Stubborn or just plain stupid: Why did it take 7 years to switch from 2 gap to 1 gap?

[Lomax to Green 84]

Dave Mac-4.5 years as defensive coordinator, 2.5 years as head coach and now the light finally goes on that the 2 gap read and react is a garbage defense.

Ask any defensive linemen and 95 percent will say they prefer the one gap and the other 5 percent who prefer the 2 gap would be lying to save their job.

Is is being stubborn or is it being stupid? I hope its just being stubborn but I have my doubts.

 

[Shane]

Who knows?

Maybe they just thought with the personnel at the time the two gap best suited the teams abilities?

I must say though Im not to thrilled with the idea of using more 3-4 formations!

 

[AZCB34]

Originally posted by Shane H
Who knows?

Maybe they just thought with the personnel at the time the two gap best suited the teams abilities?

I must say though Im not to thrilled with the idea of using more 3-4 formations!

I think you are probably close to right. It was a personnel issue in that they felt this defensive scheme put them in the "best" chance for success. Add to that a history before AZ of using that tyoe of scheme.

Shane, I am very pleased they are incorporating the 3-4 more (although note that I don't want it used too often) since it plays to this teams perceived strength...the LB corp. An occasional foray into a LB set with Thompson, McKinnon, Darling, Fisher would be nice considering you can do alot out of that alignment. The DL could be Pace/Bell/Bryant. The key is to not become too passive in the 3-4 like they seemed to last year...only rushing 3 guys. Stay aggressive but switch it up.

It forces the opposing team to work on blocking schemes for the 3-4 and 4-3 during the week which takes time. I prefer the 4-3 but this is a nice change of pace.

 

[Shane]

Originally posted by AZCB34
I think you are probably close to right. It was a personnel issue in that they felt this defensive scheme put them in the "best" chance for success. Add to that a history before AZ of using that tyoe of scheme.

Shane, I am very pleased they are incorporating the 3-4 more (although note that I don't want it used too often) since it plays to this teams perceived strength...the LB corp. An occasional foray into a LB set with Thompson, McKinnon, Darling, Fisher would be nice considering you can do alot out of that alignment. The DL could be Pace/Bell/Bryant. The key is to not become too passive in the 3-4 like they seemed to last year...only rushing 3 guys. Stay aggressive but switch it up.

It forces the opposing team to work on blocking schemes for the 3-4 and 4-3 during the week which takes time. I prefer the 4-3 but this is a nice change of pace.

For an occasional change of pace then ok. But as often as it sounds like they want to use it Im not so sure!

Our LBs are good and fast but just to small IMO for a 3-4.

 

[Krangodnzr]

The two gap is actually a superior defense, if you have big strong tackles and defensive ends with a good overall game (pass rush+ run stop abilities).

The Ravens played a two gap, with Siragusa and Sam Adams able to collapse the pocket and also stop the run.

I credit Mac for finally giving up on the two gap, but it is obvious that we should have done this last year. Our talent is not well suited for a two gap.

 

[AZCB34]

Originally posted by Shane H
For an occasional change of pace then ok. But as often as it sounds like they want to use it Im not so sure!

Our LBs are good and fast but just to small IMO for a 3-4.

I haven't heard how often they are thinking they would use the 3-4 but I only want it as a change of pace but I would venture to say 85-90% of the time they should be in the 4-3...maybe even more than that.

The LBs are too small for every down 3-4 but if it is used in a limited fashion it should be that big of a deal.

 

[Shane]

Originally posted by Krangthebrain
The two gap is actually a superior defense, if you have big strong tackles and defensive ends with a good overall game (pass rush+ run stop abilities).

The Ravens played a two gap, with Siragusa and Sam Adams able to collapse the pocket and also stop the run.

I credit Mac for finally giving up on the two gap, but it is obvious that we should have done this last year. Our talent is not well suited for a two gap.

I agree!

It is ultimately the best sytem overall but you must have the right personnell. We obviously do not. I am actually really excited to see the new attacking style during the regular season!

cubbie,

15% would sound about righ hopefully not much more than that!

 

[LVCARDFREAK]

The 3-4 requires a huge push from the middle from the NG/DT and even the middle linebacker. I doubt you will see the Cards use the 3-4 that much other than on obvious passing downs which will be a hybrid 3-4/Quarter D that has 3 down lineman, 2 linebackers and 6 DB's...

 

[CT Card Fan]

only very slightly off the topic

First let me say, I don't want to turn this into a Rod Graves thread, because really this question is about 1 gap versus 2 gap. And, I think most people do feel like Graves did all he could in this case.

I read a lot here, but post a little less, so maybe someone got into this before. But, could the fact we had no luck at landing Colvin and/or Holliday have something to do with the defense we played? Maybe it wasn't all money or their opinion of the Cards, but instead they looked at the D we played (esp. Colvin) and figured that it was not going to be a good fit.

At that point, there were no signs of this shift in the defensive philosophy. Then, later it comes out.

Probably not, but just a thought. If it were true though, then losing out on those guys might actually have been a blessing if it finally got us to change.

 

[BACH]

Originally posted by Holian
Dave Mac-4.5 years as defensive coordinator, 2.5 years as head coach and now the light finally goes on that the 2 gap read and react is a garbage defense.

Ask any defensive linemen and 95 percent will say they prefer the one gap and the other 5 percent who prefer the 2 gap would be lying to save their job.

Is is being stubborn or is it being stupid? I hope its just being stubborn but I have my doubts.

I'm sorry but that's just plain wrong. A lot of teams plays the two-gap scheme (e.g. Ravens, Bears, Redskins, Bills) with great success.

I agree on the criticism of not switching sooner, though. Mac stuck with a system, that didn't suit his players. The one-gap is better suited for our fast and small/light players.

 

[Krangodnzr]

Re: Re: Stubborn or just plain stupid: Why did it take 7 years to switch from 2 gap to 1 gap?

Originally posted by BACH
I'm sorry but that's just plain wrong. A lot of teams plays the two-gap scheme (e.g. Ravens, Bears, Redskins, Bills) with great success.

I agree on the criticism of not switching sooner, though. Mac stuck with a system, that didn't suit his players. The one-gap is better suited for our fast and small/light players.

Exactly. The one gap is actually sexier (i.e. looks prettier) but the two gap is more effective.

 

[Goldfield]

It all depents on the make up of your team.



But I dont understand why it took so long for these changes.


I think there are alot of things that are taking too long to be "tinkered" with. For example: The Eagle game! McNabb couldnt move and we didnt blitz him on every play? Now thats Stupid

 

[cardzfan]

Before camp, Coach Mac said that he would be utilizing multiple defensive formations. He said that we would experiment with a 5-2-4 alignment. The Patriots used multiple defensive formations in 2001 and it worked pretty good. We have playmakers in our defensive backfield. If we can give the opposing offense different looks and get them crossed up we could boost our turnovers.