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

[horseshoeblue22 0]

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.

[BOTT 1,314]

No

[CR91 6,366]

why does this question get asked every other month

[Colts_Fan12 1,825]

No but I wish we would run more of a traditional 3-4 then the 3-4 hybrid we run

[BlueShoe 522]

No.

 

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

[Colts_Fan12 1,825]

No.

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

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

[BlueShoe 522]

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.

[RealityIsLuck 23]

No. Pieces aren't perfect for the 3-4 but their a better fit than the 4-3.

[Colts_Fan12 1,825]

No. Pieces aren't perfect for the 3-4 but their a better fit than the 4-3.

I agree we still need more better fits for our 3-4

[MTC 1,603]

No, but I like the 4-3 a lot better. 

[shakedownstreet 2,087]

we should go 5-2

[alawai 461]

we should go 5-2

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!

[arkana04 0]

No.

 

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

Glad im not the only one who feels this way.

[csmopar 7,181]

why does this question get asked every other month

Shoot it gets asked about every week....

[Superman 9,187]

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...

[RockThatBlue 1,320]

No

[horseshoeblue22 0]

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.

[crazycolt1 7,363]

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.

[aaron11 1,680]

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

[alawai 461]

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!

[bravo4460 522]

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!

[OLD FAN MAN 61]

our version of the 3-4 is not working try something else

[bavanlan 2]

This guy needs to update his depth chart.

[rock8591 545]

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.

[csmopar 7,181]

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.

[UKColt13 161]

3-4 gives a lot more versatility. Our interior linemen are a little too big for a 4-3. Our interior line are also not great penetrators.

 

We wont go back to a 4-3 whilst either Manusky or Pags are in town.

[bradgt04 13]

we should go 5-2

The 46!

[#12 0]

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. 

[Dr. T 138]

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.

[ProblChld32 282]

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.  

[Narcosys 531]

No.

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

Curious as to why.

[aaron11 1,680]

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

[J@son 909]

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.

[Coffeedrinker 3,537]

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

That is why it was one of the better defenses.... and why he was penalized for it.

[Coffeedrinker 3,537]

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.

[BlueShoe 522]

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. 

[cbear 372]

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.

[#12 0]

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. 

[Hoosiernsavga 51]

I don't think we are very good in a 3-4 but we would be even worse in a 4-3. Until we can get a monster run stopper on the DL and a ILB that can cover also. This defense will be mediocre at best. I think the pass rush will be solid this season though.

[horseshoeblue22 0]

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.