the personnel in the secondary is the problem. If the secondary sucks then the Linebackers have to play in a zone to help out the secondary. The Dline pass rushes and over runs their assignment, though to be fair that's the point of the wide-nine get to the QB and contain him. If the backers were free to blitz then it would be more effective.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
TL-TwoWinsAway


Joined: 19 Feb 2008
Posts: 25687
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 11:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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).
_________________


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


Joined: 17 Jan 2009
Posts: 15023
Location: Flat Rock, Mi
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 11:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
_________________
Oh no, we suck again
- Calvin's out
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
BLick12


Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Posts: 25026
Location: South Jeezy fo sheezy
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 11:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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).


Jason Babin found "success" (i use that term loosely b/c he was useless in run defense) in the Wide-9 that should tell you about the level of talent you need. You just need adequate pass rushers because these guys have practically no impact on run defense. Trent Cole is by many accounts considered one of the best 4-3 DEs in football and yet we were putrid running this scheme.

All last year I heard from Eagle fans was we needed to upgrade our Mike and LBs in general. Well this year, we have much better LBs and added some of the best CBs in football yet still we got killed. The wide-9 subjects LBs to more blockers and requires your safeties to play down hill, IMO, this puts the defense at a huge disadvantage. You guys have the benefit of having two very good DTs, and Suh is obviously a monster if all he is asked to do is shoot a gap and get pressure. I honestly believe this scheme requires you to have an elite DT something the Eagles do not have. Still, I think Suh would be far more effective in a traditional 4-3 where he can read and react as well as eat up blockers when necessary. The Lions are giving up 4.5 YPC and gave up 5.0 YPC last year, you mean to tell me that falls on the DEs?
_________________
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
IDOG_det


Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 20926
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 12:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Great DT's are required.
_________________


CWood21 wrote:
This anti-Teddy crap is getting out of hand.


R.I.P. Stylish
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stylish313


Joined: 17 Jan 2009
Posts: 15023
Location: Flat Rock, Mi
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 12:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The wide 9 sucked full-time. We only use it some of the time now, and our defense is much improved. The difference is our scrub DEs now look like scrub DEs, so Avril is our only productive one- and I use that term loosely describing Avril.
_________________
Oh no, we suck again
- Calvin's out
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
BLick12


Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Posts: 25026
Location: South Jeezy fo sheezy
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 12:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

IDOG_det wrote:
Great DT's are required.


So Detroit has that checked off. What makes them so poor against the run? Your LBs don't strike me as particularly awful. Certainly your secondary could use some work but that comes more in the form of pass defense.

The Wide-9 just strikes me as a gimmicky system. It sounds ideal if your team can manage a lead, but why not just run a traditional 4-3 up until that point and then pin your ears back and get after the QB?
_________________
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: 25687
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 12:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
_________________


Team Stylish
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SadLionFan00


Joined: 22 Jan 2008
Posts: 14342
Location: Michigan State University
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 12:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
_________________
Silver&Black88 wrote:
Quote:
Trestman is a great coach but Cutler is already a pouty overconfident poo flinger. What more can he do with him?
Get him to fling poo more accurately and make better decisions when flinging it?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
stylish313


Joined: 17 Jan 2009
Posts: 15023
Location: Flat Rock, Mi
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 12:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
_________________
Oh no, we suck again
- Calvin's out
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
stylish313


Joined: 17 Jan 2009
Posts: 15023
Location: Flat Rock, Mi
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 12:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
We use it a lot less than the prior two seasons.
_________________
Oh no, we suck again
- Calvin's out
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
BLick12


Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Posts: 25026
Location: South Jeezy fo sheezy
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 1:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
_________________
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
SadLionFan00


Joined: 22 Jan 2008
Posts: 14342
Location: Michigan State University
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 1:04 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.


Well it feels better than that.

Usually I get super mad during games cuz we cant stop the damn run. But this year, havent gotten too upset.

Maybe Im just maturing. Or becoming immune.
_________________
Silver&Black88 wrote:
Quote:
Trestman is a great coach but Cutler is already a pouty overconfident poo flinger. What more can he do with him?
Get him to fling poo more accurately and make better decisions when flinging it?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
GeneralTso


Joined: 08 Dec 2007
Posts: 7203
Location: Props to Rase on Sig
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 1:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think Wide 9 can work as a play or two, but not consistently as a scheme or philosophy.
_________________

james.mcmurry13 wrote:
Yeah, [Mike] Wallace would be like 4th fastest on the Raiders.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Display posts from previous:   

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