4-3 vs. 3-4?

[shttymcgee]

Quote: Originally Posted by hawksruleva

I'm a 4-3 fan, which works out since I play as Seahawks. I like the Jaguars playbook a little better than Seattle's though. They have a Strong Nickel package that really helps stop the run against 3 WR sets. That set uses a safety instead of a nickel CB. Depending on who opposing personnel, you can sub in a corner instead. The DL sets in the Strong Nickel are a bit tighter as well. In particular, the Robber play, which moves the FS closer to the box, gives you a good ability to stop the run from single-back sets. It seems like the RL NFL is favoring the 3-4 right now, but it's sort of cyclical. If more teams start finding success with the power running game like SF and Sea, we might see some more 4-3 fronts popping up. I think 4-3 is better against the QB read-option that some of the young QBs are running, too. The 4-man DL handles more blockers, giving the LBs a bit more time to read the play.

The 3-4 is not a 3 man line, it's a 5 man line. I don't understand this misconception. Most 3-4 teams use a 4 man line in their sub packages anyway.

I'm not saying one scheme is "better" than any other, because it's not. Good defense is predicated upon proper pursuit and gap control in the run game and matching route distribution and QB pressure in the pass game.

Both (as well as others) schemes are capable. Its more of a philosphical question than anything at the high levels where you can recruit/acquire players who fit your philosphy. Where at the prep levels, base defensive schemes may change from year to year based on the makeup of the players.

[StreetCarp]

Quote: Originally Posted by shttymcgee

The 3-4 is not a 3 man line, it's a 5 man line. I don't understand this misconception. Most 3-4 teams use a 4 man line in their sub packages anyway. I'm not saying one scheme is "better" than any other, because it's not. Good defense is predicated upon proper pursuit and gap control in the run game and matching route distribution and QB pressure in the pass game. Both (as well as others) schemes are capable. Its more of a philosphical question than anything at the high levels where you can recruit/acquire players who fit your philosphy. Where at the prep levels, base defensive schemes may change from year to year based on the makeup of the players.

The 3-4 is only a 5 man line on certain teams. The Colts, for example, basically run a 5-2 because Freeney and Mathis definitely can't cover. However, other 3-4 teams certainly don't always treat their OLBs like DEs. The Patriots in 2010 and part of 2011 ran a 3-4 where one of their OLBs (Ninkovich) played much more of a linebacker role than a DE role.

TLDR; it depends on the scheme, but you're only partially right.

[shttymcgee]

Quote: Originally Posted by StreetCarp

The 3-4 is only a 5 man line on certain teams. The Colts, for example, basically run a 5-2 because Freeney and Mathis definitely can't cover. However, other 3-4 teams certainly don't always treat their OLBs like DEs. The Patriots in 2010 and part of 2011 ran a 3-4 where one of their OLBs (Ninkovich) played much more of a linebacker role than a DE role. TLDR; it depends on the scheme, but you're only partially right.

There is sometimes a difference between what a team says they're base defense is and what the offense calls it. There's also differences sometimes between what a team calls an individual's position and how an offense identifies players.

An "3-4" OLB with their hand lined up over a tackle with his hand on the ground is normally going to be considered an End by the offense. The same player stepped off in a 40 is going to be considered a LB.

When NE runs/ran their over front with him in a 40 over the weak tackle, he's identified as a LB, for sure.

When a "3-4" team is in their under looks and moves their "defensive end" into the weak 3 technique, he's going to be id'd as a tackle, no matter what the defense wants to call him.

The name of the position is irrelevant, his alignment/responsibility/techniques are more representative of what type of player he is.

BTW, my post was originally in response to someone who said that a 3-4 defense isn't as good against the run because there's only 3 DL. I was just refuting that, because it's said alot and it's just not true.

I could give a long-winded response as to why even defenses were more popular in the 90's and early 2000's and why there are more odd defenses now, but it would be quite a long essay and I just didn't feel like getting in to it.

I realize that there are many ways to skin a cat, and maybe I shouldn't have responded the way I did, but, again, I was only trying to point out that "3-4" defenses rarely only cover 3 OL on the LOS.

[shorewall]

I would love to see that essay on even vs. odd fronts. I love that kind of stuff. If you want to, there is an audience.

[Ueauvan]

for the option qbs, arent the 4-2-5 and 3-3-5 the preferred defences? and isnt the simple way to defeat the option is that each player hits the player they are assigned, no going off piste?

[WildFan22]

I'm the Eagles in my CCM and I'm having trouble stopping the guy who's running the Lions. He kills me with Megatron, Broyles, Pettigrew, and Titus Young. If I press Calvin he completely blows past my corner for a TD. Even with help I can't stop him. If I back up my coverage he throws to the slot or TE.

Would switching to a 3-4 help me stop him? If not what would? I've started to drop back my line into coverage and control the safety myself but I still not comfertable with how many yards I give up.

[rdelizo35]

I use the Niners for my online CCM. I'm good at rushing the passer (maybe Aldon Smith and Justin Smith can take credit) and usually vs. the run.

The trouble I usually get is defending screen passes. The only tactic that seems to work for me against them is to use a blitz and force the opposing QB to get the ball out before he wants to.

[shttymcgee]

Quote: Originally Posted by shorewall

I would love to see that essay on even vs. odd fronts. I love that kind of stuff. If you want to, there is an audience.

Ok, I'll bite, but you're not getting an essay. I'll try to be as brief as I can and still show the trends with just a few reasons for why they have trended the way that they have

First off, alignments are definitely cyclical in defensive football. It's easy to see a pattern (center covered to center uncovered and back), even though the reasoning for the changes have been different each time.

I'll start with pro football in the 70's. This time was dominated by 2 gapping 40 defenses. The thinking is pretty straight forward, cover the best blockers with agile DL who can react to blocks and get their heads in gaps opposite of where the OL are trying block them in man schemes (but gap/trap schemes were prevalent as well, so the DL couldn't just race upfield with reckless abandon. Leave the center uncovered and let the MLB run around and make plays.

Then came what was probably the second-most game changing of all rules changes (next to allowing the forward pass as we now know it). OL were allowed to use their hands when blocking, and even grasp, as long as they were palms out and inside the framework of both the blocker and the defender. This made two-gapping every OL pretty tough.

Meanwhile, the 50 monster defense was dominating college football and those successful coaches made their way to the League, bringing the 3-4 (with 3 two-gappers instead of four) and the box-defending Strong Safety to the pro's. The dropped down Safety enabled defenses to outnumber the offense at the point of attack and the speed-type OLB's (which were rushers) created havoc on dropback passing.

Enter the west coast offense with it's emphasis on quick passing to beat the rush and take advantage of the 8 man front.

IMO (and many other current coaches) three things that all kind of came together during this time period (late 80's through the late 90's) had a vast impact on present day defense and have led to what we see now.

Jimmy Johnson (and staff) decide that speed kills on defense in a way of combating the wishbone option offense. LB's become ends, Safeties become LB's, ends become tackles. This brought the idea that DL could charge hard up the field in 1-gapping techniques, but spill trappers and kickout blocks; making the ball run out of space laterally and option plays were routinely ending with the ball carriere running out of bounds for no gain. Johnson brings the 1-gap attacking mentality to the NFL and has success, everyone piggybacks.

Dick Lebeau believes that the best way to attack 6 man "man" protections (dominant among WCO teams) is overloading the protection and dropping players from away from the rush to force "hot" throws and then just tackling the receiver for a short gain (the WCO relies on YAC) (the zone-blitz isn't really trying to confuse the QB into throwing a pick to a dropping LB, or getting a free-rusher (although that's a big plus), its about forcing the hot throw, but not being risky (there are still 6 droppers)). He uses a 30 alignment because both OLB's are capable of rushing or dropping; and combines it with a 1-gap mentality up front. The "ends" align in 40's, but read the guards (b-gap responsible), allowing the ILB's to run free, getting what seems to be the best of all worlds through safe pressures, yet still spilling the ball outside.

Opposite of the 1-gapping, zone-blitzing 3-4, the "Tampa 2" concept is developed by Monte Kiffin and Tony Dungy (along with others, I heard Dungy say he based it off of what Knox did with the "Steel Curtain" defenses with Lambert). This defense is called a 4-3, yet aligns in a 50 look. It's called a 40 because one end (the weak-side player) always rushes, while the other (stand-up 9 tech) always drops. So, the 9 is an OLB and the other two outside rushers are called ends. Thing is, this, when looking at it, is very similar in alignment to the 3-4, the inside 3 players just align in their gaps, instead of in a head's up alignment. The difference here is with coverage, running the MLB into the deep middle, instead of rotating a safety into the middle.

Basically, the early 2000's saw very similar alignments with most teams (there were exceptions), but most teams varied in how they identified themselves as 30 or 40 defenses based mainly on what their predominant coverage was and whether or not they played with a shaded nose. Hell, I think 1 year the Steelers were the only team that actually claimed to run a 3-4.

Currently, the NFL may be moving towards being predominantly "3-4" (i think more than 10 currently call themselves 3-4) for two main reasons:

not in order; they're connected

1. Alex Gibbs style wide-zone blocking tries to make penetrating DL wrong no matter what, creating vertical seams for the RB to cut through. Penetration of course kills the zone runs, but the hard up-field charges are somewhat easier to just run to the sideline (if the offensive designer is willing to put all his eggs in this basket) assuming the OL understand all the techniques involved

2. College defenses have moved to smaller, quicker, versatile players again. This time in response to the "spread" offenses. No huddling results in no substituting. This means edge players also have to play in space. This means there are less pass-rushing, prototypical 4-3 ends available. It's easier to convert a college end who's too small to play end in the pros into an OLB and have him box runs than it is to find an elite pass rushing end who is not a liability in run defens (which is a necessity in the NFL if you're going to be a full-time 4 down defense).

The change is not over, it will continue to adapt to offenses. If you really pay attention, you'll notice that fewer and fewer zone-blitzes are being called, because offenses use so many personnel groupings and motions which muddy the blitz rules for the defense (perfect example in Madden, how many times have you seen wide open players when you're in some sort of zone blitz that the game doesn't adjust to the offensive set). Or, offenses just max protect and then take advantage of the 1 fewer passer defender.

Guess this turned into an essay anyway...

But I could go on forever...

A half-hour of typing is enough, I'm done....

For now....