|
Post by gobolts25 on Dec 16, 2014 15:53:39 GMT -5
Copycat doesn't have to mean whole schemes either. Let's say some team finds a weakness that another team has exposed in an OT from previous game tape, then they might run a few more edge rushes on that side.
Aside from the personnel issues, the biggest problem with the wildcat is that it's just not geared for big plays. Unless you have a RB with a Jamarcus Russell arm or run a trick play, you're not very likely to see many long passes. So as a defense you run man-to-man and stuff the box against it.
The 46 was probably the original 'stuffing the box' scheme, with what amounts to an unbalanced defensive alignment on the weak side (two LB's a few steps behind and offset slightly from one of the DE's, and the SS stepping up to cover the 'missing' LB's area of responsibility). It's made for getting quick pressure on the QB. Unfortunately, it doesn't work well against spread sets; you can't really have 8 men in the box when you have to cover 4 receivers. It was created by Buddy Ryan, who was the Bears' DC at the time. Rex is about the only one who runs it with any regularity anymore.
|
|
afjagsfan
College Starter
Shahid Khan, most epic Owner in the NFL.
Posts: 716
|
Post by afjagsfan on Dec 16, 2014 18:18:18 GMT -5
Nothing wrong with "Copycatting" This organization was full of copycats and they did fairly well
|
|
|
Post by Divebitch on Dec 16, 2014 20:14:22 GMT -5
Copycat doesn't have to mean whole schemes either. Let's say some team finds a weakness that another team has exposed in an OT from previous game tape, then they might run a few more edge rushes on that side. Aside from the personnel issues, the biggest problem with the wildcat is that it's just not geared for big plays. Unless you have a RB with a Jamarcus Russell arm or run a trick play, you're not very likely to see many long passes. So as a defense you run man-to-man and stuff the box against it. The 46 was probably the original 'stuffing the box' scheme, with what amounts to an unbalanced defensive alignment on the weak side (two LB's a few steps behind and offset slightly from one of the DE's, and the SS stepping up to cover the 'missing' LB's area of responsibility). It's made for getting quick pressure on the QB. Unfortunately, it doesn't work well against spread sets; you can't really have 8 men in the box when you have to cover 4 receivers. It was created by Buddy Ryan, who was the Bears' DC at the time. Rex is about the only one who runs it with any regularity anymore. Say what? A Jamarcus Russell arm? If 4 + 6 = 10 in the box, it sounds bizarre. Thanks, I get it the wild cat isn't made for big plays. Not even sure it's made for small ones as much as it is to drive the defense bats so they can have more success with the slightly lower % of huge plays. IDK. But they sure were fun those Dolphins.
|
|
|
Post by cantonhall34 on Dec 16, 2014 23:06:27 GMT -5
Lemme start by saying 'thanks' and appreciate the very well thought-out reply. but I do understand the definitions of both. Had to chuckle at ram29jackson who took it to a funny place with the 'copycat', but he fully understood what I meant by 'talking opposites outta both sides of their mouths'. 'Defense wins championships'. Here's what I have the problem(s) with, and before I get kneejerks, really think about this... 1) If offense got you there, why isn't it getting everyone else there? If defense trumps every time, then it should be a 'defense driven league' (not QB) or 'defense wins games' (not just 'championships'). 2)a) One can offer examples like the '85 Bears (semi-crappy QB) and the 2013 Seahawks (very mediocre offense, and Lynch was SHUT DOWN), both amongst the top defenses in history. But it doesn't always, even often work out that way. Usually you're getting 2 teams in the top 60 - 80% (??) on both sides of the ball. The winner will be determined by just how much each team is better than the other on what side of the ball and...any given Sunday (see NYG, twice). It ain't just 'defense', even 'mist' of the time. And let's not forget the '85 Bears had a great offense as well, just not a great QB. Don't get me wrong, he was far from a game mgr, but not the most accurate. hehe 2)b) IOW, I've seen more teams like the 90s Cowboys and the late 2000s Steelers, Green Bay, NYG (if they could win it anyone could), teams that could hold their own on defense...win it all. Did the early 2000 Pats have a decent D? At any rate, I don't see defenses winning anything without a better than avg offense unless they are world class. But you cannot say the opposite, cuz a huge offense WILL win, just not against one of the top defenses in history. On 'copycat'. With the possible exception of the wildcat is there much else that's been truly new? The wildcat never realized its full potential ala Miami. First you gotta have a personnel capable of its execution. And it takes a lot more practice and playbook additions as well. I'll bet many teams have discovered it ain't worth the 'investment'. But I digress. Guess I just get annoyed by these commentators feeling like they have to have a name for everything. IMO, sports broadcasting is the 'copycat' league. lol Seriously, one of them applies the term to a certain team's situation that given week, and the rest of them all nod their heads in agreement. So what is this Bears 46 defense? The 46 wasn't named the 46 because of the defensive alignment like 4-3 or 3-4 are. It's just a NAME for the defensive front that the Bears (and later other teams like the Eagles and Oilers) ran from time to time, and contrary to popular belief, it wasn't the ONLY defensive front that the team had or ran. It was one of many, but it was the most famous due to the ferocity that the defense executed it. No, the name of the defense came from a Safety named Doug Plank who played with the Bears around the time Buddy Ryan was developing the defense. He was one of Buddy's favorites (by all accounts) and was the Safety that would regularly come down to line up closer to the line of scrimmage. His jersey number was "46", hence the name. It's unusual characteristics were what made it so devastating in it's early days, and partly for why it's remembered by so many people. The distinguishable elements of the defense itself was the way in which the D-Line and Linebackers would line up. The D-Line would 'cover' the Center and two Guards on the Offensive Line, with the other D-Lineman split out wider to one side, while two Linebackers would set up right on the line of scrimmage opposite of him on other end. A safety would come down in what could be called and 'extra' linebacker and provide support. This would give the defense the ability to attack the passer with as many as 8 men on any given down, leaving only 3 men to cover the receivers, etc. The idea was to overwhelm the offense and get to the passer before he could get the ball away accurately, and for the most part (as history tells us) it was successful. Intimidation was another big part of it. There are quotes from some of the Bears about playing against certain QBs that particular season, and one in the Super Bowl in particular looked like he was scared to death when he looked across the line at the D. As gobolts25 said, the 46 was introduced by Buddy Ryan while he was with the Bears. It was a way to get most pressure possible on the QB, but it did sacrifice pass coverage. They ran it before the Super Bowl year of 85, but that year everything really came together and as the year progressed and they got into a groove they were able to dominate. All but ONE team that is, and that one team just happened to have the antidote (maybe the only team that could at the time) which was Dan Marino. He had quite possibly the quickest release in the history of the game (according to many) and was able to get the ball away before the rush could get to him, while utilizing his running backs for dump offs. Of course, they had some luck in the game (some bounces that went their way, defense played better than it usually did, Buddy Ryan being a stubborn jackass who didn't adjust the defense, etc) but in the end it did show a blueprint for other teams, they just didn't have Marino to make it go. Later when Buddy Ryan left and became the head coach of the Eagles, he took the 46 there, too. The problem was that, though still effective at times, by then teams had begun to figure it out and it wasn't run as often as it had been in the past. I spoke to Leslie Frazier about this defense several years ago when he was my college coach. We talked about the games he was in, games the Bears won and lost, and then we finally got around to the question and I asked him: "What made you guys so good that year?" His answer: "We just had a lot of great athletes that didn't like to lose." That may sound like a regular answer but as the years have gone by I think about that and you know what? He was right. While generally the athletes in the NFL are better now than 25-30 years ago, that particular collection of players were really a cut above. You really don't see that these days, with free agency the way it is and the way teams are constructed with the salary cap, etc. That group - Mike Singletary, Richard Dent, Dan Hampton, Otis Wilson, Wilbur Marshall, Steve McMichael, Dave Duerson, Gary Fencik, etc, with Chicago and later Reggie While, Clyde Simmons, Andre Waters, Wes Hopkins, Eric Allen, Seth Joyner, and Jerome Brown with the Eagles - that caliber of defensive players on one team just isn't common anymore. More than anything, I think Coach Frazier was right about that. They had the perfect scheme and the perfect group to execute it. Even without the overdose of the "46" the Bears defense was still very good. These days it's run some, but not anywhere near like it used to be. The offensive schemes of today's game prohibit the defense much of the time, due to the glaring weakness it would show in pass coverage with most teams running 3 or 4 wide formations (or in some cases even 5 wide).
|
|
|
Post by Divebitch on Dec 17, 2014 5:45:49 GMT -5
The 46 wasn't named the 46 because of the defensive alignment like 4-3 or 3-4 are. It's just a NAME for the defensive front that the Bears (and later other teams like the Eagles and Oilers) ran from time to time, and contrary to popular belief, it wasn't the ONLY defensive front that the team had or ran. It was one of many, but it was the most famous due to the ferocity that the defense executed it. No, the name of the defense came from a Safety named Doug Plank who played with the Bears around the time Buddy Ryan was developing the defense. He was one of Buddy's favorites (by all accounts) and was the Safety that would regularly come down to line up closer to the line of scrimmage. His jersey number was "46", hence the name. It's unusual characteristics were what made it so devastating in it's early days, and partly for why it's remembered by so many people. The distinguishable elements of the defense itself was the way in which the D-Line and Linebackers would line up. The D-Line would 'cover' the Center and two Guards on the Offensive Line, with the other D-Lineman split out wider to one side, while two Linebackers would set up right on the line of scrimmage opposite of him on other end. A safety would come down in what could be called and 'extra' linebacker and provide support. This would give the defense the ability to attack the passer with as many as 8 men on any given down, leaving only 3 men to cover the receivers, etc. The idea was to overwhelm the offense and get to the passer before he could get the ball away accurately, and for the most part (as history tells us) it was successful. Intimidation was another big part of it. There are quotes from some of the Bears about playing against certain QBs that particular season, and one in the Super Bowl in particular looked like he was scared to death when he looked across the line at the D. As gobolts25 said, the 46 was introduced by Buddy Ryan while he was with the Bears. It was a way to get most pressure possible on the QB, but it did sacrifice pass coverage. They ran it before the Super Bowl year of 85, but that year everything really came together and as the year progressed and they got into a groove they were able to dominate. All but ONE team that is, and that one team just happened to have the antidote (maybe the only team that could at the time) which was Dan Marino. He had quite possibly the quickest release in the history of the game (according to many) and was able to get the ball away before the rush could get to him, while utilizing his running backs for dump offs. Of course, they had some luck in the game (some bounces that went their way, defense played better than it usually did, Buddy Ryan being a stubborn jackass who didn't adjust the defense, etc) but in the end it did show a blueprint for other teams, they just didn't have Marino to make it go. Later when Buddy Ryan left and became the head coach of the Eagles, he took the 46 there, too. The problem was that, though still effective at times, by then teams had begun to figure it out and it wasn't run as often as it had been in the past. I spoke to Leslie Frazier about this defense several years ago when he was my college coach. We talked about the games he was in, games the Bears won and lost, and then we finally got around to the question and I asked him: "What made you guys so good that year?" His answer: "We just had a lot of great athletes that didn't like to lose." That may sound like a regular answer but as the years have gone by I think about that and you know what? He was right. While generally the athletes in the NFL are better now than 25-30 years ago, that particular collection of players were really a cut above. You really don't see that these days, with free agency the way it is and the way teams are constructed with the salary cap, etc. That group - Mike Singletary, Richard Dent, Dan Hampton, Otis Wilson, Wilbur Marshall, Steve McMichael, Dave Duerson, Gary Fencik, etc, with Chicago and later Reggie While, Clyde Simmons, Andre Waters, Wes Hopkins, Eric Allen, Seth Joyner, and Jerome Brown with the Eagles - that caliber of defensive players on one team just isn't common anymore. More than anything, I think Coach Frazier was right about that. They had the perfect scheme and the perfect group to execute it. Even without the overdose of the "46" the Bears defense was still very good. These days it's run some, but not anywhere near like it used to be. The offensive schemes of today's game prohibit the defense much of the time, due to the glaring weakness it would show in pass coverage with most teams running 3 or 4 wide formations (or in some cases even 5 wide). You played for Leslie Frasier?! Wow! He's had quite the career then, eh. He got an INT in that lone Dolphin win ya know... www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/198512020mia.htm I sure remember that game, not the specifics of course. That was the first year I watched football at all. And yes, I remember terrified looks on the faces of most each and every offense the Bears played, QBs most of all. Leslie was right indeed. They played every game like it was the Super Bowl, they just never let up. And agreed, they were a very rare talent on DEF, nary a weak link in the bunch. Also agreed that what worked for Marino won't work for everyone anyone else. So 46 = Doug Plank. haha The 46, the wildcat, and everything else that's 'copycatted' to some degree...it just seems silly and a bit obnoxious to me the way terms like this start rolling off the lips of announcers with regularity, as if it's some new type of practice or school of thought. Like they can't wait to find a situation to apply it to, when it's really just another way of saying 'doing what works' or 'trying new things - until they don't work anymore'. But no one is starting from scratch, duh. They should call it an 'ever-evolving playbook league'. I'm feeling very Jerry Seinfeld right now. lol
|
|
|
Post by cantonhall34 on Dec 17, 2014 6:33:22 GMT -5
You played for Leslie Frasier?! Wow! He's had quite the career then, eh. He got an INT in that lone Dolphin win ya know... www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/198512020mia.htm I sure remember that game, not the specifics of course. That was the first year I watched football at all. And yes, I remember terrified looks on the faces of most each and every offense the Bears played, QBs most of all. Leslie was right indeed. They played every game like it was the Super Bowl, they just never let up. And agreed, they were a very rare talent on DEF, nary a weak link in the bunch. Also agreed that what worked for Marino won't work for everyone anyone else. So 46 = Doug Plank. haha The 46, the wildcat, and everything else that's 'copycatted' to some degree...it just seems silly and a bit obnoxious to me the way terms like this start rolling off the lips of announcers with regularity, as if it's some new type of practice or school of thought. Like they can't wait to find a situation to apply it to, when it's really just another way of saying 'doing what works' or 'trying new things - until they don't work anymore'. But no one is starting from scratch, duh. They should call it an 'ever-evolving playbook league'. I'm feeling very Jerry Seinfeld right now. lol Yes, Frazier was my college coach at Trinity College (now Trinity International University) in Deerfield, IL when I was there. Love him. Offered me a scholarship to play college ball, and let me tell you, even for someone like me, who was basically calling his own shots since age 15, it was nice to have a guy like that as a coach to support me when I was so far from home (I'm from the Denver area remember). Great guy. I have fond memories of that time, and I've tried to keep up with his career even after he left the school. As I said earlier, he was a good guy to talk football with, too. I had him shaking his head a few times, because in some of our conversations we'd be talking about games he was in and I'd be giving him details he couldn't remember. Funny. I asked him one time - the time I was talking to him about the '85 team and what made them so good, etc - about the SB that year. He said it was awesome being down in New Orleans, and everyone was following them around the town. Everyone wanted to see "The Fridge", so they all went wherever he did, because that's where all the fun was. Really funny. Then he said: "I don't know why they didn't try to run the ball more. They (New England) had three good running backs, but they just tried to throw it. And nobody threw on us." I chuckled and said: "Well...except Dan Marino." Then he sighed and said: "Yeah, except Dan Marino. Thanks for bringing that up. But their guy (NE starter Tony Eason) was no Dan Marino." Then the conversation continued and I pointed out that his Bears defense had shut down two of the best runners in the league during the playoff run that year (Joe Morris with the Giants and Eric Dickerson with the Rams) so maybe New England thought they'd catch the Bears by surprise if they passed it more. He agreed that could have been a reason, but reiterated the "He's no Dan Marino" idea. It was a fun conversation that you only imagine having when you're a kid, but I was having that conversation as a young adult at the time (I was 18, of course). And it was great. He's best friends with Mike Singletary, who I was also lucky enough to meet (and who I was lucky enough to witness being inducted into the Pro Football HOF in 1998). Meeting Mike was a little different. We were playing against Lake Forest College, at the time it doubled as the Bears practice facility, and he was there doing interviews with Madden and Summerall before that week's home game against the Giants (this was a regular season game of course). Well, anyway, part way through the game, there I was, standing on the sideline watching the defense (I played WR) and in my peripheral vision I see someone standing just behind me on my right, and I turned to look...it was Mike Frickin' Singletary. He had come out of the facility to watch us play after the interviews were over, though I had no idea he'd be there at the time. I freaked. I mean, it was MIKE (one of my favorites, even then). SO - I turned back to the game, eyes wide as ever, and composed myself. I needed to say something....or get an autograph or something...but I was in the middle of the frickin' game, so that was pretty much out...so I turned back and chatted with him for a couple minutes. Another great guy. He'll never remember me, I'm sure, but I won't forget that day. Oh, and yeah, we won that game, 28-6.
|
|
|
Post by ram29jackson on Dec 17, 2014 13:59:33 GMT -5
Some aren't but a large number are. You cant tell me you know for a fact they aren't staged. And they have to use that to push a storyline like the Cards losing or the Ravens losing with Ngato out so the Browns have a clear path to the playoffs.
the injury report was invented by gamblers for gambling. Two things: 1 - Who's "Ngato"? I don't think Baltimore not having Ngato, Cameroon will help the Browns reach the playoffs at all. Not sure what that's all about. 2 - Also, as referenced by you earlier: "Cleveland won all the championships in the 50s." - I'll call you on that bluff. Remember, some of us on here aren't "new" to the game. We've been around and have studied and observed the game for MANY years and know the history. That doesn't make us any better or worse than anyone else, just that some of us know a BS fact when we see/hear it here, and you can't fire that weak-ass Jamie Moyer fastball by us. So with that in mind, and as a matter of FACT, not insinuation, not surmising, not inferring, not conjecture, not connotation, but FACT - which I know is being used loosely here sometimes: NFL Champions, Decade of the 1950's1950 - Cleveland Browns 1951 - Los Angeles Rams 1952 - Detroit Lions 1953 - Detroit Lions 1954 - Cleveland Browns 1955 - Cleveland Browns 1956 - New York Giants 1957 - Detroit Lions 1958 - Baltimore Colts 1959 - Baltimore Colts So yeah, Cleveland did not win all the championships in the 50's. Yes, they went to 10 consecutive championship games, but they did not win all of them. I don't mind that people believe whatever they want to about the league. We can all disagree on everything and I wouldn't care. Let's at least be CORRECT when we spout facts, though, OK? When facts are being used they are not opinion. When misrepresenting what the facts are in order to forward an argument, you lose credibility. dear God you are a mental child. I was generalizing. Its not like I cant look this stuff up either. Sorry if my choice of words gave you a hissy fit. They were in fact in 7 Championships in that period whether they won them or not which is still absurd. and they won 4 championships between 46-49 in the AAFC. That's 7 in 14 years.
happy now ? 4 in a row,7 out of 14. Both are ridiculous to believe if you are rational
|
|
|
Post by Jindred on Dec 17, 2014 14:07:27 GMT -5
Two things: 1 - Who's "Ngato"? I don't think Baltimore not having Ngato, Cameroon will help the Browns reach the playoffs at all. Not sure what that's all about. 2 - Also, as referenced by you earlier: "Cleveland won all the championships in the 50s." - I'll call you on that bluff. Remember, some of us on here aren't "new" to the game. We've been around and have studied and observed the game for MANY years and know the history. That doesn't make us any better or worse than anyone else, just that some of us know a BS fact when we see/hear it here, and you can't fire that weak-ass Jamie Moyer fastball by us. So with that in mind, and as a matter of FACT, not insinuation, not surmising, not inferring, not conjecture, not connotation, but FACT - which I know is being used loosely here sometimes: NFL Champions, Decade of the 1950's1950 - Cleveland Browns 1951 - Los Angeles Rams 1952 - Detroit Lions 1953 - Detroit Lions 1954 - Cleveland Browns 1955 - Cleveland Browns 1956 - New York Giants 1957 - Detroit Lions 1958 - Baltimore Colts 1959 - Baltimore Colts So yeah, Cleveland did not win all the championships in the 50's. Yes, they went to 10 consecutive championship games, but they did not win all of them. I don't mind that people believe whatever they want to about the league. We can all disagree on everything and I wouldn't care. Let's at least be CORRECT when we spout facts, though, OK? When facts are being used they are not opinion. When misrepresenting what the facts are in order to forward an argument, you lose credibility. dear God you are a mental child. I was generalizing. Its not like I cant look this stuff up either. Sorry if my choice of words gave you a hissy fit. They were in fact in 7 Championships in that period whether they won them or not which is still absurd. and they won 4 championships between 46-49 in the AAFC. That's 7 in 14 years.
happy now ? 4 in a row,7 out of 14. Both are ridiculous to believe if you are rational Yet millions and millions of rational people believe it to be true, and you are the only person I have ever heard believe this kinda stuff. So is it more rational for me to trust one random guy on the internet, or everything else I have experienced in my life?
|
|
|
Post by Morkim on Dec 17, 2014 14:35:03 GMT -5
dear God you are a mental child. I was generalizing. Its not like I cant look this stuff up either. Sorry if my choice of words gave you a hissy fit. They were in fact in 7 Championships in that period whether they won them or not which is still absurd. and they won 4 championships between 46-49 in the AAFC. That's 7 in 14 years.
happy now ? 4 in a row,7 out of 14. Both are ridiculous to believe if you are rational Yet millions and millions of rational people believe it to be true, and you are the only person I have ever heard believe this kinda stuff. So is it more rational for me to trust one random guy on the internet, or everything else I have experienced in my life? When all else fails, believe the Internet. I mean, it's just inconceivable that a team would remain better than other teams for extended periods of time. I still don't get though, why do they rig these games the way they do? Why would alabama blow out Notre Dame when the better product, the best path to money, would be a closer game? How deep does this run? Is Winston winning the heisman and then getting caught stealing crab legs rigged? Was the crab legs and profanity in his cafeteria instances decided before or after the won the championship? Was it his insane popularity too much, so they changed the plan to paint him as an asshole? What was accomplished by Alabama throwing the Auburn game? Did they want a scapegoat to lose to FSU but didn't want to blemish Saban with a Bowl loss? Why did the people rigging these games decide to let FSU win anyway? Wouldn't an Ohio state or USC have been better for college football to make the most money?
|
|
|
Post by Jindred on Dec 17, 2014 15:03:07 GMT -5
Yet millions and millions of rational people believe it to be true, and you are the only person I have ever heard believe this kinda stuff. So is it more rational for me to trust one random guy on the internet, or everything else I have experienced in my life? When all else fails, believe the Internet. I mean, it's just inconceivable that a team would remain better than other teams for extended periods of time. I still don't get though, why do they rig these games the way they do? Why would alabama blow out Notre Dame when the better product, the best path to money, would be a closer game? How deep does this run? Is Winston winning the heisman and then getting caught stealing crab legs rigged? Was the crab legs and profanity in his cafeteria instances decided before or after the won the championship? Was it his insane popularity too much, so they changed the plan to paint him as an asshole? What was accomplished by Alabama throwing the Auburn game? Did they want a scapegoat to lose to FSU but didn't want to blemish Saban with a Bowl loss? Why did the people rigging these games decide to let FSU win anyway? Wouldn't an Ohio state or USC have been better for college football to make the most money? Very true.. They must train every single pro sports athlete as top calibre actors so they can keep this secret without making it completely obvious that its fake.
|
|