The 3-4 Defense

RiggoForever

Benched
Messages
875
Reaction score
0
I know Parcells is a big proponent of this defense, and Dallas used it most of the year with solid success last season.

Can anybody tell me the advantages/disadvantages of this defense versus the 4-3, and why most teams opt for the 4-3 rather then the 3-4?
 

Bob Sacamano

Benched
Messages
57,084
Reaction score
3
the advantage of the 34 is that you only need to find 3-down lineman, and they dont' have to be great pass-rushers since they have DT responsibilities, tying up blockers, while in a 43, you need both your DEs to be pretty good at rushing the passer, finding 2 DEs who are good at rushing the passer has proven difficult for alot of teams, and with most college DEs now being tweeners, or too small to hold up against the run effectively, the school of thought is that it's easier to find 2 great 34 OLBs than 2 great 43 DEs, since in the 34, the OLBs are virtually 43 DEs, and OLBs tend to be less-expensive than very good DEs

however, most teams choose to use the 43 because the 34 is a more complex D, where the OLBs need to have pass-rushing AND coverage responsibilities, plus the purpose of the 34 is to disguise where the 4th rusher is coming from, but we've seen a few teams switch to the 34 now because of the success of the Pats and Steelers

hope that helps you out
 

Rack

Federal Agent
Messages
23,906
Reaction score
3,106
RiggoForever said:
I know Parcells is a big proponent of this defense, and Dallas used it most of the year with solid success last season.

Can anybody tell me the advantages/disadvantages of this defense versus the 4-3, and why most teams opt for the 4-3 rather then the 3-4?


Just as good as solid as the Commanders were.


Advantages:

1. Easier to find pass rusher's for the 3-4 (tweeners are ideal OLBs for a 3-4 and are easy to find).

2. Less DL. Good DL are hard to find. You only need 3 in the 3-4.

3. Since you have 4 potential blitzers at all times (plus a safety if you walk him up) it puts more pressure on the opposing teams OL (unless of course Mike Zimmer is calling the defensive plays).



Disadvantages:

1. Need strong, TOUGH football players to play the 3-4. You can't have any Derrick Johnson's running around blocks. You have to have LBs that will take on blocks, and can shed blocks quickly.

2. Depending on your NG, could be vulnerable to the run up the middle.

3. Since you aren't required to keep a lot of DL when using the 3-4, it means less DL for a goalline defense. However, the DL you do have will be good run stoppers.



There's 3 of each. I'm sure others will add more.
 

peplaw06

That Guy
Messages
13,699
Reaction score
413
RiggoForever said:
I know Parcells is a big proponent of this defense, and Dallas used it most of the year with solid success last season.

Can anybody tell me the advantages/disadvantages of this defense versus the 4-3, and why most teams opt for the 4-3 rather then the 3-4?

Advantages: IMO anyway
1) Element of surprise in blitzing. The offense doesn't know where the blitz is coming from. This didn't work too well for us last year, cause it was basically Ware blitzing every time. That's why we need a rush OLB opposite of him.
2) More speed on the field... more athletic defense overall
3) Coverage abilities of the extra LB can keep a defense from having to use the nickle in every 3 WR set

Disadvantages: why most teams opt for the 4-3
1) Smaller across the front 7, this is why you have to have big LBs, you're losing one DL
2) OL can swallow up the smaller LBs, and if they get to the second level, gives the RB bigger holes. This is why you need a big plug NT in the middle of the line.
3) Because of #2, 4-3 LBs often have more room to roam, thus they can be smaller LBs.
 

Rack

Federal Agent
Messages
23,906
Reaction score
3,106
peplaw06 said:
Advantages: IMO anyway
1) Element of surprise in blitzing. The offense doesn't know where the blitz is coming from. This didn't work too well for us last year, cause it was basically Ware blitzing every time. That's why we need a rush OLB opposite of him.
2) More speed on the field... more athletic defense overall
3) Coverage abilities of the extra LB can keep a defense from having to use the nickle in every 3 WR set

Disadvantages: why most teams opt for the 4-3
1) Smaller across the front 7, this is why you have to have big LBs, you're losing one DL
2) OL can swallow up the smaller LBs, and if they get to the second level, gives the RB bigger holes. This is why you need a big plug NT in the middle of the line.
3) Because of #2, 4-3 LBs often have more room to roam, thus they can be smaller LBs.


Just wanted to clarify the bolded part. I agree with it, but someone might misinterpret the meaning.


You have more speed on the field in a 3-4 cuz you're replacing a Lineman with a LB, but 3-4 LBs aren't required to be "Speedy". They need to be strong and tough, and able to take on blockers. If they happen to be fast too, then that's great.

In a 4-3, since you only have 3 LBs and more ground to cover, speed is more necessary (then that of 3-4 LBs).
 

Bledsoe4MVP

Benched
Messages
907
Reaction score
0
Personally I love the 3-4 and It's a good scheme overall. Offensively, it's not particularly complicated to prepare for a 4-3 defense. In general, the pass rush comes from the four down linemen and a linebacker, making the blocking assignments pretty clear. Sure, there are zone blitzes and other variations, but nothing like you see with the 3-4....even the top QB's like Bledsoe and Manning have poor games when pressure comes from all directions!

The 3-4 has big advantages come draft time too....An athletic but undersized college end who might not fit the 4-3 mold: a player who can rush the passer and stuff the run at the line could be a perfect fit as a 3-4 outside linebacker. In other words, it's easier to find a guy such as DeMarcus Ware, a college end who plays outside linebacker in the Cowboys' 3-4, than it is to find a prototypical 4-3 end such as Carolina's Julius Peppers. Rare to find those type of players anymore....

In terms of disadvantages, there aren't a lot of Casey Hamptons and Richard Seymours out there....beasts that can maul multiple linemen and demand extra blockers...The 3-4 needs a nose tackle who like Hampton, can occupy two blockers consistently. If a center can block your nose tackle by himself, your defense will have a tough time stopping the run. But as long as your nose tackle can clog the middle and allow the linebackers to fly around, the 3-4 can wreak havoc

I think in the end most teams use the 4-3 to utilize the traditional set up of 2 DT's and 2 DE's, so good players aren't collecting dust on the bench or seeing limited playing time (look what happened last year with glover/ferguson). However this is a copycat league nowadays and we're seeing more of the 3-4 defense than we have in recent years, with half a dozen teams using it as their base defense and at least three more using it quite a bit this season. I like the scheme, and it wouldn't surprise me to see its popularity grow even more. After all look at what Belichik and the Pats have done with it....
 

RiggoForever

Benched
Messages
875
Reaction score
0
Thank you all for your thoughts/explanations on this. I've seen Greg Williams use the 3-4 in spots last year, but nowhere near as much as we used the 4-3. We really used the 3-4 the most when our DT Griffin was injured.
 

bayarealightning

New Member
Messages
127
Reaction score
0
I also think that your dreded enemy, the Washington Commanders, had as much to do with the 3-4 falling out of vogue in the early 1980s. They came out with those hogs and did a lot of misdirection with them. And if any of those big boys got to the second level, with Riggins running behind them in a single back formation, it forced teams to change. In the 4-3, you had the big boys covered and when they left an area, the defensive tackle would shoot the gap and disrupt the flow of the play. It forced teams that emulated the Commanders to play straight up.
 

rexrobinson

Active Member
Messages
1,039
Reaction score
0
The Cowboys of 90's Superbowl run could not wait to play a 3-4 team. They were able to run up and down the field with them. They are the exception not the rule.

The offensive line in those days could take those 3-4 DT/DEs one on one leaving the extra lineman to block linebackers.

Now days its hard pressed if not impossible to gather a collection of brute strength and elite talent in every postion of the O-line so the 3-4 works a lot now.

That being said, I love the 3-4 due to the fact that the 2 OLBs are usually in the top 5 best atheltes on the field.
 

Eskimo

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,821
Reaction score
496
There is one thing that I'd point out about the greater availability of pass-rushing OLBs compared to pass rushing DEs. Up until recently, very few teams were playing the 3-4 which meant there were few teams competing for acquiring 3-4 LBs. With more teams now switching to the base 3-4 defense pass rushing OLBs may be harder to come by.

Pittsburgh got by for years with drafting them in the second and third round. Those guys are now starting to go earlier with more 3-4 teams around - Pats, Dolphins, Cowboys, Texans, Chargers...

The thing that is actually really hard to find in a 3-4 is a nose tackle. The good 3-4 teams have very good NTs - Casey Hampton with the Steelers, Jamal Williams with the Chargers and Vince Wilfork with the Pats. Jason Ferguson is really more of a NG in a 4-3 defense to play along side a pass rushing DT than a true 3-4 NT. I have serious reservations about his ability to hold up over a season protecting against the run up the gut. Perhaps having better ILBs this year will help.
 

Rack

Federal Agent
Messages
23,906
Reaction score
3,106
Eskimo said:
There is one thing that I'd point out about the greater availability of pass-rushing OLBs compared to pass rushing DEs. Up until recently, very few teams were playing the 3-4 which meant there were few teams competing for acquiring 3-4 LBs. With more teams now switching to the base 3-4 defense pass rushing OLBs may be harder to come by.



Still easier then finding good pass rushing 4-3 DEs.
 

Eskimo

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,821
Reaction score
496
Rack said:
Still easier then finding good pass rushing 4-3 DEs.

I guess it depends on who is doing the choosing - I'm sure the JJ & Lacewell braintrust of the late 90s could screw this up.

Nevertheless, I think you are correct.
 

Eskimo

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,821
Reaction score
496
I decided to look up the sack leaders from the last season on NFL.com.

The breakdown is as follows:

6 LBs and only one in the top 10 (Jason Taylor). The other LBs were Merriman, Ware, Porter, Haggans and Suggs (? was he playing DE last year). Now amonst these Taylor and Suggs are pretty darn close to being DEs.

3 DTs

20 DEs

1 DB (Adrian Wilson of the Cards had 8 sacks last year)

Now a lot of the DEs on the list were of the tweener variety but not many of them are what you would consider true LBs.

Just some food for thought.
 

BigDFan5

Cowboys Make me Drink
Messages
15,109
Reaction score
546
Eskimo said:
I decided to look up the sack leaders from the last season on NFL.com.

The breakdown is as follows:

6 LBs and only one in the top 10 (Jason Taylor). The other LBs were Merriman, Ware, Porter, Haggans and Suggs (? was he playing DE last year). Now amonst these Taylor and Suggs are pretty darn close to being DEs.

3 DTs

20 DEs

1 DB (Adrian Wilson of the Cards had 8 sacks last year)

Now a lot of the DEs on the list were of the tweener variety but not many of them are what you would consider true LBs.

Just some food for thought.


Good research now let me add this, 6 teams I believe play a 34, that is 18% of the leagues teams

20% of the sack leaders were 34 LBs
 

MONT17

New Member
Messages
3,269
Reaction score
0
I'm a fan of the Man in the middle... u get that guy in a 3-4 lookout because that opens holes for your MLBs to rush the passer up the middle!!!


the 4-3 is still my favorite D when u have TALENT and speed like the 90s Cowboys who ran the 4-3 to perfection! the 92 team was #1 in the NFL with ZERO probowlers!!!

Running the 4-3 is like saying were arent here to TRICK u, we are here to WHIP you!
 

Rack

Federal Agent
Messages
23,906
Reaction score
3,106
Eskimo said:
I decided to look up the sack leaders from the last season on NFL.com.

The breakdown is as follows:

6 LBs and only one in the top 10 (Jason Taylor). The other LBs were Merriman, Ware, Porter, Haggans and Suggs (? was he playing DE last year). Now amonst these Taylor and Suggs are pretty darn close to being DEs.

3 DTs

20 DEs

1 DB (Adrian Wilson of the Cards had 8 sacks last year)

Now a lot of the DEs on the list were of the tweener variety but not many of them are what you would consider true LBs.

Just some food for thought.

He played both.
 

Eskimo

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,821
Reaction score
496
BigDFan5 said:
Good research now let me add this, 6 teams I believe play a 34, that is 18% of the leagues teams

20% of the sack leaders were 34 LBs

Looks fairly darn proportional then - unlikely to reach the threshold of "statistically significant difference".

I think the case with a lot of the pass rushers is that either they are undersized DEs in a 4-3 scheme or king-sized OLBs in a 3-4. These are the types of players with the size, strength and athletic ability to get after QBs.
 

Crown Royal

Insulin Beware
Messages
14,229
Reaction score
6,383
Both can be good schemes if used correctly. The 3-4 is currently very trendy, and it has been successful with a good amount of lbers. Note that the 0 gap nose tackle is starting to become scarce as other teams go to the scheme.

About 5-6 years ago, the big thing in the NFL was the TB/Monte Kiffin/Tony Dungy cover 2 - a 4-3 form based on getting QB pressure with your 4 down lineman and playing a disciplined zone in your secondary. For a while, if you could just find some good lineman, you could play this scheme - but so many went to it that ends became harder to find (note - they will always be hard to find - a true 3point pass rusher is a very difficult commodity to find - very, very effective, but tough to find).

Basically - they are all schemes, and only as good as the personnell you can plug into. Neither one is really better than the other if it can't be run effectively. For instance - the Ravens have always had a good defense, and have gone back and forth over the last 5 years - they started (and won a SB) in a 4-3 scheme that was very successful, have for several years been a 3-4, and last year reverted back to a 4-3.

Also, outside of scheme, it is important to note that there are 2 general defensive mentalities - 1) beating an offense by masking what you area throwing at them and 2) physically being better and more disciplined.

An example of 1 - beating a team by masking your defense: This style is favored by defensive coaches such as Buddy Ryan (the 46 defense), Jim Johnson, Gregg Williams, etc. They show you many, many different fronts - the goal is to confuse the QB and the offense as to what you are doing. For instance - your line is spread wide, your linebackers are showing zone, and then, all of a sudden at the snap, you get a gap blitz attack from your weak and middle lber - the QB never saw it coming and takes you by surprise. Often times lower quality DBs excel in this scheme because the idea is to get pressure - see teams like Philadelphia, where Jim is the master of the blitz package.

Example 2 - the 'Beat you Straight Up' style coach. Coaches like this are Bill Parcells, Tony Dungy, Landry. Basically - these defenses don't try to do smoke and mirror - they try to plug talented, start defenders into the right place and make sure they know their assignments. You rarely see complex blitzes - maybe a safety blitz, a zone blitz, perhaps the MLB will hit the 2 gap. But the idea here is discipline - get pressure with your front 4 or 5 (depending on how many you rush), make sure everyone stays with their assignments, etc. If you have good players, this works really well without having to be too complex. Note that Parcells and Dungy is an example of this - I think that this is one of the reasons Zimmer is here - Zimmer used to be a big fan of the cover 2, which would fall under this category - you rarely blitz in that scheme and rely on QB pressure from your front 4. Parcells had a press conference last year discussing these two types of defensive mentality and expressed that he prefers this style. This kind of explains why you have never really seen a complex blitz package past a zone blitz in our defense.

Anyway - the point to all this is that there really is no 'right' way to do it - the key is good players and, perhaps even more importantly, good coaching that knows how to use these players.
 

Clove

Shrinkage
Messages
64,894
Reaction score
27,490
Best to have 3 big strong guys up front. Need a physical big Nose Tackle that can occupy 2 blockers.
2 big physical ends to tie up blockers.
Big instinctive inside guys that are extremely physical.
Your outsiders should be big/fast/ and strong.
 
Top