The 46 Defense
The 46 is a defense that stands alone, it is a base system that has roots only in the old ways (leather helmets and no forward passes). It was developed by Buddy Ryan for use by the Chicago Bears; it is named after the great Doug Plank. It is the only defense that is named after a player not the actual lineup.
This defense is pressure, pressure, pressure, pressure. The concept is to destroy the run and force mistakes by the QB.
Defensive line:
The system is a 4-3 essentially but it employs a NT and three Ends. The Nose and two ends clog the middle of the field lining up nose on center and ends on guards. It uses the last end as a Rush end, lining up on the weak side about three yards off the tackle, his primary purpose is to rush the QB.
Linebackers:
The linebackers in this system consist of a Middle backer and two Strong side backers.
The strong side backers line up side to side, two yards outside the tackle and are rushers and run stoppers. The middle is a step up and clobber you type of player ala Singletary and Ray Lewis. They are required to scrape and attack the line of scrimmage.
Secondary:
By far the most difficult part of the defense is the secondary. It consists of two corners and two safeties, although the strong safety is in the box and lined up roughly with the middle linebackers basically making him a fourth linebacker. The corners are left on islands and must run man to man constantly. They utilize a bump and run technique and must stay with their assignments at all times. The strong safety is a fourth linebacker; he is crafty and quick with punishing hitting abilities. The free is a ranger and is required to cover the entire backfield and save the corners if necessary. He is the last line of defense. I know I’ve said that before but I can’t stress it enough in this situation.
Against the run:
The most incredible defense against the run, it was primarily designed to stop the run. There is a story of Eric Dickerson facing the 46 and pleading with the QB to audible out the run play.
Against the pass:
This is the 46's downfall. It worked well for a time but then Bill Walsh showed up. The defense leaves the corners completely without safety help, so on short slants if the WR could beat the corner he was off to the races.
The 46 was, and still is the most feared defense ever, but like all defenses this one had a short coming, and its short coming was its death. The pressure forced by the 46 made it so the flats and the corners were open and with the coming of the short, quick west coast offenses, the 46 died. Practitioners couldn’t adapt the defense to the demands of the time and it fell out of use except in specialty situations.
Will the Bears ever use the 46 again? I can safely say probably not. They have the personnel to use it but with the other three teams in the division and most of the NFL using some form of the west coast it would be exploited very quickly.
0 recs |
77 comments
|
Comments
The personnel
the Bears have now cannot run this defense. They couldn’t even think of running this defense. The team is weak at the safety position and outside of Peanut Tillman, the corners aren’t physical enough to play this … it would help if they could cover as well. The Bears are currently getting worked by offenses that run a quick slant, not to mention they have a poor pass rush — even when they blitz.
Babich blitzed almost every other down and they still couldn’t manage a sack in most situations. Urlacher cannot shed blocks and doesn’t seem to blitz with much intensity. It’s as if he’s blitzing just to blitz, but not too concerned with the end result (which is usually him being blocked out of the play). Briggs can bring it from the outside, but we need two pass rushing LBs to make the defense effective. While the current LBs the Bears have are much more athletic and physically stronger than Otis Wilson and Wilbur Marshall, they played with much more ferocity and had the intent to kill or seriously injur the opposing quarterback or running back. They hit and tackled with a purpose — the entire defense did.
This defense doesn’ t have that mentality – and not many defenses today do.
by junkhorse on Mar 12, 2009 10:53 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
our current LB's are more athletic than Otis Wilson and Wilbur Marshall?
are you insane? Marshall was the most athletic player maybe EVER to play for the bears. the guy could run with WRs and crush RBs.
by Hatchetm on Mar 12, 2009 11:14 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Urlacher and Briggs
are bigger, faster and stronger than Marshall and Wilson — it’s the evolution of the position. I wasn’t saying that Marshall wasn’t athletic (and you could argue that Hester is a better athlete than Marshall, but he has trouble catching passes and fumbles) … I was just saying the position has evolved as have the players who play it. Urlacher, up until maybe 3 years ago “could run with WRs and crush RBs.”
by junkhorse on Mar 12, 2009 11:27 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
stop yourself:
marshall was better than briggs and the same size. how old are you by the way?
by Hatchetm on Mar 12, 2009 11:35 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
not the same size
Briggs is 25 pounds heavier than Marshall (which isn’t a lot) — I’ll give you that they’re the same height. We can have a pissing contest all day on who’s bigger than who, but you’re missing the point. In fact, you missed it the first time around. I wasn’t saying that today’s Bear linebackers are better than those of lore. It was actually the opposite. I was implying that the current personnel could not play this defense. They have too many shortcomings in other areas to have the type of effect the defense had 24 years ago … among other reasons.
by junkhorse on Mar 12, 2009 11:45 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Briggs is 25 pounds heavier than Marshall (which isn’t a lot)
on what planet exactly?
OH! STEWIE!! GET OUT THE WAY BOY! GET OUT THE WAY!
-Stacey King
by ifuwannacrownem on Mar 12, 2009 11:52 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I stand corrected ...
Lance Briggs | #55 | LB
Chicago Bears | Official Team Site
Height: 6-1 Weight: 240 Age: 28
Born: 11/12/1980 Los Angeles Co. , CA
College: Arizona
Experience: 7th season
High School: Elk Grove HS [CA]
Wilber Marshall
Height: 6-1 Weight: 231 Age: 46
Born: 4/18/1962 Titusville , FL
College: Florida
Experience: 12 Seasons
by junkhorse on Mar 12, 2009 11:57 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
RE: stop yourself
Hatchem: as you well know Marshall, beyond his superb atheltic abilty, was one bad M****RF**KER!
He had a real nasty disposition which, when combined with his phyical skills and Buddy’s scheme, made him almost scary on a football field.
I know that a lot of his teammates were intimidated by him.
He NEVER got his just due. When a guy like Harry Carson is in the HOF and Marshall isn’t, something’s wrong.
by GeoMak on Mar 12, 2009 3:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am still upset at McCaskey letting Marshall go to the Redskins.
Along with JimmyMac not being able to stay on the field (damn you Charles Martin!), his loss was the start of the beginning of the Ditka Bears not being a championship favorite.
Maybe we can (but probably not)?
by Granny Waiters on Mar 13, 2009 6:21 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Redskins
And if I remember correctly the two guys they drafted with the #1 picks they got for Marshall pretty much did almost nothing for the Bears. I could be wrong here but I’m pretty sure I’m right.
Marshall left in 87. Buddy ryan in 86. The loss of Buddy was the biggest reason why the Bears didn’t win it all again.
by GeoMak on Mar 13, 2009 9:03 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hahaha!
I just knew GeoMak would show up as soon as junkhorse mentioned Wilson and Marshall. Still waiting on Haight.
OH! STEWIE!! GET OUT THE WAY BOY! GET OUT THE WAY!
-Stacey King
by ifuwannacrownem on Mar 12, 2009 3:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
We do in fact have the means to run this defense
The cover-2 is a passive defense, the 46 is an attacking defense but with tillman as safety and bowman and graham at the corners the secondary would be okay
If I wore a neckbeard I'd be disappointed too.
by scespy12 on Mar 12, 2009 11:26 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
We can already stopp the run and not stop the pass
so does it matter what defense a team throws all over us on?:)
Being Who You Thought We Were Since 2005!
by Adam T on Mar 12, 2009 11:44 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
RE: We do in fact have . . .
Technically, you are wrong when you wrote this: The system is a 4-3 essentially but it employs a NT and three Ends.
In their base 4-3, Hampton and Dent were the ends and McMichael and (Perry/Hartenstine) were the tackles.
When they went 46, Hampton moved right over the center, the DT’s were over the guards, Dent kicked out wide and the two OLB’s were over the OT and TE.
by GeoMak on Mar 12, 2009 4:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ummm sort of
His original concept was a NT lined up over center and two Ends over guards but he didn’t have the neccessary to use that specific scheme this is more of the concept rather than the use on the bears.
If I wore a neckbeard I'd be disappointed too.
by scespy12 on Mar 12, 2009 5:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually
You’re wrong. The Bears were a 4-3. period. In Rex Ryan’s book “Coaching Football’s 46 Defense”, on page 9 (Backround of the 46 Defense) he clearly states what it was: Two DE’s.Two DT’s.
The Bears were a 4-3. They didn’t have a NT. Having a guy like Hampton who could play both DE & DT (and later Reggie White) helped give his defense the vesatility to shift fronts.
by GeoMak on Mar 12, 2009 5:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
What position did hampton play?
Nose tackle!
Nose tackle is defined as the defensive line player that is lined up OVER center!
If I wore a neckbeard I'd be disappointed too.
by scespy12 on Mar 12, 2009 9:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
RE: What position did Hampton play?
Give it up. Hampton played inside and out. He was not a “NOSE TACKLE” any more than Reggie White was a NT.
Both of those guys, in Buddy schemes, would often line up “as a NT.”
That doesn’t mean that they were NT"s. It just means that they were good enough and versatile enough to play over the center or a guard or a tackle.
You said that the defensive line employed a NT and three ends. You are wrong. Two ends. Two tackles. One end (Hampton/White) that was capable of “playing as a NT.”
An end occasionally lining up as a NT is completely different than a (3/4 type) Nose Tackle.
Dan Hampton
Enshrined in 2002
(Arkansas)
DEFENSIVE TACKLE-DEFENSIVE END 6-5, 264
1979-1990 Chicago Bears
Bears’ No. 1 pick, fourth player overall, 1979 NFL Draft. . . Nicknamed “Danimal” for ferocious style of play. . .Immediate impact player as a rookie. . .A versatile player, played both DT and DE positions. . .Named first- or second-team All-Pro choice six times as either DE or DT. . . Elected to four Pro Bowls. . . Born September 19, 1957 in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
by GeoMak on Mar 12, 2009 9:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't care about his stats...
I’m not going to nitpick with you. I’m not going to change your mind, I’m not changing mine. To be completely frank, I was two months old when the bears won the superbowl.
I will repeat again, Buddy Ryans D was intended to have a NT, he didn’t have one but he made due. This is not the D for the 85 bears. It is the CONCEPT of the DEFENSE that is all.
If I wore a neckbeard I'd be disappointed too.
by scespy12 on Mar 12, 2009 10:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You are persistent
I’ll give you that.
Did you see this line?: DEFENSIVE TACKLE-DEFENSIVE END 6-5, 264
Or this?: A versatile player, played both DT and DE positions. . .
That’s got nothing to do with stats.
Beyond that, think about it? if Buddy’s defense was intended to have a NT (and I’d like to know where you EVER heard that) then consider this: Why didn’t Buddy DRAFT a NT when he took over the Eagles in 1986.
Get IT? He picked all the players in Philly. If his defense was INTENDED to have a NT, then he had a perfect opportunity to draft one then. He never did.
You are being ignorant here. Buddy ALWAYS was a 4-3 coach (in NY, Minnesota, Chicago, Philadelphia, Houston and Phoenix). 4-3 as in two DE’s and two DT’s. The fact that he sometimes shifted a DE to play the nose no more makes that DE a NT than shifting a SS in the box makes that SS a LB.
The fact is that when I read your post I thought overall it was pretty good (you made that one mistake on the defensive line and your assessment “Against the Pass” I would somewhat disagree with.
I “very nicely” said that technically you were wrong when you stated . . .
I was just trying to correct your mistake.
by GeoMak on Mar 12, 2009 10:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I will give that I'm not infallable...
Buddy did use a DE lined up over center but that was based on the utility found in Hamilton and white. When he taught the defense he taught it with a NT. That’s the way I learned it and that’s the way I showed you.
If I wore a neckbeard I'd be disappointed too.
by scespy12 on Mar 13, 2009 12:14 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wholeheartly agree with my assessment
Of the pass D, it leaves corners on a island of man coverage with one safety roaming the entire field. If the safety makes a bad read and the corners misses the tackle the WR is gone. The pass rush is ineffective if the corners fail to jam the recievers on the line. It’s weakness is the pass, specifically the short pass that renders the rush ineffective.
If I wore a neckbeard I'd be disappointed too.
by scespy12 on Mar 13, 2009 12:20 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pass Defense
The 46 was almost impossible to run against. As Bill Walsh said “You just couldn’t run against it. there were too many men at the line of scrimmage.”
The problem for the opponents, when it came to passing was what Theisman used to say “You can’t pass if you’re on your ass.”
There were often receivers open downfield but it did the offense little good as the QB was either being sacked or pressured into making a hurried, inaccurate pass.
No doubt that the WCO, which took shape around the same time, was designed to get rid of the ball quicker in an effort to neutralize the pass rush somewhat.
The problem with your assessment of the 46 against the WCO is that you imply that it would be rendered almost usless by the WCO. In 1993, as I posted elsewhere, Buddy Ryan was the DC of the Houston Oilers, who went into SF on Christmas Day and beat Steve Young and Jerry Rice and company 10-7.
Houston lost 4 out of their first 5 games that year (while trying to get acclimated to Buddy’s new 46 system). After that, they won 11 games in a row. Playing in a domed stadium on turf, the Oiler defense was pretty much equal to the 84/85 Bear defense. I hate to say it but it’s true . . . I watched all their games. They had one of the best CB’s in the league (Cris Dishman) and on of the best FS’s in the league (Marcus Roberton).
The point being that Buddy’s defense, even into the early 90’s was capable of dominating ANY offense, WCO or not.
Also, if Buddy had continued coaching he probably would have tweaked the 46 like Rex did in Baltimore, mixing in some base defense as well as some zone blitz’s (Buddy used to have Dent fall back into coverage sometime, so even back then he was using elements of the zone blitz).
No doubt that if the QB could get the ball off quickly and the receiver could break a tackle or two it could be difficult for the 46 but I’ll take my chances with Buddy and a great group of players.
A great group of players matters anyway. No system will work without that. Almost all teams play some variation of the WCO. Some more than others. Last I looked nobody was really scared of them. the WCO sure looked more imposing with guys like Walsh, Montana, Rice and Roger Craig.
ESPN has a show called SportsCentury. One episode was of the 46 Defense and Buddy Ryan. If you have never seen it and want to let me know and I will send you a copy on DVD. It’s great.
by GeoMak on Mar 13, 2009 12:49 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
My assessment is based ok the fact that the defense
Is no relegated to specialty situations only.
It is not a base D now, and the reason is the use of the WCO. The WCO took advantage of the 46s weaknesses. That’s what my assessment implied.
If I wore a neckbeard I'd be disappointed too.
by scespy12 on Mar 13, 2009 8:31 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's not a base
defense now primarily because Buddy is long gone. With the right coach and the right players it’s still an effective scheme. Rex Ryan runs it about 30% of the time.
Football is a game of adjustments. If Walsh and Ryan had continued on for another decade Ryan would have adjusted his defense to counter what Walsh was doing.
He may have used more of a “zone-blitz” type of scheme to go along with his base 4-3 and 46. I don’t know. Like I said, he used to drop Dent into coverage sometimes. Buddy would have figured something out to counter Walsh.
As I said before, in 1993, about 10 years after the emergence of the WCO, Buddy went to SF and shut down (7 points) the Niners and the WCO. I also have that game on DVD if you would like it.
by GeoMak on Mar 13, 2009 8:51 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Look
I’m not trying to be critical here. Really. You said he used a NT and 3 ends. Actually, if anything it was “closer” to an end and three tackles.
Dent was and DE. McMichael and Perry were DT’s. Hampton played both.
There were times tthere were 3 tackles and an end, but never 3 ends and a tackle.
The 46 was a descendent of the “Double Eagle” scheme of the 40’s and early 50’s. The Double Eagle used a NT over center, two Tackles just outside the Guards and an end outside the Tackle.
That defense used a NT. Buddy never had a NT but often a D-Lineman was lined up as a NT. Perhaps that’s where your confusion stems from.
by GeoMak on Mar 13, 2009 12:27 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Could be...
You might be right I’ll give into superior knowledge. Taught to me second hand from jeff fisher it could be they didn’t understand correctly.
If I wore a neckbeard I'd be disappointed too.
by scespy12 on Mar 13, 2009 12:32 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Am I getting this right?
To be completely frank, I was two months old when the bears won the superbowl.
And then…
Taught to me second hand from jeff fisher it could be they didn’t understand correctly
And I may be way off here, but I’m interpreting this as saying that you are 24/25 years old and learned what you are talking about from Jeff Fischer?
Ryan Perilloux in 2010!!
by Dane Noble on Mar 13, 2009 8:53 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wasalso wondering
exactly what scespy12 meant there.
by GeoMak on Mar 13, 2009 9:04 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am 23
I learned from my brothers girlfriends uncle who played for jeff fisher… I.e secondhand.
If I wore a neckbeard I'd be disappointed too.
by scespy12 on Mar 13, 2009 9:24 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who
is that?
BTW, I stated previously (in my 8:27 post) that overall your post was pretty good (considering you were two months old)!
Just kidding. Seriously it was pretty good.
by GeoMak on Mar 13, 2009 9:33 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks
I look forward to more of your expertise.
If I wore a neckbeard I'd be disappointed too.
by scespy12 on Mar 13, 2009 9:49 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
scespy12
Who was the guy who played for Fisher?
My email address is emgeoff@q.com. If you haven’t seen that 46/Buddy Ryan show on ESPN email me and I will send you a copy.
It’s a great show.
by GeoMak on Mar 13, 2009 9:56 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
We call him chuckie
I don’t know him that well but he has an afc ring. By the way if you have electronic copies, my email is on the position coaches on the bottom.
If I wore a neckbeard I'd be disappointed too.
by scespy12 on Mar 13, 2009 10:25 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
technically not correct on the only defense named after a player..
not to be nitpicky….
Bob Matheson
He joined the Dolphins in 1971 and was a key member of the “53 Defense,” named for his uniform number, helping Miami get to three straight Super Bowls. The Dolphins beat Washington in 1973 and Minnesota in 1974.
by tfrabotta on Mar 12, 2009 10:56 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Thank you...
Thank you… You are right, my bad!
If I wore a neckbeard I'd be disappointed too.
by scespy12 on Mar 12, 2009 9:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I should have looked closer to the labels on the pic...
and not assumed it was correct just beacuse it was on a football website.
But, lucky for you, there is already an accurate pic that has been uploaded to SBN.
Ryan Perilloux in 2010!!
by Dane Noble on Mar 12, 2009 11:25 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Good second try...
But that’s strike two…
Saw that pic already, but it as well doesn’t match buddys D.
It does match rexs though.
If I wore a neckbeard I'd be disappointed too.
by scespy12 on Mar 12, 2009 11:28 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It is more of the basic 46,
just to give an idea. The line is shifted to the weak side, and the center and guards are completely covered. It even shows the right end way out to the side of the LT… creating the “island” that it was designed to create.
But hey, they were mixed and matched a bit too!
Ryan Perilloux in 2010!!
by Dane Noble on Mar 12, 2009 11:34 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I feel if I put something up
It should be exact
If I wore a neckbeard I'd be disappointed too.
by scespy12 on Mar 12, 2009 12:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Man, that was an exciting defense!
I used to hope the offense would get off the field quickly, just to watch the defense in action again. Find a couple of CBs who can jam at the line and bring it back!
by gillrowdy on Mar 12, 2009 11:36 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Bill Walsh and Dan Marino
Killed the 46. The three step drop killed it, definitely.
by GallopingGhost on Mar 12, 2009 12:54 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Walsh and Marino
That’s not true. The Bears lost the NFC Championship game in 1984 against Walsh 23-0 primarily because McMahon didn’t start. We had no offense.
In 85, basically the same two teams (except with McMahon starting) almost the opposite score in a Bear win (26-10).
In 1993, in Buddy Ryan’s only years as the Oiler’s DC, his 46 defense led the way towards 11straight wins.
On Christmas day, Buddy’s Oiler defense went into SF and beat Steve Young and Jerry Rice 10-7.
Anybody that says that Walsh killed the 46 is incorrect.
by GeoMak on Mar 12, 2009 3:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I applaud this post
just because I love this defense. So what if we never see it used by the Bears again. I don’t care what they use as long as they figure out how to stop the pass. I know that offenses seem to evolve more quickly than the defense does so I’m curious as to what the next “new” defense will be.
If things came easy, then everybody would be great at what they did, let's face it.
Mike Ditka
Catch Phrase of the day: YAAAAAAAY! <---- Courtesy of ChiFan13.
by Ditkavsworld on Mar 12, 2009 1:21 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
OK... I'm gonna guess.
It’ll be a base Nickel Defense, with a new hybrid SS/LB… designed to match up with the spread offenses that put 3 or 4 WRs on the field. The hybrid SS/LB is there for run support, since you’re taking one of your LBs off the field to add an extra DB (the nickel back).
"You win because of the quarterback. We have to get that position stabilized. We're fixated on that.
We know it's the most valuable position on the football team. We've gone through so many scenarios at that position we can write a book, moreso on what not do."
-- Jerry Angelo (12.30.2008)
.
by SackMan on Mar 12, 2009 1:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I knew
if anybody came through it’d be you sack. I was thinking it might come down to matching up better with the spread. God knows when Tebow gets to the NFL there will be no defense that contain Mr. Cyanide. :)
If things came easy, then everybody would be great at what they did, let's face it.
Mike Ditka
Catch Phrase of the day: YAAAAAAAY! <---- Courtesy of ChiFan13.
by Ditkavsworld on Mar 12, 2009 1:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Or, a defense that has 7 different
6’2, 225 beasts that can hit, run, jump, and cover all at the same time. (besides the hosses on the DL of course)
Ryan Perilloux in 2010!!
by Dane Noble on Mar 12, 2009 1:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually I got that...
Actually got that coming soon!
You are very sneaky sir…
Are you in my computer now?u
If I wore a neckbeard I'd be disappointed too.
by scespy12 on Mar 12, 2009 2:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
LOL.
"You win because of the quarterback. We have to get that position stabilized. We're fixated on that.
We know it's the most valuable position on the football team. We've gone through so many scenarios at that position we can write a book, moreso on what not do."
-- Jerry Angelo (12.30.2008)
.
by SackMan on Mar 12, 2009 3:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
This would have been perfect for Urlacher
if he weren’t so old.
He played a hybrid LB/SS at New Mexico – the Lobo position!
by torch on Mar 12, 2009 7:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
For the record:
The only two geniuses in the last quarter century, from an X’s and O’s standpoint, were Walsh and his WCO and Buddy and his 46.
Just for the record, Bill Parcells is on record as saying that the 46 defense did more to change Pro Football than the WCO.
by GeoMak on Mar 12, 2009 3:27 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Wow... way to omit 25 years of football history.
"You win because of the quarterback. We have to get that position stabilized. We're fixated on that.
We know it's the most valuable position on the football team. We've gone through so many scenarios at that position we can write a book, moreso on what not do."
-- Jerry Angelo (12.30.2008)
.
by SackMan on Mar 12, 2009 3:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
RE: Wow.
Which part of this don’t you understand. In the last 25 years . . .
What was omitted?
by GeoMak on Mar 12, 2009 3:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
easy answer
the run and shoot.
lock it down.
by tempchad on Mar 12, 2009 3:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The wildcat plus Concrete Cyanaide
= NFL revolution.
Being Who You Thought We Were Since 2005!
by Adam T on Mar 12, 2009 5:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That make my brain hurt...
Ryan Perilloux in 2010!!
by Dane Noble on Mar 12, 2009 5:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
what with this team
doesn’t make your brain hurt?
Being Who You Thought We Were Since 2005!
by Adam T on Mar 12, 2009 6:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow
I honestly can’t give you an answer.
OH! STEWIE!! GET OUT THE WAY BOY! GET OUT THE WAY!
-Stacey King
by ifuwannacrownem on Mar 12, 2009 6:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
sad, isnt' it?
Being Who You Thought We Were Since 2005!
by Adam T on Mar 12, 2009 6:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
According to you... there's only been 2 football X's and O's geniuses in the last 25 years
That’s quite a bold statement.
No need to mention Dick LeBeau and his “zone blitz.” A living football genius/legend who’s blitz has helped taken the Bengals and Steelers to Super Bowls.
Or… how about crediting Sam Wyche, who was the first to implement the “hurry-up offense” as a standard base offense with Boomer Esiason. They fell about 30 seconds short of a SB victory over Bill Walsh, and then saw their offense copied by Marv Levy and Jim Kelly, who went to 4 Super Bowls running a no-huddle.
Or… how about Tony Dungy? Dungy took the Cover 2 he learned as a player and coach with the Steelers under Chuck Knoll and Bud Carson, and basically designed an entire base defense out of that playbook. He and Monte Kiffin transformed it into what has become known as the Tampa 2.
Each of these men transformed the game and effected the outcome of Super Bowl champions.
"You win because of the quarterback. We have to get that position stabilized. We're fixated on that.
We know it's the most valuable position on the football team. We've gone through so many scenarios at that position we can write a book, moreso on what not do."
-- Jerry Angelo (12.30.2008)
.
by SackMan on Mar 12, 2009 7:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
what about the guy
who started the Gatorade dump or to give out hot dogs at games?
Being Who You Thought We Were Since 2005!
by Adam T on Mar 12, 2009 7:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Bears started the gatorade dump... but they never got credit for it.
It was Hampton. or McMichael, or Singletary… I can’t remember. They dumped it first… in the playoffs in ‘84. But, they didn’t do the dump when they won the SB in ‘85. So, it didn’t get caught in the media spotlight. Then… the following year, Harry Carson dumped the bucket on Parcells, and hence: the hoopla and fame.
"You win because of the quarterback. We have to get that position stabilized. We're fixated on that.
We know it's the most valuable position on the football team. We've gone through so many scenarios at that position we can write a book, moreso on what not do."
-- Jerry Angelo (12.30.2008)
.
by SackMan on Mar 13, 2009 2:51 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You miss the point
Try to follow. Only two men are generally given credit for CHANGING the game in the past quarter century.
I never said that they were the only men who fostered innovations in Pro Football.
LeBeau, as great as he is , came AFTER Ryan. Prior to Ryan, the blitz was occasionally used to pressure the QB. After Ryan it became much more of a staple in the game. Buddy, like Hannah said, was the FIRST football coach to realize that the defense had the offense outnumbered. The FIRST. That is the essence of genius. Being the FIRST. Buddy was the FIRST to design an entire defense arround the blitz.
Likewise, Walsh designed an entire system that stretched the field, not VERTICALLY, but HORIZONTALLY.
You can name a list of coaches, as you have, who have done great things and who were excellent coaches. None of them, however, can match Walsh and Ryan when it come to changing the game!
When Bill Parcells says that “The 46 defense did (even) more to change the game than the WCO” that might strike you as a bold statement, but it’s the reality of the situation.
by GeoMak on Mar 12, 2009 9:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah. Sure. According to you...
Don’t tell me that Dick Lebeau, or Sam Wyche, or Tony Dungy were never credited for CHANGING the game. Maybe so by YOUR accounts… but not to the rest of the football world.
My point is… you can’t say that there are only two people in NFL history over the last quarter century who have changed the game. Because it’s a false, narrow minded statement.
And… for the record… Dick Lebeau led a team to the Super Bowl BEFORE Buddy Ryan did. In ‘81, when his Bengals got beat by Walsh… for the first time. He invented the friggin zone blitz. Why don’t you drop your ego, and actually give the man credit, because his achievement is just as great, if not better than Buddy Ryan’s. Ryan’s 46 is extinct at the moment. It’s hasn’t been practiced for over a decade. Meanwhile, Lebeau’s zone blitz just produced another SB champion last February. And you’re gonna tell me that Dick Lebeau has no place in this conversation?
And… talk about CHANGING the game: what do you think Wyche did with his no-huddle offense? He attacked defenses in a way that was never thought of: by keeping them on the field and limiting substitutions. He was so successful (leading the Bengals to the SB in ‘89), that Levy copy-catted it and took the Bills to 4 SBs. Is that not changing the game? Cause apparently to you… it’s not even a footnote in football history.
And Tony Dungy pioneered a defense and a coaching tree that made a stamp on this league for the last decade… sending three Tampa 2 defenses to the SB (The Bucs, Colts, and Bears), and nurturing a slew of future head coaches (Herm Edwards, Lovie Smith, Rod Marinelli, and Mike Tomlin) . But, I guess… according to you… that has no impact on the league or football history.
"You win because of the quarterback. We have to get that position stabilized. We're fixated on that.
We know it's the most valuable position on the football team. We've gone through so many scenarios at that position we can write a book, moreso on what not do."
-- Jerry Angelo (12.30.2008)
.
by SackMan on Mar 13, 2009 2:37 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Again
You miss the point: I said there have only been two GENIUSES, from an X and O standpoint in the past Quarter Century. You quote me as saying this:
Don’t tell me that Dick Lebeau, or Sam Wyche, or Tony Dungy were never credited for CHANGING the game. Maybe so by YOUR accounts… but not to the rest of the football world.
See the diffrerence? Again and listen CLOSE: I’m not saying that those two (Ryan & Walsh) were the only ones to introduce an innovation to the game. OK.
Nobody, in the history of the NFL has EVER called Tony Dungy an X and O genius. OK. fact is, the Tampa Two was developed by both Dungy AND Monte Kiffin. The fact that a lot of teams use it doesn’t mean it “CHANGED THE GAME”, at least on the level that Ryan did. It’s a copycat league and a number of teams use the “Cover Two” defense. There are a lot of different schemes and variations on those schemes in the league.
Dick LeBeau led a team to the SB BEFORE Buddy Ryan. Son, are you kidding me? Ryan was the D-Line coach of the SB WINNING Jets, long before LeBeau led his team to the SB. Beyond that, back then, he wasn’t using the “zone-blitz.” As I tried to explain to you earlier, the zone-blitz came about AFTER LeBeau (like everyone else) saw how effective the blitz was a staple of a defensive philosophy, thanks to Buddy Ryan.
Fact is I DO give LeBeau credit. I said so in my 7:14 post. He didn’t, however, CHANGE the game like Ryan did in the early 80’s. Yeah, he’s still coaching now and Buddy is long gone so I hope he’s doing more than Buddy.
Wyche? Nice wrinkle. But comparing that to something like the WCO is kinda ignorant. The WCO was an entire system. The “No-Huddle” is just that. It’s almost like the “Shot-Gun” formation. You either line up under center or in the Shotgun. You either huddle up or you don’t. It’s a nice wrinkle but hardly changed the game like Walsh did. Bill Walsh is probably rolling over in his grave over that kind of thinking.
See your problem SackMan is that you don’t comprehend too well and you PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH (that I never said)! Like this:
But, I guess… according to you… that has no impact on the league or football history.
I have NEVER said that! EVER. But that doesn’t stop you from putting those words in my mouth.
In closing (try to follow along), this was my original statement:
The only two geniuses in the last quarter century, from an X’s and O’s standpoint, were Walsh and his WCO and Buddy and his 46.
Later I said that there were only two men given credit for CHANGING the game in the past quarter century.
Perhaps this is where your confusion comes from. You need to read BOTH of those statements together. When I later commented on only those two “Changing the Game” I meant at the level that they did (GENIUS).
Obviously, others have impacted and “changed” the game, so to speak. Just not at the level of those two.
There is NOTHING I have said that says that nobody else had any impact in the game or even changed the game. NOTHING. Really. Check my posts at 1:27 & 7:14. All those words you put in my mouth are just that: WORDS YOU PUT IN MY MOUTH!
The reason I make that statement (about genius and changing the game) is because of this:
A) Buddy Ryan was the FIRST coach to show that constant pressure on the QB through the blitz can not only be effective against an offense but also can dominate an offense. It was Ryan’s philosophy about “Pressuring the QB” which lies at the heart of his 46 defense. As Rex Ryan (who still runs the scheme) puts it:
“The 46 philosophy is designed around a simple concept: Pressure wins games.”
Nobody, before Buddy Ryan, in the history of the game, ever designed and ran a defensive system whose primary goal was to get as much pressure on the QB and the offense.
The actual scheme (who rushes from where) comes AFTER the goal of “Pressure wins games.”
So when you discount the “scheme” in that it’s not used very much now you miss the point about “Pressuring the QB.” ALL teams now understand the importance of this concept. The fact is, the only game the Patriots lost in 2007 is the one game whereby their QB was pressured throughout the game.
Ryan was the FIRST to coach in this manner from the defensive side of the ball. Those that do things “first” are usually considered pioneers or geniuses in their field. It DOESN’T mean that those that follow, for years and then decades, won’t come up with ideas of their own. It just means that, from a football standpoint and an X and O standpoint, Ryan was a genius and that’s why Bill Parcells (no slouch when it comes to Pro-Football) syas that the 46 did more to change Pro-Football than the WCO.
Speaking of the WCO, Walsh was the first to realize that an offensive can control the clock AND hit big plays using a short, quick horizontal passing game.
Walsh: Almost all teams use some variation of his WCO in their offense (some more than others)
.
Ryan: All teams, in varying degrees, NOW recognize (thanks to Ryan) the need to pressure the QB, as oppsed to just letting him comfortably sit back in the pocket and pick the defense apart.
Through their genius, those two men did the most to CHANGE the game of Pro-Football in the past quarter century.
by GeoMak on Mar 13, 2009 8:44 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
While nobody's trying to minimize the great significance of
Walsh and Ryan’s thinking… I just have to go back to my original argument: that to say they are the only two football geniuses in the last quarter century is narrow minded.
Walsh adapted what Mouse Davis had done with the spread offense, and created his own horizontal philosophy out of it. It was very forward thinking of him.
Ryan went all out after the QB.
All teams, in varying degrees, NOW recognize (thanks to Ryan) the need to pressure the QB, as oppsed to just letting him comfortably sit back in the pocket and pick the defense apart.
But to say that teams never recognized the importance of pressuring the QB prior to Ryan is laughable, when HOF DEs like Deacon Jones (60s) and our very own Doug Atkins (50s) made careers out of terrorizing QBs.
The other men I mentioned (Lebeau, Wyche, Dungy) also had ideas, which were adapted or evolved from other things, which gave their teams a strategic advantage and forced the opposition to react and find ways to defend it. That, to me, falls under the category of genius.
"You win because of the quarterback. We have to get that position stabilized. We're fixated on that.
We know it's the most valuable position on the football team. We've gone through so many scenarios at that position we can write a book, moreso on what not do."
-- Jerry Angelo (12.30.2008)
.
by SackMan on Mar 13, 2009 2:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Those guys (Deacon and Atkins)
were D-Linemen. I never said that defenders didn’t rush the passer, or that there even was occasionally blitzing before Buddy’s time. I never said that D-Linemen didn’t pressure the QB. Of COURSE they did.
Let’s go back to what John Hannah said (and I have this on DVD if you want it) “Buddy Ryan was the FIRST football coach to realize that the defense had the offense outnumbered.”
John Hannah was one of the greatest guards to EVER play the game. I think he was voted one of the 50 or 100 best NFL players of all time. What did Hannah mean by this?
Before Buddy, the defensive line and sometimes an occasional LB or Safety would rush the QB. But basically, defenses were somewhat conservative.
Buddy suddenly realized that they were 11 men on defense but really, only 10 men on offense. The eleventh was the QB. One of the all-time great scrambling QB’s played in the 70’s (Fran Tarkenton). The Bears, of course had a pretty good “running” QB in Bobby Douglas.
QB’s, of course, have been known to also go out for passes. That said, the QB, primarily stands in the pocket and either hands off or passes. He really doesn’t block, run or catch. If he does run, they usually don’t do it often or for too long, as it really doesn’t work “long-term” in the NFL. Basically, the QB stands apart from the other 10 members of the offense.
What Buddy basically realized is that he had 11 guys against what essentially were 10 guys on offense. Buddy’s genius was in recognizing that and in having a philosophy that he’d send as many men as necessary so as to either sack the QB or make him uncomfortable. He already was working with an extra guy on the house, so to speak, but if need be, he’d send others. Whatever it took to keep the QB from developing any kind of rhythm in the pocket was Buddy’s goal.
Also, the intimidation factor. In the 1984 playoff game against the Redskins, Todd Bell laid out Joe washington with a vicious, helmet-to-helmet shot that broke Washington’s face mask and caused a key fumble. As Joe Theismann later recalled “Calvin Muhammad later on caught a pass in the middle of the field with nobody around him and almost immediately dropped the ball, due to the "intimidation factor” set forth by the Bear defense.
That’s way, in 1984 and on up, you saw the a defense that, for the first time looked like a jailbreak. Like controlled chaos. The likes of which had never been seen before (or really since).
His philosophy of pressuring the QB at all costs greatly influenced guys like LeBeau and all other defensive coaches going forward.
That’s why Parcells says that Buddy’s defense did more to change the game than the WCO. That’s just his opinion, of course, but Parcells has the credentials here.
Nobody, least of all myself, ever said that other’s didn’t have ideas which were eventually used by other teams. From a defensive standpoint, however, NOBODY did more to change the game than Buddy Ryan. Nobody.
As far as Mouse Davis, I’m not sure what you’re talking about there. Davis was the forefather of the “Run & Shoot” offense, which bears little resemblance to the WCO. Walsh was influenced most by Sid Gillman, the father of the modern pro passing game. That said, Gillman stretched the field vertically; Walsh designed his system to stretch the field horizontally.
On the Mount Rushmore of NFL coaches in the past quarter century, Ryan and Walsh sit atop all others, due to their influence on offensive and defensive football.
by GeoMak on Mar 13, 2009 9:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Walsh had many influences...
Sid Gillman, Don Coryell and Lavell Edwards at the forefront…. Paul Brown, Al Davis and Marv Levy at the back front. Fun fact: Walsh actually coached defense under Levy at California.
While it may have been erroneous of me to claim Walsh based his offense from Mouse Davis, the two of them were contemporaries who borrowed ideas from eachother as well as others… that’s what coaches do. Davis used philosophies from Coryell, Ernie Zampese and Walsh… and vice versa, even though the men were not linked by coaching together.
As, i went on to search and read more about the roots of the WCO, I discovered Edwards prominance in the development. Walsh, Coryell, and Edwards were coaching peers and friends… and they built the concepts of the WCO offense together over a period of 5-6 years. Edwards was already implementing these ideas at BYU, and Walsh and Coryell collaborated with him and helped refined it.
However, if it weren’t for Virgil Carter replacing Greg Cook at QB… Walsh may have not found the need to implement the system in the NFL (as you briefly mentioned earlier). Cook had the arm strength to get the ball downfield, and Walsh was running his Gillman inspired vertical offense with Cook averaging 17.5 yards per pass (an incredible clip).
When Cook blew out his shoulder, the weak armed Carter replaced him, and Walsh knew he had to change the offense. Carter had already run the offense at BYU under Edwards… where Carter completed something like 70% of his passes (because of the short, timing based passing attack), and also ran for a ton of yards. They won a Conference Championship in ’66.
Walsh finally implemented it at the NFL level, and further evolved it over the years with many influences. One of the minor influences was Davis, who had brought the Run & Shoot to the forefront in the mid 70s at Portland State. And now… today many teams at the collegiate and NFL level have further evolved the WCO and the Run and Shoot together to create principles of the new “Spread” offense.
Tim Marcum, the famous Arena Football coach, who coached under Mouse Davis, is quoted as saying,
“He [Mouse Davis] made it famous. … He just opened up the game. And people like Bill Walsh and Mike Shanahan, you ask them, and they’ll tell you that Mouse Davis has had as much to do with the ‘West Coast’ offense as anyone.”
It’s been a fun discussion… now it’s time to move on to another one.
"You win because of the quarterback. We have to get that position stabilized. We're fixated on that.
We know it's the most valuable position on the football team. We've gone through so many scenarios at that position we can write a book, moreso on what not do."
-- Jerry Angelo (12.30.2008)
.
by SackMan on Mar 14, 2009 12:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Beyond That
You left out this: All coaches “learn and somewhat borrow” from one another. Joe Gibbs recently confessed that he essentially stole his “Counter Trey” from Tom Osbourne of Nebraska.
Like I said earlier – Walsh didn’t invent the short pass anymore than Ryan invented the blitz.
However, Walsh and Ryan combined their “X’s and O’s” ideas and theories, with the actual, hands on coaching of players, as well as the “in game” playcalling, that turned their “ideas” into complete dominance at the NFL level, resulting in SB trophies and influencing all offensive and defensive systems thereafter.
It’s all well and good to have theories and ideas. Beyond that is the practical application of those ideas.
That’s why they stand above all others. It’s their X’s and O’s, combined with hands on coaching and in game playcalling that produced offense and defense played at it’s highest level in the NFL.
by GeoMak on Mar 14, 2009 12:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
RE: easy answer
You’re not understanding. I’m talking “successful” not gimicky. OK.
Bill Walsh changed the game by employing a horizontal passing game to contol the clock. Rather that have a RB run INTO the line-of-scrimmage, he wanted his QB to take a quick drop and pass the ball right OVER the line-of-scrimmage to a slanting WR, for example. He wanted to control the clock with the running game and, more importantly with the short passing game.
Ex-Bear Virgil Carter was Walsh’s inspiration for the WCO while both were in Cincinnati. Carter was a weak-armed QB who could only throw about 20 yards downfield with any accuracy. Walsh started to design his “horizontal” passing system to succed with the weak-armed Carter.
Buddy Ryan, in the words of HOF guard John Hannah, was the “First football coach to realize that the defense has the offense out numbered.”
Just like Walsh didn’t invent the short pass, Buddy didn’t invent the blitz. That said, because the defense has the offense outnumbered, Buddy was going to send as many defenders as need to make the QB uncomfortable in the pocket (if not knock him out of the game).
by GeoMak on Mar 12, 2009 4:08 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Buddy Ryan
started out as an assistant with the Jets in the late 60s. that’s about all I know. not sure what he was doing at that time.
by Hatchetm on Mar 13, 2009 6:52 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Jets
He was the D-Line coach of the 69 SB winning Jets. He then went to Minnesota. Before Buddy went to Phoenix in 1994 Sports Illustrated ran a great, long story about Buddy. Here is a link to that story:
http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1005392/1/index.htm
by GeoMak on Mar 13, 2009 9:08 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
That '85 team had a scary defense....
Everytime someone talk to me about the bears, that 85 bears defense come up….Npw that was a defense that carried them to the superbowl……..we have spot shadows of that defense now, like when we went to our 2nd SB against the colts…….even if i don’t stay in the Windy City anymore……I will always root, cheer, and curse at my TV screen when the refs call a BS call……DA BEARS!!!!!!!!!
by junior1974 on Mar 15, 2009 12:54 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

by 


















