Grizz: The Phillps 34 Playbook

[superpunk]

But hey guys, why all the arguing over everything lately? Has cabin fever already set in this early? If so, we may all really kill each other in July.

I'm menstrual.

 

[AtlCB]

Wikipedia rules all.

Your picture and the site I posted still show basically the same thing. The defense is a variation of the 4-3. You have two DE's and two DT's - four down linemen. The Ravens currently run a 3-4 base - two DE's and a NT. They definitely do not run a base 46 defense. The mix it in occasionally, but their primary defense is the 3-4.

 

[theogt]

Your picture and the site I posted still show basically the same thing. The defense is a variation of the 4-3. You have two DE's and two DT's - four down linemen. The Ravens currently run a 3-4 base - two DE's and a NT. They definitely do not run a base 46 defense. The mix it in occasionally, but their primary defense is the 3-4.

Wow, that's exactly what Rex Ryan says. This should end this debate:

How much 3-4 look did you give the Colts in the playoffs compared to other games?

It’s hard to say. We do a lot of 3-4 stuff. We’ll base 3-4, then stem the overs and unders which are 4-3 defenses. We probably played more 3-4 against Manning than we normally do. The Colts give you two tight ends as a base set, but they run a lot of three wide formations. A lot of times, you’re running nickel packages even in first downs against them. A lot of that is our 3-4 stuff where we move around. We went into that game knowing that our big three-man rush package would be important against him because they were going to protect him. Quite honestly, if you cut the head off that thing, the offense is going to fall if you can get to him. Now, in the process of doing that, you’re going to leave yourself vulnerable. You have to pick you shots against him. You can’t just live doing one thing or another, because once he gets a bead on what you’re doing, he is going to be really tough.

http://blogs.baltimoresun.com/sports_football_ravens/2007/02/qa_with_rex_rya.html

 

[superpunk]

Rex Ryan talking about what they played in one game (which is apparently the only one you watched, notice him saying MORE 3-4 than they usually do) does not answer the "What is their base" question. It was a valiant effort, but that question has already been answered, by Sloth.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

a zone-blitz allows your D to stay in zone pass defense

 

[zeromaster]

So in spite of efforts to the contrary, this did become a long-winded thread about zone blitzes.

 

[theogt]

Rex Ryan talking about what they played in one game (which is apparently the only one you watched, notice him saying MORE 3-4 than they usually do) does not answer the "What is their base" question. It was a valiant effort, but that question has already been answered, by Sloth.

Right. They played it almost exclusively in that game. I've said all along that they base out of the 3-4 and they'll mix in some 4-3. His statement, "We’ll base 3-4, then stem the overs and unders which are 4-3 defenses," indicates that they base out of the 3-4 in more than just that game. They just happened to use more of the 3-4 (and less of the 4-3) in that particular game.

Sorry, you lose.

 

[superpunk]

Right. They played it almost exclusively in that game. I've said all along that they base out of the 3-4 and they'll mix in some 4-3. His statement, "We’ll base 3-4, then stem the overs and unders which are 4-3 defenses," indicates that they base out of the 3-4 in more than just that game. They just happened to use more of the 3-4 (and less of the 4-3) in that particular game.

Sorry, you lose.

Sorry, no.

 

[theogt]

Sorry, no.

So much mounting evidence. So much obstinance.

 

[superpunk]

So much mounting evidence. So much obstinance.

There is no mounting evidence that the 3-4 is the Ravens base. Just that they will use it, which is what Ryan references. You just can't wrap your head around the fact that they made the shift to the 46 last year (which is explicitly catalogued), have stayed with it, yet they can still use the 3-4, to do things out of.

It's not obstinance. There's just nothing else I can do to help you.

So I give up.

 

[theogt]

There is no mounting evidence that the 3-4 is the Ravens base. Just that they will use it, which is what Ryan references. You just can't wrap your head around the fact that they made the shift to the 46 last year (which is explicitly catalogued), have stayed with it, yet they can still use the 3-4, to do things out of.

It's not obstinance. There's just nothing else I can do to help you.

So I give up.

Rex Ryan: "W[e] [will] base [in the] 3-4 ...."

 

[superpunk]

Ryan is describing what they will begin a play in, not what their base defense is.

 

[theogt]

Ryan is describing what they will begin a play in, not what their base defense is.

Sorry, I missed the part where he mentioned they ran a 46 defense.

 

[AtlCB]

There is no mounting evidence that the 3-4 is the Ravens base. Just that they will use it, which is what Ryan references. You just can't wrap your head around the fact that they made the shift to the 46 last year (which is explicitly catalogued), have stayed with it, yet they can still use the 3-4, to do things out of.

It's not obstinance. There's just nothing else I can do to help you.

So I give up.

How do you explain the fact that their depth charts on nfl.com and the Ravens official site are based on a 3-4 defense?

 

[superpunk]

How do you explain the fact that their depth charts on nfl.com and the Ravens official site are based on a 3-4 defense?

It's the easiest notation for it. The rush end is not always the same, although it is generally Suggs. Scott and Thomas play the Weak and Sam LBs. You can't nail people into pegs for the 46, not the way the Ravens run it.

While we're asking for explanations, how can you explain Rex Ryan and Ray LEwis talking about the switch to the 46, which did occur, but noone ever talking about a switch back to a base 3-4 defense - which has not occurred. Is it really feasible that this happened, and only you and theo know about it? Beats me.

This thread sucks. I'm not even going to read it anymore. It's the only way out.

http://img411.*************/img411/7223/jeremyshockeymetrocopyxw8.jpg

 

[AtlCB]

It's the easiest notation for it. The rush end is not always the same, although it is generally Suggs. Scott and Thomas play the Weak and Sam LBs. You can't nail people into pegs for the 46, not the way the Ravens run it.

Why not? It's a 4-3 defense? We both posted the explanation that included four down linemen, three linebackers, and four defensive backs. It's not real hard to nail down these positions. Also, the Ravens' depth chart in 2005 was based on a 4-3.

 

[dwmyers]

The 46 is, or was, definitely a 4-3 scheme.

No it's not. The 46 is a 6-2. I've posted on this before till I'm blue in the face.

One reference is here:

http://fastandfuriousfootball.com/Defense/46_Buddy_Ryan_Eagles.pdf

This is a cut from Buddy's pdf:

Another reference is my thread here:

http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65354

You can shift into a 46 from a 4-3. You can shift into a 46 from a 3-4. But a 46 is an 8 man front and therefore, neither a 3-4 or a 4-3.

It's also not a 4-6, despite many typos to the contrary.

And contrary to some people here, who couldn't tell the difference between a pressure defense and a 46 if the position bit him on the nose, the Rex Ryan Ravens do not run a 46 as a base. The tell-tale linebackers over the offensive tackles and three linemen man up on G, C, G would give it away every time.

:bang2: :bang2: :bang2: :bang2: :bang2: :bang2: :bang2: :bang2: :bang2: :bang2:

 

[Rack]

Wow, this couldn't be more wrong. Kinda funny.

If you find things that are wrong to be "Funny", then you probably laugh 24/7 just at your own WRONG self.

it wouldn't be a zone-blitz then since the D isn't in a zone cover scheme, just one player is in zone, Rack is right

Of course I am.

I know what it is. I also know that it's not 4 down linemen and 6 linebackers. You're deluded if you think they ran a 46 defense this year, though. The 3-4 they ran had some "46 principals," but it wasn't a 46.

I bet you had some kind of liquid coming through your nose when you posted taht being that you were WRONG yet again.

I'm not sure fluff pieces during the previous season have anything to do with what they ran in 2006.

In 2006 they ran a 3-4 for the most part. I don't need some fluff piece to tell me what my eyes are seeing.

Try again.

You should probably call a doctor. I don't think it's healthy to laugh non-stop.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Dwmyers, your Buddy Ryan notebook page itself delineates the linemen apart from the linebackers. And it lists two ends and two tackles, then three linebackers.

IMO and in the opinion of most, that doesn't become a non-4-3 simply because one or more of the LBs moves up to the line. When we did our zero blitz in 2003 , was that a 9-2 simply because everyone but the two corners moved up to the line? Or in the Parcells 34 when the outside LBs get up on the line, do we call that a 5-2? No.

I guess we can call things anything we like, but Wilbur Marshall, Mike Singletary, and Otis Wilson were LBs while Hampton, Fridge, McMichael, and Dent were linemen.

 

[dwmyers]

Dwmyers, your Buddy Ryan notebook page itself delineates the linemen apart from the linebackers. And it lists two ends and two tackles, then three linebackers.

IMO and in the opinion of most, that doesn't become a non-4-3 simply because one or more of the LBs moves up to the line. .

Unfortunately, Chocolate, your definition of a 4-3 is so vague as to be useless. By your definition, any formation you can shift into using 4-3 players is a 4-3. I'm sorry, but I think defenses have to do with assignments for the positions involved.

It's also clear you've never read the link to my thread because I talk about how to make a shift from a 3-4 into a 46. Does that make a 46 a 3-4 and a 4-3 simultaneously, since you can shift into the defense with either set of initial positions?

For that matter, since all you need to do to shift into a 4-3 over or 4-3 under from a 3-4 is have one ILB step into the line, does that make the 4-3 a 3-4? Since all you have to do to convert a 4-3 over into a 3-4 is have the LDT step back and assume linebacker responsibilities, doesn't that make the 3-4 a 4-3?

As I said, your definition is useless. You have to look at the assignments of the players at the final shift, not where they start.

This is part of the issue superpunk has. He's never figured out that any old pressure defense isn't a 46. So when he sees blitzing from a 3-4, he assumes it's a 46. Has to be right? The 46 is a pressure defense, right?

Fact is, while the 46 is a pressure defense, any old pressure defense is not a 46. A 46 features a 6 man front and 2 people 5 yards off the line, an 8 in the box defense with 3 linemen nose up on G, C, G. That isn't going to go away no matter how stubborn people are.

And we've seen 5 pages of summerisfunner being stubborn, when any sane human being can see that theogt is right.

David Myers.