I rewatched the first 20 minutes or so of Friday’s game, being a masochist. I have to say, I watch no pro football, so I was pretty baffled at how the Cats’ defense was designed, but I think I may have thought of the right metaphors to describe what they were trying to do, but executed badly. First of all, under Hankwitz, I believe we pretty much always used a cover 4 configuration that essentially acted as a piston, moving perpendicularly to the line of scrimmage, contracting to attack the run and expanding to contain the pass. The linebackers were essentially a free layer in the middle. The DLine worked to neutralize the OLine, and the LBs could aggressively attack knowing there was always a layer of support behind them.
It struck me that the new scheme is more of a hinge. The secondary rotates toward the point of attack the offense takes, moving an extra player or two into the half field the play is directed two. In contrast to the cover 4 base, the linebackers have the key roll: the Mike is the fulcrum of rotation, and the outside backers have responsibility for protecting the back side of the defense on the one hand and leading the attack on the other. The two indispensable positions are the Mike and the backside LB (usually the Will), which have to contain any reversals away from the original motion.
First of all, anyone who has a deeper knowledge of this stuff, please correct me. My detailed understanding of the game passed about forty years ago or so.
If I am correct in my broad brush description, one thing jumps out: in the old scheme, the LBs could screw up and the consequences were limited to an 8 or 10 yard gain. In the new scheme, the critical points of failure are the linebackers, and the two least experienced players on the field were two linebackers. In retrospect, it kind of makes sense that things blew up. Fitz talked about how Bajakian tailored the offense to the players he had; it kind of looks to me that O’Neil’s scheme does not have that virtue: it put the most vulnerable players at the points of maximum responsibility. Over and over, they got smoked.
I trust Fitz, and I can see where the new scheme, executed well, could be pretty powerful (though I had to squint a little to do that.). I hope the staff can use the next few games to bring the new players up to speed so that they make the tackles and let the defense shine again.
It struck me that the new scheme is more of a hinge. The secondary rotates toward the point of attack the offense takes, moving an extra player or two into the half field the play is directed two. In contrast to the cover 4 base, the linebackers have the key roll: the Mike is the fulcrum of rotation, and the outside backers have responsibility for protecting the back side of the defense on the one hand and leading the attack on the other. The two indispensable positions are the Mike and the backside LB (usually the Will), which have to contain any reversals away from the original motion.
First of all, anyone who has a deeper knowledge of this stuff, please correct me. My detailed understanding of the game passed about forty years ago or so.
If I am correct in my broad brush description, one thing jumps out: in the old scheme, the LBs could screw up and the consequences were limited to an 8 or 10 yard gain. In the new scheme, the critical points of failure are the linebackers, and the two least experienced players on the field were two linebackers. In retrospect, it kind of makes sense that things blew up. Fitz talked about how Bajakian tailored the offense to the players he had; it kind of looks to me that O’Neil’s scheme does not have that virtue: it put the most vulnerable players at the points of maximum responsibility. Over and over, they got smoked.
I trust Fitz, and I can see where the new scheme, executed well, could be pretty powerful (though I had to squint a little to do that.). I hope the staff can use the next few games to bring the new players up to speed so that they make the tackles and let the defense shine again.
