The role of scheme

[skibrett15]

Want to open up discussion on what the role of scheme is on offense and defense.  I'm going to focus more on defense since it's simpler, but it's important to recognize that defense scheme is reactionary, and a response to what NFL offenses are doing during the given week, given year, or given era.

 

For me, the primary job of scheme is to make imperfect NFL players into successful NFL contributors.  The secondary role of scheme is to adapt your playcalls and designs to empower smart players who are good NFL talents to become true NFL stars.

Now, when you bridge a scheme into a NFL personnel department, it allows you to find VALUE in certain positions/body types where other teams cannot find value.  Perfect example was NE and SD in the early/mid 2000s adopting the 3-4 "tweener" bodies before other NFL teams.  Richard Seymour, SD's OLB pass rushers... these teams found value in personnel that other teams ignored because of the way their scheme worked.

 

A few examples:

1) Carolina with their scheme makes average to poor talent cornerbacks into successful NFL zone corners.  Their scheme allows these players to succeed where they would fail in other schemes.  Similarly, their scheme allows players like Thomas Davis and Luke Keuchly to be even more impressive than they would be on other teams because of the impressive players in their front 4.

2) The Vikings allow Harrison smith, a good but not all-time athlete, to be one of the best players in the NFL.  This is more the secondary role of scheme - empowering good players to be excellent.  Their scheme allows for the S to do many many things, and they grew their scheme to adapt to a great NFL player.  A similar case can be made for Morgan Burnett this year and Malcom Jenkins in Philadelphia.

[Packerraymond]

Our scheme allows instinctive slot CBs, Woodson, Hayward (hopefully Randall) to become high INT players.

Our DL and OLBs are pretty standard for a 3-4, albeit the zone blitz aspect gives them the chance of dropping into some weird coverages (BJ Raji, Johnny Jolly INTs).

Safeties are kind of interchangeable. 

Dom uses talent differently, Des Bishop played ILB different from AJ Hawk and Nick Collins differently from HHCD, etc. 

I'm a firm believer in our scheme, think we could use a new voice calling it, but I have no real desire to stop being a zone blitz 3-4 team.

[MacReady]

I want a scheme where the only thing that matters is execution so players aren't left scratching their heads when something goes wrong.  I'll always want this for as long as we are a draft and develop team.  Until we have a group of 11 defensive starters in which more than one player has ever played for a different team, I don't want a challenging or confusing or complicated or complex defense. 

I feel like Kevin King, Damarious Randall, Rollins, Clinton-Dix and Josh Jones have all struggled because of Dom Capers and his scheme in one or more ways. 

[CWood21]

38 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

I'm a firm believer in our scheme, think we could use a new voice calling it, but I have no real desire to stop being a zone blitz 3-4 team.

I don't really have any issue with the zone blitz scheme, but it's also something you need to recognize that if the offense has the correct playcall/protection in place, it's going to lead to big gains.  There's a real risk vs reward discussion with the scheme.  Where as you play a predominantly zone coverage-based scheme you're pretty much trying to keep things in front of you, and not risk the big play.

[skibrett15]

So, talk about what you want, but what I want to discuss is the role of scheme:

 Is the role of scheme (Not specific to GB) to allow the FO to find value in mediocre players and to make good players great?

Is that the right definition? Any additions to that?

From there, we can look at Ray's point

56 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

Our scheme allows instinctive slot CBs, Woodson, Hayward (hopefully Randall) to become high INT players.

Our DL and OLBs are pretty standard for a 3-4, albeit the zone blitz aspect gives them the chance of dropping into some weird coverages (BJ Raji, Johnny Jolly INTs).

Safeties are kind of interchangeable. 

If the scheme allows instinctive slot CBs to thrive... is it a competitive advantage?  Does it make slot CBs worth more to GB than to other schemes?  Are those players undervalued?  Does it allow young players to succeed immediately?  Does it allow you to turn slightly washed veterans who are crafty into studs?  Does it require a huge investment at a specific position relative to other schemes?

Is the scheme itself better than other schemes vs the current cross-section of NFL offenses?

[Packerraymond]

22 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

I don't really have any issue with the zone blitz scheme, but it's also something you need to recognize that if the offense has the correct playcall/protection in place, it's going to lead to big gains.  There's a real risk vs reward discussion with the scheme.  Where as you play a predominantly zone coverage-based scheme you're pretty much trying to keep things in front of you, and not risk the big play.

That's a play call vs formation/personnel issue not scheme. If a team can watch film and say, when we're in this formation, with these guys on the field, they're going to run "X" that's on Dom for becoming predictable, the scheme allows for almost endless amounts of combinations of personnel, coverage, blitz etc...

[Packerraymond]

8 minutes ago, skibrett15 said:

So, talk about what you want, but what I want to discuss is the role of scheme:

 Is the role of scheme (Not specific to GB) to allow the FO to find value in mediocre players and to make good players great?

Is that the right definition? Any additions to that?

From there, we can look at Ray's point

If the scheme allows instinctive slot CBs to thrive... is it a competitive advantage?  Does it make slot CBs worth more to GB than to other schemes?  Are those players undervalued?  Does it allow young players to succeed immediately?  Does it allow you to turn slightly washed veterans who are crafty into studs?  Does it require a huge investment at a specific position relative to other schemes?

Is the scheme itself better than other schemes vs the current cross-section of NFL offenses?

I've never been a fan of plugging players to a scheme, rather a scheme to the players you have. Draft good football players and tailor the way you play to them.

That's how the Seahawks/Falcons style defense came to be. The athletes became before the scheme.

[skibrett15]

Just now, Packerraymond said:

I've never been a fan of plugging players to a scheme, rather a scheme to the players you have. Draft good football players and tailor the way you play to them.

That's how the Seahawks/Falcons style defense came to be. The athletes became before the scheme.

right, I agree.  Do you think that's how the GB defense is/has been run?

[Packerraymond]

Just now, skibrett15 said:

right, I agree.  Do you think that's how the GB defense is/has been run?

By Ted yes, by Dom no. I think Ted takes BPA and hopes Dom can make it work. I'm sure Dom would prefer some more length, athletic ability than he got prior to the 2017 draft.

[gizmo2012]

1 hour ago, Packerraymond said:

Our scheme allows instinctive slot CBs, Woodson, Hayward (hopefully Randall) to become high INT players.

Our DL and OLBs are pretty standard for a 3-4, albeit the zone blitz aspect gives them the chance of dropping into some weird coverages (BJ Raji, Johnny Jolly INTs).

Safeties are kind of interchangeable. 

Dom uses talent differently, Des Bishop played ILB different from AJ Hawk and Nick Collins differently from HHCD, etc. 

I'm a firm believer in our scheme, think we could use a new voice calling it, but I have no real desire to stop being a zone blitz 3-4 team.

Packers still have front 7 on defense personnel problems. LB depth not good and there is not 1 of the DL that are consistently good pass rushers. The team has done a very good job stopping the run but lack of QB pressures is killing a mediocre secondary. 

[LargeFarva]

I think scheme is overrated. It's important for putting players in positions to succeed, but there are probably a dozen other factors more important to a player's or a team's success (and failure). Josh Norman, Thomas Davis, Luke Kuechly, and Harrison Smith aren't "allowed to succeed" by their teams scheme, they succeed because they are talented, athletic, smart, etc. If anything, they are the ones that allow the scheme to be successful. The Packers nitro D benefits from Morgan Burnett, not the other way around.

[skibrett15]

36 minutes ago, gizmo2012 said:

Packers still have front 7 on defense personnel problems. LB depth not good and there is not 1 of the DL that are consistently good pass rushers. The team has done a very good job stopping the run but lack of QB pressures is killing a mediocre secondary. 

not the thread for this conversation IMO.

26 minutes ago, LargeFarva said:

I think scheme is overrated. It's important for putting players in positions to succeed, but there are probably a dozen other factors more important to a player's or a team's success (and failure). Josh Norman, Thomas Davis, Luke Kuechly, and Harrison Smith aren't "allowed to succeed" by their teams scheme, they succeed because they are talented, athletic, smart, etc. If anything, they are the ones that allow the scheme to be successful. The Packers nitro D benefits from Morgan Burnett, not the other way around.

Josh Norman is an example of being unnecessary due to scheme.  Good player, potentially game breaking player, but not in a position to best succeed because of scheme, and therefore allowed to leave Carolina for a team that valued him more.

Your point is taken though... the scheme needs to wrap around the players and their unique skills.  To me that doesn't make scheme overrated at all.

Sometimes, though, that "skill" is not an athletic trait but rather versatility and intelligence... which is where Harrison Smith fits right in as a player who I think benefits from scheme.  Because Harrison Smith is capable of doing everything, the scheme allows him to do that, which in turn makes him and the team better. While he would be fine  and above average in Earl Thomas' role, he's much better and the Vikings are better with Smith doing his thing. 

You can say that they can only do that because they have smith... fine.  But it's just as true that they built some things for smith into that defense, and the coaches mix up his responsibilities which messes with opposing offenses, sows confusion, and creates results and turnovers.

[MantyWrestler]

6 hours ago, Packerraymond said:

By Ted yes, by Dom no. I think Ted takes BPA and hopes Dom can make it work. I'm sure Dom would prefer some more length, athletic ability than he got prior to the 2017 draft.

I’m sorry but I don’t believe Ted takes best player available. He takes best player at a position of need. Far too many examples to list here.

[Spartacus]

17 hours ago, LargeFarva said:

I think scheme is overrated. It's important for putting players in positions to succeed, but there are probably a dozen other factors more important to a player's or a team's success (and failure). Josh Norman, Thomas Davis, Luke Kuechly, and Harrison Smith aren't "allowed to succeed" by their teams scheme, they succeed because they are talented, athletic, smart, etc. If anything, they are the ones that allow the scheme to be successful. The Packers nitro D benefits from Morgan Burnett, not the other way around.

I agree with all of this. Scheme can help a good player be great and there are players that I think need scheme more that others. At the end of the day though football is simple. You have to beat the man you are going up against. That goes for the O line, D line, LBs, Corners, pretty much every position. Scheming can assist with putting players in more favorable positions but at the end of the day you have to beat the guy you are going against. Especially for positions like dedicated pass rushers or O line. 

[CWood21]

On 11/16/2017 at 1:56 PM, Packerraymond said:

That's a play call vs formation/personnel issue not scheme. If a team can watch film and say, when we're in this formation, with these guys on the field, they're going to run "X" that's on Dom for becoming predictable, the scheme allows for almost endless amounts of combinations of personnel, coverage, blitz etc...

They tie hand in hand IMO.  There's no such thing as a perfect scheme.  One scheme might have a strength in one area, while another will have a weakness in the same area.  I'm of the belief that you can have the "best" defensive play called but if the offense has the right play call it will beat the defense.  I also believe in the concept of talent wins on defense, scheme wins on offense.