Chalk Talk: Switch To A 4-3! (Why That Transition Is Difficult)

[KDawg]

The first question I ask myself when people consider switching to a 4-3 is simply, "Why? Why do you feel the need to make that transition?"

 

So I'll start this thread with that very question, if you feel like answering below. But please, read the rest of this piece before responding.

 

3-4 vs. 4-3 and what the terms mean

 

Most defenses are multiple in the modern era of football. In a strict sense, that means that they can transition to various fronts to combat different offensive formations and strategies. A base odd-front team (A team that utilizes the 3-4, for example) can get to a 4 front simply by walking one of their backers down onto the line of scrimmage.

 

(For clarification, an odd front generally will have a nose tackle in a 0-technique [head up on center] or a shade technique [on one of the center's shoulders] present. Even fronts usually have some combination of a 1/3 technique [one being the inside shoulder of the guard, three being the outside shoulder of the guard])

 

Alignments can vary, and for the sake of simplicity, different teams consider different things an odd or an even front. Traditionally, though, four defensive linemen is an even front, three defensive linemen is an odd front.

 

Moving past that, the traditional 4-3 Over, which was popularized by the Miami Hurricanes and the Dallas Cowboys, both under Jimmy Johnson, came about because of the NFL's shift to the passing game. It allowed the defensive line to play fast because they were only responsible for one gap. So they could check that gap/take the proper footwork against the offensive line's movement and then go get the football.

 

It's a misconception that 4-3 DL only have to "rush the passer", and it's a statement I've seen posted on here a few times. It's wholly incorrect. They still have run responsibilities, they still have to recognize plays. They just don't have to diagnose which gap to attack. That part of the read is taken out of the equation. They can attack and do their specific job. And even rushing the passer can come in different forms. There are contain rushes, stunt rushes, blitz rushes, etc.

 

While illegal, the use of the "tug" technique by defensive linemen in any kind of front has become prevalent in football. A DL will attack a gap and give the lineman attempting to block him and tug on their jersey in order to prevent that OL from getting off of him and onto the blitzing linebacker. It opens up rush lanes. The tighter the jersey, the harder that technique is to utilize, but it's also something that's difficult for refs to pick up on because of the hand fight going on in the trenches on every down.

 

Now, keep in mind, that the other aspect to the 4-3  is adjusting to the 4 and 5 wide receiver sets that have become commonplace in the NFL today. Do you walk your strong safety down on one of the receivers and widened a backer to the other side? Do you walk two backers out and keep your coverage in tact while leaving five players in the box? It's a tough premise.

 

The 3-4 came back into popularity because of it's flexibility. You can disguise pressure better. Most 3-4 teams don't usually bring just three guys. But the difference is that in a 4-3, you generally know which four guys are coming (Jim Johnson with the Eagles was extremely good at zone blitzing from a 4-3 look). In a 3-4, you know the 3 down guys are coming, but who's the fourth? It's much tougher to see for the OL.

 

So why the use of more nickel fronts if the 3-4 is more flexible? Well, you can get more athletes on the field. As we know, 3-4 OLBs are almost ALWAYS DEs in college. It's not just Rak and Kerrigan, folks. It's many of the top 3-4 OLBs in the NFL. In the nickel front, you can get two horses on the interior and get more speed on the field. Your stand up ends can be your OLBs, and they can still drop into coverage, or come on a blitz package. You're still bringing four as you normally would if you choose, or you can bring three. And you can bring the fourth guy from anywhere, as your OLBs still know how to drop into coverage.

 

Plus, you've taken a DL off the field and put a DB on it. That greatly helps with coverage. This is an easier transition when you have 3-4 personnel vs. 4-3 personnel in my opinion. A 4-3 end isn't going to practice coverage as often, so even in that scenario, one of them dropping back isn't a large threat. They have other fish to fry. So while a 3-4 OLB isn't usually outstanding in coverage, they are generally better than a team utilizing a 4-3's defensive end.

 

Basically, a lot of nickel packages are based on a 2-4-5 personnel concept. (There are different packages when teams want to do different things).

 

So what's the major difference between a 4-3 and a 3-4? The personnel on the field and the things they are able to do.

 

So the next question has to be: "Well, the 'Skins utilize the nickel package, and the 3-4, so why isn't it working?"

 

Good question. There's probably a few reasons, but the biggest is the lack of a true nose. Cofield has played well, but he's not a true nose. He does the best he can, but the nose needs to be a dominant, large beast of a man that will chew OL up and spit them out. He generally won't make a ton of glamorous plays, but he'll confine the offenses' ability to attack through the A-Gaps by generating a push on the line of scrimmage and clogging lanes. This allows linebackers to fly to the football much quicker.

 

Sure there are other reasons, scheme, Fletcher's age showing, safety play, etc, but I firmly believe the lack of a true nose hurts us in our base. It also negates our pass rush. Getting that push up front will collapse the pocket from the inside out. Rak and Kerrigan (and Jackson) have done a nice job collapsing the pocket outside in, but the quarterback generally has a ton of space in the pocket and can still throw. With a push in the interior, we'd get more sacks. And a lot of our sacks come when we happen to get that push. That's not a coincidence. You don't need the world's best OLBs when you have a stud nose. You need two guys that can collapse a pocket, which like 'em, love 'em, or hate 'em, we have (and we have guys behind them who can do it, too).

 

Keep in mind, this isn't a knock on Cofield, he's doing the best he can. But he'd be a MAJOR value to the team at end with the occasional spell at nose. Playing primarily nose is not great for us, despite how much effort he's given.

 

The other variable that's hurt us over the last two seasons is the loss of Carriker. It hurts us more than many know.

 

Now, what good is that nose when we go to our nickel packages? Well, what good has Wilfork been in the years they've bounced from 3-4 to 4-3? He can still command doubles, and thus freeing up the rush. That nose becomes a focus, and line stunts and blitz packages are that much more effective.

 

But you can't run a 3-4 without that stud at nose. You can get by in a 4-3 with a guy who isn't necessarily a stud, but solid. having that stud in a 4-3, is, obviously, a major help, though. Also keep in mind that the inside backers, with a stud nose in the 3-4 are "protected". The nose and ends are supposed to help slow blockers getting to the LBs which allows them to flow (which has also been a problem, our backers aren't flowing too well as of late)

 

So why not switch?

 

I'm not sure that a switch to the 4-3 would do much of anything for us besides weaken us, especially in coverage. Riley or whoever is playing the SAM backer would have to be used in coverage more often and possibly out of the box. You could play Rak and Kerrigan as ends, but where's the depth at defensive end? Where does Rob Jackson end up?  I don't think we have the personnel to play a traditional 4-3, to be honest. We're too far down the rabbit hole, but I think we can fix our nickel front and our base odd front with the addition of one player. Could Rak and Kerrigan be every down defensive ends? I'd argue that you'd see mixed results from them in that position. But their rush would be much more predictable than it is from a 3-4 OLB position, and thus render them slightly less effective (especially without that dominating inside presence).

 

Obviously, a lot of that thought is a personal preference, I understand that. But the lack of a true nose is hurting us more than anything at the moment. You add that piece and this current defense looks a LOT better.

 

The 4-3 defense still has its place, but like with all defenses, you NEED the proper personnel to run it. I don't see the 4-3 personnel on this roster like many here do. I think we have primarily 3-4 personnel with the one (albeit glaring) missing piece.

 

If I had to use hindsight, I believe the Redskins made the switch to the 3-4 thinking that Haynesworth would be the nose that would allow us to have this system thrive. He threw an immediate monkey wrench in that plan. Thus we were left scrambling. We still had plenty of 4-3 personnel at that time, so a switch then wouldn't have been as difficult. Since then, we've transitioned to an entirely different group of guys and the switch would become much more difficult. Now is not the time to switch, in my opinion. This offseason is the time to find that nose or make the transition (but it'll take a few years).

 

One thing is for certain, the wholesale change on both sides of the ball in the beginning of the Shanahan era hurt us. We reinvented the wheel and it left us as almost an expansion team, given the lack of the personnel necessary on both sides. If we were to change coaches (IF!!!!) I'd argue that we need to keep one side of the ball consistent.

 

But that's a different topic altogether.

[BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93]

great post.

 

To me, the switching to a 3-4 thing is in the past. We're basically stuck with it. But I doubt we do anything with Cofield sadly....

[KDawg]

great post.

 

To me, the switching to a 3-4 thing is in the past. We're basically stuck with it. But I doubt we do anything with Cofield sadly....

 

Not much we can do right now. He is our best nose at the moment. We could use more Baker/Cofield committee of a nose, but then we lose Baker's addition at end. Rock, meet hard place.

[KingDinka]

Pretty good read. Bravo

[PorkSkins]

I personally despise the 3-4.  We rush both LB's from the ends and end up with no one in coverage on the wings and only one LB left in the middle.  We have never had the right personnel on the line for a 3-4.  Haslett did well last year playing a hybrid 3-4 with a fourth person almost always on the line.  We need pass rushing DE's.  We still need a safety and next year we will need a MLB. We are four years into this project and we are missing key pieces.  The team is not quite as lethargic as it was prior to the Shananigans, but it still lacks consistency. 

[DaGoonie55]

I'm a huge 3-4 fan.  You can make up for some, not all, physical weaknesses with gameplanning and scheming.

 

We need someone in here who understands the defense's strengths and weaknesses and can scheme us to victory.  I wholeheartedly believe this will help us more than a complete overhaul or transition back to a 4-3 (not a fan, personally).

 

I agree, a beast NT and more help at ILB and we're set.  The secondary is coming along nicely - which is opposite of what I expected.

 

Well written KDAWG, your posts are a welcome sight.

 

HTTR

[Boss_Hogg]

In regards to the nose tackle. I really wanted the Redskins to sign Paul Soliai this past off-season. I like Cofield and I think he brings a lot of value to the team, but Solai is a natural NT. Anyone know of any NTs in free agency or the draft?

[MustangSteve]

I think our 3-4 defense would be at least effective with someone else running it, our players are far from the worst to ever step on the field, our D coach is the worst period. But changing to a 4-3 would be very easy to do in just 1 off season, and if we show nothing better on defense for the rest of the season then can this 3-4 for good. 

[Skinzfever2010]

I would die to have a secondary of Rogers, Hall, Landry, Amerson, Rambo, Doughty right now

[KDawg]

I personally despise the 3-4.  We rush both LB's from the ends and end up with no one in coverage on the wings and only one LB left in the middle.  We have never had the right personnel on the line for a 3-4.  Haslett did well last year playing a hybrid 3-4 with a fourth person almost always on the line.  We need pass rushing DE's.  We still need a safety and next year we will need a MLB. We are four years into this project and we are missing key pieces.  The team is not quite as lethargic as it was prior to the Shananigans, but it still lacks consistency. 

 

That's not necessarily true, that we end up with no one in coverage. One of the safeties is usually up in the box, but that would make our ILB to the backside of the safety have to drop into coverage and get to the curl zone more often, especially since we seem to like cover 3 quite a bit.

 

You have the same issue in a 4-3, without the ability to hide the blitz scheme as well.

 

But I'd say we are dropping our OLBs into coverage quite often, actually. That's been part of the problem.

 

 

 

I think our 3-4 defense would be at least effective with someone else running it, our players are far from the worst to ever step on the field, our D coach is the worst period. But changing to a 4-3 would be very easy to do in just 1 off season, and if we show nothing better on defense for the rest of the season then can this 3-4 for good. 

 

Agree a change in personality at DC would likely help.

 

I'm not sure the transition to the 4-3 would be that easy in one offseason, but you could certainly begin the process and it could work. But, again, my question is: Why the 4-3?

[gortiz]

the best, you're the best K. 

 

Only poster I read every word of! 

 

I'm a convert ... like a lot of us, I thought Rak and Ryan were out of position, but  i didn't realize most OLB were DE's in college. 

 

Was a lack of a nose part of the reason why we got so damn close to Rivers but never got him down? Looks like all he did all day was step up ... 

[darrelgreenie]

One of the problems, main problem imo, is the lack of rush, penetration, push from our base 34 DL.

I think Cofield is our best penetrator/rush DL but is easily dealt with via double team when he's at NT in our 34.

 

RE: Change the defense

 

(1) With this current regime I would like to see Jenkins/Nield/Baker at NT and Cofield at DE

 

(2) Run a 1-Gap 34 ala Wade

 

(3) Run a 43 but more of a 43 under ala Pete Carroll

 

RDE-Rak/Kerrigan

DT-Nield/Baker/Jenkins

DT-3-Tech Cofield

LDE-(Base End)-Bowen/Golston

SAM/Jack LB-Rak/Kerrigan

[gortiz]

I would die to have a secondary of Rogers, Hall, Landry, Amerson, Rambo, Doughty right now

don't forget we loss Crawford and P. Thomas also ... 

[MustangSteve]

That's not necessarily true, that we end up with no one in coverage. One of the safeties is usually up in the box, but that would make our ILB to the backside of the safety have to drop into coverage and get to the curl zone more often, especially since we seem to like cover 3 quite a bit.

 

You have the same issue in a 4-3, without the ability to hide the blitz scheme as well.

 

But I'd say we are dropping our OLBs into coverage quite often, actually. That's been part of the problem.

 

 

 

 

Agree a change in personality at DC would likely help.

 

I'm not sure the transition to the 4-3 would be that easy in one offseason, but you could certainly begin the process and it could work. But, again, my question is: Why the 4-3?

We have had a top 10 defense for quite a few years with a 4-3 defense, and it only took 1 season to go from #24 defense to #3 in only one season when Greg Williams took over in 2004. We can't seem to get out of a #30 ranked defense with this 3-4 defense, it's just not working and not even showing signs that it can play a good complete game.

[KDawg]

We have had a top 10 defense for quite a few years with a 4-3 defense, and it only took 1 season to go from #24 defense to #3 in only one season when Greg Williams took over in 2004. We can't seem to get out of a #30 ranked defense with this 3-4 defense, it's just not working and not even showing signs that it can play a good complete game.

It's not working because of one glaring piece, as I alluded to in the OP that I'm sure you read.

[RandyHolt]

Great write up.  Thanks KDawg

 

I too have wondered about Albert the nose tackle. I had thought it was a means to get rid of him but maybe you are right. He was supposed to be our NT.  Only, it seemed a higher priority to Mike to play hard ball with him; clean up the team. And the ramifications of him making an example out of AH may well have been a net positive on our team, but we cannot measure those things.

 

All things anti-Albert aside, I wonder if someone told Mike, don't cut off your nose, to spite your face. 

 

If anyone dared say anything to iron mike in his anti al rage, it was probably Haslet, who knew we would be in deep trouble without a nose. He may be an idiot, but he knows better than anyone he is drawing dead with a thin nose. 

 

Does anyone know why Haslet did not want to run a 3-4?

[Skinzfever2010]

He probably didn't want to run it because we were a very strong 4-3.

Why break something that doesn't need to be fixed. I don't think it was anything more than that.

Our Dline needed retooling and we needed another LB

Believe it or not we were stacked at secondary for years

Shan really set us back with some of his moved early on

[garyclarkforhall]

Haynesworth despised the 3-4 and hated the idea of playing it.  He said so regularly.  He wanted to "do his own thing" like Tennessee had allowed.  One of the reasons Tennessee had a better defense the next year was that all 11 guys were playing the system.

 

To me, when we bring pressure with more than 4, we either don't get to the QB... or we get beat on a crossing pattern or a TE option route and we get burnt.  We just don't make enough plays on 3rd down and medium to long.

 

Perhaps it's the lack of a big inside push from our NT and Cofield probably is better served as a 3-4 DT.  Ken Harvey discussed the face that QBs step up regularly in the pocket against us.

 

Seems like the most successful 3-4s have a big nasty NT, a very skilled speed rusher and a few corners that can lock down.

[nelsonal]

In regards to the nose tackle. I really wanted the Redskins to sign Paul Soliai this past off-season. I like Cofield and I think he brings a lot of value to the team, but Solai is a natural NT. Anyone know of any NTs in free agency or the draft?

Nix from Notre Dame is probably the most talked about NT prospect, but expected to go in the first round.  Below him, DeQuan Jones from Penn State and Daniel McCullers from Tenn (amongst others) are a step down but likely to go in the middle rounds (most people are predicting 3-4th rounds). 

[BraunMan92]

Didn't we bring in Haynesworth with the intention of him playing nose?

[ConcordNCSkinsFan]

Swtiching to a 4-3 doesn't solve the biggest fundamental problem of this Defense. It's weak at all levels up the middle. They get very little push in the interior D-Line if Cofield and Baker aren't on the field together. They usually sub one out for the other and play that one along with the combination of either Bowen, Jenkins, or Goldston who are all ineffective getting penetration. Fletcher is beyond finished but the coaches cling on to him because they have no one else available. Then you have the mess of a Safety Position where Doughty is a sure tackler but has no range in coverage then you have Merriweather who has range in coverage but is a sloppy tackler.  

[Redskins Diehard]

Excellent post! In my experiences at the high school and college level there is often no more disruptive player on a defense than a dominating nose.

 

Question for you on the 3-4-4 vs. 2-4-5 alignments....are you looking for the same type of player on the inside in both of those? 

[justice98]

Great write up.  Thanks KDawg

 

I too have wondered about Albert the nose tackle. I had thought it was a means to get rid of him but maybe you are right. He was supposed to be our NT.  Only, it seemed a higher priority to Mike to play hard ball with him; clean up the team. And the ramifications of him making an example out of AH may well have been a net positive on our team, but we cannot measure those things.

 

All things anti-Albert aside, I wonder if someone told Mike, don't cut off your nose, to spite your face. 

 

If anyone dared say anything to iron mike in his anti al rage, it was probably Haslet, who knew we would be in deep trouble without a nose. He may be an idiot, but he knows better than anyone he is drawing dead with a thin nose. 

 

Does anyone know why Haslet did not want to run a 3-4?

 

I don't think that was ever true to begin with.  

Didn't we bring in Haynesworth with the intention of him playing nose?

 

I think Haynesworth was already here when Shanahan came in, which is why he bristled at being the nose cuz that's not what he came here to do.

[Koolblue13]

Thank you KDawg. Im not sure this thread will help. The 34 43 debate is something people love to blindly throw around for no reason.

[MartinC]

While illegal, the use of the "tug" technique by defensive linemen in any kind of front has become prevalent in football. 

 

Or a 'hold' as we offensive players/coaches call it! I see you have gone native already now your on the defensive side of the ball 

 

Great write up and hard to argue with anything you say. I also think we have invested too much in getting 3-4 personnel to switch back easily to a 4-3 and if we did we would have to go through the transition pains of that - look at whats happened to Dallas this year (although injuries have hurt as well).

 

I have also come around to the view that we need a true NT who can command and hold a double team and allow Cofield to move mainly to DE where I think he could be a very disruptive player. I have also come around to the view that the issue with our defense is as much or more with the front 7 than the secondary (although thats not to say we are set in the secondary either).

 

Finally a change in co-ordinator is a must. But it needs to be a 3-4 guy who can build on what we have not tear it down and start again IMO.