How do you Design a Defense to Stop the Athletic Quarterbacks?

[EasyRider]

I've watched football for a long time and I'm not sure I've seen a better talent at quarterback than Patrick Mahomes.

Sure, he still has a tendency to make those Bret Favre type mistakes at times, but he's also just 24 years old. His combination of athletic ability, arm strength. leadership and moxie is incredible.

The AFC, the NFL for that matter, is going to have to deal with him for a long time. But it's not just Mahomes. There's a new breed of athletic quarterbacks who are near impossible to defend, Jackson and Murray to name a few.

Flores is a defensive coach and that could work in Miami's favor as the Dolphins put together a team that will hopefully be in the running for many years to come.

Besides trying to find the next Mahomes, what would you do on defense to defend these athletic quarterbacks?

not to get too technical, but draft a lot of speedy athletic LBs to go along with two superstar CBs

 

[NBP81]

And it's obvious how bright the future is in Miami with all of the resources at hand and seeing what we accomplished this season with extremely low overall talent.

Bring on the running game!

Which would mean on offense you'd probably want to build a power rushing attack.

Then many teams will cycle back to a power run game.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

This was also my first reaction to this "problem", did quite a bit of research on this to prove someone wrong, I ended up proving myself wrong.

For running plays to be more valuable than passing plays, you'd really need to have this never before seen dominant rushing attack for it to work... Power running games dont benefit from smaller defenses as you might think. I mean Ricky Williams was much better in the NFL than in the CFL, and defenders over here are much much smaller than the NFL...

Another thing is, if Defenders are lighter, your offensive players will have to adjust and get smaller too. Do we really think bigger slower players on offense have that big of an advantage over a buch of speedy guys on defense? Maybe, but I dont think the relationship would be linear and at somepoint would just plateau, where the strategical gain still wouldnt be enough to make it more valuable than passing.

There's actually a way that the running game might make a come back: Rules change.

The rule change back in 2004 really crippled the value of running the ball, this is the one thing thats keeping it from a viable option. Now this is only speculation but I wouldnt be surprised if the NFL actually tried to bring the run game back by changing some rules. This is heavy speculation but I ofen play around with kaggle data, Kaggle is a data science competition platform where companies will start competitions to solve their problems, there's frequently cash prizes for the top guys.

NFL has been posting alot of competitions lately mainly regarding players safety. The most recent one though was about predicting rush success based on the RBs speed, direction, game state and many other variables. I wouldnt be surprised if the NFL came to the conclusion that the best way to protect their QBs would be by encouraging teams to run the ball more. I makes total sense IMO, but as stated earlier, this is pure speculation on my part.

 

[Kamelion4291]

This was also my first reaction to this "problem", did quite a bit of research on this to prove someone wrong, I ended up proving myself wrong.

For running plays to be more valuable than passing plays, you'd really need to have this never before seen dominant rushing attack for it to work... Power running games dont benefit from smaller defenses as you might think. I mean Ricky Williams was much better in the NFL than in the CFL, and defenders over here are much much smaller than the NFL...

Another thing is, if Defenders are lighter, your offensive players will have to adjust and get smaller too. Do we really think bigger slower players on offense have that big of an advantage over a buch of speedy guys on defense? Maybe, but I dont think the relationship would be linear and at somepoint would just plateau, where the strategical gain still wouldnt be enough to make it more valuable than passing.

There's actually a way that the running game might make a come back: Rules change.

The rule change back in 2004 really crippled the value of running the ball, this is the one thing thats keeping it from a viable option. Now this is only speculation but I wouldnt be surprised if the NFL actually tried to bring the run game back by changing some rules. This is heavy speculation but I ofen play around with kaggle data, Kaggle is a data science competition platform where companies will start competitions to solve their problems, there's frequently cash prizes for the top guys.

NFL has been posting alot of competitions lately mainly regarding players safety. The most recent one though was about predicting rush success based on the RBs speed, direction, game state and many other variables. I wouldnt be surprised if the NFL came to the conclusion that the best way to protect their QBs would be by encouraging teams to run the ball more. I makes total sense IMO, but as stated earlier, this is pure speculation on my part.

How could that possibly be wrong? You'd essentially be running into nickel or dime sized defenses on downs that are not pass only with preferably a huge, bruising running back while everybody else is running around with elusive QBs and speed guys. It would be like watching what Henry was doing to people, only worse.

 

[NBP81]

How could that possibly be wrong? You'd essentially be running into nickel or dime sized defenses on downs that are not pass only with preferably a huge, bruising running back while everybody else is running around with elusive QBs and speed guys. It would be like watching what Henry was doing to people, only worse.

And also like what SF were doing to people, until they faced Mahomes... That team would win alot of games no doubt, but holding penalties would screw them over more than if they were an efficient passing team, getting behind in a game would affect them more than it would a good passing team, they wouldnt benefit from def holding/pass interference like the passing team would... All in all, they be less equiped to deal with **** happens than a good passing team, and alot of **** happens in the NFL...

 

[1972forever]

The rest of the NFL should get used to losing to Mahomes for a while.

The only way to mess that up(other than injury)is if KC has to use an obscene amount of their cap to keep him.Then he could have a Peyton Manning type career where he has less talent around him and no defense.

I read an article yesterday in which it was stated that the Chiefs plan on signing him to a long term contract during the off season. It is estimated the the contract will likely pay him around $40 million a year. That would be nearly a fifth of the cap space for the Chiefs. If he does sign for that amount it will certainly make it harder for the Chiefs to sign a lot of their higher priced free agents in the coming years.

That being stated, I imagine that there will also be a lot of players who will be willing to sign with the Chiefs for less money just for the opportunity to play with Mahomes because they will understand that with him at QB, they will have a chance of winning the SB every year.

 

[SF Dolphin Fan]

This was also my first reaction to this "problem", did quite a bit of research on this to prove someone wrong, I ended up proving myself wrong.

For running plays to be more valuable than passing plays, you'd really need to have this never before seen dominant rushing attack for it to work... Power running games dont benefit from smaller defenses as you might think. I mean Ricky Williams was much better in the NFL than in the CFL, and defenders over here are much much smaller than the NFL...

Another thing is, if Defenders are lighter, your offensive players will have to adjust and get smaller too. Do we really think bigger slower players on offense have that big of an advantage over a buch of speedy guys on defense? Maybe, but I dont think the relationship would be linear and at somepoint would just plateau, where the strategical gain still wouldnt be enough to make it more valuable than passing.

There's actually a way that the running game might make a come back: Rules change.

The rule change back in 2004 really crippled the value of running the ball, this is the one thing thats keeping it from a viable option. Now this is only speculation but I wouldnt be surprised if the NFL actually tried to bring the run game back by changing some rules. This is heavy speculation but I ofen play around with kaggle data, Kaggle is a data science competition platform where companies will start competitions to solve their problems, there's frequently cash prizes for the top guys.

NFL has been posting alot of competitions lately mainly regarding players safety. The most recent one though was about predicting rush success based on the RBs speed, direction, game state and many other variables. I wouldnt be surprised if the NFL came to the conclusion that the best way to protect their QBs would be by encouraging teams to run the ball more. I makes total sense IMO, but as stated earlier, this is pure speculation on my part.

Not sure I agree or not, but this is intelligent and well thought out.

 

[NBP81]

Not sure I agree or not, but this is intelligent and well thought out.

Unfortunately, I dont have defensive personnel data to make the real point Im trying to make here. I'd like to know whats the average Y/C vs nickle and dime formations in the NFL... Im 100% you still get more YPA than YPC in those situations. The closest I can get right now is YPC league wide in 3rd and 10+ situations... You're most likely to be facing nickle or dime in those situations and on top of that, the defense really dont care about the run in those situations.

In other words, this should be the most favorable stiuation for running the ball, but even then, teams only get 5.9 YPC here, almost full 2 yards below YPA at 7.8.

 

[SF Dolphin Fan]

Unfortunately, I dont have defensive personnel data to make the real point Im trying to make here. I'd like to know whats the average Y/C vs nickle and dime formations in the NFL... Im 100% you still get more YPA than YPC in those situations. The closest I can get right now is YPC league wide in 3rd and 10+ situations... You're most likely to be facing nickle or dime in those situations and on top of that, the defense really dont care about the run in those situations.

In other words, this should be the most favorable stiuation for running the ball, but even then, teams only get 5.9 YPC here, almost full 2 yards below YPA at 7.8.

That makes a lot of sense.

 

[Kamelion4291]

And also like what SF were doing to people, until they faced Mahomes... That team would win alot of games no doubt, but holding penalties would screw them over more than if they were an efficient passing team, getting behind in a game would affect them more than it would a good passing team, they wouldnt benefit from def holding/pass interference like the passing team would... All in all, they be less equiped to deal with **** happens than a good passing team, and alot of **** happens in the NFL...

Except that is not what is happening now. Teams are still playing with big-ish linebackers. We're talking about a league where a lot of defensive players are smaller to be able to stay with elusive, running QBs which doesn't currently exist. If teams were forced to run nickel/dime defenses these days all the time for the sake of argument, bruising running games would tear them up. Sure, getting a holding penalty would hurt, but most possessions would seem like an inevitability towards the end zone.

A lot of **** happens in the NFL, but most of it happens when you throw the ball. Holding penalties on inside runs are rare and at that point the only chance you have of turning the ball over is if your RB fumbles which is also rare.

Ideally, the best offense you could possibly build is one where you just run for 4+ yards every single play no matter what. If your defense stops the opposing team just once, you win.

 

[Mach2]

Except that is not what is happening now. Teams are still playing with big-ish linebackers. We're talking about a league where a lot of defensive players are smaller to be able to stay with elusive, running QBs which doesn't currently exist. If teams were forced to run nickel/dime defenses these days all the time for the sake of argument, bruising running games would tear them up. Sure, getting a holding penalty would hurt, but most possessions would seem like an inevitability towards the end zone.

A lot of **** happens in the NFL, but most of it happens when you throw the ball. Holding penalties on inside runs are rare and at that point the only chance you have of turning the ball over is if your RB fumbles which is also rare.

Ideally, the best offense you could possibly build is one where you just run for 4+ yards every single play no matter what. If your defense stops the opposing team just once, you win.

Although you are obviously taking it to an extreme to make a point, you are correct.

Everything cannot be accurately measured using simple metrics, without context.

Being able to run the ball effectively is helpful in many situations, as is being able to air it out 40 times a game. It depends on the situation. That's why most good teams have a pretty fair balance over the course of a season.

If you are down, you obviously have to pass to catch up. If you are up, being able to have time consuming drives, while your D is resting, and the opponent's D is wearing down is an asset.

 

[Kamelion4291]

Although you are obviously taking it to an extreme to make a point, you are correct.

Everything cannot be accurately measured using simple metrics, without context.

Being able to run the ball effectively is helpful in many situations, as is being able to air it out 40 times a game. It depends on the situation. That's why most good teams have a pretty fair balance over the course of a season.

If you are down, you obviously have to pass to catch up. If you are up, being able to have time consuming drives, while your D is resting, and the opponent's D is wearing down is an asset.

I guess what I'm getting at is that I don't think teams are going to go smaller to adjust for running QBs because they'll lose for free against power rushing teams. They'll play their bigger dudes and just try to work on better positioning and containment because it's just such a big disadvantage otherwise that you literally couldn't scheme around it.

 

[Blake the great]

Best defense sometimes is a good offense.

 

[PASQUALE]

Dolphins:
Brian Flores (Multiple Front/Hybrid, Nickel-Dime):
Miami Dolphins Defensive Playbook: (3-4 book with a 4-3 Under set and 46 Bear and Normal. Nickel 2-4-5, 3-3-5 and 1-5-5, Dime 4-1-6, Dollar 3-2-6 and Quarter 3-1-7) or Balanced (4-3/3-4 Hybrid with a 46 Bear and Normal, Nickel 4-2-5, 3-3-5, 1-5-5 Prowl, Dime 4-1-6, Dollar 3-2-6 and Quarter 3-1-7).
(Nickel 4-2-5 and Dime 4-1-6 should be favored)

These schemes and formations with discipline from MLB's and EDGE as spies can reduce an athletic QB's abilities some but not all. Especially, Mahomes, Jackson, and Murray. Who are fast and fluid with movement. The EDGE needs to stay focused and not just rush pass the tackles he needs to push to interior for the QB will not be able to step or take off. With a unique balance of well-rounded players who are savvy on defense it can be stopped occasionally.

I like our defense an Josh Boyer can do many things with it.

 

[jawa3913]

Steve Young said it best. Hit em. Bottom line make them not want to run.

 

[Mach2]

I guess what I'm getting at is that I don't think teams are going to go smaller to adjust for running QBs because they'll lose for free against power rushing teams. They'll play their bigger dudes and just try to work on better positioning and containment because it's just such a big disadvantage otherwise that you literally couldn't scheme around it.

I agree, in that it is not as simple as bigger or smaller.

For example, a 3-4, as opposed to a 4-3, generally allows you to get more "edge speed", but requires bigger, stronger Nose and DT, to not be susceptible to the inside power run.

I believe the future lies in being able to run multiple fronts, and packages, as the situation dictates.

The league is already moving toward more 5 and 6 DB sets, with more "hybrid" type players. That, in effect, makes for a "smaller" faster D, but only situationally.