More 3-4 defense this year?

You state the issues well.

For me, if we run a real 34, I would not have Collins outside of Jones as you do. I agree with you (and patchick) that issue is at DE. I agree that the "best" choices would Kelly and Easley.

The base 3-4 you mention first is simply having Ninkovich left his hand, and then call the formation a 3-4. While this is reasonable, I don't think that folks think of this when they think of the 3-4.

BOTTOM LINE
IMHO, If Belichick's intent were to move back to the 3-4, 2 gap, base defense, I don't think that he would have used a 1st round cholce on Easley, followed up with a restructure of Kelly's contract.

AndyJohnson said:

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

Click to expand...

mgteich said:

You state the issues well.

For me, if we run a real 34, I would not have Collins outside of Jones as you do. I agree with you (and hatcheck that issue is at DE. I agree that the "best" choices would Kelly and Easley.

The base 3-4 you mention first is simply having Ninkovich left his hand, and then call the formation a 3-4. While this is reasonable, I don't think that folks think of this when they think of the 3-4.

Click to expand...

Agreed, which is why I think the people who feel we are going to run a 34 with 3 43 DTs on the field and one of our 2 best pass rushers dropping into coverage are wrong. Of course, we will have to wait and see, its just a bunch of people at a computer making predictions at this point.

BOTTOM LINE
IMHO, If Belichick's intent were to move back to the 3-4, 2 gap, base defense, I don't think that he would have used a 1st round cholce on Easley, followed up with a restructure of Kelly's contract.

Click to expand...

Or made a multitude of other personell moves.

After the cuts, are any views changed?

mgteich said:

After the cuts, are any views changed?

Click to expand...

I didn't think they had any real 3-4 DEs before this, and now they cut the only guy that looked like a 3-4 DE physically, still leaving them with no 3-4 DEs.

In many 3-4 schemes isn't a 3-4 DE more of a penetrating DT with some stoutness of a plugging DT when the play calls for them to just take out the blocker so a LB can make the play. Jones/Collins could rack up sacks as 3-4 rush OLBs. Worthy and easley could play ends while Wilfork plays NT. Siliga can give wilfork a break while replacing easley on plays that need stoutness. Mayo as an ilb while nink/Hightower play other ilb spot along with some OLB and maybe some 3-4 end.

Not sureHightower has quickness to play LB and cover TEs or RBs. He is over 270 and supposed to be stout. Could he play closer to 300 lbs and play some DT or 3-4 DE? Much like Henry Melton did, I don't know if he could or if its even an idea but maybe they can try him there

Do we agree that the best 7 guys are likely to be Jones/Easley/Wilfork/Ninko/Collins/Mayo/Hightower? If so, that feels more like a 4-3 to me.

On the other hand, if somebody from that group goes down, the next best might be another DT type. That could argue for a 3-4, but with Wilfork and Easley at the DEs.

My gut feel is that choices will be made situationally, with game-planning based on opponent and health. In particular, I'm guessing there will be a few games in which the majority of the base-defense snaps will be in a 3-4, and otherwise it will be a rarely used wrinkle.

Sciz said:

I didn't think they had any real 3-4 DEs before this, and now they cut the only guy that looked like a 3-4 DE physically, still leaving them with no 3-4 DEs.

Click to expand...

Yep, Ben Bass is now the only DT-type on the roster who stands taller than 6' 2". It does seem clear that the Pats aren't returning to their old 2-gapping 3-4 (phew)...yet they're not showing a classic 4-3, either. IMO something new is afoot, and I'm intrigued.

patchick said:

Yep, Ben Bass is now the only DT-type on the roster who stands taller than 6' 2". It does seem clear that the Pats aren't returning to their old 2-gapping 3-4 (phew)...yet they're not showing a classic 4-3, either. IMO something new is afoot, and I'm intrigued.

Click to expand...

"It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key."

And....?

Clonamery said:

"It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key."

And....?

Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprised if the key is to be found in this epic thread mayoclinic started in the offseason. But beware, this path is not an easy one -- it's over 1,000 posts by now:
My Blueprint for the Defense | Draft Forum - PatsFans.com

Fencer said:

Do we agree that the best 7 guys are likely to be Jones/Easley/Wilfork/Ninko/Collins/Mayo/Hightower? If so, that feels more like a 4-3 to me.

Click to expand...

These are our best front 7 defenders. It really doesn't matter to me how they lineup as long as these 7 are out there. Of course other players will contribute in rotations.

This has been an interesting thread and some very thorough analysis. Another thing to keep in mind and has probably been discussed in this thread or another is the formation is going to be determined by the opponent and specifically their formation. Since a 3 receiver offense is so common, we typically see 4 on the line and 2 linebackers (whether its 2 with their hand down or 4). The 4 would most likely consist of Chandler, Rob and Vince plus 1 up front (hopefully Easley pretty soon). This leaves 2 from Mayo, Collins and Hightower with Hightower spelling Rob up front when needed (who knows about that).
And don't forget about this Moore kid on 3rd and long. Its still a longshot and he may even get cut next week but I just really like his athleticism and upside as the season progresses.

Considering that some form of nickel or dime has been used over 60% of the time over the past couple of seasons, whether its a 3-4 or 4-3 as base may not be as relevant.

patchick said:

Yep, Ben Bass is now the only DT-type on the roster who stands taller than 6' 2". It does seem clear that the Pats aren't returning to their old 2-gapping 3-4 (phew)...yet they're not showing a classic 4-3, either. IMO something new is afoot, and I'm intrigued.

Click to expand...

Here is how I hope we play it:

It could be a 3-4 where we have Vince 2 gapping over the center, like he does in our 4-3 from time to time, and we play our DEs in a 3tech one gap and the outside backers have responsibility for the outside. That way you would have Vince shore up the middle. You would then have 2 DTs creating pressure from inside like 4-3 defensive tackles. Then you have Chandler and another OLB(mix och HIghtower and Ninkovich maybe) comming from outside and various blitz/stunt packages fromm that. it would kind of be like a 4-3 with an extra DT and the ends standing up.

I think that's what I would do with our current personel if I wanted to play a 3-4. I really don't want to see us play a 2 gap 3-4(unless in some run defense packages) as I see that as an outdated scheme in todays league. I feel like Revis might be what let's us play like I wrote. By letting Revis having his Island you can send 5 guys to the QB quite often as you don't need to have a safety over him.

If we go to a 3-4 I hope that this is kind of how we play it. We get our regular outside pressure. But we can really create havoc from the inside with 3 possible inside rushers. Something we have lacked before.

Marinlik said:

Here is how I hope we play it:

It could be a 3-4 where we have Vince 2 gapping over the center, like he does in our 4-3 from time to time, and we play our DEs in a 3tech one gap and the outside backers have responsibility for the outside. That way you would have Vince shore up the middle. You would then have 2 DTs creating pressure from inside like 4-3 defensive tackles. Then you have Chandler and another OLB(mix och HIghtower and Ninkovich maybe) comming from outside and various blitz/stunt packages fromm that. it would kind of be like a 4-3 with an extra DT and the ends standing up.

I think that's what I would do with our current personel if I wanted to play a 3-4. I really don't want to see us play a 2 gap 3-4(unless in some run defense packages) as I see that as an outdated scheme in todays league. I feel like Revis might be what let's us play like I wrote. By letting Revis having his Island you can send 5 guys to the QB quite often as you don't need to have a safety over him.

If we go to a 3-4 I hope that this is kind of how we play it. We get our regular outside pressure. But we can really create havoc from the inside with 3 possible inside rushers. Something we have lacked before.

Click to expand...

We won't see 3 guys inside the tackles. There is a lot less advantage to 1-gapping if the guy to your right is already taking one of the gaps in front of you. The offense knows where you're going, and it's way harder to defend the edge. You need to spread guys out in there, at least to 4 tech. The 3-4 as it's been run in recent years by BB; in Houston, built around JJ Watt, and even in Pittsburgh under LeBeau, who developed the modern 2-gapping 3-4 defense; has used a 2-gapping NT (typically 1-tech), a 2-gapping DE, and a 1-gapping DE. In the instances of which I am aware, the 2-gapping DT played 5-tech, occupying a tackle, and the 1-gapping DT played 3-tech penetrating over the guard and creating disruption in the backfield. (Remember all the wham blocks the Pats threw at JJ Watt on running plays.) Because the 3-tech is on the inside, he is subject to more double teams, so it's advantageous to be larger, but I could see us using Easley in that role, as our defense evolves to keep-up with the growing pass-first mentality of the league.

Marinlik said:

Here is how I hope we play it:

It could be a 3-4 where we have Vince 2 gapping over the center, like he does in our 4-3 from time to time, and we play our DEs in a 3tech one gap and the outside backers have responsibility for the outside. That way you would have Vince shore up the middle. You would then have 2 DTs creating pressure from inside like 4-3 defensive tackles. Then you have Chandler and another OLB(mix och HIghtower and Ninkovich maybe) comming from outside and various blitz/stunt packages fromm that. it would kind of be like a 4-3 with an extra DT and the ends standing up.

Click to expand...

You're describing something like a 5-2, which is related to the 3-4. We discussed this in great detail on the draft forum a couple of months ago. A number of teams have run a fair amount of 5-2, including the Patriots last year according to Reiss' defensive snap analysis. Seattle uses it quite a bit (and even 6 man fronts at times). If Jerel Worthy develops, he could make this a VERY interesting formation: Worthy and Easley on each side of Wilfork with Jones and Ninkovich/Hightower at the ends would be stout against the run, and able to generate tremendous pressure inside or outside. Stand up both ends and you have a 3-4. You can also morph this into a 4-3 Under very easily.

Regardless of the details, I think that anything that adds more versatility to what BB can do with his core personnel is likely to be good. I see Chandler Jones as more of a 4-3 RDE than a 3-4 OLB, but if he can also play effectively standing up it only adds to what the defense can do. As Patchick noted, Easley and Collins defy categorization. It will be very interesting to see how it all shakes out.

I'm guessing how players line up is going to depend on two things:

1) The matchup

2) How much BB trusts giving a player multiple "positions"

I'm guessing in his rookie season, Chandler Jones wouldn't be asked to know how to play both with his hand in the dirt and standing up. Now that he's entering his third year, he can take more on, expanding on his versatility.

Someone with more knowledge can speak to my next theory too: Is a 3-4 alignment typically better suited to face mobile quarterbacks? From my armchair it would seem to play a containment scheme better, but I'll yield to anyone with more X's and O's knowledge. If I'm right, it could be we saw the 3-4 against Carolina because of Cam Newton, but against someone like Peyton Manning, we'll play more 4-3 to hopefully get more interior pressure?

mayoclinic said:

Regardless of the details, I think that anything that adds more versatility to what BB can do with his core personnel is likely to be good. I see Chandler Jones as more of a 4-3 RDE than a 3-4 OLB, but if he can also play effectively standing up it only adds to what the defense can do. As Patchick noted, Easley and Collins defy categorization. It will be very interesting to see how it all shakes out.

Click to expand...

It's certainly interesting to read the arrival of Worthy and the departure of Kelly as something more than just individual players. Assuming Worthy and Moore stick, they now have a smaller, more explosive DT corps along with a group of towering yet mobile DEs and 3 good-sized LBs with outstanding positional versatility. The mind reels.

patchick said:

It's certainly interesting to read the arrival of Worthy and the departure of Kelly as something more than just individual players. Assuming Worthy and Moore stick, they now have a smaller, more explosive DT corps along with a group of towering yet mobile DEs and 3 good-sized LBs with outstanding positional versatility. The mind reels.

Click to expand...

That sure doesn't sound like a 3-4 to me. BB has always described his defense as "multiple", and I think that he is moving towards a set of personnel that will allow him to be more multiple than ever.

Marinlik said:

Here is how I hope we play it:

It could be a 3-4 where we have Vince 2 gapping over the center, like he does in our 4-3 from time to time, and we play our DEs in a 3tech one gap and the outside backers have responsibility for the outside. That way you would have Vince shore up the middle. You would then have 2 DTs creating pressure from inside like 4-3 defensive tackles. Then you have Chandler and another OLB(mix och HIghtower and Ninkovich maybe) comming from outside and various blitz/stunt packages fromm that. it would kind of be like a 4-3 with an extra DT and the ends standing up.

I think that's what I would do with our current personel if I wanted to play a 3-4. I really don't want to see us play a 2 gap 3-4(unless in some run defense packages) as I see that as an outdated scheme in todays league. I feel like Revis might be what let's us play like I wrote. By letting Revis having his Island you can send 5 guys to the QB quite often as you don't need to have a safety over him.

If we go to a 3-4 I hope that this is kind of how we play it. We get our regular outside pressure. But we can really create havoc from the inside with 3 possible inside rushers. Something we have lacked before.

Click to expand...

What you are describing is a 5-2

Sicilian said:

I'm guessing how players line up is going to depend on two things:

1) The matchup

2) How much BB trusts giving a player multiple "positions"

I'm guessing in his rookie season, Chandler Jones wouldn't be asked to know how to play both with his hand in the dirt and standing up. Now that he's entering his third year, he can take more on, expanding on his versatility.

Someone with more knowledge can speak to my next theory too: Is a 3-4 alignment typically better suited to face mobile quarterbacks? From my armchair it would seem to play a containment scheme better, but I'll yield to anyone with more X's and O's knowledge. If I'm right, it could be we saw the 3-4 against Carolina because of Cam Newton, but against someone like Peyton Manning, we'll play more 4-3 to hopefully get more interior pressure?

Click to expand...

Its more complicated than whether it is a 34 or 43.
You can run a 34 with your 43 personell, and its really the same defense.
Or you can run a 34 with 3 huge DL and sacrifice the pass rush.
You can run 34 or 43 out of either one gap or 2 gap disciplines as well as mixing both.

To me, with this team, the key is who is on the field, not how they are aligned, because the alignment is a very minor difference if the personnel grouping is the same.

mayoclinic said:

You're describing something like a 5-2, which is related to the 3-4. We discussed this in great detail on the draft forum a couple of months ago. A number of teams have run a fair amount of 5-2, including the Patriots last year according to Reiss' defensive snap analysis. Seattle uses it quite a bit (and even 6 man fronts at times). If Jerel Worthy develops, he could make this a VERY interesting formation: Worthy and Easley on each side of Wilfork with Jones and Ninkovich/Hightower at the ends would be stout against the run, and able to generate tremendous pressure inside or outside. Stand up both ends and you have a 3-4. You can also morph this into a 4-3 Under very easily.

Regardless of the details, I think that anything that adds more versatility to what BB can do with his core personnel is likely to be good. I see Chandler Jones as more of a 4-3 RDE than a 3-4 OLB, but if he can also play effectively standing up it only adds to what the defense can do. As Patchick noted, Easley and Collins defy categorization. It will be very interesting to see how it all shakes out.

Click to expand...

Yeah it would be like a 5-2. But it would give you some more options becuase you have your ends standing up, and basically be like 3-4 outside linebackers. It would allow for more zone blitzes and stuff as you can drop into coverage much faster when you are standing up as opposed to the 3 point stance. I feel like you could get very creative from that formation like you said. Very easy to morph into different formations.

Just changing personel while staying in the 3-4 that I proposed could also make a huge difference. Against Peyton we could go Easley, Wilfork, Worthy(depending on how he plays) and we could get interior pressure, while Ninkovich and Jones rush from the outside. Against Vikings we could go Siliga, Wilfork and then another bigger more run stopping kind of guy.