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

    • They are likely kicking the can down the road, and the negative consequence is higher cap numbers for those players in future seasons, and greater cap penalties to move on from those players in future seasons. The thing is there's no much else they can do. they're set to be nearly $70m over the cap in 2021, and other than these restructures, they would not be able to get under the cap by the start of the new league year. They would have to cut or trade all of their highly paid players.
    • I feel the hype about Carl Lawson is from a combination of people who haven't really watched him play, and who overrate "pressures" by assuming that all pressures are equally disruptive.    Lawson is a tough, physical, high effort guy, he tackles well, plays the run reasonably well, he has decent size, and he would fit nicely as a DE for us. He's not a dynamic pass rusher, and I don't think he ever would be a dynamic pass rusher.   He has some quickness and speed, good speed to power, but he's not the kind of explosive pass rusher that blows up the other team's blocking schemes. He has below average bend and closing speed, and he takes a lot of steps, which explains his tragically poor three cone. He also has below average length, and gets neutralized by good blockers. This is all obvious on his tape, it was obvious on his college tape, and it's why he went in the 4th round.   TomDiggs mentioned Lawson's knockdowns/hits and hurries. PFF recorded six edge rushers with at least QB 15 hits; despite the fact that Lawson had 24 hits, he only had five sacks, which is the least sacks among those six players. In fact, there were ten edges with fewer than 15 QB hits, but with at least ten sacks. PFF has 24 edges with at least 30 pressures; Lawson had 34 hurries, but was tied for fifth fewest sacks among those 24 players. In fact, there were five edges with fewer hurries than Lawson, but at least ten sacks.   My point is that QB hits and pressures only show a player that manages to get near the QB at some point during the play. Without context, they don't necessarily show a player that makes a definite impact on the play. That's why I value PFF's pass rush productivity (PRP) stat, because sacks are weighted more heavily than hits and pressures. And that makes sense because a sack ends the play. A QB can be pressured, even hit, and still make a positive play. Recognizing a sack as nearly always a negative play for the offense, PRP shows the difference between a guy who gets near the QB, and a pass rusher who makes plays for the defense. Sometimes the overlap is not as great as you might think.   Lawson's PRP was 8.5, tied for #18, well separated from guys like Bosa (10.6) and Watt (9.7). In general, a player with a bunch of total pressures, but low sack numbers, like Lawson, is a guy who gets a bunch of pass rush snaps but doesn't have the length, bend and closing speed to get home often enough. This is why guys like Trey Hendrickson and Leonard Floyd can have a third fewer total pressures, but twice as many sacks as Lawson (Hendrickson also had 80 fewer pass rush snaps). And Lawson gets a ton of pass rush snaps because he plays for a bad team with no other good edge rushers, so as long as he's healthy he'll have a lot of pressures, but he'll probably never be a big sack guy.   He's Trey Flowers. Better 40, same agility, not as long, mid level edge rusher who is well rounded and a good guy to have on your team, but not a dominant pass rusher. I can't see offering him $14m/year to not sack the QB. Any projection that has him as a big time sack guy is unrealistic, IMO.
    • It's nice to see Pittman, Smith and Okereke get some love.
    • Did I misread your post?   Did you not say you were in favor of moving Nelson to LT?   That if we’re going to pay him top dollar, it would be better to do it with him as our LT instead of at LG?    That wasn’t you?    I’m sorry, I thought that’s what I responded to.... 
    • With me, road whites are off-limits.  As to the blue tops, as much as i do dig the color rush blues, I’m an old-school-uni guy, and would lean to white pants.   I’m in Penn State country, and there are some similarities i guess.   I do think improvements can be made in the striping.  Minimal enough cahange to keep purists happy, but could “update the uni.  Perhaps 3 stripes down the leg and middle of helmet.  Middle one thicker than sides.  Not crazy wide.... tasteful like the stripes on a shelby. The middle stripe could be horseshoes similar to the way seattle uses imagry.  Maybe a large horseshoe on each shoulder that circles down around the number.  Minimal...... but updated..... without losing the “brand.”   Remember that outdated font that was recently retired?  A small “refresh” might be nice.   I’d like to see a “ghosted” image of like padding texture or like metalplate image (barely noticeable) at shoulder pads, knee and thigh pads.  Like a 3d effect.   I remember oregon once had ghosted wings on the shoulders that were cool, bit not “too much.”
  • Members

    • stitches

      stitches 8,060

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • White shoes

      White shoes 0

      Rookie
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Gyworks

      Gyworks 13

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • ReMeDy

      ReMeDy 425

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Introspect

      Introspect 196

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Robert Johnson

      Robert Johnson 97

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • dew5150

      dew5150 110

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • tvturner

      tvturner 291

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • The Peytonator

      The Peytonator 455

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • NewColtsFan

      NewColtsFan 8,404

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