Are we ever really going to...

[HOUND]

Gspotter ... I think you're hitting one one of the effective traits of present day succesful defenses. It's not the system .. 3-4 vs. 4-3, it's how well you disguise coverage. If the QB comes to the line thinking you're doing one thing and the defense responds with something completely different they're going to keep the opposing offense out of synch. It may appear that the 3-4 allows for this better but I really don't think it's the case. Teams like the Patriots will actually flip flop back and forth between 3-4 and 4-3 ... then they'll play 2 down linemen and drop guys into coverage. It's all about disguising your packages. That being said, both systems can be exceedingly effective. But as has been said, you design your defense around the personnel you go to battle with.

[xxi-xxv]

I think the bottom line is that the players make the defense. There were times this year when Tim Lewis disguised a 3/4 look with OSI dropping into coverages. Zone blitzes and the like. One time in particular when I remember this used was the last minute drive by Minnesota(only time all game they really moved the ball on us). Lewis disguised his 3/4 looks, but there were some elements of it at times this year. We have too much 4/3 personnel with the 2 De's and Tuck and to a lesser extent Moore, but we can expect to see looks.

[Money]

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.

 

If you give athletic TEs free release, they will burn you. Very few LBs and Safeties can guard good TEs one-on-one, so if you stay in your base 3-4 and give a TE free release, he will be difficult to defend in zone coverage or in man.

 

The 3-4 minus a rush a LB is sending just 3 pass rushers against 5 OL. And the down lineman in a 3-4 are usually more run defenders than pass rushers; their primary role is to occupy blockers. The Pats have been able to pull it off. But dropping 8 guys into coverage puts a lot of pressure on the front 3 to generate pressure.

 

Against a spread, having 4-3 personnel is advantageous, because you have 4 DL who can rush the passer (as oppossed to 3 who might be betters suited to be run defenders). So it is easier to generate pressure with the DL while allocating the back 7 to coverage.

 

A lot of teams, including the Steelers, did very well with a 3-4. Top 3 defenses in overall yardage? Tampa, Chicago, and Carolina -- all 4-3 teams. Of the top 10 scoring defenses in football, 9 employed a 4-3 in 2006.

[HOUND]

I think the bottom line is that the players make the defense. There were times this year when Tim Lewis disguised a 3/4 look with OSI dropping into coverages. Zone blitzes and the like. One time in particular when I remember this used was the last minute drive by Minnesota(only time all game they really moved the ball on us). Lewis disguised his 3/4 looks, but there were some elements of it at times this year. We have too much 4/3 personnel with the 2 De's and Tuck and to a lesser extent Moore, but we can expect to see looks.

 

You're confusing two different things. If we drop players into coverage after the snap so that we're just rushing three it doesn't make it a 3-4 defense. It's a disguised coverage. 3-4 simply refers to the presnap base defense. If we line up 4 lineman but drop a guy back into coverage (simlar to how we'd shift Strahan into the outside flat with frequency) it's not a 3-4.

[Gspotter]

Depends on the TE, not all are the same and Shock draws more attention than say the TE for Cleveland.

 

Dropping 8 in coverage is unlikely, however we've seen it done again by the Pats and to great affect. In a league geared towards passing and high scores, this is an effective response (at times) to perenial favs like the Colts. I wouldn't underestimate the diffenerence in scheming when you have a LB blitzing, yes, it puts 3 LB's in coverage (assuming pass) but that would be less if you sent one from the 4-3 or you'd send your saftey and then you've got LB's in deeper coverage (not optimal).

 

Sure you could name a variety of teams employing the 4-3 to great effect: most teams play them and for a good reason. Few teams have 4 good LB's and big enough DL, so it isn't easily developed, not as easily as the 4-3. Of course it's been very effective for teams that commit to it. You just need the personnel and that's all that matters, look at Romeo (someone who knows this system well), without the personnel it was floundering in Cleveland.

 

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree, but having seen it cause great problems for great Qb's, especially as a Giant fan, I prefer it.

[Gspotter]

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.

 

I think we're splitting hairs here. Our scheme is dictated upon personnel otherwise we would easily convert to a 3-4. Teams have base defenses and that's their scheme.

 

How to attack a teams strength is your strategy and that changes from game to game, what tactics you employ (as you've accurately depicted) is a result of your strategy. A strategy is to entice Thurman Thomas to run more than let Jim Kelly pass. The tactic to do so was to drop into deeper coverage and give up the underneath.

 

Flexibility in scheming is what I propose and the 3-4 (IMO) gives us that. It's easier to converat to a 4-3 than a 3-4. I don't propose to be loose in our stopping of the pass or the run, I mean the flexibility that is exemplified by defenses like the Pats for whom I have endless admiration and envy

[Guest Lockhart]

The Giants are a 4-3 defense and will remain so. They don't have the huige nose tackle required, nor the large number of good linebackers. That said, Coughlin and Lewis prefer the 4-3 anyway. The 4-3 and 3-4 are simply two different kinds of defenses and one isn't any better than the other if run right. The Giant's defensive personnel is built for a 4-3 - not a 3-4. The 4-3 is normally much better against he run, which is paramount in the NFC. When healthy the Giants were more than succesful running the 4-3, it was the offesne that collapsed last year, the defense just lost too many starters to injury.

[Gspotter]

The Giants are a 4-3 defense and will remain so. They don't have the huige nose tackle required, nor the large number of good linebackers. That said, Coughlin and Lewis prefer the 4-3 anyway. The 4-3 and 3-4 are simply two different kinds of defenses and one isn't any better than the other if run right. The Giant's defensive personnel is built for a 4-3 - not a 3-4. The 4-3 is normally much better against he run, which is paramount in the NFC. When healthy the Giants were more than succesful running the 4-3, it was the offesne that collapsed last year, the defense just lost too many starters to injury.

 

All this is true, though I believe TL was quoted as saying he wanted to implement some 3-4 looks, but that never materialzed.

 

Truly, there isn't a best defense, it's really the best defense for the situation, but of course, that (as you, me, and others have identified) is dictated by personnel.

[Big_Tony]

How to attack a teams strength is your strategy and that changes from game to game, what tactics you employ (as you've accurately depicted) is a result of your strategy. A strategy is to entice Thurman Thomas to run more than let Jim Kelly pass. The tactic to do so was to drop into deeper coverage and give up the underneath.

 

No. Putting your best people on the field at the positions for which they're best suited is your strategy. How you deploy them once they're there is tactical, and that will change depending on the situation -- down and distance, for example -- and the personnel deployed against you, say, 4 WR's. To expand on your Bills analogy, Parcells' defensive strategy in Super Bowl XXV was to play a 2-5 for most of the game.

 

Flexibility in scheming is what I propose and the 3-4 (IMO) gives us that. It's easier to converat to a 4-3 than a 3-4. I don't propose to be loose in our stopping of the pass or the run, I mean the flexibility that is exemplified by defenses like the Pats for whom I have endless admiration and envy

 

Flexibility is fine if you have to be flexible. If you don't, then who cares? The bottom line is that there is no evdience -- empirical or anecdotal -- that a 3-4 defense is better than a 4-3.

[Gspotter]

No. Putting your best people on the field at the positions for which they're best suited is your strategy. How you deploy them once they're there is tactical, and that will change depending on the situation -- down and distance, for example -- and the personnel deployed against you, say, 4 WR's. To expand on your Bills analogy, Parcells' defensive strategy in Super Bowl XXV was to play a 2-5 for most of the game.

 

Though this is semantics, you're now confusing managment with strategy. You always put your best players on the field, that's a managment/coaching imperitive. I think that's fairly obvious however. You're strategy is how how to attack (and in many cases) defend the other team though in many cases you're just attacking.

 

We are however in agreement on the Bill's analogy and since I've already argued that it is a strategy, you've proven my point.

 

If we blitzed our doubled someone that would be a tactic.

 

As for flexibility, well in scheming, it's a necessity otherwise you get picked apart. This is how you defend a QB like Peyton who has a lot of audible repsonsibilities, otherwise you have a vanilla look.

 

I don't see this debate having much more than redundancy to it to it, so we may have to agree to disagree, though I will say that naming things properly is important and not just in the law.

[xxi-xxv]

You're confusing two different things. If we drop players into coverage after the snap so that we're just rushing three it doesn't make it a 3-4 defense. It's a disguised coverage. 3-4 simply refers to the presnap base defense. If we line up 4 lineman but drop a guy back into coverage (simlar to how we'd shift Strahan into the outside flat with frequency) it's not a 3-4.

 

 

hence why i said "looks" and not a traditional 3/4 defense and used a word like "disguised"

 

I am quite aware of what a 4/3 defense and a 3/4 defense entails. OUR d coordinator has gone on record(when he is allowed to speak in AUG)as saying that he "disguises" his 3/4 looks. I was merely pointing out elements and an instance where he tried to disguise that look with our current personnel.

[Gspotter]

hence why i said "looks" and not a traditional 3/4 defense and used a word like "disguised"

 

I am quite aware of what a 4/3 defense and a 3/4 defense entails. OUR d coordinator has gone on record(when he is allowed to speak in AUG)as saying that he "disguises" his 3/4 looks. I was merely pointing out elements and an instance where he tried to disguise that look with our current personnel.

 

I read you loud and clear here. Not only do I tire of people assuming to take a corrective measure with me, but i also get a kick out of (what I suspect) are Madden afficianados who equate that to playing football through college or better.

 

It's getting re-G_d damn ridiculous

[Money]

Depends on the TE, not all are the same and Shock draws more attention than say the TE for Cleveland.

 

Dropping 8 in coverage is unlikely, however we've seen it done again by the Pats and to great affect. In a league geared towards passing and high scores, this is an effective response (at times) to perenial favs like the Colts. I wouldn't underestimate the diffenerence in scheming when you have a LB blitzing, yes, it puts 3 LB's in coverage (assuming pass) but that would be less if you sent one from the 4-3 or you'd send your saftey and then you've got LB's in deeper coverage (not optimal).

 

Sure you could name a variety of teams employing the 4-3 to great effect: most teams play them and for a good reason. Few teams have 4 good LB's and big enough DL, so it isn't easily developed, not as easily as the 4-3. Of course it's been very effective for teams that commit to it. You just need the personnel and that's all that matters, look at Romeo (someone who knows this system well), without the personnel it was floundering in Cleveland.

 

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree, but having seen it cause great problems for great Qb's, especially as a Giant fan, I prefer it.

 

The Pats are able to effectively drop 8 into coverage because they have DL like Seymour, Wilfork, and Warren who can generate a pass rush by themselves. Not a lot of 3-4 teams have the type of talent up front to achieve that type of luxury, primarily because they allocate a large portion of resources towards supplementing their LB core and essentially rendering their DL role players.

 

The example of the Patriots ties into another key put that Hound expanded on earlier (you just touched on this as well) ... finding the right ingredients for a 3-4 is difficult, as players who thrive in that scheme are typically very specialized players (i.e nose tackles, DE/LB hybrids). While the does not directly relate to the superiority of the scheme, it is certainly relevant to the discussion.

 

Interesting that you referenced Cleveland. They actually quietly had a good year defensively. They ranked 16th in total defense and 11th in scoring defense, despite not having excellent personnel. So it could be argued that the benefits of the 3-4 are enough to create a successful defense without ideal personnel, however, I think their relative success is moreso a reflection of terrific coaching and underrated talent than an indication that the 3-4 is a superior scheme.

[HOUND]

hence why i said "looks" and not a traditional 3/4 defense and used a word like "disguised"

 

I am quite aware of what a 4/3 defense and a 3/4 defense entails. OUR d coordinator has gone on record(when he is allowed to speak in AUG)as saying that he "disguises" his 3/4 looks. I was merely pointing out elements and an instance where he tried to disguise that look with our current personnel.

 

If I'm coming off as being condescending I apologize, I'm really not trying to lecture you on this. And for what it's worth, the final drive against Minnesota employed several blitz packages not necessarily disguised 3-4's. Just because Osi's dropping back doesn't make it one. We were sending guys from everywhere. I remember, because it drove me crazy that Lewis decided to blitz at that point. We were getting excellent pressure all game without blitzing. Then we sent everyone and Brad Johnson handled it like he knew it was coming.

[xxi-xxv]

If I'm coming off as being condescending I apologize, I'm really not trying to lecture you on this. And for what it's worth, the final drive against Minnesota employed several blitz packages not necessarily disguised 3-4's. Just because Osi's dropping back doesn't make it one. We were sending guys from everywhere. I remember, because it drove me crazy that Lewis decided to blitz at that point. We were getting excellent pressure all game without blitzing. Then we sent everyone and Brad Johnson handled it like he knew it was coming.

 

No problem at all, in fact I welcome the debate as long as people like you and I debate and do not throw insults based on opinions. I have said for a long time we have drafted 4/3 personnel and this idea of a 3/4 defense is silly. I do like the "looks" and "disguises" that the DC employs from time to time, but this is a 4/3team from the d line on down. I am not sure other than Clancy if there is a 2 gap DT on the roster that could play that NT and I am not certain if any of our DE's(maybe RObbins)would be effective 3/4 DE's. Strahan is so good I suspect he would be great in any scheme, but after 13 seasons(12 as a 4/3 DE 93 was still 3/4 in LT last year)I would suspect it would be silly to mess with success.

 

That last drive against Minny killed me and was an example of the coaching staff getting too cute. It was almost as if they were surprised the defensive gameplan worked so well and wanted to change things.

[Currency]

I think Money is talking about the 'Velcro' defense from the Nickleback.

[osi724dasack]

The key to a succesful 3-4 scheme is to have a great nose tackle.

-we have no great DT or NT-

 

Another key is to have big LB's who can blitz

-we only have 2 LB who can play a 3-4, Torbor, and Emmons-

 

Another key is to have a great safety

-we have no great safety, althogh Gibril is workable-

 

And last but not least two big strong DE's

-Strahan weighs 250 and so does Osi-

 

Strahan and Osi would not succeed in a 3-4, and they are our current strength

 

maybe 10 years from now

[xxi-xxv]

The key to a succesful 3-4 scheme is to have a great nose tackle.

-we have no great DT or NT-

 

Another key is to have big LB's who can blitz

-we only have 2 LB who can play a 3-4, Torbor, and Emmons-

 

Another key is to have a great safety

-we have no great safety, althogh Gibril is workable-

 

And last but not least two big strong DE's

-Strahan weighs 250 and so does Osi-

 

Strahan and Osi would not succeed in a 3-4, and they are our current strength

 

maybe 10 years from now

You actually need 1 LB who can bring it on the blitz(case in point LT) and one LB who can play the pass and make all the tackles needed(case in point LT)

 

The safety spot is not as much of a huge thing as you say, we won a SB with Terry Kinard and Kenny Hill at S and Greg Jackson and Myron Guyton.

 

Size does not matter as well, George Martin tipped the scales at barely 250 if he was lucky and played 3/4 DE as well as there was.

 

In a 3/4 the most crucial element is having a NT that can play 2 gap, not necessarily be great like you like you say but play the 2 gap and clog up space and MOST importantly you MUST have linebackers that can tackle and make plays.