switch to a 4-3

Since buck has posted a few articles on the 49ers defense. I might as well use this opportunity to post this article I found that mentions how the 49ers use pattern matching.

I know it's kind of old and can bring up some bad memories solely off the article title, but skip down to the paragraph that starts with, "The key to the 49ers' success in that game, as well as for much of the past two years, is rooted in a common misconception about their defense. It's often noted that the 49ers play almost entirely with two safeties deep,"

A good read to better understand what the 49ers try to do with their coverage scheme.

Originally posted by CorvaNinerFan:
Here's the annual answer "no".

I second.

The 49ers have far and away the most talented group of starting LBs in the NFL. On the flip side they have only two really talented Defensive Linemen in Justin Smith and Ray McDonald.. Justin of course only has a year or two left in the NFL at his age. Why fix what isn't broken? The front-7 is easily top three in the NFL and arguably the best depending on your POV. It has been the secondary that has failed the 49ers defense the last three years... not their 3-4 front 7

good drops buck and th

Originally posted by lamontb:
good drops buck and th

No question!

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by lamontb:

good drops buck and th

No question!

thanks.

just passing along things that I have found.

Only thing that needs fixing is the secondary and that doesn't warrant a change in the defensive scheme. Front seven get plenty of pressure and stifle the run. Why bother changing it when it works so well (particularly given personnel)?

Draft a CB and a SS with some size(length), coach them up and see what happens.

With Bowman out half the the year I wonder who the best 11 will be on passing downs.

Originally posted by ChaunceyGardner:

With Bowman out half the the year I wonder who the best 11 will be on passing downs.

Lemon Tank Justin Aldon

Brooks Willis

Cully Wright Brock

Bethea Reid

Originally posted by thl408:

Originally posted by ChaunceyGardner:
With Bowman out half the the year I wonder who the best 11 will be on passing downs.

Lemon Tank Justin Aldon

Brooks Willis

Cully Wright Brock

Bethea Reid

Agreed, lots of options there...Skuta is the #3 and Lemonier is really going to push him this year. Sometimes, Brooks rushes from the interior DL as well. And of course, we'll go to just Willis and add another DB as well. Good times.

Originally posted by thl408:

Originally posted by ChaunceyGardner:
With Bowman out half the the year I wonder who the best 11 will be on passing downs.

Lemon Tank Justin Aldon

Brooks Willis

Cully Wright Brock

Bethea Reid

Makes me want to order a club sandwich and pitcher of beer.

This question is obsolete


We have a hybrid defensive front

brooks is gonna be the secret weapon

Originally posted by Garcia:

This question is obsolete


We have a hybrid defensive front

Agree, it's both.

3-4 *and* 4-3

As for our Defensive Backfield, the Dome Patrol defense can be adjusted very easily to incorporate more of a pass defense scheme. Just take out one LB and insert a DB. You now have a 3-3-5, with that 5th DB being a hybrid DB/LB and that 3rd LB being a Elephant/Hybrid DE/OLB.

The 4-3 and 3-4 actually require much different player types. While it's been true that many pass rushing DE's can transition to an OLB in a 3-4 scheme it's usually only as the weakside OLB because the weakside OLB in a 4 LB formation usually does not have pass coverage responsibilities. With a 4-3 scheme your DT's play very different technique as well and as a result require different player types to effectively play those defenses. In a 3-4 your DT's play a 0 and 4/5 techniques with 2 gap responsibility. Meaning, they are responsible for the gaps on either side of them. This allows the 2 ILB's to be freer to roam on their sideline. With a 3-4 your outside DT's need to have excellent lateral movement while engaged and your NT has to have very strong hips and be able to swing their hips around very quickly. Think of how many times you see McDonald or Dorsey near the ball on runs away from them or how often you see them moving sideways.

In a 4-3 your DT's need more vertical movement ability to be able to disrupt their running lane. Think of Seattle's DT's how they're always pushing upfield, rarely moving sideways. In this, your DT's don't' need to have the lateral movement and need more of the quick first step.

Switching your DT's from a 3-4 to 4-3 or vice versa is not a simple thing. Think of the two stud NT's we've had the past few years that moved to 4-3 schemes, Franklin and Sopoaga and a pretty good RJF. How did any of those guys do in a 4-3 scheme? Not well....

Furthermore, trying to switch either Brooks or Aldon to an OLB is not the best situation for us. Brooks' strength is in his ability to set a hard edge on the corner and his bull rush. He does not have great lateral movement which makes him a liability in coverage. A strong side OLB often has a deeper coverage responsibility in zone or has man coverage on the TE and putting him in that situation is not ideal.

Also, with a 4-3 scheme you usually want a little smaller MLB who is able to move sideline to sideline like a Luke Keuchly type. I think either of our guys Willis or Bowman would excel in this position, you're then moving 1 of them away from the middle of the field which makes it easier for teams to take 1 of them out of the play.

Personally, I think our personnel is much better suited to the 3-4 than a 4-3. When we go nickel or dime, we're not in a 4-3 we're really in a 2-4-5 or a 2-3-6 defense.

Originally posted by jonnydel:

The 4-3 and 3-4 actually require much different player types. While it's been true that many pass rushing DE's can transition to an OLB in a 3-4 scheme it's usually only as the weakside OLB because the weakside OLB in a 4 LB formation usually does not have pass coverage responsibilities. With a 4-3 scheme your DT's play very different technique as well and as a result require different player types to effectively play those defenses. In a 3-4 your DT's play a 0 and 4/5 techniques with 2 gap responsibility. Meaning, they are responsible for the gaps on either side of them. This allows the 2 ILB's to be freer to roam on their sideline. With a 3-4 your outside DT's need to have excellent lateral movement while engaged and your NT has to have very strong hips and be able to swing their hips around very quickly. Think of how many times you see McDonald or Dorsey near the ball on runs away from them or how often you see them moving sideways.

In a 4-3 your DT's need more vertical movement ability to be able to disrupt their running lane. Think of Seattle's DT's how they're always pushing upfield, rarely moving sideways. In this, your DT's don't' need to have the lateral movement and need more of the quick first step.

Switching your DT's from a 3-4 to 4-3 or vice versa is not a simple thing. Think of the two stud NT's we've had the past few years that moved to 4-3 schemes, Franklin and Sopoaga and a pretty good RJF. How did any of those guys do in a 4-3 scheme? Not well....

Furthermore, trying to switch either Brooks or Aldon to an OLB is not the best situation for us. Brooks' strength is in his ability to set a hard edge on the corner and his bull rush. He does not have great lateral movement which makes him a liability in coverage. A strong side OLB often has a deeper coverage responsibility in zone or has man coverage on the TE and putting him in that situation is not ideal.

Also, with a 4-3 scheme you usually want a little smaller MLB who is able to move sideline to sideline like a Luke Keuchly type. I think either of our guys Willis or Bowman would excel in this position, you're then moving 1 of them away from the middle of the field which makes it easier for teams to take 1 of them out of the play.

Personally, I think our personnel is much better suited to the 3-4 than a 4-3. When we go nickel or dime, we're not in a 4-3 we're really in a 2-4-5 or a 2-3-6 defense.

Well, Fangio sets up the defense in a 3-4 where Aldon is in a two point stance. Then he blitzes Aldon. That's a 4 man rush. Same thing on the other side. Ahmad brooks is in a two point stance and he blitzes Ahmad (has him rush the passer) and Aldon drops back in coverage - again that's a 4 man rush. That's essentially a 4-3 with either Aldon or Brooks alternating as OLB's and Willis and Boman as the alternating middle linebackers. Personally I like the scheme. I don't want him to change that aspect of the defense. Teams have a difficult time accounting for either Brooks or Aldon and all it takes is one mistake in protection calls and whalla - sack or turnover - from basically a disguised 4-3.

The three down linemen are generally Raymac, Glenn Dorsy, and Justin Smith - in three point stances and they aren't small guys. Dorsy is just south of 300, Raymac is 290, and Justin is a disruptive 290. They aren't a typical read and react 3-4 defense, they are a gap penetrating 3-4 defensive scheme. Meaning, based on who is called to rush the passer (Aldon or Brooks) they slant into the o Line gaps differently and unpredictiably. I dont think the down linemen in Fangio's scheme are there to hold ground like a typical 3-4, instead they are there to get into the backfield on run plays and screw up the blocking assignments, and on passing plays - rush the passer. It's the nickel defense that is set more in a traditional 4-3, where we have DE's Justin and Raymac as the DT's and LB's Aldon and Brooks as DE's -- like you stated it's a 2-4-5 in personnel but really a 4-3 in scheme.

Point being - this defense can play multiple schemes because of the players we have and the type of a pressure defense we play. My only peeve has been in the passing game in the playoffs where our defensive backfield hasn't held up. I think our failures in the post-season have more in relation to philosophy and scheme than bad drafting and bad defensive back development. Yes we can and we will, in this draft, get some DB's -- I think you can count on that almost 100% but I think with a George Seifert kind of philosophical change - you will be looking for big corners that can run support, whereas if you go with a dome patrol kind of philosophy, I think we'll be drafting more coverage DB's that don't run support well.