Talked to a defensive coach about 3-4 | Page 2 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Talked to a defensive coach about 3-4

bakedmatt said:
heres another perspective. Ricky ran very very well against the patriots in 2002 when they were in a 4-3. in fact, many many teams ran very successfully against them that year. since they switched to the 3-4 the following year, they have been stout against the run.
Click to expand...

the only way a 3-4 is better than a 4-3 against the run is when most of the NFL runs a 4-3 so the 3-4 confuses the offensive linemen and makes them think more than just react. With the 3-4 becoming more and more popular it will no longer be something offensive linemen have to think of 2 weeks out of the year and teams will be able to be better at running against it
 
Lee2000 said:
I asked a defensive coach who was on a state championship high school team in my state about the 3-4 defense. He said it require very smart players who could analyze situations and know their assignments given the designated linebacker that would blitz. He told me the 3-4 is better against the pass than the run. He preferred the 4-3 because it was more effective against the run. But what most struck me was his comments about the intelligence required to operate a 3-4 effectively. This goes in line with previous Saban comments. Big, smart guys across the board, but especially on defense. The big is probably due to the vulnerabilities of this defense against the run.

Lee2000
Click to expand...

No doubt about it!!! Remember how smart the Killer B's were back when we played the 3-4? And all 3 D-Linemen were very tall. If the DE's (Bokamper & Betters) were a little bulkier to stop the run, that D could have been dominant, instead of effective/above average. (And we probably beat Wash/Riggins in the SB.)

Same thing with Buffalo's D during their Super Bowl run. They were above average & effective, but if Wright (NG) & Hansen (LDE) were bulkier, they might have a SB ring right now.

The thing about NE's Defense is that their 3 D-Linemen have been HUGE for their respective positions. Washington, Traylor, Wilfork, Seymour (as a DE), Warren, etc....
 
bakedmatt said:
heres another perspective. Ricky ran very very well against the patriots in 2002 when they were in a 4-3. in fact, many many teams ran very successfully against them that year. since they switched to the 3-4 the following year, they have been stout against the run.
Click to expand...

One reason was that NE's DE's were not that good that year and Seymour was still a DT (and he is not big for a DT). NE also had many injuries to their LB's that year. It still comes down to talent more than the scheme.
 
ckparrothead said:
Recent trends notwithstanding, yeah the 3-4 is inherently better in the areas of pass rush especially, as well as defending the middle of the field and the flats against the pass through confusion and mixed zone coverages.

One of the ways you beat a 3-4, even the most effective of 3-4 defenses, is by tough running right up the middle. That is how Pittsburgh was able to smack the Patriots up in their first face-off, and what they were unable to do again when they played in the playoffs.
Click to expand...

The reason Pitt ran it down their throats was because they were missing their top 2 NG's that game (wilfork & Traylor). And the NG is the most important position in a 3-4. Plus, NE's D was on the field the whole game and wore down and got worse as the game progressed (Dillon was also out for that game).
 
The reason Pitt ran it down their throats was because they were missing their top 2 NG's that game (wilfork & Traylor). And the NG is the most important position in a 3-4. Plus, NE's D was on the field the whole game and wore down and got worse as the game progressed (Dillon was also out for that game).
Click to expand...

New England's defense wore down because they allowed the Steelers to run all over them. You also have to adjust for the fact that there is such thing as a 3-4 defense that is good against both the run and the pass, or just plain GOOD, such as New England's defense. You also have to adjust to the fact that calling New England's D a straight forward 3-4 is like saying the earth is a ball of water. At any given moment Belichick may have 4, 3, 5, 6, or no down linemen.

All things being equal, if you're moving to a 3-4 defense, you have to battle against possible weakness in the inside running game by strategically putting the right personnel in at NT and at LB.
 
I don't care what kind of dfense we run just as long as it is successful
 
I personally hope we stay a 4-3 base defense, but also continue to use 3-4 defense scarcely, maybe 10-15% of the time. I think with the personnel we have we could go either way but are best suited for the 4-3 defense. I think it's beneficial to Jason Taylor who is our best player on D, Zach Thomas who is our leading tackler, it benefits our D-line and stopping the run, and it great for pass rush because we have JT on one side and whomever is on the other whether it is Matt Roth or Vonnie Holliday or whomever, being the opposition of JT is going to make that person a better player and make us a better D. I really don't feel we have the right LB's for the 3-4, and think that we should stick to a 4-3 base defense and occasionally play some 3-4 and especially this year and just "test" it out.
 
Hopefully next year we get atleast a 2nd rounder fot JT cuz I just don't see him wanting to serve his talents in an area where he can't be as successful. He's a prototypical RE in a 4-3 alignment. Could you imagine the Colts asking Freeney to become a stand-up rush LB? Jt is aging and we might as well get something for him and cut the cap down. Now if he plays some 3-4 and is successful than my thinking may change. He certainly didn't have a problem standing and rushing up the middle on that play they designed for him which worked against the Ravens a couple of years back.
 
DolphanD said:
Hopefully next year we get atleast a 2nd rounder fot JT cuz I just don't see him wanting to serve his talents in an area where he can't be as successful. He's a prototypical RE in a 4-3 alignment. Could you imagine the Colts asking Freeney to become a stand-up rush LB? Jt is aging and we might as well get something for him and cut the cap down. Now if he plays some 3-4 and is successful than my thinking may change. He certainly didn't have a problem standing and rushing up the middle on that play they designed for him which worked against the Ravens a couple of years back.
Click to expand...

Actually before Kearse and Taylor that is what he would be doing. Those two did a lot to change people's idea of a defensive end
 
ckparrothead said:
New England's defense wore down because they allowed the Steelers to run all over them.
Click to expand...

Then why couldn't Pitt do it the 2nd time around? Because NE had all their players back. If you take away the heart of ANY Defense (see Miami's DT's last year), they are going to get run on. And taking away the top two DT's/NG's & your top RB, will do that. NE didn't have Wilfork, Traylor & Dillon. Just like Miami didn't have Bowens, Chester & RW. It has nothing to do with the 3-4 not being effective against the run. No one ran it up the middle on Pitt last year AND Pitt lost it's stud NG (Hampton) half way through the year.
 
Jake66 said:
Then why couldn't Pitt do it the 2nd time around? Because NE had all their players back. If you take away the heart of ANY Defense (see Miami's DT's last year), they are going to get run on. And taking away the top two DT's/NG's & your top RB, will do that. NE didn't have Wilfork, Traylor & Dillon. Just like Miami didn't have Bowens, Chester & RW. It has nothing to do with the 3-4 not being effective against the run. No one ran it up the middle on Pitt last year AND Pitt lost it's stud NG (Hampton) half way through the year.
Click to expand...

no one is saying that the 3-4 is ineffective against the run. They are just saying it is less effective than the 4-3.
 
Dol-Fan Dupree said:
no one is saying that the 3-4 is ineffective against the run. They are just saying it is less effective than the 4-3.
Click to expand...

It still depends upon the make-up of your roster. Your DL & LB's may be better suited to stop the run ina 3-4 than a 4-3 (i.e. bigger & slower DL & LB's). But in our case, yes I agree, we're probably better suited to stop the run by playing a 4-3 based upon the personnel of the current team. We have no true NG on this team and the LB's are still smallish.
 
Putting on my ex-ol hat. Any defensive scheme (4-3, 3-4, 5-2,4-4) can be blocked effectively, it's matter of the OL putting the hat on body, and driving.

End of hat talk.

Last year OL, was the worst rendition I've ever seen at the pro-level. Ugh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom