Reiss: Pats mixing in a lot of 4-3

[pats1]

THANKS for the great detailed descriptions.

What are you referring to when you say "World Broadcast" ?

On the XXXIX Champions DVD, in the Bonus Features section, there's the "World Broadcast" of the game, which is just the Fox scoreboard with an NFL logo instead, and I believe the same announcers. The editing job wasn't the best, as some parts of the plays are cut off. I don't know how long they were able to make it after cutting out most of the stuff in-between the plays.

 

[Urgent]

Analysis of that Eagles Super Bowl defense is interesting.
Calling that defense a 4-3 or a 2-5 is a matter of semantics.
The Patriots used two DL and five LB, so you can say 2-5.
They lined up with LB's over the tackles, so you could call them DE's.

However, an important point to consider is that the Patriots defense included multiple versatile LB's - Vrabel, Bruschi, Phifer, McGinest, Colvin, plus Johnson who was more one-dimensional. All of V-B-P-M-C had lots of experience at LB, dropping into coverage, stringing out the run, or rushing the passer. With six starting LB's, the team could easily run five in a single formation.

You'll also see how they were switching up. The descriptions show Green at NT one play, then Wilfork at NT the next.

Here's an example showing the ambiguity:

Patriots Defense: 4-3, Colvin down over TE, Green over LG, Wilfork NT, McGinest down over RT, Vrabel comes up over Owens in motion, Gay follows across the field, Bruschi and Phifer playing back, Samuel press coverage

Result of Play: McGinest stands up to chip Owens before Gay picks him up, then comes out to force McNabb to toss it over to Owens in the flat, Wilfork got pressure but Colvin and Green were stopped, Vrabel started to come in before the throw.

What you see in that formation is McGinest lining up 'down,' or in a DE stance, over the RT. Colvin is in a DE stance as well, but over the TE, where he might also play as a LB.

At the snap, McGinest stands up, rather than rushes, chipping the WR. He instantly becomes a 'LB' when he stands up at the snap, switching from a '4-3' formation to a '3-4' formation. Colvin rushes like a DE.

The whole point of this defense was confusion and athleticism.

The Philly offense that season was very pass-heavy and run-light. Their best RB was very much in the Marshall Faulk role - more likely to take a short pass a long distance, less likely to try to run straight up the middle.

Playing Jarvis Green at nose, with five LB's on the field, is a defense designed to flood the intermediate zones but very susceptible to a power rushing attack. Like the Saint Louis Super Bowl, Belichick is daring the opposing coach to run the ball at him while taking away his strength. Reid stuck with his strength. McNabb couldn't anticipate the pressure or the coverage, and had a poor game.

Now look at the '4-3' described in training camp. This is an entirely different defense. Warren-Wilfork-Sullivan-Seymour is a line-up of four DT-types. The Philly game was a line-up heavy in LB's, the strength of the team. This line-up is heavy in DT's, the current strength of the team. By replacing Green, Colvin, and McGinest with Warren, Wilfork, and Sullivan, you are going jumbo.

This 4-3 is more like something you would throw at Pittsburgh, attempting to choke the line of scrimmage. A team like that Philly team, or the Saint Louis Super Bowl team, would screen over it and slice it up.

 

[BelichickFan]

The whole point of this defense was confusion and athleticism.

That's basically what they said after the game that with McNabb and Westbrook they wanted more athleticism on the field defensively.

 

[arrellbee]

All of these very pertinent comments wrap up in a nutshell why it is probably not very perceptive to talk about the Pats 'switching' to a 4-3 or any other generic comments about the 'numeric' type of defense they are going to use.

Reiss probably had the best description by far: 'multiple'.

I think you have to realize that the defensive schemes and sets that Belichick has and WILL almost certainly use are those which he has worked out as the most EFFECTIVE against particular types of offenses in his years of coaching and constant observation and analysis - and to all appearances and results, he has done a masterful job of developing those schemes and sets. And there are a LOT of 'multiple' variations that he apparently has worked out. I think that is a lot more pertinent than trying to apply a label of 3-4 or 4-3.

So I think it's a far more interesting use of thread space to observe some of those variations and nuances (like Pats1 and Urgent have commented on) than to try to expect that Belichick is all of a sudden making major changes to what he has worked out over the years. I think it is far more likely that what the DL-LB sets are that are used is much more going to be dependent on particular opposing teams rather than some philosophical shift.

Folks seem to get hung up on what 'types' of DL are now on the roster and that this will 'dictate' what 'scheme' the Pats are going to use. And folks talk about what the Pats 'draft for'. Isn't it pretty obvious by now that Belichick drafts for flexibility and smarts and versatility far more than drafting for 'type' ?? ?? The evidence is right in front of us. Seymour is typed as a DT, but I think it is safe to say that, while he spends most of his time on the outside of the DL (ie DE), he many time lines up and is ultra-effective as a DT. The same can certainly be said of Green and probably Warren. And it is well observed that Wilfork was a rushing type DT in college (and still seems to utilize that in some of the sets) but for the Pats is mostly tasked to clog up the middle.

And when it comes to LBs, almost all of the LBs who get much playing time are converted DEs. And, as has been commented, many times the LBs are in down stance. How's that for 'multiple' scheming - and how tough is it to 'label' Belichick's defense as a 3-4 or 4-3 in any classical sense.

I think the things that most fascinate me, as I have posted in past threads, is that even within a '3-4' alignment, there are so many times where the 3 down DLs are not lined up in a classical form - many times the NT is shifted to one side of the center rather than right over the center thereby creating something of a strong side and weak side of the 3-4. And equally fascinating is the shifting of a 'LB' into and out of a 3 point stance to cause the offensive blocking scheme to break down. I think the classics of that were the Colts games - one where McGinest came in unblocked to sack Manning on short and goal and the other one where he sliced in unblocked to tackle James in the backfield preventing a TD. We probably don't talk enough about the elements of Belichick's schemes that involve motion and last second shifts in the defensive sets by LBs and DBs. It's fun to think about how much heartburn this causes opposing teams when they try to set up their offensive schemes - and how much trouble it causes opposing QBs who are trying to outguess the defensive set (poor futile Manning comes to mind).

The Pats are a fascinating team to watch, no matter what. How great is it to be a Pats fan.