The future of the Patriots 'D' and the 3-4 tipping point

[Rob0729]

A few things:
1.) There are only about a half dozen teams running the 3-4 and the rest are running 4-3. Most of the remaining 4-3 teams will never switch to the 3-4. There is still less competition for talent for 3-4 players than the 4-3.
2.) That brings me to the flipside of the increasing number of 3-4 teams argument. With more teams running the 3-4, there will be more free agents in a few years with 3-4 experience who can come in and contribute immediately. Yes the competition for free agents will be greater, but so will the pool of free agents available that will fit into the system.
3.) Belichick was schooled in the Chuck Fairbanks 3-4 defense and has been a disciple ever since. I seriously doubt he is going to change his philosophy because there are more teams doing what he does. Now if offenses figure out a way to exploit the defense like they have with the Tampa 2 (hence why that defense is slowly going the way of the dinosaur), then Belichick might consider changing philosophies. But the Steelers have been running the 3-4 for longer than the Pats have and eventhough a few teams have figured out how to exploit it, but overall it has been one of the top defenses year in and out.
4.) Just because a team is running a 3-4 defense, it doesn't mean they are running the same 3-4. An one gap, penetrate 3-4 defense like San Deigo runs is almost as different a defense from the Pats' two gap, read and react 3-4 defense as some 4-3 defenses are. Teams like San Deigo, Pittsburgh, and Arizona look for different players to run the 3-4 than the Pats do in a lot of cases.

 

[Ring 6]

I see no drift away from the current base 3-4 and no reason to expect one in the near term.

With the addition of Brace and Prior, plus reports claiming Wilfork is happy with the pace and scope of the negotiations to date, it would appear the Pats' NT issues were carefully considered and have been addressed for the near term.

The strength of the DL pool and the questions surrounding the LBs has once again fooled some into seeing a base 4-3 in NE's future. BB has shown time and time again that he puts a great deal of emphasis on building his D-line "first," and this offseason reflects no change in that philosophy. The number of teams moving to a base 3-4 may have one effect on this preseason, with the strength at the back of the DL roster, I wouldn't be surprised to see at least one trade to grab one of NE's castoffs 'before' they hit the waiver wire.

Not too mention that if we shifted to a 4-3 if would still be a 2gap, so we would need exactly the same kinds of players, only in slightly different quantities.

 

[Ring 6]

A few things:
1.) There are only about a half dozen teams running the 3-4 and the rest are running 4-3. Most of the remaining 4-3 teams will never switch to the 3-4. There is still less competition for talent for 3-4 players than the 4-3.
2.) That brings me to the flipside of the increasing number of 3-4 teams argument. With more teams running the 3-4, there will be more free agents in a few years with 3-4 experience who can come in and contribute immediately. Yes the competition for free agents will be greater, but so will the pool of free agents available that will fit into the system.
3.) Belichick was schooled in the Chuck Fairbanks 3-4 defense and has been a disciple ever since. I seriously doubt he is going to change his philosophy because there are more teams doing what he does. Now if offenses figure out a way to exploit the defense like they have with the Tampa 2 (hence why that defense is slowly going the way of the dinosaur), then Belichick might consider changing philosophies. But the Steelers have been running the 3-4 for longer than the Pats have and eventhough a few teams have figured out how to exploit it, but overall it has been one of the top defenses year in and out.
4.) Just because a team is running a 3-4 defense, it doesn't mean they are running the same 3-4. An one gap, penetrate 3-4 defense like San Deigo runs is almost as different a defense from the Pats' two gap, read and react 3-4 defense as some 4-3 defenses are. Teams like San Deigo, Pittsburgh, and Arizona look for different players to run the 3-4 than the Pats do in a lot of cases.

Belichick has no relation to Chuck Fairbanks other than both coached the same franichise 30 years apart.
He never worked for Fairbanks, and is in no means a disciple of him.
Fairbanks ran a 3-4 alignment like BB, but did not run a 2gap system.

BB has a 2gap philosophy, that he currently employs a 34 alignment for.
His is not a 34 philosophy that he currently employs a 2gap technique for.
There is a HUGE difference.

Fairbanks brought the 3-4 to the NFL to get more speed and mobility into his defense, mostly to defend outside runs. BB uses the 34 for very different reasons, in a very different NFL.

 

[bokonon]

I tend to agree with others saying the 2 gap 3-4 will always be the staple. But, for the sake of argument, why assume the tipping point, if there is one, would be towards a 4-3. Given personnel, a situational 3-3-5 seems just as feasible, and maybe more so in a pass-happy league.

I think most college teams that use the 3-3-5 (some call it 3-5-3 or "odd stack", "30 stack", etc.) have 1 gap responsibilities for the DL, but I see no reason why this must be so. As long as you have 2 "in the box" safety types and a free safety with range, you could do any number of things with 3 DLs and 3 LBs. Consider that the pats had Tank Williams at LB last year in TC, and have previously employed the 3 safety look in their "big nickel". Consider also that (I think) the Pats played a lot of cover 3 the last few seasons. Makes sense.

This could be a really fun defense to watch:

................................................Meriweather
.....Chung.................Thomas............Mayo...................Bruschi?.................Sanders
Springs.....................Seymour........Wilfork..................Warren..................Bodden?


Looks.....versatile.

 

[florazona]

In a 2007 press conference Belichick said the following of Fairbanks: "I think Chuck has had a tremendous influence on the league as well as this organization in terms of nomenclature and terminology and those kinds of things. I'm sure Chuck could walk in and look at our playbook and probably 80 percent of the plays are the same terminology that he used - whether it be formations or coverages or pass protections. We were sitting there talking yesterday and he was saying, 'How much 60 protection are you guys using? How much 80 are you using?' All of the stuff that was really the fundamentals of his system are still in place here even, again, to the way we call formations and plays and coverages and some of our individual calls within a call, a certain adjustment or things that Red (Miller) and Hank (Bullough) and Ron (Erhardt) and those guys used when they were here."

 

[Rob0729]

Belichick has no relation to Chuck Fairbanks other than both coached the same franichise 30 years apart.
He never worked for Fairbanks, and is in no means a disciple of him.
Fairbanks ran a 3-4 alignment like BB, but did not run a 2gap system.

BB has a 2gap philosophy, that he currently employs a 34 alignment for.
His is not a 34 philosophy that he currently employs a 2gap technique for.
There is a HUGE difference.

Fairbanks brought the 3-4 to the NFL to get more speed and mobility into his defense, mostly to defend outside runs. BB uses the 34 for very different reasons, in a very different NFL.

Both Parcells and Ron Erhardt worked under Fairbanks in New England and they brought the system to the Giants in the 80s and 90s was developed from Fairbank's 3-4 defense. That is the defense that Belichick learned from. Belichick and Fairbanks have a very strong connection because he runs both a defense AND an offense (Perkins/Erhardt offense) that were originally developed in New England in the seventies when Fairbanks was the head coach. I think you need to brush up on your Chuck Fairbanks coaching tree and the coaching staff that were with the Giants when Belichick was there. You will see several key names that are on both lists.

Also, the Fairbanks 3-4 was most certainly a two gap system. Technically, it was a one gap when Fairbanks introduced it to the NFL, but Hank Bollough modified it to a two gap while he was the defensive coordinator of the Patriots under Fairbanks. So technically Belichick is a disciple of the Fairbank-Bollough's 3-4 defense. Both he and Parcells have modified that defense over the years to adapt to the changes in the game, but the basic principles are the same as the Pats ran in the late 70s and the Giants ran in the 80s and 90s.

P.S. do you always have to try to prove me wrong every time you respond to me. I am trying to be civil this time, but if you are just going to try to shoot holes in everything I say I want nothing to do with you.

 

[Rob0729]

In a 2007 press conference Belichick said the following of Fairbanks: "I think Chuck has had a tremendous influence on the league as well as this organization in terms of nomenclature and terminology and those kinds of things. I'm sure Chuck could walk in and look at our playbook and probably 80 percent of the plays are the same terminology that he used - whether it be formations or coverages or pass protections. We were sitting there talking yesterday and he was saying, 'How much 60 protection are you guys using? How much 80 are you using?' All of the stuff that was really the fundamentals of his system are still in place here even, again, to the way we call formations and plays and coverages and some of our individual calls within a call, a certain adjustment or things that Red (Miller) and Hank (Bullough) and Ron (Erhardt) and those guys used when they were here."

You look at the Giants coaching staff in the 80s and there were a lot of assistants from the Patriots' coaching era including Parcells and Erhardt. Parcells was out of the Fairbank's coaching tree and Belichick was out of the Parcell's coaching tree. Fairbanks' and Bullough's DNA are firmly implanted on the Belichick defense.

 

[florazona]

Red miller and Joe collier were with the Broncos during the Orange crush days. BB was in Denver for one season (78) before moving on to the Giants. Joel Colliers son was on the Pats staff last season and is now with KC.

 

[Rob0729]

Here is a history lesson:

Bullough was among the scheme's pioneers, helping install one of the NFL's first pure 3-4 defenses with Chuck Fairbanks' Patriots in the mid-1970s, around the same time Bum Phillips began running his version with the Houston Oilers. What developed in New England became known as the Bullough/Fairbanks 3-4, a two-gap system Bullough took with him to later stops -- including a stint as Packers defensive coordinator from 1988 to 1991 -- and the grandfather of many modern 3-4 schemes, including Belichick's.

Pro football: 3-4 becoming NFL's 'in' defense | wausaudailyherald.com | Wausau Daily Herald


Ok, I know Wikipedia is not the best source for information all the time, but this section is well cited:

The New England Patriots run a modified base 3-4 Chuck Fairbanks - Hank Bullough system[15] installed by Bill Belichick. The term 3-4 means that their base formation consists of 3 defensive linemen (defensive end, nose tackle, and defensive end), 4 linebackers (outside "Jack" weak side linebacker, middle "Will" weak side linebacker, middle "Mike" strong side linebacker, and outside "Sam" strong side linebacker), and 4 defensive backs (cornerback, free safety, strong safety, and cornerback).[16] In the Patriots system the inside linebackers are the "Will" and "Mike" linebackers.[17] It is believed that this 3-4 structure gives the defense the greatest amount of flexibility because the linebackers are among the most versatile players on the defense, capable of rushing the quarterback, tackling runners or dropping into coverage. By mixing the roles of their linebackers from play to play, the Patriots defense seeks to cause confusion on the part of opposing offenses. At times the Patriots will also shade their defensive linemen different ways, creating "over" or "under" defenses. "Over" and "under" defenses simply refer to the shift of the defensive linemen to the strong or weak side of the offense, respectively, and the rotation of the linebackers in the opposite direction.

The "Fairbanks - Bullough" 3-4 system is known as a two gap system,[18] because each of the defensive linemen are required to cover the gaps to both sides of the offensive lineman that try to block them.[19] Defensive linemen in this system tend to be stouter, as they need to be able to hold their place without being overwhelmed in order to allow the linebackers behind them to make plays.[20] This is the reason that defensive linemen such as Richard Seymour and Vince Wilfork do not always rack up gaudy sack and tackle statistics despite their critical importance to the team.[21]

New England Patriots strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sorry to highjack the thread, but I am done.

 

[AzPatsFan]

A lot of people seem to be operating under this misconception. It's a markedly different approach under Belichick than it was under Parcells and the Parcells model that yielded a grand total of ZERO Super Bowl victories.

In the 4 Parcells years, the Patriots drafted at least one linebacker in every draft, and each year featured a linebacker drafted in the 3rd round or higher: Slade, McGinest, Johnson, Bruschi. In contrast, the only D-lineman taken in the 3rd round or higher was Ervin Collier. This system netted both Bruschi and Johnson for the Patriots, and got the team to a Super Bowl, so I wouldn't call it a failure, but it was certainly not the success that the Belichick approach has been. In fact, it hasn't been as successful in any of the Parcells stops during the salary cap era as the Belichick approach has been.

Belichick has taken a different approach, and it's yielded 3 Super Bowl Victories, 4 Super Bowl appearances, 5 AFCCG appearances and a 16-0 regular season. What Belichick has done is draft just the opposite of Parcells: DL is the prime focus and linebackers are drafted in late rounds. The starters under BB have been veterans from around the league, and the low round draft picks (and UDFA) have filled out the roster depth. It's been an absolutely brilliant strategy, but it's had one problem: injuries. As I pointed out in another thread comparing the Patriots plan for linebackers with that of the Steelers, the Steelers have been amazingly fortunate with injuries. In his first year as a Patriot, Colvin missed just 2 games fewer than all the Steelers' starters have missed from that same season to the present. In fact, if you add up his 2003 and 2007 games missed due to injury, Colvin alone has missed more games than the entire starting linebacking corps of the Steelers since 2003.

The Patriots have their NT. What they need is to be able to bring in linebackers and not have them get injured as often as they have done. Concussions, strokes, hip injuries and the like have shortened careers and lessened playing ability, and that's been the problem. I do wonder if there will be enough veterans who can make the 4-3/3-4 switch to successfully fill out all the new 3-4 rosters in the next few seasons, but I also trust Belichick to generally be able to spot those most likely to make the transition.

Deus,

I think you make the same mistake others do.

When Belichick took the reins he looked at what he had. Tuna had invested in the LB corps as Tuna had to do. The Tippett, Blackmon, Nelson generation had aged, and needed to be replaced. Tuna's new LBs were just coming into their Prime.

So Bill Belichick had NO NEED to invest in LB corps he inherited. He simply let them play, while he invested in less talented areas, like the Defensive and Offensive line. He augmented the LB crew every once in awhile, importing an already trained Pro and paid big dollars for them.

You or I would do the same, in his stead.

After addressing and investing in virtually every other position on the Team, the LB crew is growing old and feeble, so he HAS BEEN investing in rebuilding his LB corps, for three years.

Many here seem to think nothing has been done; but lots have been done. Mayo is a new Foundation rock. Guyton appears to be a fortunate find, Woods was patiently trained; and now is the incumbent starter at SOLB, in stalled late last season. And AD Thomas inherited the mantle as dean of the LB corps at his position of WOLB. I actually think another draft is needed for finishing touches, but the next generation LB corps is essentially in place, and playing.

 

[Deus Irae]

Deus,

I think you make the same mistake others do.

When Belichick took the reins he looked at what he had. Tuna had invested in the LB corps as Tuna had to do. The Tippett, Blackmon, Nelson generation had aged, and needed to be replaced. Tuna's new LBs were just coming into their Prime.

So Bill Belichick had NO NEED to invest in LB corps he inherited. He simply let them play, while he invested in less talented areas, like the Defensive and Offensive line. He augmented the LB crew every once in awhile, importing an already trained Pro and paid big dollars for them.

You or I would do the same, in his stead.

After addressing and investing in virtually every other position on the Team, the LB crew is growing old and feeble, so he HAS BEEN investing in rebuilding his LB corps, for three years.

Many here seem to think nothing has been done; but lots have been done. Mayo is a new Foundation rock. Guyton appears to be a fortunate find, Woods was patiently trained; and now is the incumbent starter at SOLB, in stalled late last season. And AD Thomas inherited the mantle as dean of the LB corps at his position of WOLB. I actually think another draft is needed for finishing touches, but the next generation LB corps is essentially in place, and playing.

I'm sorry, but this is simply counter to what I've seen. Colvin, Thomas, and company make it pretty clear, really, as did the Beisel experiment. It's been a simple, and clear, matter of how he's invested, and he's made his opinions on this subject very clear in interviews and the like:

the defensive line and the linebackers
"It definitely all starts up front. It all starts up front. If you're playing linebacker, for you to play consistently, the guy in front of you has to play consistently. If he doesn't do his job consistently, then you're always kind of playing off of him. Do you go wider? Do you go tighter? Do you back up? You never really know where the guy is going to be on different blocking schemes and it's hard for you to play consistently. If you know where that person is going to be, then it allows you to play aggressively because you're confident in where he's going to fit on different running plays and you can attack your responsibility. It starts on the defensive line and it works back to the next level at linebacker and it works back to the next level in the secondary. In order to be consistent and be good on defense, it has a start up front. It has to start up front. If it doesn't, if you're not consistent there, then it's just going to roll down hill and pick up speed. If you're good up front, then that gives you a chance to be consistent in the areas that play behind you. Just like the secondary when they come up in their run force, they're depending on the outside linebackers. If they know where the outside linebackers are going to be, then they can fit off of them and play aggressively in the right spot. If they don't, they always have to wait and see where the linebackers are going to show up and they can never really go where they're supposed to go because you can't count on linebackers to be there. So it's the same thing. Anytime you're playing behind somebody, it's hard for you to be consistent at the second level until they're consistent at the first level. That's just fundamental football."
06 dec 2006

All Things Bill Belichick: Bill Belichick Football Quotes

He's had ample opportunity to draft linebackers in higher rounds as the players have come in and out of roles there. He didn't have an entire corps of linebackers in their prime waiting for his arrival. Slade was already in the process of declining his way out of the league. He was replaced right after that 2000 season. That means that the team's been looking for that #4 LB since then, and it didn't replace it in the draft. BB has consistently looked for those replacements via veterans:

Cox
Phifer
Beisel
Brown
Colvin
Thomas
Vrabel

When he's had to replace a linebacker, he's ignored the draft and looked to veterans. The investment has been pricey at times, as well. Both Colvin and Thomas cost a pretty penny to bring in. Mayo was either a desperate gamble that worked or, much more likely, a perfect blend of need meeting the exceptional player that made the move worth it for BB.

Remember, in the time that BB has been in New England, the team has drafted 2 tight ends, a running back and a guard in the first round, yet had not gone linebacker there, or even in the second or third round, until Mayo. Even when the need has clearly been there, he's stayed away from drafting linebackers higher than the 3rd round, with that one exception.

As for the offensive line argument, Light was a 2, Kazcur a 3, Koppen a 5, Neal an UDFA and Mankins a 1. It's not as if he was all over the O-line high up in the draft. His actions make it clear, and his words make it clearer. His preference is for established players at linebacker. Frankly, I think last year showed us why that is, even though Mayo played well for a rookie and Guyton was not the disaster he could have been.

 

[livinginthe past]

I think one thing to keep an eye on with the talks of extending the regular season schedule is the possibility of expanding the size of the roster as well. That to me could be a catalyst for a change in philosophy of the defense.

Due to the current size of the roster, Bill Belichick places a premium on versatility - specifically players who can fill more than one role or can play multiple positions. Expand the roster size and I could see a shift to more specialists, which could lead to more sub packages designed either for a specific down and distance, or for a specific team and the type of offense they run.

That may not be the tipping point that signals the end of the 3-4 based defense, but it could alter the defensive formations that we see in any given game in the near future.

Excellent point.

An increased roster size (if it does come to pass) could lead to alot of changes to the make up of the game day roster - most probably in the way you mention.

 

[livinginthe past]

They haven't.

They have a great nose tackle, which is really what you need for a 3-4.

The DE/OLB tweener picked up on the cheap and converted to successful starter is a myth. Woods would be the first. All the players who have started at linebacker have been third, second and first round picks, except Colvin, who we acquired after two 10.5 sack seasons.

Some have been college linebackers, some played both in college and some were converted to LB in the NFL.

You draft or acquire them same as any other position. I think the discipline is the hardest part, as college LBs in a 4-3 chase plays, while we train players to never chase a play.

Career LBs like Phifer and Seau have adapted. I think young players want to go after tackles and would therefore struggle.

Its a fair point about the lack of LBer talent that has been drafted - I was being a little general with the inclusion of the Steelers who have drafted better than us in this area.

As you note, NT become even more of a premium the more teams that shift to a 3-4.

 

[livinginthe past]

I tend to agree with others saying the 2 gap 3-4 will always be the staple. But, for the sake of argument, why assume the tipping point, if there is one, would be towards a 4-3. Given personnel, a situational 3-3-5 seems just as feasible, and maybe more so in a pass-happy league.

I think most college teams that use the 3-3-5 (some call it 3-5-3 or "odd stack", "30 stack", etc.) have 1 gap responsibilities for the DL, but I see no reason why this must be so. As long as you have 2 "in the box" safety types and a free safety with range, you could do any number of things with 3 DLs and 3 LBs. Consider that the pats had Tank Williams at LB last year in TC, and have previously employed the 3 safety look in their "big nickel". Consider also that (I think) the Pats played a lot of cover 3 the last few seasons. Makes sense.

This could be a really fun defense to watch:

................................................Meriweather
.....Chung.................Thomas............Mayo...................Bruschi?.................Sanders
Springs.....................Seymour........Wilfork..................Warren..................Bodden?


Looks.....versatile.

Its a nice idea for sure - but if you read the OP then I didn't assume it would be a shift to the 4-3 hence the term "or maybe something more (r)evolutionary"

The purpose of the thread was to generate some discussion on real football topics - god knows we have alot of great football brains here who understand all of this alot better than I.

I should also mention that I am far from a doom and gloomer - I believe we are the best team in the league with the best HC.

Fingers crossed they get us back on the SB trail this year!

 

[RayClay]

I'm sorry, but this is simply counter to what I've seen. Colvin, Thomas, and company make it pretty clear, really, as did the Beisel experiment. It's been a simple, and clear, matter of how he's invested, and he's made his opinions on this subject very clear in interviews and the like:



All Things Bill Belichick: Bill Belichick Football Quotes

He's had ample opportunity to draft linebackers in higher rounds as the players have come in and out of roles there. He didn't have an entire corps of linebackers in their prime waiting for his arrival. Slade was already in the process of declining his way out of the league. He was replaced right after that 2000 season. That means that the team's been looking for that #4 LB since then, and it didn't replace it in the draft. BB has consistently looked for those replacements via veterans:

Cox
Phifer
Beisel
Brown
Colvin
Thomas
Vrabel

When he's had to replace a linebacker, he's ignored the draft and looked to veterans. The investment has been pricey at times, as well. Both Colvin and Thomas cost a pretty penny to bring in. Mayo was either a desperate gamble that worked or, much more likely, a perfect blend of need meeting the exceptional player that made the move worth it for BB.

Remember, in the time that BB has been in New England, the team has drafted 2 tight ends, a running back and a guard in the first round, yet had not gone linebacker there, or even in the second or third round, until Mayo. Even when the need has clearly been there, he's stayed away from drafting linebackers higher than the 3rd round, with that one exception.

As for the offensive line argument, Light was a 2, Kazcur a 3, Koppen a 5, Neal an UDFA and Mankins a 1. It's not as if he was all over the O-line high up in the draft. His actions make it clear, and his words make it clearer. His preference is for established players at linebacker. Frankly, I think last year showed us why that is, even though Mayo played well for a rookie and Guyton was not the disaster he could have been.

You'd probably be surprised I agree with your assessment, especially the article you quoted. There's no doubt BB wanted and paid well for blue chippers on the line.

I'm not arguing with his philosophy, to get smart affordable veterans. Just saying that the reality is we weren't able to after Vrabel. Colvin wasn't cheap, though he worked had he not been injured. Since then we've had Biesel, Brown and others who didn't work out (Gardner injury?) and it seems we needed to find a plan B in case we couldn't find enough vets.

The result is we have a #1 and a FA who isn't cheap and that's just two spots.

Even if we only kept second day draftees, FA jags and UDFA, stocking the roster and practice squad might have given us a better idea of what we have besides our two expensive LBs.

Bruschi's injury and TJ's retirement were a long time ago.

If Crabel works out, we'll make the transition. I like Guyton and Woods too and hope Redd is as good as some seem to think, based on what I really don't know.

Just saying it's a lot to hope for. Had we stocked like this a few years ago, competition would have eliminated some and a few diamonds in the rough might have emerged.

 

[RayClay]

Its a fair point about the lack of LBer talent that has been drafted - I was being a little general with the inclusion of the Steelers who have drafted better than us in this area.

As you note, NT become even more of a premium the more teams that shift to a 3-4.

As I responded to Deus, I never expected them to draft like Pitt. They spent for three blue chippers on the line and it was a great investment.

Just think they could have gone to a more cost effective plan "B" a few years ago. If you're not going to spend, you need to spend more time evaluating and coaching up.

 

[livinginthe past]

*Bump*

Thought i'd nudge this up - seeing as we have threads about 'insults' and the line