Should Colts Switch to 4-3?

[Jason_]

But Mathis had his best year and the teams most sacks in this 3/4 you don;t seem to like and this was with little or no help opposite him..

 

Give it time... get the right players and then see what happens... as said before we really have only had 1 year in it and it is a flex  or hybrid 3-4/4/3.. given the right pieces it should be the best of both worlds.. this will be contingent on Grigson getting the right pieces... better FA and Draft this year, than last ... 

 

It's true we didn't have another proven pass rusher opposite Mathis, but in our base front one is not necessarily needed.  The fact that Mathis got to 19.5 sacks shows that the other players in the front were doing their parts as well.  

[ztboiler]

The NFL proves over and over again that it doesn't matter what your system is, your defensive success depends on disruptive players.  You can do it with a Tampa 2 4-3 if you have Warren Sapp and Simeon Rice, Traditional 4-3 w/ sub packages (Nascar) like NYG, 1 gap 3-4 like Houston with JJ Watt, 2-Gap 3-4 with Polamolu, Harrison etc, 2-gap Hybrid like the Ravens with familiar players....it doesn't matter - they all have disruptive players that fit the scheme.  

 

We've got a true gamewrecker in Mathis and he might have a couple more elite production years left... and our defensive personnel is better overall than they'll get much credit for around here, but we are obviously a couple of disruptive players short of building anything dominant.  What we sign this off-season probably won't change that either.  

[HtownColt]

Lamar Houston going to a 3-4 team and playing 3-4 DE isn't a strech. he was considered to play in both a 3-4 and 4-3 coming into the draft. He could be just like Randy Starks who spent 4 years in a 4-3 with the Titans then went to a 3-4 with the Dolphins. Lamar Houston looks like that kind of player

[coltsfanatic24]

We have the personnel to play some 4-3 but the coaches prefer the 3-4 because of the variety of ways you can blitz or drop players in coverage. We still don't have an ILB or the defensive line to have a great 3-4 defense but that can change if we get the right players in the draft.

[John Dee]

it's not scheme...  it's play makers. 

 

Fast talent gets it done.      Not slow ....

 

Indy's D has work to do.

[rock8591]

The 3-4 is a good fit for us and our players right now.

 

Mathis at 245 lbs and Werner at 260 are just too small for 4-3 DE. So is 250 Walden.

 

Redding, Francois, Chapman, Franklin, and Pendleton are clear 3-4 players from 3-4 NT to DE.

[rock8591]

Edit (can't edit prev post)-----

 

Also...4-3 is easier said than done. Need to find 4-3 DEs that can rush the pass AND stop the run. Also, a good DT ala Warren Sapp in the middle, something we've not had since we rented Booger McFarland from the Bucs for our super bowl year.

[BlueShoe]

How flexible is coach Pagano?  When Wenrer was drafted, one scout said he was the next Ryan Kerrigan.  Our front7 is bad anyway, we wouldn't need a huge overhaul.  With Werner and Mathis we would be set at DE.  All we would have to do is add an impact DT, something Pollian refused to do.  I'm not saying go back to the Cover2 days, we could still be an attacking defense.  Someone who knows much more about football, please fill me in on how much hybrid 4-3 we play already.  Do we already use Werner that way for many snaps?

 

I have been listening to the build the trenches posters, and I think they are correct.  If there is a way for Werner to make an impact, I say do it.  Instead of shelling out big bucks to Davis, get a DL in free agency instead.  What about Lamar Houston?.  Then trade down and draft a DL in the third and pick up a DB with your extra pick. 

 

Mathis  Houston  Urban  Werner

 

Then sign Mack and Travelle Wharten.  Without all that money to DBs you could build the Trenches.

 

Castonzo  Thomas  Mack Wharten Cherilus

 

From what I noticed over the past 8 games or so; we started mixing in some 4-3 fronts. Chuck always said we would be a hybrid 3-4, and if last year is any indication then we are already in full mode. There were games where we played 4-3 for an entire series. 

 

Granted this is not similar to the 4-3 of the Tampa2 or Dungy2 (insert whatever you want to call it), however, we lined up in the 4-3 quite a bit last year.

[Maniq]

it's not scheme...  it's play makers. 

 

Fast talent gets it done.      Not slow ....

 

Indy's D has work to do.

It sure is also scheme.

[ztboiler]

From what I noticed over the past 8 games or so; we started mixing in some 4-3 fronts. Chuck always said we would be a hybrid 3-4, and if last year is any indication then we are already in full mode. There were games where we played 4-3 for an entire series. 

 

Granted this is not similar to the 4-3 of the Tampa2 or Dungy2 (insert whatever you want to call it), however, we lined up in the 4-3 quite a bit last year.

 

The hybrid is defined by switching between 4-3/3-4 using the same personnel.  Moving from a 3-4 to the 4-3, Mathis puts his hand down, Walden slides back to LB depth (hybrid LB), and the big guys shift to the strong side.  We played a fair amount of Hybrid 4-3 in 2012, but I don't remember seeing very much of it in 2013 - kind of surprising considering that Walden is more of a prototypical hybrid SAM.  Maybe someone else tracked this more closely.  The 4 man fronts I remember us playing were mostly nickel sub packages taking the NT off the field.

[JoKeR]

Is our front 7 really that bad??? Freeman, Mathis, Redding, RJF, and Chapman are terrible?

IMO there's just a couple of positions to improve there.

[Superman]

Is our front 7 really that bad??? Freeman, Mathis, Redding, RJF, and Chapman are terrible?

IMO there's just a couple of positions to improve there.

 

We need to be better at ILB, and we need depth at DT/DE. I'm over Mathews and Moala as the primary reserves. We need another NT as well, as Franklin didn't play well and Chapman can't play 50 snaps a game. And then there's the matter of adding young playmakers who can be groomed for starting positions in the future. Redding is a FA after 2014, Mathis is a FA after 2015, etc.

[TKnight24]

Colts are better in the 3-4 than the 4-3 imo. Only time we were "decent" in the 4-3 was when we played the Texans & they were driving to win the game and we all knew a strip sack from Mathis or Freeney was coming to seal the win for us.

And during the playoff run to the SB when Bob Sanders came back. Other than those moments, we've always sucked in the 4-3. And we had some pieces right but no one could stay healthy long enough for it to work

Now here in the 3-4 we're way more aggressive. Mathis hasn't been the NFL sack leader since.........

Darius Butler is a turnover machine when he's on. Vonate is blooming into a excellent CB. I love the 3-4.

Imo, we're closer to being good as a defense in the 3-4 than we ever were as a 4-3. And like Balzer said, Seattle has some of you considering being Seattle fans. Some of you really are bandwagoning them. I have to agree with him, if Seattle didn't win the super bowl, this thread probably wouldn't be here.

San Francisco runs a 3-4 and they're a dominant defense.

Carolina runs a 4-3. Doesn't matter what scheme, it's the personnel you have.

Saints went from a 4-3 to a 3-4 and actually had a respectable defense. Rob Ryan morphed them from bottom of the league to top. And I believe when it's all said & done, Grigson & Pagano will morph this team into a nice bunch.

But it's hard to build through the draft if we keep having great seasons. 2 11-5 seasons in 2 year's.

But I'm sure we'll get there soon

[TKnight24]

After 2 short yrs. and getting rid of many 4-3 guys and still bringing in 3-4 guys, yeah at this time...its pretty dumb!

I might add...that if not for the dominant Seattle defense, this wouldn't even be a discussion. People are drunk on the dominance of their defense right now.

Post of the month candidate ↑

I tried to top this but failed as you see above

[needanoline63]

I wish we ran a mix of all defenses. Cover 2, 46,3-4,4-3

[Dustin]

Colts are better in the 3-4 than the 4-3 imo. Only time we were "decent" in the 4-3 was when we played the Texans & they were driving to win the game and we all knew a strip sack from Mathis or Freeney was coming to seal the win for us.

And during the playoff run to the SB when Bob Sanders came back. Other than those moments, we've always sucked in the 4-3. And we had some pieces right but no one could stay healthy long enough for it to work

Now here in the 3-4 we're way more aggressive. Mathis hasn't been the NFL sack leader since.........

Darius Butler is a turnover machine when he's on. Vonate is blooming into a excellent CB. I love the 3-4.

Imo, we're closer to being good as a defense in the 3-4 than we ever were as a 4-3. And like Balzer said, Seattle has some of you considering being Seattle fans. Some of you really are bandwagoning them. I have to agree with him, if Seattle didn't win the super bowl, this thread probably wouldn't be here.

San Francisco runs a 3-4 and they're a dominant defense.

Carolina runs a 4-3. Doesn't matter what scheme, it's the personnel you have.

Saints went from a 4-3 to a 3-4 and actually had a respectable defense. Rob Ryan morphed them from bottom of the league to top. And I believe when it's all said & done, Grigson & Pagano will morph this team into a nice bunch.

But it's hard to build through the draft if we keep having great seasons. 2 11-5 seasons in 2 year's.

But I'm sure we'll get there soon

 

Again, Im not sure why people keep comparing a hypothetical 43 to the 43 we ran in the old regime. Nobody is suggesting going back to a Tampa/Cover 2 base defense.

[TKnight24]

Again, Im not sure why people keep comparing a hypothetical 43 to the 43 we ran in the old regime. Nobody is suggesting going back to a Tampa/Cover 2 base defense.

Don't the Bears run a Tampa/Cover 2? And aren't the Bucs about to run a Tampa?

Bears cover 2 was always better than ours. And I'm the sure the Bucs will be better too. Regardless of what 4-3 people want us to run, it's not happening. We're 3-4 until Pagano is let go from what I'm seeing

[Dustin]

Don't the Bears run a Tampa/Cover 2? And aren't the Bucs about to run a Tampa?

Bears cover 2 was always better than ours. And I'm the sure the Bucs will be better too. Regardless of what 4-3 people want us to run, it's not happening. We're 3-4 until Pagano is let go from what I'm seeing

 

Yes the Bears ran a cover 2 and the Bucs will too. That wasn't my point.

 

My point was that using that comparing the previous regimes defense (when they ran a cover 2) to a more aggressive 43 that Pagano would hypothetically would run doesn't make much sense.

 

it's basically saying "we sucked last time we ran a 43, so will suck if we ever run it again" 

[Gavin]

I think at the end of the day you want playmakers, whether they are wr's, Linebackers, Safeties, D Linemen, Regardless of where they come from, regardless of sexual orientation. I think the idea should be to go for playmakers and not sticking to a rigid scheme or skill set that can often severly limit you in the draft, A coach to me is not defined solely on wins and losses or championships BUT ALSO what he does with the talent that he has, Your not always going have a player on your team or even starting lineup that fits that coaches scheme so he has to be flexible enough to put said player in a position where he will be most affective

 

 

 

I posted this in another thread

[TKnight24]

Yes the Bears ran a cover 2 and the Bucs will too. That wasn't my point.

My point was that using that comparing the previous regimes defense (when they ran a cover 2) to a more aggressive 43 that Pagano would hypothetically would run doesn't make much sense.

it's basically saying "we sucked last time we ran a 43, so will suck if we ever run it again"

But we don't suck. We run the 4-3 from time to time now. And we're okay. But making it our BASE defense would mess things up cause we're a base 3-4 team and getting 3-4 personnel

[Gavin]

But we don't suck. We run the 4-3 from time to time now. And we're okay. But making it our BASE defense would mess things up cause we're a base 3-4 team and getting 3-4 personnel

There really is no reason why we cant run a 4-3 as our base.....Not that I'd want to...because I dont but we have all kinds of players to run it who have been in it  at various points/levels before(Mathis, RJF, Werner, Bethea, Freeman, Angerer, Redding to name a few, Landry) I like the idea we are taking now...The problem is the lack of consistent playmakers on the defense with the exception of Mathis and Freeman.......And tackling......well....a Football Bloopers tape can be made out of our tackling

[Jason_]

The hybrid is defined by switching between 4-3/3-4 using the same personnel.  Moving from a 3-4 to the 4-3, Mathis puts his hand down, Walden slides back to LB depth (hybrid LB), and the big guys shift to the strong side.  We played a fair amount of Hybrid 4-3 in 2012, but I don't remember seeing very much of it in 2013 - kind of surprising considering that Walden is more of a prototypical hybrid SAM.  Maybe someone else tracked this more closely.  The 4 man fronts I remember us playing were mostly nickel sub packages taking the NT off the field.

 

 

that's actually not entirely true.  I used to think the same thing, but the "hybrid defense" means that our base front 7 is a hybrid of 1-gap/2-gap principles.  On the strong side, Walden, Redding and Chapman play 2-gap principles whereas on the weakside, RJF, Mathis and the WILB play 1-gap principles.  Now, having players that can play in a 1-gap or 2-gap scheme means they could also play standard 3-4 or 4-3 fronts as well.  

[ztboiler]

that's actually not entirely true.  I used to think the same thing, but the "hybrid defense" means that our base front 7 is a hybrid of 1-gap/2-gap principles.  On the strong side, Walden, Redding and Chapman play 2-gap principles whereas on the weakside, RJF, Mathis and the WILB play 1-gap principles.  Now, having players that can play in a 1-gap or 2-gap scheme means they could also play standard 3-4 or 4-3 fronts as well.  

 

That is true of our 4 man front Hybrid though some would say that Chapman and RJF each have a gap and share a gap.  The hybrid name can't simply apply to gap principles as our base 3-4 is purely 2 gap.

[Superman]

That is true of our 4 man front Hybrid though some would say that Chapman and RJF each have a gap and share a gap.  The hybrid name can't simply apply to gap principles as our base 3-4 is purely 2 gap.

 

It's not. I'd prefer it to be, but it's not, and that's probably best until we get better in the middle.

[Jason_]

It's not. I'd prefer it to be, but it's not, and that's probably best until we get better in the middle.

Personally I like it that way. There were some struggles early on as rjf and Mathis were adjusting but I felt they got significantly better on the weak side throughout the year.

[Superman]

Personally I like it that way. There were some struggles early on as rjf and Mathis were adjusting but I felt they got significantly better on the weak side throughout the year.

Yeah both approaches have upsides. I just think containment is much safer against the run, and with good technique you can still get pressure.

This is specific to early downs. In passing situations, pull no punches. Having someone other than RJF who can gap would be good for our nickel 2-4-5 package.

[ztboiler]

It's not. I'd prefer it to be, but it's not, and that's probably best until we get better in the middle.

 

I'm sure that there are different calls/techniques played, but what would make you say that our base 3-4 hasn't been 2 gap principles?

[Jason_]

I'm sure that there are different calls/techniques played, but what would make you say that our base 3-4 hasn't been 2 gap principles?

 

NO PROMOTIONAL POSTING ON THE SITE2013-articles/june/explaining-the-colts-3-4-defensive-line.html

[ztboiler]

NO PROMOTIONAL POSTING ON THE SITE2013-articles/june/explaining-the-colts-3-4-defensive-line.html

 

That is an interesting read, describing a 4-3 look we played a lot of, particularly in 2012, derived from 3-4 personnel, but very incomplete view of how we played in 2013.  There are several different DL alignment used. It helps fans understand the fundamental differences between Dungy's 4-3 we knew so well and the new scheme, but it does not address how we line up and play in our 3-4. The writer also states that our 3-4 base is 2-gap.  

 

In fact, the 4-3 in that article is not what we know as the 4-3/3-4 hybrid (Ravens) - though it fits the definition of a hybrid in playing 2 different fronts with the same personnel. It actually shows how blurry the 3-4 and 4-3 are today in some versions of the 4-3.  The Seahawks use the identical alignment and personnel types in their 4-3, as does Denver and several others.  Here is a good pic.  The first pic in the article is identical to the Colts alignment in Kyle's article.  http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2013/10/1/4787546/the-seahawks-and-multiple-defensive-fronts

[Jason_]

That is an interesting read, describing a 4-3 look we played a lot of, particularly in 2012, derived from 3-4 personnel, but very incomplete view of how we played in 2013.  There are several different DL alignment used. It helps fans understand the fundamental differences between Dungy's 4-3 we knew so well and the new scheme, but it does not address how we line up and play in our 3-4. The writer also states that our 3-4 base is 2-gap.  

 

In fact, the 4-3 in that article is not what we know as the 4-3/3-4 hybrid (Ravens) - though it fits the definition of a hybrid in playing 2 different fronts with the same personnel. It actually shows how blurry the 3-4 and 4-3 are today in some versions of the 4-3.  The Seahawks use the identical alignment and personnel types in their 4-3, as does Denver and several others.  Here is a good pic.  The first pic in the article is identical to the Colts alignment in Kyle's article.  http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2013/10/1/4787546/the-seahawks-and-multiple-defensive-fronts

 

 

Actually it does.  The critical portion is this:

 

The nose tackle in this scheme generally is responsible for eating space and occupying both the center and the right guard (or the left guard if the tight end is on the left side). The 3-tech defensive end is usually sealing off the backside of runs, and needs to be able to hold his ground and keep the edge, but is more of a chaser from the backside and gap penetrator in pass rush. The 5-tech defensive end needs to be strong, since he is usually facing the run head-on on the strong side, but he also is often the DL’s strongest pass-rusher opposite the ROLB.

 

Basically, the 5-tech DE (Redding) lines up opposite the OT on the strong side, the 1-tech NT (Chapman) lines up between the C and OG on the strong side and the 3-tech DT (RJF) lines up between the OG and OT on the weak side.  So, my understanding of this anyway, is that Redding and Chapman play 2-gap while RJF is responsible for holding his spot against the run but also responsible for shooting the gap (1-gap) against the pass and the RushLB (Mathis) lines up basically at the wide-9 tech and also plays more of a 1-gap.  That's why I said the base front is a hybrid of 1-gap and 2-gap.

 

Granted, the Colts use a lot of different formations and variations but that is the explanation of the base front.

[ztboiler]

Actually it does.  The critical portion is this:

 

 

 

Basically, the 5-tech DE (Redding) lines up opposite the OT on the strong side, the 1-tech NT (Chapman) lines up between the C and OG on the strong side and the 3-tech DT (RJF) lines up between the OG and OT on the weak side.  So, my understanding of this anyway, is that Redding and Chapman play 2-gap while RJF is responsible for holding his spot against the run but also responsible for shooting the gap (1-gap) against the pass and the RushLB (Mathis) lines up basically at the wide-9 tech and also plays more of a 1-gap.  That's why I said the base front is a hybrid of 1-gap and 2-gap.

 

Granted, the Colts use a lot of different formations and variations but that is the explanation of the base front.

 

That is not the critical portion of anything other than a description of that particular alignment (under) in a 4 man front using 3-4 personnel.  It says nothing about the way we play our 3-4, which we played a ton of in 2013.

[Superman]

I'm sure that there are different calls/techniques played, but what would make you say that our base 3-4 hasn't been 2 gap principles?

 

You said it was "purely" 2 gap. It's not. We 1-gap RJF often enough for me to say that.

[Jason_]

That is not the critical portion of anything other than a description of that particular alignment (under) in a 4 man front using 3-4 personnel.  It says nothing about the way we play our 3-4, which we played a ton of in 2013.

 

I disagree with you.  The article reads as though that is the description of the base alignment of our hybrid defensive front.  You can call it a 4-man front with 3-4 personnel, or our base 3-4 front.  6 of one, half dozen of another.  

[ztboiler]

You said it was "purely" 2 gap. It's not. We 1-gap RJF often enough for me to say that.

 

Fair enough.  When we line up in a true 3-4 front, our base D is a 2-gap front - or was in 2013.  I don't think we 1-gap RJF very often on running downs, he is reading and reacting unless he is rushing the passer.

[Superman]

Fair enough.  When we line up in a true 3-4 front, our base D is a 2-gap front - or was in 2013.  I don't think we 1-gap RJF very often on running downs, he is reading and reacting unless he is rushing the passer.

 

I'm fine with that. Just objected to the suggestion that we were purely a 2-gap front in our base D.

[ztboiler]

I disagree with you.  The article reads as though that is the description of the base alignment of our hybrid defensive front.  You can call it a 4-man front with 3-4 personnel, or our base 3-4 front.  6 of one, half dozen of another.  

 

The article may read like that, but a casual blogger's article does not define the substance of our base defense.  This casual forum poster would say that casual blogger wrote an article about one of our defensive alignments using base personnel - not our base D.  He was very incomplete in his analysis.

[ztboiler]

I'm fine with that. Just objected to the suggestion that we were purely a 2-gap front in our base D.

 

Yes...it's pretty easy to get lost in the weeds between principles and play calls.

[Jason_]

Fair enough.  When we line up in a true 3-4 front, our base D is a 2-gap front - or was in 2013.  I don't think we 1-gap RJF very often on running downs, he is reading and reacting unless he is rushing the passer.

 

What you just said is essentially exactly what the article says...well to a point.  I guess it's up to interpretation what the author meant by "The 3-tech defensive end is usually sealing off the backside of runs, and needs to be able to hold his ground and keep the edge".  

[ztboiler]

What you just said is essentially exactly what the article says...well to a point.  I guess it's up to interpretation what the author meant by "The 3-tech defensive end is usually sealing off the backside of runs, and needs to be able to hold his ground and keep the edge".  

 

You are mixing and matching player ques in 3-4 vs. 4-3 looks. You are quoting my comment about 2-gap principles in our 3-4 looks not 4-3.

 

Consider the context of that article. It is written only about what we do when we line up in a "4-3 under" look.  Within your quote bolded above, the author needs to be a little careful in his description of the 3-Tech role. Sealing off the backside may be part of it once any playside responsibilities are away, but he is not an edge player obviously, he has gap integrity responsibility, so that is a very confusing quote and highlights that Kyle may "get it" overall, but he doesn't have to be very accountable for the technical accuracy of what he writes.

[ztboiler]

We need to be better at ILB, and we need depth at DT/DE. I'm over Mathews and Moala as the primary reserves. We need another NT as well, as Franklin didn't play well and Chapman can't play 50 snaps a game. And then there's the matter of adding young playmakers who can be groomed for starting positions in the future. Redding is a FA after 2014, Mathis is a FA after 2015, etc.

 

All year long it felt like ILB was the reason for our inconsistency.  When you go big up front, play making ILB's must follow.  Completely agree with you here.

 

I'm over Mathews as well, but I don't understand the lack of love for Moala.  He stood out to me as a very pleasant surprise this year - very active and somewhat disruptive.  He was better in 2013 and the staff clearly liked him in 2012 as well.  While he isn't a young player, he is in his prime, and he seems to be on the incline in this system as an ideal rotational piece to have around at a low cap figure.  Sign or draft someone to replace Mathews, but Moala feels like a piece that is working.

 

The eyeball test said we were better against the run with Chapman on the field.  We play a lot of nickel as is and can sign just about anyone to play a few snaps for Chapman.  What to do behind Chapman is actually a little more of a chess match than we may think.  If your roster is designed to carry 6-7 DL then you have to make some body type choices that will limit the packages you can play.  We don't carry an interior pass rush specialist in our group...and you could easily argue that might be a nice alternative to present.  They'll have to decide whether to stay with all big guys and blitz to get pressure, or if they want to mix in a smaller guy who doesn't have a clear fit in the base D like some teams choose to do.