4-3 vs 3-4. Let's thrash this out

[K.O. Johnny]

I'll be totally honest. I don't like the 3-4. There, I've said it, but I would like other people's input and views.

This isn't an irrational "anti-haslett, the skins have always been a 4-3" rant. I'd like this analysed and discussed.

My take is two fold. First, 4 d-linemen against 5 o-linemen is slightly fairer in a matchup of the fat boys in the trenches and it takes some pressure off the linebackers. And secondly I think it's easier to find 4-3 personnel than it is to find 3-4 people. Take this year's draft, some fine looking DTs but a dominant NT? I can't see one to be honest. Same thing for OLBs, I think they've got to be that much more athletic (a al Demarcus Ware) than what's required in the 4-3.

The above points are just to get the ball rolling. I'm sure I'll draw a lot of fire from some for being so simplistic - that's fine, so long as people qualify what they say with reasoned argument.

Come on ESer's I know you've all got some great views to contribute

[Enter Apotheosis]

Annnnnnnd I'm being dragged out of my offseason slumber...

My take is two fold. First, 4 d-linemen against 5 o-linemen is slightly fairer in a matchup of the fat boys in the trenches and it takes some pressure off the linebackers.

There's really no basis to this statement whatsoever. The 3-4 often puts more bodies and sheer bulk on the line of scrimmage than the 4-3 does. Even if you only want to look at the four that are rushing the passer on a non-blitz call, the total weight will be extremely similar in either front.

This is, of course, speaking in very generic terms. The size of a defense is going to depend on a number of factors and is much more heavily influenced by scheme than by front.

And secondly I think it's easier to find 4-3 personnel than it is to find 3-4 people. Take this year's draft, some fine looking DTs but a dominant NT? I can't see one to be honest. Same thing for OLBs, I think they've got to be that much more athletic (a al Demarcus Ware) than what's required in the 4-3.

Ultimately, finding dominant players anywhere in the draft at any position is extremely difficult and is mostly dependent on the organization doing the drafting.

Both fronts have certain positions that are harder to draft for than others. The good thing about NTs is that, while there aren't a lot of them in any given draft, there also isn't a huge premium placed on the position so you don't have to spend a ton of money or gamble with a high pick to get one. After all, only one or two teams actually desperately need a 2-gap 3-4 NT at any given time. 3-4 OLBs are actually relatively easy to stumble into because there are a lot of tweeners coming out of the college ranks.

[SMU Redskin]

I think the 3-4 is harder for an opposing QB to read because he doesn't have as good of an idea of where all the pass rushers are coming from. It is a difficult defense to implement without a top-notch NT though

[bedlamVR]

I never liked the 3-4 but then you see the way the game is going and you have to move to a more flexible system and of the two the 3-4 is more flexible . I have seen much more flexibility the D in the 3-4 than we saw in the 4-3 but that is more relating to the defensive co-ordinator . I think Gregg Williams used to throw all kinds of exotic blitz packages up until that Pats game then he seemed to get gun shy and we had very vanilla D which had an extra churn of vanilla with Blatche ....

There are positives and negative on both sides . Finding the 3-4 NT is hard because it is a very physical role and the big guys tend to have issues with work ethic and athleticism . I think right now the collage game produces an awful lot of tweeners at DE and LB which fit the 3-4 slightly better than the 4-3 .

the long and short is the 3-4 or the 4-3 defense relies on the right personell which needs time to develop ..

[gamecokskins703]

3-4 utilizes the linebackers as pass-rushers whereas the 4-3 is more balanced between linebackers and the d-line. It is def way harder to find a good d-line for the 3-4 because the guys have to be big, strong, and they cant care about glory or sacks. They basically are guys who can apply minimal pressure but their main purpose is to occupy blockers for the linebackers to make plays.

[K.O. Johnny]

Annnnnnnd I'm being dragged out of my offseason slumber...

There's really no basis to this statement whatsoever. The 3-4 often puts more bodies and sheer bulk on the line of scrimmage than the 4-3 does. Even if you only want to look at the four that are rushing the passer on a non-blitz call, the total weight will be extremely similar in either front.

This is, of course, speaking in very generic terms. The size of a defense is going to depend on a number of factors and is much more heavily influenced by scheme than by front.

Ultimately, finding dominant players anywhere in the draft at any position is extremely difficult and is mostly dependent on the organization doing the drafting.

Both fronts have certain positions that are harder to draft for than others. The good thing about NTs is that, while there aren't a lot of them in any given draft, there also isn't a huge premium placed on the position so you don't have to spend a ton of money or gamble with a high pick to get one. After all, only one or two teams actually desperately need a 2-gap 3-4 NT at any given time. 3-4 OLBs are actually relatively easy to stumble into because there are a lot of tweeners coming out of the college ranks.

I think the 4 d linemen vs the 5 o-line is very pertinent and I don't think you can dismiss it. That you say there's more bulk in a 3-4 because they are sending more personnel shows the flaw that you need to blitz to generate pressure.

4 d linemen also have a chance of staying fresher throughout the game. How many times do you read draft reports about massive NTs and then there's a question mark about their conditioning and work ethic. You're not gonna find a 330+lb guy who's not carrying some excess - so their fitness is gonna cost them later in the game, plus they're usually getting double teamed.

You say NTs are cheap - well I hope we get a good one, but I don't think we're gonna, for either love nor MONEY

as for the OLB's being tweeners - they're only tweeners because people want them as DEs in a 3-4, but I'm sure they'd be fine as DE's in a 4-3. Orakpo? Manley?

[Enter Apotheosis]

3-4 utilizes the linebackers as pass-rushers whereas the 4-3 is more balanced between linebackers and the d-line. It is def way harder to find a good d-line for the 3-4 because the guys have to be big, strong, and they cant care about glory or sacks. They basically are guys who can apply minimal pressure but their main purpose is to occupy blockers for the linebackers to make plays.

You're generalizing too much here. There are a number of 3-4 linemen who are incredibly disruptive and good at generating pressure. Once again, individual ability and scheme matter more than front in terms of what kinds of players you'll find at any given position.

[K.O. Johnny]

3-4 utilizes the linebackers as pass-rushers whereas the 4-3 is more balanced between linebackers and the d-line. It is def way harder to find a good d-line for the 3-4 because the guys have to be big, strong, and they cant care about glory or sacks. They basically are guys who can apply minimal pressure but their main purpose is to occupy blockers for the linebackers to make plays.

This is the prob. Sending LBs is gonna compromise some coverage. I'm not anti-blitz, I just don't like to blitz every play simply to generate the rush of a standard 4-3

---------- Post added April-4th-2011 at 11:15 PM ----------

[SirClintonPortis]

The entire purpose of the NT is to compensate for the "lack of fairness". Having a huge guy like Raji to absorb 2 or even three linemen fixes up the numbers disadvantage. Hence, it's only the difficulty of finding a nose tackle is a legit knock against the 3-4. Usually, there's always going to be a 4th guy coming from somewhere in the 3-4. Pure three-men rushes only occur in prevent and the like.

---------- Post added April-4th-2011 at 06:21 PM ----------

This is the prob. Sending LBs is gonna compromise some coverage. I'm not anti-blitz, I just don't like to blitz every play simply to generate the rush of a standard 4-3

That's why there's zone blitzes. Duh. And no, there's ALMOST ALWAYS 4 or more guys coming in a 3-4. For example, if Ware isn't blitzing, then Spencer or someone else is coming.

[K.O. Johnny]

The entire purpose of the NT is to compensate for the "lack of fairness". Having a huge guy like Raji to absorb 2 or even three linemen fixes up the numbers disadvantage. Hence, it's only the difficulty of finding a nose tackle is a legit knock against the 3-4. Usually, there's always going to be a 4th guy coming from somewhere in the 3-4. Pure three-men rushes only occur in prevent and the like.

---------- Post added April-4th-2011 at 06:21 PM ----------

Zone blitzes although a great innovation are still taking people out of coverage. DUH.

[Enter Apotheosis]

I think the 4 d linemen vs the 5 o-line is very pertinent and I don't think you can dismiss it. That you say there's more bulk in a 3-4 because they are sending more personnel shows the flaw that you need to blitz to generate pressure.

You failed to take note of a key part of what I said. When you're in your base defense and don't have a blitz called you will typically have four rushers, regardless of the front you're showing. So if you want to look at a stereotypical example of the mass of that front in both 3-4 terms and 4-3 terms you'd have something like this:

3-4: DE (300 lbs), NT (320 lbs), DE (300 lbs), OLB (250 lbs) = 1170 lbs

4-3: DE (275 lbs), DT (310 lbs), DT (310 lbs), DE (275 lbs) = 1170 lbs

Same amount of mass, just apportioned in a slightly different way.

4 d linemen also have a chance of staying fresher throughout the game.

Bull****. How fresh your line is able to stay will depend mostly on your ability to keep the defense off the field as well as your ability to establish an effective rotation of players.

How many times do you read draft reports about massive NTs and then there's a question mark about their conditioning and work ethic. You're not gonna find a 330+lb guy who's not carrying some excess - so their fitness is gonna cost them later in the game, plus they're usually getting double teamed.

Sure, the REALLY big guys get tired more easily but you only need your NT out there when you aren't in a nickel defense. Thanks to the pass-happy nature of the game today most teams spend a LOT of time in nickel and dime defenses, so that drawback is somewhat of a moot point. Nevermind the fact that there are also some BIG guys on 4-3 teams who have similar durability problems.

You say NTs are cheap - well I hope we get a good one, but I don't think we're gonna, for either love nor MONEY

If we fail to get a NT it will be because of poor scouting or simple misfortune.

as for the OLB's being tweeners - they're only tweeners because people want them as DEs in a 3-4, but I'm sure they'd be fine as DE's in a 4-3. Orakpo? Manley?

I'm not entirely sure what your point is here. I said that there are a lot of tweeners coming out of college because the college game doesn't put as much of a premium on size, so your average college DE is too small to be considered an ideal DE in the NFL.

[HailB&G]

College just doesn't produce great 4-3 MLBs anymore. Look at the case of Rolando McClain. He was considered the best MLBer in the draft last year. He is o.k. Nothing great. Ten years ago, he would have been a 2nd Rounder. He went #8. Look at the Giants, they are in about their fifth straight year of not being able to find a good young MLB through draft or Free Agency. It kills their defense every year as the pass rushers wear down. But college produces tons and tons of big-time athletes at DE and OLBs. Many of the OLBs become 3-4 ILBs (Perry Riley)in the pros and many of the DEs become OLBs (Orakpo). Riley couldn't play a 4-3 MLB, and Orakpo wouldn't be as effective as a pass rusher as a true DE. The 3-4 alignment is taking over the NFL because of its versatility and the type of players that colleges are producing. Within 5 years, 20+ teams will be running a version of the 3-4 (it's about 15 now I think). These things come in waves, but you don't want to be running a defense from 15 years ago. That's Greg Blatche. If you want to run a 4-3 going forward, you better have a Spagnuolo or Gregg Williams to run it, because your gonna have some personnel holes to cover up.

[Conn]

This off-season is so dead, we've beat all the normal dead horses to a pulp already...so we're digging up LAST year's dead horses, to beat those corpses a little bit more.

Mostly kidding, I'm sure there will be some interesting discussion in here, now that we're one year removed from the emotional attachment that there was bound to be for the 4-3, and the normal hate of any type of change. Not to say that it was necessarily the right choice. Just that either way, discussion on this topic last spring/summer was never going to be totally rational.

Speaking of this topic, what the hell happened to Ryman of the North? I was gonna start a G.R.R. Martin thread the other day in the Tailgate, and realized I hadn't seen Ryman in forever.

[Enter Apotheosis]

This off-season is so dead, we've beat all the normal dead horses to a pulp already...so we're digging up LAST year's dead horses, to beat those corpses a little bit more.

I'm actually fairly certain that if there is no 2011 season we'll resort to debating the merits of Mike Espy and Jesse Lumsden.

[Hitman21ST]

Here is a fairly simple breakdown of things.

Passing plays:

With a 4-3 the Quarterback generally knows where the pressure will be coming from on every play. Sure, you throw in the occasional blitz, but for the most part it's fairly simple.

With a 3-4, you have more combinations of 4-man rushes. OLB, ILB, both with a lineman dropping into coverage, etc. It helps confuse the O-line on the blitzes which can, hopefully, generate more pressure for the defense with only four rushing.

Running plays:

With a 4-3, even with a good D-line, there are 4 defensive players out of the play on most plays at the snap of the ball. Sure, there will be a few plays where the D-line disrupts and stuffs the play in the backfield, but more often than not they're out of the play almost immediately, and even if they occupy the whole O-line, that leaves 7 others to make the tackle.

With a 3-4, with a good D-line, there are only 3 defensive players out of the play at the snap of the ball. Again, you'll have the occasional play where the NT or DE gets a good jump and disrupts in the backfield, but that's not the majority of plays. A good 3-4 D-line will have those three players occupying the 5 O-line, leaving 8 others to make the tackle.

Generally, the 4-3 will be a little stouter against the run, and the 3-4 against the pass. Each defense though can be good with the right personnel and run correctly.

[K.O. Johnny]

You failed to take note of a key part of what I said. When you're in your base defense and don't have a blitz called you will typically have four rushers, regardless of the front you're showing. So if you want to look at a stereotypical example of the mass of that front in both 3-4 terms and 4-3 terms you'd have something like this:

3-4: DE (300 lbs), NT (320 lbs), DE (300 lbs), OLB (250 lbs) = 1170 lbs

4-3: DE (275 lbs), DT (310 lbs), DT (310 lbs), DE (275 lbs) = 1170 lbs

Same amount of mass, just apportioned in a slightly different way.

Sure but you've got a NT taking a hell of a beating in a double team and the OLB taking a beating going up against an OT some 65lbs heavier

Bull****. How fresh your line is able to stay will depend mostly on your ability to keep the defense off the field as well as your ability to establish an effective rotation of players.

Starting a sentence with BS does not bolster your argument and I don't appreciate it. You're overly defensive (excuse the pun) in you replies. Are you Jim Haslett by chance??.

The ability to keep a defense off the the field is ultimately dictated by the defense on the field. You make the offense go three and out and you're off the field. Don't even begin to start to hide behind 'a decent offense would keep the defense fresh' excuse - I don't want to enter into Stat Wars episode IV.

And I don't buy the 'effective rotation of players' line. You keep your best players on the field in your base defense. Of course in your fantasy world of 'good NTs a-dime-a-dozen', we'd have three of them to rotate.

Bull****

Sure, the REALLY big guys get tired more easily but you only need your NT out there when you aren't in a nickel defense. Thanks to the pass-happy nature of the game today most teams spend a LOT of time in nickel and dime defenses, so that drawback is somewhat of a moot point. Nevermind the fact that there are also some BIG guys on 4-3 teams who have similar durability problems.

No, sorry, doesn't wash. If the D goes nickel then chances are it goes to 4 proper linemen. Anyway it's down to whether the coaching philosophy is 4-2-5 or 3-3-5. Yeah, I'll give you that, moot point indeed.

As far as durability/conditioning, I'd say after 320 pounds the bulk is in the form of adipose tissue as opposed to being truly conditioned.

If we fail to get a NT it will be because of poor scouting or simple misfortune.

Or maybe, they're not dime-a-dozen like you think they are.

I'm not entirely sure what your point is here. I said that there are a lot of tweeners coming out of college because the college game doesn't put as much of a premium on size, so your average college DE is too small to be considered an ideal DE in the NFL.

FAIL

Average DE's in college don't make it to the pros.

[s0crates]

-The more plays and formations the better. It is not as though any team plays 3-4 or 4-3 exclusively. Every team has plays with 6 defensive backs, plays with 5 defensive linemen, etc. Certain situations demand certain formations.

-I firmly belive that it is important to tailor your system to your players, which we failed to do last season. By forcing the 3-4 onto a team better suited for the 4-3, Haslett wasted Andre Carter's talent and created problems with Albert Haynesworth. This is not to excuse AH at all, nor is it to say something bad about the 3-4 in general. I only mean that last year we were not playing to our strength.

-There is no denying the advantages of the 3-4 defense itself. The offensive front and the backs have more variables to consider in their blocking assignments, which often leads to breakdowns in protection, etc.

-Since Haslett and Shanahan are sticking to their guns on this, we can only hope that we get the right personel in here. Specifically, we need a big NT, a big DE, and inebackers who can play in space. Acquiring the players we need to be a good 3-4 defense will of course come at the expense of our woeful offense.

[Hitman21ST]

Sure but you've got a NT taking a hell of a beating in a double team and the OLB taking a beating going up against an OT some 65lbs heavier

Which is why you rotate NTs, and don't rush the same OLB every play. With the double team, you'll have a DE going up against an OT, if you rush that OLB, he's obviously not going to go up against a tackle.

Starting a sentence with BS does not bolster your argument and I don't appreciate it. You're overly defensive (excuse the pun) in you replies. Are you Jim Haslett by chance??.

He might be overly defensive but he has a point. The fresher a defense is relies mainly on its ability to get off the field quickly.

The ability to keep a defense off the the field is ultimately dictated by the defense on the field. You make the offense go three and out and you're off the field. Don't even begin to start to hide behind 'a decent offense would keep the defense fresh' excuse - I don't want to enter into Stat Wars episode IV.

So an offense that goes 3 and out consistently keeps the defense as fresh as an offense that consistently has 10 play drives? That's an interesting way of looking at it...

And I don't buy the 'effective rotation of players' line. You keep your best players on the field in your base defense. Of course in your fantasy world of 'good NTs a-dime-a-dozen', we'd have three of them to rotate.

You need quality second stringers, too. You can't play the same 11 the whole game.

Bull****

Ending a sentence with BS does not bolster your argument and I don't appreciate it. You're overly defensive (excuse the pun) in your replies.

Or maybe, they're not dime-a-dozen like you think they are.

You can find a NT almost anywhere. If we don't find one, it's due to bad scouting or bad drafting, period.

FAIL

Average DE's in college don't make it to the pros.

You say saying bull**** doesn't bolster an argument, but saying FAIL does? That's just downright ignorant.

He didn't say "Average DEs." He said "your average DE" which means that of all the DEs in college, the vast majority are too small to be considered an ideal DE in the NFL.

[K.O. Johnny]

Which is why you rotate NTs, and don't rush the same OLB every play. With the double team, you'll have a DE going up against an OT, if you rush that OLB, he's obviously not going to go up against a tackle.

He might be overly defensive but he has a point. The fresher a defense is relies mainly on its ability to get off the field quickly.

So an offense that goes 3 and out consistently keeps the defense as fresh as an offense that consistently has 10 play drives? That's an interesting way of looking at it...

You need quality second stringers, too. You can't play the same 11 the whole game.

Ending a sentence with BS does not bolster your argument and I don't appreciate it. You're overly defensive (excuse the pun) in your replies.

You can find a NT almost anywhere. If we don't find one, it's due to bad scouting or bad drafting, period.

You say saying bull**** doesn't bolster an argument, but saying FAIL does? That's just downright ignorant.

He didn't say "Average DEs." He said "your average DE" which means that of all the DEs in college, the vast majority are too small to be considered an ideal DE in the NFL.

Who are you? Jim Haslett's mother? If you can't contribute, please don't. That's just downright ignorant.

I gave a reasoned rebuttal to each point. You add nothing. The Bull**** comment by me is what is known as irony. In case you don't know, irony is not getting the creases out of your shirt - look it up

If you want to make a useful contribution find a decent NT. They're everywhere apparently

[Hitman21ST]

Who are you? Jim Haslett's mother? If you can't contribute, please don't

So what exactly did you just contribute? Why don't you try that instead of personal attacks and maybe counter some arguments...think that could work? I gave a reasoned rebuttal, too, but you seem to plug your ears to anyone who disagrees with you.

[K.O. Johnny]

So what exactly did you just contribute? Why don't you try that instead of personal attacks and maybe counter some arguments...think that could work? I gave a reasoned rebuttal, too, but you seem to plug your ears to anyone who disagrees with you.

I gave a reasoned rebuttal to each point

[Hitman21ST]

I gave a reasoned rebuttal to each point

Since when is

Who are you? Jim Haslett's mother? If you can't contribute, please don't. That's just downright ignorant.

I gave a reasoned rebuttal to each point. You add nothing. The Bull**** comment by me is what is known as irony. In case you don't know, irony is not getting the creases out of your shirt - look it up

If you want to make a useful contribution find a decent NT. They're everywhere apparently

a "reasoned rebuttal?"

You have yet to rebut any of the points I made, you are still just resorting to personal attacks.

Oh, and irony would be getting upset at someone saying "bull****" and then responding by saying "FAIL" and expecting to be taken seriously.

[nightbird]

I honestly don't care, I just want us to build a playoff caliber defense.

Obviously you can build a great defense in a 3-4 or a 4-3.

You can also have rotten defenses in both systems.

It's just a matter of cosmetics.

So really I'm just interested in who we're going to get at NT, which experts tell me is the key to everything in the 3-4.

If your NT is getting pushed around by a single blocker the way kemo was last year, everything else falls apart.

[TK]

Children please.

[Mark The Homer]

ES does encourage fiery engagement, and this looks like one. We don't see any violations yet.

Please continue. Know the thread is monitored.

Thanks.