Reason(s) behind the switch to a 4-3?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from USMCM1A1. Show USMCM1A1's posts

    Re: Reason(s) behind the switch to a 4-3?

    In Response to Re: Reason(s) behind the switch to a 4-3?:
    [QUOTE]there is good reason to beileve it is missdirection
    Posted by weloveme2[/QUOTE]

    Trading for players, releasing players, spending millions of your cap space, all for a misdirection.

    BRILLIANT!
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from tompenny. Show tompenny's posts

    Re: Reason(s) behind the switch to a 4-3?

    You don't try to fit a square peg into a round hole. That's what terrible coaches do in any sport. You evaluate the talent and play whatever system will maximize it. If they switch to primarily 4-3 it's obviously because he doesn't think the team will be as good in 3-4 or vise versa.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Reason(s) behind the switch to a 4-3?

    I am of the belief that if your run a sub package on defense over 50 % of the time then you have no base defense!
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Reason(s) behind the switch to a 4-3?

    In Response to Re: Reason(s) behind the switch to a 4-3?:
    [QUOTE]I am of the belief that if your run a sub package on defense over 50 % of the time then you have no base defense!
    Posted by TrueChamp[/QUOTE]

    Or no good one.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Reason(s) behind the switch to a 4-3?

    Or maybe a great one . . . 

    When BB's defense is at its best, it isn't easy to categorize and it continually changes.  That's the defense back in 2003 . . . it looked different every game and it frequently changed within the game.  

    The reality is with offenses doing more from spread formations and passing on early downs, the concept of a "base" defense for 1st and 2nd downs maybe isn't as relevant as it once was. 




     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from AcrossDaPond. Show AcrossDaPond's posts

    Re: Reason(s) behind the switch to a 4-3?

    In Response to Re: Reason(s) behind the switch to a 4-3?:
    [QUOTE]You don't try to fit a square peg into a round hole. That's what terrible coaches do in any sport. You evaluate the talent and play whatever system will maximize it. If they switch to primarily 4-3 it's obviously because he doesn't think the team will be as good in 3-4 or vise versa.
    Posted by tompenny[/QUOTE]

    Didn't BB learn this the hard way in Cleveland?
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from digger0862. Show digger0862's posts

    Re: Reason(s) behind the switch to a 4-3?

    In Response to Re: Reason(s) behind the switch to a 4-3?:
    [QUOTE]Or maybe a great one . . .  When BB's defense is at its best, it isn't easy to categorize and it continually changes.  That's the defense back in 2003 . . . it looked different every game and it frequently changed within the game.   The reality is with offenses doing more from spread formations and passing on early downs, the concept of a "base" defense for 1st and 2nd downs maybe isn't as relevant as it once was. 
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]
    Good point. Belichick's defense can also be very difficult to learn.

    The Patriots have one of the youngest defenses in the NFL. With another year of learning, they can now scheme more. Opposing offenses will find it much harder to prepare a game plan if they have no idea what kind of defense they will be lining up against.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Payment84. Show Payment84's posts

    Re: Reason(s) behind the switch to a 4-3?

    In Response to Re: Reason(s) behind the switch to a 4-3?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Reason(s) behind the switch to a 4-3? : Sometimes I think he also just likes be different.  The smartest guy in the room never just does what everyone thinks he'll do.  Thats why hes the smartest guy in the room.  If idiots could predict his moves then they would be coaching...
    Posted by AcrossDaPond[/QUOTE]

    You hit the nail on the head...  Why change "20 years of 3-4"?  Because you're the smartest coach out there and you CAN!  I'm still not sold that we actually will run a 4 man front as our base, only because this topic comes up every preseason...  Either way we're all excited to see if Big Al and Wilfork the walrus can terrorize other teams like we're all fantasizing about...
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from dna53. Show dna53's posts

    Re: Reason(s) behind the switch to a 4-3?

    Don't believe all the talk ...do you remember 2005 Chad Brown and Monty Biesal? They practiced the 4-3 all preseason then went back to the 3-4..and I don't know why people make so much of this..they are only in the base formation 33 percent of the time..offenses dictate what personnel has to be on the field...the Pats always use 4 man fronts but Belichick prefers the versatility of the 3-4 base...they have been practicing with 4 man fronts to work on their pass rushing technique...they have been teaching the the 2 gap technique and the also use the 2 gap in a 4 man front so what is the diference?

    60maxpowero.com
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from James-B. Show James-B's posts

    Re: Reason(s) behind the switch to a 4-3?

    Also, some food for thought.....obviously, the team to beat in the AFC East has been the Patriots for quite sometime now, having always mainly used the 3-4; other teams in the division, more specifically the Jets, have built there offenses around this, so maybe it's a BB strategy move to change it up?  Just a thought........
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from AcrossDaPond. Show AcrossDaPond's posts

    Re: Reason(s) behind the switch to a 4-3?

    In Response to Re: Reason(s) behind the switch to a 4-3?:
    [QUOTE]Also, some food for thought.....obviously, the team to beat in the AFC East has been the Patriots for quite sometime now, having always mainly used the 3-4; other teams in the division, more specifically the Jets, have built there offenses around this, so maybe it's a BB strategy move to change it up?  Just a thought........
    Posted by James-B[/QUOTE]


    BB always strives to be 2 steps ahead of the curve.  If our division has been building to beat the pats 3-4 for the last decade it makes perfect sense to switch to a D front that takes advantage of that fact.

    Also we now have a middle linebacker who can thump RB's up the middle, apoligies to Brusci and co, but BSpikes is a new type of player for us.  It's going to let us send 4 DL after the QB every down we are in the front, maybe giving us the passrush that's been absent these last yrs...

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Reason(s) behind the switch to a 4-3?

    In Response to Re: Reason(s) behind the switch to a 4-3?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Reason(s) behind the switch to a 4-3? : BB always strives to be 2 steps ahead of the curve.  If our division has been building to beat the pats 3-4 for the last decade it makes perfect sense to switch to a D front that takes advantage of that fact. Also we now have a middle linebacker who can thump RB's up the middle, apoligies to Brusci and co, but BSpikes is a new type of player for us.  It's going to let us send 4 DL after the QB every down we are in the front, maybe giving us the passrush that's been absent these last yrs...
    Posted by AcrossDaPond[/QUOTE]

    He looks like a more athletic Ted Johnson to me, which is good. Spikes showed that he can blitz and Belichick said he has a knack for it; that would be huge, especialy when you factor him, Haynesworth and Wilfork all coming from the middle.

    The thing that worries me with Spikes in a 43 is that he would be asked to cover more ground. Is that going to be a huge problem? You'd have to think they would of course bring him out on certain situations or maybe shift Mayo there, but then you lose that blitz from the middle with him. Another thing that worries me is his off the field stuff. Can you count on him? He let this team down big time last year, with the drug suspension and sex video and he came back from the suspension not ready to play (Belichick said his conditioning left a lot to be desired).

    I say when you have a coach like Bill, he would put this guy in the middle and be able to hide him when needed.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Reason(s) behind the switch to a 4-3?

    In Response to Re: Reason(s) behind the switch to a 4-3?:
    [QUOTE]Also, some food for thought.....obviously, the team to beat in the AFC East has been the Patriots for quite sometime now, having always mainly used the 3-4; other teams in the division, more specifically the Jets, have built there offenses around this, so maybe it's a BB strategy move to change it up?  Just a thought........
    Posted by James-B[/QUOTE]

    Really good point here.  BB is trying to stay ahead of the offenses in the league by introducing defensive schemes they aren't prepared for. . . and he's also trying to stay ahead of other teams in defensive talent acquisition.  Back in 2001 he was able to bring in a bunch of good 3-4 OLBs because no one was using them.  (He also was able to avoid all the bidding wars for 4-3 DEs back then.) Now with so many teams relying on 3-4, maybe he's looking for something different to do on defense so he's not having to compete with so many teams for the limited supply of great 3-4 players.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Reason(s) behind the switch to a 4-3?

    In Response to Re: Reason(s) behind the switch to a 4-3?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Reason(s) behind the switch to a 4-3? : He looks like a more athletic Ted Johnson to me, which is good. Spikes showed that he can blitz and Belichick said he has a knack for it; that would be huge, especialy when you factor him, Haynesworth and Wilfork all coming from the middle. The thing that worries me with Spikes in a 43 is that he would be asked to cover more ground. Is that going to be a huge problem? You'd have to think they would of course bring him out on certain situations or maybe shift Mayo there, but then you lose that blitz from the middle with him. Another thing that worries me is his off the field stuff. Can you count on him? He let this team down big time last year, with the drug suspension and sex video and he came back from the suspension not ready to play (Belichick said his conditioning left a lot to be desired). I say when you have a coach like Bill, he would put this guy in the middle and be able to hide him when needed.
    Posted by mthurl[/QUOTE]

    Maybe he does something with the trio of Wilfork, Haynesworth, and Spikes playing the center of the field and focusing on run defense in the middle gaps and collapsing the pocket on passing plays, then employs three more versatile LBs (Mayo, Guyton, and Cunningham) and a big safety around that core of Wilfork, Haynesworth, and Spikes to handle pass coverage and protect the edge on running plays. This would limit Spikes use in pass coverage--he'd almost be used as a DL (probably rushing the passer on pass plays), except he'd be lined up in an MLB position.  Then you'd have faster guys around Spikes to handle short zones in pass coverage. 
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Reason(s) behind the switch to a 4-3?

    In Response to Re: Reason(s) behind the switch to a 4-3?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Reason(s) behind the switch to a 4-3? : Maybe he does something with the trio of Wilfork, Haynesworth, and Spikes playing the center of the field and focusing on run defense in the middle gaps and collapsing the pocket on passing plays, then employs three more versatile LBs (Mayo, Guyton, and Cunningham) and a big safety around that core of Wilfork, Haynesworth, and Spikes to handle pass coverage and protect the edge on running plays. This would limit Spikes use in pass coverage--he'd almost be used as a DL (probably rushing the passer on pass plays), except he'd be lined up in an MLB position.  Then you'd have faster guys around Spikes to handle short zones in pass coverage. 
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE

    Almost a 2-5-4. 2 down linemen(the big guys) 4 Lbs, 3 safeties(1 as run support) and 2 cbs! We saw this last year against pass heavy teams. This is the point, we have the personnel to constantly scheme to our opponent. I think the entire 3-4 4-3 debate is much to do about nothing.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Paul_K. Show Paul_K's posts

    Re: Reason(s) behind the switch to a 4-3?

    If nothing else, the defense is being engineered to beat the Patriots' prime divisional opponent. 

    The Jets usually have a preeminent offensive line (a couple of whom are out this year) and a Sanchise quarterback who sucks his thumb if teams get after him.  So, the solution is to have two monster interior defensive linemen who knife through single teams and sometimes double teams with brute strength and then get after the guy with the football.  The Pats will certainly play a 4-3 or a 5-2 against the Jets.

    If the Patriots can manage to put two Jets games in their pocket, and they haven't done that the last two years, then they certainly get one home playoff game and they are one game closer to homefield advantage against whoever else shows up in the AFC.

    Miami also features a big hulking line and a quarterback who gets booed by his own fans.  "Or-ton!  Or-ton!"  The current QB's name is not Orton.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: Reason(s) behind the switch to a 4-3?

    Wow... yet another switch to a 4/3 defense thread.

    Haynesworth was a malcontent in Washington because he got all his upfront money, then he wanted out. According to the quote from the defensive coordinator there he complained about playing the 3/4, then he complained about playing a 4 man front in nickel packages... he complained the towels weren't Downey fresh... he complained.

    That's how great players locked into a long term contract get off terrible teams... they complain.  BB revolutionized the 3/4 defense, the 4/3 is an antiquated, dumbed down defense, he's not switching to anything...
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Paul_K. Show Paul_K's posts

    Re: Reason(s) behind the switch to a 4-3?

    In Response to Re: Reason(s) behind the switch to a 4-3?:
    [QUOTE] he complained the towels weren't Downey fresh...
    Posted by wozzy[/QUOTE]
    Not a good sign.  You can get a bit stoned on the toluene vapors emitted from Downy fabric softener. 

    Airplane glue sniffing does this too.  Other stupid kids huff Glade air freshener in plastic bags and pass out and get permanent dead brain cells.  That's why they got stupid in the first place.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheFantasyBaron. Show TheFantasyBaron's posts

    Re: Reason(s) behind the switch to a 4-3?

    Hi everyone, great to be a NE fans these days!

    I did a little bit of light reading, http://football.calsci.com/DefensiveLine2.html, and here is the problem I have with the 4-3 as quoted from the source aforementioned. Please read some snippets below that raise some good points if you agree with the source.

    Here are the important points I took away.
    1. Awesome DE's are key to a good 4-3 defense - the Pats don't have them.
    2. The 3-4 traditionally struggles against the pass - really?
    3. In the 3-4 all 4 LBs need to be good in pass coverage - how about just 1 or 2 like the Pats?
    4. The 4-3 defense is better against the pass.

    "It's very difficult to find two good, fast, 290 pound defensive ends to make your 4-3 work. If you do find them, they're worth $5m to $12M per year each. If you don't find them, you're in for a very long season of living and dying by the blitz. The best defenses have these guys and do very little blitzing."

    "In the 4-3 defense, you need two very large and athletic defensive tackles and two somewhat large and very athletic defensive ends. These guys are very hard to find. It seems there's about one excellent defensive end prospect in each draft, which is not nearly enough to go around. If you can't find a couple of good defensive ends, you're in for a long season of living and dying by the blitz. One reaction to this has been to develop the 3-4 defense. In this defense, you need one really large nose tackle."

    "The 3-4 defense was motivated by two factors: the difficulty in getting good defensive ends, and the need to stop very fast running backs. This is the strength of the 3-4. The DTs keep the offensive linemen off your linebackers, leaving them free to roam the field and bring down runners."

    "Unfortunately, the 3-4 has a weakness. Three DTs cannot reliably collapse the five offensive lineman pocket on the quarterback, so it becomes much harder to pressure the quarterback. Traditionally, the 3-4 has struggled against the pass."

    "If the 3-4 defense finds itself late in a game protecting a lead, there is no need to switch to a prevent defense. Since all four linebackers are skilled in coverage, you can just drop all four of them into zones, playing eight men in zone coverage. It's next to impossible to do this with a 4-3 defense." 

    "So in summary, the more traditional 4-3 defense seems better suited to the modern pass-friendly NFL rules, while the 3-4 defense seems more geared to stop the run based offenses of the 70s and 80s. However, by mixing up the rushers and zone coverages to confuse the quarterback and by forcing the receivers to play a far more physical game than they would wish, the 3-4 has been successful at the highest levels, in spite of its apparent drawbacks."

    In conclusion it appears NE doesn't have the guns to make either of these defenses work correctly. Lack of 4 down coverage LB's and/or lack of quality edge personell is a problem until BB brings in some edge help.

    Back to square one and finding elite edge talent - BB needs to make one or two moves in that direction before the seaon begins.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share