3-4 Defense Vs WCO And Big OLs

[Billy Bullocks]

McNabb had a great career when the 'Skins, Gints, and Coyboys were under .500.

It's a different division now. He won't be able to carry the Eagles like he did in the past.

:beer1:

cheers to that man. He's a good QB, which is evident by his perfomance in the playoffs (minus those 3 NFC CHamp games) where he did play against PRETTY good teams, but nothing great, because up unitl I'd say now, the NFC was incredibly soft.

McNabb will still be effective, but I really dont think he will duplicate his success. The teams he is playing 6 times a year aren't going 3 and Out, and the defenses aren't going to let him have a cakewalk. One thing is for sure, the NFC East can no longer be won by November...


On the topic of the 3-4 vs BIg OL's...I think it's all relative. Our Offense of the early 1990's would just overpower the smaller 3-4 schemes. The 3-4 employs 3 very big DL, while the 4-3 has 1 or 2 BIG linemen usually. It's easier to run AT the 3-4, but a well run defense is effective regardless.

The reason Philly doesn't scare me as ball carriers is that they lack the type of back you would want with that type of OL. Westbrook is shifty, East West runner. He is effective between the tackles, but not as a straight ahead runner. We have alot of speed on defense and that matches up well against qucik RB's and Qb's

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Like most of the time, it depends on the personnel and execution.

Formations don't win. Players do.

 

[ravidubey]

One advantage the 3-4 has now is the ever-increasing speed and power of NFL linebackers. There's no reason not to have big linebackers any more. In a 3-4, those guys have to cover even less distance than before.

 

[FLcowboy]

Yeah - that arm that has gotten him to ProBowls and more playoff wins than any other QB currently in the division.

That's a pretty thin claim, but I'll give you that anyway. As for being a winner, he has one NFC championship banner in his bedroom, having gone for the roses multiple times. Being the Champion of the NFC East Division may be a big deal to some, but doing so when there was no competiton kind of makes the victory hollow.

 

[dwmyers]

As I was driving home from work today, I was thinking today of how in the NFL teams match up against bigger OLs as well as the WCO.

Philadelphia will most likely have the biggest OL in all of football next year (particularly if Justice starts), and they also run a WCO offense.

Do you all believe the 3-4 is more effective at stopping/creating turnovers against the WCO? The 2004 Eagles were held to 3 points by the Steelers. Your Cowboys did great jobs muzzling the Eagles in the game at Dallas, and then as well against the Seahawks (a game you should have won). The Steelers matched up well against the Seahawks in the Super Bowl as well.

I also remember Parcells Giants teams giving Joe Montana and the Niners fits. In fact I remember them winning one playoff game 49-3 or something absurd like that.

They also matched up superbly against the Commanders Hogs when the Hogs were the biggest line in football.

I just wonder if the 3-4 is the superior base defense for countering bigger lines as well as the WCO, whether that extra linebacker aids in disrupting the short passing game. If so, I wonder how our (Commanders) defense plays Philly this year, particularly if Philly actually tries to establish a running game with that big line to balance with their short passing attack.

The size of the line isn't necessarily any indication of their effectiveness. Arizona (big and ineffective) and Denver (small and effective) are proof positive of that.

The thing you need to counter the WCO is team speed, especially in the back 7 (or 8), and you need DEs that are smart enough to be able to contain (this more a McNabb thing). It seems to me that Philadelphia's WCO is all about getting a matchup that can be exploited, usually a fast RB or TE on a slow LB.

I don't think that the 4-3 or the 3-4 is superior in any way over the other. Buddy Ryan's 46 is really a disguised 6-2 (which before the 1950s, was the standard NFL defense) and it seems to do okay when used judiciously. I'll also note that when Dallas blew Philadelphia out this year, the base defense in use was a 4-2-5. I guess the take home lesson there is use what works for you.

If you're old enough to remember this coach named George Allen, maybe you recall when the Skins played an excellent Green Bay team in the 1970s. Recall what George did then?

David.

 

[playit12]

I would never compare Philly's WCO to the Dallas Dynasty O of the early 90's.

Philly relies on timed passes and YAC. They generally only run out of a screen, swing pass, or draw play. This completely negates the idea of their massive line over powering at the line.

Philly uses a massive line because they don't need guys that can pull, reach the second level or trap block. They are looking for big bodies that can pass block effectively in space. They want very wide bodies with decent footwork and a strong punch. Andrews fits perfectly in that scheme.

Dallas was a run first offense. They wanted guys that could block ahead and penetrate. Larry Allen for instance could control at the point of attack and penetrate deep into the opposing teams field. Larry Allen and Shawn Andrews might both be big but they are worlds apart in terms of strengths, especially when Larry could still pull.

Having said all of that, the best way to counter a WCO is to have more athletes in coverage against the intermediate and short routes. The 3-4 extends the coverage from the middle outwards and drastically complicates the ability of the Offensive Coordinator to find predictable seams.

The sacrifice of this change is basically giving the O-Line an advantage in it's ability to move the line of scrimage. Thus teams that rely on running in the trenches should do well against 3-4 teams.

The new 3-4's you are seeing have certainly changed a few things. BB for isntance is the master of the bend don't break D. His D is predicated on the idea that a turnover is worth more than 20-30 yards in field position. That's in complete contrast to a Marvin Lewis D for instance which focuses on field position and time of Possesion. I think Bill Parcells wants the best of both worlds.

I think the Cowboys D now is more suited to stopping the Eagles than the Commander's D.

 

[RiggoForever]

I would never compare Philly's WCO to the Dallas Dynasty O of the early 90's.

Philly relies on timed passes and YAC. They generally only run out of a screen, swing pass, or draw play. This completely negates the idea of their massive line over powering at the line.

Philly uses a massive line because they don't need guys that can pull, reach the second level or trap block. They are looking for big bodies that can pass block effectively in space. They want very wide bodies with decent footwork and a strong punch. Andrews fits perfectly in that scheme.

Dallas was a run first offense. They wanted guys that could block ahead and penetrate. Larry Allen for instance could control at the point of attack and penetrate deep into the opposing teams field. Larry Allen and Shawn Andrews might both be big but they are worlds apart in terms of strengths, especially when Larry could still pull.

Having said all of that, the best way to counter a WCO is to have more athletes in coverage against the intermediate and short routes. The 3-4 extends the coverage from the middle outwards and drastically complicates the ability of the Offensive Coordinator to find predictable seams.

The sacrifice of this change is basically giving the O-Line an advantage in it's ability to move the line of scrimage. Thus teams that rely on running in the trenches should do well against 3-4 teams.

The new 3-4's you are seeing have certainly changed a few things. BB for isntance is the master of the bend don't break D. His D is predicated on the idea that a turnover is worth more than 20-30 yards in field position. That's in complete contrast to a Marvin Lewis D for instance which focuses on field position and time of Possesion. I think Bill Parcells wants the best of both worlds.

I think the Cowboys D now is more suited to stopping the Eagles than the Commander's D.

Well, I'll grudgingly grant that in the past two years, the games in which McNabb and the Eagles WCO has looked the worst came in 2004 against the Steelers, and in 2005 against you guys (at Texas Stadium).

 

[ghst187]

It will be interesting to see whare McNabb stands when it comes to running the ball upfield from now on - after his injury.

I don't think its his injury that will slow his scrambling...its too much chunky soup...Dude is getting fat. The last few years he looks like a chubby kid going after a donut when he scambles and not the fleet-footed scrambling QB he was in years prior.
He needs to lose some weight before he'll be able to run as effectively as he used to.

 

[Billy Bullocks]

With FREAK athletes coming out in the last 5-10 years more so than ever, I think, is a big reason for the resurgance of the 3-4. You get guys like Merriman and Ware who are big, fast, and strong. While all players are getting bigger and faster, OL isn't getting that much faster, but you seem to see alot of 6'2" 245+lbs guys running sub 4.7 40's

 

[RiggoForever]

The size of the line isn't necessarily any indication of their effectiveness. Arizona (big and ineffective) and Denver (small and effective) are proof positive of that.

The thing you need to counter the WCO is team speed, especially in the back 7 (or 8), and you need DEs that are smart enough to be able to contain (this more a McNabb thing). It seems to me that Philadelphia's WCO is all about getting a matchup that can be exploited, usually a fast RB or TE on a slow LB.

I don't think that the 4-3 or the 3-4 is superior in any way over the other. Buddy Ryan's 46 is really a disguised 6-2 (which before the 1950s, was the standard NFL defense) and it seems to do okay when used judiciously. I'll also note that when Dallas blew Philadelphia out this year, the base defense in use was a 4-2-5. I guess the take home lesson there is use what works for you.

If you're old enough to remember this coach named George Allen, maybe you recall when the Skins played an excellent Green Bay team in the 1970s. Recall what George did then?

David.

Unfortunately that was before my time, but I'd love to hear about it. I know Allen was a defensive innovator and master motivator.

 

[playit12]

I don't think its his injury that will slow his scrambling...its too much chunky soup...Dude is getting fat. The last few years he looks like a chubby kid going after a donut when he scambles and not the fleet-footed scrambling QB he was in years prior.
He needs to lose some weight before he'll be able to run as effectively as he used to.

I never thought of him as a fast runner... I think he is just a strong runner. He has a huge body and is very hard to bring down. He's faster than slow D-Lineman and stronger than many linebackers. McNabb is more like Elway. Both are certainly better runners than the average, but their real strength lies in their ability to buy time. No coverage holds up forever. If you can routinely hold onto the ball for 5-7 seconds then you'll look like a pro-bowler.

 

[SmashFactorGolf]

That arm, with the threat of his legs got more playoff wins. Also got him what, 3 consecutive losses in NFC Title games?
Since he now appears to be on a mission to prove he is a "pure" QB and has stopped running so much he doesn't scare teams like he used to.
Also there a little 'ole team in Texas with a defense built specifically to counteract his running abilities if he chooses to use them.

seems to somewhat mirror Brett Farve career.........when young he "trusted" his arm way too much and threw all kinds of key piks...... when he matured he finally won a superbowl etc

Mcnabber going thru maturation process......

 

[dwmyers]

Unfortunately that was before my time, but I'd love to hear about it. I know Allen was a defensive innovator and master motivator.

Green Bay had an excellent running game keyed around a back named John Brockington, and that team was dangerous. This was a playoff game iirc.

George switched to a 5 man line, confused the heck out of Green Bay, shut down their running game and won the game.

It's not quite as good as the "Mud Bowl" but it's one of the more outstanding examples of coaching in the 1970s.

David.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

With FREAK athletes coming out in the last 5-10 years more so than ever, I think, is a big reason for the resurgance of the 3-4. You get guys like Merriman and Ware who are big, fast, and strong. While all players are getting bigger and faster, OL isn't getting that much faster, but you seem to see alot of 6'2" 245+lbs guys running sub 4.7 40's

It's not only that, but the college game is becoming increasingly faster. In order to get that speed that college defenses wish to attain since the field is so spread out, they'll sacrifice size to get it.

Thus you'll see some really good DE's in a 4-2-5 college defense that are no more than 250 pounds. The DT's wind up being no more than 290 pounds as well.

In the pro game, the field isn't as spread out. It's much less likely you'll find a good DE that only weighs 250 pounds.

So the 3-4 is becoming more popular because it isn't too difficult to move those former college DE's to OLB and it's not too difficult to move those 290 pound former college DT's to 3-4 DE.

To me the tough part is finding nose guards and strong safeties.


Rich........

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Formations don't win. Players do.

I somewhat believe that.

You can have the greatest formations in the world, but if you don't have the talent and/or execution, you're not going to win.

On the flip side, you can have some fine talent, but if you don't utilize some proper formations you're not putting the team in the best position to execute. For example, you wouldn't go with a goal line defense against a 3 WR set with the ball at the 40 yard line.

That was sort of my problem with Sean Payton last year. Everybody and their mother knew that once we got into the red zone it was going to be run, run, pass. Sure, the execution could be better but Payton wasn't exactly putting his team in the best position to execute at their highest level.

Rich.........

 

[Longboysfan]

I have a feeling he is not going to shy away from it. I think McNabb will be out to prove a lot of people wrong about him and his leadership ability. Unlike some I don't think Philly is done and expect to see that team playing their butts off this season.

Rethinking what I said...
Maybe we do see McNabb run more with the WR talent they now have.
Right
Wrong
or
Mcnabb lit up.

 

[RiggoForever]

Green Bay had an excellent running game keyed around a back named John Brockington, and that team was dangerous. This was a playoff game iirc.

George switched to a 5 man line, confused the heck out of Green Bay, shut down their running game and won the game.

It's not quite as good as the "Mud Bowl" but it's one of the more outstanding examples of coaching in the 1970s.

David.

Thank you for this recollection. I wish I could have been around to see Allen coach as well as more of Landry (whom I only watched towards the end of his career)