4-3 vs. 3-4

[Marmel]

Why is the 4-3 defense almost exclusively used in the NFL these days?

I remember when the 3-4 was used more. Did some fundemental offensive idea change, which forced the defense to change?

It would seem to me, with the right personel, that a 3-4 defense would allow you to be much more flexible, and throw many more different looks at an offense, considering the fact that you are replacing a huge lineman, with a quicker guy who can cover or blitz on any given play.

[stkelly52]

3-4 had a bit of a revival this year. I remember reading in the beginng of the season that there were about 4 teams that were going to primarily use 3-4 (texas & pittsburgh were 2 I don't remeber the others)

[Marmel]

I am pretty sure Atlanta uses the 3-4.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by Marmel
...considering the fact that you are replacing a huge lineman, with a quicker guy who can cover or blitz on any given play.

Without getting too deep into this, that statement seems to minimize the value of huge linemen.

[Buzzbee]

I have absolutely NOTHING to back this up, but I wonder if the success of LB's such as Lawrence Taylor, Mike Singletary and other such "high profile" linebackers has driven up the salaries of LB's to where "swapping out" a cheaper DL make financial sense.

I don't think this is the case, but the thought has crossed my mind.

In my opinion, it all centers around having a pass rush. The pass has been used much more in recent years than in decades past. As a result, defenses are focusing more on putting pressure on the QB. So, adding a DL gives you more people up front for the OL to deal with. It also allows the DE's to shift more toward pass rush specialists since you have two big DT's instead of one.

I'm also curious if the move from a traditional I-formation to more of a pro set, or even the singleback sets has resulted in less need for 4 linebackers (operating on the assumption that LB's generally have cover responsibility for RB's/FB's).

Just my $0.02.

[Marmel]

I would doubt the salary has much to do with it, but your other points make quite a bit of sense.

[Fritz]

Marmel

I read something on this a while ago and the article listed two points:

1: The 4-3 is cheaper. Not sure why, but that is what the article said

2: The 4-3 is easier to play and teach. With the FA system causing a great deal of churn it is hard to maintain trained folks.

[Bonegavel]

Here is a good article on the 3-4.

Sporting News Article

[Craptacular]

I've seen conflicting theories about the "cost" of each:

The 3-4 is theoretically more expensive becuase you need CBs that are not only great cover guys, but can play the run, as well as a couple of top-flight LBs. You don't need star DL, as long as they can eat up blockers and let the LBs roam. However, many have argued that good DL get paid much more than good LBs, so you pay more for the 4-3.

[MylesKnight]

What ever happened to the old Buddy Ryan defensive scheme? What was that a 52 Defense? That seemed to wreck a lot of havic in its day..

[Bee]

Interesting question.

I think there's little difference between the two sets in the NFL today. A lot of teams running a 4-3 defense have a fast DE who can either rush or drop into coverage. Heck, I've seen teams dropping DT's back into coverage. Teams running a 3-4 often have a LB who ends up playing a similar role.

[Bee]

Originally posted by MylesKnight
What ever happened to the old Buddy Ryan defensive scheme? What was that a 52 Defense? That seemed to wreck a lot of havic in its day..

It's very susceptible to the west coast offense, so no one uses it anymore (since the west coast offense is so prevailant throughout the league).

[sabotai]

Wasn't Buddy Ryan the 46 defense? (A variation of the 52...right? Oh I can't keep it straight anymore...)

Whatever it's called, it was hell to run against, but since the SS plays up in the box the entire time, it's easy to pass on it...as long as the QB has a chance to pass it. Usually he's got pressure very quickly because of all the bodies up front. Which is why it's not effective against West Coast style passing. 3 step drop and throw.

I personally like the 3-4 more than the 4-3. In my Stockton dynasty, I use the 3-4. And in FOF, I might change to the 3-4 if I get some good LBs.

[MylesKnight]

That's right, it was a 46. And yes, you're right, that was a sellout Defense. If you could give the QB just a bit of time, he could have a field day.

[korme]

FN is responding

[Marmel]

terrific!

[korme]

i wanted to be the asshole and ruin it for him, as i have bumped it before he could.

mwhahaahahah

[Pyser]

my god...i just realized.....

imagine the kind of contracts lawrence taylor would see in this age of football. $30-mil signing bonus, perhaps?

[Fritz]

what I read was that the 3-4 required more practice, teamwork and skill. The modern NFL finds these in short supply in part because of the fluidity that FA creates, thus the 4-3 is more popular.

As far as FOF goes, the game has a 4-3 bias. If I were playing a 3-4 why in world would I have to keep 3 DT active?

[JAG]

Just one point about the 46 defense...it is actually being run by one team today, the Titans (I don't know how much of a hybrid they use as I don't follow them too closely.

Jamie

[condors]

the buddy ryan "46" defense got its name because the saftey who was #46 (in chicago plank?) would come right up to the line sometimes even between the 2 defensive tackles, in philadelphia it was uncommon to see 9 guys in the box and 2 corners right on the line unforturnatly at the time izel "toast" jenkins was one of the corners(although he was good vs the run). Wes Hopkins and Andre Waters would be like having 2 extra linebackers in the box we went years without a runningback getting 100 yards against us vs some good running backs. The problem is west coast type of offense mostly although if the qb tried to hold the ball for any length of time jerome brown, reggie white or clyde simmons would be right there to drive them into the turf.

I miss that team

[Anrhydeddu]

Originally posted by Pyser
my god...i just realized.....

imagine the kind of contracts lawrence taylor would see in this age of football. $30-mil signing bonus, perhaps?

He would not have passed any of the more stringent drug test nowdays. Plus his value would not be as high for playing without being drug-induced.

<-So Marmel wouldn't put a hit on me

[cuervo72]

Originally posted by condors
the buddy ryan "46" defense got its name because the saftey who was #46 (in chicago plank?) would come right up to the line sometimes even between the 2 defensive tackles, in philadelphia it was uncommon to see 9 guys in the box and 2 corners right on the line unforturnatly at the time izel "toast" jenkins was one of the corners(although he was good vs the run). Wes Hopkins and Andre Waters would be like having 2 extra linebackers in the box we went years without a runningback getting 100 yards against us vs some good running backs. The problem is west coast type of offense mostly although if the qb tried to hold the ball for any length of time jerome brown, reggie white or clyde simmons would be right there to drive them into the turf.

I miss that team

Eek, Izell Jenkins....yes, that defense could be burned. BTW, you forgot to mention Roynell Young (they call me the ruler...I'm the one that's cooler than cooler).

Unfortunately that team never had any running backs or O-linemen

[IMetTrentGreen]

the 4-3 became popular when people realized how simple it was. when jimmy johnson and butch davis came up to dallas from miami and dominated with it, teams copied its success. thats how the nfl works

basically, your linemen attack and ytour lbs run to the ball. the end