The 3-3-1-4. How will it work?

[TEK2000]

wow...I guess norm hitzges can start some crazy rumours.

I heard him say this today after talking to jerry and I laughed. You would have to be nuts to play this defense.

that is an odd nickel set. Would make absolutely no sense.

We would give up 200 yards rushing a game.

Norm has been dissapointing me lately, he is off alot more than usual.

How'd you like it the other day when he figured Roy would make a good 3-4 OLB pass rusher?

 

[TEK2000]

Oh I could dig up Spears comments if I really cared to.. it's was what I said he said above plus stuff like..you wont see sacks from this defense on first and second down. Sacks are going to come on 3rd down.. the coaches will be pleased that we held em to 75 yards rushing..yada yada. But again.. other teams do actually pass on 1st and 2nd down believe it or not.

All I know is it's not good enough.. and I could be dead wrong.. our guys could be wonderful pass rushers if we "let" them.

I must admit the opposite scenario would be more believeable.. cause we were so hell bent on getting to the QB and we actually did it, that our rush defense suffered. There couldnt be any denying they were good pass rushers then. As it stands though I have no reason to believe they are good... scheme or no scheme.

Trevor Pryce went to Baltimore and got 13 sacks as a 3-4 DE.. and you bet I hang alot of that on their scheme. But I saw that the guy was a stud watching him play here in Denver for a number of years where he was getting double digits in the 4-3 (before he got tweaked) so it was no surprise to me. I'm pretty sure I'd be surprised if Spears or Canty ended up in Baltimore next year and ended up with double digit sacks.

Maybe someday they'll have their chance.

Ekuban got free from the dont rush the passer mentality and he started averaging a whole 6 sacks a year instead of 3. Still doesnt sound like much to me but then again I guess you could argue he doubled his production!

Instantly DOUBLING your production with changing teams is pretty much a clear sign that something wasn't being done right on the previous teams. Wouldn't you agree?

Spears saying "Don't expect sacks on 2nd and 3rd down". Does this sound like a guy saying "We as players aren't capable of getting sacks." Or, is it more of: "This defense is not designed for us to get sacks. We're suppose to stop the run." Again, I submit that this is something that you would NEVER hear from 3-4 DE's under other DC's.

The only game we really focused on trying to get to the QB was in the Detroit game... but do you really expect guys to go through their first 2 seasons in the league being taught to "stop the run" and then in 1 week be able to switch to "get the QB" without having to go through some learning curve?

The Trevor Pryce example only serves to reinforce my statements about all the pass rush specialists we rolled through here for Zimmer to use. Guys consistently showed they are capable of beating the OLinemen until Zimmer's defense employed their services... then all the sudden they just couldn't seem to get after the QB as well anymore. Pryce plays in a scheme that utilizes his ability to a certain extent and then moves into another scheme that fits him even better obviously.

I'm not saying its a guarantee that these DE's we've got are going to be picking up huge sack #'s, but I greatly attribute their dissappointing performances thus far to the scheme they were in.

 

[Chuck 54]

3-3-1-4

Imagine the 3-4...nothing changes with the front 3 guys nor with the SLB who will still be over the TE, nor with the WLB who will still be off the line in coverage or up rushing the QB or over the 2nd TE in a 2-TE set...

The difference would be that instead of having two ILB's, you'd have a MLB who might shade towards the strong side against the pro set, and he'd have the SS (Roy) stacked behind him or slightly offset, running to the ball, or blitzing the QB, or covering the TE, etc if they come over the middle...

The secondary would have the usual 4 DB's...essentially, you'd see Roy replacing one of the ILB's but playing further back behind the MLB.

This is how I'd envision it, but it would be a gimmick defense used in certain situations or against certain teams, though it could be used a great deal...Against a true power running team with a good line, I think you'd see one of the 4 DB's come out of the game and replaced by the usual extra ILB unless we were going to the 4-3 allignment.

Then again, I'm tired and just making most of this up without really having a clue

 

[CATCH17]

I think its funny how people say its so nuts and it wont work but all you gotta do is tune into 1 Pittsburgh game and see them do it most of the time.

You same people would definetely not like Dick Lebeau as your coordinator.

 

[TEK2000]

Against a true power running team with a good line, I think you'd see one of the 4 DB's come out of the game and replaced by the usual extra ILB unless we were going to the 4-3 allignment.

Against a true power running team, you could stick more to your base 3-4 defense but cheat Roy up to the LOS more. Sticking more to man coverage and having 8 guys in the box with Roy roaming around helping to stop the run.

Just my 2 cents anyway.

 

[Chuck 54]

Roy is not gonna be a linebacker, People. Nor should he be. .

Agreed

His coverage abilities are no worse then any other STRONG SAFETY in the NFL. .

I'm not buying that BS...no way...he is worse...much worse

Let's worry about our pass rush before we worry about anything else.

Agreed

 

[Chuck 54]

Against a true power running team, you could stick more to your base 3-4 defense but cheat Roy up to the LOS more. Sticking more to man coverage and having 8 guys in the box with Roy roaming around helping to stop the run.

Just my 2 cents anyway.

Yep...I think that's exactly what I said...the extra DB leaves and the extra ILB returns...that's the 3/4.

 

[DipChit]

Instantly DOUBLING your production with changing teams is pretty much a clear sign that something wasn't being done right on the previous teams. Wouldn't you agree?

Spears saying "Don't expect sacks on 2nd and 3rd down". Does this sound like a guy saying "We as players aren't capable of getting sacks." Or, is it more of: "This defense is not designed for us to get sacks. We're suppose to stop the run." Again, I submit that this is something that you would NEVER hear from 3-4 DE's under other DC's.

The only game we really focused on trying to get to the QB was in the Detroit game... but do you really expect guys to go through their first 2 seasons in the league being taught to "stop the run" and then in 1 week be able to switch to "get the QB" without having to go through some learning curve?

The Trevor Pryce example only serves to reinforce my statements about all the pass rush specialists we rolled through here for Zimmer to use. Guys consistently showed they are capable of beating the OLinemen until Zimmer's defense employed their services... then all the sudden they just couldn't seem to get after the QB as well anymore. Pryce plays in a scheme that utilizes his ability to a certain extent and then moves into another scheme that fits him even better obviously.

I'm not saying its a guarantee that these DE's we've got are going to be picking up huge sack #'s, but I greatly attribute their dissappointing performances thus far to the scheme they were in.

The dont expect sacks thing could also be viewed as a built in excuse.. I'm not fond of the attitude there. He could've said well you know sacks arent at all the priority but by god once I see it's a pass I'm doin my damndest to plant him in the turf. Instead of.. well thats a 3rd down deal.. dont look at me.

Also once a guy moves to a different team other factors come into play as well that could owe to them getting more sacks or even less depending on where they're going and where they came from. Obviously the quality of the other players on the (new) line plays a role too.

But going from 8 to 16 would prolly indicate the guy was a better pass rusher in the first place than going from 4 to 8.

Hey I dont disagree sometimes theres a "play the run first" mentality going on. But goodness sake it doest take that long to realize whether a play is a run or a pass. And if it's a 7 step drop and the guy has all day you'd think these guys could even at least look like they're on their way to gettin there more often even if the QB got rid of it. Once they recognize pass they *are* to try and get to the QB right? So the only excuse for not getting there would be the 1/2 second of recognition cost them.

I dont mean to belabor the point.. the original crux of my argument was that we supposedly have all this talent.. but if they're not making plays.. this goes for most everyone in the front 7 cept Ware.. whether it's because the scheme is holding them back or otherwise.. how do we really know it?

Cause they're drafted high? Cause they looked good in college? Cause we just hope to high heaven they are? Cause our drafts were so crappy from 94-00 these guys couldnt help but be far better?

Forget sacks... how many tackles for loss, how many batted balls, how many forced fumbles... how many times make you jump up out of your chair and shout with joy? I just think you'd see more of that if the players were better even if the scheme "sucked".

Hey make no mistake.. I'd love to be proven wrong.. get some new coaching blood in here and turn these guys into the next wrecking crew.

 

[theogt]

I think its funny how people say its so nuts and it wont work but all you gotta do is tune into 1 Pittsburgh game and see them do it most of the time.

You same people would definetely not like Dick Lebeau as your coordinator.

I agree that the 3-3-5 Nickel package can be successful. It's not entirely uncommon. I don't understand why people are calling it a 3-3-1-4. It's a 3-3-5 (3 linemen, 3 LBs, and 5 DBs).

It's a nickel formation (five defensive backs). It has all of the advantages and disdavantages of a nickel formation. There are reasons teams don't run a nickel defense on every down.

I prefer 4 down linemen, however, in the nickel package because it obviously has a greater capacity for getting pressure.

 

[CATCH17]

I agree that the 3-3-5 Nickel package can be successful. It's not entirely uncommon. I don't understand why people are calling it a 3-3-1-4. It's a 3-3-4 (3 linemen, 3 LBs, and 3 DBs).

It's a nickel formation. It has all of the advantages and disdavantages of a nickel formation. There are reasons teams don't run a nickel defense on every down.

I prefer 4 down linemen, however, in the nickel package because it obviously has a greater capacity for getting pressure.

I gotta admit today is the 1st day i've ever heard of a 3-3-1-4 hahaha

 

[TEK2000]

I guess we'll have to agree to somewhat disagree. Neither one of us are just absolutely sure of our argument it seems... I obviously can't prove that these players WILL be the great 3-4 DE's we need, and we'll have to wait until whoever our new DC is to give it a go and see if they can produce more.

I just look at Jason Ferguson and see that he was getting 3.5 and 4 sacks his first 2 seasons in the league under Belichek and then gets 1 in 2 seasons under Zimmer.

 

[theebs]

I think its funny how people say its so nuts and it wont work but all you gotta do is tune into 1 Pittsburgh game and see them do it most of the time.

You same people would definetely not like Dick Lebeau as your coordinator.

Not sure where you have seen them run this! I dont recall them doing this.

I believe lebeau runs alot of over and under alignments with zone blitzing. They put Troy P. in the box or near the los by playing cover 1 looks and letting him go.

I dont know that I have ever seen a 3-3-1-4 look...it would really be a 3-3-5 look! I mean unless I am wrong is there a difference? He makes it sound like a basketball zone formation. The way norm is saying it, the safeties would be 20 yards deep and basically look like a 3-4 with the corners and safety's playing a deep prevent...

Norm has lost it this week. He is approaching galloway levels.

 

[theebs]

How'd you like it the other day when he figured Roy would make a good 3-4 OLB pass rusher?

Yea I was scratching my head all week listening to norm. He is like the common fan overreacting and trying to fix a very complex and diverse problem with simplistic thoughts and approaches.

Teams would sniff roy out at olb so fast, he would last one game there.

The answer in simplistic terms is more pass rushers. If the qbs have less time and more to worry about, tight ends and backs who keep getting roy shifted into coverage would be blocking first before releasing.

I am sure new england and Indianapolis did nothing but go over blocking protections. I would imagine they are scheming the other teams safeties into coverage spots in open space, but not without accounting for the incredible pass rush that baltimore and san diego have.

When you have three guys that can get you at anytime you force other offenses to play more conservatively and to take less risks, which in turn allows your defense to be more aggresive.

Its all about pass rushers. We need two more plus a healthy ellis to compliment ware. When we have that threat, roy will be able to walk up to the line of scrimmage and do whatever he wants.

 

[CATCH17]

I dont know that I have ever seen a 3-3-1-4 look...it would really be a 3-3-5 look! I mean unless I am wrong is there a difference?

Ok this has to end now.

Norm must've had a brain fart.

Its a 3-3-5

 

[theebs]

Ok this has to end now.

Norm must've had a brain fart.

Its a 3-3-5

yeah exactly. Its like his mouth was thinking football and brain was thinking march madness.

3-3-1-4 look would be pretty humorous though.

. v v
. z
. y------y-----y
. v x-------x-------x v


try running that on washington! they will go double tight end and run right at spears, carpenter and williams........it would be comical how many yards our defense would give up on the ground.

 

[DipChit]

Its all about pass rushers. We need two more plus a healthy ellis to compliment ware. When we have that threat, roy will be able to walk up to the line of scrimmage and do whatever he wants.

Yeah thats what I said in thread on what Spags said about Roy.

Defense is about pass rush and true cover guys. If you got that you dont need killer safeties.. although it wouldnt hurt.

Hell we saw James Washington be a SB MVP (well ok he wasnt actually awarded it, but yeah) and for actually making some plays. Not a Larry Brown type deal where O'Donnel just threw it to him.

 

[Clove]

I won't disagree that our scheme called for us to get after the run first, but their were plenty of times where we were caught in obvious passing downs, and we didn't even get close to the QB. I do like Hatcher, I hope that his offseason is pretty good, then he can rush from the inside.

But the pressure I'm talking about is from the Ends. Ware cannot consistantly put pressure on all by himself, and I just wish we would sell the farm for someone like Freeney or some stud guy who's constantly in your face forcing the QB to step up, or get out of the pocket.

Haley didn't sack the QB all the time, but he was always in their face, and Tolbert was applying pressure, with Lett coming up the gutt. So I think we have inside pressure with Hatcher and Ratliff (who will get better) but we have to address the other side of Ware, and this time we need to go for a STAR!

 

[sbuscha]

He said Hailey and Lett..... Wow those were the days!!!

I can not remember a pass rush as srong as that.

My Wife is a good friend of Bo Jackson and I was talking to him about the Cowboys scheme. He assured me that the talent is there with Ware, Fergy,etc... He told me that it was obvious from Parcells comments and production that these guys are being asked to play within a scheme then to free lance and attck the QB as they have been taught to do. He used the Merriman vs Ware scenario and advised that Merriman was in the correct attacking scheme and Ware was in a read and react mode.

Someone needs to let the dogs out!!!

 

[jrumann59]

The good old 3-3-5 stack defense works great in HS but in the NFL maybe 1 game but after that can you say ground round. RW is not a LB he needs be in the open field 1 on 1 versus lineman where he can out quick them, RW is too small to make the switch to LB all teams would do is combo block him or pull a lineman to get to him. He might be able to perform as a 4-3 LB but that is iffy since the instincts are a little different.

 

[brucem78]

I think roy woudl be the 4th LB and have to read and react to the run, it would put him closer to the line, but also leave a lot of room for mess ups if he bites on play action.

I would be very worried about Roy in this defense. He does not appear to be a very smart player to me. Unlike Polomalu who Cowher said is one of the smartest players he has ever coached. He said Polomalu is like another coach on the field.