Patspsycho

Not really.. sometimes numbers don't always help.. I actually think BB has switched to the 4-3 to compliment Mayo and Guyton's strengths. The great thing about BB is that he is not afraid to tailor formations and base to the players's strength.. He went from a 4-3 to a 3-4 in the early part of this decade to compliment Bruschi's strengths, I believe..

And in this scenario, by going to a 4-3 you are unleashing Mayo and Guyton, both of who have great speed and tackling ability. In a 3-4, both would have been restricted by limited responsibilities, because you had a crowded backfield.

Patspsycho

Well, what if we can collapse the pocket quick enough to nullify the play action? You saw what Pryor, Brace, et al. are capable of doing.. they all have great motors.

Box_O_Rocks

Philly is a two-gap 4-3, just in case anyone wants to watch one.

__________________
"Avert thine eyes! You're not hot enough to be looking at me."
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

AndyJohnson

Of course the reasons for switching would be numerous.
But in 01 we had lost 2 ILBs, Bryan Cox and Ted Johnson, and didnt really have one to play. Also Seymour was the NT and being misused, and he really didnt have a backup. I think the 43 in 01 was by necessity.

When we shifted back to the 34 in 03, most talk was centered around Seymour being a beast in that system, but in reality it was because we struggled when Bruschi went our in 02 and were awful against play action because we had no rush out of the 43.

AndyJohnson

I dont believe that is correct Box. They play aggressive, blitzing one gap, or have they changed minus Johnson?

AndyJohnson

I dont think its reasonable to expect a DT to play 2gap. then collapse the pocket against playaction. You are telling him to engage the blocker then telling him he has to be your pass rush. Its tying a hand behind the back.
Of course defensive philosophy is about giving one thing up to be good at another (ie BB giving up the big play to not allow the big play) but what do we gain from the 43 that make this worthwhile?
To 2 gap from a 43 and effectively defend playaction you have to have dominant DL. I dont think 6th rounder Pryor or even fellow rookie Brace are going to dominate NFL competition. And we dont draft DLs to dominate people we draft them to do what our scheme requires, neutralize the blocker at the point of attack and control the gap on either side of him.

Patspsycho

I wasn't thinking DT, I was thinking DE. because one effective way to neutralize play action is to set the edge, correct?

Box_O_Rocks

I believe BB was my source, but my memory has played tricks on me before.

__________________
"Avert thine eyes! You're not hot enough to be looking at me."
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

AndyJohnson

Huh?
You named 2 DTs at least if its a 43.
And you said 'collapse the pocket'
How does 'setting the edge' neutralize playaction?
Setting the edge is playing contain and turning a sweep back inside.
I'm talking about the intrinsic weakness of a 2 gap.
When I playaction you, my OL act as if its a run. Your DL engage as if its a run, because their primary job is to control the poa.
As opposed to a one gap that tells my DL to AVOID the block, I have created a tremendous disadvantage for my DL.
The counter to that disadvantage is to be in a 34 where no one knows where the 4th rusher is coming from (also makes it harder to match up your blockers) and that 4th rusher is in a LB position, so he has read pass before engaging.

Patspsycho

Understood.. my mistake. I did not realize setting the edge is only a contain

Also on Pryor/Brace.. I believe I saw them set in DE in one or two formations in the ps, if I am not wrong. Perhaps BB was just moving them around to test them out?

Also I do see your point on how 4-3 two gap is at a tremendous disadvantage on a PA, you are right.. Question: could they shift to one gap instantly when they recognize PA?