More "important" element to our 3-4: LB or DL?

[WhiZa]

I think it all comes down to the 3rd pick in this years draft. Do you take the better player in Curry or do you take Jackson who can make the other players around him better?

 

[Rob0729]

It's a fine line, but I'll believe you.

Not really. The Pats played mostly zone when Samuel was here. He always stuck to his zone assignment. Instead of trying to break up the pass at times, he would jump in front of the ball to try to intercept it. I don't consider that freelancing or a fine line. If he ran outside his zone because he thought the ball was going in another direction, I consider it freelancing.

 

[Schmo]

Conclusion: from what I've gathered, our LB's WILL NOT succeed without a competent D-line. This justifies our 3 DT picks vs 1 LB pick. While a lot of fans may have been hoping for a LB like Maualuga, Ayers (my draft binkie... and I just happen to live in Denver, ugg), Maybin etc., Brace is a pick that will help solidify this defense. While we have a pedigree-less ILB in Guyton slated to start, he will thrive w/o an OG in his grill.

I have started getting excited about the draft not because of the players I want, but by watching the players BB selects. He is so close-lipped, and this is one of the ONLY real ways to find out what he's thinking.

 

[Ring 6]

This is one of the best threads, with the best resposnes I have seen on this board in a long time.
My opinion: They are equally important. BB professes a team defense concept. Ina 2 gap system each player across the front 7 has IDENTICAL responsibilities in a different place along the los. By definition no one is more important than any other.
Its a misnomer that the DL 'keep blockers off the LBs' in our system. The DL control their 10 yard wide piece of real estate just as the LBs do. Its a misnomer that the NT is more important, because he only affects runs from G to G. Every other player on the front 7 controls an equal size area, and whereever the weakest link is is where the other team will run. In other words if you have a weak NT they run between the Gs and the DE isn't part of the play. If the DE is weak, they run at him, and the NT isn't part of the play.
The difference comes in the pass rush, and its debatable whether the push from the DL or the blitz from the OLB is more critical. I would tend to say the OLB is the most important element because most times BB uses the OLB as a DE, and primary pass rusher, in sub packages and passing situations.
From the base, all 7 are equally important, but in the sub packages, the OLB who becomes a DE probably is most critical.

 

[Shockt327]

Though I agree with AndyJohnson in theory; in reality, based on just my observations, I would say the D-line is far more important.

Remember back in early years when BB was still playing 4-3 and experimenting with the 3-4 - like having Seymour play NT? It didn't work. Look at how solid the LB corps was back then too: Bruschi, Willie Mac, Ted J, Vrabel all in their prime. And some really good vets like Roman Phifer and to a lesser extent Cox. Yet the 3-4 really didn't develop until Warren and Ted Washington were added in 2003. Then, the play of our D absolutely sky rocketed.

Now look at 2006, for instance, our LBers were not up to par IMO: Vrabel was good. Colvin was ok. Bruschi was past his prime, as was Seau. And we had to plug in Tully Banta-Cain, who isn't really starting calibur material on this team IMO. Yet, the D really held it down that year - especially when you consider how anemic our offense was at times.

I'd even make the same argument about the 2007 D, to a lesser extent. Our LBs were not that great down the stretch. Vrabel was starting burn out after a brilliant start. Colvin got hurt. Thomas had to switch positions. And we had Bruschi and Seau getting virtually all the reps at both ILB positions. But it still worked. Sure there were bad games. But overall the D was good.

Basically, it seems like the D can still function with "ok" talent at LB. Not so with the D-line. Especially NT.

 

[jarnhestur]

I think it all starts with the DL. I haven't been impressed with our line's performance in the past few years and if you go back and watch tape from the SuperBowl years you'll see our D-line sucking up blockers and letting the LB's do their jobs.

BB was always credited with being creative in his coverage and pressure, but that all relies on the D-line forcing the RB to come up and block, or pulling the tackles to the outside with them. In theory, our stud DE and NT are each supposed to pull the double team so that the linebacker has a lane to operate in, whether he's playing the run or blitzing the QB.

The past few years, how many times have you seen our LB rush in, only to be picked up by the O-line? I understand the RB matching up on our LB, but a lineman? That shouldn't be commonplace...

 

[Ring 6]

Though I agree with AndyJohnson in theory; in reality, based on just my observations, I would say the D-line is far more important.

Remember back in early years when BB was still playing 4-3 and experimenting with the 3-4 - like having Seymour play NT? It didn't work. Look at how solid the LB corps was back then too: Bruschi, Willie Mac, Ted J, Vrabel all in their prime. And some really good vets like Roman Phifer and to a lesser extent Cox. Yet the 3-4 really didn't develop until Warren and Ted Washington were added in 2003. Then, the play of our D absolutely sky rocketed.

Now look at 2006, for instance, our LBers were not up to par IMO: Vrabel was good. Colvin was ok. Bruschi was past his prime, as was Seau. And we had to plug in Tully Banta-Cain, who isn't really starting calibur material on this team IMO. Yet, the D really held it down that year - especially when you consider how anemic our offense was at times.

I'd even make the same argument about the 2007 D, to a lesser extent. Our LBs were not that great down the stretch. Vrabel was starting burn out after a brilliant start. Colvin got hurt. Thomas had to switch positions. And we had Bruschi and Seau getting virtually all the reps at both ILB positions. But it still worked. Sure there were bad games. But overall the D was good.

Basically, it seems like the D can still function with "ok" talent at LB. Not so with the D-line. Especially NT.

Ummm, 'back in those years' we won the SB with the 43.
I'm really not sure what you are trying to say or prove.
We won the SB with Annthony Pleasant, Bobby hamilton and Brandon Mitchell on the DL.
We won the second one with Warren on the bench down the stretch and Wilfork in college.
We won the 3rd with Wilfork splitting time with Keith Traylor.
Since the 'great line of #1 picks' all became fulltime starters we haven't won a SB.

The Giant teams that BB coached were loaded at LB and had non-descript DLs.
Here he started the same way, then built a strong DL.
The result havent really varied very much in either case.

 

[Ring 6]

I think it all starts with the DL. I haven't been impressed with our line's performance in the past few years and if you go back and watch tape from the SuperBowl years you'll see our D-line sucking up blockers and letting the LB's do their jobs.

BB was always credited with being creative in his coverage and pressure, but that all relies on the D-line forcing the RB to come up and block, or pulling the tackles to the outside with them. In theory, our stud DE and NT are each supposed to pull the double team so that the linebacker has a lane to operate in, whether he's playing the run or blitzing the QB.

The past few years, how many times have you seen our LB rush in, only to be picked up by the O-line? I understand the RB matching up on our LB, but a lineman? That shouldn't be commonplace...

Thats got nothing to do with DL play. It is about scheme.
If you are talking about the base D a blitzing LB for us is the 4th rusher for a 43 team, and the offense will treat him as such and block him with an OL. Never, ever, ever would a team use 5 OL to block 3 guys and leave the 4th pass rusher to be picked up by a RB.
The RB picks up the BLITZ. The 4th rusher is not really a blitzer, because we send at least 4 on every play.
If you are talking about the nickel/dime, then you need to realize that our OLBs play DE in those situations. So if you are criticizing the 'DL' in sub packages you are really criticizing the OLBs.
No team, ever blocks a 3-4 by having 5 OL block 3 DL and using a RB to pick up the 4th rusher.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Conclusion: from what I've gathered, our LB's WILL NOT succeed without a competent D-line. This justifies our 3 DT picks vs 1 LB pick. While a lot of fans may have been hoping for a LB like Maualuga, Ayers (my draft binkie... and I just happen to live in Denver, ugg), Maybin etc., Brace is a pick that will help solidify this defense. While we have a pedigree-less ILB in Guyton slated to start, he will thrive w/o an OG in his grill.

I have started getting excited about the draft not because of the players I want, but by watching the players BB selects. He is so close-lipped, and this is one of the ONLY real ways to find out what he's thinking.

We're actually talking two separate issues:
- neither LB nor DL are the more important element of the 3-4.
---- 2005, Brown and Beisel are forced into the starting ILB role, three #1 draft picks on the DL and two #1 draft picks at CB were not enough - that team struggled until Vrabel was moved inside and Bruschi came back.
- your question derives from the draft, that is where the "availability" of the prototypical bodies becomes the challenge.
---- Maualuga or Ayers were hardly the only LBs with similar physical characteristics.
---- Brace had exactly one rival with similar size who went Day One - Raji. That is every year, kids that big or strong or athletic are very rare.
---- Richard Seymour was 6'6" 299 at the Combine, the only 2009 prospect who had a similar college track record and similar size went #3 overall 6'4" 296 Tyson Jackson.

On the field in the 3-4, LB and DL and CB and S are equally critical. In the draft, the rare bodies are weighted [pun serendipity gratefully acknowledged] higher in the "value" column.

 

[jarnhestur]

Thats got nothing to do with DL play. It is about scheme.
If you are talking about the base D a blitzing LB for us is the 4th rusher for a 43 team, and the offense will treat him as such and block him with an OL. Never, ever, ever would a team use 5 OL to block 3 guys and leave the 4th pass rusher to be picked up by a RB.
The RB picks up the BLITZ. The 4th rusher is not really a blitzer, because we send at least 4 on every play.
If you are talking about the nickel/dime, then you need to realize that our OLBs play DE in those situations. So if you are criticizing the 'DL' in sub packages you are really criticizing the OLBs.
No team, ever blocks a 3-4 by having 5 OL block 3 DL and using a RB to pick up the 4th rusher.

Correct, I'm assuming that the blitzing LB is a 5th rusher and I'm also talking about ideal situations. While we're all high on Wilfork and Seymour, if they can't win a one-on-one battle occasionally, that's the core problem in my book. When they don't draw the double team is when we can't get pressure.

 

[RoughingthePasser]

I think it all starts with the DL. I haven't been impressed with our line's performance in the past few years and if you go back and watch tape from the SuperBowl years you'll see our D-line sucking up blockers and letting the LB's do their jobs.

BB was always credited with being creative in his coverage and pressure, but that all relies on the D-line forcing the RB to come up and block, or pulling the tackles to the outside with them. In theory, our stud DE and NT are each supposed to pull the double team so that the linebacker has a lane to operate in, whether he's playing the run or blitzing the QB.

The past few years, how many times have you seen our LB rush in, only to be picked up by the O-line? I understand the RB matching up on our LB, but a lineman? That shouldn't be commonplace...

You lost the me on the whole RB thing.

DLines in a 34 don't only "suck up blockers" for the LB's.
The DL is always attacking.
There is not only XO match-ups-it's circumstantial and the defense needs to know their gaps/lanes etc.

AndyJ has some good 34 points.

 

[jarnhestur]

Confused?

Assuming a standard rush of 4, there are 5 o-lineman and a potential block from the RB (assuming there's a RB and he's looking to block). If your standard rush (of 4) isn't sucking up the 5 lineman then you've got big problems. If your 4 rushers are being successfully blocked by 4 lineman, that's NOT a good thing.

 

[Shockt327]

Ummm, 'back in those years' we won the SB with the 43.

I already pointed this out. I guess I'll reiterate my point: Even if the LBs are excellent, you really can't run a 3-4 without a good line, specifically a NT. When Bill tried to run the 3-4 back in 01 and 02 it didn't really work. They had to go back to the 4-3.

I'm really not sure what you are trying to say or prove.
We won the SB with Annthony Pleasant, Bobby hamilton and Brandon Mitchell on the DL.

In a 4-3. Not a 3-4.

We won the second one with Warren on the bench down the stretch and Wilfork in college.

Don't know why you are bringing up Wilfork in regards to 2003; I specifically pointed out the acquisition of Ted Washington; a true 3-4 NT. Also, I remember Warren being rotated with Hamilton in 03. I can't recall him being benched.

We won the 3rd with Wilfork splitting time with Keith Traylor.

Traylor was another 3-4 NT, like Washington, and he was a pretty good one too. I don't see your point here either.

Since the 'great line of #1 picks' all became fulltime starters we haven't won a SB.

Which says much more about how good Ted Washington and Traylor were, rather than anything else...

Also, SBs are a poor measure of success for just the front 7 alone. The entire team was severely set back on both sides of the ball after 2004, be it age, injury, or FA. Yet - after a rough patch in early to mid 2005 - the D has been really consistent, despite how lackluster (and old) the talent at LB and DB has been at times. The defenses in 2006 and 2007 really weren't that much worse than they were in 03 and 04. I think that says quite a bit about how valuable the line is.

Basically, when the Patriots haven't had the talent on the D-line, they can't even run the 3-4. Yet, when they haven't had good talent at LB - not only can they run the 3-4 - but they still manage to run it at a fairly high level.

The Giant teams that BB coached were loaded at LB and had non-descript DLs.

This is a good point. Though, the Giants DL being "non descript" might say much less about their ability, and much more about how little recognition two-gap linemen get.

*After looking it up, Leonard Marshall (DE) and Jim Burt (NT) were both Pro Bowlers. As was NT Erik Howard who later replaced Burt.

Here he started the same way, then built a strong DL.
The result havent really varied very much in either case.

I disagree. I believe the Giants started running the 3-4 since Ray Perkins was their coach. I'm not too sure it's fair to say that the Giants built their D in a comparable way to the Patriots. Their philosophy already seemed to have been in place - unlike with the Pats. Also, it seems like key pieces of both the D-line and the LB corps came together over long stretches of time. I wouldn't necessarily say that they built around one unit around the other.

For example, looking at the 86 SB team, Jim Burt was drafted the same year as LT (81). Leonard Marshall was drafted before Carl Banks (83 & 84). And their other DE, George Martin, had been on the team a bit longer than Harry Carson (75 & 76). Doesn't seem like one group was established before the other. And both units had a mix of 1st/2nd rd picks and later rd talent. Then again, I'm going off paper. I don't claim to have any real knowledge of that team. It was before my time, most of what I know is what I've read, mostly through books/articles about Belichick & Parcells. Still, I think my point stands.

 

[RoughingthePasser]

Confused?

Assuming a standard rush of 4, there are 5 o-lineman and a potential block from the RB (assuming there's a RB and he's looking to block). If your standard rush (of 4) isn't sucking up the 5 lineman then you've got big problems. If your 4 rushers are being successfully blocked by 4 lineman, that's NOT a good thing.

That's incorrect.
What about TE's and an FB?

Predictability is a weakness.
Nothing beats the element of surprise with defense.

 

[jarnhestur]

Obviously, I'm not trying to cover every single formation. Obviously if you got 7 or 8 blockers (5 OL, 1RB, 1FB, 1TE), you have more the 4 or 5 rushers.

Feel free to correct any part the:

If your standard rush (of 4) isn't sucking up the 5 lineman then you've got big problems. If your 4 rushers are being successfully blocked by 4 lineman, that's NOT a good thing.

you may disagree with it.

 

[Ring 6]

Correct, I'm assuming that the blitzing LB is a 5th rusher and I'm also talking about ideal situations. While we're all high on Wilfork and Seymour, if they can't win a one-on-one battle occasionally, that's the core problem in my book. When they don't draw the double team is when we can't get pressure.

I have no idea what you are talking about.
You must be talking about the base D because Wilfork isnt even on the field on passing downs.
It is totally unrealistic to expect that other teams are going to double a DL playing a 2 gap technique in order to leave a blitzing LB to be picked up by a RB.
You would like that to happen. The offense DESIGNS a play so it doesnt.

If you are saying we should send 7 on passing downs so they can't block it that is pretty irrelevant to the question at hand.
The DL in a 34 2 gap system are not extremely accountable to rushing the passer. In the base, they are required to take on the blocker, read, then rush. You would be foolish to double team them.
If we are talking about sub packages (nickel/dime) we use one of 2 DL INSIDE and line up OLBs as DEs.
I think what you remember seeing are 3rd down nickel or dime packages where we have Seymour and Warren at DT and 2 OLBS lined up as DEs, getting blocked by Ts.

I guess I just think that when LBs are your primary rushers you aren't getting them matched up on RBs, and you can't blame that on the DL.

 

[Ring 6]

Confused?

Assuming a standard rush of 4, there are 5 o-lineman and a potential block from the RB (assuming there's a RB and he's looking to block). If your standard rush (of 4) isn't sucking up the 5 lineman then you've got big problems. If your 4 rushers are being successfully blocked by 4 lineman, that's NOT a good thing.

What do you think happens?
Do you really think that OLs commit to double-teaming with 2 OL so the RB can be a pass blocker if there is a blitz of a 5th guy?
Frankly, there is almost never a flat out double teaming in pass blocking,. You will see a combo or chip or something like that, but you will never designate 5 OL to block 4 DL and leave a rb for blitz pickup of 1 blitzer. I'd just blitz 2 and you can double whoever you want.

 

[Ring 6]

I already pointed this out. I guess I'll reiterate my point: Even if the LBs are excellent, you really can't run a 3-4 without a good line, specifically a NT. When Bill tried to run the 3-4 back in 01 and 02 it didn't really work. They had to go back to the 4-3.

In a 4-3. Not a 3-4.

Don't know why you are bringing up Wilfork in regards to 2003; I specifically pointed out the acquisition of Ted Washington; a true 3-4 NT. Also, I remember Warren being rotated with Hamilton in 03. I can't recall him being benched.

Traylor was another 3-4 NT, like Washington, and he was a pretty good one too. I don't see your point here either.

Which says much more about how good Ted Washington and Traylor were, rather than anything else...

Also, SBs are a poor measure of success for just the front 7 alone. The entire team was severely set back on both sides of the ball after 2004, be it age, injury, or FA. Yet - after a rough patch in early to mid 2005 - the D has been really consistent, despite how lackluster (and old) the talent at LB and DB has been at times. The defenses in 2006 and 2007 really weren't that much worse than they were in 03 and 04. I think that says quite a bit about how valuable the line is.

Basically, when the Patriots haven't had the talent on the D-line, they can't even run the 3-4. Yet, when they haven't had good talent at LB - not only can they run the 3-4 - but they still manage to run it at a fairly high level.


This is a good point. Though, the Giants DL being "non descript" might say much less about their ability, and much more about how little recognition two-gap linemen get.

*After looking it up, Leonard Marshall (DE) and Jim Burt (NT) were both Pro Bowlers. As was NT Erik Howard who later replaced Burt.


I disagree. I believe the Giants started running the 3-4 since Ray Perkins was their coach. I'm not too sure it's fair to say that the Giants built their D in a comparable way to the Patriots. Their philosophy already seemed to have been in place - unlike with the Pats. Also, it seems like key pieces of both the D-line and the LB corps came together over long stretches of time. I wouldn't necessarily say that they built around one unit around the other.

For example, looking at the 86 SB team, Jim Burt was drafted the same year as LT (81). Leonard Marshall was drafted before Carl Banks (83 & 84). And their other DE, George Martin, had been on the team a bit longer than Harry Carson (75 & 76). Doesn't seem like one group was established before the other. And both units had a mix of 1st/2nd rd picks and later rd talent. Then again, I'm going off paper. I don't claim to have any real knowledge of that team. It was before my time, most of what I know is what I've read, mostly through books/articles about Belichick & Parcells. Still, I think my point stands.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make.
Nothing in here backs up your claim that we succeed or fail becuase of the DL or that they are more important than the LBs. All you have done is pull out random sentences and made (mostly offbase) arguments about them.

 

[BradyFTW!]

I think BB's draft record speaks to this one. Every starting D-Lineman we have was picked in the first round. Whether that's because they're harder to find, and therefore *have* to be picked early or because they're more important, I suppose that that's still a good question. All in all, though, I'd still say that the D-Line is more important. It's their ability to manage their 2 gaps that gives the linebackers the freedom to do what they do.

 

[Ring 6]

I think BB's draft record speaks to this one. Every starting D-Lineman we have was picked in the first round. Whether that's because they're harder to find, and therefore *have* to be picked early or because they're more important, I suppose that that's still a good question. All in all, though, I'd still say that the D-Line is more important. It's their ability to manage their 2 gaps that gives the linebackers the freedom to do what they do.

You may be right, but I think that its not as simple as who was drafted when. I think that BB does prescribe to best player available philosophy. (I also think that he addresses need by trading up or down to where bpa=need)
Just because there have been 3 times where a 1st round DL was available to him does not mean he wouldnt have drafted he first round LB in his place.
In fact during that same time period he used a 1st on Mayo and made Thomas and Colvin the 2 highest paid free agent acquisitions of his career here. He has never signed a big money DL, so that conflicts as well.
As far as your conclusion, I dont know how a DL managing his 2 gaps allows a LB to 'do what he does' when what he does is manage 2 gaps. Why wouldnt the LB allow the DL to 'do what he does'?