Jump to content


Base Nickel Defense


  • Please log in to reply
54 replies to this topic

#1 Whitewalker Merriman

Whitewalker Merriman

    Professional Kool-Aid Drinker

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,521 posts

Posted 02 February 2013 - 10:33 AM

#Bills DC Mike Pettine: "With pass happy league, our 3rd down [nickel] defense will likely be our base package."@WGRZpic.twitter.com/ciUWvGTT

Interesting. Who would we be putting where? If we're basing everything around the nickel, we'd probably need to sink some extra talent into our DBs.

#2 DrDareustein

DrDareustein

    All Pro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,598 posts

Posted 02 February 2013 - 10:41 AM

It certainly wont be who we had playing it last year. Scott, Wilson, Barnett, Im looking in your direction!

I think if we re-sign McKelvin, we're ok at CB in this situation. The liability is in our Nickel LBs. Both Scott and Barnett need to be replaced.

Edited by DrDareustein, 02 February 2013 - 10:42 AM.


#3 NoSaint

NoSaint

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,353 posts

Posted 02 February 2013 - 10:42 AM

View PostWhitewalker Merriman, on 02 February 2013 - 10:33 AM, said:

#Bills DC Mike Pettine: "With pass happy league, our 3rd down [nickel] defense will likely be our base package."@WGRZpic.twitter.com/ciUWvGTT

Interesting. Who would we be putting where? If we're basing everything around the nickel, we'd probably need to sink some extra talent into our DBs.

The same could be said for essentially 100% of teams.

#4 Dean Cain

Dean Cain

    DAS AUTO

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,385 posts

Posted 02 February 2013 - 11:26 AM

The Jets run a 1-6-5 nickel on Madden.

#5 NewEra

NewEra

    I don't "know", I "think"

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,629 posts

Posted 02 February 2013 - 12:04 PM

View PostDrDareustein, on 02 February 2013 - 10:41 AM, said:

It certainly wont be who we had playing it last year. Scott, Wilson, Barnett, Im looking in your direction!

I think if we re-sign McKelvin, we're ok at CB in this situation. The liability is in our Nickel LBs. Both Scott and Barnett need to be replaced.

Spot on.  While its a team game, from coaches to players to the FO, I feel that Barnett and Scott had as much to do with our "suck" as anyone.  Neither can cover.  Scott regressed as a tackler.  His inability to avoid-get off blocks a killer.  He was completely abused vs the run.  Barnett, completely abused vs the pass.  We need to replace both of the,.  I pray we can add 2 LBs that are equally effective vs the run and pass.  Pettines scheme may be able to disguise their weaknesses, whereas staches read and react compounded them. Other than QB (I know, the QB cupboard is almost bare), I'm most eager to see what LB additions our FO can make.

Regarding mckelvin, I'm with you as well.  I think he's better than most bills fans believe.  With a good pass rush, I believe he can be a sufficient corner.  Albeit, not a star, but he can cover. I think with Gilmore, brooks and leodis, we have 3 cbs that can maintain with a good pass rush.  Adding another CB to the Mia is necessary IMO, but our cbs aren't as bad as many think.  Not many cbs look good with no pass rush. He needs to be taught some ball tracking skills.  Our cbs have had big issues turning and looking for the ball under Catavolos.  I know it should be CB 101, but it sure didn't look like our cbs were preached about it.  Maybe our new staff can address it.  Hopefully we can being leodis back.  His punt and kick returns were arguably the most exciting plays last year.  He's dynamic.

Edited by NewEra, 02 February 2013 - 12:13 PM.


#6 Nanker

Nanker

    Blls Nation Unite!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,554 posts

Posted 02 February 2013 - 12:13 PM

I think Pettine has a chance to show he's the best DC we've had in years. Unfortunately, that's not saying a whole heck of a lot.

#7 Dean Cain

Dean Cain

    DAS AUTO

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,385 posts

Posted 02 February 2013 - 12:25 PM

View PostBigCountryBills, on 02 February 2013 - 11:26 AM, said:

The Jets run a 1-6-5 nickel on Madden.

Great thing here is you don't know which of the 6 roving lb's they're sending. I hope Pettine incorporates this.

#8 K-9

K-9

    Long Timer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,151 posts

Posted 02 February 2013 - 01:54 PM

View PostBigCountryBills, on 02 February 2013 - 11:26 AM, said:

The Jets run a 1-6-5 nickel on Madden.

Do they ever throw the flag for too many men on the field or is it just OK to do that in Madden?

"43 is the mike. 43 is the mike."

Christ. If I see Bryan Scott playing LB in ANY of our defensive schemes, I'll puke.

GO BILLS!!!

#9 playman

playman

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,150 posts

Posted 02 February 2013 - 02:02 PM

View PostBigCountryBills, on 02 February 2013 - 11:26 AM, said:

The Jets run a 1-6-5 nickel on Madden.

that just doesn´t add up

#10 Johnny Hammersticks

Johnny Hammersticks

    You want a beer? How about some ether?

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,672 posts

Posted 02 February 2013 - 03:11 PM

View PostK-9, on 02 February 2013 - 01:54 PM, said:

Do they ever throw the flag for too many men on the field or is it just OK to do that in Madden?

"43 is the mike. 43 is the mike."

Christ. If I see Bryan Scott playing LB in ANY of our defensive schemes, I'll puke.

GO BILLS!!!

Agreed....Bryan Scott clearly is not a linebacker or a safety.  He definitely is not a nickle linebacker.  He needs to go away, and I suspect he will.

#11 3rdand12

3rdand12

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,516 posts

Posted 02 February 2013 - 03:17 PM

I have to disagree about N Barnett. He looked horrible last year under  Dw
  He looked Much better in the 3-4. On  the downside but maybe has some gas still

wilson. again a victim of the coaching.
and had a slump. was decent year before.  Keep him.

scott may not fit up for coach Mike.

But the REAL issue is aaron williams. the #2 cB needs to be solved.
Brooks anyone ? or Milliner

Edited by 3rdand12, 03 February 2013 - 02:09 PM.


#12 vincec

vincec

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,821 posts

Posted 02 February 2013 - 03:35 PM

View PostBigCountryBills, on 02 February 2013 - 11:26 AM, said:

The Jets run a 1-6-5 nickel on Madden.
Disregarding the obvious math error for a second, if the Bills had to put 6 LBs on the field at one time who would they be???  They don't even have 1 legitimate starting NFL LB let alone 6.  How about Pettine follow the age old coaching rule of building your schemes around your players and focus on ways to take advantage of the few good players you have.  On the Bills that would be the DL.  They'd be better off running a 5-1-5 Nickel than a 1-5-5.

#13 jboyst62

jboyst62

    Hall of Farmer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,259 posts

Posted 02 February 2013 - 03:47 PM

Interesting...  very interesting.... but, like anything, it's hardly news from OBD.

Alright, so we know sub packages are big in todays NFL.  We know that in New Jersey he could put Revis on a player, effectively making the game 10-10.  Removing the QB or ball carrier, as often the best way to evaluate this type of structure, you have it 10-9.  In New Jersey he had good pressure from an underrated DL, whether 3 or 4 were in there.  I think they had a better front with 1 DE, and 2 DT's, when running a 3 man front.  Their LB's can hold their own and excel in closing angles to the ball, while the OLB's are able to funnel the play to the middle of the field.  This is a lot different then what we have in Buffalo.  It will be a great test for Pettine.

In Buffalo we have better DE's for a 3 man front then we do DT's, opposite of New Jersey.  I am thinking with Anderson fully recovered he is big enough to hold the strong side of the field, with Dareus quick enough to make up for the lack of "oomph" that other NT's like Bianca Wilfork have, but still could be a liability, especially given that we have many issues at MLB.  A good nickel can make up for issues on the DL, but a better nickel makes up for issues at LB.

Our nickel would need to be a 3-3-5, vs. a 3-4-4 hybrid where we used Bryan Scott as the package player.  This is not saying Scott would not be proficient at nickel.
Posted Image
With Dareus shaded outside 1 he can keep from having direct contact against a blocker, however this opens up the next level (LB's).  He would have to play strong, but we cannot afford to play Dareus heads up and outstrength players.

Anderson can take care of business when all he has to do is defeat his blockers and contain, leaving Williams on the other side in an island.  I would love this to be a Mario Williams island defense.  The guy looked unstoppable last year, and anyone who did not see it - wise up - the guy is going to be MVP level in 2013.

While I would like to believe Shephard suffered because he got raped by offensive lineman, I also think he needs to pick up a step in quickness.  Him playing right over the center, between the 2's is going to be where he has to be.  If he cannot do that, get someone who can.

Barnett could not shed a towel in 2012.  He needs to be protected behind a DE, he needs to count on the MLB to make the plays, and we need to count on him to steer the action to the MLB because Barnett can't make the plays to stop the run.

Bradham is the highest on the depth chart.  All he needs to do is stop, hit, and destroy anything in front of him.  When the TE crosses his face, put him on his ass, when the RB tries to stop him from the QB eat him alive, when Brady eyes get as big as saucers, kill him.  Bradham, or whoever our SLB is needs 1 mission, get to the ball and destroy who holds it, anything in his way, move it.

If our CB's play 10 yards off again I am going to throw a fit.  If we play face to face with Williams I am going to write OBD a long letter and remind them that this guy forgets he has to cover a player after he hand fights them.  The CB's need to press their guy, turn, and stay on their man for at least 3 seconds.  Anything more, see below.

George Wilson needs to be reeled in.  Be reminded he is a good player because of his awareness and recognition, and that in 2011 he always got to the right place.  If he cannot get back to that 2011 form, we need to move on, because our CB's will get beat deep - it happens.  Spare me your PFF scoring system, Wilson struggled in 2011.  He needs to get to where the ball is going to be, not where the ball was...aka pulling a Whitner.  I want him 8 to 12 yards, no more, and facing the RB and and TE in front of him only.  His catch up angles are not good enough.

Byrd needs to be unleashed, the complete opposite of Wilson.  He needs to be a featured defender who can find the QB's eyes and break on it.  His speed is lacking, and he just needs to be kept somewhere in the backfield and allowed to find his own spot, let him play on instinct.  All action must be in front of him, all action must be contained.

Bryan Scott/Nickel back (almost the same for a monster back).  As I said before this is a 10 on 9 game in Pettines mind.  If he plays Byrd like he needs to then Byrd is his own defense, and it is 9 on 9, but all the same, the nickel is the extra player, the nickel in many packages cannot cover Gronkowski or a large downfield threat, they just aren't that good on any team in the league.  That is why I want him watching Bradham's ass.  If you play off what Bradham is doing, if you focus on what is happening to your LB you can play to the rest of it, and you let the two of them create a layer.  Bradham is 5 yards in front, Scott is 5-8 yards, with it growing across the middle as the play develops.  If Wilson and Byrd cannot be responsible for the middle beyond 8 yards then it makes no difference what the nickel can or can't do.
J
ust my .02$

View Postvincec, on 02 February 2013 - 03:35 PM, said:

Disregarding the obvious math error for a second, if the Bills had to put 6 LBs on the field at one time who would they be???  They don't even have 1 legitimate starting NFL LB let alone 6.  How about Pettine follow the age old coaching rule of building your schemes around your players and focus on ways to take advantage of the few good players you have.  On the Bills that would be the DL.  They'd be better off running a 5-1-5 Nickel than a 1-5-5.
The Bills do not have 6 LB's.  If I imagined something fun like that, a 2-5-4, or something, I'd put Anderson dropping back on the same side as Mario Williams.  If not for his coverage and anchoring the flat it would confuse most any QB and instantly cause him to look deep.

We have proven DL talent, quality safeties, adequate CB's, and questions at LB.  Our overall talent at LB is not awful, but there are no great players.

#14 Dibs

Dibs

    Myth Buster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,965 posts

Posted 03 February 2013 - 03:01 AM

View PostJohnny Hammersticks, on 02 February 2013 - 03:11 PM, said:

Agreed....Bryan Scott clearly is not a linebacker or a safety.  He definitely is not a nickle linebacker.  He needs to go away, and I suspect he will.

Scott is a FA in 2013 so he is gone already.
He was on a 1 year veteran minimums contract so he was relatively cheap.....but I'm with you, I doubt he will be re-signed.

#15 #34fan

#34fan

    Hate to say I told you so... Especially since I didn't.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,694 posts

Posted 03 February 2013 - 03:58 AM

Our LB's SUCK.

This would be a great year to replace all of them with the exception of Nigel Bradham. George Wilson may be a real nice guy, but DJ Swearinger would be a fantastic upgrade at SS. -That's JMHO.

Jairus Byrd would be replaced by the faster, more physical, Matt Elam. OBD is nuts if they don't take advantage of the SEC's bumper crop of defensive backfield personnel.

If Pettine is as serious as he says, we should be cutting a lot of dead weight, and seein alot of new faces in that secondary -YAY! :thumbsup:

Edited by #34fan, 03 February 2013 - 04:01 AM.


#16 RealityCheck

RealityCheck

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,004 posts

Posted 03 February 2013 - 07:29 AM

It is long overdue for DCs to look at the nickel as your base defense in the modern NFL. How these guys put so much work into archaic alignments that they will barely use is beyond me. Within the nickel you have 4 primary combos of DL to LB that offer a tremendous amount of versatility against heavy run sets and spread sets.

#17 BobChalmers

BobChalmers

    UDFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,622 posts

Posted 03 February 2013 - 09:03 AM

View PostNewEra, on 02 February 2013 - 12:04 PM, said:

Spot on.  While its a team game, from coaches to players to the FO, I feel that Barnett and Scott had as much to do with our "suck" as anyone.  Neither can cover.  Scott regressed as a tackler.  His inability to avoid-get off blocks a killer.  He was completely abused vs the run.  Barnett, completely abused vs the pass.  We need to replace both of the,.  I pray we can add 2 LBs that are equally effective vs the run and pass.  Pettines scheme may be able to disguise their weaknesses, whereas staches read and react compounded them. Other than QB (I know, the QB cupboard is almost bare), I'm most eager to see what LB additions our FO can make.

Regarding mckelvin, I'm with you as well.  I think he's better than most bills fans believe.  With a good pass rush, I believe he can be a sufficient corner.  Albeit, not a star, but he can cover. I think with Gilmore, brooks and leodis, we have 3 cbs that can maintain with a good pass rush.  Adding another CB to the Mia is necessary IMO, but our cbs aren't as bad as many think.  Not many cbs look good with no pass rush. He needs to be taught some ball tracking skills.  Our cbs have had big issues turning and looking for the ball under Catavolos.  I know it should be CB 101, but it sure didn't look like our cbs were preached about it.  Maybe our new staff can address it.  Hopefully we can being leodis back.  His punt and kick returns were arguably the most exciting plays last year.  He's dynamic.

You really understate how bad Barnett is against the run too here!  :bag:

View Postjboyst62, on 02 February 2013 - 03:47 PM, said:

Our overall talent at LB is not awful, but there are no great players.

Oh no - it's pretty awful.

#18 Whitewalker Merriman

Whitewalker Merriman

    Professional Kool-Aid Drinker

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,521 posts

Posted 03 February 2013 - 10:04 AM

View Post#34fan, on 03 February 2013 - 03:58 AM, said:

Our LB's SUCK.

This would be a great year to replace all of them with the exception of Nigel Bradham. George Wilson may be a real nice guy, but DJ Swearinger would be a fantastic upgrade at SS. -That's JMHO.

Jairus Byrd would be replaced by the faster, more physical, Matt Elam. OBD is nuts if they don't take advantage of the SEC's bumper crop of defensive backfield personnel.

If Pettine is as serious as he says, we should be cutting a lot of dead weight, and seein alot of new faces in that secondary -YAY! :thumbsup:

I doubt that Byrd's slot is in line for an upgrade but I bet that the rest of the DB's could use an upgrade.

After reading the description of the 3-3-5 defense (the 3-4 variation of the Nickel) I think might have an idea of what Pettine might be trying to run:

Quote


This alignment is generally used when the defense is trying to confuse the offense by applying different blitz pressures on the offense while playing mostly zone or sometimes man coverage. This alignment is rarely seen in the NFL, but is used by many high schools to counterattack the spread offense scheme. Boise State, Texas Christian, and West Virginia,and the Arizona Wildcats have used this formation with success in college football. Michigan ran this formation during the 2010 season.

Teams that run the 3-3-5 generally use it because they are a relatively fast but smaller unit compared to the opposing offense, and they want to cause blocking assignment issues for that offense. Also, a 3-3-5 can be adjusted to a 4-3, 3-4, or 4-4 defense with the same starting players.

To effectively play the 3-3-5, the "Front 8" (e.g. the eight defensive players closest to the line of scrimmage) must be physical and tough. The three down lineman must be able to control the running lanes, execute an effective pass rush, and be able to keep the opposing offensive line occupied so that the linebackers can make plays. The two outside or "Stud" linebackers must be effective at pressuring the offensive line and reading and reacting to the play as it develops. The middle linebacker (also known as the "Mike" linebacker) must be able to effectively move in the direction the play is going (also known as "flowing to the ball") while also being able to shed blockers and make plays.


To me that sounds similar to what Pettine was talking about by saying "not a true 4-3, or 3-4" and bringing constant pressure.


#19 jboyst62

jboyst62

    Hall of Farmer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,259 posts

Posted 03 February 2013 - 10:27 AM

View PostBobChalmers, on 03 February 2013 - 09:03 AM, said:

Oh no - it's pretty awful.
Looking at it like this:
Our 3-4 LB's are better then our 4-3 LB's.  If we went to 3-4, Mario Williams would be our best LB, Merriman might be second (if retained).  In the 4-3, we have Bradham who is serviceable, at best, at this point - I do not see him as a bona fide starter yet.
Barnett is less then we had hoped, but I chalk half of that up to DW's defense and the piss poor play of 2012, the other half I chalk up to the wind and just let it go.
Scott is not a LB.  He's not a DB, really, either.  He is something, though, and he's not the biggest liability on defense.
Shephard is growing in to his shoes, a smart player who has to make up for what he elsewise lacks and could be very good in the right package, if only he was quicker, though!

Yeah, our LB's are not too great based on 2012, but with better DL play we get better LB play.  If Pettine can do what was done with players he had in New Jersey we're going to get the most out of these folks.

View PostWhitewalker Merriman, on 03 February 2013 - 10:04 AM, said:

I doubt that Byrd's slot is in line for an upgrade but I bet that the rest of the DB's could use an upgrade.

After reading the description of the 3-3-5 defense (the 3-4 variation of the Nickel) I think might have an idea of what Pettine might be trying to run:

[/size][/font][/color]

To me that sounds similar to what Pettine was talking about by saying "not a true 4-3, or 3-4" and bringing constant pressure.
Wow, crazy to think our D may blitz!

3-3-5 is not for us, in that system.  Our DL cannot control the running lanes.  If we'd have retained Dwan Edwards, got a big fat NT, and have some speed at SLB we could run this, but our DL is quick, small, and agile - not large, clogging, powerful.  The DL was asked to play this scheme in 2012 and it failed us.  Players that should have required a double team were not able to beat man on man blocking, so it freed up the OL player to penetrate the 2nd line - LB's.

Edited by jboyst62, 03 February 2013 - 10:28 AM.


#20 vincec

vincec

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,821 posts

Posted 03 February 2013 - 11:13 AM

Draft a MLB and play a 4-3 defense similar to the Giants or the Rams.  That would be the best fit for the current personnel going forward, IMO.

Or they could blow it up and start over again, which sounds more like the Bills.

Edited by vincec, 03 February 2013 - 11:14 AM.