Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Are the Colts' personnel better suited for a base 4-3 DEF?


Recommended Posts

I expect the Colts to draft at least a few defensive players in this years draft, so our personnel could definitely change before opening day. I know and realize we use a hybrid, multiple look front and utilize the 4-3 already in our defensive play calling. But our defense is generally referred to as a base 3-4.

But we don't really have ideal players at NT, pass rusher or ILB to run a "perfect" 3-4 set. Alot of our players have a background in playing 4-3. So here is a look at our defensive depth chart as a 4-3 front.

DEs: Robert Mathis, Trent Cole, Jonathan Newsome, Bjoern Werner, Zach Kerr

DTs: Arthur Jones, Kendall Langford, Josh Chapman, Montori Hughes, Kelcey Quarles

LBs: Erik Walden, Dqwell Jackson, Jerrell Freeman, Nate Irving, Andy Studebaker, Daniel Adongo, Josh McNary

What do you think? Does this make our current DEF look any better? Worse? Obviously this would have little to no effect on our CBs or Safeties...so I am talking about front seven personnel only.

Link to post
Share on other sites

me either but I want a REAL 3-4 that's mean like the 49ers had and BAL

 

I like our base hybrid, but would like to see our outside linebackers play off the line more often to show some different looks.

 

I feel as though it is too easy to game plan against us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Think Woody Hayes of OSU had one of the better defenses, a 5-3-4 but was penalized on it! Think this was the game in which he was suspended for grabbing an opposing player!

 

He was probably penalized for having 12 men on the field...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shoot it gets asked about every week....

I've been a member here since Jan, haven't seen anyone post it. We run 4-3 sets as it is, so I dont see why it is out of the realm of possibility but it seems like my opinion is an unpopular one regarding this subject. I just think simpler alignments in our defensive front could go a long way when it comes to the production of our defensive players.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Colts do run a 4-3 at times. The opposing team dictates that. Hybrid should be able to go either way depending on the offense they are facing. With a base 3-4 we still need better run stoppers out of the linebackers. It was hit and miss last season.

Link to post
Share on other sites

freeman is possibly better suited for a 4-3

 

walden would be worse and probably not have a role at all.

 

its hard to say with werner he seems like a 3-4  strong side olb more than anything else to me

 

i dont think it matters for mathis and cole

 

the guys you listed at DT are all 3-4 by nature but that postion is not hard to switch between bases if necessary

 

i think newsome could be decent at 4-3 weak side

Link to post
Share on other sites

He was probably penalized for having 12 men on the field...

Yes in his interview Coach Woody made comments to his 5-3-4 defense and the penalty. I can't remember his remarks but it was typical Woodyism!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel that if all of the pieces are there the 3-4 would be more dominant than the 4-3.

Must have the right personel though obviously! I really like the 3-4 the Colts just are not that great at it yet. Give them time, more 3-4 scheme players and a new D coordinator and they will be better! haha

Link to post
Share on other sites

freeman is possibly better suited for a 4-3

 

walden would be worse and probably not have a role at all.

 

its hard to say with werner he seems like a 3-4  strong side olb more than anything else to me

 

i dont think it matters for mathis and cole

 

the guys you listed at DT are all 3-4 by nature but that postion is not hard to switch between bases if necessary

 

i think newsome could be decent at 4-3 weak side

 

You had me and still had me, until you mentioned Newsome...

He was 236 during college days, bulked up to 251 or so...Jerry Hughes 2.0 to the max...extremely poor fit for the 4-3, even on passing downs only. With that size nowadays, you get engulfed by OTs that outweigh you by 75+ lbs going 1 vs 1.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been a member here since Jan, haven't seen anyone post it. We run 4-3 sets as it is, so I dont see why it is out of the realm of possibility but it seems like my opinion is an unpopular one regarding this subject. I just think simpler alignments in our defensive front could go a long way when it comes to the production of our defensive players.

it gets asked all the time. And before that when we ran the 4-3/Tampa 2 under Dungy, it was asked all the time to switch to a 3-4 base.

But to answer your question, I think it's far too late in the off season to switch majorly, you might see more 4-3 formations but we'll stay 3-4 Hybrid This season.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No.

 

And for the record, I never want to go back to the 4-3. 

 

As long as it's not Polian's vision of the Tampa 2 with 250 pound DTs and undersized LBs, a 4-3 would be fine. 

 

A 4-3, 3-4 or this hybrid, it doesn't really matter.  We just need to find some play makers.  We haven't drafted one since Bob Sanders over a decade ago. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Our problem (IMO) is that we lack a real superstar in the front 7, now that Mathis got injured and most likely won't be the player he once was. In order to be a dominant 3-4, we need an impact player at NT or ILB and we have neither.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We run a Multiple Hybrid front. Base defense is a 3-4 but also transitions into a 4-3. so we basically play both fronts during different situations.

 

Me personally i prefer the base 3-4 defense as opposed to the 4-3. But i do like the flexibility which allows us to switch between both fronts. 

 

With that being said i think we do have the personnel to plug and play a 4-3 front and be effective. But i want us to continue to build on the 3-4 defensive front.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

You had me and still had me, until you mentioned Newsome...

He was 236 during college days, bulked up to 251 or so...Jerry Hughes 2.0 to the max...extremely poor fit for the 4-3, even on passing downs only. With that size nowadays, you get engulfed by OTs that outweigh you by 75+ lbs going 1 vs 1.

jerry plays in a 4-3 now and is doing better than ever.  weakside olbs in a 4-3 dont need to be all that big, von miller is 250 and plays that role very well

Link to post
Share on other sites

You had me and still had me, until you mentioned Newsome...

He was 236 during college days, bulked up to 251 or so...Jerry Hughes 2.0 to the max...extremely poor fit for the 4-3, even on passing downs only. With that size nowadays, you get engulfed by OTs that outweigh you by 75+ lbs going 1 vs 1.

 

They said the same thing about Mathis.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as it's not Polian's vision of the Tampa 2 with 250 pound DTs and undersized LBs, a 4-3 would be fine. 

 

A 4-3, 3-4 or this hybrid, it doesn't really matter.  We just need to find some play makers.  We haven't drafted one since Bob Sanders over a decade ago. 

Two things are wrong with this post:

 

Polian won a SB with that "vision" and got to another one.

 

Two, do people not realize the role of a GM?  A GM does not draft players and tell the coach...make this guy work in your scheme.  The coach gives the GM the attributes he thinks for each position, then the coach and the GM sit down and assign a weight to each attribute.  The GM then grades players on each attribute, applies the weight to the attribute grades and comes up with an overall player grade.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Curious as to why.

 

I believe that the 3-4 offers more flexibility to be creative, especially with blitzing. I like the idea of having 4 athletic linebackers on the field, instead of occasionally dropping DE's into coverage. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Initially, I was all for the 3-4.  When it was announced and with Pagano as HC, I was expecting to see a lot of creativity, like Baltimore in their glory days, Pittsburgh and NE back in the day.  Instead, I see a very vanilla type of defense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Two things are wrong with this post:

 

Polian won a SB with that "vision" and got to another one.

 

Two, do people not realize the role of a GM?  A GM does not draft players and tell the coach...make this guy work in your scheme.  The coach gives the GM the attributes he thinks for each position, then the coach and the GM sit down and assign a weight to each attribute.  The GM then grades players on each attribute, applies the weight to the attribute grades and comes up with an overall player grade.

 

Multiple things are wrong with your post.  First you seemingly give Polian credit for that vision - bringing the Colts to two Super Bowls - then turn around and say it really wasn't his vision anyway.  Which is it?

 

Beyond that, the super small, slim lined version of the Indianapolis Tampa 2 differed from what you saw in Tampa or in Chicago with Lovie, and after following it for a decade, I would say, yes, Polian, not Dungy, was the driving force who brought the sleek Indianapolis version to a reality.  There was the Tampa 2, then there was the Indianapolis version of it.

 

Finally, I would say the Indianapolis 2, with DTs the size of LBs and LBs the size of DBs, kept us from more Super Bowls than it brought us.  There's a reason that defense is now resting on the ash heap of history. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Multiple things are wrong with your post. First you seemingly give Polian credit for that vision - bringing the Colts to two Super Bowls - then turn around and say it really wasn't his vision anyway. Which is it?

I remember Polian saying he targetted under-sized defensive players because it allowed him to get players with a higher level of talent, while other GMs avoided drafting these small stature players in the early rounds. Undersized players could play the pass well but struggled against the run. The idea was that our high powered offense would force the other team to be more aggressive, abandon the run and it wouldnt expose our flaws. Sometimes it would work, sometimes we would give up 200-300 rushing yards and get dominated in time of possession.

Grigson and Pagano seem to value bigger players, but we still give up too many rushing yards and too often get dominated in time of possession.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Crap, sorry.   with the 129th pick, the Seahawks select:   Anthony Schwartz, WR, Auburn   If that doesn’t make Russell Wilson happy, then 7@€# him!   @crazycolt1and the Jags are aim the clock.
    • Watson started this recent public trade thing by stating that the organization has flawed hiring practices.  And I think he never debunked the idea that the current owner was a lot like his father, simply because he is his son.   Its not really about the next season or even the team's won loss record over the next three years.  Its bigger than that.  I think it would be smarter to not accommodate whiners, and in a legal manner, not set the precedent of accommodating someone who conducts detrimental actions that undermines the new coach and the authority structure of the organization.   If you accommodate Watson, you set the precedent that all whiners need to be accommodated or else you end up singling some out for disparate treatment.  This shows what a cancer players like Watson are to an entire organization.    And, I would think a player like that has limited trade value, despite the rumors.  I would  simply move on from him....forget he even exists...would be the less time consuming and smarter move.  If he wants to sit out, fine, but I'm drafting this spring with the idea that he's going to try to put me at a disadvantage and wait until after FA and the draft before he tells me he wont play next year.   There is some root of the problem that has yet to be revealed.   If its about making bad personnel decisions, resulting in a losing record, I get that....but the HC, OBrien who was responsible for those moves was fired months ago.  Seems like Watson and Watt are still holding some kind of grudge over something, or simply launching their marketing brand by grandstanding.   If I were the GM, I'd just ignore Watson until he apologized for those statements instead of honoring his wishes, and then if the team struggles, show to the whole world what people like that can do to a team, blame the teams failure's over a whiner sitting out the season too arrogant and stubborn to apologize for something he should not have said in the first place.       
    • The 2006 team was the greatest and it is not even a debate. They went 10-0 at home including the playoffs, 16-4 overall, and most importantly won the SB = they finished. The 2005 team during the regular season beat teams by a wider margin but lost in the divisional round. That team did not have Adam Vinatieri either, the 2006 team did. In 2006 we seen the best of Bob Sanders in the playoffs and we went through Ray Lewis/Ed Reed/Steve McNair at Baltimore, and beat Tom Brady and Bill Belichick in the AFC Title Game. Also in respect to the 2009 team, that team didn't have Vinatieri either, nor did it have Marvin Harrison or Bob Sanders, Dungy wasn't the Coach as well. It is 2006 hands down.
    • Probably 2005, that  team was loaded and then played a tragically bad game to the sixth seeded Steelers in the playoffs.    
  • Members

    • Defjamz26

      Defjamz26 2,031

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • coltsfanmurf

      coltsfanmurf 51

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • buccolts

      buccolts 2,477

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Flash7

      Flash7 1,107

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • jvan1973

      jvan1973 5,314

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • tannurr

      tannurr 7

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Dogg63

      Dogg63 2,025

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • DougDew

      DougDew 2,564

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • FRW

      FRW 125

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • twfish

      twfish 1,089

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
×
×
  • Create New...