lets talk scheme on D

[trj]

I want the Hawks to run more cover 3 with a safety in the box on early downs to mix looks and relieve pressure versus the run on early downs and to mix coverages when they play nickel and dime packages. almost exclusively man cover when they play extra dbs.

I understand what you are saying, but a cover 3 would put a lot of pressure on your Will and Sam linebackers and the SS. A good OC/QB will recognize it and call plays or audiblize accordingly then you just hope the LB(s) or SS are not out of position or flat out get beat on any short passes because there are huge YAC possibilities.


Maybe with a good d-line you could mix in some cover3.......Imo, personnel would dictate trying something like that.

 

[HomerChampless]

I think what we need is for our DT's to step up. In a 4-3 you have to legitmately demand a double team. That would allow our DE's to do their jobs and when they were allowed to, they did fairly well last year. On a side note I hope if Nate does not make it at RB he moves to mike.
First and foremost for a 4-3 to work extremly well, you have to plug the hole and make it so that is not even an option.

Sorry duff, even as big of fan of lasers as I am, I think that would be a clear violation of the rules.

How much more 'stepping' can the Iowa DLine do with 3 players who play in the pros?

Iowa's DLine will never, ever, consistantly get pressure on the QB.
It's partially a product of the spread offenses that get that ball quickly out of the QB's hand.
It's no wonder there's been so much blitzing.
It's time to change schemes.
It's also time for Iowa's secondary to defend the pass completion.

 

[Foval21]

many teams in the nfl are running more nickel package, some of them have changed their nickel to be a better run defense by using a safety as the 5 db rather than a cb. this almost gives them more of a hybrid nickel with base defense. this is why one of the things i would like to see if we stay base as much as we do is to have a package with hitchens, kirksey, and morris. kirksey and hitchens are basically big safeties.

So, I am confused, you want more nickel packages or Tampa 2?

i was commenting on the nickel package stuff talked about earlier in the thread. i dont necessarily think we need to go nickel much. though we could have a defensive package utilizing our 2 lbs that are basically large safeties instead of using a nickel at times.

i would like to se if he could incorporate some tampa 2 as it allows for less cushion by the cbs. this could allow for more defense of the completion rather than let them catch it and defense the yac. could our defense do it? i am not sure but i think it is something we could play with considering the speed we tend to have as a unit.

 

[hogeye]

Like I said, Foval, there's a reason you essentially see no Tampa 2 in CFB. And after 5 pages of replies, unless I've missed it, I haven't even seen specific reasoning as to why we would implement it. B10 offenses aren't really doing much to dictate a Tampa 2 scheme that I can see. You're more likely to get burned over the middle by pulling a LB into deep coverage in CFB than you are to gain value in slowing down vertical passing games.