Today's running game

[jobberone]

Early in the history of the NFL, teams stacked the defensive line of scrimmage with 6-9 linemen. With the development of the forward pass the defenses began to evolve along with the offensive changes. In the early 1940's Philadelphia's Greasey Neale's Eagle defense was creating problems for offenses with a five man line and four man secondary. The rest of the league began to emulate this defense. Paul Brown developed his vertical timing offense which the five man front had difficulty stopping. The Browns won every championship of the rival All-American Football Conference from its inception in 1946 through 1949. In the first game of the 1950 season NFL Commissioner Bert Bell had the newly admitted Browns play the champion Philadelphia Eagles on a Saturday ahead of the rest of the leagues' scheduled Sunday games. The Browns handily won the game in Philadelphia 35-10 and paved the way for the development of the 4-3.

Defenses knew they had to find a way to stop the spread out vertical offense of the Browns and the New York Giants head coach Steve Owens came up with his umbrella defense which showed a 6-1-4 alignment before the snap but could morph into a 4-3-4 as needed. The defense was successful and the only two losses by the Browns in 1950 came at the hands of the Giants. While the concept belonged to Owens the newly acquired defensive back, Tom Landry, explained and taught the defense.[1] While the defense on paper looked like the traditional 4-3-4 of today, it was not yet evolved into what we would call a traditional 4-3 defense.

In the original version of the 4–3, the tackles lined up over the offensive guards and the ends lined up on the outside shoulder of the offensive tackles, with the middle linebacker over the center and the other linebackers outside the ends. In the mid-1960s Hank Stram developed a popular variation, the "Kansas City Stack", which shifted the strong side defensive end over the tight end, stacked the strongside linebacker over the tackle, and shifted the weakside tackle over center. At about the same time the Cleveland Browns frequently used a weakside shift. The Dallas Cowboys coach Tom Landry developed a "flex" variation, in order to take advantage of the quickness of his Hall of Fame tackle, Bob Lilly.[2] In Tom Landry's original 4–3 defenses (4-3 Inside and 4-3 Outside), both defensive tackles were flexed.[3] In the "flex", on a pro set right, with defensive keys showing a run to the right, the right defensive tackle would be flush on the line and was supposed to penetrate.[4] The right defensive end and left defensive tackle were flexed two feet off the line of scrimmage, the right defensive end now head on with the left offensive tackle (i.e. a 4-2-2-5 front instead of the more common 5-2-2-5 front). This gave the defense a "zig zag" look unlike any other of its day. The 'Flex' was developed to counter option blocking by the offensive lines which had learned to move their heads up defensive linemen to either side to create holes. The running back would then patiently run to daylight. The Flex allowed two defensive linemen to read and react better to the option blocking. The other two linemen could either attack upfield or hold their single gap like the flexed linemen and wait for the ball to come to them. These concepts of shooting the gap and shoot and holding the gap are integral parts of today's more modern versions of the 4-3 which includes the Tampa 2 scheme, the Seattle Seahawks shoot and hold defense and the 4-3 slide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4–3_defense

The above is an excerpt from the 4-3 Defense from Wikipedia. The parts in italics are my work so I feel free to use them here.

I thought I'd use this as a lead in to gather some participation from others not for the benefit of the article but for a better understanding of today's running game.

So how and why did the league evolve from that 4-3 to the use of the 4-3 in its variations as well as the 3-4? What's the real differences including size and quickness of these defenses that evolved to handle the running game from the early 60s on?

I'm going to leave it here. It's ok to clip and paste as long as you reference the work. Try to keep that to a manageable condensed post though as I don't want long excerpts of others work. You can certainly post a bibliography for the interested to read. If possible I'd like to see some original thoughts although I realize there are reams of work out there on this subject making it next to impossible to say something not already said a million times. It'll still be fun.

 

[jobberone]

BTW let's throw in plenty of examples of our Cowboys' defenses past and present with this so I can keep this in the Fan Zone rather than the NFL Zone.

 

[jobberone]

I mentioned Landry above using the Flex to defeat option blocking which was one of the early precursors of the ZBS. This was how the offenses began countering the new 5-3 and hybrid 6-1-4/4-3-4 umbrella. Since either the DGs and/or the DTs and often DEs would line heads up on the OL, they began to practice what Lombardi called 'do-dad' blocking taking their opponent where they charged if they tried to shoot or occupy a gap. If the DE took an inside charge and a LB came over the tackles outside shoulder then the tackle was good taking the DE inside but then the G couldn't get to the LB since the OT had him bound. The solution to this was the OT would allow the DE inside taking his outside shoulder and the G would slide over and be ready for the tackle to be passed off. If the DE showed and then went back outside the OT was already engaged and able to either hook the DE or ride him outside. The G of course is ready to fill his hole.

This sounds like Football 101 now but remember this was a new concept in the 50s and was a counter to the use of stunts and multiple LBers who were agile and mobile. The 'do-dad' block was one of the first evolutions of what was know as option blocking that has now evolved into modern OL play. And it was successful. One of the first teams to use this concept was Paul Brown's team. If the Defense wanted to play 5-6 man fronts then the Browns would simply make their gaps larger to 'spread' out the defense. The OL would then take their opponent out of the gap completely by riding him in the direction they wanted to go. The RB would then run to the hole of his choice.

<interrupted> Will have to pick up this later this PM.

 

[Crown Royal]

Not that I am a huge tactician when it comes to defensive football, but to me, there is less and less difference between a 3-4 and 4-3 front, other than one of the ends/LBers deciding to put their hand on the dirt or not. The 4-3 Over and the 3-4 both have nearly the same gap assignments and strategies, with some variance in how they treat gaps. Are there really many two-gap 3-4s left today?

The key difference I am seeing is not a change in front, but in who you use to attack it. Similar to Landry's flex, Seattle has been very successful hybrizing their front between 2-gap and 1-gap defenders. The 1-gap players are almost what you would call Landry's 'flex' players, whereas you will also have 1-2 powerful players trying to control two gaps. The idea is to allow additional penetration.

If we take a player like Timmy Jernigan, I would suggest that this is designed to become our front as well.

 

[OhSnap]

My X's and O's grasp of defenses and offenses is VERY basic but the biggest evolution in the defense AND the running game I've seen is the necessity of the slot or nickel back being on the field constantly now compared to when Wanstedt would put one out mostly on 3rd and long but it's a result of teams teams converting the fullback to a tight end creating the need for another corner without going 3 wide and helping both the running game by putting the blocker closer to the line and helping the passing game by adding a receiver at the same time. I'm not sure a slot corner like Skandrick is appreciated as much yet as it will be for the skill set they have to have because he doesn't have a sideline to help him out like the outside corner.

 

[Crown Royal]

Personally I think that Seattle and San Fran have done it right. The rest of the league is investing in secondary and pass defense, so let's build a ball control power run offense to just run them over.

 

[Seven]

..................is brought to you by the letter "O".

 

[big dog cowboy]

let's build a ball control power run offense to just run them over.

Been waiting on that since Aikman retired and the revolving door at QB began.

 

[Doc50]

Early in the history of the NFL, teams stacked the defensive line of scrimmage with 6-9 linemen. With the development of the forward pass the defenses began to evolve along with the offensive changes. In the early 1940's Philadelphia's Greasey Neale's Eagle defense was creating problems for offenses with a five man line and four man secondary. The rest of the league began to emulate this defense. Paul Brown developed his vertical timing offense which the five man front had difficulty stopping. The Browns won every championship of the rival All-American Football Conference from its inception in 1946 through 1949. In the first game of the 1950 season NFL Commissioner Bert Bell had the newly admitted Browns play the champion Philadelphia Eagles on a Saturday ahead of the rest of the leagues' scheduled Sunday games. The Browns handily won the game in Philadelphia 35-10 and paved the way for the development of the 4-3.

Defenses knew they had to find a way to stop the spread out vertical offense of the Browns and the New York Giants head coach Steve Owens came up with his umbrella defense which showed a 6-1-4 alignment before the snap but could morph into a 4-3-4 as needed. The defense was successful and the only two losses by the Browns in 1950 came at the hands of the Giants. While the concept belonged to Owens the newly acquired defensive back, Tom Landry, explained and taught the defense.[1] While the defense on paper looked like the traditional 4-3-4 of today, it was not yet evolved into what we would call a traditional 4-3 defense.

In the original version of the 4–3, the tackles lined up over the offensive guards and the ends lined up on the outside shoulder of the offensive tackles, with the middle linebacker over the center and the other linebackers outside the ends. In the mid-1960s Hank Stram developed a popular variation, the "Kansas City Stack", which shifted the strong side defensive end over the tight end, stacked the strongside linebacker over the tackle, and shifted the weakside tackle over center. At about the same time the Cleveland Browns frequently used a weakside shift. The Dallas Cowboys coach Tom Landry developed a "flex" variation, in order to take advantage of the quickness of his Hall of Fame tackle, Bob Lilly.[2] In Tom Landry's original 4–3 defenses (4-3 Inside and 4-3 Outside), both defensive tackles were flexed.[3] In the "flex", on a pro set right, with defensive keys showing a run to the right, the right defensive tackle would be flush on the line and was supposed to penetrate.[4] The right defensive end and left defensive tackle were flexed two feet off the line of scrimmage, the right defensive end now head on with the left offensive tackle (i.e. a 4-2-2-5 front instead of the more common 5-2-2-5 front). This gave the defense a "zig zag" look unlike any other of its day. The 'Flex' was developed to counter option blocking by the offensive lines which had learned to move their heads up defensive linemen to either side to create holes. The running back would then patiently run to daylight. The Flex allowed two defensive linemen to read and react better to the option blocking. The other two linemen could either attack upfield or hold their single gap like the flexed linemen and wait for the ball to come to them. These concepts of shooting the gap and shoot and holding the gap are integral parts of today's more modern versions of the 4-3 which includes the Tampa 2 scheme, the Seattle Seahawks shoot and hold defense and the 4-3 slide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4–3_defense

The above is an excerpt from the 4-3 Defense from Wikipedia. The parts in italics are my work so I feel free to use them here.

I thought I'd use this as a lead in to gather some participation from others not for the benefit of the article but for a better understanding of today's running game.

So how and why did the league evolve from that 4-3 to the use of the 4-3 in its variations as well as the 3-4? What's the real differences including size and quickness of these defenses that evolved to handle the running game from the early 60s on?

I'm going to leave it here. It's ok to clip and paste as long as you reference the work. Try to keep that to a manageable condensed post though as I don't want long excerpts of others work. You can certainly post a bibliography for the interested to read. If possible I'd like to see some original thoughts although I realize there are reams of work out there on this subject making it next to impossible to say something not already said a million times. It'll still be fun.

Good off-season study topic.

 

[Wolfpack]

Great thread.

Landry contributed so much to the game, its hard to really understand how smart that man was. Someone who doesn't get as much credit for that is Jimmy Johnson. His Miami 4-3 was totally different that the typical early 90's 4-3. His defense changed a lot of the way the NFL played in the 90's and I think set up for the much more famous Tampa 2.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami_4-3_defense I remember John Madden going on and on about how different that defense was with the linebackers all bunched tight and deep and tons of speed.

 

[xwalker]

Not that I am a huge tactician when it comes to defensive football, but to me, there is less and less difference between a 3-4 and 4-3 front, other than one of the ends/LBers deciding to put their hand on the dirt or not. The 4-3 Over and the 3-4 both have nearly the same gap assignments and strategies, with some variance in how they treat gaps. Are there really many two-gap 3-4s left today?

The key difference I am seeing is not a change in front, but in who you use to attack it. Similar to Landry's flex, Seattle has been very successful hybrizing their front between 2-gap and 1-gap defenders. The 1-gap players are almost what you would call Landry's 'flex' players, whereas you will also have 1-2 powerful players trying to control two gaps. The idea is to allow additional penetration.

If we take a player like Timmy Jernigan, I would suggest that this is designed to become our front as well.

The only hybrid concept that I would like to see with Marinelli's scheme is more about the players than scheme. I would consider drafting a 3-4 OLB to play SLB in the base and then move to DE in the nickel.

This would allow the player to stay at a lighter weight than if he was converting to DE full time. The team would still get a 3 down player.

In this draft that would be guys like Barr and Attaochu.

Another hybrid could be a small LB / Big Safety. Play him at SS in the base and then move him to LB in the nickel with with a FS/CB type replacing him at Safety.

Telvin Smith would be a good choice in this draft. He could stay at his college weigbt of 218.

 

[OhSnap]

https://encrypted-tbn0.***NOT-ALLOWED***/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRrLEqqTvfuFqnDfxhGWBoqcrUrvVeh5JY5sr3Mo6mMnAQHruaI

 

[burmafrd]

defenses and offenses are constantly adapting. With the emphasis forced by rules changes the passing game will be supreme from now on. However that makes what Seattle did all the more interesting; they took the exact opposite tack and are very successful at it. I think that is a valid way to look at things if you are a new coach; because with the pass so pushed now, getting components necessary to have a power run game will be easier.

AND with smaller and lighter DE's and DT's you can just blow them off the line with bigger more powerful OL players.

 

[jobberone]

Not that I am a huge tactician when it comes to defensive football, but to me, there is less and less difference between a 3-4 and 4-3 front, other than one of the ends/LBers deciding to put their hand on the dirt or not. The 4-3 Over and the 3-4 both have nearly the same gap assignments and strategies, with some variance in how they treat gaps. Are there really many two-gap 3-4s left today?

The key difference I am seeing is not a change in front, but in who you use to attack it. Similar to Landry's flex, Seattle has been very successful hybrizing their front between 2-gap and 1-gap defenders. The 1-gap players are almost what you would call Landry's 'flex' players, whereas you will also have 1-2 powerful players trying to control two gaps. The idea is to allow additional penetration.

If we take a player like Timmy Jernigan, I would suggest that this is designed to become our front as well.

Sorry to let this thread slide. I've just not been able to get to it well.

There's truth in what you say....much more than even a lot of commentators throw out there. You take a what is now simple idea of playing a gap and you see the evolution into all these variations. And teams used to play a great deal in the same defense. Today you have a great deal of disguise pre-snap, movement right before the snap, and then all the variations of 1 and 2 gap play. Throw in stunts, stacks, blitzes along with dropping DL and shooting LBers and it becomes difficult for the OL and offense in general esp the QB to read it and make the right adjustments to the D before and during the play.

And now to the point of having the right personnel on the field which for me is as much of a difference maker as gap control and pressure in determining how the front seven or so are going to pressure the pass or defeat the run. I couldn't agree more. Obviously if there are three traditional guys up front then you've got a '3-4'. If you substitute a 6-3 265lb rush DE for a 6-5 300lb DE and the NT for a 3 are you still calling that a 3-4. And this leads into all the substitutions to get the best players on the field for the offensive matchups, down and distance and clock management/time remaining.

I still wish we would hear from some OL guys on blocking techniques.

 

[jnday]

The only hybrid concept that I would like to see with Marinelli's scheme is more about the players than scheme. I would consider drafting a 3-4 OLB to play SLB in the base and then move to DE in the nickel.

This would allow the player to stay at a lighter weight than if he was converting to DE full time. The team would still get a 3 down player.

In this draft that would be guys like Barr and Attaochu.

Another hybrid could be a small LB / Big Safety. Play him at SS in the base and then move him to LB in the nickel with with a FS/CB type replacing him at Safety.

Telvin Smith would be a good choice in this draft. He could stay at his college weigbt of 218.

I have thought about some of the same ideals. It would allow the team to draft the " tweener" players and get great productivity out of them. In today's college game, there is alotta talented players that never get a shot in the pros with a defense that fits them. Dallas should take advantage of this talent.

 

[jnday]

defenses and offenses are constantly adapting. With the emphasis forced by rules changes the passing game will be supreme from now on. However that makes what Seattle did all the more interesting; they took the exact opposite tack and are very successful at it. I think that is a valid way to look at things if you are a new coach; because with the pass so pushed now, getting components necessary to have a power run game will be easier.

AND with smaller and lighter DE's and DT's you can just blow them off the line with bigger more powerful OL players.

I think that getting a huge, massive line and forcing the ball down the defense's throat would be way to go with today's defenses being built to stop the pass.

 

[jobberone]

Great thread.

Landry contributed so much to the game, its hard to really understand how smart that man was. Someone who doesn't get as much credit for that is Jimmy Johnson. His Miami 4-3 was totally different that the typical early 90's 4-3. His defense changed a lot of the way the NFL played in the 90's and I think set up for the much more famous Tampa 2.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami_4-3_defense I remember John Madden going on and on about how different that defense was with the linebackers all bunched tight and deep and tons of speed.

I agree. The league has really gone back to that IF they have the personnel to run it. It's just more prevalent in what I call a strong nickel or dime package. In fact if you look at the better teams with their LBers they are not small and fast but big and fast. That's why a lot of people including me were so excited about Carter. And we tend to call those guys 3 down LBers. It's just hard to find them esp the ones who are big and fast AND can play well.