D Line

[Ring 6]

A 2 gap 4-3????? That's so funny it's ridiculous.

I don't see our current LB staff capable of handling the 4-3 full time. Brucshi is NOT a 4-3 MLB. In coverage he works best when the field is cut in half. His instincts are impeccable, but still not enough to help him to allow him to play the 4-3 FT.

If we use the 4-3, it would be best used in sub packages.

Finally, if we went to a 4-3 (hopefully not a 2 gap 4-3) and Seymour played inside, his numbers would be off the chain. It would take 2 or more guys to stop him on every play. He would dominate the NFL from the DT slot like only a very few have ever done.

The only 43 we would ever play is a 2gap.
BB plays 2gap. We won the SB in 2001 with a 2gap 43.

I do not understand your point.

 

[Ring 6]

That's not how I remember it. I seem to recall that the 43 wasn't effective at all in the first few games we used it. And since we stopped using it, I would say "scrapping" is as good a term as anything else.




I'm not sure it's that "clear" because the way Willie played DE was pretty much the same way he played OLB. I agree Willie's best position wasn't a DE in a 43, but my point here is that the way he played it, it didn't make much difference.



So what's different about the DL this year? McG isn't even here. So what happens if Seymour is hurt. Oh, wait a second, the great Jonathan Sullivan is here to solve all our DT depth problems! Yeah, right!



This is exactly the point. Whether you play a 43 or a 34 depends less on your DL than on the LBs. Vrabel and Colvin are both best suited as 34 OLBs.


What we're really arguing about here is taking out your 4th LB - let's assume it's Beisel - and replacing him with your 4th best DL - which is Green. And while I certainly agree that Green has proven to be more effective than Beisel, I don't see the difference as being big enough to move 3 of your best players - Seymour, Colvin and Vrabel - out of their best positions and sacrifice the schematic advantages of being in a base 34.

That is my point!!! You arent moving them out of their positions. The only difference is that the OLB who is automatically a pass rusher, covers.
I just dont understand how you would say that Seymour, Vrabel and Colvin are out of their best positions. They are aligned the same way, with the same responsibilities but for the OLB no longer being the 4th rusher.

Lets just take Seymour. In a 34 he lines up over the T and plays 2gap. In a 43 he lines up over the T and plays 2 gap.
In reality, it HELPS him to be in a 43, because with a DT over the G, there is less ability to double or combo block him.
Aside from that, please explain to me how is moved out of his position?
And if your answer is he would be at DT because he is better there than at DE, you would be saying he is moving to his best position.

 

[jczxohn1]

IMO, in the 3-4, the d-line ties up the O-line and the LB's make the tackles. In the 4-3, the D-line makes the majority of the tackles and takes more responsibility for the rush. The LB's are typically lighter, faster, and more able to cover and play in space. Tedy would be at a disadvantage as a 4-3 MLB. IMO, last yr's Biesel would probably be better.

As I understand it, a 2-gapping 4-3 is an oxymoron. It's all about penetration, not holding up the O-line. While Willie did play up with his hand down, and occassionally Colvin as well, it was either to rush or fake and drop into coverage, leaving the base 2-gap 3 man line concept intact.

From the way the draft went, I doubt we're going to a 4-3 alignment any time soon. There were too many guys who would have been useful who were ignored.

 

[Ring 6]

IMO, in the 3-4, the d-line ties up the O-line and the LB's make the tackles. In the 4-3, the D-line makes the majority of the tackles and takes more responsibility for the rush. The LB's are typically lighter, faster, and more able to cover and play in space. Tedy would be at a disadvantage as a 4-3 MLB. IMO, last yr's Biesel would probably be better.

As I understand it, a 2-gapping 4-3 is an oxymoron. It's all about penetration, not holding up the O-line. While Willie did play up with his hand down, and occassionally Colvin as well, it was either to rush or fake and drop into coverage, leaving the base 2-gap 3 man line concept intact.

From the way the draft went, I doubt we're going to a 4-3 alignment any time soon. There were too many guys who would have been useful who were ignored.

Our defense is NEVER design for DL to occupy blockers. We play a 2gap system. That means each of the front 7 (with the exception of the weakside OLB--who will face a pulling G or FB on playside, but is in space) play head up on an OL or TE and are responsible for the gap on either side. By definition, there is no plan to occupy blockers to free up someone else.

There are different versions of 43. One gap or 2. Most 1 gap teams choose to play 4-3, the way you described it. BB plays a 2gap 43. Its not an oxymoron. We are talking about ALIGNMENT not philosophy. I dont think we won the SB in 2001 playing a defense that was an oxymoron, and we certainly played a 2gap 4-3.

The times that McG and Colvin were at DE were in nickel/dime packages, not the base defense.
I dont understand your comment on the draft. We select players who fit our 2gap system.
We either align in a 3-4, or a 4-3, with the difference being an ILB vs a DT. The other 6 players have almost identical responsibilities.

We have used OLB/DE hybrids as DE in the 43 and OLB in the 34. This is because in the 43 they are playing the weakside with an OLB in space, vs being the guy in space, so the need for size in the guy playing over the T is lessened. With our current roster, that wouldnt happen, the OLBs will be OLBs.

We aren't talking about changing philosophy, we are talkign about the possibility of changing alignment. It simply means the man playing over a G is a DT rather than an ILB. The other 6 are doing the same thing.

 

[spacecrime]

As I understand it, a 2-gapping 4-3 is an oxymoron. It's all about penetration, not holding up the O-line.

One-gapping is is about penetration. Two-gapping is holding the line at the point of attack, and filling the gap where the play is going.

If one gapping is lining up between blockers, and two gapping is lining up head-on to a blocker, why is a 4-3 two gap an oxymoron?

 

[flutie2phelan]

....
Also, with this Sullivan trade, I believe far too many people are using it as leverage to propagate a change to the 4-3. It's minimal, at best, guys. I see it more of a tool to shop Bethel when there's still some return left. One of the remaining holes that was, and still will be, an open audition is the backup NT spot. Sullivan simply adds some more fuel to that fire.

Like it or not, Sullivan is just another training camp body. He's as much on the bubble as Wright or Klecko.

This team has been built since the coming of BB as a 3-4 team. That's how the Patriots have drafted and shopped the market. 2001 and 2002 were rebuilding years (with a preview of the rewards in 2001) where players like Pleasant, Hamilton, Mitchell, Lyle, Phifer, etc. came in to fill holes while the front seven was rebuilt. That started with Seymour, and continued on with the drafting of Warren, Wilfork, Hill, Green, Banta-Cain, and Claridge. It just so happened that the best scheme to fit the rebuilding period with the veteran 'filler' players was the 4-3. The only such player that has stuck around is Vrabel.

Now, as perennial Super-Bowl contenders, Belichick has achieved his goal of a drool-inducing 3-4 scheme. ....

Again, this trade only adds negligible "stackedness" to the DL. The Patriots are no more closer to being a 4-3 team than they were yesterday. In order to have annual success, new pieces need to be phased in. Sullivan is just another project - a piece of the puzzle that will need to work to make the team just like the player next to him.

In this excellent ... intelligent and informed ... thread, i find Pats1 above
saying more that i agree with than any other single post.

We play what another poster has memorably called the Flexi-Bill defense. That has been
its hallmark during these glory years ... and certainly will continue that way until either
opposing OCs catch up to it, or we cease finding big, strong, smart guys who can play it.
Within the Flexi-Bill, heaven only knows what permutations might emerge.
The evergreen 3-4 / 4-3 debate here is largely a waste of words - albeit quite enlightening words!

All should remember that the Bethel-Johnathon trade was a MINOR transaction -
a swap of one vast underachiever for another. A win-win deal, that is good for both teams ... and both players.
It cannot conceivably dictate the Patriots' defensive policy.

Even if Sullivan, in practice and in his limited playing opportunities, plays lights out and shows signs of becoming
the player everyone once thought he was
... his biggest contribution to our '06 season can only be ... either as an injury replacement with no fall-off of efficiency ...
on this loaded D-line that he cannot crack as a starter any other way ...
or as a frequently-used reliever who hopefully would allow the starters to avoid
the late-game fatigue to which our guys are as much subject as anyone else.

 

[braveht]

DT- Wilfork and Warren start backed up by Sullivan
DE- Seymour and Green start backed up by Hill.

Good run stoppers, slow for edge rushers.

Our LBs are much heavier (and slower) than typical 4-3 so I fear their coverage and pursuit will preclude us using a base 4-3.

The CBs and safeties have most of their experience behind a 3-4, except for nickle, dime sits.

 

[pats1]

A.J. is absolutely correct.

To illustrate, and simplify:

And it doesn't always have to be completely 2-gap or 1-gap. The fronts can be shifted and one player may be attacking a hole in the 1-gap while his fellow DT clogs the middle in the 2-gap.

 

[jczxohn1]

Our defense is NEVER design for DL to occupy blockers. We play a 2gap system. That means each of the front 7 (with the exception of the weakside OLB--who will face a pulling G or FB on playside, but is in space) play head up on an OL or TE and are responsible for the gap on either side. By definition, there is no plan to occupy blockers to free up someone else.
I understand what you are saying, but in practice, at least two of our down linemen are being doubled most of the time. In order to maintain the LOS, Sey (for instance) is going to try to force the G back into the hole once he determines the play is going inside the tackle.
There are different versions of 43. One gap or 2. Most 1 gap teams choose to play 4-3, the way you described it. BB plays a 2gap 43. Its not an oxymoron. We are talking about ALIGNMENT not philosophy. I dont think we won the SB in 2001 playing a defense that was an oxymoron, and we certainly played a 2gap 4-3.
Name another team that plays a two-gap 4-3
The times that McG and Colvin were at DE were in nickel/dime packages, not the base defense.
I dont understand your comment on the draft. We select players who fit our 2gap system.
My comment was based on selecting players for a 1-gap 4-3. IMO we select players who can adapt to our system. Very few have 2-gap experience.
We either align in a 3-4, or a 4-3, with the difference being an ILB vs a DT. The other 6 players have almost identical responsibilities
We have used OLB/DE hybrids as DE in the 43 and OLB in the 34. This is because in the 43 they are playing the weakside with an OLB in space, vs being the guy in space, so the need for size in the guy playing over the T is lessened. With our current roster, that wouldnt happen, the OLBs will be OLBs.You are obviously talking about Willie, Vrabel can do it, maybe Mincey later. Biesel or Claridge can cover.

We aren't talking about changing philosophy, we are talkign about the possibility of changing alignment. It simply means the man playing over a G is a DT rather than an ILB. The other 6 are doing the same thing.

If Biesel can learn to plug the hole, rather than waiting for the G or FB to come get him, we can stay with our 3-4. If not, the 2-gap 4-3 may develop more. The read-and-react aspect of 2-gapping is immense.

 

[arrellbee]

If Biesel can learn to plug the hole, rather than waiting for the G or FB to come get him, we can stay with our 3-4.

No - if he can't, Belichick doesn't change his base defensive scheme just because of Beisel - he just cuts Beisel before the 53 man roster.

 

[bucky]

That is my point!!! You arent moving them out of their positions. The only difference is that the OLB who is automatically a pass rusher, covers.
I just dont understand how you would say that Seymour, Vrabel and Colvin are out of their best positions. They are aligned the same way, with the same responsibilities but for the OLB no longer being the 4th rusher.

Lets just take Seymour. In a 34 he lines up over the T and plays 2gap. In a 43 he lines up over the T and plays 2 gap.
In reality, it HELPS him to be in a 43, because with a DT over the G, there is less ability to double or combo block him.
Aside from that, please explain to me how is moved out of his position?
And if your answer is he would be at DT because he is better there than at DE, you would be saying he is moving to his best position.

Where exactly does Seymour line up? If he lines up at the Strong DE, he will have the Sam LB next to him, allowing him to line up head up on the OT and do his thing. But that means he has to switch sides based on the formation and the offense can easily shift to change the strength of the formations.

If he stays at RDE, that means most of the time he'll be on the offense's weak side with no OLB next to him. He will now be the guy responsible for getting backside pressure on the QB from the perimeter. Quite often, he'll also be responsible for outside contain or even setting the edge against the run. And while Seymour can do all these things, his strength is clearly playing 2-gap and his pass rushing style is much more of an interior DL's pass rushing style. In a 4-3, whether it's a 1-gap or 2-gap system, I think Seymour is better off playing DT.

Did I mention that in a 4-3, Colvin will have an increased role in coverage and playing off the LOS? And Vrabel will be totally out of position as the Wil in a 4-3 because one of his greatest strengths - taking on blockers - will never be utilized?

 

[bucky]

A.J. is absolutely correct.

To illustrate, and simplify:

And it doesn't always have to be completely 2-gap or 1-gap. The fronts can be shifted and one player may be attacking a hole in the 1-gap while his fellow DT clogs the middle in the 2-gap.

That's right. The basic and oversimplified concept is that in a 1-gap scheme, 1 person is exclusively responsible for 1 gap. In a 2-gap scheme, you have 2 players sharing responsibility for 2 gaps. Of course the irony of that is that a lot of times in a 1-gap scheme, the LBs are actually responsible for 2 gaps - one gap if the play goes to their side and a different gap if the play goes away from them.

But anyway, the point is that as long as you have all the gaps covered, you can have your defensive front 7 playing any combination of 2-gap and 1-gap techniques.