Why This Is Going To Be A Great Season

[3irty1]

Hyperboles aside, I don't think 3 WR on the field should automatically mean nickel or dime defense. The down and distance is just as important IMO.

[MadScientist]

If you can't cover 3 WR's with 4 DB's - then you should be selling insurance instead of coordinating an NFL defense.

Hyperboles aside, I don't think 3 WR on the field should automatically mean nickel or dime defense. The down and distance is just as important IMO.

Sure, on 3rd and short you gear up to stop the run in that formation, but otherwise it is an advantage to the offense to have 3 WR and 1 TE vs 4 DB. The way a defense can make it work is if you have 1) a safety that can really cover a WR (Woodson, hopefully Hyde), 2) another safety that can really play center field (Collins yes, Burnett ?), and LB's who can handle the TE in one way or another. If you have the personnel to do it, great, otherwise nickel is your best bet.

Flip it around. If you were a DC going up against the Packers and they came out 3 WR, 1 TE and Lacy, what would you do? Would you seriously go with 4 DB?

[pbmax]

If you can't cover 3 WR's with 4 DB's - then you should be selling insurance instead of coordinating an NFL defense.

Add to those 4 DB's - a supposedly adept cover LB like Jones... and if it's a pass, both Jones and Hawk are going to drop - Jones, Hawk, and probably 1 of the OLB's.

You can't cover 3 WR's and 1 TE with 6 guys in coverage??

By dunderdummy's reckoning, and the brainwashed Packer masses - it would seem an absolute impossibility.

If it is an impossiblity to cover anyone out of base - then we should never run base - which we don't run much anyway... so why not just scrap it altogether?? Stopping the run isn't even a consideration for Dom, so why have any DL over 280 lbs at all??

Hyperboles aside, I don't think 3 WR on the field should automatically mean nickel or dime defense. The down and distance is just as important IMO.

Of course there are situations (certain down and distance or even more likely field position-goal to go) that don't call automatically for nickel.

But using nickel to combat 3x1 in typical situations was a lesson finally learned in the NFL by the last hold out Broncos when the 49ers tore their simple 4-3 Cover 2 to shreds in the Super Bowl which yielded a 55 to Doesn't Matter final score. John Taylor said at the time, this offense (both the original Walsh and the Holmgren 3x1 variation) was designed to pull apart the kinds of coverages you get from a base D, especially a Cover 2.

You have 7 in coverage assuming no blitz and almost always one (if not two) is deep safety. That's 6 to cover 4; you can double 2 which leaves 2 in single coverage. And those single coverages can be manipulated to put a LB on a WR or TE at will. See the Packers opening game against the 49ers when Perry was in coverage on Michael Crabtree.

You can play base or you can blitz in your nickel, but if its a medium to short yardage situation, you are playing with fire since the offense is happy with a quick throw.

[wist43]

Hyperboles aside, I don't think 3 WR on the field should automatically mean nickel or dime defense. The down and distance is just as important IMO.

That's been my point all along.