Nickel might be familiar in the future
 

I was just thinking, that with 2 allstar tacklers at safety, and how GW thinks that pressure on the QB is helped out by good coverage, that we will see alot of nickle packages next year. One of the safeties will essentially play linebacker when we are in nickle packages.

Re: Nickle might be framiliar in the future
 

Defensive personell is dictated by the offensive personell.
(3 WR = Nickel)
(4WR = Dime)
(5WR = Quarter aka, the hated 3 man rush)

But, Williams does march to the beat of his own tuba player, so you may be right. It would be a good base package against the Eagles, for instance.

Re: Nickel might be framiliar in the future
 

[quote=BeastsoftheNFCeast;306870]I was just thinking, that with 2 allstar tacklers at safety, and how GW thinks that pressure on the QB is helped out by good coverage, that we will see alot of nickle packages next year. One of the safeties will essentially play linebacker when we are in nickle packages.[/quote]

You are thinking too hard, but I like it!

1-4-6 DEFENSE BABY! WAHOO!

Re: Nickel might be framiliar in the future
 

One allstar, one wanna be? Hasen't played up here yet, a little different. But good point.

Re: Nickel might be framiliar in the future
 

[quote=angryssg;306877]You are thinking too hard, but I like it!

1-4-6 DEFENSE BABY! WAHOO![/quote]

I think I actually saw the Pats run a 0-5-6 defense once. I can't remember if it was preseason or what, but it was the craziest thing. Not a single d-lineman.

Re: Nickel might be framiliar in the future
 

We should play nickel. We have 4 starting calibre corners and Stoutmire is a pretty good nickel/dime guy.

Re: Nickel might be framiliar in the future
 

Also, I forgot to add that Rogers, Springs, and Smoot (probably MaClin too but I dunno bout him) are all solid against the run.

Re: Nickel might be framiliar in the future
 

with all the secondary players on the field at once, how do you suggest the skins get to the qback? you can only cover NFL receivers for so long

Re: Nickle might be framiliar in the future
 

[QUOTE=70Chip;306875]Defensive personell is dictated by the offensive personell.
(3 WR = Nickel)
(4WR = Dime)
(5WR = Quarter aka, the hated 3 man rush)

But, Williams does march to the beat of his own tuba player, so you may be right. It would be a good base package against the Eagles, for instance.[/QUOTE]

thats called madden

Re: Nickle might be framiliar in the future
 

[quote=jrocx69;306923]thats called madden[/quote]
No, He knows what he's talking about.

You need DB's on all of your WR's because other wise slow linebackers will be guarding them. Bad news.

Re: Nickel might be framiliar in the future
 

[quote=dmek25;306915]with all the secondary players on the field at once, how do you suggest the skins get to the qback? you can only cover NFL receivers for so long[/quote]

A properly working G-dub defense is going to blitz the corners and safeties. Taylor also gives you versatility since he is essentially another linebacker. That being said, the D-line needs to generate some pressure on it's own.

Re: Nickel might be framiliar in the future
 

We should just play a half-dollar zone on every play.

Taylor, Landry, Smoot, Springs, Rogers, Jimoh and Prioleau, with Washington, McIntosh, Marshall and a Sartz/Blades rotation. :)

Re: Nickel might be framiliar in the future
 

[quote=Buster;307237]We should just play a half-dollar zone on every play.

Taylor, Landry, Smoot, Springs, Rogers, Jimoh and Prioleau, with Washington, McIntosh, Marshall and a Sartz/Blades rotation. :)[/quote]

your leaving out mr. fletcher.

Re: Nickel might be framiliar in the future
 

[QUOTE=wolfeskins;307251]your leaving out mr. fletcher.[/QUOTE]

and mr. stoutmire :P

Re: Nickel might be framiliar in the future
 

[quote=CPAlltheWay012;307378]and mr. stoutmire :P[/quote]


and vincent kennedy mcmahon UR FIRED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Re: Nickel might be framiliar in the future
 

[quote=BeastsoftheNFCeast;306911]Also, I forgot to add that Rogers, Springs, and Smoot (probably MaClin too but I dunno bout him) are all solid against the run.[/quote]

It's spelled Macklin by the way.

Re: Nickel might be framiliar in the future
 

[quote=BeastsoftheNFCeast;306911]Also, I forgot to add that Rogers, Springs, and Smoot (probably MaClin too but I dunno bout him) are all solid against the run.[/quote]

David Macklin is a solid pickup, 7 year vet, 4 with colts, 3 with cards.
Local boy to boot, out of Newport News,VA.

Took less money to come home. A real Quality person, good player.

Re: Nickle might be framiliar in the future
 

[QUOTE=RobH4413;306929]No, He knows what he's talking about.

You need DB's on all of your WR's because other wise slow linebackers will be guarding them. Bad news.[/QUOTE]

Assuming you are playing man to man. People match up 4-3-4 zones against 3 wr's all the time.

Re: Nickle might be framiliar in the future
 

[quote=djnemo65;307427]Assuming you are playing man to man. People match up 4-3-4 zones against 3 wr's all the time.[/quote]


In 3rd down situations, though, I think it's absolutely necessary to have a 3rd corner so you can defend the slot. The defensive coordinator has to play the percentages in terms of down and distance. If the offense comes out in 3 wide on 1st and 10, it is often so he can run against the nickel.

The bottom line is that you are correct in that you can't robotically mirror the offense. The nickel as a base defense, however, would not serve us well since we have a hard enough time stopping the run with 3 LBers. It would be effective, as I said before, against the Eagles because they pass so much that even when they have 2 WR in the game you can treat the TE as a 3rd WR. I think even they would like to get more balance, though, so you might be playing into their hands a little bit.

Re: Nickle might be framiliar in the future
 

[quote=70Chip;307475]In 3rd down situations, though, I think it's absolutely necessary to have a 3rd corner so you can defend the slot. The defensive coordinator has to play the percentages in terms of down and distance. If the offense comes out in 3 wide on 1st and 10, it is often so he can run against the nickel.

The bottom line is that you are correct in that you can't robotically mirror the offense. The nickel as a base defense, however, would not serve us well since we have a hard enough time stopping the run with 3 LBers. It would be effective, as I said before, against the Eagles because they pass so much that even when they have 2 WR in the game you can treat the TE as a 3rd WR. I think even they would like to get more balance, though, so you might be playing into their hands a little bit.[/quote]Yeah, against Cover 2 or Cover three looks with 3 LBs, the QB has an easy throw to either the TE or the slot guy right in between the linebackers. On third and medium, a smart veteran QB would take that throw every time it was given to him.