Differences between Wilks and McDermott?

[Mr. Scot]

So I decided to take a look back at Steve Wilks coaching background to see if there was any reason to expect significant changes to the defensive approach of the Panthers.

The answer?  Well, it depends..

Remember, former DC (now Bills head coach) Sean McDermott cut his coaching teeth under legendary Eagles defensive coordinator Jim Johnson.  So who has Steve Wilks primarily worked under in his NFL career?  Actually, that'd be Ron Rivera, who also served under Jim Johnson for a time but was equally influenced by Buddy Ryan and others.

Okay, so who else has Wilks served under as a pro coach?

Well, back during their time together in Chicago, both Wilks and Rivera were working for Lovie Smith.  As both a defensive coordinator and a head coach, Smith tended to favor an aggressive Cover 2 approach,

So does that mean we can expect more Cover 2 vs Zone Blitz? 

Well, to be honest the Panthers in recent years have shown plenty of Cover 2 looks so it's not a huge leap. But if that shift to more Cover 2 / less Zone Blitz does occur, then what does that actually mean?

Here are some possible changes...

Fewer A-Gap Blitzes

The A-Gap blitz is a 'bread and butter' play for the Zone Blitz scheme.  Theoretically, it forces a center to commit to one side leaving an opening in the middle of the line that a speedy linebacker can exploit.  The Cover 2, however, generally works best with seven guys dropping into coverage.  Panther linebackers Luke Kuechly and Thomas Davis are both solid in coverage but have become masters of that A-Gap blitz under McDermott, so it's hard to imagine we'd give it up entirely, but don't be too surprised if it's done less frequently than it was under McDermott.

Less Linemen Dropping Into Coverage

Part of what can make the Zone Blitz confusing is that it sometimes calls for a defensive lineman you'd normally expect to be rushing the passer to instead back off and drop into a zone while someone you expected to be in coverage runs at high speed toward the quarterback.  Now, when the blitzer gets there, that's great.  If he doesn't, then you're left with a defensive lineman trying to cover a wide receiver.  Cover 2 tends to stick to more traditional roles for the front four and the back seven.  Mind you, that's not to say you'd never see a blitz out of a Cover 2 (you most certainly will) but the Cover 2 is most effective when pressure can be applied with only four rushers, thus leaving the back seven to handle the speedier guys going out for passes.

All Out Aggression

Here's an area that's not so much about technique as it is approach. Lovie Smith's Bears were an aggressive, attacking defense, especially aggressive when it came to creating turnovers (witness the Peanut Punch).  Under Smith, Wilks and Rivera were also both known to be guys who heavily emphasized the importance of turnovers.  In fact, the Bears defense under Rivera was sometimes a little overzealous in attempting to get picks and strip fumbles and wound up giving up big plays as a result.  Was McDermott aggressive as Panthers DC?  Yes, but was he as all out, always go for the fumble aggressive as the old Bear defenses used to be?  That's a subjective question, and my subjective answer is I don't think so.  Thus, if we do become more aggressive then it's right to expect a lot of turnovers, but sadly a fair number of big plays given up too.  It's a very "feast or famine" approach and fans should be ready to expect that.

Now for a couple of things that will probably stay mostly the same...

More Man Coverage? Not Necessarily

From prior discussions, I know there are some who will expect that a Cover 2 means more man coverage as opposed to the zone favored by Jim Johnson's approach.  That's not necessarily true.  The Cover 2 was actually built on zone concepts.  Throw in the fact that we've built our defense of late with corners like James Bradberry, Daryl Worley and Leonard Johnson - i.e. guys who are primarily suited to zone coverage - and a huge shift seems unlikely.  So while I do indeed expect that we'll play some man defense (as we already did before) I wouldn't necessarily expect the amount of it to increase significantly.

Pass Rush - Coverage Balance

In the never ending debate about whether pass rush or coverage is the more effective tool for defeating quarterbacks, Ron Rivera comes down on the side of pass rush. Wilks, however, is a secondary coach where Rivera was a linebackers guy. So will Wilks emphasize coverage more?  Perhaps, but if so I doubt it'll be significant.  See, McDermott was a secondary guy too, and if he emphasized what Rivera wanted him to, then it's reasonable to expect that Wilks might also.  Technique wise, I also wouldn't expect many changes in the frequency of line stunts and such, but as mentioned above they'll really want to try and get that pass rush with four guys only if they go primarily Cover 2.

So what's it all mean?

While I do think a lot will depend on whether Wilks favors the Johnson Zone Blitz or Smith's (ultimately Tony Dungy's) Cover 2, it's worth remembering that even with a change of defensive helmsman, it's still the same captain in charge of the boat.  In the end, it is still Rivera's defense and Wilks is going to be the guy who works within the parameters that Rivera gives him.

The big difference you can cite though is that now he's running it with his first choice at DC.  Does that mean he'll back off and let Wilks have more free reign than McDermott may have had early on?  Gun to my head, I'd say yes.  And that does at least open up the possibility in my mind that the kind of aggressive, step on your throat approach Rivera talked about when he first arrived might finally start coming out.  Lord knows I'd love to see it, and I doubt I'm alone on that front.

Could Rivera also decide that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" is the smarter choice and ask Wilks to try and keep as much continuity with McDermott's system as possible. Yes, that's an option.

For my part though, I believe that while Rivera came to a point of genuinely trusting McDermott over time, he didn't necessarily have the kind of implicit trust in him from the beginning that it's right to expect he'll have with Wilks.  And for that reason I do believe Wilks will be given a true opportunity to put his own stamp on our defensive product.

What will that product look like?

We'll see in about seven months or so.

[FootballLivesMatter]

Well, let's give Wilks a SS, DE or two and another corner first. 

[Soul Rebel]

I def think that #8 pick is a defensive player. Fournette is the only other option at 8 barring some major skyrocket of an OT (which I don't see).  8 is too soon for Cook, and I don't personally think Cook is a good fit in our scheme. 

Adams is the prize, with Hooker and Barnett being amazing concellation prizes for Wilks.  If there's going to be more emphasis on coverage and somewhere between a Lovie-Dungy-McDermott-Johnson sandwich of a defense, I agree with FLM and need to give him a gem with that #8 pick or push your chips in on a JPP (I'd say Berry, but I don't see how KC lets him leave).  I'm also big fan of Cyprien, but maybe that's just my crush from a few years ago rearing its head again. 

[Ace_Aladdin]

Bradberry can play both man and zone, I expect to see more man. 

With the short passing game taken away.

[AceBoogie]

3 hours ago, Mr. Scot said:

So I decided to take a look back at Steve Wilks coaching background to see if there was any reason to expect significant changes to the defensive approach of the Panthers.

The answer?  Well, it depends..

Remember, former DC (now Bills head coach) Sean McDermott cut his coaching teeth under legendary Eagles defensive coordinator Jim Johnson.  So who has Steve Wilks primarily worked under in his NFL career?  Actually, that'd be Ron Rivera, who also served under Jim Johnson for a time but was equally influenced by Buddy Ryan and others.

Okay, so who else has Wilks served under as a pro coach?

Well, back during their time together in Chicago, both Wilks and Rivera were working for Lovie Smith.  As both a defensive coordinator and a head coach, Smith tended to favor an aggressive Cover 2 approach,

So does that mean we can expect more Cover 2 vs Zone Blitz? 

Well, to be honest the Panthers in recent years have shown plenty of Cover 2 looks so it's not a huge leap. But if that shift to more Cover 2 / less Zone Blitz does occur, then what does that actually mean?

Here are some possible changes...

Fewer A-Gap Blitzes

The A-Gap blitz is a 'bread and butter' play for the Zone Blitz scheme.  Theoretically, it forces a center to commit to one side leaving an opening in the middle of the line that a speedy linebacker can exploit.  The Cover 2, however, generally works best with seven guys dropping into coverage.  Panther linebackers Luke Kuechly and Thomas Davis are both solid in coverage but have become masters of that A-Gap blitz under McDermott, so it's hard to imagine we'd give it up entirely, but don't be too surprised if it's done less frequently than it was under McDermott.

Less Linemen Dropping Into Coverage

Part of what can make the Zone Blitz confusing is that it sometimes calls for a defensive lineman you'd normally expect to be rushing the passer to instead back off and drop into a zone while someone you expected to be in coverage runs at high speed toward the quarterback.  Now, when the blitzer gets there, that's great.  If he doesn't, then you're left with a defensive lineman trying to cover a wide receiver.  Cover 2 tends to stick to more traditional roles for the front four and the back seven.  Mind you, that's not to say you'd never see a blitz out of a Cover 2 (you most certainly will) but the Cover 2 is most effective when pressure can be applied with only four rushers, thus leaving the back seven to handle the speedier guys going out for passes.

All Out Aggression

Here's an area that's not so much about technique as it is approach. Lovie Smith's Bears were an aggressive, attacking defense, especially aggressive when it came to creating turnovers (witness the Peanut Punch).  Under Smith, Wilks and Rivera were also both known to be guys who heavily emphasized the importance of turnovers.  In fact, the Bears defense under Rivera was sometimes a little overzealous in attempting to get picks and strip fumbles and wound up giving up big plays as a result.  Was McDermott aggressive as Panthers DC?  Yes, but was he as all out, always go for the fumble aggressive as the old Bear defenses used to be?  That's a subjective question, and my subjective answer is I don't think so.  Thus, if we do become more aggressive then it's right to expect a lot of turnovers, but sadly a fair number of big plays given up too.  It's a very "feast or famine" approach and fans should be ready to expect that.

Now for a couple of things that will probably stay mostly the same...

More Man Coverage? Not Necessarily

From prior discussions, I know there are some who will expect that a Cover 2 means more man coverage as opposed to the zone favored by Jim Johnson's approach.  That's not necessarily true.  The Cover 2 was actually built on zone concepts.  Throw in the fact that we've built our defense of late with corners like James Bradberry, Daryl Worley and Leonard Johnson - i.e. guys who are primarily suited to zone coverage - and a huge shift seems unlikely.  So while I do indeed expect that we'll play some man defense (as we already did before) I wouldn't necessarily expect the amount of it to increase significantly.

Pass Rush - Coverage Balance

In the never ending debate about whether pass rush or coverage is the more effective tool for defeating quarterbacks, Ron Rivera comes down on the side of pass rush. Wilks, however, is a secondary coach where Rivera was a linebackers guy. So will Wilks emphasize coverage more?  Perhaps, but if so I doubt it'll be significant.  See, McDermott was a secondary guy too, and if he emphasized what Rivera wanted him to, then it's reasonable to expect that Wilks might also.  Technique wise, I also wouldn't expect many changes in the frequency of line stunts and such, but as mentioned above they'll really want to try and get that pass rush with four guys only if they go primarily Cover 2.

So what's it all mean?

While I do think a lot will depend on whether Wilks favors the Johnson Zone Blitz or Smith's (ultimately Tony Dungy's) Cover 2, it's worth remembering that even with a change of defensive helmsman, it's still the same captain in charge of the boat.  In the end, it is still Rivera's defense and Wilks is going to be the guy who works within the parameters that Rivera gives him.

The big difference you can cite though is that now he's running it with his first choice at DC.  Does that mean he'll back off and let Wilks have more free reign than McDermott may have had early on?  Gun to my head, I'd say yes.  And that does at least open up the possibility in my mind that the kind of aggressive, step on your throat approach Rivera talked about when he first arrived might finally start coming out.  Lord knows I'd love to see it, and I doubt I'm alone on that front.

Could Rivera also decide that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" is the smarter choice and ask Wilks to try and keep as much continuity with McDermott's system as possible. Yes, that's an option.

For my part though, I believe that while Rivera came to a point of genuinely trusting McDermott over time, he didn't necessarily have the kind of implicit trust in him from the beginning that it's right to expect he'll have with Wilks.  And for that reason I do believe Wilks will be given a true opportunity to put his own stamp on our defensive product.

What will that product look like?

We'll see in about seven months or so.

The aggression we need is on the offensive side of the ball where our qb is usually standing yelling for the play call to come in. 

[top dawg]

FWIW, I have read several articles on McDermott-Wilks, and though we might not see any major changes from a defensive standpoint, the players may appreciate Wilks in that he doesn't handle everyone exactly the same way, and realizes that they all have different personalities and may respond to different types of motivation (if you understand what I'm saying). So, Wilks' method of coaching may be a little more nuanced as it focuses on giving each individual what he needs to succeed so that ultimately the entire unit as a whole works more effectively (again, if you understand what I'm saying).

In any event, he is ready according to Rivera and TD (who also said that the defense will be ready for any changes big or small). 

One thing that I think is important not to overlook is that it was WilKs who was formally the Assistant Head Coach (as of 2015), and not McDermott. 

Lastly, and on an off-note, I was listening to Wes Durham, the voice of the Atlanta Falcons, yesterday on the David Glenn Show. He doesn't think there is going to be any big dropoff in our defense, and noted that Rivera's fingerprints are all over the defense. I didn't get to hear everything, but it sounded like he doesn't believe that the Falcons are going to be lulled into any false sense of security regarding the Panthers in general, noting our injuries and some bad luck this year.

 

[csx]

2 minutes ago, ludwig51 said:

Wilkes will be much better! Mcdermotts soft coverage  allowed us to give up short passes all game wilkes being a db will focus alot on pass defense 

McDermott was a db and got his start as a db coach.

[csx]

I don't believe the defense will change schematically or philosophy but there will be different nuances with a different person calling it.

[uncfan888]

4 minutes ago, csx said:

McDermott was a db and got his start as a db coach.

Pretty sure you just blew Ludwig's peanut sized mind

[Riverboat Ron]

I'm just curious how highly Gettleman values a Strong Safety over a DE. My gut says we'd take Hooker, Barnett, Fournette, then Adams but idk.

[Salisburysean98]

All I know is this team better sign JPP and peppers to be that veteran hand in the dirt again defensive end. And draft Barnett, keep Addison and let Charles Johnson walk, he just gets banged up too much to play consistently. I mean I like Johnson but if he could just stay relatively healthy he'd be okay to bring back. However, kony ealy NEEDS to step it up and I think you give him an opportunity to prove himself. He is gonna have to earn that ! Superbowl teams never rest on their laurel's when it comes to a front four pass rush... Especially whenever it means running more of a cover 2 style of defense. The defensive ends and your front should be the bread and butter if that's the case. If not, it's easy to see us taking the easier option in resigning Charles Johnson and Addison along with  signing Julius Peppers in the off season and rolling with it. 

[Jon Snow]

13 minutes ago, Riverboat Ron said:

I'm just curious how highly Gettleman values a Strong Safety over a DE. My gut says we'd take Hooker, Barnett, Fournette, then Adams but idk.

I think he will pick the guy Ron thinks fits his system the best.  With that said Dave will ultimately pick the one with the best value with all being equal.  

[OldNorthPowell]

3 hours ago, FootballLivesMatter said:

Well, let's give Wilks a SS, DE or two and another corner first. 

Poor Cam........:+(

[panthers55]

In order to see what we will likely run it is best to see how we are built and the system we use currently since honestly McDermott and Jim Johnson ran largely different coverage shells for example based on the thinking at the time which has evolved over the past decade. Where teams were noted for running certain coverages such as Cover 2 primarily in the past, that is not that germaine anymore. Since our 2016 coverage was a trainwreck of patchwork, let's look back to 2015 to see what we ran. Overall we ran man on 184 plays and zone 777. But within zone we ran the following:

Cover 2- 100 plays

Cover 3- 244 plays

Cover 4- 225 plays

Cover 6- 76 plays

Will be run more cover 2? Perhaps but league wide the cover 2 was used 10.4% while we used it 11.8% . League teams played zones roughly 61% where we ran it  78% . So whether we run coverage 2 or coverage 4 isn't that big a deal except that it means our corners will be playing in zone on cover 4 and often man in cover 2. Will we go to a more man look? That is usually dictated more by personnel than desire. For example Bradberry and Worley appear decent in man coverage. If they progress and develop I suspect we may run more man schemes on the outside with cover 2 safety play over the top. Not because of preference but doing what Coleman said Wilks excels at which is matching the scheme to the personnel. Will we still run primarily a zone scheme? Yep along with the rest of the league largely due to not enough corners being able to play man and be shutdown corners.