Rolling 4-4/5-3 defense?

Yes...thsi will be a reduction on the weak side....We base out of a 50, and this allows the back side Flank to get involved by becoming a Rush End......:rose;

blueadams,

I think you are sound in your ideas here and on the right track.

Here is how you want to stem to a 50:

............................................................................F

.............................................C........................M........M........O.........................C
..................................................................O...E....T...T....E
.............................................W................... T..G..C..G..T..E
..............................................................................Q.........................................W
..............................................................................F
..............................................................................T

This is how most do it:

............................................................................F

.............................................C.....................O.......M...........O..........................C
..................................................................E...T....M...T....E
.............................................W................... T..G..C..G..T..E
..............................................................................Q.........................................W
..............................................................................F
..............................................................................T

It is a very similiar alignment. The difference is most have an ILB put his hand on the ground as the NT and leave the WDE where he was. Also, the WDT moves over to the B gap (3 tech.) which is where you were moving your DE.

Caveman,

I was actually thinking about that twins set earlier. I initially thought that it'd have to be the one situation where you have to break THE rule (CBs-#1, OLBs-#2) and bring the CB over.

But...could the OLB play a 6i (inside shade) on the TE like a DE? Could the CB play the OLB's role? Maybe. If you've got that kind of personnel I think it'd be much simpler. But I suppose odds will be that you don't.

..............................................................................F

......................................C...............O...............M.........M.......C
....................................................................E...T....T....E...O
......................................W.............................T..G..C..G..T..E
.......................................................W....................Q
..............................................................................F
..............................................................................T


I suppose that whether you bring an OLB or an ILB down on the line is all about personnel as well. In theory, I really like both ideas to be honest. Thank you for bringing that to my attention though...I didn't realize many teams did this!!

We get into a 5 man look from our 4-2-5 by bringing the OLB to the TE side down to the line of scrimmage and playing a nine tech. The Sam (Strong DE) then slides to an outside shade on the Tackle(we call this a 6 tech but I realize most people don't), The DT plays in a one tech on the strong side, the Nose plays a 3 tech on the weak side and the DE on the weak side stays in the outside shade on the Tackle. The OLB to the weakside can either drob back to a second safety spot, putting you in Eagle Weak, or basically your 4-3 Under you have talked about, or slide in giving you a 53 look. Against twins your OLB can cover the slot receiver and still has a FS over the top to help.

coach,
a few years ago I coached with a 5-2 base(with stand up ends) and we also used the 4-4(3 deep 4 under with speed rushers) mostly in passing situations. its an easy system to learn for the players. we would use a lot of cover 2 from the 5-2. LB's reading the guards, 3 interior linemen having many alignments and DE's have contain. at times we would drop the SS down if we needed a quicker fill against the run. We had good success with defending the option as well.

what we did was have our DT's and LB's take care of the FB/dive. Our ends have the QB. and the corners being in cover 2 so much they have the pitch. Our DE's never play on air. we always bump down the DL so they get a hit on the OT or TE then squeeze. Most teams that we've faced run the option to the TE side and some ran triple option from the wing-t. most important they must do their job. Hit the QB if he pitches or keeps. Nothing like lots of hits on the QB to rattle an offense.

So, I've been thinking about the suggested adjustments from the 4-4 to the 5-3.

Many of you have suggested that one MLB simply becomes a nose tackle. Does that mean the WOLB becomes sort of a MLB?

......................................F
C.............................O..........M.........O....................C
..........................E....T....M....T......E
W.........................T...G...C...G...T...E.......................W
......................................Q
......................................F
......................................T

Or do you keep the WOLB outside?

......................................F
C....................O.............M...............O....................C
..........................E....T....M....T......E
W.........................T...G...C...G...T...E.......................W
......................................Q
......................................F
......................................T

If you keep the WOLB outside, it seems like you'd be a little vulnerable up the middle against a power-I team (I'm not a coach, so correct me if I'm wrong). If you're going up against a couple of good interior linemen who can split the M and T apart, its an easy block for the FB on the other MLB and an easy run.

If you move the WOLB inside...well, I just don't get it. Why would you do that as opposed to this:

......................................F
C..............................M.........M.........O....................C
..........................O....E....T....T......E
W.........................T...G...C...G...T...E.......................W
......................................Q
......................................F
......................................T

I played OLB as a high school junior and it wasn't working out. The coaches wanted to move me, and they tried two things.

#1) They tried moving me to ILB. This FAILED. I couldn't handle it. The blocking patterns were completely different. The reads were completely different. And compared to OLB, plays developed lightning quick (just because you're so much closer to the ball).

#2) They tried moving me to DE. This was HUGE SUCCESS! The blocking patterns were completely the same. The reads were pretty much the same. Plays developed at a similar pace. I'd blitzed plenty, so pass-rushing wasnt a problem. I'd shedded blocks, so playing with my hands on the OT wasnt a problem. It was EASY.

I bring this up because - if you're moving that OLB inside to an ILB position when you go from a 4-4 to a 5-3, you're asking a lot of him, mentally. If you're asking him to play DE, I don't think you're asking so much. (ps - asking a 5-tech to slide down to a 3-tech, or a 3-tech to a zero isn't that tough either).

Caveman,

Thank you for the thorough response. "Numbers strong, talent weak," I like that idea. Something which hadn't occured to me yet. As I'm not yet an actual coach, I tend to overlook the actual personnel-side of things.

ONE THING I don't quite understand about the 46 and similar defenses though - The TE coverage. Using Rex Ryan's original 46 as a reference point, I don't understand why the WILL is in a better position to cover the TE than the SAM. My best guess is that Ryan just really wanted outside pressure. Is there more to it than that?

The Original "EAGLE" defense as played BY the Philly Eagles in the 1940's had:

2 = Loose 9 technique ends slashing down off the hip of the TE (or "ghost").

2 = DT's in 4I's PINCHING to 3 techniques (we just lined them up in 3's).

1 = 0 Tech. Nose (two gappping double A Gaps).

2 = ILB's in almost on LOS (about 18" deep) in 7 techniques to deliver a blow on the TE (on SE side the LB walked out & the DE came in to a loose 5).

I believe Buddy Ryan took this base front just added a linebacker and rolled a safety down weak and bingo we have the 46 bear.

The Original " EAGLE" got gashed by Marion Motely and Cleveland Browns. Paul Brown widened his guards out and isolated the 2 gapping nose. Ryan I believe added the linebackers to eliminate this weakness.
Does what I am saying make sense this is all speculation.

Otis Wilson was the other linebacker in the 46.

Caveman,

Is it less of a problem when the uncovered OT comes down on the ILB?

I guess what I'm really asking is - why do you prefer a 9-tech (outside edge of TE) rushing and a 7-tech (inside edge of TE) covering the TE...as opposed to a 9-tech covering the TE and a 5-tech (outside edge of OT) rushing?