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

[DarrellsMyHero28]

The 3-4 is better against the pass. The NFL has become a passing league.

So moving to it is fine, but FORCING this team into a 3-4 when we had (at the time) literally zero players on the roster that had experience/were any good as a front 7 player in the 3-4 was a poor move.

My biggest complaint about Shanny is his hiring of Haslett. I think Haslett is garbage. His resume isn't impressive at all. The fact that Shanny hired him really concerns me. Look at Shanny's history in Denver, the deteriorating defense and his unwillingness to replace his DC was his downfall. I really hope that doesn't happen here.

[K.O. Johnny]

I'm not going to argue the points you made concerning the 4-3 stouter against the run etc in a previous post, because you made some sense. But I'm gonna pick up on Apostheosis' for using that language in the first place.

And frankly the indignant arrogance of you and apostheosis is more trouble than it's worth. I was hoping the likes of AtlantaSkinsFan/GibbsHoggHeaven/Bang would contribute something worthwhile to ES. I live in hope.

[Hitman21ST]

And frankly the indignant arrogance of you and apostheosis is more trouble than it's worth. I was hoping the likes of AtlantaSkinsFan/GibbsHoggHeaven/Bang would contribute something worthwhile to ES. I live in hope.

How was I being arrogant? That's an honest question, I was trying to respond as cleanly as possible. I just wasn't quite sure how you could call someone out for saying "bull****" then use "FAIL" in the same post, and want to be taken seriously. I don't mind the callout per se, but if someone wants a post to be taken seriously, they shouldn't use "FAIL." JMHO

And hoping ASF contributes something worthwhile is similar to hoping that the next time you go swimming, you find a sunken treasure chest full of gold.

[Mahons21]

Where's the god damn popcorn smiley

[PokerPacker]

Where's the god damn popcorn smiley

I gotcha covered. :munchout:

[Hitman21ST]

Where's the god damn popcorn smiley

Type in <colon>munchout<colon>

[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 ----------

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

Poor quality coverage is not the same as no coverage.

Mimicry only works when you think first and then react, not when you're pissed and you want "payback".

---------- Post added April-4th-2011 at 08:54 PM ----------

As an aside, neither system is that much better than the other, it's more about getting the proper players with the proper skillset, which we were not successful in doing last season.

[PokerPacker]

Am I the only one who suspects Johnny doesn't understand how the 3-4 really works?

[K.O. Johnny]

How was I being arrogant? That's an honest question, I was trying to respond as cleanly as possible. I just wasn't quite sure how you could call someone out for saying "bull****" then use "FAIL" in the same post, and want to be taken seriously. I don't mind the callout per se, but if someone wants a post to be taken seriously, they shouldn't use "FAIL." JMHO

And hoping ASF contributes something worthwhile is similar to hoping that the next time you go swimming, you find a sunken treasure chest full of gold.

I answered everyone of apotheosis' points - albeit with a bit of sarcasm when required. I became sarcastic with you when asked what exactly did I contribute.

Like I say I gave a counterview to all of apotheosis' comments - and heaven forgive me I didn't mention your post (which I partly agreed with) - which raised your ire.

And now you're being ****y about AtlantaSkinsFan. And he isn't even here to defend himself.

I rest my case

[SirClintonPortis]

Am I the only one who suspects Johnny doesn't understand how the 3-4 really works?

Considering that even the dumbest monkey watching a game could see that Ware, Orakpo, Matthews, Harrison, etc would be coming along with their respective D-line buds in a 4 man rush plenty of times in a game, it's a slight possibility.

[K.O. Johnny]

Poor quality coverage is not the same as no coverage.

Mimicry only works when you think first and then react, not when you're pissed and you want "payback".

---------- Post added April-4th-2011 at 08:54 PM ----------

As an aside, neither system is innately better than the other, it's more about getting the proper players with the proper skillset, which we were not successful in doing last season.

Poor quality coverage and no coverage can both be exploited in the same way - gains by the offense. The end result is the same

I didn't want payback. I replied to your point in the manner you made it.

[Enter Apotheosis]

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??.

I swear casually and defend my points vigorously. That's just what I do, sorry if it rubs you the wrong way. So long as you feel compelled to characterize me as defensive, though, I feel equally compelled to say that you seem to have very poor reasoning and are a bit too thin-skinned for someone who has decided to take such a hard stance against the 3-4. Also, you have bad breath :pfft:

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****

You keep your best players on the field as much as possible but all teams have substitution packages and will give their guys a rest from time to time so they won't be completely worn out when they're most needed.

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.

Many 3-4 teams resort to a 2-4-5/4-2-5 type of look that features two of your normal down linemen alongside both OLBs. Often times that's the look where your NT will be on the sideline catching a breather.

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.

Generally speaking, this would be correct.

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

Never said they were.

FAIL

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

Many of the very good ones have to bulk up a bit before going pro.

So moving to it is fine, but FORCING this team into a 3-4 when we had (at the time) literally zero players on the roster that had experience/were any good as a front 7 player in the 3-4 was a poor move.

My biggest complaint about Shanny is his hiring of Haslett. I think Haslett is garbage. His resume isn't impressive at all. The fact that Shanny hired him really concerns me. Look at Shanny's history in Denver, the deteriorating defense and his unwillingness to replace his DC was his downfall. I really hope that doesn't happen here.

It was a poor move if we honestly expected to be successful, it was a good move if our intent was simply to make sure that the system was in place and we could begin to get everyone on board for the future. That goes back to another argument that we've all had about Shanahan's intentions that none of us should want to get into again here, though.

Jury is still out on Haslett for me. We'll have to see what happens once we get a few more pieces.

Am I the only one who suspects Johnny doesn't understand how the 3-4 really works?

:paranoid:

As an aside, neither system is that much better than the other, it's more about getting the proper players with the proper skillset, which we were not successful in doing last season.

This. A thousand times this.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

I hate the new scheme and I reject the idea that the only way to have an aggressive defense is to run the 3-4.

There was nothing at all wrong with the 4-3 base defense.

The timid nature of the man (Greg Blatche) running the defense was the ACTUAL problem.

[K.O. Johnny]

look I wanted an enlightening thread where we'd all come away with a greater understanding of the game.

I managed to set up a good one some months ago regarding passer stats, but unfortunately, much like the 3-4 the skins are implementing, we don't seem to have the personnel capable to debate as adults.

Now I'm accused of not knowing how the 3-4 works (or doesn't) and am dumber than the dumbest game watching monkey.

What a sad level of conversation.

[Hitman21ST]

I became sarcastic with you when asked what exactly did I contribute.

Like I say I gave a counterview to all of apotheosis' comments - and heaven forgive me I didn't mention your post (which I partly agreed with) - which raised your ire.

And now you're being ****y about AtlantaSkinsFan. And he isn't even here to defend himself.

I rest my case

The "what did you contribute" post was in response to your "if you can't contibute, please don't" remark. I was asking about that single post independent of your response to apotheosis.

Now you're getting all pissy about me extrapolating on apotheosis' points, which I agree with, and you call me "Jim Haslett's mother" which came about completely unnecessarily. You got defensive with me when I provided a counter argument to your counterview to apotheosis, and did the whole "Jim Haslett's mother" post.

You're saying two opposite things in the same post...that being that I did contribute (the post you agreed with) and that I didn't contribute. So yeah, I'm going to be a little upset when you come off saying I didn't contribute anything.

If you've followed ASF's posting history, he more often than not doesn't contribute to the thread, he just puts in trolling posts, that don't add anything of substance.

[Enter Apotheosis]

look I wanted an enlightening thread where we'd all come away with a greater understanding of the game.

I managed to set up a good one some months ago regarding passer stats, but unfortunately, much like the 3-4 the skins are implementing, we don't seem to have the personnel capable to debate as adults.

Now I'm accused of not knowing how the 3-4 works (or doesn't) and am dumber than the dumbest game watching monkey.

What a sad level of conversation.

Johnny, sometimes how you present an opinion makes a huge difference when you're starting a thread. When you decry a common base front in the NFL that has a proven track record of success you are going to be fighting an uphill battle against those who think it is a superior front AND those who think it has merits and drawbacks just as all fronts do. If you were to argue that the Redskins specifically should have stayed with a 4-3 defense, you would probably find that many of us would be less exasperated and may even agree with you depending on how you laid out your opinion. Now, you seem awfully disappointed that I latched my teeth on to this thread instead of some other posters whose opinions you value and may share. Again, I apologize for not being the right kind of person for you but you have to understand that I put a lot of effort into this very subject last offseason when many people were extremely close-minded about the 3-4 and proved time and time again that they knew virtually nothing about it or some of the most basic fundamentals of defensive football.

[Floodzone004]

look I wanted an enlightening thread where we'd all come away with a greater understanding of the game.

I managed to set up a good one some months ago regarding passer stats, but unfortunately, much like the 3-4 the skins are implementing, we don't seem to have the personnel capable to debate as adults.

Now I'm accused of not knowing how the 3-4 works (or doesn't) and am dumber than the dumbest game watching monkey.

What a sad level of conversation.

It could be an enlightening thread if the OP was able to handle people having differing opinions on a subject.

[SirClintonPortis]

Poor quality coverage and no coverage can both be exploited in the same way - gains by the offense. The end result is the same

I didn't want payback. I replied to your point in the manner you made it.

DUH is used to rub it in while emphasizing facts.

You said "zone blitzes...are still taking people out of coverage". That is not a true statement. The very concept of taking something out means that the object(i.e a cookie) is no longer where it initially was(i.e jar). On the football field, that means no one is in the coverage zone, which means no coverage.

And perhaps less competent coverage is more accurate, since DEs can grab interceptions and make tackles. WIth no coverage, the receiver is free to do whatever he wants.

[PokerPacker]

Johnny, sometimes how you present an opinion makes a huge difference when you're starting a thread. When you decry a common base front in the NFL that has a proven track record of success you are going to be fighting an uphill battle against those who think it is a superior front AND those who think it has merits and drawbacks just as all fronts do. If you were to argue that the Redskins specifically should have stayed with a 4-3 defense, you would probably find that many of us would be less exasperated and may even agree with you depending on how you laid out your opinion. Now, you seem awfully disappointed that I latched my teeth on to this thread instead of some other posters whose opinions you value and you very likely may share similar opinions with. Again, I apologize for not being the right kind of person for you but you have to understand that I put a lot of effort into this very subject last offseason when many people were extremely close-minded about the 3-4 and proved time and time again that they knew virtually nothing about it or some of the most basic fundamentals of defensive football.

ah yes, I remember that thread. That was some awesome insight.

[SirClintonPortis]

I have an idea, let's ****ing ignore Johnny the whiner by giving him the silent treatment and start talking about the fronts in question.

Some readings:

http://www.milehighreport.com/2008/5/7/481970/mhr-university-modern-3-4

http://football.calsci.com/DefensiveLine.html

http://football.calsci.com/DefensiveLine3.html

[K.O. Johnny]

Johnny, sometimes how you present an opinion makes a huge difference when you're starting a thread. When you decry a common base front in the NFL that has a proven track record of success you are going to be fighting an uphill battle against those who think it is a superior front AND those who think it has merits and drawbacks just as all fronts do. If you were to argue that the Redskins specifically should have stayed with a 4-3 defense, you would probably find that many of us would be less exasperated and may even agree with you depending on how you laid out your opinion. Now, you seem awfully disappointed that I latched my teeth on to this thread instead of some other posters whose opinions you value and may share. Again, I apologize for not being the right kind of person for you but you have to understand that I put a lot of effort into this very subject last offseason when many people were extremely close-minded about the 3-4 and proved time and time again that they knew virtually nothing about it or some of the most basic fundamentals of defensive football.

I clicked on your thread - props - it's very well put together and I'm not trying to steal your thunder.

I said right at the beginning it wasn't a anti Haslett rant, but I really think I countered your comments and everyone and his dog is beating me with a ****ty stick.

I do note on your 3-4 thread that you admit that a NT is the most difficult position to find, but you seem to counteract this in your post in this thread.

I'm not the Defensive Co-ordinator at Washington, I'm just trying to keep the board alive with opening posts and contributions where I can - hell, the off season is long enough without new threads - I'm sick of reading about QBs we might or might not take.

The most cutting thing people can do to me is totally ignore my posts. If you all think I'm so full of **** then just blank me. I'll get the message.

[Darth Tater]

I noticed that many people seem to misunderstand the primary purpose of zone blitzing which is to force the QB into a bad decision.

[K.O. Johnny]

I have an idea, let's ****ing ignore Johnny the whiner by giving him the silent treatment and start talking about the fronts in question.

Some readings:

http://www.milehighreport.com/2008/5/7/481970/mhr-university-modern-3-4

http://football.calsci.com/DefensiveLine.html

http://football.calsci.com/DefensiveLine3.html

Now you're just being a prick

[SirClintonPortis]

Now you're just being a prick

Still asserting that "incompetent coverage" is the same as no coverage, I see.

[GaryGreenMonk]

I think if you look around the league, it's pretty plain to see that with the proper personel and some time together that the 3-4 is the more successful defense in today's NFL. I think the 4-3 was structured to deal with run first teams better and there just isn't many teams that consistently win with that type of offensive mentality. So the aggressive get after the QB style of the 3-4 tends to be better.

I'm sure over time that will flip flop again as I'm sure someone will become successful with run first as everyone switches to the 3-4 and a Gibbs like coach somewhere takes advantage of it, but for now, I think it would be hard to argue that the 4-3 is the more successful defense.