Hal2856

Switching to a 4-3 in 2019

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

4-3 under isn't our base and they're on the field at the same time in that package.

 

what?

 

Look, in our base defense, the 3-4 Ionaddis Payne and Allen are in.  In the nickel defense the 4-2-5 Kerrigan and Smith are the ends therefore only two of the three starting DL from the 3-4 are in

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, carex said:

 

what?

 

Look, in our base defense, the 3-4 Ionaddis Payne and Allen are in.  In the nickel defense the 4-2-5 Kerrigan and Smith are the ends therefore only two of the three starting DL from the 3-4 are in

 

I have absolutely no idea what you're arguing so I think our wires of communication were lost a bit. 

 

All three have been on the field at times in games... and not in a 3-4 style defense. I tuned out a lot more this season... but I very rarely saw 4 linebackers on the field (I consider Kerrigan a DE even if he's an OLB in our 3-4 base)

 

The 4-3 over puts the Sam backer on the LOS

 

Kerrigan, Allen, Payne, Ion are the 4 DL. Foster, Brown, Smith/Anderson/McPhee were the SAM backer on the LOS in that look.

 

In the 4-2-5 the three main interior DL (Allen, Payne, Ion) weren't usually all in at the same time. We did spend a lot of time in that look. But any time we were in a 4-3 under or a 3-4 (which combined wasn't all that much, but they were on the field at the same time.)

 

The point I've been trying to make in this thread:

 

1) We don't really run a 3-4. People can say it's our base, but in my opinion your base is what you run most often. We are mostly a 4-2-5 defense.

2) We run a form of the 4-3 with the 4-3 Under front that employs the personnel package I posted about above.

3) We are multiple in our defensive scheme and not reliant on any one front/personnel grouping.

 

I believe, with our current personnel we should:

 

1) focus on a 4-3 under/4-2-5 base defense (AKA an even front defense)

2) Phase out of the 3-4/odd front aside from change up looks. Which means moving on from Smith. The even front allows Allen and Payne to pin their ears back more... that also allows Kerrigan/the other DE to get more sacks when the interior pocket collapses.

 

I don't believe we are far from running a mainly even front defense because we run it more often anyways.

 

Hope that clears my points up.

Edited by KDawg
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Is the cover 2 out dated? It always seemed dumb to me to see Mike supposed to cover the deep center.

 

What is dated, is referring to a defense as 3-4 or 4-3.  Fronts are very dynamic now, and 100% situational.  I would it prefer it somehow reference aggressiveness in getting after the QB, and not just # of hands in dirt to start the game.  

 

We need a better way to name a defense. If we all had a dollar for anytime someone points out that our 3-4 is actually in nickel most of the time, we could buy the team.

Edited by RandyHolt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, RandyHolt said:

Is the cover 2 out dated? It always seemed dumb to me to see Mike supposed to cover the deep center.

 

What is dated, is referring to a defense as 3-4 or 4-3.  Fronts are very dynamic now, and 100% situational.  I would it prefer it somehow reference aggressiveness in getting after the QB, and not just # of hands in dirt to start the game.  

 

We need a better way to name a defense. If we all had a dollar for anytime someone points out that our 3-4 is actually in nickel most of the time, we could buy the team.

 

Defenses are generally labeled as one gap or two gap/odd or even fronts. The “4-3” or “3-4” are personnel groupings that were basically used to say how many defenders were at each level in a specific D. It became easy to refer to them as a 4-3 D because teams didn’t really leave those packages aside from goal line. Now teams are much more multiple. So while you may have a base (4-3, 3-4, 4-2-5) it’s tough to really label a defense as such. 

 

The odd or even label is much more clear. Very few teams, if any, have the personnel to do a ton of both. So you may be an even team that uses an odd front from time to time... but even personnel and odd personnel are generally different. 

 

Though, with all things football, things are evolving more and more. The chargers with no backers yesterday. So the 3-4 or 4-3 label really doesn’t fit unless you’re simply referring to levels. 

 

On the cover 2 point... there are multiple forms. You’re referring to the Tampa 2 that the Bucs made popular running the ILB to a deep third. It was actually more of a cover 3 than a 2. But you could do it in the 4-3 alignment. Cover 2 doesn’t involve the MLB running deep to cover.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, RandyHolt said:

Is the cover 2 out dated? It always seemed dumb to me to see Mike supposed to cover the deep center.

 

What is dated, is referring to a defense as 3-4 or 4-3.  Fronts are very dynamic now, and 100% situational.  I would it prefer it somehow reference aggressiveness in getting after the QB, and not just # of hands in dirt to start the game.  

 

We need a better way to name a defense. If we all had a dollar for anytime someone points out that our 3-4 is actually in nickel most of the time, we could buy the team.

 

Personally, I only thought Cover 2 worked when you had a Derrick Brooks, Brian Urlacher, or Ray Lewis type MLB that had incredible range. It is a copy cat league, problem is not everyone has the personnel to run what they are imitating.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
42 minutes ago, volsmet said:

People just love to say 3-4 & 4-3.

 

Or, that is the only 2 options we have been given all our lives.

 

Who doesn't love the Nickel and Dime?

 

Anything, but prevent. Bend don't break is a valid name of a defense in my playbook, For as many years as we ran it, it may be the most predominant feature of our defense over the past ~20 years. I think it started with Ron Lynn, who must hold the record for most 99 yard drives allowed.

Edited by RandyHolt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, RandyHolt said:

Or, that is the only 2 options we have been given all our lives.

 

Who doesn't love the Nickel and Dime?

 

Anything, but prevent. Bend don't break is a valid name of a defense in my playbook, For as many years as we ran it, it may be the most predominant feature of our defense over the past ~20 years. I think it started with Ron Lynn, who must hold the record for most 99 yard drives allowed.

 

 I still would love to see 4-1-6, or a modified 4-6.

Speed and power, but this defense has neither. The LBers are ok in run support but too lumbering in pass pro and are constantly being juked. The FB position fading away has been replaced by speedy TEs, and the Redskins defense constantly has trouble with any TE who has just decent speed let alone a fast TE.

 

Yes, there may be some issues with a 4-6 but the right DC coupled with smart drafting can quickly fix our pass defense. They did ok against mediocre offenses but teams like N.O. blew them out quickly, and if you cannot stop or slow down a high powered offense, you're not going anywhere, especially with a vanilla offense.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, skins island connection said:

 

 I still would love to see 4-1-6, or a modified 4-6.

Speed and power, but this defense has neither. The LBers are ok in run support but too lumbering in pass pro and are constantly being juked. The FB position fading away has been replaced by speedy TEs, and the Redskins defense constantly has trouble with any TE who has just decent speed let alone a fast TE.

 

Yes, there may be some issues with a 4-6 but the right DC coupled with smart drafting can quickly fix our pass defense. They did ok against mediocre offenses but teams like N.O. blew them out quickly, and if you cannot stop or slow down a high powered offense, you're not going anywhere, especially with a vanilla offense.

 

What exactly do you mean by 4-6?

 

A 4-6 indicates four down linemen, 6 linebackers and 1 DB. I think that would be a terrible strategy for the Skins.

 

The 46 is basically, very simplified, a 6-2-3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, skins island connection said:

 

  The LBers are ok in run support but too lumbering in pass pro and are constantly being juked.....

 

I think this is at the root of our 3-4's failures.  Stud college DEs are converted to LB.  Personal opinion, the more the force they were at 43E, the harder the transition to pass coverage because they could stop the run.  So scouts project and pray on draft day, players go on dangerous crash diets to become something they are not. In the end, the player a team became enamored with, is not longer that same player. Sure some dominate, but how many fail, or remain mired in mediocrity?  They lose weight, and then get trucked in the run game.

 

The 3-4's prime selling point IMO was a QB didn't know which of the 4 backers would attack.  That entire premise has been overcome by the fact that defenses are so aggressive, everyone is coming early and often.  So what's the point of the 3-4 - it certainly deceives but only the most inept of QBs.  Its to the point now any defenders of the 3-4 quickly note we are in nickel most of the game. Which is really no defense. Pun intended. 

 

I would swear a QB must love seeing a teams best pass rusher, stuck in pass coverage vs in his face, and actually probably loves targeting them, because he knows they are as stiff as a board and great to YAC attack ™

Edited by RandyHolt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.