Mebane at 3-tech, more blitzing

by cashless on May 20, 2009 12:50 PM PDT

He talks about learning more pass rush moves, and how he'll be playing the 3-tech. basic stuff.

"I’m the three technique this year so one of my focuses this year is to get my weight down and my role this year is to bring more energy to the defensive line and the defense so my role has pretty much changed.

"The one guy I’ve been looking at as far as taking different things and different situations is Warren Sapp. He played the three-technique really well and we’re running the Tampa defense is the same defense so I’m just looking at film of what he was doing and when certain plays came at him I’m just trying to focus on him and what he was doing and incorporating that into my game.

But then he goes on to be a little discriptive about a change in defensive tackle roles, as well as the plays the defense is learning.

"This year we’re throwing a lot of different looks," Mebane noted. "From looking at the plays they are giving us, it seems like everybody is blitzing more.

"As a defensive line, the defensive tackles, we’re not sliding this year because the three technique is always going to play the three-technique and the nose guard (Colin Cole) will play the nose.

Scout.com - from Mebane interview on 710 KIRO

To be perfectly honest, the talk about sliding I don't know what to do with. I've watched Lofa reposition the defensive tackles after diagnosing the offensive formations, but how that translates into anything other than ideal run stopping position is something I know nothing about.

The idea of Mebane at the 3-tech sounds fun to watch, and I'm guessing that would make Bryant the backup 1, and Redding/Terrill(?) the backup 3. Blitzing more often sounds fun too, but we'll have to see it in action before we really know how well they are designed.

The Tampa reference I believe is to Tampa Bay's defense with lots of different schemes involved, not to the Bears/Colts "Tampa 2" defense as I understand it. However, it would be interesting to see more written about what Tampa Bay actually did, both back in their SB days, and in the years following as that DL broke apart and they continued to be pretty good.

Tweet Comment 17 comments | 2 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Gap Assignment

hasn’t been explicitly confirmed, but Pete Carroll gave an absolutely fantastic workshop on the 4-3 Under, which is what SC has run under him. We keep hearing these things, like what Mebane just said, about how we’re running what Tampa’s run, so I dunno, but Mora did say 4-3 Over was what we’re running. Anyway, Carroll has Under as the base, and it’s so easy to flip I can’t imagine we would run Over and never Under. The final caveat I’m getting at, and the relevance to sliding, is that what Carroll describes here is single-gap assignment. No idea if we’ll run that, but I am guessing one guy will have 2-gap assignment, only one guy, but always one guy. And I would guess that to be Mebane or Cole. Anyway, on to Carroll:

The prime spot on the defense to the weak side is the B gap player. He is an inside-foot to outside-foot alignment on the offensive guard to his side. He is a 3 technique player. He has B gap control but he can’t get reached or hooked by the defense due to the way we align him. The whole scheme of this defense is predicated upon not getting hooked.

I followed up on the West Coast Defense post a while ago, but I think it’d sunk so far down nobody read it any longer. But for Mebane to play the “prime” spot on the weak side, and for Curry to play the prime spot on the strong side, with Hill expected to rack up a lot of tackles, there is a lot to be excited about with this defense.

by jacobstevens on May 20, 2009 1:17 PM PDT reply actions

Scheme and coaching are very important

Plenty of good defensive coaches can get alot from nothing. A guy like Dick Lebeau can take players that might not even rate on another team and build a Super Bowl defense. Jim Johnson can take average blitzers and create a scheme that can put pressure on just about any team. And Bill Belichek is a prime example of a coach that can take a WR and turn him into an effective CB in a scheme that gives him a chance to excel.

I think coaching and scheme are as important, if not more important, than talent. Belichek proves that year in and year out when he takes a group of fairly pedestrian NFL players and coaches them up to look like super stars because his schemes are so innovative and his ability to pull the most out of a player.

That’s why you see a team like Detroit, that has some talent, go 0-16 with a coach running a bad scheme that has been figured out. Martz offense was great when it was new. Now it’s an already figured out puzzle that can be beaten time and time again.

It is only the coaches that can change schemes every year that make the best units. Which proves that scheme trumps talent more often than not. Otherwise the top offensive and defensive coaches wouldn’t be worth hiring.

I read an article on Jim Johnson, Monte Kiffin, and Dick Lebeau not too long ago. And all three agreed that if you don’t find ways to change what you’re doing every year, you’re going to be figured out and beat. So all three coaches make an extra effort to change their blitz packages and schemes every year to keep opposing offenses confused.

Scheme is super important. Talent is secondary to scheme. A great scheme can make average talent look great because defense is the sum of its parts and one good piece does not a defense make.

Doesn’t mean talent isn’t important. But it does mean you can have all the talent in the world and a poorly designed scheme will expose them to loss. Poor coaching and player development also hurts alot.

by ASeahawkfan on May 21, 2009 8:52 PM PDT reply actions

While there is some merit to what you're saying I'm not sure what to think.

What you say makes sense, but it seems further in the other direction. I don’t agree as much as other(s) have downplayed the importance of scheme vs. talent, though. As a whole, they’re both important and critically so. I don’t think you can dismiss one for the other. I can’t personally quantify the importance of each. I’d like to learn more. Maybe there are some books on the matter.

Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, QB Jevon Snead, OT Ciron Black, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling 6'2, 200

by Misfit74 on May 21, 2009 9:27 PM PDT up reply actions

I don't discount talent

I don’t discount talent. I simply deem scheme more important. Not by a huge margin, but by some margin nonetheless.

Our Matt Hasselbeck is an example of a player that might not have made it in the NFL if he had not had the good fortune to have had Mike Holmgren coaching him and designing a scheme specific to his strengths. Same with Seneca Wallace. Mike Holmgren was a prime example of a coach that could create a scheme to fit his players even if their wasn’t top talent on the team.

Look at what Holmgren was able to get out of this offense year in and year out. He got production even when the talent wasn’t top notch. And when the talent was there, he got top 3 production. But even when Hutch had left and Alexander was a shadow of his former self, he got production out of this offense.

Same thing can be said of guys like Belichek and Lebeau with the defense.

Take a team like the Dallas Cowboys. That team is stacked with talent. Yet they don’t go far into the playoffs because their coaching is fairly weak and often can’t out think the guy playing across from them.

And the New York Giants didn’t have more talent than the New England Patriots in the Super Bowl, but Spagnuolo’s defensive scheme put pressure on Brady all day. It completely shut down the most prolific offense in NFL history. Spagnuolo used a scheme that New England was unprepared for and made Justin Tuck look like a super star. Who knows if Justin Tuck would have risen in stature the way he had if Spagnuolo hadn’t figured out the best way to use him.

I put alot of faith in scheme. And the big name coaches get those big names because they can put talent to effective use, even subpar talent. We had a coach for decade that was damn good at getting the most out of the talent available to him. I have a feeling we’re going to be missing his ability over the next few years.

by ASeahawkfan on May 21, 2009 10:34 PM PDT up reply actions

I think it's 51% one and 49% the other.

I’ll let everyone else argue on which is the 51%

by B.B.Finnegan on May 21, 2009 10:07 PM PDT reply actions

What's weird is that JM gave the impression scheme was pretty much worthless in relation to talent.

At least that’s the takeaway I got. Maybe he’ll clarify or reiterate what he meant now that it’s become a clearer question.

Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, QB Jevon Snead, OT Ciron Black, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling 6'2, 200

by Misfit74 on May 22, 2009 11:11 AM PDT up reply actions

Most of the really smart football people

I know and read have figured that part out. Talent does trump all. It does in every sport. Football simply is so much more complex and dependent on strategy than other sports, that coaching is at least relevant. In baseball, the manager is negligibly relevant, and that’s usually only when you have a great manager like Pinella or Torre, a guy that is set apart from the rest of the league.

So when the talent disparity in the NFL isn’t wide, across 32 teams, and the margin of error is so small (game of inches!) then coaching and scheme is important, and can bring about 4-5 game swings. Still can’t get anywhere without talent. But when talent is reasonably there (like we are; an 8-8 talent team. 8-8 talent teams like last year’s Patriots, Dolphins, Cardinals, Panthers & Falcons made the playoffs.) — when the talent is there, roughly speaking, styles make fights, as they say, and the coach determines the style in scheme, gameplan and playcalling.

John doesn’t think scheme is worthless, just that I’m going crazy over the idea of the West Coast Defense, and since he’s not seeing great talent on the team he’s doubtful it would make much of a difference even if it is what I think it is.

by jacobstevens on May 22, 2009 12:11 PM PDT up reply actions

I guess last year Mebane played both positions

I was listening to the Kearney interview and often they’d swap the 3 and the 1 tech. That’s what Mebane meant by no sliding. From now on he will just stick to being the 3-tech. So it’s not exactly like Mebane will be learning an entirely new position, or be out of position, he will just be focusing on one that he was already playing.

by B.B.Finnegan on May 22, 2009 4:44 PM PDT reply actions

That will put Mebane next to Kerney, correct? LDT and LDE from what I've seen.

I can see that working due to the fact teams may not know which player to double. It’s somewhat likely that they both should command double-teams. Kerney’s health permitting, of course.

Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, QB Jevon Snead, OT Ciron Black, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling 6'2, 200

by Misfit74 on May 22, 2009 6:22 PM PDT up reply actions

mebane at 3?

I remember John commenting the best way to use cole would be at the 3, right?
We shall see how it works.

by paul2 on May 23, 2009 10:15 AM PDT up reply actions

The best way to use Cole is to have him clean the bone saw.

by John Morgan on May 23, 2009 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions

whiskey chainsaw

You’re never going to get me to see what you’re saying.

Everyone hails Tom Brady as this great QB. But Brady was put into a system where success was built into the system. Same reason why Matt Cassel can step in and the team goes 11-5.

Same as Brady can have mostly new receivers and go 12-4 and take the team to the AFC Champisonship game.

Same as Brady can come in and take the team to the Super Bowl when an equally good QB in Drew Bledsoe was there before.

Same as a great QB with a cannon arm and good receivers in Carson Palmer can play in Cinci and go nowhere.

Coaching in the NFL more than any other sport including basketball is supremely important. It starts with team building, not just scheme and motivation. That’s why Dick Vermeil can take three different teams with varying talent levels to the playoffs and two to the Super Bowl.

That’s why Mike Holmgren can take two teams with varying talents levels to the Super Bowl.

I’m not at all implying that talent isn’t important. But I am saying with 100% certainty that coaching is more important. You can’t take chickenshit and make a great sandwich, but a bad coach can take filet mignon and turn it into dog food if it’s his hand that first touches it.

That’s why you want a stud coach to build your team. That’s why Parcells always has a job. That’s why Holmgren will always find work. That’s why the Super Bowl Trophy is named for Vince Lombardi.

Football teams are made up of parts. No team has Pro Bowl parts at every position. They have a few studs mixed in with lesser players. Often those studs perform regardless of where they play, but their team doesn’t win

Why? Because it’s the coach that can take the less than great parts…aka the average to below average talent..and turn them into a useful part of a team. They take roleplayers and average players and put them in an effective scheme to win. They develop the players and instill in them the will and desire to win. They are able to see the game in a way other coaches and fans cannot and make adjustments to win ball games.

There is so much that goes into being a good coach and there are so few coaches that have been able to build Super Bowl teams, yet there has been tons of talent in the NFL over the years. Every team has had tons of talent at one point or another, but not every team has had a coach capable of developing the talent or out thinking his opponents.

So I’m never going to buy that talent trumps all in the NFL. Not until you show me a team with Pro Bowlers at all 22 positions and coming off the bench. Not until you show me a team that is just as dominant after the great coach leaves as before. I don’t mean winning a single Super Bowl.

Coaches dominate. Just look at Joe Gibbs. This guy took three different QBs to the Super Bowl. Were they all equally as talented? No. They weren’t. Joe Gibbs was the man on that Washington Redskins team. He built that team and he developed the talent.

Sorry, I’m not buying it. Coaches are the number one component for success in the NFL. Not only their ability to evaluate and develop talent, but their ability to outscheme and outmovtivate the guy across from them.

That’s why winning coaches can win anywhere given the time needed to build the team. But a winning player can go somehwere else and the team will still flounder with a bad coach.

by ASeahawkfan on May 26, 2009 8:24 PM PDT reply actions