3-4 vs. 4-3

[freernnur5]

If you want a "combo" feeling between the two of them run the 4-3 Under as your base defense. The alignment is basically that of a 3-4 except that the WDE in the 4-3 has his hand in the dirt instead of standing up like in a 3-4. Also brings the SLB closer to the line of scrimmage and can look like a 5-2. This is the base defense I operate out of.

Really though the difference between the two is about gap control but I don't think the game gives the flexibility for defensive linemen to differentiate in that way right now.

Edit: if you really want to get technical and understand what I mean about gap control read this:
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/...triots-defense

Edit #2: mind you in the 4-3 Under in game, the DT who lines up opposite the center (the nose tackle) is actually the second DT on the depth chart so you may have to re-order it for it to make sense on the field even though on the depth chart it would seem weird because the game doesn't split up DT and NT.

[catcher_0_3]

Quote: Originally Posted by freernnur5

If you want a "combo" feeling between the two of them run the 4-3 Under as your base defense. The alignment is basically that of a 3-4 except that the WDE in the 4-3 has his hand in the dirt instead of standing up like in a 3-4. Also brings the SLB closer to the line of scrimmage and can look like a 5-2. This is the base defense I operate out of. Really though the difference between the two is about gap control but I don't think the game gives the flexibility for defensive linemen to differentiate in that way right now. Edit: if you really want to get technical and understand what I mean about gap control read this: http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/...triots-defense Edit #2: mind you in the 4-3 Under in game, the DT who lines up opposite the center (the nose tackle) is actually the second DT on the depth chart so you may have to re-order it for it to make sense on the field even though on the depth chart it would seem weird because the game doesn't split up DT and NT.

Mathematically, the 43 Under is actually the "best" defense if you subscribe to the bubble theory.

[freernnur5]

Quote: Originally Posted by catcher_0_3

Mathematically, the 43 Under is actually the "best" defense if you subscribe to the bubble theory.

I don't know the bubble theory (maybe I know it called as something else) but Greg Mattison runs the 4-3 Under for Michigan so I try and stick with that. He is also throwing in more Nickel this year to help counter some spread attacks (he is slowly learning haha) so I will work with that too.

I try and read up and love learning as much as I can about defenses so if you have a link about the bubble theory I would love to read it.

[IkeB2]

In a small capsule.... If you have 2 stud DTs, a 4-3 is better. They push the pocket and stoop the run. 2 stud DTs can also make your DEs better and cover up your MLB.

In order to use a 3-4, you have to have a very good NT and above average DEs(5 Techs). But you MUST have 2 stud ILBs for a 3-4 to be really good. Bama is a great example. They always have a very good NT and stud ILBs. No one really knows who the DEs are yet the D is always special. Marcel Darius was the only DE that was a stud and many said that may have been the best college D ever.

[IkeB2]

Quote: Originally Posted by freernnur5

I don't know the bubble theory (maybe I know it called as something else) but Greg Mattison runs the 4-3 Under for Michigan so I try and stick with that. He is also throwing in more Nickel this year to help counter some spread attacks (he is slowly learning haha) so I will work with that too. I try and read up and love learning as much as I can about defenses so if you have a link about the bubble theory I would love to read it.

The "bubble theory" comes from the alignment in a 3-4. There is a natural "bubble" created over the Guards because in a 3-4, the offensive Guards are uncovered. As for the secondary, they are not affected by what front is used. There is just so much more you can do out of an "Odd" front. LSU uses an Odd front against spread teams but they do not use 4 LBs. Teams normally get out of the "Normal/Base" 3-4 when teams use the spread. This is due to trying to cover slot WRs with 260lb LB/DEs.

Notice the image below. Hope that helps. Now people do run it a little differently, but the ideas of most here are pretty much the base of each D.

[mailman2]

This is a lot of football knowledge lol. I still have two questions.

1) What is the better formation on the teams that lack the defensive talent of the Alabamas and LSUs of the world. Obviously those teams can afford the 3-4 because they have great Nose Tackles and their line can handle being outnumbered while not being outmatched. Also they have great linebackers that can control the inside and basically do a lot more with 4 of them, including more blitzing possibilities which can confuse the offense if it isn't used to those teams. With the 4-3 there will be less blitzes as the D has to focus on the pass more with less LBs out there.

2) Both the 3-4 and 4-3 have 4 DBs obviously, but what about have maybe 3, for example a 4-4-3. Or even a 5-4-2? Hell, why not a 6-2-3?

[BullsFan91]

Quote: Originally Posted by [email protected]

This is a lot of football knowledge lol. I still have two questions. 1) What is the better formation on the teams that lack the defensive talent of the Alabamas and LSUs of the world. Obviously those teams can afford the 3-4 because they have great Nose Tackles and their line can handle being outnumbered while not being outmatched. Also they have great linebackers that can control the inside and basically do a lot more with 4 of them, including more blitzing possibilities which can confuse the offense if it isn't used to those teams. With the 4-3 there will be less blitzes as the D has to focus on the pass more with less LBs out there. 2) Both the 3-4 and 4-3 have 4 DBs obviously, but what about have maybe 3, for example a 4-4-3. Or even a 5-4-2? Hell, why not a 6-2-3?

There's not enough protection against the pass for those formations to work as a base defense in FBS football. A situational formation dependent on the offense's personnel is another thing though.

[mailman2]

Quote: Originally Posted by BullsFan91

There's not enough protection against the pass for those formations to work as a base defense in FBS football. A situational formation dependent on the offense's personnel is another thing though.

I mean I've seen 6 down lineman on some plays, but I agree it's not a "true" base D.