The 4-3 D alternative

[JR4]

JR4- The Pats are not practicing significantly any more 4-3 than they have the last few years. They do NOT have the personnel to be a fulltime 4-3 D. As I said previously,tho-they have used a lot of 4-3(and other looks) the last few years,while maintaining the 3-4 as their base. That will not change this year. And why would you want to? The 3-4 is a far superior defense to the 4-3. If you know how to implement it and have the right players-it causes much more matchup problems for offenses. BB drafted and signed players he thought would work well in his 3-4 2gap. You asked rhetorically if the Pats had to play a fulltime 4-3 with their current personnel, would bb be effective? thats really not a relevant question. why would you want to? but no,it would not be anywhere near as effective(on a "fulltime" basis) as the 3-4. Part of the reason the Pats have done well with the 4-3 is that it is a change of pace defense from what teams expect the pats to do. its like why kevin faulk always seems to taer off 10 yerd gains every time he runs-hes achnge of pace-could he do that full time?-no way. bb is a bona fide genius- but even hed tell you-the Pats D would be fairly mediocre as a fulltime 4-3. we really dont need to worry. it would take a lot of injuries to scrap the 3-4-more than just bruschi going down. but we have very versatile players on our d-because bb trains them that way. expect alot of 4-3-but i'll bet you the farm the 3-4 remains the base regardless of what happens this year. and thats a GOOD thing.

Don't think I ever said, starting with first post in this thread, that PATs
would abandon the 3-4 D.

 

[Ichiro]

arrelbee- I agree only to a point. yes, when the pats have plyed the 4-3-they have excelled-like the jags game. As amatter of fact-the best pass rush ive seen generated by the pats has been from the 4-3-primarily because seymour, whether playing dt or de, gets turned loose from his 2 gap responsibilities and has been unstoppable. BUT-this success would be short-lived if the pats were a fulltime 4-3. green is too slow to be a ft 4-3 de. sey could do it-but his talents would best be maximized as a 4-3 dt. that means wilfork sits on the bench. and hes too good for that. if we still had willi,then maybe. but i think a lot of reason thyve done well with the 4-3 is because its not expected. if teams could scheme against it regularly-the pats would have problems.

I think the beauty of drafting players who have a 3-4 two gap skill set is that almost all of them can be used effectively in 4-3 defenses but usually not vice-versa. I mean a guy like Dwight Freeney could not play OLB immediately, but Vrabel could play DE. It seems like the hardest transition is going from your hand on the ground, to playing standing up. 4-3 ends like Jevon Kearse, Simeon Rice, etc just couldn't (and probably wouldn't) make the transition in order for those teams to switch between 4-3 and 3-4 week to week.
Wilfork would definetly not be on the bench if we ran a 4-3. His role would be similar to a Pat Williams or Sam Adams. One of the 4-3 DT's almost always plays sort of a two gap role anyway.
With a 4-3 set I see a rotation of Vrabel, Green, Warren, Colvin, Mincey, Wright at DE.
I just think were going to see a lot more of 4-3 than the last three years. We just don't have the linbacker depth.

 

[spacecrime]

First of all , if you re-read my intial post I was questioning a larger role for the
4-3 option. I didn't say abandon the 3-4.

Not going to call you cranky but you do sound like a text book.
You know far more that I do about this stuff I am quite sure.
What you say may be technically correct but I think you may
underestimate what some the PATs players can do.

Can PATs put a very fast front 7 like Colts ... no. But is that the only way
you can have a successful 4-3?

Consider Seymour and Wilfork in the middle. Those two alone give you
a massive advantage. Would you try to run a lot on that tandem?
Assume not. Then that gives you an advantage in playing the run.
I also contend that with those two in the middle, offenses will
limit to some extent what they can do because they will have to game
plan for those two.

Green certainly has shown as a DE he can be a good rusher. The
big question is Warren. But we have seen him in pursuit often and being
pretty good at it. Certainly he can hold his own at RDE. I thought I read
Wright would be a good DE in the 4-3.

But LB is where it could be a problem unless Beisel, one PATs fastest LBs, becomes
a good MLB that gives him the range he'd need. Also he has the smarts to do the job I believe.
Clovin? Wasn't he herald as one of the best OLB in the league when in
the Bears 4-3? So that leaves Vrabel. We have seen him in coverage and
he does OK. The only concern might be his speed. But there are probably
other options here. Tebucky has been taking turns at LB .. He has size speed
and coverage ability. ... there mybe options here rather than just saying
PATs can't do it and it would be terrible.

But then there is Belchick. Do you really believe he could not put together
and effective 4-3 D with the players he has? I wouldn't bet on it.
I really think you underrate our players. Again they won't be a fast front 7
like Colts but that is not the only one way to man a 4-3 D. Right?

If because of injury PATs are weak at the ILB position
which becomes a liability like last year what do you do? Say ... we are a
3-4 D and we'll just stay in this alignment and personnel grouping even though
there may be other options?

This all makes sense to me!

 

[Brady'sButtBoy]

I love the energy here, but the folks who just seem to KNOW that BB will always, forever, until the end of time, be a 3-4 guy who only dabbles in the 4-3 need to relax. Frankly, none of you, nor any of us, are certain what BB will do this year. If one dude (and I agree with him) figures the Pats will feature more 4-3 than ever and offers a decent argument for his position, why does he merit such condescending vitriol? No one from this page is calling the shots and neither will your patsfans.com 'rep' be besmirched by failing to be correct every time.

 

[arrellbee]

First of all, let me say that there are a lot of really good comments and observations. I am not trying to take away from these in any way.

But I remain very very puzzled as to why folks continue to seem to want, or at least expect, the Pats to use a 4-3 defense more or even for the majority of downs. The 3-4 scheme got us 3 superbowls. What is the infatuation with the 4-3 ??

One pertinent comment is to observe that perhaps the LB strength and depth is less and that this would encourage Belichick to emphasize the 4-3 more. And yet, the evidence doesn't support this. The LB corps could not have been any weaker than at the start of last year with Bruschi and Johnson gone. And the DL was at full strength up until week 5 when Seymour went out. And yet, Belichick stayed with the 3-4. In a playoff game (Jacksonville) no less, with Bruschi out and the DL at full strength, he still went with the 3-4 for 3 out of 4 quarters. So what is different THIS year ?? - especially when Bruschi is more likely than going to be there from early in the season ?? I just don't see it - sorry about that.

 

[Ichiro]

First of all, let me say that there are a lot of really good comments and observations. I am not trying to take away from these in any way.

But I remain very very puzzled as to why folks continue to seem to want, or at least expect, the Pats to use a 4-3 defense more or even for the majority of downs. The 3-4 scheme got us 3 superbowls. What is the infatuation with the 4-3 ??

One pertinent comment is to observe that perhaps the LB strength and depth is less and that this would encourage Belichick to emphasize the 4-3 more. And yet, the evidence doesn't support this. The LB corps could not have been any weaker than at the start of last year with Bruschi and Johnson gone. And the DL was at full strength up until week 5 when Seymour went out. And yet, Belichick stayed with the 3-4. In a playoff game (Jacksonville) no less, with Bruschi out and the DL at full strength, he still went with the 3-4 for 3 out of 4 quarters. So what is different THIS year ?? - especially when Bruschi is more likely than going to be there from early in the season ?? I just don't see it - sorry about that.

My infatuation with the 4-3 stems from having Seymour, now our best playmaker, let loose to make plays. Seymour lines up almost always against the other teams left tackle in the 3-4, often the strongest and most athletic OL. Moving him around in the 4-3 will give him more favorable matchups.
I love the 3-4, teams cannot run the ball against it like the 4-3 and the ability to create pressure from a variety of LB blitzes really kept most opponents off balance(especially the ones who don't see or practice against it).
But now I think two things have changed:
1. More and more teams either are changing to a 3-4 or have the ability to run a it a little. Teams are more familiar with it and the schemes to run against it. The NFL catches up very quickly
2. Our players have changed, especially the LB's. I think the ability to play ILB in the 3-4 is a rare commodity, especially among younger players out of college. We can all see the huge question marks we have at that position. I believe the 4-3 emphasizes the ability of DL to beat one on one blocking and is not as read and react as the 3-4. I don't know if we have recovered from the losses of Phifer, T. Johnson and Willie Mcginest, all guys who really made the 3-4 work.

The only hesistation I have about switching to it as our base is our LB's ability to cover and run. We don't have enough (or any?) coverage type LB's like Derrick Brooks, Cato June etc

Hey that's just my opinion, and I'm 100% behind whatever BB decides.

 

[arrellbee]

My infatuation with the 4-3 stems from having Seymour, now our best playmaker, let loose to make plays.

That would certainly be a BIG plus (to also make a play on words). Undoubtedly this MUST be something Belichick weighs in his tradeoffs on schemes.

Our players have changed, especially the LB's. I think the ability to play ILB in the 3-4 is a rare commodity, especially among younger players out of college. We can all see the huge question marks we have at that position.

Very pertinent - I certainly agree.

I believe the 4-3 emphasizes the ability of DL to beat one on one blocking and is not as read and react as the 3-4.

Well, I don't know that I can pinpoint all of the differences, but it certainly is an interesting point. I think it is correct to say that, in the 4-3, the DL have a higher responsibility to both stop the run and put pressure on the QB. So that seems like an increased need for the DL to read and react in order to execute properly depending on the type of offensive play (rather than less read and react). It seems like the read and react in the 3-4 shifts more to the LBs because they have increased responsibility to stop the run while still having to handle short pass coverage responsibilities.

I don't know if we have recovered from the losses of Phifer, T. Johnson and Willie Mcginest, all guys who really made the 3-4 work.

Well, we know that they filled out a very effective LB corps. And that is always the question, isn't it ? Can new guys step up and contribute well enough to win another superbowl. We certainly know that, from the first to the third superbowl, that there were many significant changes in personnel in key positions that made Pats fans very apprehensive but that things worked out each time despite the worry. But each time, we wonder if this time Belichick and Pioli can do it again - only natural. Personally, I think we have a very reasonable shot that players will step up. Only the season will tell us.

The only hesistation I have about switching to it as our base is our LB's ability to cover and run. We don't have enough (or any?) coverage type LB's like Derrick Brooks, Cato June etc

You know, I need help with this one. It certainly has been mentioned by a LOT of folks, but I don't get it so maybe somebody can provide some info. As far as I can tell, even in a 3-4, the LBs still have every bit as much responsibility for short range coverage as in a 4-3 and have to do it as effectively. Don't they ? I'm pretty sure there's nobody else around to do it. In fact, you could even make the case that they have to be even BETTER than 4-3 LBs !! After all, I think we figure that the DL in the 3-4 don't get as much pressure on the QB, so the QB should have slightly more freedom tiime to take 3 step drops and hit backs or TEs or slot receivers in short crossing patterns. ?? Perhaps you can even make another case that the 3-4 LBs have to be BETTER in drop coverage because they pick up more responsibility to stay home to defend the run and perhaps have to hesitate slightly to make their read and then STILL have to handle their coverage assignment as effectively. ??

Hey that's just my opinion, and I'm 100% behind whatever BB decides.

You and me both.

Thanks for the interesting thoughts and discussion.

 

[jimleehunt]

JR4- you said "a lot more 4-3"-i assumed that to mean that the pats would become PRIMARILY a 4-3 team. as I said before, the pats have successfully used the 4-3 over the last few years-but a lot of that success is due to it being a change of pace from their 3-4. they would NOT be successful with the 4-3 as their base,while occassionally working in the 3-4. bb has drafted, signed and trained players for his 3-4 2 gap. they simply dont have the personnel to be a mostly 4-3.
bradybuttboy- never said bb would ALWAYS use the 3-4 as a base. where did THAT come from? i said that the current personnel was built for the 3-4 2 gap and is not capable of playing the 4-3 as a base with anywhere near as much success. thats just common sense. bb is a creative genius. he changes looks more than any other team. if nfl teams started consistently being successful vs. the 3-4-of course,hed change. but he would have to change some personnel. what you and jr4 are saying is similar to saying the red sox need to start stealing more bases and relying less on homers. so they should have big papi and manny each steal 50 bases this year, and try to bunt their way on every time. thats not their skill set. almost all of the pats dl would be dts in a 4-3. there are no des. vrable and colvin could do it, but then youre short lbs.
ichiro/arrelbee- both of you make some interesting points. i agree 100% about seymour-as good as he is in the 3-4-if he were playing only 4-3 dt(non-2gap), he might set an nfl record for sacks by a dt. can you imagine seymour and wilfork at dt with 2 decent passrushing des? a scary dl. thats the ONLY advantage i see with a 4-3. the 3-4 is, overall, a much better D. theres also the salary cap-4-3 des usually get more $ than 4-3 dts-so the pats would have inferior players at other positions. and i dont see nfl teams catching on to the 3-4 soon-only a few teams play the 3-4- so its like having a good lefty starter in baseball. i know bb says all of his d's, 4-3 included, are gap-control, but i think hes being sly. i have seen the pats use the 4-3 where seymour was obviously trying to penetrate the backfield in a hurry. i dont think bb ever '" always" does anything.(unless nobody can stop it.) he mixes it up.

 

[JR4]

Apparently the 4-3 is being used a lot more in practice which should
relate to more use during game time.
Someone reported that they used the 4-3 D almost all practice yesterday.

I guess BB thinks they got the 3-4 down pretty well and they need to
get better at 4-3 for versalitity.
I wonder if BB thinks he has the players to play 4-3 most of the time.
That would be a good PC question.

BTW in the preseason game against Atlanta -- how much 3-4 did they use?