More 3-4 defense this year?

[zipster9]

Was their bread-butter back in SB days.. Seems to work nicely in Panthers game..

 

[Marqui]

Yes, I'm surprised at how good Jones looks at OLB. And IMO none of the DTs fit 4-3 well except for Kelly. Wilfork and Siliga are pure NTs and Easily, Chris J, and Vellano are all too small to play in a 4-3 base. And Ninkovich and Hightower are just average at DE and 4-3 LB respectively, but are both above average at 3-4 OLB.

 

[patchick]

It's very, very surprising to me because the roster still looks like a 4-3 team. To start with, I don't see a single player whose natural position is 5-tech DE.

BUT: a couple of years ago, when the team was still known for its 3-4, they came into TC and practiced primarily in 4-3 looks. A lot of posters here scoffed at the idea that this represented a change in scheme, insisting that it was just "situational cross-training" or some such. Nope, practicing 4-3 meant playing 4-3. So I'm assuming the switch back is for real, too.

My hope is that what looks like a classic 3-4 is really the foundation for something quite different and multiple. Players like Easley and Collins defy traditional "base" roles and expectations.

 

[pencilneckgeek]

Yes, I'm surprised at how good Jones looks at OLB. And IMO none of the DTs fit 4-3 well except for Kelly. Wilfork and Siliga are pure NTs and Easily, Chris J, and Vellano are all too small to play in a 4-3 base. And Ninkovich and Hightower are just average at DE and 4-3 LB respectively, but are both above average at 3-4 OLB.

The role of a 4-3 DT at 1-tech is not so different from a 3-4 NT. Chris Jones does fit better at 3-4 DE than as backup to Vince or Kelly, but aside from that, our top players (Jones-Wilfork-Kelly-Nink) are great in a 4-3. We'll play both this season. Have no doubt, and they'll shift from 4-3 to 3-4 pre-snap in some games.

 

[patchick]

Chris Jones does fit better at 3-4 DE than as backup to Vince or Kelly

Really? Jones is 6' 1.5" with good quickness. He's an inside penetrator, I'm curious why you'd think he'd do better lining up as a 5-tech.

 

[mgteich]

We are fine at LB in both schemes, although it was awesome to see Chandler Jones as a 3-4 LB. Jones, Mayo, Collins and Ninkovich are our best set of linebackers.

As patchick asked who are the DE's in a 3-4? Our best players (other than Wilfork) are Kelly and Easley. Is that really a great solution? I suspect not.

 

[Ring 6]

It's very, very surprising to me because the roster still looks like a 4-3 team. To start with, I don't see a single player whose natural position is 5-tech DE.

BUT: a couple of years ago, when the team was still known for its 3-4, they came into TC and practiced primarily in 4-3 looks. A lot of posters here scoffed at the idea that this represented a change in scheme, insisting that it was just "situational cross-training" or some such. Nope, practicing 4-3 meant playing 4-3. So I'm assuming the switch back is for real, too.

My hope is that what looks like a classic 3-4 is really the foundation for something quite different and multiple. Players like Easley and Collins defy traditional "base" roles and expectations.

I think whether you call it a 34 or a 43 blurs the line.
The season you are talking about was the one where Shaun Ellis played LDE. We also had 2 other 300lbers, Carter at RDE and a DE/OLB hybrid at OLB in 43.

To me, the distinction is this:

The 43 as we have used it has 2 '300 lbers' (or what we would call 43 DTs or 34 DEs) and 2 outside pass rushers (in the 260lb range) who will rush the passer as close to 100% of the time as possible.
Then there are 3 LBs who are in coverage unless there is a blitz.

The 34, as BB has used it, adds a '300lbers' and takes away a LB who is in coverage, but then ALSO requires one of the 2 260lb (DE/OLB) guys to drop into coverage.
We appear to both weaken the pass rush and the coverage, while burgeoning the run.
I just don't see us moving philosophically in that direction.

Alignment is very similar and almost inconsequential between the 2 schemes.

Thats how I see it, but soon enough we will know how BB does.

 

[pencilneckgeek]

Really? Jones is 6' 1.5" with good quickness. He's an inside penetrator, I'm curious why you'd think he'd do better lining up as a 5-tech.

Chris Jones would be a 3Tech. I don't know how to make an argument that he could even be in the league as a 5Tech or 1Tech.

Yeah, maybe that's a stretch. I was trying to wrap my head around Marqui's logic, and Jones could certainly back-up Kelly, but I've got a 6-2 308-pound binky that finally saw the field in the 4th quarter of the last game at Kelly's position.

 

[Ring 6]

The role of a 4-3 DT at 1-tech is not so different from a 3-4 NT. Chris Jones does fit better at 3-4 DE than as backup to Vince or Kelly, but aside from that, our top players (Jones-Wilfork-Kelly-Nink) are great in a 4-3. We'll play both this season. Have no doubt, and they'll shift from 4-3 to 3-4 pre-snap in some games.

Chris Jones would be a 3Tech. I don't know how to make an argument that he could even be in the league as a 5Tech or 1Tech.

 

[Ring 6]

Yeah, maybe that's a stretch. I was trying to wrap my head around Marqui's logic, and Jones could certainly back-up Kelly, but I've got a 6-2 308-pound binky that finally saw the field in the 4th quarter of the last game at Kelly's position.

Kelly shouldn't be a 5Tech either.
Unless we just want to accept that we will never get to the QB, the only 43DT type who should ever be playing 5Tech would be Easley, and IMO, that is putting him in the spot that diminishes his strength.

 

[patchick]

The 34, as BB has used it, adds a '300lbers' and takes away a LB who is in coverage, but then ALSO requires one of the 2 260lb (DE/OLB) guys to drop into coverage.
We appear to both weaken the pass rush and the coverage, while burgeoning the run.
I just don't see us moving philosophically in that direction.

Alignment is very similar and almost inconsequential between the 2 schemes.

I understand what you're saying, and I'm no fan of returning to the heavier front 7 under today's pass-favoring rules. I'm just trying to make sense of what I've been seeing so far in camp.

Pretending for a moment that base defenses are still the "base," and assuming that camp schemes do project to the season, what 7-man front do you expect to see?

 

[Ring 6]

We are fine at LB in both schemes, although it was awesome to see Chandler Jones as a 3-4 LB. Jones, Mayo, Collins and Ninkovich are our best set of linebackers.

As patchick asked who are the DE's in a 3-4? Our best players (other than Wilfork) are Kelly and Easley. Is that really a great solution? I suspect not.

While that may be true, if forced to play that scheme, why would we?
You are taking the 2 best pass rushers and forcing one to cover. I don't get the logic.
It also makes no sense to me to use Collins as a 34 ILB, because it devalues his strengths.
Thats what a 34 with Nink and Jones as OLBs does, it takes the best players on the front 7 and puts them in a position where their strengths are least useful.

 

[patchick]

Thats what a 34 with Nink and Jones as OLBs does, it takes the best players on the front 7 and puts them in a position where their strengths are least useful.

Again, I agree. Yet that's where they've been lining up most of camp.

 

[Ring 6]

I understand what you're saying, and I'm no fan of returning to the heavier front 7 under today's pass-favoring rules. I'm just trying to make sense of what I've been seeing so far in camp.

Pretending for a moment that base defenses are still the "base," and assuming that camp schemes do project to the season, what 7-man front do you expect to see?

I think if we line up in a 34, I would expect this:

LDE Kelly
NT Wilfork
RDE Jones
LOLB Nink
LILB Hightower
RILB Mayo
ROLB Collins
on some plays and
LDE Nink
NT Kelly
RDE Wilfork
LOLB Hightower
LILB Mayo
RILB Collins
ROLB Jones
On others.
What I mean is you are ending up in a 34 by starting with your 43 grouping and shifting to the strength and standing up your backside DE.


If I am forced to create a lineup that has neither Jones or Ninkovich playing DE, then I guess I would go

LDE Kelly
NT VW
RDE Easley (I personally HATE this idea but who else is there?)
LOLB Nink
LILB Mayo
RILB Collins
ROLB Jones

 

[mcmurtry86]

Was their bread-butter back in SB days.. Seems to work nicely in Panthers game..

They won 2 of their 3 Super Bowls playing a 4-3.

 

[pencilneckgeek]

Kelly shouldn't be a 5Tech either.
Unless we just want to accept that we will never get to the QB, the only 43DT type who should ever be playing 5Tech would be Easley, and IMO, that is putting him in the spot that diminishes his strength.

I agree regarding Kelly, but Jones and Vellano both 2-gapped last year, and while they got beat-up at times, they weren't standing next to Vince. I think they can play 5-tech on early downs.

Don't get me wrong, I'm looking at our top players (Vince, Kelly, Chandler, Nink, and Easley) and see one of the best 4-3 teams out there with adequate backups inside in Siliga, Chris Jones, and Worthy/Vellano. However, we might be thin at 4-3 DE. Who takes snaps from Chandler and Nink on early downs? Buchanan is weak holding the edge; Moore is raw; Fleming is undersized; and Hightower hasn't gotten any looks there yet. In a 3-4, Hightower is a natural rotational player. I think we'll see both fronts in the end.

 

[Ring 6]

Again, I agree. Yet that's where they've been lining up most of camp.

I have not been able to study the preseason film, nor have they played enough snaps to make it super relevant, but it would be interesting to see if it was a 'true' OLB position they were playing.
Last year vs Denver, in Foxboro, we theoretically played a 3 man line. But, depending on strength of formation, Jones or Nink stood appearing to be a LB, but they rushed every time. (They also pounded the slot if he came inside first, which appears to be the reason)
People after that game asked if we were switching back to a 34.

I think the lineups we have seen in preseason are designed to get better evaluation of the big guys, and put some players into situations they are not comfortable with that they may end up needing to do at some point.

 

[pencilneckgeek]

I think if we line up in a 34, I would expect this:

LDE Kelly
NT Wilfork
RDE Jones
LOLB Nink
LILB Hightower
RILB Mayo
ROLB Collins
on some plays and
LDE Nink
NT Kelly
RDE Wilfork
LOLB Hightower
LILB Mayo
RILB Collins
ROLB Jones
On others.
What I mean is you are ending up in a 34 by starting with your 43 grouping and shifting to the strength and standing up your backside DE.


If I am forced to create a lineup that has neither Jones or Ninkovich playing DE, then I guess I would go

LDE Kelly
NT VW
RDE Easley (I personally HATE this idea but who else is there?)
LOLB Nink
LILB Mayo
RILB Collins
ROLB Jones

Reasonable thoughts. I don't know that I want Collins at the end of the line, next to Chandler at RDE. I think I'd rather see Hightower there, as he has the size to help shore up that side on OT runs.

I think Easley is too early in his development to step-in as 5-tech now. He'll likely play primarily passing downs for a week or two, while Chris Jones or Vellano play 5-tech, if we go that way. (Having now stepped firmly into hypothetical prediction territory with this If-then-I think construction, I'm going to assume I have nothing else useful to say and bow-out of the conversation.)

 

[Ring 6]

Reasonable thoughts. I don't know that I want Collins at the end of the line, next to Chandler at RDE. I think I'd rather see Hightower there, as he has the size to help shore up that side on OT runs.

Hightower can't be on both sides. They are doing the same job, one is called an ILB because the 'DE' on his side is standing. The alignment isn't much different. Collins and Hightower would be aligned like a 3 tech on the weakside and like a 7 (outside the TE) on the strong.

I think Easley is too early in his development to step-in as 5-tech now. He'll likely play primarily passing downs for a week or two, while Chris Jones or Vellano play 5-tech, if we go that way. (Having now stepped firmly into hypothetical prediction territory with this If-then-I think construction, I'm going to assume I have nothing useful to say and bow-out of the conversation.)

I sincerely hope we do not try to play a defense that has Wilfork, Kelly and Vellano/Chris Jones all on the field together unless its a goalline D.

 

[Ring 6]

I agree regarding Kelly, but Jones and Vellano both 2-gapped last year, and while they got beat-up at times, they weren't standing next to Vince. I think they can play 5-tech on early downs.

Vellano and Jones got EATEN ALIVE last year in run game, and neither played a snap as a 5tech. The DTs played 1 and 3 tech, we did not play DTs over the OT last year.

Don't get me wrong, I'm looking at our top players (Vince, Kelly, Chandler, Nink, and Easley) and see one of the best 4-3 teams out there with adequate backups inside in Siliga, Chris Jones, and Worthy/Vellano. However, we might be thin at 4-3 DE. Who takes snaps from Chandler and Nink on early downs? Buchanan is weak holding the edge; Moore is raw; Fleming is undersized; and Hightower hasn't gotten any looks there yet. In a 3-4, Hightower is a natural rotational player. I think we'll see both fronts in the end.

Will Smith is perfectly suited to be an early down 43 DE vs a running team.