EA Presents: Making the Transition to a 3-4 Defense (AKA Defense 101, Updated 2/21)

[Springfield]

People tend to just look at the sacks, but Carter has been an absolute beast in the running game as well. Guy has been, in my mind, the MVP of our defense this year though he continues to be overlooked.

Lavar Arrington said the same thing on his show. Say what you will about Lavar, but I trust his judgment on the subject of defense. Carter was a total stud this season, would be terrible to waste his talent.

[skinsfan07]

Seems like you worked really hard on typing this up. I'm happy that you're power didn't go out before you pushed 'submit', that would have sucked. But anyway, there is no need to switch to the 3-4. Our defense is fine. It's time to build the offense.

hahahahaha :rotflmao:

[jtyler42]

Just to add to the "could we" discussion...I posted this in another thread but it may be of better use here...Props EA!

I actually agree that we could run a successful 3-4 with the personnel on this roster and could actually be dominant with some additions...

When people hear 3-4 they automatically think of a "2-gap" base front 3-4 with the guards uncovered...That's not the type of 3-4 we would run b/c we don't have that type of personnel as it requires bigger ILB's and a mammoth true "2-gap" NT which we don't have...

We would/could run an "Over" or "Under" shifted 3-4 front that doesn't have the uncovered guards and is based on "1-gap" principles...This what Dallas, SF, SD, AZ to name a few run...It's basically a 4-3 with the RDE standing up...

This is a picture of the "Under" shifted front and what it would look like with the gap assignments...The only tweak I would make is if AC99 doesn't want to play the ROLB position then I'd put Wilson there and we could see if we could move him in a trade...or keep him as a pass rush specialist in nickle and dime situations...

with the alignment of 94 and 92 in the "A" and "C" gaps and their upfield penetration into those gaps they will require a double team to block them and in turn both the ILB's Fletch and Rocky would be free or unblocked and able to fill their gaps or flow to the ball...

I'M IN NO WAY SAYING THAT WE SHOULD SWITCH, I'M JUST ILLUSTRATING THAT WE COULD SWITCH...

[tml6157]

Vinny Cerrato: This is a playoff team. Well Cerrato was wrong, and if Allen and Shanahan truly believe that then they aren't better at evaluating this team than Cerrato was.

You know what a waste of talent is? London Fletcher playing the next three years for .500 Redskins teams.

In 2010 we are not a playoff team. In 2011 there is a strong possibility. in 2012 I expect we should be in the playoffs. But who knows about next year. Did anyone expect the Bengals to win their division? Who is to say we cant with the proper leadership and scheme?

Brilliant idea lets cut Fletcher because we feel sorry for him playing on a ****ty team. :doh:

[Oldskool]

Do you realize the effort that it takes to remake a defense from a 4-3 to a 3-4?

The Packers spent 2 - 1st round picks on an OLB and NT to fit their defense. They also already had a NT on the roster and 2 very large (320+LBS) DE/DT that they could plug in as 5 gap DE's.

Now let's see what we don't have to make this run:

No NT (Haynesworth has made it abundantly clear that he wants to play 1 gap or 3 gap, not 2 gap and certainly not zero gap).

No 5 gap Defensive Ends. Montgomery would be the only guy that has the size to play 5 gap but is he athletic enough? That leaves at least 1 5 gap DE missing.

No place for Andre Carter. Carter, and his 11.0 sacks this year, are too small to play 5 gap DE not to mention that he failed as a 3-4 OLB at age 27. Nothing says he would want or even be good at it at age 31.

No True 3-4 style OLB other than Orakpo. McIntosh has shown little as a pass rusher (5.0 in 4 years) and would be better served as a ILB.

So all in all I figure this whole thing about the Skins and the 3-4 is a media creation due to a blurb about one possible DC, who likes the 3-4, may come to Washington. Not to mention fan obsession about the fact that Orakpo isn't playing DE and instead is playing out of position at OLB.

All in all we cannot switch to a 3-4 (nevermind not "fix" what isn't broken) without spending multiple draft picks on defense yet again, when there are much greater pressing needs on this team.

[Enter Apotheosis]

Just to add to the "could we" discussion...I posted this in another thread but it may be of better use here...Props EA!

Thanks for reposting. That's some solid stuff.

Do you realize the effort that it takes to remake a defense from a 4-3 to a 3-4?

I'd like to think I have a pretty good idea. Maybe if you actually read the OP you'd have a better concept of what my understanding is. I'll throw you a bone here and point out two major problems in your post.

Now let's see what we don't have to make this run:

No NT (Haynesworth has made it abundantly clear that he wants to play 1 gap or 3 gap, not 2 gap and certainly not zero gap).

You're confusing gap and technique. Haynesworth prefers playing 3-technique, single gap because he can shoot the gap at the snap and isn't charged with taking on the double-team.

No 5 gap Defensive Ends. Montgomery would be the only guy that has the size to play 5 gap but is he athletic enough? That leaves at least 1 5 gap DE missing.

3-4 DEs don't need to be any larger than 300 lbs and it's not at all uncommon for them to be closer to 290 lbs. Brett Keisel of the Steelers and Justin Smith of the 49ers are 285 lbs apiece. Montgomery has the size of a NT.

[hieverybody]

In 2010 we are not a playoff team. In 2011 there is a strong possibility. in 2012 I expect we should be in the playoffs. But who knows about next year. Did anyone expect the Bengals to win their division? Who is to say we cant with the proper leadership and scheme?

Brilliant idea lets cut Fletcher because we feel sorry for him playing on a ****ty team. :doh:

I've never said to cut Fletcher. But if we can find a trading partner we should jump on it. Fletcher will be too old to contribute by the time we are contenders again.

I said drop bad players, mostly because we can clear cap space (assuming there will ever be a cap again) by doing so. Fletcher, Carter and Haynesworth all have trade value (yes, even Haynesworth because by trading him, the other team only has to pay his base salary while Snyder is stuck with his bonuses - not too bad considering it will be an uncapped year).

No, no one expected the Bengals to win their division. But the Bengals are exactly the type of team I don't want to be. Aging, with no future and no real hope of winning in the present either.

[Oldskool]

You're confusing gap and technique. Haynesworth prefers playing 3-technique, single gap because he can shoot the gap at the snap and isn't charged with taking on the double-team.

Sorry if my description throws you. Let me put it this way, Haynesworth doesn't want to take on more than one tackle. He wants to play on the outside shoulder of the guard and center and get to the QB. He does not want to be a space eater.

3-4 DEs don't need to be any larger than 300 lbs and it's not at all uncommon for them to be closer to 290 lbs. Montgomery has the size of a NT.

Don't need to be true but they also are usually larger.

A 5 technique needs to be able to disrupt the OL by occupying the guard and/or tackle, all the while having the length, athleticism and talent to still apply pressure on the QB.

The pass rushers on this team are quite few, hence why we drafted Orakpo. None of the current DT's or DE's seem to scream easy transition to a 3-4 scheme.

And yes I read the OP. Wonderful piece of work and I applaud him for the hard work he put into it.

I personally am a fan of the 3-4 defense (if you want to go back in the archives, my first post on this forum was asking about the Skins moving to a 3-4). None of that changes the fact that we do not have the players to make the defense work *correctly* and there is no reason to rebuild a top 10 defense.

[Snagletooth]

The 3-4 appears to be a much better scheme for pressuring the QB. Why is that the case? Blocking assignments are not as easily recognized? The OLB's rush from more advantageous angles? Certainly its much easier to find an effective pass rusher at OLB in a 3-4 scheme than it is to find 4-3 DE that can get after the QB without being a liability in the run game.

I would be all for a 3-4 scheme. But, in the short term, as noted, our personnel appears to be much better suited for 4-3. Still the dominance of the Steeler defense, and the sudden success in Denver, and Green Bay is awfully enticing.

[Oldskool]

The 3-4 appears to be a much better scheme for pressuring the QB. Why is that the case? Blocking assignments are not as easily recognized? The OLB's rush from more advantageous angles? Certainly its much easier to find an effective pass rusher at OLB in a 3-4 scheme than it is to find 4-3 DE that can get after the QB without being a liability in the run game.

You can disguise the zone blitz packages better due to the amount of LB's on the field at once as well as disguise the pass protections. This was the main reason why Bellicheat and his defense were so hard to handle for years and why LeBeau is feared in this league.

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

None of that changes the fact that we do not have the players to make the defense work *correctly* and there is no reason to rebuild a top 10 defense.

This is not a top 10 defense (maybe top 15 overall, and was bottom 10 last year), and it certainly will be not as key pieces like Fletcher age. It has consistently failed to make plays that contending teams need their defenses to make, and even under Williams the defense often played conservatively once teams figured out how to play him.

[Sweet Sassy Molassy]

I disagree with the idea that the 3-4 is more aggressive by nature. That mostly depends on the guy doing the scheming and calling plays on the sideline. It is a little bit more dynamic by nature, though.

That's fair, I guess most teams that I see running a 3-4 seem to be a bit more aggressive with it. Though I think the dynamism of it is what gives it the feeling of being more aggressive, partly because with 3 down linemen there is a LB blitz more times than not it allows you to be more creative with whom that rusher is (OLB or ILB), and how he attacks the line.

[Going Commando]

Big up to you for starting a thoughtful discussion of a 3-4 transition. I think you are dead on in your OP that there isn't as much difference between a conventional 4-3 defense and a 3-4 front like the Chargers and Cowboys, and now Ravens actually run.

IMO the major difference between the classic 3-4 and 4-3 is in the two gap responsibilities of 3-4 linemen. That's what changes the name of the game for the defenses because it means that on every play in a pure 2 gap 3-4 front, there is essentially at least one free rusher with no gap responsibility. Because you've got atleast the 0 technique playing both gaps by the center, you only need five other players in the front 7 on the primary gaps to remain gap sound. It makes it much easier to disguise where your rush is from and frees you up to blitz in numertous ways.

It's a disciplined scheme in many ways and it definitely doesn't suit a promising young linebacker like Rocky since he's essentially a coverage linebacker for us. I was shocked to see how often he came off the field in running situations this year in favor of Blades and sometimes even Kedric Golston.

Also, Haynesworth playing two gap is a disaster in the making. His best position is 3 technique and he'll always be most effective there because it lets him pull interior linemen with him when he penetrates. Moving him to five technique could work but it seems like a waste.

Lastly, as most others have pointed out, it is very difficult to find that elite two gap nose tackle. Their scarcity is why you see a bunch of other 3-4 teams switching back to 1 gap defense like the Ravens have.

Oh and I forgot, we don't have to change to a 3-4 to play two gap with regularity. We would just have to find the right defensive tackle. Something to think about.

[Enter Apotheosis]

^ Solid take, steve. Regarding Haynesworth, we could still find ways to get him in the 3-technique matched up one-on-one with a guard if necessary. Jtyler's diagram a few posts up is a pretty good example of how to do that. If 99 rushes from the weak side he'll draw the attention of the OT leaving 92 in a fairly ideal situation.

The 3-4 appears to be a much better scheme for pressuring the QB. Why is that the case? Blocking assignments are not as easily recognized? The OLB's rush from more advantageous angles? Certainly its much easier to find an effective pass rusher at OLB in a 3-4 scheme than it is to find 4-3 DE that can get after the QB without being a liability in the run game.

Part of it has to do with common perceptions and stigmata that aren't necessarily accurate. When you're watching a 3-4 defense that extra LB stands out more than a down lineman and is likely to be more active both before and after the snap as they generally have more ground to cover to get to the QB. As such, we tend to naturally hone in on them more than we do a guy with his hand in the dirt and the play may appear more chaotic. People also tend to think of the Steelers, the Ravens, or the Jets when they think of the 3-4 and all three of these defenses are led by extremely aggressive defensive minds. It's easy to forget that the Eagles are equally adept at generating a pass rush out of the 4-3.

The other, more obvious part of the equation is that it's easier to disguise your blitzes out of the 3-4 because opposing offenses don't really know where that fourth rusher will be coming from. It's likely to be one of two OLBs but it could also be an ILB or DB and you can do multiple things to goad the offense into guessing incorrectly. A little hesitation at the snap goes a long way.

The 4-3 pass-rushing DE is a real tough position to fill as there are only one or two really good ones in any given draft. Part of this has to do with the college game, where players are generally smaller and speed is favored over bulk. The 3-4 NT position is even more difficult to find for pretty much the same reason.

Sorry if my description throws you. Let me put it this way, Haynesworth doesn't want to take on more than one tackle. He wants to play on the outside shoulder of the guard and center and get to the QB. He does not want to be a space eater.

I knew what you meant the first time around. It was stated as problem in the first post. It would be possible to appease Haynesworth if he were a 3-4 DE but it would be exceedingly difficult to do at NT.

Don't need to be true but they also are usually larger.

Depends on your definition of 'usually' and 'larger'. The majority of 3-4 DEs that I am aware of are under 310 lbs with most falling in the 295-305 lb range.

A 5 technique needs to be able to disrupt the OL by occupying the guard and/or tackle, all the while having the length, athleticism and talent to still apply pressure on the QB.

The pass rushers on this team are quite few, hence why we drafted Orakpo. None of the current DT's or DE's seem to scream easy transition to a 3-4 scheme.

3-4 DEs aren't often great pass rushers. They need to be able to get some push but the real pressure comes from the OLBs who they free up by simply occupying offensive linemen.

And yes I read the OP. Wonderful piece of work and I applaud him for the hard work he put into it.

I'll... let him know?

I personally am a fan of the 3-4 defense (if you want to go back in the archives, my first post on this forum was asking about the Skins moving to a 3-4). None of that changes the fact that we do not have the players to make the defense work *correctly* and there is no reason to rebuild a top 10 defense.

I don't know that there is a "correct" or "incorrect" way to run the defense. What matters is what results we could get with the way we do run it, knowing full well the limitations of our personnel. Obviously, you would expect poor results which is understandable.

[BadKarma]

EA, I thank you for your post, I have long been a traditionalist with regard to the 4-3 here in D.C as I tend to think that many of our problems the past season with regard to Blache's system were indeed coaching / motivational problems and that we could have excelled under a more qualified and eager coach. That being said the thing that intrigues me the most about a switch to a 3-4 under a qualified coordinator is the complexity of the reads and the problems it could cause Romo sits to pee, Manning and McNabb for many seasons to come as well as the popularity and success it has had in recent defenses around the league.

I tend to agree with you that the personnel adjustments needed to execute this scheme for next season could be minimal with the right offseason moves and our success could be easily realized by finding a few cheap stop gaps in free agency and would really turn loose the potential of Orakpo who in my mind is one of the most worrisome additions we made last year as I dont see him as being a true fit for a 4-3 and why not build the defense around our best player. I am also concerned that our aging and contract due personnel (Carter, McIntosh, Griffin, Daniels) present higher liabilities to strengthening our existing 4-3 than a transition to a 3-4 shift as it might be cheaper and more easily remedied as in the Denver example you mentioned.

My question is what you think of in regard to Landry shifting to MLB in a 3-4 scheme next to Fletcher. LaRon has proven to be a liability this season in the secondary and in any coverage for that matter (couldn't cover Boss in the 2nd Giants game from SS) and it appears his strengths tend to be his physical nature and strength. I dont worry as much about his tackling as others mainly because I think a lot of his problems were due to playing with the amount of space he had to cover in Blaches (Williams) system as opposed to bringing players down in run coverage in closer contact. I also fashion LaRon as one of our better blitzers on this team and think with his noted physical development more likely to result in bulk (rather than thinning down for speed as #21 did in his final season) that we are going to need to find a place for him where he can more appropriately follow his natural physical development.

I guess I am wondering if you think that Landry would be better served with a shift to MLB in a 3-4 rather than allowing him to continue to flounder as a safety (FS/SS) in a 4-3. I personally think that he is one season away from becoming a bust here in D.C but also think he is the most talented athlete we have on defense other than Orakpo and I know Shanahan likes to build around our players as opposed to last years regime which tried to force square pegs into round holes.

HTTR

[Veretax]

LIke the others I feel it was good effort and explanation, but no one has convinced me that we NEED to switch to a 3-4 Scheme. Our 4-3 is fine, we just need better play calling and using personnel better.

[maskedsuperstar]

Its fine. And that is the problem. I want more than fine.

[GibbsFactor]

I like our 4-3 but want a more aggressive 4-3.

I don't see why we can't send Orakpo in every play (edge or stunt) from his SAM spot.

[NewRegime]

Again, my biggest concern is who is running the 3-4 defense, no so much the players (that will come).

[Miamification]

GREAT read! Thank you, you definitely answered some of my questions.... even went on to hypothesize what we might do! I think I like the idea of going to a 3-4, but as you suggested, that's for Mike Zimmer(?) to decide.

One little teensy-weensy thing though lol.... The linebacker from Green Bay you are referring to is Nick Barnett, not Barnes.

Aside from that though, I'd suggest this even be stickied. I know we're going to have a lot of questions about this as a community in coming months.

Thanks again. Great job.

[Warpath11]

As a scheme I like the 3-4 better, as others have also mentioned. I believe the only way 2010 could be a 3-4 year is if we play the 1-gap 3-4 defense. Using Haynesworth as Dallas uses Ratliff (at NT) would still make Haynesworth a desruptive force that shoots one gap and by his nature drawing double teams. He could also be put out at the 5-tech DE in certain situations.

IMO we need to beef up the NT position because I dont think we'll see 16 games from big Al. We also need to get a bigger MLB to play next to Fletch (Dallas has big Bradie James playing next to the smallish Brooking and in 2009 he played next to Zach Thomas). Though as others have pointed out Green Bay has two former 4-3 OLBs playing very well in the middle.

Playing this 1-gap 3-4 can be effective for us and over time we can build up the player base to play the "traditional" 2-gap 3-4, if so desired.

[Going Commando]

Thanks for the work EA, good stuff.

In my opinion, the biggest problem for us would be making Andre Carter an obsolete player in our scheme. It's tough to imagine the guy relegated to a back-up role when he does what he does for us. People tend to just look at the sacks, but Carter has been an absolute beast in the running game as well. Guy has been, in my mind, the MVP of our defense this year though he continues to be overlooked.

This is true. I think he was our best, most consistent player on the entire roster this year and I think he was second only to London last year even though he only had 4 sacks. For the past three years, he's been one of our most important players. It would be a huge blow to lose him right now.

Haynesworth is not an ideal fit for the scheme either and he's the guy we are trying to build the defense around. Ditto for McIntosh who really has no place in the scheme either. That's three of our best defensive players that would wash out in a transition and Haynesworth and McIntosh both still have a lot of years ahead of them.

Lastly, I think people are thoroughly overestimating Orakpo's value as an OLB in a 3-4. It's not his ideal position. Go back to Mike Mayock before the 2009 draft discussing Orakpo and you'll find him making comments about how Orakpo is best suited to playing 4-3 RE. That really hasn't changed IMO after watching Orakpo play SAM in the 4-3 looks we've been using this season. Pro-bowl aside (it came entirely from the sacks), doesn't everyone else remember how much he struggled this year at LB? Becoming invisible for stretches of games? Barely treading water in coverage? Struggling to consistently stack and shed blockers? Getting washed at the PoA? Orakpo is still best suited to playing end. He's not as fluid an athlete as the best 3-4 OLBs are and as his career progresses, he's only going to get bulkier and stronger. He's got perennial pro-bowler written all over him at RE, we might as well use him there.

The fact of the matter is that it doesn't make football sense to minimize the presence of your strongest and deepest unit on defense (our defensive line) in favor or the thinnest and least settled unit (our linebackers). That alone is a reason why we shouldn't move to a 3-4, without even considering that we lack the most important personnel to run the scheme.

If we want to see a change in defense, they should be done within the structure of the 4-3. First and foremost, we could draft a better SAM linebacker like A.J. Edds from Iowa in the middle rounds and move Orakpo to a full time spot on the defensive line now that Philip Daniels is pretty much done. We can make the scheme adjustments to play either him or Carter aggressively at LE against the run or pass. We could draft and utilize a two gap tackle that could play the 2 technique to free up our ends or outside linebackers from their gap responsibilities. We could see Orakpo work to improve his ability to play containment. He can do it, Carter did it, and Orakpo is stronger than he is.

These are the kinds of changes that I think we should hope for and I think it's realistic for us to see some of them accomplished in the near future.

[Warpath11]

Ditto for McIntosh who really has no place in the scheme either.

You make alot of great points but don't you think if AJ Hawk can be an effective ILB in a 3-4 McIntosh can as well?

[Going Commando]

I guess I am wondering if you think that Landry would be better served with a shift to MLB in a 3-4 rather than allowing him to continue to flounder as a safety (FS/SS) in a 4-3. I personally think that he is one season away from becoming a bust here in D.C but also think he is the most talented athlete we have on defense other than Orakpo and I know Shanahan likes to build around our players as opposed to last years regime which tried to force square pegs into round holes.

HTTR

I think trying to make Landry an ILB in a 3-4 would pretty much give new meaning to the square peg in a round hole phrase. First off, he'd be tiny for the position, he'd give up almost 100 pounds to the offensive linemen he'd now have to take on. Second, it would completely neutralize his greatest strength which is his range. If we were foolish enough to try and move him to linebacker, the only possible place for him is as a weakside linebacker in a 4-3 like Thomas Davis moved to. Only Rocky is a better WLB than Landry probably ever will be and you'd have to move him to accomodate a pointless position shift with Landry.

Landry is a safety, who's coming off of a slightly above average season for his position. He's in need of better coaching, better preparation, and better in game focus, not a position change.

[Going Commando]

You make alot of great points but don't you think if AJ Hawk can be an effective ILB in a 3-4 McIntosh can as well?

With his size, dependability, and range, I think Hawk had pro-bowl potential as a 4-3 WLB and has been a bit of a casualty in the shift to the 3-4 in Green Bay. I don't even think Rocky's as good or strong a player as Hawk is, so I really wonder how he'd fair in the shift inside. Either way, Hawk's career arc is not something I'd really want to imitate for Rocky. I think Rocky would end up the same way Vilma did in the shift or the same way someone like Jon Beason would were they to shift. It doesn't suit him. He's a coverage linebacker who lacks the power to consistently stack and shed. His place is as a 4-3 WLB or maybe a cover 2 style MLB.