Excellent Analysis of Patriots D by Bedard

[Deus Irae]

I think a lot of fans and reporters are overreacting. I find it difficult to form an opinion after one week of play. We played pretty good for 30 minutes last week and were terrible in the 2nd half. I am curious to see the results if we play for 60 minutes.

This is about about several years, not just one week. Some of us have been pointing out the DE/LB issue for years. This team has had LBs for a 3-4 defense since the early 2000s, but BB never replaced Seymour or Warren with 3-4 DEs. The Collins for Spikes switch seemed to indicate that the team was going to start moving forwards with the 4-3, since Mayo's versatile enough to play in either scheme and Collins doesn't really belong in the heavy 3-4 that BB traditionally uses.

And, despite the claims of some here, labels do matter. Calling it 3-4 or 4-3 matters, because it sets the base of what you're working with.

 

[pencilneckgeek]

And, despite the claims of some here, labels do matter. Calling it 3-4 or 4-3 matters, because it sets the base of what you're working with.

What does that even mean in the context of this discussion?

 

[Rob0729]

This is about about several years, not just one week. Some of us have been pointing out the DE/LB issue for years. This team has had LBs for a 3-4 defense since the early 2000s, but BB never replaced Seymour or Warren with 3-4 DEs. The Collins for Spikes switch seemed to indicate that the team was going to start moving forwards with the 4-3, since Mayo's versatile enough to play in either scheme and Collins doesn't really belong in the heavy 3-4 that BB traditionally uses.

And, despite the claims of some here, labels do matter. Calling it 3-4 or 4-3 matters, because it sets the base of what you're working with.

Anyone else surprised as I am that Deus would use this thread for him to do an "I told you so" about Belichick trading away Seymour?

BTW, aren't you the one who slammed the Collins pick for not being a need and now you are claiming you are claiming that you have been saying LB has been an issue for years?

 

[Rob0729]

As to the difference between 4-3 and 3-4, of course there is a difference. How many years have we said that this player isn't a fit because he isn't a 3-4 DE? If there is no difference, why did Belichick move to a 4-3 base for the last few years when he comes from a 3-4 system.

 

[mayoclinic]

The links are embedded in the text of my post. I trust you found them subsequent to this request.

No. Read your post. You mention an article but don't give a link.

There's much more to the story, but in the meantime, I leave those who would argue as if 3-4 and 4-3 were synonymous with 2-gapping and 1-gappng, respectively, with some light reading:

This breakdown of the 3-4 under and 3-4 over defenses that the Pats have run the past few years. This does not show a 3-4, but the hybrid principles are similar. Note that one 5-tech DE is 2-gapping in both hybrids, and sometimes, that was Jones.

 

[pencilneckgeek]

No. Read your post. You mention an article but don't give a link.

Run your cursor over my post or your quotes of my post and you'll find the links. I'll reformat the text to make that more plain. (Sorry for the confusion.)

 

[pencilneckgeek]

As to the difference between 4-3 and 3-4, of course there is a difference. How many years have we said that this player isn't a fit because he isn't a 3-4 DE? If there is no difference, why did Belichick move to a 4-3 base for the last few years when he comes from a 3-4 system.

My guess is that he prefers a 3-4 for the flexibility it gives him to easily slide his weakside 3-4 OLB along the line - into position to jam a slot receiver or in tight to threaten an overload blitz. He worked a 4-3 previously, because he saw the benefit of the hybrid scheme that other coaches were running from a 4-3, and this year decided that if the schemes are hybridized that much, he could keep things fundamentally the same while laying the groundwork for a more complex, sometimes more aggressive, and more flexible and unpredictable defense by working from a 3-4 set. This works because he has 3 players who are prototypical end-of-the-line players in Jones, Ninkovich, and Hightower. (He also has a 4th player in Collins who could grow into that role when Nink moves on.)

With the offset 3-4 that he is running, Jones can play either 1 or 2-gap from the 5-tech on the strong side or play 1 gap and set the edge on the weak side with the WOLB slid out focusing on coverage. On the opposite side where the DE is at 3-tech, Ninkovich has fixed responsibility for setting the edge in the base defense. To my mind this flexibility is not designed to win against the run. Rather, it's designed to function against the run and provide more options against the pass. As the Pats improve in their run fits and the fundamentals of this approach, I think we will see more of the attacking, unpredictable pass defense that we've wanted - based out of this offset 3-man front.

 

[RIpats88]

im not sure if 3-4 was the problem, or what positions they had players playing in the 3-4.....Jones shouldve been at LB attacking the line of scrimmage which he looked great at during the pre-season.

instead they had him at 3-4 DE which he is undersized and didnt have much of an impact

 

[Rob0729]

im not sure if 3-4 was the problem, or what positions they had players playing in the 3-4.....Jones shouldve been at LB attacking the line of scrimmage which he looked great at during the pre-season.

instead they had him at 3-4 DE which he is undersized and didnt have much of an impact

I still don't know if the Pats had the 3-4 personnel especially at DE and ILB, but I agree the problem was more they put players in position to fail. Chandler Jones playing inside the tackle far too much. Collins playing ILB. Revis playing 5-10 yards off the line all game whether when he was covering a speed receiver like Wallace or Brian Hartline.

 

[Deus Irae]

What does that even mean in the context of this discussion?

It means that, because of the needed personnel for a Bill Belichick 3-4, the basic 3-4/4-3 difference is significant. Belichick's not using 230lb linebackers.

 

[pencilneckgeek]

It means that, because of the needed personnel for a Bill Belichick 3-4, the basic 3-4/4-3 difference is significant. Belichick's not using 230lb linebackers.

The term "Belichick 3-4" sounds like you are talking about the days of Seymour and Warren. The 3-4 that I've outlined here resembles the 4-3 he ran last year far more than it resembles any 3-4 he has run previously. The techniques are pretty much the same as last year. Most of the players are the same as last year. How would our LBs get smaller by running a 4-3? Are you complaining about BB's conception of a LB (or DT or DE), or do you not like something specific to the scheme?

Lots of folks are simply stumbling over labels, but you seem to be deliberately putting some sort of stock into the labels, and I don't understand what you mean. What do you view as the fundamental difference in the former hybrid 4-3 versus the current hybrid 3-4, and what is the problem with the latter? Or do you not like either?

I think BB divorced himself from the 3-4 / 4-3 labels long ago, as indicated by his response when switching to the 4-3 in 2010 and being asked whether he viewed Rob Ninkovich as more of a OLB or DE, and he replied with something along the lines of "I view him as an end-of-the-line player." By hydridizing and incorporating 1-gap principles into his 3-4, he addresses some of the need for as many larger 2-gapping 3-4 DEs (or 2-gapping DTs in a 4-3). The smaller DTs (the general term which I prefer for non end-of-the-line player), of which Easley is the best example, are better equipped to defend 1-gap than two, and are also more likely to be effective in the passing game. The hybridized 3-4 (and its 4-3 fraternal twin) in which Siliga and Wilfork (and rarely Chandler) are asked to 2-gap and everybody else 1-gaps is a compromise between the traditional BB 3-4 that is so deeply engrained in our collective consciousness and the traditional 1-gap 4-3 defense (or Bum Phillips 1-gap 3-4) - at least in terms of its run fits.

Do you not like these hybrid schemes? Do you not like 2-gapping (or 1-gapping) at all? Do you not like the way the hybrid 3-4/4-3 fit our personnel? (Personally, I wish Tommy Kelly were still around to add a big 1-gapping 3-tech DT.) These are all valid criticisms. Implying that a 3-4 is necessarily a traditional BB 3-4, because there are 3 DL with their hand in the dirt doesn't begin to address the nature, let alone the problems with the defense.

 

[Deus Irae]

The term "Belichick 3-4" sounds like you are talking about the days of Seymour and Warren. The 3-4 that I've outlined here resembles the 4-3 he ran last year far more than it resembles any 3-4 he has run previously. The techniques are pretty much the same as last year. Most of the players are the same as last year. How would our LBs get smaller by running a 4-3? Are you complaining about BB's conception of a LB (or DT or DE), or do you not like something specific to the scheme?

Belichick's 3-4 uses larger linebackers. That hasn't changed.

Lots of folks are simply stumbling over labels, but you seem to be deliberately putting some sort of stock into the labels, and I don't understand what you mean. What do you view as the fundamental difference in the former hybrid 4-3 versus the current hybrid 3-4, and what is the problem with the latter? Or do you not like either?

I put stock in the labels, because the labels matter. You, Mayo, OTG, and others seem intent on eliminating them, but they exist for a reason. That doesn't mean that the Patriots don't use different fronts and techniques, or that they don't try to blur the lines as a deliberate part of their game planning, but when you're taking about a base 3-4, you're talking about a base 3-4 for a reason. When you're talking about a base 4-3, you're talking about a base 4-3 for a reason. Personnel requirements differ, yet that gets largely minimized in the attempt to claim a non-existent melding. The same is true of 1-gap v. 2-gap (albeit the hybridization is always within a play rather than a player).

The Patriots have blended the two a lot more often in recent years, but the difference still remains, and the personnel needs still differ. Whether it survives the further transition of the NFL to a flag football league remains to be seen, but that's likely to be more about BB changing to smaller LBs than it is about whether he's using 3-4/4-3/4-3 under/etc...

 

[mayoclinic]

The term "Belichick 3-4" sounds like you are talking about the days of Seymour and Warren. The 3-4 that I've outlined here resembles the 4-3 he ran last year far more than it resembles any 3-4 he has run previously. The techniques are pretty much the same as last year. Most of the players are the same as last year. How would our LBs get smaller by running a 4-3? Are you complaining about BB's conception of a LB (or DT or DE), or do you not like something specific to the scheme?

Lots of folks are simply stumbling over labels, but you seem to be deliberately putting some sort of stock into the labels, and I don't understand what you mean. What do you view as the fundamental difference in the former hybrid 4-3 versus the current hybrid 3-4, and what is the problem with the latter? Or do you not like either?

I think BB divorced himself from the 3-4 / 4-3 labels long ago, as indicated by his response when switching to the 4-3 in 2010 and being asked whether he viewed Rob Ninkovich as more of a OLB or DE, and he replied with something along the lines of "I view him as an end-of-the-line player." By hydridizing and incorporating 1-gap principles into his 3-4, he addresses some of the need for as many larger 2-gapping 3-4 DEs (or 2-gapping DTs in a 4-3). The smaller DTs (the general term which I prefer for non end-of-the-line player), of which Easley is the best example, are better equipped to defend 1-gap than two, and are also more likely to be effective in the passing game. The hybridized 3-4 (and its 4-3 fraternal twin) in which Siliga and Wilfork (and rarely Chandler) are asked to 2-gap and everybody else 1-gaps is a compromise between the traditional BB 3-4 that is so deeply engrained in our collective consciousness and the traditional 1-gap 4-3 defense (or Bum Phillips 1-gap 3-4) - at least in terms of its run fits.

Do you not like these hybrid schemes? Do you not like 2-gapping (or 1-gapping) at all? Do you not like the way the hybrid 3-4/4-3 fit our personnel? (Personally, I wish Tommy Kelly were still around to add a big 1-gapping 3-tech DT.) These are all valid criticisms. Implying that a 3-4 is necessarily a traditional BB 3-4, because there are 3 DL with their hand in the dirt doesn't begin to address the nature, let alone the problems with the defense.

People who think that BB is a 3-4 2-gapping purist just don't understand his history. Jens Bremel wrote this 4 years ago as part of a multi-part series for the NY Times on the evolution of NFL defensive schemes:

There’s no simple diagram or playbook quirk that defines Bill Belichick’s defense. Rather, it might be said that it’s the complete lack of one.

Belichick, in a very short span early in his career, was introduced to many different defensive schemes at the pro level. He was exposed to Maxie Baughan, who ran George Allen’s complex 4-3 scheme, whicht was full of pre-snap adjustments. He briefly coached with Fritz Shurmur, who would follow Allen (and others) as coordinators who frequently used nickel schemes as a base defense. He worked with Joe Collier, who turned a troublesome set of injuries to his front seven into Denver’s vaunted Orange Crush – maybe the original multiple-front scheme.

Those exposures came before he gained fame and respect under Bill Parcells and the true 3-4 in New England and New York.

The key to the success of Belichick’s style is flexibility of personnel. To be able to switch from a 4-3 to a 3-4 to a dime defense and all points in between requires versatility at nearly every position. Players have to be able to run and cover and hit. Linemen have to be strong enough to hold the point in the 3-4, but get upfield in a 4-3. Defensive backs have to be very good in zone coverage but competent in man coverage when needed. It requires special skills, but also an above-average football IQ. Compared with the base Dungy-Kiffin scheme, which probably started with as little as three or four fronts and a couple of zone coverages, Belichick’s hybrid is a maze meant to confuse and confound.

http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/09/guide-to-n-f-l-defenses-part-4-the-3-4-front/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

Again, this was written at the start of the 2010 season, when BB was still associated with most with running a "pure" 3-4 2-gap defense.

I have no problem with this kind of defense, but it is extremely complicated, and requires tremendous versatility and intelligence on the part of the personnel. It's not just a "let them loose" kind of attacking 4-3. As with the complex offensive system, it's prone to break down if you don't have the right players in the right roles. It certainly broke down on Sunday - it seemingly confused and comfounded our own players more than the opposing offense. I don't think it's inaccurate to say that players were not being used effectively, but it's a gross over-simplification to try and boil it all down to 3-4 vs. 4-3.

 

[Mack Herron]

The 3-4 that I've outlined here resembles the 4-3 he ran last year far more than it resembles any 3-4 he has run previously. The techniques are pretty much the same as last year. Most of the players are the same as last year.

Moreno trashed them last year like they were a high school team and he did it again again last week. Are you saying that despite the additions of Wilfork, Mayo and Revis, we can look forward to the additional steamrollings? Something is clearly not working. Many of the players, including even the better players like Jones and Mayo, are having difficulty executing their responsibilities in this scheme. The players are not changing. If we don't see better coaching, we could easily find ourselves 0-2, a hole from which 12% of teams see the playoffs.

 

[pencilneckgeek]

Moreno trashed them last year like they were a high school team and he did it again again last week. Are you saying that despite the additions of Wilfork, Mayo and Revis, we can look forward to the additional steamrollings? Something is clearly not working. Many of the players, including even the better players like Jones and Mayo, are having difficulty executing their responsibilities in this scheme. The players are not changing. If we don't see better coaching, we could easily find ourselves 0-2, a hole from which 12% of teams see the playoffs.

There is one commonality between last year's injury-plagued team and this years team that the homer in me is leaning on. It's that the group of players playing this defense have not had a lot of time practicing it in live action next to one another. Last year, there were a bunch of rookies and practice squad graduates figuring it out under fire. This year, there is a new team that has had limited practice time figuring it out under fire. There was a lot to cover in the pre-season, and the run fits clearly did not get sorted. This week, run fits are the focus and were always going to be. Fortunately, they have a veteran team that I think can put it together, because like you imply, in the regular season, each week is a big week, and nobody waits around for the slow starter.

 

[mayoclinic]

There is one commonality between last year's injury-plagued team and this years team that the homer in me is leaning on. It's that the group of players playing this defense have not had a lot of time practicing it in live action next to one another. Last year, there were a bunch of rookies and practice squad graduates figuring it out under fire. This year, there is a new team that has had limited practice time figuring it out under fire. There was a lot to cover in the pre-season, and the run fits clearly did not get sorted. This week, run fits are the focus and were always going to be. Fortunately, they have a veteran team that I think can put it together, because like you imply, in the regular season, each week is a big week, and nobody waits around for the slow starter.

I agree with this. BB's schemes are complicated - perhaps too much so - and they require experience and coordination to work effectively. It's more than possible that more experience will result in a dramatically different result. It's also possible that this is just too much for the talents and abilities of our current personnel. Time will tell.

 

[Mack Herron]

This year, there is a new team that has had limited practice time figuring it out under fire. There was a lot to cover in the pre-season, and the run fits clearly did not get sorted.

It is surprising and difficult to understand how the run fits did not get sorted out all through training camp and preseason. I'm sure we all expect improvement this week, but a renaissance seems unlikely. The pressure mounts.

 

[Ring 6]

Belichick's 3-4 uses larger linebackers. That hasn't changed.

Belichicks 4-3 uses large linebackers. That hasn't changed.

 

[Ring 6]

It is surprising and difficult to understand how the run fits did not get sorted out all through training camp and preseason. I'm sure we all expect improvement this week, but a renaissance seems unlikely. The pressure mounts.

Its not a matter of guys not knowing where they are supposed to be. They got blocked. They lost their one on one battles, particularly when they were worn down in the second half. You don't scheme out of that.

 

[Mack Herron]

Its not a matter of guys not knowing where they are supposed to be. They got blocked. They lost their one on one battles, particularly when they were worn down in the second half. You don't scheme out of that.

While not taking anything away from the Dolphins, this is an oversimplification that lays it all on the players not being good enough. Do you really believe that?