3-4 vs 4-3 Preference

[aReggie7]

With a new head coach the question will always be what offensive and defensive schemes he will run.

 

I think many on here prefer to stick with the 3-4 or this hybrid scheme. Personally, I want to see the Colts go to some version of the 4-3.

 

The reason for this is it appears harder to find players to fit the 3-4 scheme. Mainly you need versatile linebackers otherwise what is the point of the 3-4? Overall, a 3-4 defense is likely to require using higher draft picks on defense and more veterans which leaves less cap space for the offense. Plus, given the injury problems I think it’s even more important to look at running a defense that isn’t so dependent on veterans.

 

To summarize, I think a 3-4 defense takes longer to build and requires more resources (draft picks and cap space) to build and maintain. Regardless of the current scheme I don’t think the Colts defense is good. I think Chris Ballard can assemble a good 4-3 defense quicker than a good 3-4 defense. Does anyone agree? Maybe my viewpoint on this is outdated.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

5 minutes ago, ar7 said:

Does anyone agree?

 

I think you're right.  But both can be expensive since you need a play-maker in the front-7.  JJ Watt and Von Miller could probably excel in either scheme, but they're gonna need $100 million either way.  And offenses today are forcing a lot more nickel-defense anyway, so athletic LBs and DBs are turning the "front-7" into the "front-6".

 

22 minutes ago, ar7 said:

Maybe my viewpoint on this is outdated.

 

Now it's 4-2 vs 2-4 vs 3-3 vs 5-1 vs 1-5... etc.  You can get VERY creative with your "front-6" when you're playing nickel (if you have the personnel).  Think of those crazy Ravens formations where there would be one DL with his hand in the dirt, then like FIVE linebackers roaming around the LOS before the snap, then rushing 3 of them on the QBs' blind-side.

 

Ideally, we'd have a true hybrid defense full of both role-players and versatile do-everything players, that can play any defense against any offense, but that's just a pipe-dream.

 

Especially if you also want a hybrid offense that can go downfield and score quick, or "matriculate" the ball methodically down the field to kill clock.  There's just not enough $ to go around for all these millionaires...

 

[Peterk2011]

There are no pure 3-4 or 4-3 systems any more, so whatever we do will be some hybrid of this or that (or both).

 

But. Ballard has already begun putting together a 3-4 (based) defense. Actually, the most resources he has spent on was the dline, which would be affected the most by such a schematic change. I have further problems with this idea, for example I don't see Anderson's, Simon's, Mingo's role in a 4-3 defense, no matter how "hybrid" is that. They just dont fit. Even Sheard is a bit undersized for a 4-3 DE. Then a 4-3 defense - again, regardless of variety - relies strongly on the MLB. It can very easily fall apart without a very good MLB (see Dallas without Lee). I don't see where the Colts could acquire one, other than the draft. But MLB is not easy to learn, it might take a year (or even years) to learn the position. So the first year(s) would be painful.

 

Anyway, it is up in the air, we will see, but I am almost certain, that the new DC will be a 3-4 guy. Some kind of it. Why would Ballard take the burden of resetting again, when he doesn't need to? I don't see any 4-3 DC candidate out there who is available, and would worth the extras because he is that good.

[Four2itus]

The Colts success with their 4-3 leaned on a quick start big play offense. We are far from that at this point in time. IMO, it is not the time to switch. Way too much switching for this team on many levels...and we are about to switch head coaches again..and likely coordinators. 

[jameszeigler834]

10 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

I think you're right.  But both can be expensive since you need a play-maker in the front-7.  JJ Watt and Von Miller could probably excel in either scheme, but they're gonna need $100 million either way.  And offenses today are forcing a lot more nickel-defense anyway, so athletic LBs and DBs are turning the "front-7" into the "front-6".

 

 

Now it's 4-2 vs 2-4 vs 3-3 vs 5-1 vs 1-5... etc.  You can get VERY creative with your "front-6" when you're playing nickel (if you have the personnel).  Think of those crazy Ravens formations where there would be one DL with his hand in the dirt, then like FIVE linebackers roaming around the LOS before the snap, then rushing 3 of them on the QBs' blind-side.

 

Ideally, we'd have a true hybrid defense full of both role-players and versatile do-everything players, that can play any defense against any offense, but that's just a pipe-dream.

 

Especially if you also want a hybrid offense that can go downfield and score quick, or "matriculate" the ball methodically down the field to kill clock.  There's just not enough $ to go around for all these millionaires...

 

We can make the 3-4 work with a better defensive Coordinator.

[Jason_]

42 minutes ago, Four2itus said:

The Colts success with their 4-3 leaned on a quick start big play offense. We are far from that at this point in time. IMO, it is not the time to switch. Way too much switching for this team on many levels...and we are about to switch head coaches again..and likely coordinators. 

 

That was more to do specifically with Dungy's tampa 2 scheme than it was with it being a 4-3 defense.  There are many different variants of a 4-3 defense.  Dungy's was only one specific type.

[colt18]

3-4 defense please

 

 

I'd appreciate us being able to stop the run

[GoColts8818]

Which ever one provides a good defense I am for.  The key is having good players and a good coach calling plays not a 4/3 or 3/4.  If it was the later all the teams in the league would run that defense.

[Defjamz26]

A 4-3 is easier to find players for. There aren’t a lot of top tier prospects who come out and project best to a 3-4. In particular, most elite edge rushers who come out are ideal 4-3 DEs. That’s why Dontari Poe went as high as he did. You never find elite 3-5 NT prospects with those type of measureables. 

[a06cc]

I like the direction the defense is heading. Colts have had some of their worst years running 4-3. That was mostly due to having smaller players. I don’t want to see that happening again. 

[DraftMaster]

2 hours ago, GoColts8818 said:

Which ever one provides a good defense I am for.  The key is having good players and a good coach calling plays not a 4/3 or 3/4.  If it was the later all the teams in the league would run that defense.

Agree. Let's get fast and aggressive players on our defense to win games!

[Peterk2011]

58 minutes ago, Defjamz26 said:

A 4-3 is easier to find players for. There aren’t a lot of top tier prospects who come out and project best to a 3-4. In particular, most elite edge rushers who come out are ideal 4-3 DEs. That’s why Dontari Poe went as high as he did. You never find elite 3-5 NT prospects with those type of measureables. 

 

Building a team from scrach, maybe it's easier. But changing to 4-3 from 3-4 might be more difficult than sticking to 3-4. For example, 4-3 DE is the most expensive element of the 4-3 front. Who could fit there on the current roster? Correct me if I'm wrong, but Simon is far too small. as well as Mingo. Sheard is kind of a tweener, he could play DE, but he's still small for the position. He did play 4-3 DE in Boston though, but his snapcounts reflected that. His body couldn't take as many snaps at 4-3 DE as he played in Indy as a 3-4 LB without any problem. Basham might be a fit, but he is very young and not ready to take the starting role. Anderson is a typical 3-4 DE, he is too small for the inside, and too slow and big for the outside. Is there anyone else? If not, then I don't see Ballard acquiring 2 expensive DE's.

 

Btw, Mike Tomlin was a 4-3 defensive guy when signed to Pittsburgh, and his original intention was to change the Steelers 3-4 defense to 4-3. Until he realized, that he doesn't have the personnel to line up in a 4-3 front. So he stuck to 3-4, and Pittsburgh is still running 3-4 ever since. The new Colts DC might just think similarly, even if coming from a 4-3 school.

[aaron11]

28 minutes ago, Peterk2011 said:

 

Building a team from scrach, maybe it's easier. But changing to 4-3 from 3-4 might be more difficult than sticking to 3-4. For example, 4-3 DE is the most expensive element of the 4-3 front. Who could fit there on the current roster? Correct me if I'm wrong, but Simon is far too small. as well as Mingo. Sheard is kind of a tweener, he could play DE, but he's still small for the position. He did play 4-3 DE in Boston though, but his snapcounts reflected that. His body couldn't take as many snaps at 4-3 DE as he played in Indy as a 3-4 LB without any problem. Basham might be a fit, but he is very young and not ready to take the starting role. Anderson is a typical 3-4 DE, he is too small for the inside, and too slow and big for the outside. Is there anyone else? If not, then I don't see Ballard acquiring 2 expensive DE's.

 

Btw, Mike Tomlin was a 4-3 defensive guy when signed to Pittsburgh, and his original intention was to change the Steelers 3-4 defense to 4-3. Until he realized, that he doesn't have the personnel to line up in a 4-3 front. So he stuck to 3-4, and Pittsburgh is still running 3-4 ever since. The new Colts DC might just think similarly, even if coming from a 4-3 school.

sheard and chubb could be our DEs

 

simon  would be an OLB, probably strong side.  mingo is a FA, if he comes back it would most likely be as simons back up regardless of 4-3 or 3-4

 

anderson may not fit in a 4-3 i wouldnt let that stop me, he hasnt played much anyway 

 

[Defjamz26]

44 minutes ago, Peterk2011 said:

 

Building a team from scrach, maybe it's easier. But changing to 4-3 from 3-4 might be more difficult than sticking to 3-4. For example, 4-3 DE is the most expensive element of the 4-3 front. Who could fit there on the current roster? Correct me if I'm wrong, but Simon is far too small. as well as Mingo. Sheard is kind of a tweener, he could play DE, but he's still small for the position. He did play 4-3 DE in Boston though, but his snapcounts reflected that. His body couldn't take as many snaps at 4-3 DE as he played in Indy as a 3-4 LB without any problem. Basham might be a fit, but he is very young and not ready to take the starting role. Anderson is a typical 3-4 DE, he is too small for the inside, and too slow and big for the outside. Is there anyone else? If not, then I don't see Ballard acquiring 2 expensive DE's.

 

Btw, Mike Tomlin was a 4-3 defensive guy when signed to Pittsburgh, and his original intention was to change the Steelers 3-4 defense to 4-3. Until he realized, that he doesn't have the personnel to line up in a 4-3 front. So he stuck to 3-4, and Pittsburgh is still running 3-4 ever since. The new Colts DC might just think similarly, even if coming from a 4-3 school.

The personal will be easier to replace if necessary. But remember that this is a long term process. The new coach should not be handcuffed to the 3-4 simply because we already have the personnel for it. Trying to have all the answers too soon was Grigson’s problem. 

 

Besides we don’t have much invested in most of these guys anyways. Simon and Sheard only have another 2 seasons and a lot of the other 2017 FA either have expiring contracts or only another year on their deals left. Same is true for younger guys on rookie deals like Anderson and Ridgeway.

 

Look at Wade Phillips. Wherever he goes he instantly knows installs a 3-4. They play to his strengths and don’t worry about what’s already in place. The 3-4 shouldn’t define the Colts defensively. You’d be doing the DC a disservice by forcing him to stick to a particular scheme. Especially if we’re talking about a brand new regime.

 

That would also be a terrible way to conduct a coaching search as well. I hope a preference for the 3-4 isn’t a prerequisite for the job. You’d be severely limiting your candidate pool.

[IinD]

After seeing them both fail for long stretches for us. I really don't care honestly.

 

I have a hard time seeing either one working well without any pass rushers.

 

I mean we're pathetic at rushing the passer so I don't know which is better honestly. We don't have an olb or de who can rush.

[Peterk2011]

4 minutes ago, Defjamz26 said:

Look at Wade Phillips. Wherever he goes he instantly knows installs a 3-4. They play to his strengths and don’t worry about what’s already in place. The 3-4 shouldn’t define the Colts defensively. You’d be doing the DC a disservice by forcing him to stick to a particular scheme. Especially if we’re talking about a brand new regime.

 

That would also be a terrible way to conduct a coaching search as well. I hope a preference for the 3-4 isn’t a prerequisite for the job. You’d be severely limiting your candidate pool.

 

Well, Philips is not a good example, because when he arrived in Denver, that defense was already better suited for 3-4 than 4-3. They played 4-3 hybrid because Del Rio forced it on them. Same can be said for the Rams. They had the personnel in house to implement a 3-4 right away. I'm not convinced that it wasn't the case, McVay hired Phillips...

 

I agree, scheme alone should not limit the coaching search. I think it wont anyway. The two favourite HC candidates are related to the Chiefs (3-4) and if they win the job, the'll probably bring someone from that organization / tree / school. McDaniels can't bring his DC from the Patriots because Patricia will probably be gone, so I doubt McDaniels wants to lowball Belichick by taking another guy from there So he'll probably pick someone else. His last DC was Nolan in Denver. He ran 3-4. So not much potential 4-3 on the horizon.

 

 

[Buddy Lee]

It took us years to get the D personnel converted over for the 3-4 from the 4-3. This was the first year we had the right kind of NT (Woods). We are a rush OLB and two ILBs from being in good shape personnel wise. Moving to a 4-3 would put us much further away for the number of pieces to add. Please, let's not squander two/three more of Luck's best years jockeying the defense. Besides, I believe the 3-4 has a higher ceiling.

[throwing BBZ]

12 minutes ago, Buddy Lee said:

It took us years to get the D personnel converted over for the 3-4 from the 4-3. This was the first year we had the right kind of NT (Woods). We are a rush OLB and two ILBs from being in good shape personnel wise. Moving to a 4-3 would put us much further away for the number of pieces to add. Please, let's not squander two/three more of Luck's best years jockeying the defense. Besides, I believe the 3-4 has a higher ceiling.

 

 Ballard did it in one.
We still need a rush DE/OLB.
We still need two quality LB's that can cover in the 4-2.
And we still need one or more DT's that can rush the passer.
Your team played about 65% in 4-2 and will with whoever we hire.
So what is the big deal with our base anyway?

[OLD FAN MAN]

7 hours ago, ar7 said:

With a new head coach the question will always be what offensive and defensive schemes he will run.

 

I think many on here prefer to stick with the 3-4 or this hybrid scheme. Personally, I want to see the Colts go to some version of the 4-3.

 

The reason for this is it appears harder to find players to fit the 3-4 scheme. Mainly you need versatile linebackers otherwise what is the point of the 3-4? Overall, a 3-4 defense is likely to require using higher draft picks on defense and more veterans which leaves less cap space for the offense. Plus, given the injury problems I think it’s even more important to look at running a defense that isn’t so dependent on veterans.

 

To summarize, I think a 3-4 defense takes longer to build and requires more resources (draft picks and cap space) to build and maintain. Regardless of the current scheme I don’t think the Colts defense is good. I think Chris Ballard can assemble a good 4-3 defense quicker than a good 3-4 defense. Does anyone agree? Maybe my viewpoint on this is outdated.

i agree

[OLD FAN MAN]

6 hours ago, jameszeigler834 said:

We can make the 3-4 work with a better defensive Coordinator.

and four new lbs

[jameszeigler834]

4 minutes ago, OLD FAN MAN said:

and four new lbs

Even 2 would be better than what we saw this year. Although last two to three games this year I liked what I saw out of Anthony Walker last couple of games he looked like he has potential to be really good hope he builds on it in the offseason and shows the new coaching staff something next year.

[BOTT]

Doesn't matter.  I don't really buy that one is more expensive than the other.

[Buddy Lee]

40 minutes ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

 Ballard did it in one.
We still need a rush DE/OLB.
We still need two quality LB's that can cover in the 4-2.
And we still need one or more DT's that can rush the passer.
Your team played about 65% in 4-2 and will with whoever we hire.
So what is the big deal with our base anyway?

Did exactly what in one?

[atapcl]

4 hours ago, a06cc said:

I like the direction the defense is heading. Colts have had some of their worst years running 4-3. That was mostly due to having smaller players. I don’t want to see that happening again. 

I think Our worst are the last several trying to build a 3-4.

[atapcl]

3 hours ago, aaron11 said:

sheard and chubb could be our DEs

 

simon  would be an OLB, probably strong side.  mingo is a FA, if he comes back it would most likely be as simons back up regardless of 4-3 or 3-4

 

anderson may not fit in a 4-3 i wouldnt let that stop me, he hasnt played much anyway 

 

We could poach Ansah from Detroit and pair him with Sheard or Basham. I like Mingo at SSLB and Simon at MLB. We could move Geathers to WSLB. Hankins and Ridgeway could play DTs. I believe we will draft Barkley or Fitzpatrick with our first pick instead of Chubb.

[Douzer]

3-4. Vastly more flexible.

[Jaredfor3]

1 hour ago, Douzer said:

3-4. Vastly more flexible.

I agree.

 

I have noticed too, that defenses can be more complex for the opposing QB with a 3-4. That was the case with Peyton Manning. 

 

 

[crazycolt1]

It really makes no difference if you use 3-4 or 4-3.  You must have the right coordinators and players to make either work.

[NewColtsFan]

8 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

The personal will be easier to replace if necessary. But remember that this is a long term process. The new coach should not be handcuffed to the 3-4 simply because we already have the personnel for it. Trying to have all the answers too soon was Grigson’s problem. 

 

Besides we don’t have much invested in most of these guys anyways. Simon and Sheard only have another 2 seasons and a lot of the other 2017 FA either have expiring contracts or only another year on their deals left. Same is true for younger guys on rookie deals like Anderson and Ridgeway.

 

Look at Wade Phillips. Wherever he goes he instantly knows installs a 3-4. They play to his strengths and don’t worry about what’s already in place. The 3-4 shouldn’t define the Colts defensively. You’d be doing the DC a disservice by forcing him to stick to a particular scheme. Especially if we’re talking about a brand new regime.

 

That would also be a terrible way to conduct a coaching search as well. I hope a preference for the 3-4 isn’t a prerequisite for the job. You’d be severely limiting your candidate pool.

 

I'm not sure where you came up with this,  but this is the first time I've seen you or anyone else ever make that comment.

 

I don't see why anyone would try to summerize Grigson down to one problem.

 

If we took the time to list ALL of Grigson's problems,  we would probably crash this website.....

 

[crazycolt1]

5 hours ago, atapcl said:

We could poach Ansah from Detroit and pair him with Sheard or Basham. I like Mingo at SSLB and Simon at MLB. We could move Geathers to WSLB. Hankins and Ridgeway could play DTs. I believe we will draft Barkley or Fitzpatrick with our first pick instead of Chubb.

Whenever you start moving players into different positions they have played most of their careers it causes more problems. This is not a plug and play league. 

[atapcl]

Everyone listed has played those positions except Simon and Geathers. The current coaching staff talked about moving Geathers but if Simon and Geathers can’t change they could complete at DE and SS respectively. 

[Biggz21]

I prefer 3-4 Defense over 4-3 Defense simply because you generate more exotic pass rush out of 3-4. If you run 4-3 you need 4 down lineman who can get home. (Pass rush ability) and the Middle Linebacker in your scheme had to be versatile he cannot afford to have a weakness he must be able to come up and stop the run efficiently and also be great in coverage. The Outside Linebackers contain the edges and also drop in coverage. In a 3-4 scheme their is more room for error if you have two elite pass rushers on the edge and a run stuffing Nose Tackle you will always have success the front 7 makes up for a poor secondary. In a 4-3 you have to be technically sound with the right bodies in play you cannot plug and play and if you don't have adequate depth the scheme is in trouble... But I would not be opposed to running 4-3 if we have the right guys to play in the system like the Jags this year their Defense is phenomenal and also well COACHED which we also lack...

[lollygagger8]

I think the Colts 3-4 defense was much improved this year with the secondary now and the addition of Woods and Hankins. The stats will say differently, but the Defense was on the field way longer than they should since the Offense wasn't scoring. 

 

With a legit pass rusher, actual ILB's that can cover, and a DC that doesn't continually rush 3 and drop everyone else, the Colts D will be much improved. 

[Valpo2004]

As far as I can tell the 4-3 defense is an old system that's hardly used in the NFL anymore.  It's still used plenty in college but it seems to be fading out in the NFL.  

 

I don't think there is much likelyhood that we go back to a 4-3.

[JColts72]

Does not matter as d is bad either way.

[Defjamz26]

5 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I'm not sure where you came up with this,  but this is the first time I've seen you or anyone else ever make that comment.

 

I don't see why anyone would try to summerize Grigson down to one problem.

 

If we took the time to list ALL of Grigson's problems,  we would probably crash this website.....

 

I thought that was implied. We all know there were multiple issues with him. I just listed the one most pertinent to the point I was trying to make.

[chad72]

Mixed fronts and versatile players is the answer in the current NFL

 

If you are talking only base fronts, I'd prefer a 4-3, easier to find players for thus making easier to provide quality depth instead of just quantity depth. 

[Shadow_Creek]

I really like the style of Defense Seattle ran when they faced the broncos in the Superbowl that year. Not sure who ran it but the colts show embrace that style

[dgambill]

6 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I'm not sure where you came up with this,  but this is the first time I've seen you or anyone else ever make that comment.

 

I don't see why anyone would try to summerize Grigson down to one problem.

 

If we took the time to list ALL of Grigson's problems,  we would probably crash this website.....

 

Actually....talent acquisition pretty much sums up Grigson's problem.....along with being an * apparently. Pretty sure I hit the nail on the head. Everything stems from not being able to acquire talent because if he did he would still have a job and Pagano would have been gone before him.

 

As for the 3-4 or 4-3 most teams use each to a varying degree. We really don't have the key pieces of either at this point so it doesn't matter. We don't have one "good" inside linebacker on the team. We don't have one great pass rusher on the team. Interior DL we got one really good piece in Hankins and I think he could play either. The rest of the pieces are solid but nothing great and certainly not highly invested in. At this point we can go either way because we don't have much invested in any player that can't work in either defense. Most of our guys are on short cap friendly deals....we can switch easily if necessary because we aren't really that heavily invested. Most great coordinators fit their scheme to their personnel....not so much the other way around imo....that's why when they lose key players to injury or free agency or retirement they don't fall off...they just adjust as they go....and you don't see a huge drop off in production. As such I don't really care one way or another...just get them playing better!

[dodsworth]

The offense is as a bigger problem than the defense and defensive scheme.

14 of the 16 games we scored less than 25 points. Punting with poor defensive field position will make any defense look bad on paper.