46 Part I
New Head Coach Eric Mangini and new Defensive Coordinator Rob Ryan have me excited about our defense. With promises to "attack" and to be a hard working unit coming from Rob Ryan, one of the few tactical changes we have heard about has been the addition of the 46 defense to the Cleveland Browns' repertoire.
Rob Ryan's father, Buddy Ryan, ran the 46 with great success, most notably with the 1985 Chicago Bears. Buddy Ryan is credited as the creator of the 46 defense.
When looking at the 46 defense, it will be important to keep a few things in mind.
Theoretically, every player on the field can attempt to do any number of things on a given play after the snap. They can blitz shooting through a gap, they can attempt to take up any number of blockers, they can drop into any number of zone coverages, and they can play man to man defense on any of the five position players, etc. This goes for any formation, not just the 46.
Our coaches seem intent on turning this theory into reality. A true "hybrid" defense is one in which multiple players are not only assigned a wide variety of responsibilities, but are actually versatile enough to do everything asked of them and to do those things well.
The 46 is a tool in the arsenal of a defensive playcaller. It is just like any other formation in that it has strengths and weaknesses. Without creative and brave play design and playcalling, and without talented, intelligent and disciplined players, those strengths are negated and those weaknesses highlighted.
In Part I of this survey of the 46, I will discuss the 46 alignment against a normal I-formation offense with 2 wide receivers, a tight end, and two running backs (either one RB and one FB or two of either). To counter, a normal 46 defense uses 4 down linemen, 3 linebackers, 2 safeties, and 2 cornerbacks.
The 46 begins with a big shift of the defensive line to the "weakside" (non-TE side) of the field.
Right End:
The RE lines up way wide at what some coaches call the "9-technique". This should be at least 1 yard wide (horizontally) of the weakside offensive tackle (here, the Left Tackle).
Desired Skills: speed rushing, some coverage ability
NFL ideal: Dwight Freeney, Colts
Probable Brown playing the position: Kamerion Wimbley
Left End:
The LE lines up much more like a DT than a DE. He begins head-up over (directly in front of) the strongside guard (here, the Right Guard).
Desired Skills: strength, power, explosion. Ability to be an effective rusher in a small area and to push the pocket needed. Ability to stunt around other defensive linemen required for optimal blitzing. Zone coverage ability a plus but not needed. Probably at least 290lbs.
NFL ideal: Haloti Ngata, Ravens
Probable Brown playing the position: Robaire Smith
Left Defensive Tackle/Nose Tackle:
The Left Defensive Tackle lines up directly over the Center.
Desired Skills: same as Left End, but bigger. Can sacrifice some mobility for strength/size. Probably at least 320lbs and strong.
NFL ideal: Shaun Rogers,
Probable Brown playing the position: Shaun Rogers
Right Defensive Tackle:
The Right Defensive Tackle lines up directly over the weakside offensive guard (here, the Left Guard).
Desired Skills: same as Left End
NFL ideal: Sedrick Ellis, Saints or Kevin Williams, Vikings,
Probable Brown playing the position: Corey Williams
So, the line should look like this:
Now that the defensive line has shifted to the weakside of the play, where do you think the linebackers are going? Yep, they are shifting dramatically to the strong side of the play.
They shift so much, in fact, that the Outside Linebackers are no longer called the "Sam" and "Will" (strongside and weakside, or, alternately left and right) linebackers. The artist formerly known as the "Sam" linebacker is called a "Jack" linebacker in the 46, and the "Will" linebacker changes his name to "Charlie". It wouldn't make sense to call a linebacker on the left of the formation a "right outside linebacker", which is why the change in names occurs.
"Left" Outside Linebacker--The "Jack":
The "Jack" linebacker lines up on the line of scrimmage, with his inside foot on the outside foot of the tight end.
Desired Skills: pass rushing, coverage, run-stopping ability, speed
NFL ideal: DeMarcus Ware, Cowboys
Probable Brown playing the position: David Bowens
"Right" Outside Linebacker--The "Charlie":
The "Charlie" linebacker lines up right next to the "Jack" on the line of scrimmage, with his outside foot on the inside foot of the tight end. The positioning of these two "outside" linebackers means that the tight end will have a difficult time getting a free release off the line of scrimmage if he isn't staying in to block.
Desired Skills: Same as the "Jack". Having two guys with identical skills makes your defense more unpredictable, having two with different sets of skills makes your defense more versatile as a whole.
NFL ideal: Shaun Phillips, Chargers
Probable Brown playing the position: David Veikune
"Middle" Linebacker--The "Mike":
The third linebacker--the "Mike" linebacker--lines up about 4 yards off the line of scrimmage, in front of the strong side offensive tackle.
Desired Skills: Mike: tackling, intelligence, play-reading, speed, strength, coverage, some blitzing ability.
NFL ideal: Ray Lewis, Ravens or Patrick Willis, 49ers
Probable Brown playing the position: D'Qwell Jackson
So with the LBs added, the 46 looks like this:
"Strong" Safety:
The strong safety in a 46 plays in a spot traditionally occupied by a linebacker. He walks up to 4 or so yards off the line of scrimmage (even with the Mike LB) over the weakside offensive tackle.
Desired Skills: tackling, coverage, play-reading ability, some blitzing ability. The more versatile this player is, the better. Should be a good actor.
NFL ideal: Troy Polamalu, Steelers or Brian Dawkins, Broncos (via 3-5 years ago)
Probable Brown playing the position: Abe Elam
"Weak" or "Free" Safety:
The weakside safety lines up about 8-10 yards off the line of scrimmage, and can be anywhere from the center to the weakside offensive tackle, horizontally speaking.
Desired Skills: "centerfielder", ball-hawking, coverage, tackling. Ability to hold up in man coverage like a CB a definite plus. Needs to be a good actor.
NFL ideal: Ed Reed, Ravens
Probable Brown playing the position: Brodney Pool
Cornerbacks:
The cornerbacks line up 7 or 8 yards off the line of scrimmage, and they need to be in position to get inside of the wide receiver in front of them. It is common to see cornerbacks in man-to-man coverage "on an island" (with no help) in a 46. If this is the case (and in the vast majority of cases even when it isn't the case), corners will try to remain inside the receiver to force the receiver outside. This allows DBs to use the sideline "as the 12th defender" to make potential receiving area much smaller. It also forces throws that will be in the air longer (think 7 yard "in" route vs. 7 yard "out" route), gives the DBs an opportunity to break up the pass, and forces the QB to plant and step into his throw (and hopefully a rush).
Desired Skills: coverage, especially the ability to hold up one on one vs. a WR. Hitting ability and run stopping a plus.
NFL ideal: Nnamdi Asomugha, Raiders or Champ Bailey, Broncos
Probable Brown playing the position: Rod Hood and Eric Wright
Considerations
More pass rushers, closer to the line of scrimmage
The 46 isn't a huge change from more common defenses because of where the players line up (with the exception that in the 46, there is almost always only one safety deep before the snap). For example, compare and contrast the full 46 formation above with a common 3-4 alignment with the SS as the 8th man in the box.
(side note: the linebackers in this 3-4 are named Will, Mike, Ted, and Sam represented here by letters W, M, T, and S from left to right).
The players are aligned in the exact same spots! The difference is which players are where. Also, one additional player has his hand on the ground in a 46.
Since different players do different things well (say, Shaun Rogers' ability to beat blockers and poor coverage ability vs. Brandon McDonald's relatively good coverage and poor ability to shed blockers) the 46's changes in player positioning give the offense a different "look".
In the 46, trading a strong safety (who the offense should be able to block 1-on-1 with a running back) for a rush linebacker (who the offense shouldn't be able block 1-on-1 with a running back) and putting an extra player's hand on the ground is an indication that a whole lot of man is going to be coming at the QB after the snap.
Even if the players that become the RE, the Charley, and the Jack are all going to blitz after the snap anyway, putting them all at the line means if they do blitz they are going to be that much closer to the QB as he plants to throw on a 5- or 7-step drop.
Putting more potential pass rushers at the line of scrimmage is one of the main changes from the 3-4 or 4-3 formations to the 46 formation. Doing this implies to the offense that a rush is coming and that if it does, it will come very quickly. A true hybrid defense would be able to show the offense this kind of look and still drop 8 or 9 players into coverage. Once an offense isn't expecting what the defense is about to do--or potentially even better, once the offense has no idea what to expect--the defense has the advantage.
8 men in the box and showing a Cover-1/Cover-3 shell
I alluded to another important thing about the 46 earlier: there is only one safety deep. When one safety is deep and the other is in the box, a defense is "showing" a Cover-1 or Cover-3 shell. It is pretty easy to see how a defense would settle in to either after the snap:
Cover-1
Cover-3
If a defense stays predictable and only utilizes a Cover-1 or Cover-3 shell from the 46, the quarterback will know what to expect after the snap. That's bad news for the defense because the quarterback then does not have to read the defense after the snap, and the defense loses precious seconds in the race between the quarterback attempting to deliver the ball and the pass rushers trying to sack him before he does. Additionally, a smart and empowered QB can exploit that information by changing the play or a few routes that work well against the defense he knows is coming.
A creative and brave defensive coordinator can run a lot of different coverages out of the 46, though. If they have versatile and skilled defensive players, even better. Done effectively, a defense can act like they will be in one coverage and then do something different, which should buy them time after the snap and allow their pass rushers slightly more time to get to the QB.
From any given "look", the only limiting factor in a player's ability to complete any assignment is his speed (and sometimes strength, i.e. vs. the offensive line). So, just because the 46 gives a more aggressive "look" does not mean that the defense will play aggressively after the snap. Similarly, just because the 46 gives the offense a Cover-3 look does not mean a Cover-3 defense is coming.
Here are a few more complex coverages:
Cover-2
Mixed Man/Zone
Stay tuned for part II on the 46, including more "considerations" and how the 46 lines up against a 3 WR package.
63 comments
|
3 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Waste of time
Defense is a sub-average unit and will continue to be..
And, we do not have the “players” to understand all of the assignments.
Defense is a sub-average unit?!?!?!?!?
That gave me a good laugh. Defense is every bit as (if not more important than) offense.
Sorry we cant all be great contributors like you Aaron.
by BradyQuinnisBeast on Jul 6, 2009 6:26 PM EDT up reply actions
idiot....
Didnt say defense itself was unimportant.. I was merely pointing out that the BROWNS defense is sub-par and will NOT be successful with the 46.
A standard 4-3 is what the Browns should be running. They have NEVER had the athletes to run a 3-4 successfully.
and you are calling me an idiot…
Switching to a 4-3 would be stupid.
by BradyQuinnisBeast on Jul 6, 2009 6:33 PM EDT up reply actions
ok
Just stating my opinion that we do not have the DE’s to play a 3-4 nor do we have fast and versatile LB’s
Until that is addressed our secondary will continue to get torched and the defense will continue to give up 4 TD’s a game.
If that’s your concern, switching to the 4-6 adresses the need to apply pressure. If your DE’s cannot do it, then you use zone blitzing and such to force the opposing team into abandoning slower developing plays. This, in theory, protects your defensive backfield from having to suffer in prolonged coverages.
Good Point… I guess I have just been frustrating watching zero push up the middle and no LB hitting the holes while every RB falls forward for 5 yards every play.
Big Baby is obviously a beast and DQwell led the NFL in tackles so we have a nice base but I am just worried about Corey W and who ever will be playing the other END spot.
And my rants and raves could be solely based on my frustration that a QB has not been named… QUINN will eventually be named and with only 3 starts under his belt and a new scheme and nuances to learn he should be getting ALL of the 1st team snaps…………
So well done Rufio on explaining the 46.. Hopefully it will work out.
We could definitely use some more pass rushing LBs though, you are right on that. If Kam returns to a 10-15 sacks/year guy, Veikune is good, and Hall looks like he could provide another 8+ sacks, we are in business.
I highly doubt it will go down like that, but it isn’t out of the realm of reality that Kam becomes the 8 sack guy and either Veikune or Hall turns out to be decent. If that happens, we only need one good rush LB and we are good to run a 3-4 or 46.
C-will, Robaire, and Coleman are solid DE’s, and C-will can be good if he is healthy.
If we switched to a 4-3 would have small DE’s and oversized DTs. Not to mention our LBs would be bad.
by BradyQuinnisBeast on Jul 6, 2009 6:43 PM EDT up reply actions
Another point I disagree with. I think our LB’s are made for the 4-3. (minus the smaller draft picks this year)
Wimbley is a terrible 3-4 rush LB (one move.. soooooo predictabe)
Jackson isnt the fastest guy but he is a tackle machine and would be great in a 4-3
Hall would more than likely be a 4-3 DE because he is 250. Try again
by BradyQuinnisBeast on Jul 6, 2009 7:06 PM EDT up reply actions
Are you drunk?
I am naming a potential 4-3 starting LB corp…………. So are you agreeing with me or just being stupid?
You said he would play LB, I said he would play DE
by BradyQuinnisBeast on Jul 6, 2009 7:34 PM EDT up reply actions
Haha, wow, could a post ever be more incorrect. For starters, we were ranked dead middle in the NFL in defense/points allowed, #16, allowing 21 points a game.
Also, the biggest obstacle to us running a 4-3 is the DE position in that scheme. We have literally zero 4-3 defensive ends on the roster.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
Stop being a Homer....
Rich’s Rant: News & Views
By Rich Passan
Posted Jul 6, 2009
The OBR’s resident curmudgeon hits on the new DC’s misguided boast, Old Willie’s return, Donte’s mess and JJ’s new “suit”.
News and views . . .
News: New Browns defensive coordinator Rob Ryan promises the Browns will stop the run this season. "My whole life I’ve stopped the run and you can look that up," he told the media. "We’ll get it done here."
Views: Well, we looked it up and we didn’t like what we saw. At least during the last five seasons.
During that period, Ryan coordinated the Oakland Raiders’ defense. It was his first stint as a defensive coordinator since being responsible for Oklahoma State University’s defense for three seasons in the late 1990s.
In those five seasons with Oakland (2004-2008), the Raiders’ defense ranked 22nd, 25th, 25th, 31st and 31st, respectively, against the run in the 32-team National Football League. The Browns, meanwhile, ranked 32nd, 25th, 25th, 27th and 28th. The Raiders permitted 138.7 yards a game in that span. The Browns yielded 141.6 a contest.
If that’s stopping the run, let’s redefine the term.
At the other end of the spectrum, the Pittsburgh Steelers ranked first, third, third, third and second in rushing defense during those five seasons, yielding an average of 85.1 yards a game.
The Raiders surrendered 101 touchdowns via the run under Ryan’s tutelage. The Browns gave up a more respectable 71 TDs on the ground. The Steelers permitted a meager 40 touchdowns.
So if this is Ryan’s idea of shutting down the running game, I’ll take Dick LeBeau’s approach in Pittsburgh over the bloviating Ryan.
Next time Ryan thinks about bragging, he might consider backing it up with facts.
The man fielded a pretty good defense in Oakland. Al Davis!
He couldn’t run the sets he wanted (3-4) and he couldn’t be as aggressive has he wanted.
That defense was probably on the field all the time, considering Oakland’s offense featured two 300 yard passing games in that five year span. That’s 0.4 300 yard passing games per year.
It wasn’t like they were lighting it up on the ground, either, with someone rushing for 100 yards in only 15 of those games. Backfield by committee? Oakland finished in the top half of the NFL in total rushing yards/game a whopping ZERO times out of those five years.
Oakland is just terrible.
Man, I hate stats. But maybe it’s all about the context. For starters, I figure that Pittsburgh’s stats have been inflated by virtue of having faced some pretty bad Browns teams. I’m not saying that they didn’t field some good teams, just that the raw numbers are perhaps a bit deceiving. And that brings me to the Browns stats.
Every defense is going to give up some yards, and the more often they are called on to the field the more they will give up. The Browns defense got the pleasure of showing up on the field occasionally after a Cleveland score, but more often after a Cleveland punt or interception. And of course the more they are on the field the more they tire and the more yards they give up.
I think it would be interesting to see how the Browns compare to the rest of the division and league looking at just the first half stats. Just off the cuff, considering some of the blown leads, perhaps they look a bit better on that half sheet of paper. I haven’t followed Oakland, but the same might even apply to them.
However, if someone decides to look it up and prove my theory wrong, please sit on that info for a few weeks. I want to carry my optimism at least into August.
Using stats such as yardage solely to determine the value of a defense is incredibly incomplete. In fact, it’s neglecting a whole number of factors. I don’t really read Football Outsiders, but I am sure some of their metrics take into account average field position, % stats like how many times they allow a team in the red zone to score, average defensive possessions per game, and all the other things that would go into determining how good an actual defense is. Anyone using total yardage allowed on the ground to determine the effectiveness of a run defense, is being lazy or doesn’t understand the inefficiency in doing so.
by Roger Dorn on Jul 9, 2009 2:12 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Nobody is saying that deployment can substitute for talent. But, this flavor of defense adds an element of surprise and pressure versus the containment style defense that was the hallmark of RC teams.
The downside is that we open ourselves up to mismatches by positioning smaller men on the line and expecting slower men to cover downfield. You hope that you can apply enough pressure to mask the mismatches.
How does the 46 go up against a 6 FB set?
by BradyQuinnisBeast on Jul 6, 2009 6:29 PM EDT reply actions
Big Question
How do we bake in Lawrence Vickers into the 46 defense? We can’t have trickeration without Lawrence.
I would rather have Hall as the JACK instead of Bowens
by BradyQuinnisBeast on Jul 6, 2009 7:07 PM EDT reply actions
So if the play ended up being a pass, would the Mike and SS usually drop into coverage?
And just a note, Taylor Mays would be a nice SS in this scheme
by BradyQuinnisBeast on Jul 6, 2009 7:22 PM EDT reply actions
The only problem with Mays is that he might have to line up against someone like Wes Welker in the slot depending on the formation. I know he’s fast, but I don’t think he can stay with a guy who can change directions quickly like that. I almost want to see a team draft him as a ROLB in a “Tampa 2” scheme.
As for the SS and Mike on passing plays, it all depends on what the coaches want to do. In the pdf I have that claims to be part of Buddy Ryan’s 1990 Eagles’ defensive playbook, the FS, SS, Mike, and CBs are in man-to-man coverage a lot (usually against RBs) against the pass. The Mike will probably blitz on a good % of pass plays, too.
You do not have to convince me at all. He would be absolutely perfect at ether safety spot in just about any defense.
Also, is that Massaquoi?
Well Im just saying I dont want to draft in the top 5 this year, which is likely where Berry will go.
by BradyQuinnisBeast on Jul 7, 2009 11:13 AM EDT up reply actions
Polamalu lasted till 16.
Plus, Mays’ presence could bump him down, especially if Mays runs that 4.3 40.
I still dont see him making it out of the top 5 and i think we will draft in the 10-16 range.
by BradyQuinnisBeast on Jul 7, 2009 3:34 PM EDT up reply actions
Rufio, do you think our corners are good enough to run the 46 effectively? I love the attacking style of the 46, but with Hood and Wright as the corners, I’m not sure it’ll work out.
"There's nothing that cleanses the soul like getting the hell kicked out of you." Woody Hayes.
Honestly, I haven’t watched that much of Hood and I can’t say I know all that much about him. He looked pretty good versus L. Coles so he would at least be ok for the two games vs. Cincy (Coles’ new team). Based on scouting reports, he sounds like he would be alright.
I think Wright would thrive in the 46. He is fast and fluid and he can stay with a lot of WRs 1 on 1. He could even come up to the line to bump some WRs. He has a good burst to the ball and would be able to play to his strengths with the benefit of a heavy pass rush.
McDonald I think is the one who would really benefit from playing in the 46. McDonald is pretty fluid and has a pretty fast first 3 or 4 steps (although he isn’t quite at Wright’s level in these areas). McDonald’s biggest weakness is his ability to run longer distances (20+ yards) with WRs. In the typical 46 alignment, he would give those WRs a 7-8 yard cushion, so they would have to run 40 or so yards (which would probably take about 4-4.5 seconds) before McDonald’s lack of speed really began to show. McDonald’s biggest strength in my eyes is his ability to break on the ball and either intercept it or break up the pass. He has some really good hands for a CB and if he is close to the ball he will usually make the play. Most of the throws at McDonald in the 46 would probably be ones he would be close to.
As with any defense, there is more risk involved in being more aggressive. The trick is to get the big reward to balance out that increase in risk and to take those risks in a calculated (and not reckless) way.
I am much more concerned with the speed and skill of our linebackers than I am with the speed and skill of our DBs. The Giants won the Super Bowl against a great passing offense, and their DBs weren’t great. Their front 7 was awesome, though, and they used their aggressive style to help cover up their weakness in the secondary.
I think this is McDonald’s year to prove if he can be a starting CB or if he is just a good nickel guy.
Either way, its nice to find guys like him in the 5th.
by BradyQuinnisBeast on Jul 7, 2009 11:24 AM EDT up reply actions
If you count them it´s a 6-2 defense, with just different body types in unexpected places.
I think it´s just an elaborate excuse to employ above average size linebackers, the type that used to play defensive line prior to the 80´s.
To me these guys aren´t linebackers, and if you compared their lateral and backward quickness and overall speed with some real atheletes they would be badly exposed. I think there is a whole lobby for these outsized linebackers. I don´t want them. We need versatile, sporty, speedy linebackers.
I also think lining up a small safety at linebacker is nonsense.
Overall if the pressuring doesn´t work to disrupt the offense, they can make you look pretty bad, I think.
Great job explaining it though.
Would you be happy if our LBs were Vickers and Ali?
by BradyQuinnisBeast on Jul 7, 2009 11:15 AM EDT up reply actions
The guy’s comments are really astounding. He consistently writes 100-300 words, and literally says nothing. Like, none of that entire paragraph means anything at all, it might as well be in Chinese. And he does it dozens of times a day. If he’s secretely making fun of us, I have to give it up for creativity (coming up w/ so many random, unrelated and incoherent “opinions” has to be extremely tough). If he actually believes his mad ramblings, then he’s probably in a state of senile bliss that I can only envy.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
I know many users find him to be a nuisance, but if he is being sincere, it’s difficult for me to reprimand him for his opinion just because it’s not popular. Easily the most unusual member I’ve been faced with since starting DBN though, for much of the reasons you stated.
Dawgs By Nature - Covering the Cleveland Browns on SB Nation.
by Chris Pokorny on Jul 7, 2009 12:30 PM EDT up reply actions
Fantastic work as always, rufio. You should really try to get an assistant coaching job at a high school or something, I’m sure you’d be great at it. You seem to have the knowledge for formations and what kind of players fit in to them, and I’ll bet you know this stuff more than a lot of high school coaches.
he knows 10x more than Tyrone Willingham and that Kragthorpe guy
by BradyQuinnisBeast on Jul 7, 2009 3:35 PM EDT up reply actions
it seems to me that the ss and mike lb are switched. we’ll see how this plays out.
GO BROWNS!!!
by charliefryfanhaha on Jul 7, 2009 11:45 PM EDT reply actions
That’s how the 46 does things when facing a 2 back, 1 tight end, 2 wide receiver set. Things do change against a slot receiver, which I will get to in part II.
i believe you. i still think i’ve seen them switched on 2 backs though, and the safety will blitz usually. maybe im getting too far ahead
GO BROWNS!!!
by charliefryfanhaha on Jul 12, 2009 6:26 AM EDT up reply actions
46
Personally I think the 46 is just one way of turning a superior group of players into an utterly dominant unit by tactics that magnify that overwhelming superiority.
I reckon I could stop most offenses with a front 7 of Hampton/ Perry/ McMichael/ Dent/ Wilson/ Singletary/ Marshall. Only 1 non-probowler in there? (Perry?).
Plus a respectable back 4- Duerson, Fencik, Frazier and the other CB, and even he wasn’t too shabby.
Not sure it will fly with the browns distinctly average (Rogers excepted) defensive personell.
Yeah, there is no other way to put it: that Bears defense was dominant.
One of the reasons no one runs this as a full time system anymore is because no one has that dominant of a front 7. The offensive game has also evolved since the 80s/early 90s, so there would probably be a tactical disadvantage to running it all the time as well.
Despite what might seem like both personnel and tactical disadvantages, I really think that running a small amount of 46 would be beneficial for us. I’ll try to get to some of why I believe that to be true in Part II.
That front 7
Can anyone recall a front 7 as good?
And the greatest irony is in the UK the Refigerator Perry is one of the best remembered players, despite being undoubtedly the weakest link in that front 7… and behind a good few on the offense, before even getting to Sweetness.
46 in the 440
I can dig it, this scheme does what most successful defenses have done over time, and that is to surprise the offense. One of the big reasons our defense was subpar last year, besides the fact that there was no run defense, is that we were terribly predictable. I am excited to see how it works out, at the very least it should be more exciting than watching our out of place 3-4 get steamrolled every other down. With better pressure from this scheme, I imagine our secondary will look a lot better all of a sudden with a chance to make more plays.
If only it was '95 again...let's go Tribe!
Don't hate on D.A., you would suck too if your only target had brick hands.
LeBron the time is now, get hungry and get goin.
Also, Munch is BA.
Guiltless advertisement for a site I make money with, don't hate! Just try it out if you are interested.
http://www.neobux.com/?r=adilisio

by 





























