Bend but don't break

[ZOD]

The 3-3-5 is odd, but I have seen, and used it myself.

What most don't realize is that although it looks soft against a run it is actually an eight man front.

Anyway the Pats dont always use a 3-4 but mix it up according to situation.

This is why the flexibility of that defense is so powerful against the run. With an eight man front all we're talking about is what's in the core. The 34 is a seven man front by design but since you have that nose tackle in it makes it very easy to disguise an eight man front.

Take for example an I formation with a tight end on one side and one split wide receivers on each side. It's now a standard run formation. It gives the offense great flexibility to run or pass. Now count the core of the defense with me that CAN cover this formation.

LOL outside of tight end
B backer inside the tight end
Left Tackle shading the guard
Mac stacked behind LDT
Nose on center
Right tackle shading the guard
SS stacked behind RDT
ROL over air

That's an eight man front and it didn't take very much movement to get there. Most importantly you still are running a sound defense. What you are looking at is a 53. No NFL team uses this defense as a base. It's too susceptable to the pass. Know this though about the alignment though. It's not a blitz at all. It's a sound defensive front against an incompetent passing game and one could still choose to blitz. :eek:

 

[KYfinfan]

So the weakness of that defense is the strength of ours? I assume that the weakness of our D therefore is that they are more susceptible to the big play.

Is that we we try and keep it so vanilla (few blitzes and stunts) so that we are not further susceptible to the big gainer?

This is a claim that many Dolfans make that I don't understand.....that Miami gets no pressure on the QB and no TO's. I know that the last two years that Miami has been in the top 3-4 in sacks and in the top 10 or so in takeaways(6th last year). Last year they did incorporate more blitzes and stunts than usual(that doesn't necessarily say a lot though). I've always said this is a bend but don't break defense in that they don't seem to have the abililty to completely dominate an offense the way the Ravens and Bucs defenses have done in recent years. You know in every game that teams will put together some good drives, but not necessarily score TD but will be held to a short FG. That killer instinct or something is missing....maybe Bates schemes are to blame.

 

[sbh1602]

I completely agree with your statement about the DLs, Zod.

This is why I believe is better to use more, quick linebackers to stuff the run and still be a good fit against the pass. Specially with our cornerbacks...

 

[rafael]

I completely disagree that 3-4 is not a big play D. It has a greater capacity for disguising it's blitzes than a 4-3. For an example of this see the Pittsburg D of the '90s. Nicknamed "blitzburg", they played a 3-4 that was the defination of big play.

 

[inFINSible]

This is a claim that many Dolfans make that I don't understand.....that Miami gets no pressure on the QB and no TO's. I know that the last two years that Miami has been in the top 3-4 in sacks and in the top 10 or so in takeaways(6th last year). Last year they did incorporate more blitzes and stunts than usual(that doesn't necessarily say a lot though). I've always said this is a bend but don't break defense in that they don't seem to have the abililty to completely dominate an offense the way the Ravens and Bucs defenses have done in recent years. You know in every game that teams will put together some good drives, but not necessarily score TD but will be held to a short FG. That killer instinct or something is missing....maybe Bates schemes are to blame.

I sure would like to see who makes that claim. That's completely wrong.

But you're right, there are a lot of long drives with no points put up on this team. Which may lead one to think that it's a bend but don't break mentality but, I've always seen it as more of a "bend until the offense breaks" kinda defense. I even relish the field getting shorter behind them because I know it increases the chances of a TO or big play.

It's those 80 yard bombs that we give up, that kill me.

 

[Ohiophinphan]

I have always been a fan of the 3-4 defense. It goes back to the 1950's as the Oklahoma 5-2 and was, I believe, created by Bud Wilkenson who set the still extant consecutive game winning streak in Division I NCAA football.

Bill Arnsbarger turned it into the Miami 53 defense (named after Bob Matheson's uniform number). We were a base 4-3 team but often Bob Heinz would come out from his second DT spot, Manny Fernandez would slide into the nose, and Matheson would come on as 4th LB. Arnsbarger didn't play it for the balance however, he had Matheson lining up all over the place and almost always sent at least one LB on a blitz. When he left the first time after the second Super Bowl win, our defense dropped off tremendously, he returned and again it improved and then he left the second time and the results were documented above.

It can be beaten if the corners don't come up and tackle quickly or if you can create an isolation wall for your running game. A good lead blocking FB is a key to beating it on the ground, in fact the conversion of the pro FB to lead blocker has been imo in part in response to beating the 3-4.

Like all defenses you must have the right personnel to play it. Your nose tackle must be both agile and incredibly strong, your DE's have to be large enough to hold a two gap and yet quick enough to get a bit of a pass rush. The WLB is likely to be your sack leader.

Miami's personnel have been selected for agressiveness and not patience. We would be a bad fit imo as we stand now for a move to a 3-4 base. Neither JT nor Wale could be DE's in this scheme and we would likely need differant OLB's. But if we were to move in that direction I would not be unhappy.