Originally posted by Giedi:
Originally posted by jonnydel: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 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.
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.
I do have to respectfully disagree on these points. What makes a 3-4 a 3-4 instead of a 4-3 under defense is not that you have an OLB rushing, it's that the two are interchangeable and it's not always going to be the weakside DE. What you're thinking about is a 4-3 under scheme where the weakside DE is in a two point stance and the SOLB moves head up over the TE. In this defense the weak side DE rushes the passer and never drops into coverage. It gives a 4-3 defense the edge stopping advantage of a 3-4 but only ever puts their best pass rusher in rushing situation. We definitely have more of a hybrid 3-4, but it's definitely a 3-4 as Smith and Brooks rarely switch sides. There's not strong side LB. Also, if the TE shifts or motions you don't see WIllis and Bowman trade places because there's no designated strong side or weak side ILB as there would be in a 4-3 under scheme. Also, the film does not support a gap shooting D-line. On film you see all 3 DT's primarily trying to eat up blockers to keep the LB's clean with a lot of lateral movement. The technique Dorsey uses is always a 2 gap technique and he did very well at it all last year, they even talked about the D-line's great 3 gap technique on nfl playbook.
as fr our nickel being a 4-3 scheme, I sort of agree with you. Only in that the majority of the time we use Aldon and Brooks as pass rusher. However, we do have multiple plays during a game where one of the two will drop into coverage when we blitz Bowman or Willis. Also, Smith and Brooks are never true DE's in a Nickel package, they really are OLB's. It's kind of splitting hairs, but that's what I do.... it drives some of my friends nuts.....
and where I have a beef and a problem with Fangio is not our Base 3-4, but our Nickel Schemes. I'd like much stronger man press, run support Cornerbacks that can turn the play inside. I think Fangio does an incredible job getting Linebackers and developing a front 7. He's out of this world on that. But if there is a kryptonite weakness to Fangio it's his Cornerback development. He's always had good safeties, Bret Maxi and Gene Atkins comes to mind from the Old New Orlean's dome patrol days. But I've never heard of Fangio developing any all pro corners like George Siefert to my recollection. Maybe somebody can correct me on that.
...I'm not saying try it in the regular season , but throw a 4-3 look out there for a couple passing downs ....but I agree our players are best suited for the 3-4