Denzel Ward

[Out of the Rafters at the Q]

If we grabbed a DC that forces players into a scheme rather than scheming for players' success, this season is going to be significantly less enjoyable than it could be.

 

[Jack Brickman]

If we grabbed a DC that forces players into a scheme rather than scheming for players' success, this season is going to be significantly less enjoyable than it could be.

Seems to go directly against Freddie's coaching style too.

 

[Jordan]

I dunno... we'll see.

My guess is Wilks uses a cover 1/3 scheme. I have issues with those form an analytical perspective, but, both can be run in such a way that your two outside corners are effectively in man coverage.

I just worry that Wilks overvalues how these zone defenses prevent short yardage. Gregg's defense was rightfully criticized, but from a broad strategic standpoint, he had the right idea: prevent downfield throws and generate pressure on the QB. Force your opponent to run and make short throws. You can do that with whatever system best fits your players.

Nonetheless, Wilks is historically a really strong defensive coach. I'll be more worried if we start the season and Ward and Greedy are not playing man coverage or press-zone coverage. Until then, though, I'll save my concerns.

My ultimate belief is Wilks uses a press-cover 3 like the Seahawks. He did this a bit in Carolina and it makes sense for the Browns. It is a zone defense, but sees the two outside corners press the receivers and then trail back. It prevents long passes on the outside of the field and plays to the strengths of our cornerbacks. It does require the linebackers to be good in coverage and a safety who can read the field and save a cornerback who gets beat, but otherwise it is a pretty safe for our team, especially with Randall.

The weakness in the press-cover 3 is if you do not have good man-corners. We do. So I am less concerned. If Ward or Greedy get hurt, we'll probably need to transition to a more zone-heavy look, at least on one side of the field.

 

[Kbiz]

I am not that concerned. At the end of the day, Freddie and Dorsey are calling the shots and if we learned anything from last year, we know that they're pretty good at adapting on the fly to fit player strengths.

Wilks likes to blitz and we have the guys to do that at a tremendous clip. Zone makes sense if you're rushing 5-6 guys at a time because it helps take away the quick slant routes that you'd utilize to try to beat that type of rush.

My only issue is that it Ward would actually get better throughout the game when he was assigned to simply blanket #1's and would hate to see that aspect of his game change because it somewhat changes his competitive mentality. He faced quite the gamut of WR's last year and rarely got beat consistently.

 

[CBBI]

I dunno... we'll see.

My guess is Wilks uses a cover 1/3 scheme. I have issues with those form an analytical perspective, but, both can be run in such a way that your two outside corners are effectively in man coverage.

I just worry that Wilks overvalues how these zone defenses prevent short yardage. Gregg's defense was rightfully criticized, but from a broad strategic standpoint, he had the right idea: prevent downfield throws and generate pressure on the QB. Force your opponent to run and make short throws. You can do that with whatever system best fits your players.

Nonetheless, Wilks is historically a really strong defensive coach. I'll be more worried if we start the season and Ward and Greedy are not playing man coverage or press-zone coverage. Until then, though, I'll save my concerns.

My ultimate belief is Wilks uses a press-cover 3 like the Seahawks. He did this a bit in Carolina and it makes sense for the Browns. It is a zone defense, but sees the two outside corners press the receivers and then trail back. It prevents long passes on the outside of the field and plays to the strengths of our cornerbacks. It does require the linebackers to be good in coverage and a safety who can read the field and save a cornerback who gets beat, but otherwise it is a pretty safe for our team, especially with Randall.

The weakness in the press-cover 3 is if you do not have good man-corners. We do. So I am less concerned. If Ward or Greedy get hurt, we'll probably need to transition to a more zone-heavy look, at least on one side of the field.

Excellent post.

I’m not incredibly worried about this whole zone thing right now either, especially if the Browns front four can stay healthy and is able to generate the kind of pressure most expect.

I do think people hear the word “zone” and collectively default their thought process to “all 6-8 players who aren’t rushing the passer are playing a soft area of the field and letting receivers run free around them” and that’s not really accurate.

There are ways, in essence, to play man and zone at the same time as @jking948 so eloquently laid out.

Two other random thoughts for me when thinking about Wilks...

1. As much as we want to believe that all coaches should adapt to their personnel and not make their personnel adapt to them, I think it's time to accept the fact that the vast majority of football coaches are simply not good enough to do this. Only the truly elite coaches like Belichick are able to no questions asked adapt what they want to do to the personnel they have. Guys who are capable of doing that almost immediately become head coaches and typically don't stop being head coaches.

A guy like Steve Wilks has coached in a 4-3 with heavy zone and heavy blitz concepts for essentially his entire NFL career. It's completely unrealistic to expect him in his 14th season in the NFL to just completely abandon the style that made him an attractive coaching candidate in the first place in favor of a dramatically different style simply based on the personnel at his disposal.

2. Shame on the Cardinals for hiring Wilks to be their coach in the first place. They knew what scheme he had been running his entire professional career. They knew the personnel he was about to inherit didn't fit that style, but they didn't make enough significant roster changes to give him the kind of players he would need to make his preferred scheme work. THEN they fired him after a year and had the audacity to say "He made some big errors. Going from a 3-4 to a 4-3, we were the sixth overall defense, and we went backward in a lot of ways. We did not expect that, I did not expect that. I did not expect the change, either."

The fuck? Maybe Wilks lied through his teeth in his interview, but shame on the Cardinals for not doing recognizing that if it happened, or at the very least not doing their due diligence before hiring the guy in the first place.

 

[Vee-Rex]

I dunno... we'll see.

My guess is Wilks uses a cover 1/3 scheme. I have issues with those form an analytical perspective, but, both can be run in such a way that your two outside corners are effectively in man coverage.

I just worry that Wilks overvalues how these zone defenses prevent short yardage. Gregg's defense was rightfully criticized, but from a broad strategic standpoint, he had the right idea: prevent downfield throws and generate pressure on the QB. Force your opponent to run and make short throws. You can do that with whatever system best fits your players.

Nonetheless, Wilks is historically a really strong defensive coach. I'll be more worried if we start the season and Ward and Greedy are not playing man coverage or press-zone coverage. Until then, though, I'll save my concerns.

My ultimate belief is Wilks uses a press-cover 3 like the Seahawks. He did this a bit in Carolina and it makes sense for the Browns. It is a zone defense, but sees the two outside corners press the receivers and then trail back. It prevents long passes on the outside of the field and plays to the strengths of our cornerbacks. It does require the linebackers to be good in coverage and a safety who can read the field and save a cornerback who gets beat, but otherwise it is a pretty safe for our team, especially with Randall.

The weakness in the press-cover 3 is if you do not have good man-corners. We do. So I am less concerned. If Ward or Greedy get hurt, we'll probably need to transition to a more zone-heavy look, at least on one side of the field.

I concur.

Wilks primarily employs the fire zone scheme, which utilizes some pretty exotic blitzes designed to confuse both the QB and the offensive line. His guys will feign one direction, then blitz in another, while other blitzers are criss-crossing to shoot through any anticipated gaps. Often times the blitzes develop from looks that don't give away anything at all. The 2nd and 3rd levels are protected by zones (I believe Wilks likes Cover 4, and will also use Cover 2 and 3 as well) that are designed to:

1. Watch the QB
2. Shade any receivers coming in their area
3. React quickly on the ball

It's a style of defense that can ~consistently~ generate turnovers. However, it is definitely dependent on a solid and intelligent secondary. Receivers will find open areas at times in the middle of the field so it relies on good tackling. It's not great against the run either, but if the players are disciplined then we shouldn't just get steamrolled on the ground even if we're not the best rushing defense. If our offense is explosive it will cause the opponents to pass more anyway which plays right into Wilks's scheme. It has the potential to completely smother passing offenses (especially if the QB isn't very accurate) if executed correctly. You can see how LBs and safeties that are good in pass coverage work well in this system.

Gregggg, on the other hand, likes to blitz out of base packages (or sometimes throw everyone at the line of scrimmage) and disguise his blitz until the ball is snapped. You don't know how many are coming or from which side they're coming from. Maybe the blitz will come strong on the right, left, or middle. Or maybe they back off the line when the ball is snapped and only rush 4. Regardless, when they blitz, they come at you as fast as possible. Wilks blitzes are a bit more 'bizarre' and confusing to the O-line, IMO. Gregggg also tends to utilize man coverage to protect the 2nd and 3rd levels.

Summary: One scheme isn't necessarily better than the other. There's too many factors involved, including the personnel, how well they execute, and the opponents players also. I do however believe that Wilks's scheme has more potential to be more dominant if his players excel at their roles. It's really confusing for opposing offenses and can cause some of the best QBs to play badly. More zones = more eyes on the QB and the ball, which means faster reactions (whether it results in INTs or simply better tackling because guys are covering space more quickly) when the ball is in the air.

I'm also concerned about Wilks and his ability to get the most out of our players, but then I remember GGG and Blake had us 30th in defense last year and wonder how much worse could we get? If not for a bunch of lucky turnovers in the first half of the season, the defense would've been REALLY awful. Now we have more talent on that side. Let's see what Wilks can do for us.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

A guy like Steve Wilks has coached in a 4-3 with heavy zone and heavy blitz concepts for essentially his entire NFL career. It's completely unrealistic to expect him in his 14th season in the NFL to just completely abandon the style that made him an attractive coaching candidate in the first place in favor of a dramatically different style simply based on the personnel at his disposal.

2. Shame on the Cardinals for hiring Wilks to be their coach in the first place. They knew what scheme he had been running his entire professional career. They knew the personnel he was about to inherit didn't fit that style, but they didn't make enough significant roster to give him the kind of players he would need to make his preferred scheme work. THEN they fired him after a year and had the audacity to say "He made some big errors. Going from a 3-4 to a 4-3, we were the sixth overall defense, and we went backward in a lot of ways. We did not expect that, I did not expect that. I did not expect the change, either."

The fuck? Maybe Wilks lied through his teeth in his interview, but shame on the Cardinals for not doing recognizing that if it happened, or at the very least not doing their due diligence before hiring the guy in the first place.

Well...they were hiring him to be a head coach, and hopefully demonstrate that he had that kind of flexibility. Maybe they misjudged him, but then, if Wilks took the job knowing that he'd only run a certain system, and knowing that he didn't have the players to do so, isn't that just as much on him?

I'm not saying that Wilks deserved to be fired because I don't know everything that actually went into the decision. But if his excuse is "I ran a defense that didn't suit the players I have because that's all I know how to do...", then I don't have a ton of sympathy for him.

 

[dark2332]

Excellent post.

I’m not incredibly worried about this whole zone thing right now either, especially if the Browns front four can stay healthy and is able to generate the kind of pressure most expect.

I do think people hear the word “zone” and collectively default their thought process to “all 6-8 players who aren’t rushing the passer are playing a soft area of the field and letting receivers run free around them” and that’s not really accurate.

There are ways, in essence, play man and zone at the same time as @jking948 so eloquently laid out.

Two other random thoughts for me when thinking about Wilks...

1. As much as we want to believe that all coaches should adapt to their personnel and not make their personnel adapt to them, I think it's time to accept the fact that the vast majority of football coaches are simply not good enough to do this. Only the truly elite coaches like Belichick are able to no questions asked adapt what they want to do to the personnel they have. Guys who are capable of doing that almost immediately become head coaches and typically don't stop being head coaches.

A guy like Steve Wilks has coached in a 4-3 with heavy zone and heavy blitz concepts for essentially his entire NFL career. It's completely unrealistic to expect him in his 14th season in the NFL to just completely abandon the style that made him an attractive coaching candidate in the first place in favor of a dramatically different style simply based on the personnel at his disposal.

2. Shame on the Cardinals for hiring Wilks to be their coach in the first place. They knew what scheme he had been running his entire professional career. They knew the personnel he was about to inherit didn't fit that style, but they didn't make enough significant roster to give him the kind of players he would need to make his preferred scheme work. THEN they fired him after a year and had the audacity to say "He made some big errors. Going from a 3-4 to a 4-3, we were the sixth overall defense, and we went backward in a lot of ways. We did not expect that, I did not expect that. I did not expect the change, either."

The fuck? Maybe Wilks lied through his teeth in his interview, but shame on the Cardinals for not doing recognizing that if it happened, or at the very least not doing their due diligence before hiring the guy in the first place.

Are we surprised by anything Arizona does at this point, though?

They fired Wilks after one season, despite knowing exactly what he was going to do.

As you say, they did nothing to add personnel to suit a 4-3 base.

They traded up and drafted Rosen in the first, then traded him after one season despite him having no offensive line or healthy weapons.

They sat on Rosen and waited until they lost all leverage after drafting Murray to deal him. It should’ve been done much earlier in the process.

They hired a head coach who was fired from Texas Tech of all places.

They drafted Kyler Murray, and Kingsbury says “he’s going to have to earn the starting job, we aren’t going to give it to him.” Immediately after, the GM publicly states that Murray will be the starter, undermining the head coach.

They are a dumpster fire.

 

[CBBI]

Well...they were hiring him to be a head coach, and hopefully demonstrate that he had that kind of flexibility. Maybe they misjudged him, but then, if Wilks took the job knowing that he'd only run a certain system, and knowing that he didn't have the players to do so, isn't that just as much on him?

I'm not saying that Wilks deserved to be fired because I don't know everything that actually went into the decision. But if his excuse is "I ran a defense that didn't suit the players I have because that's all I know how to do...", then I don't have a ton of sympathy for him.

Don't get me wrong. Arizona went 3-13 a year after going 8-8 and their defense went a massive step backwards. There's no real way to spin the Arizona experience positively for Wilks. He clearly did not do a good job.

And unfortunately, without sitting in on the interviews, we really don't know what may have said to convince them to hire him in the first place. He might have promised the Cardinals that he would run a 3-4 and not change anything. We really don't know.

That said...

It's beyond obvious that Arizona fucked him over. For the owner to come out and say after letting Wilks go that the HEAD COACH HE JUST HIRED fucked up by not running the system the previous coach ran is absolutely unacceptable.

Shame on the Cardinals for either being too naive and allowing themselves to be tricked by a guy in the interview process or for being too dumb to realize that the guy they hired was going to overhaul the system in the first place.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

And unfortunately, without sitting in on the interviews, we really don't know what may have said to convince them to hire him in the first place. He might have promised the Cardinals that he would run a 3-4 and not change anything. We really don't know.

That said...

It's beyond obvious that Arizona fucked him over. For the owner to come out and say after letting Wilks go that the HEAD COACH HE JUST HIRED fucked up by not running the system the previous coach ran is absolutely unacceptable.

Shame on the Cardinals for either being too naive and allowing themselves to be tricked by a guy in the interview process or for being too dumb to realize that the guy they hired was going to overhaul the system in the first place.

So he was fucked over because if he lied to the Cardinals and they believed him?

 

[CBBI]

So he was fucked over because if he lied to the Cardinals and they believed him?

I didn't sit in on the interview obviously, but I do find it a little hard to believe that the Cardinals could have actually been tricked into thinking a guy who had been an NFL coach for 12 years at that point and had only ever coached in a zone heavy 4-3 scheme would come in and keep things status quo with their 3-4.

Could Wilks have lied to them? Maybe so. But I floated that out there as a worst case scenario thing.

I'm just hard pressed to believe that Wilks actually told the Cardinals he was going to do something he wasn't planning on doing at all. That seems like a complete and utter recipe for disaster.

He also interviewed with multiple other teams for their head coaching gigs (Rams, Giants among them) over the previous two years so he seemingly had other options in terms of getting a head coaching gig. Why set yourself up for failure by lying right off the bat?

 

[Ohio]

Youtube comments had some great nickname ideas.

"The Warden"

 

[Ohio]

View: https://twitter.com/denzelward/status/1129828697207451648

 

[NorthCoastBias]

This qualifies as a good development.

View: https://twitter.com/ByNateUlrich/status/1131249833564618753

 

[Out of the Rafters at the Q]

This qualifies as a good development.

View: https://twitter.com/ByNateUlrich/status/1131249833564618753

A healthy Denzel Ward is one of the biggest ways to make sure this team is the contender it can be. This is some of the best news I've heard all season.