Are we ever really going to...

[Gspotter]

towards a 3-4? We seem stuck in the 4-3 and yes, I know we don't have the personnel.

 

I think that it's a worthwhile effort, but of course, we lack almost all the personnel for it.

 

I suppose if you can't keep 3 Lb's healthy, then 4 is a lofty goal. I like the 3-4 for it's confusion.

 

Thoughts?

[Currency]

All evidence proves that the NY Football Giants will remain 4-3 for atleast 6 more years.

 

[shockjock]

towards a 3-4? We seem stuck in the 4-3 and yes, I know we don't have the personnel.

 

I think that it's a worthwhile effort, but of course, we lack almost all the personnel for it.

 

I suppose if you can't keep 3 Lb's healthy, then 4 is a lofty goal. I like the 3-4 for it's confusion.

 

Thoughts?

 

As long as Strahan is playing we will not switch to a 3-4. Strahan, while a great pass rusher, would not fit as either a 3-4 DE or a 3-4 OLB...To switch would eliminate possibly our best defensive player from the game. Maybe in the future we will change but not anytime soon

[420]

I'd like to see the 3-4 defense. It causes problems for the offense and you can disguise your plays a little easier.

[Big_Tony]

Defense is defense -- 3-4, 4-3, whatever. Pick a scheme, pick the right guys for it, you'll do fine.

[Gspotter]

I tend to agree that with Strah and Osi, we won't be changing any time soon, but I do like the 3-4 better. I think it creates more flexibility and confusion just behind the line.

 

I also like the blitzing options which are difficult in the 4-3, someone's coming free from and it's more a gamble (IMO)

[KyleG490]

not a chance we chang 2 a 3-4......we dont have a NT or the DE's for it.....or the LBers

[Big_Tony]

I tend to agree that with Strah and Osi, we won't be changing any time soon, but I do like the 3-4 better. I think it creates more flexibility and confusion just behind the line.

 

Well, personally, I'd rather steamroll over the Redskins than confuse them, but that's just me. In any event, with four big bodies up front, there's less of a need for flexibility behind the line. Your tactical response to whatever the offense throws at you is different, as is your general plan-of-attack. That doesn't make one scheme inherently better or worse than the other -- don't confuse strategy with tactics. '85 Bears or '86 Giants, you go with what you've got, as long as it's working for you.

[Money]

Defense is defense -- 3-4, 4-3, whatever. Pick a scheme, pick the right guys for it, you'll do fine.

 

Tony's got it. There is no superiority between the 4-3 and 3-4. Both schemes can be immensely successful with the right players and coaches. On a related note, the best coaches are the ones who can adjust schemes to maximize the strengths of their players ... the worst coaches are the ones who clean house and look exclusively at guys who fit their scheme. When Dom Capers become Jacksonville's DC in 1998, his 3-4 background conflicted with the Jags 4-3 personnel. But he stuck with the 4-3 and built his scheme around his assets, and they were one of the best defenses in 1998 and 1999.

 

In our case, having Osi and Pierce alone as long-term fixtures makes the 4-3 the ideal long-term defense.

[Big_Tony]

I'd love to see the Giants have success with a 3-4 -- I remember the glory days with LT. But it's not likely to happen in the foreseeable future, so, that's that. As long as Big Blue is stuffing the run, stopping the pass, and scaring the Hell out of opposing QB's, they can play a 4-3, 3-4, 2-5, whatever.

[Money]

not a chance we chang 2 a 3-4......we dont have a NT or the DE's for it.....or the LBers

 

Not entirely true. The Giants do have guys that can play DE in a 3-4: William Joseph and Fred Robbins. I think Strahan, even at his reduced size, could pull it off as well, although it would not come close to maximizing his skills. Kendrick Clancy played NT in Pittsburgh's 3-4, although he often seemed out of place and is not a true NT. Reggie Torbor and Carlos Emmons can each play SAM in a 3-4 (Emmons did this for the first 4 years of his career in Pitt). Pierce can play in any scheme, although I think he fits best as a 4-3 MIKE. You're right that they won't change any time soon, but they do have some guys who could make a potential conversion possible.

[Money]

I'd love to see the Giants have success with a 3-4 -- I remember the glory days with LT. But it's not likely to happen in the foreseeable future, so, that's that. As long as Big Blue is stuffing the run, stopping the pass, and scaring the Hell out of opposing QB's, they can play a 4-3, 3-4, 2-5, whatever.

 

They should use the 2-9 defense I employ when playing Madden 2006. Never fails on 3rd and long against a pass-happy opponent...

[Big_Tony]

They should use the 2-9 defense I employ when playing Madden 2006. Never fails on 3rd and long against a pass-happy opponent...

 

I peaked with Madden '93 for Sega Genesis.

 

Anyway, like Hendrix said, "if six turns out to be nine, I won't mind." As long as the Giant defense is kicking ass and taking names, I don't care how their front seven are positioned.

[Gspotter]

scheme depends on personnel and with a given roster, that's what dictates your play. So with that, we're not equipped for the 3-4, however it is a fine system (not a strategy or tactic) for creating confusion.

 

Since these systems go in trends, they can be more or less difficult depending on the trend at the time. Currently, it's back in vogue, however, it's been a round for a while.

 

Never the less, a strategy for forcing a team to pass would be a d gameplan and a tactic would be blitzing, double teaming, and switching coverages.

 

So, thanks for supposing that I wouldn't know the difference, but this isn't the cowboys first rodeo.

 

Never the less, I think that the 3-4 is a superior system because of it's flexibility and with the advent of the TE as a power receiving threat (Gonzalez, Gates, Shock) then the middle and short field becomes a wide open target that is more difficult to navigate around the 3-4.

[Money]

Never the less, I think that the 3-4 is a superior system because of it's flexibility and with the advent of the TE as a power receiving threat (Gonzalez, Gates, Shock) then the middle and short field becomes a wide open target that is more difficult to navigate around the 3-4.

 

That's not necessarily true. It's more difficult to jam a TE off the line in 3-4, because only a LB alone can do so. In a 4-3, both a DE and LB can jam the TE (or the TE may be forced to chip a DE, which delays his route). Take a look at the Super Bowl. Jerramy Stevens would have had a huge game if he could catch...

[Plax 4 Prez]

this topic is awesome... I learn more about the differant schemes to more quality posters we have discussing them

[Gspotter]

That's not necessarily true. It's more difficult to jam a TE off the line in 3-4, because only a LB alone can do so. In a 4-3, both a DE and LB can jam the TE (or the TE may be forced to chip a DE, which delays his route). Take a look at the Super Bowl. Jerramy Stevens would have had a huge game if he could catch...

 

You're asusming that the TE is close, like a in an orange or brown formation, where the TE is going to get jammed. The new TE may or may not be there as is the case more frequently or there's a two TE set, but in that case your often talking run anyway.

 

Throwing into areas where there's always 3 or sometimes 4 is precarious , look at Dallas Clark against the Pats, look at the Eagles TE against the Pats, not huge games.

 

It's not a right or wrong thing, but the 4-3 is a long trend and the strategies for defending it are well established and well practiced in this league. Other trends to contend with: recieving FB.

[gateb]

As we all know, the Giants have sucked against the 3-4 over the last few years. Very rarely have we done well offensively playing a 3-4 defense. Well, at least playing both aspects of the game well (running and passing).

 

If managed properly, the 3-4 could really help us but for now, I want to use Osi and Strahan properly and get the most out of those two. Don't want to waste a tandem like them now do we?

[Money]

You're asusming that the TE is close, like a in an orange or brown formation, where the TE is going to get jammed. The new TE may or may not be there as is the case more frequently or there's a two TE set, but in that case your often talking run anyway.

 

Throwing into areas where there's always 3 or sometimes 4 is precarious , look at Dallas Clark against the Pats, look at the Eagles TE against the Pats, not huge games.

 

It's not a right or wrong thing, but the 4-3 is a long trend and the strategies for defending it are well established and well practiced in this league. Other trends to contend with: recieving FB.

 

It's even more difficult to jam a TE in space.

 

Also, I don't buy your theory that 3-4 is more effective against TEs. In any 3-4, chances are that on a normal pass play, the defense is sending 4 players. That leaves the same number of pass defenders that a 4-3 employs. I also don't think that there is that much a 'surprise' factor with regard to where the 4th pass rusher is coming from ... at this level, O-Lineman have the recognition skills to identify the blitzer. Bigger OTs may have a more difficult time defending rush LBs, but then again smaller OTs may struggle against power DEs. In almost every case, it becomes a match-up situation ... the best players in the best position to succeed with win those match-ups.

 

A 3-4 can also be countered with multiple WRs sets. Remember the Rams/Pats Super Bowl? The Rams had Bruce, Holt, Proehl, and Hakim and their plan was to spread the Pats out and create mismatches. The Pats had to alter their scheme altogether (they usually had only 1 LB on the field) and play with multiple DBs. The 4-3 is better equipt to handle that more effectively because they still have 4 DL that can rush the passer and defend the run. A 3-4 probably does not have those same recources (since their DLs is comproised mostly of run stuffers and disrupters, not natural pass rushers), which makes it more difficult for them to pressure the passer with just their DL.

 

Like I said, I don't see a clear superiority between schemes. 3-4 may have more flexibility, but 4-3 generally has better personnel to deal with spread offenses. Almost always, personnel and coaching is the separating factor.

[Gspotter]

It's a difficult D and that's why it's used so effectivly by some teams. It's also not the D teams see most often so that causes some difficulty.

 

I've seen some really quality QB's look shabby against that D specifically. Of course, a former poster is probably right on when he wrote that our money is spent on people like Stah, so this is moot, unless it impacts the way we're drafting for the future.

 

I expect no change, but TL did say that we'd be alternating and so far, not so much: his idea, not mine. I also think that TC wasn't too kean on it...maybe wrong though.

[HOUND]

3-4 is hardly a new concept it's just a bit tougher to find the personnel to play it. Nosetackles have become quite rare. Most Defensive Ends don't like the scheme as it severely limits their numbers and thus hurts them come contract time. Linebackers tend to love it as they're the attackers in the concept but still, it takes the right kind of guy.

 

Money's right, you don't just decide to play a 3-4, you need to first have the parts, then figure out if you want to make it work. If the players don't buy into it (See Dom Capers in Houston) then the performance isn't just bad, it's terrible.

[Money]

It's a difficult D and that's why it's used so effectivly by some teams. It's also not the D teams see most often so that causes some difficulty.

 

I've seen some really quality QB's look shabby against that D specifically. Of course, a former poster is probably right on when he wrote that our money is spent on people like Stah, so this is moot, unless it impacts the way we're drafting for the future.

 

I expect no change, but TL did say that we'd be alternating and so far, not so much: his idea, not mine. I also think that TC wasn't too kean on it...maybe wrong though.

 

Quality QBs have struggled immensely against the 4-3 as well. For example, Rich Gannon threw 5 INTs in the Super Bowl against the Bucs. A few years earlier, he did nothing against a Ravens team that employed a 4-3. Both years he was in the Pro Bowl.

[Gspotter]

It's even more difficult to jam a TE in space.

 

Also, I don't buy your theory that 3-4 is more effective against TEs. In any 3-4, chances are that on a normal pass play, the defense is sending 4 players. That leaves the same number of pass defenders that a 4-3 employs. I also don't think that there is that much a 'surprise' factor with regard to where the 4th pass rusher is coming from ... at this level, O-Lineman have the recognition skills to identify the blitzer. Bigger OTs may have a more difficult time defending rush LBs, but then again smaller OTs may struggle against power DEs. In almost every case, it becomes a match-up situation ... the best players in the best position to succeed with win those match-ups.

 

A 3-4 can also be countered with multiple WRs sets. Remember the Rams/Pats Super Bowl? The Rams had Bruce, Holt, Proehl, and Hakim and their plan was to spread the Pats out and create mismatches. The Pats had to alter their scheme altogether (they usually had only 1 LB on the field) and play with multiple DBs. The 4-3 is better equipt to handle that more effectively because they still have 4 DL that can rush the passer and defend the run. A 3-4 probably does not have those same recources (since their DLs is comproised mostly of run stuffers and disrupters, not natural pass rushers), which makes it more difficult for them to pressure the passer with just their DL.

 

Like I said, I don't see a clear superiority between schemes. 3-4 may have more flexibility, but 4-3 generally has better personnel to deal with spread offenses. Almost always, personnel and coaching is the separating factor.

 

Jammings not always the tactic, so though it's commonplace, I don't buy your assessment of it as an axiom, especially if you talking about an LB whose not as likely to play tight.

 

As for match-ups, assuming that you're in the right formation defensively, you may or may not be sending a blitzer. I think (again) the Pats show that they're not always blitzing. In any case if you are, then you have three back (as you've asessed) however you have a faster, outside blitzzer than a penetrating linemen. Assuming that you are trying to spread things out, you still have only a RB back to cover the obvious free man.

 

You can counter the 3-4 with multuiple reciever threats, however not too many teams can sustain drives in the spread offense. I'd say it's happened before, but that's what adjustments are for and then the defense can start dictating, perhaps back to the 3-4.

 

If a team is spreading then neither the 3-4 or the 4-3 are the best options. I think we've seen that with our Giants in the SB against the Bills and we've seen it more recently with the Pats of '04.

 

I suppose that there are stats to support a number of perspectives on this and though I prefer the 3-4 that we demonstrated so well in the past, the personnel and management decisions won't support it right now.

 

Of course, you could make the argument that the Steelers did well with their makeshift version, even if Seattle's TE could have had a decent day.

[Gspotter]

No you don't just decide to impelement the 3-4. TL said that we would be using it though, so it's not my decision, he's the DC and he's the one that wants/wanted to have that as a partial face of our D.

 

Yes, I've seen it done poorly. I think you're looking for a stark example of it done without the key personnel, like the Browns this year.

 

It has, however, been difficult to defend because it's less common. Yes, Gannon struggled against the 4-3, you'll have ready examples of that since it's more prominent.

 

It's not the only D, it's just one of the very complicated one's and though it's easy to pick apart in Madden, done properly, it's helped guide us to great heights in the past and the Pats more recently.

[Big_Tony]

scheme depends on personnel and with a given roster, that's what dictates your play. So with that, we're not equipped for the 3-4, however it is a fine system (not a strategy or tactic) for creating confusion.

 

Yes, we are not equipped to play a 3-4, but you are incorrect in stating that your defensive scheme is not a strategy or a tactic. Of course it's a strategy -- it's step one for deciding how you're going to stop opposing teams from scoring with the personnel you have available. Strategy always dictates tactics, not the other way around, so, you don't play a 3-4 just so you can run stunts with your linebackers, you play it because you have linebackers who can be effective running stunts -- you play it because you have the personnel for it. It is neither more or less effective than a 4-3 -- it's simply different, strategically.

 

Never the less, I think that the 3-4 is a superior system because of it's flexibility and with the advent of the TE as a power receiving threat (Gonzalez, Gates, Shock) then the middle and short field becomes a wide open target that is more difficult to navigate around the 3-4.

 

Flexibility is a fine thing, but it is not the only thing. Remember the line from Goodfellas, "Paulie might've moved slow, but Paulie didn't have to move for anybody." If you're so dominating that they can't stop you even when they know you're coming you don't need much flexibility. You just hammer them into submission.

 

And since when is "the TE as a power receiving threat" a new thing? You never heard of Mark Bavaro?