Is deacon gus?

Nah, Deacon doesn't say "opportoony"

---

IT WAS ALWAYS THE JAGS

Nah, Deacon doesn't say "opportoony"

Says you.

---

I'm trying to make myself more informed and less opinionated.

Stop saying whatever stupid thing you're talking about and pay attention to all the interesting things I have to say!

Says you.

Guess that's true. I'm sure Gus even types it correctly

---

IT WAS ALWAYS THE JAGS

Rearranging the front seven would have nothing to do with producing "more" turnovers.

 

Particularly when all teams are in nickel more often than not, anyway...

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

Move Jack to SS and draft Rueben Foster

Madden != real life

---

Is it being implied that a 43 is inherently a bend but don't break system while a 34 is not?


If so, I can't say I agree with that.


Also, I agree with Bullseye, our personnel isn't as suited to just switch over as many are suggesting.


For starters, I don't believe Telvin Smith could be effective in a 34.

---

Yeah it wouldn't be ideal. I'd rather stay 4-3 but I like the creative blitz packages in the 3-4.


If we did make the switch we would need a Poe type NT, a pure pass rushing 3-4 OLB and then maybe one or two more OLB/DE guys who can play either spot. Would take two offseason to get right whereas with the 4-3 we really just need a DE,LB and maybe a S.

Mike Zimmer runs a 4-3 base front on the Vikings. Often 4-2-5 in Nickel situations.

 

It's not a typical 4-3 scheme like Gus and crew ran here though. It's exotic, they blitz a lot and you rarely ever know who's coming or dropping. They also play a heavy Man Coverage.

 

You don't have to run a 3-4 to be creative on Defense.

 

This Defense is basically set to run a similar Defense like Zimmer's. You just need a good coach in here as the DC to run it.

---

Mike Zimmer runs a 4-3 base front on the Vikings. Often 4-2-5 in Nickel situations.


It's not a typical 4-3 scheme like Gus and crew ran here though. It's exotic, they blitz a lot and you rarely ever know who's coming or dropping. They also play a heavy Man Coverage.


You don't have to run a 3-4 to be creative on Defense.


This Defense is basically set to run a similar Defense like Zimmer's. You just need a good coach in here as the DC to run it.

No you don't have to be a 3-4 to be creative on defense. I just like the way a blitz heavy 3-4 works.

---

No you don't have to be a 3-4 to be creative on defense. I just like the way a blitz heavy 3-4 works.

I enjoy watching a good 3-4 at work also, we just don't currently have the LBs for a 3-4 Defense though.

---

I enjoy watching a good 3-4 at work also, we just don't currently have the LBs for a 3-4 Defense though.

 

Who doesn't like watching a built 3-4 with talent work.  This team hasn't drafted for it, planned for it or explored it other than a brief stint where they scrapped it.  You don't get to just say you will be a 3-4 and viola it happens.

---

The Khan Years

Patience, Persistence, and Piss Poor General Managers.

Mike Zimmer runs a 4-3 base front on the Vikings. Often 4-2-5 in Nickel situations.

 

It's not a typical 4-3 scheme like Gus and crew ran here though. It's exotic, they blitz a lot and you rarely ever know who's coming or dropping. They also play a heavy Man Coverage.

 

You don't have to run a 3-4 to be creative on Defense.

 

This Defense is basically set to run a similar Defense like Zimmer's. You just need a good coach in here as the DC to run it.

 

No you don't have to be a 3-4 to be creative on defense. I just like the way a blitz heavy 3-4 works.

I don't know how old you are, but I tell you as a football fan, some of the most beautiful things I've seen (unless you were a fan of a team on the other side of them) was watching the old Steel Curtain, Doomsday, '84-86 Bears, and Ryan era Eagles defenses.  They were absolutely brutal and dominant.  They stifled the run and oppressed opposing QBs.  I would take any of those defenses against ANY 3-4 defense you could name and serve as one of the main reasons I prefer to run a 4-3.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Rearranging the front seven would have nothing to do with producing "more" turnovers.

 

Particularly when all teams are in nickel more often than not, anyway...

It makes it easier to get pressure when the offensive line doesn't know exactly where the pressure is coming from. We just line up and go with the 4-3. The 3-4 has guys coming from everywhere and makes it more difficult on the o line. We don't have the stud DE's to get constant pressure like the most successful 4-3 teams have had.

---

So I've been thinking about this more and more since I'm really just a football nerd with some spare time on my hands in the evening. One formation that I think most every team ran this year was what I refer to as a "tight bunch" formation with three WRs to one side. I was wondering how a 3-4 would align against it. Also, I think it just shows that most Defenses are in Nickel more often than not anyway. I'll diagram it below:

 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">----------------------------Q--R

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">----------Z
------H------------------------------

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">--------------Y----T--G--C--G--T---------------------X

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">To me, this alignment poses problems for teams (else, why would practically every team run it? Duh!) in that you are in a pass heavy set but you are also unbalanced to one side as you have 5.5 players to one side of the Center not counting Q. Also, I put 'H' on the side as a team with a quality Tight End would want him there to help with a double team if the call allowed for a run play to the heavy side. So with a 3-4, how do you align versus this? Im'ma give it a shot...

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">----------------------------Q--R

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">----------Z------H------------------------------

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">--------------Y----T--G--C--G--T---------------------X

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">--------------------5-----1-------3---50

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">-------------60--------20----20

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">--Cl----------------Cn---------------------------------Cr

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">----------------------------S

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> 

<p style="font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">We line up with the 50 down on the LOS in order to set the edge on the weak side. Cr is in Man coverage on X as S has to play towards the strong side of the formation. My problem is what does the 5 do? I show him head up on the T, but I don't think that's a good idea.

<p style="font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> 

<p style="font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">Does he play outside the Tackle and leave that G-T gap unmanned? I think that an astute QB would call a run to that spot as soon as he saw the 5 outside as it would allow an easy double team on 5 and let the G lead up to the 20. Does he play inside and try to fight off the G-T double team?

<p style="font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> 

<p style="font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">More than anything else, I think that this formation requires that both 1 and 5 to be absolute studs since they'll both need to demand double teams and I'm not so sure I see those guys on this roster.

---

I'm trying to make myself more informed and less opinionated.

Stop saying whatever stupid thing you're talking about and pay attention to all the interesting things I have to say!

Oh, I get it...it's algebra.

---

Have you seen my baseball?

So I've been thinking about this more and more since I'm really just a football nerd with some spare time on my hands in the evening. One formation that I think most every team ran this year was what I refer to as a "tight bunch" formation with three WRs to one side. I was wondering how a 3-4 would align against it. Also, I think it just shows that most Defenses are in Nickel more often than not anyway. I'll diagram it below:

 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">----------------------------Q--R

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">----------Z
------H------------------------------

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">--------------Y----T--G--C--G--T---------------------X

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">To me, this alignment poses problems for teams (else, why would practically every team run it? Duh!) in that you are in a pass heavy set but you are also unbalanced to one side as you have 5.5 players to one side of the Center not counting Q. Also, I put 'H' on the side as a team with a quality Tight End would want him there to help with a double team if the call allowed for a run play to the heavy side. So with a 3-4, how do you align versus this? Im'ma give it a shot...

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">----------------------------Q--R

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">----------Z------H------------------------------

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">--------------Y----T--G--C--G--T---------------------X

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">--------------------5-----1-------3---50

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">-------------60--------20----20

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">--Cl----------------Cn---------------------------------Cr

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">----------------------------S

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> 

<p style="font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">We line up with the 50 down on the LOS in order to set the edge on the weak side. Cr is in Man coverage on X as S has to play towards the strong side of the formation. My problem is what does the 5 do? I show him head up on the T, but I don't think that's a good idea.

<p style="font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> 

<p style="font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">Does he play outside the Tackle and leave that G-T gap unmanned? I think that an astute QB would call a run to that spot as soon as he saw the 5 outside as it would allow an easy double team on 5 and let the G lead up to the 20. Does he play inside and try to fight off the G-T double team?

<p style="font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> 

<p style="font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">More than anything else, I think that this formation requires that both 1 and 5 to be absolute studs since they'll both need to demand double teams and I'm not so sure I see those guys on this roster.

I guess my immediate question, before addressing what to do with 5, is what is the defensive personnel? Are the 20s ILBs or DBs?

 

If you are talking a base 3-4 with base personnel, my question would be why run that against a 4 wide offensive package?

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

I guess my immediate question, before addressing what to do with 5, is what is the defensive personnel? Are the 20s ILBs or DBs? (1)


 

If you are talking a base 3-4 with base personnel, my question would be why run that against a 4 wide offensive package? (2)

 

1. Herein lies the rub. Typically, the 20s are ILBs since you would need them to stack up against a run. But to do so would put you at a disadvantage because what if R goes on a wheel route to the Offense's left? 

 

2. In my opinion, it's not a "four wide" formation. Those wideouts are in tight to the core for a few reasons: a. to allow for an overload and crack blocks for the run game. and b. to allow for clean releases by Z and H since they are back off the line. At some point, you have to swap personnel but who do you swap? One of the 20s? Cn? 60?

---

I'm trying to make myself more informed and less opinionated.

Stop saying whatever stupid thing you're talking about and pay attention to all the interesting things I have to say!

Nah

---

The yearly "switching to a 3-4 solves everything" thread.

---

The yearly "switching to a 3-4 solves everything" thread.

 

Here is what I got when I did an internet search on Super bowl teams winning with a 3-4 defense.  Here is a good summation

 

<p style="margin-left:40px;">The first team that used the 3-4 defense frequently (though it was not their main defensive formation) was the 17-0 Miami Dolphins who won Super Bowl VII, and then repeated as Super Bowl champions the next year as well. The defense was known as the 53 defense after LB Bob Matheson, who would replace DE Vern Den Herder as a pass rusher. Matheson became the prototype for linebackers like Lawrence Taylor of the Giants and Shawne Merriman of the Chargers, whose primary job is to rush the passer.

<p style="margin-left:40px;"> 

<p style="margin-left:40px;">The first Super Bowl champion who used the defense as their primary defense formation was the Oakland Raiders, who won Super Bowl XI. The Raiders would go on to win three Super Bowls using the 3-4.

<p style="margin-left:40px;"> 

<p style="margin-left:40px;">Other teams that have won the Super Bowl using the 3-4 defense were the New York Giants (twice) when coached by Bill Parcells (but not last year when coached by Tom Coughlin), The New England Patriots (3 times) and the Pittsburgh Steelers when coached by Bill Cowher.

<p style="margin-left:40px;"> 

<p style="margin-left:40px;">When coached by Chuck Noll they won the Super Bowl 4 times using the 4-3. The defense is actually a revision of the old Oklahoma Eagle defense devised by Bud Wilkinson, who used it to win 47 straight games in the 50's while coaching the University of Oklahoma.

<p style="margin-left:40px;"> 

​So, looks like it comes down to having players to run your scheme and concepts.  We need to stay with the 4-3 and be more creative to match scheme and concepts to the players on the field.

---

The Khan Years

Patience, Persistence, and Piss Poor General Managers.

I don't know how old you are, but I tell you as a football fan, some of the most beautiful things I've seen (unless you were a fan of a team on the other side of them) was watching the old Steel Curtain, Doomsday, '84-86 Bears, and Ryan era Eagles defenses. They were absolutely brutal and dominant. They stifled the run and oppressed opposing QBs. I would take any of those defenses against ANY 3-4 defense you could name and serve as one of the main reasons I prefer to run a 4-3.

Just before my time unfortunately. Have read bits and bobs about them all. Wish I could have seen that era though, as a stifling 6-3 win would be more my cup of than a high scoring game.


Dick Lebeau probably runs my favourite scheme to watch. I love the mentality and style of how it works.

---