Switch to the 4-3: Lack of time or lack of talent?

[RJB87]

I'm not sure if this has been visited on here yet but it's something I wanted to bring up. In a Belichick conference 2-3 weeks back he cited the reason for the switch from 3-4 to 4-3 because of the lockout and not having enough time to teach a complicated defensive scheme. Upon first reading this I thought "well, that seems logical" until I thought about it a little more.

1. How much teaching from the ground up would even be necessary? The only player that would potentially see playing time that we added to our defense before free agency was Ras-I Dowling.

2. We've been running the 3-4 for many years now. Our existing players know it very well.

3. The Houston Texans hired a brand new Defensive Coordinator AND switched to the 3-4 despite the lockout.

It's not like we went out and signed Andre Carter, Mike Anderson, and Albert Haynesworth so that they could play a 3-4. Carter and Haynesworth made public comments with previous 3-4 teams that they hated that scheme. With these three facts in mind I can't help but feel that the switch was due to lack of talent and not time. This switch seems a lot more premeditated than Belichick made it sound like.

 

[Rob0729]

Wade Philips' 3-4 is a one gap, attack style of defense. Belichick runs a two gap, read and react style of defense. Two different learning curves. Many of the players in Philips' system asks players to do simple things while in Belichick's you have gap responsibilities and diagnose the play on the fly to decide whether to rush or drop back or whatever. It isn't a 3-4 thing as much as complexity of the defenses.

I have never heard Belichick ever say that he switched to a four man front because it is easier for people to pick up. In fact, he has said people make too much out of this because even in a 3-4, he many times had 4 players on the line.

The Bengals have credited their defensive success this season from dumbing down the playbook because of the lockout. It is clear more complex defenses are suffering by the lockout. Both the Jets and Dolphins run a bit more complex defenses and both have had subpar defenses this season.

 

[pork3]

I have never heard Belichick ever say that he switched to a four man front because it is easier for people to pick up. In fact, he has said people make too much out of this because even in a 3-4, he many times had 4 players on the line.

That's probably because you don't have Sirius.

Belichick explains 'D' switch on Sirius - New England Patriots Blog - ESPN Boston

-Jamman

 

[RJB87]

Thanks for referencing that pork. That's the interview I'm talking about.

 

[Rob0729]

That's probably because you don't have Sirius.

Belichick explains 'D' switch on Sirius - New England Patriots Blog - ESPN Boston

-Jamman

I didn't hear the interview, but Belichick never said what the orginal poster suggested. Belichick is clearly stating that he has more 4 man fronts, not because the 4-3 is easier to learn. But it is easier to go with a 4 man front most of the time because it is easier for players to handle a transition from 4-3 base to a nickel and dime subpackage (which is mostly 4 man fronts) than it is to go from a 3-4 base to a nickel and dime subpackage. Here is what he said in the article:

"We wanted a lot of carryover between our run responsibilities and run fits, and some of our pressure defenses and things like that. We'll transition and build into some of our odds fronts, but we felt like in trying to evaluate young players, asking them to learn one system in a 3-4 and then learn another system in nickel [was too much]. As you know, we were in nickel defense just as much as we were 3-4 defense because of teams using multiple receivers on early downs and two-minute and all those kind of things.

As Belichick said, the Pats were in subpackages over 50% of the time last year. I don't think most 3-4 teams are in subpackages nearly as much. There is your difference and your answer to the orginal poster's question. It is easier to teach young players one defense than multiple defenses like they ran last year.

 

[RayClay]

I think it's personnel. I'm not an X O guy, but at its best we had two #1 pick DEs and a #1 pick NT. All those positions require massive, athletic players doing a lot of thankless dirty work compared to their roles in different defenses.

With Warren not recovering well, and Seymour and Wilfork requiring long term contracts, decisions needed to be made and we decided to keep Wilfork, a decision I applaud, though there's no doubt to me, Seymour would help short term.

At linebacker, we drafted a top linebacker, not a DE convert in Mayo. Cunningham is trying to learn 3-4 OLB, but that could be a process and he can certainly play 4-3 DE.

So what could we find in the draft, or FA? Not two 3-4 DEs.

Instead we got Haynesworth, not a fit in a 3-4, but a devastating pocket collapser, Shaun Ellis and Andre Carter. Thanks Santa, WTF?

Remember last year with Vince playing tackle and end depending on which team? You know a guy with his athleticism is dying to penetrate, rush, basically get out of the sweatshop that is NFL nose tackle. Having that flexibility in the future will get more out of Wilfork, especially since he is so athletic. Nobody likes to play nose tackle. Ted Washington, one of the best, said "I'll play it, but you've got to pay me". It's just human nature, More work less glory.

I can see BB picking up a building block here and there that fits our 3-4 concept, but for now, we are better taking advantage of Mayo's athleticism, Carter, Anderson and Ellis, and Big Albert without a big outlay. the only player left in the lurch in Cunningham and he has years to learn both defenses. We have no strictly 3-4 linemen or linebackers that I can see hurt from this and some great cheap talent for all pro type players playing a defense that's more familiar.

Not sure about Spikes but, isn't our 4-3 designed to funnel RBs into the MLB so you need a stout guy, like Ted Johnson? Don't know. I'd be curious about any posters analysis of the linebackers fit in a 4-3 here with Mayo on one side. Seems, with an acquisition or two in the future, they'd be more capable of switching at will too, which was a devastating part of the Willie McGinest defenses. Of course they play all sorts of formations and flexibility and familiarity will help those

 

[RayClay]

I didn't hear the interview, but Belichick never said what the orginal poster suggested. Belichick is clearly stating that he has more 4 man fronts, not because the 4-3 is easier to learn. But it is easier to go with a 4 man front most of the time because it is easier for players to handle a transition from 4-3 base to a nickel and dime subpackage (which is mostly 4 man fronts) than it is to go from a 3-4 base to a nickel and dime subpackage. Here is what he said in the article:



As Belichick said, the Pats were in subpackages over 50% of the time last year. I don't think most 3-4 teams are in subpackages nearly as much. There is your difference and your answer to the orginal poster's question. It is easier to teach young players one defense than multiple defenses like they ran last year.

I do think he's being a touch disingenuous, unless you consider Hayneswoth, Carter Anderson and Ellis "young players".

 

[Rob0729]

I do think he's being a touch disingenuous, unless you consider Hayneswoth, Carter Anderson and Ellis "young players".

It is if you think that Belichick made this decision after he traded for Haynesworth and signed Carter, Anderson, and Ellis. I assume Belichick, who isn't a guy known to make decisions like these on a whim, decided to make the switch months before the start of camp and then adjusted his free agency strategy to accomodate the change. I respectfully disagree with your theory and believe that the acquistion of the guys you mentioned were a reaction to the change not the cause of the change.

 

[VJCPatriot]

I do think he's being a touch disingenuous, unless you consider Hayneswoth, Carter Anderson and Ellis "young players".

Does it matter? Those guys aren't 'young players' but they are all new to the system. BB decided to install a system that would:

- fit his projected personnel
- transition to nickel coverage
- be installable in a shortened period of time

Maybe BB had the foresight to see this happening and planned it from the beginning. Or maybe the lockout affected what he was planning to do. What matters is he adjusted, and what was installed in the TC involved more 'even' fronts, ie 4-3 and nickel.

Whether Carter is lining up with his hand on the ground or off the ground, he is a guy we want to keep involved in the pass rush because we saw what he did against Dallas. Same goes for Haynesworth, etc.

 

[RayClay]

It is if you think that Belichick made this decision after he traded for Haynesworth and signed Carter, Anderson, and Ellis. I assume Belichick, who isn't a guy known to make decisions like these on a whim, decided to make the switch months before the start of camp and then adjusted his free agency strategy to accomodate the change. I respectfully disagree with your theory and believe that the acquistion of the guys you mentioned were a reaction to the change not the cause of the change.

Just the opposite. I saw it as having talented 4-3 linebacker Mayo and the far greater availability of 4-3 big linemen and pass rushers than premium 3-4 ends and OLBs, (which we haven't had since McGinest, Vrabel).

After the draft (if indeed he saw a even one top 3-4 DE candidate) and his constant talent lookout, he saw no availability of what we needed so that Wilfork wouldn't need to play the whole line and our whole defense wouldn't depend on Cunningham's progress.

 

[RayClay]

Does it matter? Those guys aren't 'young players' but they are all new to the system. BB decided to install a system that would:

- fit his projected personnel
- transition to nickel coverage
- be installable in a shortened period of time

Maybe BB had the foresight to see this happening and planned it from the beginning. Or maybe the lockout affected what he was planning to do. What matters is he adjusted, and what was installed in the TC involved more 'even' fronts, ie 4-3 and nickel.

Whether Carter is lining up with his hand on the ground or off the ground, he is a guy we want to keep involved in the pass rush because we saw what he did against Dallas. Same goes for Haynesworth, etc.

Doesn't matter to me, but that's what he said. I agree with pretty much everything you said, but if he's having trouble getting key personnel for a 3-4 and doesn't want to say that's a factor, that's fine with me too.

Remember, though our "base" might have been a 3-4 last year, we were missing both DEs and the OLB, requiring us to move Wilfork around and hope for rapid development of Cunningham and whatever we could get from Nink or TBC.

 

[Rob0729]

Just the opposite. I saw it as having talented 4-3 linebacker Mayo and the far greater availability of 4-3 big linemen and pass rushers than premium 3-4 ends and OLBs, (which we haven't had since McGinest, Vrabel).

After the draft (if indeed he saw a even one top 3-4 DE candidate) and his constant talent lookout, he saw no availability of what we needed so that Wilfork wouldn't need to play the whole line and our whole defense wouldn't depend on Cunningham's progress.

I still disagree. I think if he just thought he had 4-3 talent, he would probably admitted that he felt the team was just better suited for the defense. Marvin Lewis said he spoke with Bill Parcells over the offseason and Parcells told him to dumb down the playbook on defense because of the lack of offseason training. I'm sure if Parcells is giving that advice to Lewis, Belichick is doing the same thing thing for his team. Belichick and Parcells have similiar thinking in these types of things.

There could be other factors in his decision, but I truly believe the changes in defense had to do with simplifying things because there was no offseason.

 

[RayClay]

I still disagree. I think if he just thought he had 4-3 talent, he would probably admitted that he felt the team was just better suited for the defense. Marvin Lewis said he spoke with Bill Parcells over the offseason and Parcells told him to dumb down the playbook on defense because of the lack of offseason training. I'm sure if Parcells is giving that advice to Lewis, Belichick is doing the same thing thing for his team. Belichick and Parcells have similiar thinking in these types of things.

There could be other factors in his decision, but I truly believe the changes in defense had to do with simplifying things because there was no offseason.

I didn't disagree that was a factor, I just think it wasn't the only factor. Let's say they had the time, who are the 3-4 DEs? Who are the OLBs? Would we try to convert Haynesworth, Carter, Ellis and Anderson to the 3-4 defense this year?

 

[Rob0729]

I didn't disagree that was a factor, I just think it wasn't the only factor. Let's say they had the time, who are the 3-4 DEs? Who are the OLBs? Would we try to convert Haynesworth, Carter, Ellis and Anderson to the 3-4 defense this year?

Well, they didn't know that Ty Warren would be in such bad shape when he showed up or that Ron Brace or Brandon Deadrick were going to be injured and on PUP (well I assume that last part). They had the same roster as last year. Shaun Ellis has been playing DE in the 3-4 for years. There would be no need to convert him. I don't know if Haynesworth would have objected to playing DE in the 3-4 since he claimed he wouldn't have after the Pats traded for him.

The Pats could have signed Matt Roth, traded for Joey Porter (although that wasn't likely to happen or actually help), signed Mathias Kiwanuka (who has OLB and two gap experience although not in the 3-4), or signed Manny Lawson for help at OLB in the 3-4. They might have tried to trade for Osi Umenyoria. Or they could have signed Aaron Maybin after he was cut. Also, the Pats expected Cunningham to take a next step this season which obviously hasn't happened.

The Pats had a lot of options if they wanted to stay in the 3-4 as a base. It wasn't like there was only 4-3 talent available.

 

[RayClay]

Well, they didn't know that Ty Warren would be in such bad shape when he showed up or that Ron Brace or Brandon Deadrick were going to be injured and on PUP (well I assume that last part). They had the same roster as last year. Shaun Ellis has been playing DE in the 3-4 for years. There would be no need to convert him. I don't know if Haynesworth would have objected to playing DE in the 3-4 since he claimed he wouldn't have after the Pats traded for him.

The Pats could have signed Matt Roth, traded for Joey Porter (although that wasn't likely to happen or actually help), signed Mathias Kiwanuka (who has OLB and two gap experience although not in the 3-4), or signed Manny Lawson for help at OLB in the 3-4. They might have tried to trade for Osi Umenyoria. Or they could have signed Aaron Maybin after he was cut. Also, the Pats expected Cunningham to take a next step this season which obviously hasn't happened.

The Pats had a lot of options if they wanted to stay in the 3-4 as a base. It wasn't like there was only 4-3 talent available.

I'm not going point by point, but Warren had lost a lot of weight and i'm pretty sure they had their doubts about him.

Cunningham taking steps is irrelevant, they have Carter, Anderson and Ellis to play this defense.

You mentioned a lot of OLB who might or might not have succeeded here, but who were the DEs?

They had the same roster as last year.

Right, when they had to move Wilfork all over the line.

Ellis? He's only 290. He's a good fit at DE with the defense we play now, he's not the same type of player as Warren and Seymour at end, I don't know about the Jets scheme.

 

[Gumby]

"We wanted a lot of carryover between our run responsibilities and run fits, and some of our pressure defenses and things like that. We'll transition and build into some of our odds fronts, but we felt like in trying to evaluate young players, asking them to learn one system in a 3-4 and then learn another system in nickel [was too much]. As you know, we were in nickel defense just as much as we were 3-4 defense because of teams using multiple receivers on early downs and two-minute and all those kind of things."

As Belichick said, the Pats were in subpackages over 50% of the time last year. I don't think most 3-4 teams are in subpackages nearly as much. There is your difference and your answer to the orginal poster's question. It is easier to teach young players one defense than multiple defenses like they ran last year.

I do think he's being a touch disingenuous, unless you consider Hayneswoth, Carter Anderson and Ellis "young players".

it seemed clear to me when I read the first quote that when he is talking about young players he is talking about LBs and DBs - mayo, spikes, guyton, Mccourty, dowling, chung, arrington etc. NOT DE/DTs. If they are playing in a back heavy sub package (nickle); those young guys would have to react to the run responsibilities by coming off the pass protection.

 

[TheSolderKing]

PASSING LEAGUE

4-3 ='s BETTER AGAINST PASS than a 3-4

 

[RayClay]

it seemed clear to me when I read the first quote that when he is talking about young players he is talking about LBs and DBs - mayo, spikes, guyton, Mccourty, dowling, chung, arrington etc. NOT DE/DTs. If they are playing in a back heavy sub package (nickle); those young guys would have to react to the run responsibilities by coming off the pass protection.

All but one of those players played in our base 3-4, I don't understand that. Well, he meant something, I'm not sure it's clear from the way he said it. Might be easier to switch between base and sub packages I guess, getting out of where i know what I'm talking about.

 

[PatsBoy12]

It had to do with both time and personnel, I'm sure. I think it probably had more to do with time than personnel, though.