Mediots -- The 3-4 defense

[AdamJT13]

First post in the thread. 7th paragraph from the bottom.

Huh? Here's that paragraph.

"First, learn how to read -- your own website, nfl.com, lists San Diego, Dallas, and Atlanta all tied for second in sacks at 24 (2 behind Indy). That is two of the top five from 3-4 defenses (Tennesse also has 24)."

He never said Atlanta played a 3-4. He said two of the top five play a 3-4 -- ie., Dallas and San Diego. The other three (Indianapolis, Tennessee and Atlanta) therefore play a 4-3.

 

[Hostile]

Huh?

"First, learn how to read -- your own website, nfl.com, lists San Diego, Dallas, and Atlanta all tied for second in sacks at 24 (2 behind Indy). That is two of the top five from 3-4 defenses (Tennesse also has 24)."

He never said Atlanta played a 3-4. He said two of the top five play a 3-4 -- ie., Dallas and San Diego. The other three (Indianapolis, Tennessee and Atlanta) therefore play a 4-3.

Fair enough. Easy to misread.

 

[jbsg02]

3-4 defense is better against the run, thats why we run it

 

[Nors]

actually the knock on a 3-4 is you can run on it....

 

[david_jackson]

3-4 is better against a short passing attack. But can have problems against 5 wide since you end up with a BIG 3-4 LB in coverage.

 

[AdamJT13]

3-4 defense is better against the run, thats why we run it

We run it because Parcells thinks it's easier to create pressure on the quarterback in a 3-4. As Parcells said in 2001, "It (the 3-4) causes protection problems that the 4-3 doesn't cause and that's why you are seeing these teams get these easy sacks, these 3-4 teams."

 

[david_jackson]

Most offenses are tuned for 4-3.....giving the 3-4 an edge. The more teams play against a 3-4 the less this is true.

 

[VACowboy]

3-4 is better against a short passing attack. But can have problems against 5 wide since you end up with a BIG 3-4 LB in coverage.

I don't mean to mix threads or start a tangent or anything, but this is why Ware is a better 3-4 LB than Merriman, IMHO.

 

[VACowboy]

Most offenses are tuned for 4-3.....giving the 3-4 an edge. The more teams play against a 3-4 the less this is true.

That's true to a degree.

A 3-4 defense gives the ability to disguise blitzes better. You never know where the fourth pass rusher is coming from, unlike a 4-3 where the four rushers are the four DL 99% of the time. It also gives you the option of jumping in and out of different fronts because a 3-4 LB can put his hand down much easier than a 4-3 DE can cover receivers or play in space. So while teams can watch film, they still have a lot more to account for.

 

[Nors]

there was a quote from an Arizona lineman that basically said he had no idea what the defense did to them. He was going to have to look at the game film!

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Check out this stupid article...

It might be time to sack the 3-4 defense
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/9008317
By Pat Kirwan
NFL.com Senior Analyst

(Oct. 27, 2005) -- Heading into 2005, all we heard was that many teams were experimenting with the 3-4 defense. Bill Belichick and his Patriots team had won three of the past four Super Bowls using the 3-4, so the rest of the league was supposed to follow their lead.

Not so fast! The top four teams in the NFL in sacks play the 4-3 defense and have no intention of jumping ship with the results they're getting.

Indianapolis, Atlanta, Seattle and Tennessee get to the QB better than anyone. It's only Week 8 and these four teams already have 95 sacks combined. The most impressive stat is that 79 of the 95 sacks belong to guys who start out with their hand on the ground. Indianapolis leads the NFL in sacks with 26, and 24 of them are by the front four.

A few years ago, Charlie Weis and his Patriots offense, with a complete understanding of the 3-4 defense from Bill Belichick, spread out the Steelers' 3-4 defense with "spread sets" and empty formations. The result was outside linebackers could not get to the QB. In the 4-3 package, the front four stayed intact.

As one Patriots coach said, "You will never see (Colts defensive end) Robert Mathis leave the rush box because of offensive alignments."

Another 4-3 coach said, "With the proper stunting up front -- which the 3-4 can't do, but the 4-3 can -- it's not hard to get your best pass rusher on the right offensive lineman."


I can't believe this guy gets a paycheck

First, learn how to read -- your own website, nfl.com, lists San Diego, Dallas, and Atlanta all tied for second in sacks at 24 (2 behind Indy). That is two of the top five from 3-4 defenses (Tennesse also has 24).

Second, only 1/4 of the league runs the 3-4 -- The fact that 40% of the top 5 in sacks (and 50% of the top 10) are in the 3-4 when there are so few teams running it should prove something.

Third, I saw a stat last week about the Boys having the most sacks per passing play.

Fourth, 3-4 defenses are avergaing 18 sacks on the season. 4-3 defenses are averaging 16.6.

Fifth, If you exclude Houston and Cleveland from the 3-4 list (cause they just suck) -- The margin is even larger. 5 of the 8 total 3-4 teams are in the top 10 in sacks.

Sixth, the Colts have the best pass rusher in the league. They should be doing well.

Fire this guy immediately. His moustache makes him look more like a porn star than a sports journalist anyway.

I'm glad we run both schemes

 

[Bob Sacamano]

actually the knock on a 3-4 is you can run on it....

no, annually, you'll see 2 or 3 of the top 5 rush Ds, running the 3-4 scheme, the 3-4 is strong as hell against the run because you have 4 players who can run in space, instead of just 3

 

[Nors]

no, annually, you'll see 2 or 3 of the top 5 rush Ds, running the 3-4 scheme, the 3-4 is strong as hell against the run because you have 4 players who can run in space, instead of just 3

Fact was in 2004 only 1 of top 5 run D was 3-4. Only 2 of top 10 was a 3-4.

a 3-4 run right can be effective against run, but can also be man handled upfront by a strong run attack.

 

[Hostile]

no, annually, you'll see 2 or 3 of the top 5 rush Ds, running the 3-4 scheme, the 3-4 is strong as hell against the run because you have 4 players who can run in space, instead of just 3

Sorry, but Nors is correct. The knock on the 3-4 has always been that it can be run on. That does not mean you can run on every 3-4 defense, because you can't. However, that has always been the red flag. The reason is simple, you generally give up weight by switching to a 3-4. A DL is replaced by a LB. This is where it comes from. No scheme is invulnerable and success against any scheme depends on the personnel.

 

[ravidubey]

We'd actually lead the league in sacks right now if our opponents hadn't intentionally grounded the ball three times while on their way down in the past two games.

I still think those types of plays should be counted as sacks -- if you're in the grasp and going down when you intentionally ground the ball, it should be a sack.

Exactly, if you are going to take a 10+ yard loss then the obvious move is to ground the ball under the current rules.

 

[joseephuss]

Exactly, if you are going to take a 10+ yard loss then the obvious move is to ground the ball under the current rules.

I always thought it should be spot foul and just called a sack.

I don't understand the example of the Pats using spread formations against the Steelers and beating the 3-4. If the Steelers are getting beat in their base defense, they should have gone to a nickel package. I remember that game actually and Pittsburgh did use a nickel quite a bit. They just sucked at it.

The same thing can be used against a base 4-3 defense. The offense's goal using a spread formation is to create a mismatch of a running back or tight end on a linebacker or better a receiver against a linebacker.

 

[Mike 1967]

Why does a mustache equate into porn stardom ?

What's up with that ?

 

[Hostile]

Why does a mustache equate into porn stardom ?

What's up with that ?

It is an old joke. Been around for years.