4-3

[NDcolt]

We all knew they were going to run the ball why didn't we play a 4-3 with our big guys clogging the middle aka packers second half 2012?

[MTC]

We all knew they were going to run the ball why didn't we play a 4-3 with our big guys clogging the middle aka packers second half 2012?

 

Because Pagano and Manusky are both 3-4 coaches.

[Jason_]

We all knew they were going to run the ball why didn't we play a 4-3 with our big guys clogging the middle aka packers second half 2012?

 

um, actually the 3-4 is designed to be better against the run than the 4-3

[runthepost]

um, actually the 3-4 is designed to be better against the run than the 4-3

Tell the seahawks that

[Jason_]

Tell the seahawks that

 

the seahawks are almost as much of a hybrid defense as the Colts are.  No other "4-3" team has 300+ lb DE's.  Even if that weren't the case, one exception does not mean the general rule is not true.

[NDcolt]

Then why are we getting gashed? Who is not doing there job?

[Jason_]

Then why are we getting gashed? Who is not doing there job?

 

IMO, primarily the ILB's and safeties.  Not exclusively, but primarily

[GoColts8818]

you don't just say hey we are going to be a 4-3 team this week. 

[21isSuperman]

um, actually the 3-4 is designed to be better against the run than the 4-3

No, it's not.  In the 3-4, you have 1 less defensive linemen and one extra LB.  So you have one less big guy and one more guy with speed to help with pass coverage.  In the 4-3, you have 4 defensive linemen, so you have 4 big guys up front fighting in the trenches.  The 3-4 is also harder to predict where the extra rusher is coming from and if the usual blitzer is rushing or dropping into coverage, but you don't have that stuff with the 4-3.  The 4-3 is designed to stop the run better than the 3-4

[Jason_]

No, it's not.  In the 3-4, you have 1 less defensive linemen and one extra LB.  So you have one less big guy and one more guy with speed to help with pass coverage.  In the 4-3, you have 4 defensive linemen, so you have 4 big guys up front fighting in the trenches.  The 3-4 is also harder to predict where the extra rusher is coming from and if the usual blitzer is rushing or dropping into coverage, but you don't have that stuff with the 4-3.  The 4-3 is designed to stop the run better than the 3-4

 

Respectfully, yes it is.  The 3-4 essentially was originally conceived and considered to be better than the 4-3 against both the run and pass because of the 3 defensive linemen occupying the entire offensive line instead of using 4 defensive linemen to do it.

 

The original 3-4 concept was a 2-gap scheme.  Sure, in the 3-4 you have only 3 down linemen but they are much bigger than even most 4-3 NT's are.  Their responsibility was to occupy the 5 offensive linemen.  When you have 3 guys occupying 5 instead of 4, that leaves you an extra LB to stop the run (or drop into coverage based on the offensive play call).

 

I've read several articles that detailed how the 3-4 was created with the intent of being better against the run than the 4-3. I can't find links at the moment but I'll keep looking.

[21isSuperman]

Respectfully, yes it is.  The original 3-4 concept was a 2-gap scheme.  Sure, in the 3-4 you have only 3 down linemen but they are much bigger than even most 4-3 NT's are.  Their responsibility was to occupy the 5 offensive linemen.  When you have 3 guys occupying 5 instead of 4, that leaves you an extra LB to stop the run (or drop into coverage based on the offensive play call).

 

I've read several articles that detailed how the 3-4 was created with the intent of being better against the run than the 4-3. I can't find links at the moment but I'll keep looking.

Hm...the articles and analyses I've read have all said the 4-3 is better for stopping the run and 3-4 is better for stopping the pass.  I'll do some looking and see what I can find.  Perhaps I'm making a mistake...wouldn't be the first time

[Jason_]

Hm...the articles and analyses I've read have all said the 4-3 is better for stopping the run and 3-4 is better for stopping the pass.  I'll do some looking and see what I can find.  Perhaps I'm making a mistake...wouldn't be the first time

 

honestly I've read articles that say it both ways.  I remember the first time I read an article saying the 3-4 was better against the run, my initial reaction was "um, how?"   But then I continued reading the article and what it said made sense.  

 

In thinking about it, if you have the DL players capable of playing a 2-gap 3-4 consistently, then in theory it should be better against both the run and pass.  The problem is trying to find those DL players because there certainly aren't enough to go around lol

 

I also remember at some point reading an article saying that Bill Parcell's initially switched to a 3-4 because LB's were far cheaper and easier to find than DE's.  That does make sense if you keep in mind the time when Parcell's would have done that.  But defenses have changed so much with all the new hybrids that quality 3-4 OLB's can be just as expensive as 4-3 DE's. lol

[21isSuperman]

Respectfully, yes it is.  The 3-4 essentially was originally conceived and considered to be better than the 4-3 against both the run and pass because of the 3 defensive linemen occupying the entire offensive line instead of using 4 defensive linemen to do it.

 

The original 3-4 concept was a 2-gap scheme.  Sure, in the 3-4 you have only 3 down linemen but they are much bigger than even most 4-3 NT's are.  Their responsibility was to occupy the 5 offensive linemen.  When you have 3 guys occupying 5 instead of 4, that leaves you an extra LB to stop the run (or drop into coverage based on the offensive play call).

 

I've read several articles that detailed how the 3-4 was created with the intent of being better against the run than the 4-3. I can't find links at the moment but I'll keep looking.

This article that I found says under the heading "3-4 defense weaknesses", it says "To effectively stop the running game a team will need a dominant nose tackle who is capable of occupying space and taking on several blockers without giving ground."  Then, under the heading "strength points of the 4-3", it says "In the 4-3 the linebackers play more behind the line, and the team will rely on its four defensive linemen to get the job done up front. This means stopping the run can potentially be more effective than with a 3-4 defense, as a 4-3 team utilizes two defensive tackles who shift and stunt to confuse the offensive linemen’s blocking."

 

I've always thought of the 4-3 as better suited to stop the run because you have 4 guys in the trenches ready to disrupt running lanes and get in the gaps whereas in the 3-4, you only have 3 guys.  That lets offensive linemen double team your defensive linemen and allows your RB to get to the next level or match up one on one against a bigger, slower, less agile/shifty linebacker

[21isSuperman]

honestly I've read articles that say it both ways.  I remember the first time I read an article saying the 3-4 was better against the run, my initial reaction was "um, how?"   But then I continued reading the article and what it said made sense.  

 

In thinking about it, if you have the DL players capable of playing a 2-gap 3-4 consistently, then in theory it should be better against both the run and pass.  The problem is trying to find those DL players because there certainly aren't enough to go around lol

 

I also remember at some point reading an article saying that Bill Parcell's initially switched to a 3-4 because LB's were far cheaper and easier to find than DE's.  That does make sense if you keep in mind the time when Parcell's would have done that.  But defenses have changed so much with all the new hybrids that quality 3-4 OLB's can be just as expensive as 4-3 DE's. lol

Yeah, that makes sense.  I guess either system can be successful if you have the right coaches and players.  That's where the issue comes up for the Colts.  Our head coach and defensive coordinator are both 3-4 guys, so running the 4-3 would hurt more than it would help

[Jason_]

Yeah, that makes sense.  I guess either system can be successful if you have the right coaches and players.  That's where the issue comes up for the Colts.  Our head coach and defensive coordinator are both 3-4 guys, so running the 4-3 would hurt more than it would help

 

Exactly.  I think the scheme should be chosen based on the available personnel rather than choosing the scheme first and then trying to find personnel to fit the scheme.  This, to be perfectly honest, was my one concern with Pagano.  It seemed as though they chose the scheme first.  However, the more I learned about the hybrid nature of our particular scheme the less concerned I was.  It really can use 1-gap or 2-gap players depending on the gameplan and the strengths of the team we're playing.

[Jason_]

This article that I found says under the heading "3-4 defense weaknesses", it says "To effectively stop the running game a team will need a dominant nose tackle who is capable of occupying space and taking on several blockers without giving ground."  Then, under the heading "strength points of the 4-3", it says "In the 4-3 the linebackers play more behind the line, and the team will rely on its four defensive linemen to get the job done up front. This means stopping the run can potentially be more effective than with a 3-4 defense, as a 4-3 team utilizes two defensive tackles who shift and stunt to confuse the offensive linemen’s blocking."

 

I've always thought of the 4-3 as better suited to stop the run because you have 4 guys in the trenches ready to disrupt running lanes and get in the gaps whereas in the 3-4, you only have 3 guys.  That lets offensive linemen double team your defensive linemen and allows your RB to get to the next level or match up one on one against a bigger, slower, less agile/shifty linebacker

 

Well and that's what I used to think too.  However, if the 3 down linemen in a 2-gap 3-4 do their jobs, then they're keeping the 2 ILB's clean to be able to make a play on the ball carrier at or even behind the line of scrimmage.  Honestly I think an argument could be made either way and that's probably why there are so many conflicting opinions on it. 

[crestmount]

I think we are much better against the run when Josh Chapman is on the field

[VaAllDay757]

Yeah chapman is a beast

[FicmanS]

Greg Manusky has got to go, this team was embarrassed again last night we literately got our butts handed to us in the 2nd half on defense.

 

I like Chuck Pagano, I think Chuck should get another year as head coach.  Pep had moments this year where he didn't look so good, but ok let's go 1 more year as well...

 

 

Greg's got to go...   There is WAY to many guys on this defense that are great players, a LOT of heart on this defense.  5 games we had 38 points or more on us is inexcusable

 

Manusky countdown has begun in my mind

[Franklin County]

I am pretty sure we were in a 4 man front a cpl times last night. I may be wrong I was so mad at the refs I couldn't see straight.

[rock8591]

In theory, the 3-4 is much better against the run. You have fewer defensive lineman, but with a NT (typically 325+ lbs) and two 3-4 DEs (typically 300+ lbs), the players are much bigger than a 4-3 defensive line. The scheme also requires bigger OLBs (that are essentially 260+ lbs DEs, not 230 lbs LBs).

 

The hard part gets to finding the NT and DEs that can not only stop the run but rush the passer (e.g. the Kris Jenkins, Richard Seymour type).

Without players that can do both, it's easy for the 3-4 to lack a passrush coming from the defensive line, as they're just bodies on the line. Right now, the Colts lack a 3-4 lineman who can rush the passer like a Muhammed Wilkerson, Justin Smith, etc.

[oldunclemark]

In theory, the 3-4 is much better against the run. You have fewer defensive lineman, but with a NT (typically 325+ lbs) and two 3-4 DEs (typically 300+ lbs), the players are much bigger than a 4-3 defensive line. The scheme also requires bigger OLBs (that are essentially 260+ lbs DEs, not 230 lbs LBs).

 

The hard part gets to finding the NT and DEs that can not only stop the run but rush the passer (e.g. the Kris Jenkins, Richard Seymour type).

Without players that can do both, it's easy for the 3-4 to lack a passrush coming from the defensive line, as they're just bodies on the line. Right now, the Colts lack a 3-4 lineman who can rush the passer like a Muhammed Wilkerson, Justin Smith, etc.

The 3-4 is the old college 5-2...with the ends standing up .it was designed to stop the run which is why you see teams go with 6 )-linemen sometimes to get mismatches

 

but its so hybrid now that 4-3 or 3-4 can be both..

 

Im waiting for a team tro go to a base defense without any linebackers at all.....a 5-0-6 with a noseguard and 4 linemen to turnruns in

 

...and 6 backs..including one or two 'big corners'  6-2, 210-220 or so to take on tight ends..

 

I think the linebacker position is going the way of the fullback

 

 

getting so much sped on the field

[GoColts8818]

Greg Manusky has got to go, this team was embarrassed again last night we literately got our butts handed to us in the 2nd half on defense.

I like Chuck Pagano, I think Chuck should get another year as head coach. Pep had moments this year where he didn't look so good, but ok let's go 1 more year as well...

Greg's got to go... There is WAY to many guys on this defense that are great players, a LOT of heart on this defense. 5 games we had 38 points or more on us is inexcusable

Manusky countdown has begun in my mind

i disagree with us having a lot of great players on defense. I think we have one in Mathis and maybe one in the making in Freeman. I think the rest are solid with Bethea and Davis being better than most but I would hardly call them great.

[Smonroe]

Great thread, actually talking about football instead of laying blame for the most part.

I think Jason made the key point. It's always about personnel and not forcing square pegs into round holes, ala Freeney last year.

Great players make average coaches look good. I thought last year Manusky did more with less, especially at the end of the season.

This year he did less with more considering all the upgrades.

[bluestampede82]

Alabama plays 4-2-5

How bout that?

It isn't what you run as much as it is who you have running it.

San Fran, Carolina, Seattle .....wha do those defenses have that Colts dont?

Great defensive players.....honestlly, we have Mathis but who else???

[John Waylon]

It's less scheme and more personnel. A 3-4 can shut the run down, but they have to have 4 great LB's, The 4-3 makes it harder for the linemen to open holes, but, as we saw for far too long under Dungy, it doesn't mean that's going to stop the run or even slow it down. I think mixing in a few 4-3 looks last night would have helped. I think we could have actually pulled it off fairly well. Our 4 down (Mathis would have remained a LB and not gone back to his old DE spot) would have made it hard for them to open up lanes, and our LB's (Mathis, Freeman, Walden) would have all made getting to the second level tough, 

[coltsfanatic24]

The 4-3 is better vs the run Polian just never drafted any good DT's or LB's. The best defenses is the Seahawks and Panthers and both run the 4-3. You can also call more zone plays because of the 3 LB's. The 3-4 is good but you need a great NT and 2 pass rushing OLB's for it to work. 

[oldunclemark]

The old Bears' 46 defense was a 5-1-5  

 

...but the '1'; Doug Plank, was a saftey who played LB 

 

and the ends often dropped into pass coverage

[John Waylon]

In my opinion, I think we would have a pretty good 4-3. We have a lot of versatile defensive linemen, and we have good LB's. Mathis could play the "Joker" role moving back and forth from LB to DE. One of our biggest weaknesses this season has been the lack of a suitable 2nd ILB. We whiffed of the sheppard trade, and instability at the position hurt. 

 

But Pagano is a 3-4 guy, and manusky seems to be from the jim o'brien school of thought: "defense is for sillyheads".

[theanarchist]

Then why are we getting gashed? Who is not doing there job?

Kelvin Shepard for one. He is terrible. I don't know why he's on this team. Freeman does a nice job but he's very undersized for a run stopper. I like our defensive scheme. It's flexible and when we were healthy we had good enough corners to play man coverage effectively. We have to bring back Davis, he's a great cover man. Landry really disappointed me this year. We'll be OK, we need to upgrade at one inside LB spot, corner and continue to add guys along the line of scrimmage.

[oldunclemark]

Alabama plays 4-2-5

How bout that?

It isn't what you run as much as it is who you have running it.

San Fran, Carolina, Seattle .....wha do those defenses have that Colts dont?

Great defensive players.....honestlly, we have Mathis but who else???

when we give up 44 and 43 points,,

 

I cant argue with you

[coltsfanatic24]

There's different type of 4-3 defenses. The Seahawks use Red Bryant, Mebane, Mcdaniel, and Bennett on early downs. Three of those guys weigh over 310 lbs and Bennett is 275 lbs. All of those guys are can stop the run and pass rush. On passing downs they bring in Avril, Clemons, and Irving for the speed rush. 

[John Waylon]

Kelvin Shepard for one. He is terrible. I don't know why he's on this team. 

 

We DID trade a guy who racked up 10 sacks for him. Cutting him would be adding insult to injury.

 

Problem was, starting him was pretty much the same.

[rock8591]

3-4 is a big boy defense because you need much bigger players, not only at NT and 2 DEs, but also OLBs.

IMO, we should stay with it, because it's also easier to run than a 4-3.

Where are we going to find a 4-3 DT? e.g. Warren Sapp type player.

Or a 4-3 DE? We used Freeney and Mathis over many years, trying to get a Jared Allen on both sides of the ball would be very tough and expensive.

 

Our 3-4 is almost set; we just need another OLB along Mathis and MLB along Freeman.

Our 3-4 DLs are decent, but we need someone to replace Redding in 1-2 years.

[GwinnettColt]

Their problem last night was tackling.  They couldn't do it.  Mediocre running backs were getting 5-7 yards (approx.) in many cases. 

[dudeski]

We DID trade a guy who racked up 10 sacks for him. Cutting him would be adding insult to injury.

Problem was, starting him was pretty much the same.

he was better than angerer.

Conner should have been starting. Another failure of pagano

[theanarchist]

he was better than angerer.

Conner should have been starting. Another failure of pagano

No way. Did you watch the games? Shepard absolutely sucked. Neither of those guys should be back next year. Angerer is a 4-3 guy. We need a true 3-4 inside backer to go alongside Freeman.

[dudeski]

No way. Did you watch the games? Shepard absolutely sucked. Neither of those guys should be back next year. Angerer is a 4-3 guy. We need a true 3-4 inside backer to go alongside Freeman.

shepard was much better than angerer and actually played pretty well down the stretch. 

 

conner was always our best ilber not named freeman

 

those are just the facts

[coltsfanatic24]

We need someone to replace RJF as well. We were ranked 26th vs the run i don't think anyone on the d-line should be starting next year.

 

3-4 is a big boy defense because you need much bigger players, not only at NT and 2 DEs, but also OLBs.

IMO, we should stay with it, because it's also easier to run than a 4-3.

Where are we going to find a 4-3 DT? e.g. Warren Sapp type player.

Or a 4-3 DE? We used Freeney and Mathis over many years, trying to get a Jared Allen on both sides of the ball would be very tough and expensive.

 

Our 3-4 is almost set; we just need another OLB along Mathis and MLB along Freeman.

Our 3-4 DLs are decent, but we need someone to replace Redding in 1-2 years.

[OLD FAN MAN]

Respectfully, yes it is.  The 3-4 essentially was originally conceived and considered to be better than the 4-3 against both the run and pass because of the 3 defensive linemen occupying the entire offensive line instead of using 4 defensive linemen to do it.

 

The original 3-4 concept was a 2-gap scheme.  Sure, in the 3-4 you have only 3 down linemen but they are much bigger than even most 4-3 NT's are.  Their responsibility was to occupy the 5 offensive linemen.  When you have 3 guys occupying 5 instead of 4, that leaves you an extra LB to stop the run (or drop into coverage based on the offensive play call).

 

I've read several articles that detailed how the 3-4 was created with the intent of being better against the run than the 4-3. I can't find links at the moment but I'll keep looking.

you bring up interesting stuff that makes us think.