Grizz: The Phillps 34 Playbook

[AtlCB]

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.

Your earlier post proves that the 46 is a 4-3 defense. The diagram shows four defensive linemen, three linebackers, and four defensive backs - the definition of a 4-3. 4-3 refers to the personnel you have on the field - not how they line up. The two linebackers lined up on the line of scrimmage do not become defensive linemen simply because they are on the line of scrimmage, and the safety does not become a linebacker once he lines up close to the line of scrimmage.

 

[Doomsday101]

Not sure why this 46 talk is still going on. Phillips does not run the 46 and Dallas is not going to run the 46 D. Phillips will be aggressive and throw a lot of different blitzes but it will not come out of the 46.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

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.

That's right. If Parcells calls for his OLBs to be up on the line on a certain call, I'd still call that a 3-4. And so would he. Maybe he needs the lecture?

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?

I read your post, and I don't see how it changes what I'm saying.

BTW, who on the 85 Bears played that "adjuster" position? Whether it was Marshall or Wilson, or whoever it was, most people still called him a LB, not a DL. Even if he was up on the line.

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?

Hold on, I think you have it backwards. You are the one saying that all you do is count the number of people on the line and make that the first number. Hence, if Wilbur Marshall and a safety move up to the LOS for a play, it's a "6-2". I don't see it that way. To me they are still a LB and a safety.

So sure, to me it makes a difference what a player's primary position is. The Cardinals under Pendergast have played five defensive linemen at times. Yes, IMO that is different than our putting a couple of LBs up on the line in our 34. Is that really such an offensive idea?

I get what you are trying to say, I think, and I usually agree with you on most things. I just don't agree this time. But it's really all semantics anyway. If you want to call it a 6-2, that's fine with me. But it doesn't mean that everyone else who calls it a 4-3 variation is an idiot.

 

[dwmyers]

Your earlier post proves that the 46 is a 4-3 defense.

Then why does Rex Ryan call it a 6-2? Who is the better judge, someone who coaches it or you?

David.

 

[AtlCB]

Then why does Rex Ryan call it a 6-2? Who is the better judge, someone who coaches it or you?

David.

Link?

 

[Bob Sacamano]

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

David Myers.

yeah, blitzing from a zone coverage isn't a zone-blitz, right

 

[dwmyers]

Hold on, I think you have it backwards. You are the one saying that all you do is count the number of people on the line and make that the first number. Hence, if Wilbur Marshall and a safety move up to the LOS for a play, it's a "6-2". I don't see it that way. To me they are still a LB and a safety.

Do you really think that when a "SS" is five yards behind the LOS sitting on top of the LT, that he's going to cover a TE down the field? Can I express my doubt at your interpretation, and explain why?

You're looking at a single diagram I posted and extrapolating from that. You haven't read my thread, you haven't attempted to understand anything about the 46.

If you did, you would know what an adjuster is and what he does in the 46 scheme. And you wouldn't even have gone down this path of claiming the SS has the same role in the 46 and a 4-3.

David.

 

[Rack]

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

David Myers.

No, he isn't. So I guess it's YOU that's not sane.