Big Blue Huddle

When Tom Coughlin introduced Steve Spagnulo as the Giants new Defensive Coordinator, a year ago, he made particular mention of his familiarity with the Fire Zone philosophy. He didn't say Fire Zone blitz, even though he could expect it to be inferred. What he was referring to was more than scheme, it was a mindset which recognizes that pressure on the opposing Quarterback has become essential to successful pass defense, and with it to overall success on defense.

But what does Fire Zone mean in more specific and practical terms; how does it work? The first element of the Fire Zone is to rush more defensive players than the offense has blockers to account for them. It can involve both numbers and location. Almost always, it involves rushing more than four defensive players which means at least five whether playing a 4-3 or 3-4 front. And that constitutes a blitz.

However, that's not all which is involved. Its essence is to blitz unpredictably with linebackers, defensive backs and combinations of both while keeping the Secondary from being undermanned and exposed by dropping one or more Dlinemen into zone pass coverage.

Dropping linemen into zone pass coverage often mean zone coverage behind them, but not always. There may still be man-coverage, and even a double on the opponents best receiver. It does seem. however, that the Giants most often play a three deep zone behind their blitzes which they employ on average about 12-15 times a game.

Whatever shell is played behind the blitz, it is important that the rushers get at least enough pressure to hurry the QB, and that those who aren't rushing clog the passing lanes, and try to identify the hot receiver. 

So, we have blitz (rushing five or more players) and zone blitz ( Dlinemen dropping into coverage), where then does the term, Fire Zone come in? Although not precisely defined, it is considered to mean creating a fire zone or clear path for a blitzer to the QB by overloading one side of a blocking scheme. That may be accomplished not only by attacking with a second blitzer, but also by stunting and looping Dlineman so that they don't rush straight ahead from their original position but overload one side of the offensive protection.

While strictly speaking the term, Fire Zone means blitzing and a propensity to blitz- not all the time, but at almost any time, in almost any situation- certain of its fundamental elements have been employed by the Giants without actually blitzing. For example, it's not uncommon when the Giants are playing their Four Aces package to see them stunt or loop Dlineman while dropping one into coverage and adding a Linebacker to the rush often through a gap vacated by a Dlineman.  Only four rushers, but with a look that can be as confusing to the QB as if there were more. Any extra fraction of a second he takes to figure out that it's only four is to the defense's advantage.

I suppose we could sum it up by saying that the Fire Zone philosophy is to aggressively apply pass rush pressure on the opposing Quarterback by employing extra rushers from any and all angles at any time with the conviction that the more a quarterback is attacked, the more are the chances he is going to be hit, and the more he is hit, the more innacurate he'll become.

How effective were they in attacking?  How about a season with 53 sacks, 61 knockdowns, and 45 hurries. That doesn't include what they did in postseason including the Super Bowl when they sacked and hit Brady a combined 23 times. Philosophically sound it would seem.

Cheers!

Even the terms, Strong Safety, and Free Safety don't tell all of the story. The term, Strong Safety derives from the fact that he lines up on the strong side to support run defense, and may have man-coverage responsibility for the TE. The Free Safety has no man-coverage responsibilty and is thus "free" to roam.

Of course, in a Cover 2 Zone both safeties defend the deep areas (halves) of field.  In such case, they could just as well be referred to as strong and weak safeties or, as in the manner of CBs, just left and right safeties.

In a Cover 3 Zone, which divides and defends the deep area in thirds, it is not unusual for a Cornerback to be positioned to the outside third which is most likely to be challenged by the opponent's deep threat, or fastest WR on a 9 route Go.

And finally, when the Strong Safety is playing close to the LOS, perhaps in the box, on an expected running play, the Free Safety is likely to be playing in a single high safety position to protect against a deep throw off play action.

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."

-Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)

[Cheers!

The terms, Cornerback and Safety are simply terms which defines the areas of responsibilty which those players have. It doesn't matter what you call them, the responsibilties are still the same. If you can put 4, 5, or more players in the Seconday on the field who can who defend the run and cover Tight Ends as well as Wide Receivers, you can label them on the roster any way you wish. There roles and responsibilities don't chance.

You've actually answered your own question when you mention Nickle and Dime. That as much as anything has been the response to the more pass oriented offense. So also have zone defenses.

If you can find a guy with the speed and coverage skills usually associated with a CB who you can play in high coverage like a FS, then great. But he'll still be called a Safety because he does have, among other things. a deep pass coverage responsibility.

We could call them all DBs, but they'd still have the same kinds of positioning on the field and roles in the game as they have now.   

Cheers! 

Once again a thread which has meandered far from its subject and intent. But no harm done, I suppose.

Cheers!

It's never entirely fair to compare one unit of a defense to another while ignoring the influence of the other seven or eight players such as in the case of the Giants and Saints four man LB corps, or pre-Cowher Steelers' 3 man.

However, while I think that it could be a toss up between those Giants and Steelers units, I can pick the Giants without any hint of embarassment. However, as much as I appreciate the talent of that Saints unit, I have to consider that they never quite got it done. Perhaps, it's unfair to them, but that's the way diddly poo crumbles, sometimes.

The problem inherent in all such comparisons is that in elevating one, it can't help but appear to slightly diminish the others. Of course, the purpose is to engender a bit of harmless controversy, not to trigger some long forgotten bonus clause in those player's contracts.

Cheers!