At first, the idea of 3 safeties and two CB's on the field, with a safety subbing for your slowest OLB, seems like a no brainer for defending the typical spread team
or even the typical read option team, as far as that goes.
What do you give up as a D when you do that? If you are subbing for your slowest OLB, it is probably also your biggest OLB, so maybe something like 20+ pounds. The benefits of the speed are easy to see. What about the downside? "From this chair", to quote the latest grossly overused trite-ism from Brand X, my concerns would be:
- A safety may be easier for a WR to block.
- A safety would have a tougher time taking on a TE if a TE were in the game.
- Losing your bigger OLB suggests that an off tackle run should work better if you have the O line to do that more of a concern against a good read option team than a spread team, but true for both.
I would not call it a concern, but it seems to me that you would probably be in a 4 man front in most nickel situations. That might mean subbing a 4 man front DE type into the game for our normal DE, and probably putting the Buck on the LOS.
I'm not sure that a nickel really gives up anything from a "between the tackles" running standpoint, and on a sweep the speed benefit would seem to be as important as the lesser ability to take on a blocker, so it is only off tackle runs that seem like an issue. For a lot of spread teams, you almost want to cheat in favor of pass coverage and try to force a few more running plays, so maybe that is not a bad thing. I think you might say the same for a read option team if your D line was good, but the nickel probably puts a bit bigger premium on getting good D line play.
Just my $0.02, but I can see at least 3-4 PAC teams where a well run nickel might pay some real benefits. And if the package is oriented toward blitzing with a safety instead of one of the two remaining LB's, it might even have some pass pressure benefits. High risk/potential high reward, but certainly something to worry an offensive coordinator.
What do you give up as a D when you do that? If you are subbing for your slowest OLB, it is probably also your biggest OLB, so maybe something like 20+ pounds. The benefits of the speed are easy to see. What about the downside? "From this chair", to quote the latest grossly overused trite-ism from Brand X, my concerns would be:
- A safety may be easier for a WR to block.
- A safety would have a tougher time taking on a TE if a TE were in the game.
- Losing your bigger OLB suggests that an off tackle run should work better if you have the O line to do that more of a concern against a good read option team than a spread team, but true for both.
I would not call it a concern, but it seems to me that you would probably be in a 4 man front in most nickel situations. That might mean subbing a 4 man front DE type into the game for our normal DE, and probably putting the Buck on the LOS.
I'm not sure that a nickel really gives up anything from a "between the tackles" running standpoint, and on a sweep the speed benefit would seem to be as important as the lesser ability to take on a blocker, so it is only off tackle runs that seem like an issue. For a lot of spread teams, you almost want to cheat in favor of pass coverage and try to force a few more running plays, so maybe that is not a bad thing. I think you might say the same for a read option team if your D line was good, but the nickel probably puts a bit bigger premium on getting good D line play.
Just my $0.02, but I can see at least 3-4 PAC teams where a well run nickel might pay some real benefits. And if the package is oriented toward blitzing with a safety instead of one of the two remaining LB's, it might even have some pass pressure benefits. High risk/potential high reward, but certainly something to worry an offensive coordinator.
