The 4-3 Under

[sureletsrace]

I could see a switch to this. The Seahawks and 49ers use this alot, if I'm not mistaken. The personnel requirements are very similar to what you'd look for in a 3-4, but it's a much different defense.

You need a big, space-eating mammoth DT to take on double teams that will be lined up as a 0-technique or even a 1-technique. You will have your other DT as a 3-technique, your strong-side DE at the 5 tech. Your weak-side DE plays a 7 tech, and SLB at the 9 tech. MLB and WLB are lined up off the LOS behind the front. The premise of the defense is to keep outside contain/leverage and force plays up the middle of the field where your LBs/S can make the tackle.

What that ends up looking like is this:

Because of the way your players are lined up and the gaps they are playing, you need a strong-like-bull NT-style DT to take on that double team every (or nearly every) play. It frees up 1-on-1 situations for your ends, other DT, and your SLB. We already need a NT type player if we stay in the 3-4, so this would be a search to conduct either way.

 

[noshame]

Yep, I love our LB's free to make plays and stay healthy, no doubt it's the way we go.

 

[Funxva]

So then who would be the DC that would execute the 4-3 under? Lovie?

 

[sbark]

Either way, 4-3 or 3-4.....we need a immoveable object at NT.........and irrisistable force at both S positions to become the D we want to be.

 

[sureletsrace]

So then who would be the DC that would execute the 4-3 under? Lovie?

Lovie runs more of a Cover-2 style defense.

 

[Wolfpack]

This is what Ryan and to a lesser extent, Wade, used as the basis of their 3-4. Dallas ran this most of the last few years.

Imagine Ware as the RDE and thats it. If he puts his hand down in a three point, its a magical "4-3".

 

[Chocolate Lab]

That's basically what Phillips' 34 is.

 

[cowboysooner]

We have to draft Red Bryant and keep a credible pass rusher for the SLB which is basically what we have to do anyway pending Josh Brent's legal and suspension status.

 

[TimHortons]

I could see a switch to this. The Seahawks and 49ers use this alot, if I'm not mistaken. The personnel requirements are very similar to what you'd look for in a 3-4, but it's a much different defense.

You need a big, space-eating mammoth DT to take on double teams that will be lined up as a 0-technique or even a 1-technique. You will have your other DT as a 3-technique, your strong-side DE at the 5 tech. Your weak-side DE plays a 7 tech, and SLB at the 9 tech. MLB and WLB are lined up off the LOS behind the front. The premise of the defense is to keep outside contain/leverage and force plays up the middle of the field where your LBs/S can make the tackle.

What that ends up looking like is this:

Because of the way your players are lined up and the gaps they are playing, you need a strong-like-bull NT-style DT to take on that double team every (or nearly every) play. It frees up 1-on-1 situations for your ends, other DT, and your SLB. We already need a NT type player if we stay in the 3-4, so this would be a search to conduct either way.

It doesn't matter what defense we use we need a NT, and if we get one why switch out of a system that we now have the LB's for and our players have been playing in for many years now.

 

[CyberB0b]

This is like a 1 gap 3-4 or 46, like Lab said. It isn't that great against the run, unless you have guys who can get off blocks. You also need a safety who can tackle, and we are missing that.

 

[Crown Royal]

We were basically running this (and to success) early in the season, but the loss of our deep safety (Church) and then everything else up the middle made us go back to a zone approach.

It's sad because this defense, IMO, best suits most of our personnel, but unless Church can be what he looked like he was AND we can find some interior line help, we're in trouble.

We need to be able to stop the run with our front and that is also a weakness with this defense unless your 0 or 1 tech is a MONSTER.