Chris Ballard: No [indoor] team with a 3-4 defense has ever won a Super Bowl

[dgambill]

3 hours ago, Superman said:

Even if his statement is true, I don't think it means indoor teams have a tougher time winning if they run a 3-4. At least, not necessarily. And I didn't take Ballard's comment to mean that, but it's obviously something that has influenced his decision making. 

 

As for the difference in the scheme, I think the size of players in a 3-4 front is greater on average than that of players in a 4-3 front. That probably means your average 4-3 plays faster. Good offensive teams are probably faster/better indoors, which might mean less effective defense from a 3-4 indoors. But, teams play so much nickel now that it kind of doesn't matter.

 

Still, I think his objective on defense is to get faster, but still play tough physically. Not undersized, as a matter of fact, he seems to like bigger DBs, but he definitely wants more speed up front. So do I.

Yeah...I don’t think he just woke up one morning and had the realization. I think he looked at what has been successful for some teams...to take advantage of our home field advantage and what is the best formula for success for a team like ours. I think 4-3 with big focus on getting quicker better athletes. Take advantage of our qb and get back to playing with a lead anf unleashing the dogs.

[Fluke_33]

2 minutes ago, dgambill said:

Yeah...I don’t think he just woke up one morning and had the realization. I think he looked at what has been successful for some teams...to take advantage of our home field advantage and what is the best formula for success for a team like ours. I think 4-3 with big focus on getting quicker better athletes. Take advantage of our qb and get back to playing with a lead anf unleashing the dogs.

According to polian the 4/3 is cheaper too so you can spend on offense when you have a Stud qb.  

[ColtsBlitz]

Playing a 4-3 makes much more sense for us anyway considering our best players on defense are all on the d line. Let’s play with our strength on defense, not the weakness. 

[dgambill]

3 minutes ago, Fluke_33 said:

According to polian the 4/3 is cheaper too so you can spend on offense when you have a Stud qb.  

I do think it is easier (thus cheaper) to find talent to fill the positions. Think about all the special talent it takes up front at NT to hold double teams..two gap DTs and then OLB that can both pass rush and drop in coverage...very difficult to find and expensive to keep. But...if you have that talent...oh wow is it difficult to go up against. Obviously their are important pieces in 4-3 but it does seem to be easier to find and their roles a bit more narrow. I think it will be easier to build a good 4-3 for us. We have a great DT in Hankins and maybe the pass rush if we land Chubb and we have a ball hawking safety...some young corners with potential..add a special LB and we have the makings of a good d...which yes means you can spend on the other side of the ball to help Andrew.

[Fluke_33]

1 minute ago, dgambill said:

I do think it is easier (thus cheaper) to find talent to fill the positions. Think about all the special talent it takes up front at NT to hold double teams..two gap DTs and then OLB that can both pass rush and drop in coverage...very difficult to find and expensive to keep. But...if you have that talent...oh wow is it difficult to go up against. Obviously their are important pieces in 4-3 but it does seem to be easier to find and their roles a bit more narrow. I think it will be easier to build a good 4-3 for us. We have a great DT in Hankins and maybe the pass rush if we land Chubb and we have a ball hawking safety...some young corners with potential..add a special LB and we have the makings of a good d...which yes means you can spend on the other side of the ball to help Andrew.

If I remember his point correctly the 43 was literally cheaper because you could play rookies and the 34 is more complex requiring veterans who cost more against the cap.  

 

I read it it a while ago so there may be more to it. It was in his book though

[Superman]

20 minutes ago, Fluke_33 said:

According to polian the 4/3 is cheaper too so you can spend on offense when you have a Stud qb.  

 

Polian's comments about the Colts defense under Dungy weren't just about playing 4-3, they were specifically about playing a Cover 2 / 1 gap defense. You don't need sticky man coverage guys in the secondary, so the price tag is more affordable for corners. And you don't need big, anchoring interior linemen, because you're mostly going with 1-gappers. 

 

The first part is still true, zone coverage is cheaper than man coverage. But up front, guys who can penetrate are now more valuable than run stuffers. 

 

And then you have to remember that Polian basically refused to pay anyone in the defensive front unless they were a pass rusher. 

[DougDew]

58 minutes ago, Douzer said:

If Ballard wants to run a 4-3, so be it, he's the GM. But if he's declaring that a dome team, running a 3-4 can't win a SB, I call bull%$&^. Just run the defense you want, no need to hard sell it with statistical tripe.

Agreed.  Maybe if I heard it in person it would sound different, but quoting that stat sound like someone who's trying to sell something.

[Fluke_33]

12 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Polian's comments about the Colts defense under Dungy weren't just about playing 4-3, they were specifically about playing a Cover 2 / 1 gap defense. You don't need sticky man coverage guys in the secondary, so the price tag is more affordable for corners. And you don't need big, anchoring interior linemen, because you're mostly going with 1-gappers. 

 

The first part is still true, zone coverage is cheaper than man coverage. But up front, guys who can penetrate are now more valuable than run stuffers. 

 

And then you have to remember that Polian basically refused to pay anyone in the defensive front unless they were a pass rusher. 

Ah yes, I remember it well.  

 

Thank you.  Been a while since I read it.  You are correct. 

[BlueShoe]

4 hours ago, Superman said:

Even if his statement is true, I don't think it means indoor teams have a tougher time winning if they run a 3-4. At least, not necessarily. And I didn't take Ballard's comment to mean that, but it's obviously something that has influenced his decision making. 

 

As for the difference in the scheme, I think the size of players in a 3-4 front is greater on average than that of players in a 4-3 front. That probably means your average 4-3 plays faster. Good offensive teams are probably faster/better indoors, which might mean less effective defense from a 3-4 indoors. But, teams play so much nickel now that it kind of doesn't matter.

 

Still, I think his objective on defense is to get faster, but still play tough physically. Not undersized, as a matter of fact, he seems to like bigger DBs, but he definitely wants more speed up front. So do I.

 

I gave this a lot of thought when he said it too. It was an odd comment, especially when he said it wrong the first time and I think it was Kravitz who said something like “the Steelers come to mind”. That’s when Ballard corrected himself and said “indoor” 3-4 teams.

 

The first thing that came to my mind was bigger players in the 3-4 vs not as big players in the 4-3. It’s not like the bigger players has helped us with injuries. Which is the reason I wanted to move to it in the first place. 

 

We have to find the right balance. I am fine with the 4-3 as long as we don’t use 5’8” corners on the outside and 5’10 195 pound safeties attempting to bring down 230 pound backs. 

[#12.]

How many teams even run an old school 3-4 today?  How many teams run an old school 4-3?  It seems like practically every D is a blend, mixture, hybrid, whatever.

 

Pete Carroll always described the Seattle D as a 4-3 with 3-4 personnel.  

[MTC]

Ballard made a poor argument regarding the switch to a 4-3 defense.

 

The Houston Texans and the Arizona Cardinals are the only two teams in a 3-4 defense that play in a dome. Small sampling size there.

[#12.]

Dome vs. outdoor differences were much greater when it was astroturf vs. grass.  Today, with field turf, the differences aren't so great, especially considering many outdoor teams have gone to field turf.

 

Also, what is a dome team these days?  Many of the indoor stadiums have retractable roofs and the new LA and Vegas stadiums will have clear plastic roofs - natural light and field turf, just like in Seattle or New England.

[WoolMagnet]

6 hours ago, J@son said:

 

well apparently Chris Ballard, since he's the one who originally said it. Superman seems to as well since he created a thread about it.  And I'd say that ReMeDry and George Peterson are at least intrigued by the thought since they also replied.  

 

If you don't care, then why bother posting?

He's just getting impatient waiting for his new season tickets located in the newly opened "tarp section."

[BlueShoe]

1 hour ago, #12. said:

How many teams even run an old school 3-4 today?  How many teams run an old school 4-3?  It seems like practically every D is a blend, mixture, hybrid, whatever.

 

Pete Carroll always described the Seattle D as a 4-3 with 3-4 personnel.  

 

A good one to bookmark:

 

NFL Team Schemes

[neug3246]

54 minutes ago, #12. said:

Dome vs. outdoor differences were much greater when it was astroturf vs. grass.  Today, with field turf, the differences aren't so great, especially considering many outdoor teams have gone to field turf.

 

Also, what is a dome team these days?  Many of the indoor stadiums have retractable roofs and the new LA and Vegas stadiums will have clear plastic roofs - natural light and field turf, just like in Seattle or New England.

Weather, wind, rain, snow, cold, heat.... that's the difference. even dome teams with retractable roofs can control what the outdoor teams cant by opening or closing the roof, even if the outdoor teams are playing on field turf or natural grass. Also fun fact Arizona is a dome team that plays on natural grass and not field turf.

[#12.]

23 minutes ago, neug3246 said:

Weather, wind, rain, snow, cold, heat.... that's the difference. even dome teams with retractable roofs can control what the outdoor teams cant by opening or closing the roof, even if the outdoor teams are playing on field turf or natural grass. Also fun fact Arizona is a dome team that plays on natural grass and not field turf.

That's true, but on average, not many games are actually played in cold, inclement weather.  Very few in snow.  For starters, you have numerous southern and west coast teams.  Then, in the northern locales, nearly 3/4 of the season is finished before before Thanksgiving.  What is the average temperature in Cincinnati or Pittsburgh at Thanksgiving?  50?  

 

I don't have access to any numbers, but I would guess the vast majority of NFL games are played in 50 and above relatively calm weather.  Point being, the differences between dome and outdoor football, especially in this era, aren't as great as people make them out to be.

[#12.]

26 minutes ago, neug3246 said:

Also fun fact Arizona is a dome team that plays on natural grass and not field turf.

 

Yeah, Houston had the grass trays for many years.  Last I heard, Vegas was considering a roll out grass field.

[Superman]

2 hours ago, MTC said:

Ballard made a poor argument regarding the switch to a 4-3 defense.

 

The Houston Texans and the Arizona Cardinals are the only two teams in a 3-4 defense that play in a dome. Small sampling size there.

 

I guess I gave the wrong impression of his comment. It wasn't an argument, it was mostly a throwaway line in the middle of his argument, but it intrigued me (and a lot of people at the presser, it seems). 

[NewColtsFan]

9 hours ago, krunk said:

No it was a dome then but it could be opened up.

 

No, my friend...    your memory is playing tricks with you.   Cowboys stadium...   the one the cowboys played in with Jimmy Johnson as  the head coach and the Triplets on their offense was not a Dome.

 

Remember the Cowboys used to describe it as the stadium with the hole in the roof so God could watch his favorite team.

 

Only the current Cowboys stadium (ATT stadium) is a dome.

[Crunked]

To the OP, when I heard Ballard first utter this, I thought "interesting" but didn't really think deeply about it, then when Kravitz said, "Pittsburgh" and Ballard clarified "Dome team" ....I was like wha? that is so singularly prohibitive, my sarcasm kicked in and my mind started creating its own singularly selective fun facts such as no dome 3-4 team has ever worn snow cones as their helmet logo and won the superbowl.....no dome 3-4 team has ever started with the letter Q has ever won a superbowl......no 3-4 dome team that punts every time on first down has ever won a superbowl......etc etc etc.....I don't recall one thing that was said during the rest of the interview I was derailed..lol

[Mr. Irrelevant]

10 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Polian's comments about the Colts defense under Dungy weren't just about playing 4-3, they were specifically about playing a Cover 2 / 1 gap defense. You don't need sticky man coverage guys in the secondary, so the price tag is more affordable for corners. And you don't need big, anchoring interior linemen, because you're mostly going with 1-gappers. 

 

The first part is still true, zone coverage is cheaper than man coverage. But up front, guys who can penetrate are now more valuable than run stuffers. 

 

And then you have to remember that Polian basically refused to pay anyone in the defensive front unless they were a pass rusher. 

 

Thanks Super. I have also heard some imply that a 4-3 is easier to understand for young players than a 3-4, which ultimately might mean that you can rely more on young players from draft (which is cheaper by nature). Maybe that was part of Polian’s plan too. 

 

However, we now have that issue with getting a stellar MLB. He needs it all: high game awareness together with sidelines to sideline play and being able to both cover and stop the run to some degree. That is going to be expensive, and you need a good backup too. 

 

I guess there is no free launch.

[dgambill]

I'm not sure if Ballard's philosophy is such that a 3-4 won't work for a dome team or if there was anything really meaningful to his comment. Maybe it was just a little hyperbole being added to his statement about the change to the 4-3. I guess its hard to know unless we are able to get him to sit down and elaborate more on the comments...which probably aren't going to happen. I think he believes that the personnel required to run a 3-4 effectively is very difficult and expensive to come by. That we can get players that are better suited for the 4-3 and still have a team that will play to our strengths and HFA. Long term team building it will also be easier to sustain and replenish....but again..his comment was kinda strange and leads to a lot of questions.

[mikey287]

Haven't read the thread, but if the OP is an accurate quote, that's an extraordinarily dumb thing to say...

 

It's kind of reminiscent to this: 

 

 

There may be correlation, but it is without causation. I hope deep down that he knows that and is just playing dumb.

[Jason_]

16 hours ago, ColtsBlitz said:

Playing a 4-3 makes much more sense for us anyway considering our best players on defense are all on the d line. Let’s play with our strength on defense, not the weakness. 

 

I think you have that backwards.  Our strength in the 3-4 was the DL (Anderson, Woods, Hankins with Ridgeway, Stewart off the bench).  Switching to a 4-3 takes one of those guys OFF the field.  The 3-4 OLBs (most of them) become DEs and OLB was definitely not our strength last year.  So in switching from a 4-3 to a 3-4 you're taking one DL off the field and replacing him with an OLB. 

 

 

 

[lollygagger8]

Falcons SHOULD have 

[Mr. Irrelevant]

1 hour ago, J@son said:

\The 3-4 OLBs (most of them) become DEs and OLB was definitely not our strength last year.  So in switching from a 4-3 to a 3-4 you're taking one DL off the field and replacing him with an OLB. 

 

... but are we sure that is going to happen at us? I’m thinking a DL with Hankins and Woods in the middle with two DE’s on both sides like Anderson and a newly drafted player/Ridgeway. Then a 3 LB with Simon - new MLB - Sheard.

 

I understand Anderson and Ridgeway are technically DT and not DE, but they are closer to a DE then Simon and Sheard based on size and strength, right?

 

What am I missing?

[Jason_]

7 minutes ago, Mr. Irrelevant said:

 

... but are we sure that is going to happen at us? I’m thinking a DL with Hankins and Woods in the middle with two DE’s on both sides like Anderson and a newly drafted player/Ridgeway. Then a 3 LB with Simon - new MLB - Sheard.

 

I understand Anderson and Ridgeway are technically DT and not DE, but they are closer to a DE then Simon and Sheard based on size and strength, right?

 

What am I missing?

 

Anderson and Ridgeway on the edges against the run would be great but in any passing situation they'll move inside to DT to rush the passer.  We definitely don't want Sheard playing primarily at OLB in a 4-3 defense.  We need coverage guys at OLB.  Even Simon playing SAM in this type of defense is questionable.  Sheard is about the perfect prototypical size for DE in a 4-3 front.  

 

 

However, and here is the caveat, if they're truly trying to recreate the Seattle defense then yes, Anderson and Ridgeway would fit in better at DE.  As someone posted in another thread, Pete Carroll's defense has been described (by Carroll himself) as a 4-3 defense but with 3-4 personnel ....at least on the strong side of the formation.  On the weakside I think they still use a more prototypical 4-3 edge rusher.  

 

If we do wind up trying to duplicate Seattle, then I think the DL would be:

 

LDE - Anderson    LDT - Woods     RDT - Hankins      RDE - Sheard

 

So ultimately to answer your question about whether that is going to happen to us, we don't know yet.  

[Mr. Irrelevant]

2 minutes ago, J@son said:

 

Anderson and Ridgeway on the edges against the run would be great but in any passing situation they'll move inside to DT to rush the passer.  We definitely don't want Sheard playing primarily at OLB in a 4-3 defense.  We need coverage guys at OLB.  Even Simon playing SAM in this type of defense is questionable.  Sheard is about the perfect prototypical size for DE in a 4-3 front.  

 

 

However, and here is the caveat, if they're truly trying to recreate the Seattle defense then yes, Anderson and Ridgeway would fit in better at DE.  As someone posted in another thread, Pete Carroll's defense has been described (by Carroll himself) as a 4-3 defense but with 3-4 personnel ....at least on the strong side of the formation.  On the weakside I think they still use a more prototypical 4-3 edge rusher.  

 

If we do wind up trying to duplicate Seattle, then I think the DL would be:

 

LDE - Anderson    LDT - Woods     RDT - Hankins      RDE - Sheard

 

So ultimately to answer your question about whether that is going to happen to us, we don't know yet.  

 

Thanks! Interesting points, I didn’t realize that we need to retool the LB’ers totally, that seems like a big task, especially if we can’t even use Simon to his best.

 

... and I take it that Green is toast in this system. Unless Ballard is really serious about trying him as a man press CB.

[Jason_]

1 hour ago, lollygagger8 said:

Falcons SHOULD have 

 

Didn't Gus Bradley install a similar 4-3 defense as he ran in Seattle?  According to their posted depth chart it's a 4-3 defense.

[Jason_]

Just now, Mr. Irrelevant said:

 

Thanks! Interesting points, I didn’t realize that we need to retool the LB’ers totally, that seems like a big task, especially if we can’t even use Simon to his best.

 

... and I take it that Green is toast in this system. Unless Ballard is really serious about trying him as a man press CB.

 

Well here's the thing in regards to Simon...Seattle used more of a pass rushing OLB as their SAM (I think) in Bruce Irvin when he was drafted.  Their defense is more of a 4-3 Under (or over...I always get them backwards lol) so one of the OLBs is more of a hybrid DE/OLB and if that's the case then Simon or Mingo should work well there.  Mingo being much more athletic may be able to be coached up to be able to play the WILL.  But yes we definitely need some new LBs.  Preferably at least one in FA and one in the draft.  Bostic seemed to improve as the season went on last year so he may work out and Walker could work in the new defense as well but hard to say how well they'll do.

[aaron11]

1 hour ago, J@son said:

 

I think you have that backwards.  Our strength in the 3-4 was the DL (Anderson, Woods, Hankins with Ridgeway, Stewart off the bench).  Switching to a 4-3 takes one of those guys OFF the field.  The 3-4 OLBs (most of them) become DEs and OLB was definitely not our strength last year.  So in switching from a 4-3 to a 3-4 you're taking one DL off the field and replacing him with an OLB. 

 

 

 

we need to take chubb before the 4-3 is clearly better for the players we have imo

 

i still like the idea of switching without him, but we need to find some guys 

[Jason_]

5 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

we need to take chubb before the 4-3 is clearly better for the players we have imo

 

i still like the idea of switching without him, but we need to find some guys 

 

Oh I disagree with you there.  IMO the guys we have in the front 7 are better suited for a 3-4 (preferably 1 gap) but shouldn't take too much turnover to get better 4-3 personnel.  Most of our guys would work in either but a few (Simon, Mingo, Basham) imo are better suited as OLBs than DEs.  But they'll be great for a Nascar package

[Finball]

45 minutes ago, J@son said:

 

Well here's the thing in regards to Simon...Seattle used more of a pass rushing OLB as their SAM (I think) in Bruce Irvin when he was drafted.  Their defense is more of a 4-3 Under (or over...I always get them backwards lol) so one of the OLBs is more of a hybrid DE/OLB and if that's the case then Simon or Mingo should work well there.  Mingo being much more athletic may be able to be coached up to be able to play the WILL.  But yes we definitely need some new LBs.  Preferably at least one in FA and one in the draft.  Bostic seemed to improve as the season went on last year so he may work out and Walker could work in the new defense as well but hard to say how well they'll do.

 

4-3 under.

 

That 2-gap DE (Red Bryant in the past) came off the field in the nickel and SLB (Avril or Irvin) became the new DE, but lined up wider, closer to the position were the SLB/LEO are at that picture.

 

We have the 2-gap NT (Woods), 3 tech (Anderson, Ridgeway), 2-gapping 4 tech (Hankins), and also Leo in Sheard and SLB in Simon, though some of those position could be upgraded. But we don't have the Mike or Will.

[Jason_]

39 minutes ago, Finball said:

 

4-3 under.

 

That 2-gap DE (Red Bryant in the past) came off the field in the nickel and SLB (Avril or Irvin) became the new DE, but lined up wider, closer to the position were the SLB/LEO are at that picture.

 

We have the 2-gap NT (Woods), 3 tech (Anderson, Ridgeway), 2-gapping 4 tech (Hankins), and also Leo in Sheard and SLB in Simon, though some of those position could be upgraded. But we don't have the Mike or Will.

 

 

Thank you. I'm at work so didn't have time to look up the differences between under and over before saving that last post. Lol

[Jason_]

40 minutes ago, Finball said:

 

4-3 under.

 

That 2-gap DE (Red Bryant in the past) came off the field in the nickel and SLB (Avril or Irvin) became the new DE, but lined up wider, closer to the position were the SLB/LEO are at that picture.

 

We have the 2-gap NT (Woods), 3 tech (Anderson, Ridgeway), 2-gapping 4 tech (Hankins), and also Leo in Sheard and SLB in Simon, though some of those position could be upgraded. But we don't have the Mike or Will.

 

I would like to see Mingo tried out at Will but I'm not holding my breath that he'll excel there. 

[aaron11]

54 minutes ago, J@son said:

 

Oh I disagree with you there.  IMO the guys we have in the front 7 are better suited for a 3-4 (preferably 1 gap) but shouldn't take too much turnover to get better 4-3 personnel.  Most of our guys would work in either but a few (Simon, Mingo, Basham) imo are better suited as OLBs than DEs.  But they'll be great for a Nascar package

mingo is a free agent.  he seems like a rush LB in a 3-4 to me, but he only has 9 career sacks

 

no one has really tried him as an off the ball line backer. he was a 4-3 DE for a while too, but never did much .  he could be a back up for us there still i guess

[Alex22]

We play in a dome - we shouldn't try to be someone we are not ie: ravens. I think the 4-3 suits the team and the 3-4 was never really going to work. 

[Jason_]

1 hour ago, Alex22 said:

We play in a dome - we shouldn't try to be someone we are not ie: ravens. I think the 4-3 suits the team and the 3-4 was never really going to work. 

 

The only reason the 3-4 didn't work here was lack of talent

[lollygagger8]

20 hours ago, J@son said:

 

Didn't Gus Bradley install a similar 4-3 defense as he ran in Seattle?  According to their posted depth chart it's a 4-3 defense.

 

Yup. 4-3 under.

 

Apparently, I'm dyslexic 

[chad72]

20 hours ago, Finball said:

 

4-3 under.

 

That 2-gap DE (Red Bryant in the past) came off the field in the nickel and SLB (Avril or Irvin) became the new DE, but lined up wider, closer to the position were the SLB/LEO are at that picture.

 

We have the 2-gap NT (Woods), 3 tech (Anderson, Ridgeway), 2-gapping 4 tech (Hankins), and also Leo in Sheard and SLB in Simon, though some of those position could be upgraded. But we don't have the Mike or Will.

 

It would have been nice to have Ty McGill for this 1-gap 3-tech need when we make the switch. However, he was more flash than consistent, over the long term.