Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

The 46 Defense.....


Best Answer CashNewton22, 09 July 2013 - 11:13 AM

Appreciate the conversation without flaming, lots of respected posters weighing in...

I'd like to reply to most of yous but I'm on my phone so I'm not....

@Frash & FootballCzar -I was going to post that in reply in the AM, thanks Emory...
@PhillyB -cant tell if serious/Futurama pic
@Cyberjag -it has been, will post link tomorrow...
@CashNewtn22 -like I said, I believe we will see 46 looks, it will not be our base D... "We're all out of bubblegum" if you will...


I got you man....hopefully we won't have to see to much of it but I'm positive it can be a great "change of pace" defense if you will from time to time. Go to the full post


  • Please log in to reply
46 replies to this topic

#16 SIGCHI222

SIGCHI222

    the illustrious potentate

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,336 posts
  • LocationShelby

Posted 08 July 2013 - 09:30 PM

Here's how you defend the spread using the 46

 

 

OK.  Three things. 

 

Number one - I enjoyed the video, it really explained a lot.  Pie for you.

Number two - The things it explained made me want to avoid it at almost all costs (too much risk).

Number three - I couldn't help but notice that your avatar in the #5 jersey looks similar to the guy doing the video.

 



#17 Cyberjag

Cyberjag

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,655 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 09:53 PM

I kind of think that if the 46 was a viable defense, someone would have used it in the last 25 years...



#18 CashNewton22

CashNewton22

    MEMBER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 111 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 09:54 PM

I think it would be cool to mix it in in certain games for sure but I don't think it's something that would be effective enough to be your base defense in today's game.

#19 il Malocchio

il Malocchio

    formerly j2sgam...

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,024 posts
  • Locationtryin to figure it out...

Posted 08 July 2013 - 10:33 PM

Appreciate the conversation without flaming, lots of respected posters weighing in...

I'd like to reply to most of yous but I'm on my phone so I'm not....

@Frash & FootballCzar -I was going to post that in reply in the AM, thanks Emory...
@PhillyB -cant tell if serious/Futurama pic
@Cyberjag -it has been, will post link tomorrow...
@CashNewtn22 -like I said, I believe we will see 46 looks, it will not be our base D... "We're all out of bubblegum" if you will...

#20 panthers55

panthers55

    Starting all over again

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,667 posts
  • LocationAt the lake

Posted 08 July 2013 - 10:48 PM

I kind of think that if the 46 was a viable defense, someone would have used it in the last 25 years...

It is used by the Jets under Ryan and by Cleveland when Rob Ryan was there. If you said used by anyone not named Ryan in the last 25 years you might have a point. Lol.

#21 il Malocchio

il Malocchio

    formerly j2sgam...

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,024 posts
  • Locationtryin to figure it out...

Posted 08 July 2013 - 10:50 PM

Really, thanks to All that know more about football than I do giving their $.02...

Read somewhere the Cardinals used it in the '90s...

#22 Frash Brastard

Frash Brastard

    The Frashmaker

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,259 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 11:06 PM

btw this website has some pretty neat stuff on past playbooks. if you're a football nerd you'll really enjoy this.

 

http://www.footballx...se/nfl-defense/

 

the pdfs take too fuging long to render though

 

 



#23 PhillyB

PhillyB

    that jungle football

  • ALL-PRO
  • 20,078 posts
  • Locationthird spur east of the sun

Posted 08 July 2013 - 11:10 PM

<“I’ve seen what a feeding frenzy looks like,” Gettleman has said.  “We had a game against Philadelphia a few years back where we had 12 sacks, and we had a game against Chicago where we sacked Cutler 10 times.  I really believe in it.  Can it mask issues in the secondary?  Of course it does.”>

 

fappity fap



#24 iamhubby1

iamhubby1

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,529 posts
  • LocationSpartanburg, SC

Posted 08 July 2013 - 11:51 PM

I am of the belief that the 46 is still in Rivera's head. It is the driving force behind his propensity to love his Safeties. Quicker than LBs, and tougher than CBs. Best case, they can both cover and tackle.

I truly believe he would love to run a 4DL-2LB,2CB, and 3S package. Get pressure with you front 4 and you can attack from anywhere. Keep your 2CB on the 2WR, and you use the other 5 guys to confuse and aggravate the O. That said. I am interested to see how many Safeties we keep this year. For me it will be a barometer on how close I am to guessing the Defense Rivera would like to run.

It is damn near impossible to stop those dinky dunky fugging Offenses. But one sure fire way to slow it down is to be able to apply pressure with just your front 4, and confuse the QB with your other 7. We have the potential to apply pressure. The jury is still out on how Rivera will use that back 7.

And just to keep this tangent going. Most teams don't have the personnel to run 4 and 5 WR sets effectively. The talent falls off after the first 2 or 3. If you can use your Safeties to help cover, you can use them in other ways as well. Different cover schemes. Blitz from anywhere. Don't Blitz. Anything you can do to confuse the O is a help.

Ah hellz, I think I have confused myself. More Safeties good. More CBs bad.

#25 CelibatePimp

CelibatePimp

    BAMF

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,804 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 12:12 AM

btw this website has some pretty neat stuff on past playbooks. if you're a football nerd you'll really enjoy this.

 

http://www.footballx...se/nfl-defense/

 

the pdfs take too fuging long to render though

 

Reading up on the CAR '97 3-4 D. Interesting.



#26 panthers55

panthers55

    Starting all over again

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,667 posts
  • LocationAt the lake

Posted 09 July 2013 - 08:39 AM

If the conversation is about whether or not we are going to blitz 5-6 guys on many plays, I think the answer is yes we will. So we will essentially borrow the concept of overloading the blockers with more defenders than they can handle to blitz the quarterback.  The bigger question is whether we will use the 4-6 as a often used formation and I don't think we will.   The 4-6 in its purest form uses 1 free safety, i strong safety and 2 corners with 3 linebackers (2 of which are on or near the line of scrimmage). The strong safety also plays within 3 yards of the line of scrimmage and the corners play man on the wide receivers.

 

Last year we used the nickel formation over 1/3 of the time if my memory serves correctly.  Most times we were able to get sufficient pressure using just 4 down limemen and we dropped the linebackers in zone coverage.  The goal was to make teams like New Orleans throw quickly in front of the backers and limit YAC.  When we sent blitzers instead of sending the farm we just overloaded one part of the line or one area rather than sending everyone.  This was due in some part to feeling that the secondary might be suspect and our corners were not great in man coverage most of the year.

Until the secondary proves that they can cover in zone and man I can't see us blitzing 6 or 7 guys essentially putting the corners and free safety in one on one matchups against the likes of receivers in the division and on teams we will face this year.  I think we will use pressure but that we will be selective and more targeted than an all out blitz which is what the 4-6 often became. Look at what Jim Johnson did as an example of what we will do rather than Buddy Ryan although Johnson, Ryan, Rivera and McDermott all coached for the Eagles at one point or another.



#27 panfan32

panfan32

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 586 posts
  • LocationFayetteville, North Carolina

Posted 09 July 2013 - 08:47 AM

I cant say that we will use the 46 defense or any team will for the matter. The 46 was designed and used in an ear of football that was a run heavy. This day and age its pass heavy.  Unless you can get a great pass rush and a strong secondary(Which Carolina does not have right now) I see this as being a failure from the get go.



#28 CashNewton22

CashNewton22

    MEMBER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 111 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 11:13 AM   Best Answer

Appreciate the conversation without flaming, lots of respected posters weighing in...

I'd like to reply to most of yous but I'm on my phone so I'm not....

@Frash & FootballCzar -I was going to post that in reply in the AM, thanks Emory...
@PhillyB -cant tell if serious/Futurama pic
@Cyberjag -it has been, will post link tomorrow...
@CashNewtn22 -like I said, I believe we will see 46 looks, it will not be our base D... "We're all out of bubblegum" if you will...


I got you man....hopefully we won't have to see to much of it but I'm positive it can be a great "change of pace" defense if you will from time to time.

#29 thefuzz

thefuzz

    coppin a feel

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,174 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 11:33 AM

lolz

 

So you don't think that Ryan is one of the better QB's in the league?

 

I certainly do.



#30 OneBadCat

OneBadCat

    HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,449 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 11:54 AM

46 Defense will have it's uses and the Panthers could set up a nice 46 package. I could see it used within the 10 yard line  for sure. In close range I think you could even run Thomas Davis as the Strong Safety

 

                                       Godfrey         

                    - Beason - Keuchly- Klein- Davis      

J. Norman        Hardy- Star- Edwards- Johnson                       J. Thomas

 

 

Or

 

                                Godfrey

               - Davis - Beason- Keuchly- Lester

J. Norman     Hardy- Star- Edwards- Johnson               J. Thomas




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com