4-3 Defense??

What is this?

You say 4-3 then you have NO opinion on it, just state the positions of where guys would play.

Like other guys said, if it ain't broke, DON'T FIX IT.

Originally posted by Marvin49:

The "pure 3-4" and "pure 4-3" don't really exist.

I agree with this logic. Unless you are in a very long yardage 3rd down situation or prevent,it is very rare for any team to rush only 3 guys on an obvious passing situation. The Giants ran 3-4 in the '80s and LT always rushed the passer from the OLB spot.

I only wish to continue this discussion academically.....if it ain't broke don't fix it. :)

I believe the 3-4 vs. 4-3 theory is more based on 1st and 2nd down when a chance for a run is 50/50 and how you go about attacking that, whether through attacking the line of scrimmage (4-3) or pursuing with LBs (3-4). I believe that is how it works, because you need at least 4 guys to create any sort of a pass rush against a 5 man front. There's also the philosophy of controlling the gaps or just being aggressive.......both with their strengths and weaknesses.

As far as passing situations, it seems that there is more flexibility with the 3-4 as you cannot tell if it will be a standard 4 man rush from the OLB, extra ILB, a 5 man rush, or some sort of blitz.

I've kept track of the game historically and I recall the 4-3 being the big thing originally....'60s and '70s, then the '80s the 3-4 became the de facto defense with only a few hold out teams like Chicago playing the 4-3. '90s saw the return of the 4-3, and now the last 10 years we have seen a mix of both.

I recall reading somewhere a long time ago how one team in the early '70s played a 5-2 defense to stop another team's strong running game. I've always been curious about the 5-2.....never was viable in the modern NFL, I guess because the extra pass rusher isn't enough to stop short passes. I read on wiki that the Cardinals have been known to use it due to a lack of LB talent....wonder how true that is?

Originally posted by JTsBiggestFan:

Originally posted by Marvin49:

The "pure 3-4" and "pure 4-3" don't really exist.

I agree with this logic. Unless you are in a very long yardage 3rd down situation or prevent,it is very rare for any team to rush only 3 guys on an obvious passing situation. The Giants ran 3-4 in the '80s and LT always rushed the passer from the OLB spot.

I only wish to continue this discussion academically.....if it ain't broke don't fix it. :)

I believe the 3-4 vs. 4-3 theory is more based on 1st and 2nd down when a chance for a run is 50/50 and how you go about attacking that, whether through attacking the line of scrimmage (4-3) or pursuing with LBs (3-4). I believe that is how it works, because you need at least 4 guys to create any sort of a pass rush against a 5 man front. There's also the philosophy of controlling the gaps or just being aggressive.......both with their strengths and weaknesses.

As far as passing situations, it seems that there is more flexibility with the 3-4 as you cannot tell if it will be a standard 4 man rush from the OLB, extra ILB, a 5 man rush, or some sort of blitz.

I've kept track of the game historically and I recall the 4-3 being the big thing originally....'60s and '70s, then the '80s the 3-4 became the de facto defense with only a few hold out teams like Chicago playing the 4-3. '90s saw the return of the 4-3, and now the last 10 years we have seen a mix of both.

I recall reading somewhere a long time ago how one team in the early '70s played a 5-2 defense to stop another team's strong running game. I've always been curious about the 5-2.....never was viable in the modern NFL, I guess because the extra pass rusher isn't enough to stop short passes. I read on wiki that the Cardinals have been known to use it due to a lack of LB talent....wonder how true that is?

Saw a really good interview with Fangio ealier this season where he whiteboarded X's & O's to demonstrate how flexible their 3-4 is with various offensive formations.The question was asked why not have a base 4-3, and the answer was it is less flexible for the pre-snap shifts they do adjusting to an offense. He echoed these points about not looking at the base formation so rigidly as if they are truely in 3-4 all game, because they are not.

our 3-4 is just fine

but I know we could get a good pass rush with the front 7 out of this 4-3 if we matched up against a base offense in a passing situation

LE - Brooks
DT- Mcdonald
DT- J.Smith
RE- A. Smith
WLB- Bowman
MLB- Grant
SLB Willis

Brooks and Aldon Smith would be great edge rushers, Ray Mac and Justin Smith always bring the house anyway, and we could blitz either Willis or Bowman and utilize their speed.....Just my opinion that it could be a different look we could give the offense, but like you all said ...if it aint broke, dont fix it

lol damn feel bad for the thread starter

The 3-4 is a better D anyways

Originally posted by djfullshred:

Originally posted by JTsBiggestFan:

Originally posted by Marvin49:

The "pure 3-4" and "pure 4-3" don't really exist.

I agree with this logic. Unless you are in a very long yardage 3rd down situation or prevent,it is very rare for any team to rush only 3 guys on an obvious passing situation. The Giants ran 3-4 in the '80s and LT always rushed the passer from the OLB spot.

I only wish to continue this discussion academically.....if it ain't broke don't fix it. :)

I believe the 3-4 vs. 4-3 theory is more based on 1st and 2nd down when a chance for a run is 50/50 and how you go about attacking that, whether through attacking the line of scrimmage (4-3) or pursuing with LBs (3-4). I believe that is how it works, because you need at least 4 guys to create any sort of a pass rush against a 5 man front. There's also the philosophy of controlling the gaps or just being aggressive.......both with their strengths and weaknesses.

As far as passing situations, it seems that there is more flexibility with the 3-4 as you cannot tell if it will be a standard 4 man rush from the OLB, extra ILB, a 5 man rush, or some sort of blitz.

I've kept track of the game historically and I recall the 4-3 being the big thing originally....'60s and '70s, then the '80s the 3-4 became the de facto defense with only a few hold out teams like Chicago playing the 4-3. '90s saw the return of the 4-3, and now the last 10 years we have seen a mix of both.

I recall reading somewhere a long time ago how one team in the early '70s played a 5-2 defense to stop another team's strong running game. I've always been curious about the 5-2.....never was viable in the modern NFL, I guess because the extra pass rusher isn't enough to stop short passes. I read on wiki that the Cardinals have been known to use it due to a lack of LB talent....wonder how true that is?

Saw a really good interview with Fangio ealier this season where he whiteboarded X's & O's to demonstrate how flexible their 3-4 is with various offensive formations.The question was asked why not have a base 4-3, and the answer was it is less flexible for the pre-snap shifts they do adjusting to an offense. He echoed these points about not looking at the base formation so rigidly as if they are truely in 3-4 all game, because they are not.

It's totally obvious during the games if you focus on the formations.

Originally posted by Marvin49:
You could do that, but they are better as they are.

They are pretty much a 4-3 teams now. Aldon moves and can rush from either side, but he rushes on most downs. Either way, they are still going to rush 4. The 3-4 allows you to move Aldon around and put 2 LB in the middle.

The "pure 3-4" and "pure 4-3" don't really exist.

The Niners really kinda run a 3-3 + Aldon.

This

Originally posted by GIMMEa6thSHIP:
This is off base but I was having a conversation with some friends and the 4-3 defense came up. I know Fangio's specialty is the 3-4 but what would you guys think of our front 7 as a 4-3?

OLB: Larry Grant
ILB: Patrick Willis
OLB: NaVarro Bowman

DE: Aldon Smith
DT: Ray McDonald
NT: Isaac Sopoaga
DE: Justin Smith

You have taken a lot of ish for this thread, but I can get on board with this.

Why? Well, let's take a look... at least take a look...

(1) I feel that we will be unable to re-sign Ahmad Brooks... and then, we have no quality rush LBs other than Aldon.
(2) I love what I see from Larry Grant and think he can be a good starter. So we have three LBs that I feel should be on the field... but none are 3-4 rushers. I have seen on multiple sites that he is also a RFA, which would mean he is easier to retain.
(3) We have all seen how good Aldon Smith has been with his hand in the dirt. He would be a better DE than OLB, IMHO.
(4) We can have a creative rotation of DL, depending on the strength of the opposition. RayMac can play well at LDE or DT. Sopoaga can be featured more when we need more bulk for power rush opponents. Justin has shown amazing play inside vs interior OL.
(5) Always felt that Willis can be MORE amazing with a 4 man DL protecting him.
(6) Bowman will thrive with that protection as well and excel at WLB.
(7) We have better 4-3 DE options in the draft vs 3-4 OLBs. We can add someone early on to make sure we have the DE positions covered, and don't sleep on Demarcus Dobbs either... an option that would better thrive at LDE.
(8) We can also flirt with moving our LBs around... I think Bowman and Willis could play in or out.. and maybe Grant is best inside...

Hate if you want, and it probably won't happen.. but I kinda like it.

WTF. lock this b***h up.

Well, I think Marvin pretty well summed up what 2/3 of the time seems to be 4 guys on LOS and 3 playing LBs. I have had this discussion many times, and for the first time have seen a really good explanation, that fits having 4 guys on LOS 2/3 of the time...and that is we play 3 + 3 with Aldon lining up anywhere. Now that truly explains our D. Hardcore 3-4 guys for some reason fail to see 4 guys on LOS 66% of the time. I realize this is semantics, but understand where OP was coming from.

There has been some talk of Aldon playing every down, so he would have coverage responsibilities. I think that is goofy in that the guy should be left alone to blitz or bullrush/ spinrush/ or work a game-rush with someone else every play, and let the LBs cover, not ALL DONE. Hell, why would we want aldon to cover a WR, when he is either one of the two best passrushers (as a Rookie, no less) or he is THE best. Having him learn to cover is nuts, and having him on sideline is nuts. Let a LB do the coverage with the Safeties, and let ALL DONE do what he does best...bowl people over, fake OTs out or just run over them, and clobber the Qb. Also, on running plays, he is so fast that he gums up virtually any run called in a passing situation. We are doing fine with what we have, but we could use ALL DONE on every snap. Watch him on running plays, and either side of field, Aldon is always there. I could make a case for him playing every down, but in retrospect, it might not be such a bad idea for him to take a breather on running plays, when he is fresh, and can beat any OT on him. Note in Rams game he was doubled and still got thru. Amazing, the guy is simply amazing.

As an aside, when ALL DONE is doubled, and the other MR Smith is doubled...well you see the problem...the opponents run out of blockers. It is one hell of a duo, and definitely the best twosome in the NFL. That is not to slight Soap or Big Mac. The foursome of the "3-4" that all are on the LOS are the best I have seen in a long, long, time.
Marvin's 3+3 plus ALL DONE is the best name for our D.

This is kind of a comical debate - our team plays a 4-3 about half the time anyway. Even when we line up in the base 3-4 alignment and there is a run, the OLBs typically play up-field (on the offensive side of the LOS) at the snap with outside contain responsibility. If the run flows outside, the ILBs have the speed to get there for the inside of contain tackles.

To the original post -- Grant would not play OLB in the 3-4, if he were inserted, it would probably be inside with Willis and Bowman might move outside -- he has more pass rush skills. Grant to pair with Willis as the "Thumper" ILB.

As a 4-3 -- again, Grant is much less viable as the MLB because he is not as quick to cover the deep middle -- that is better suited to Willis. Don't get me wrong, Grant has played very well, even in coverage, as a back-up. But I don't think you move Willis outside and Grant to MLB

DON'T LIKE IT. NEVER MESS WITH YOUR DEFENSIVE PHILOSOPHY.---- SHAME ON YOU

Justin Smith would move inside to DT, while Ahmad Brooks would line up at DE IMO, but yeah why change something that works?

Originally posted by ninersrule4:
The 3-4 is a better D anyways

Sure is. Well, at least until the pendulum swings the other way again.