Originally Posted by Riddle_Of_Steel
I would love to see this too, but it does not fit our scheme. The 3-4 fire blitz is predicated on DE's and a NT that can hog up blockers, and protect two gaps. Shooting a sngle gap leaves gaps unprotected and leaves us vulnerable to stretch plays, overpursuit, and the like.
Unless the personnel you currently have are better suited to a 4-3.
Only if they are able to break through the front 4. In a 4-3, we are talking about an extra 30 - 40 lbs in the front 7 (4 linemen + LBs, vs 4 LBs and only 3 linemen).
Because for one-- we rarely rush 5. Rushing 4 is the typical call. And in a 3-4, it is based on misdirection-- the opposing Oline does not know who the 4th rusher is.
In a 4-3, there is no misdirection-- they know who the 4th rusher is. But the 4-3 exploits a better mismatch-- you are sending 30-40 poounds more with your 4 rushers (4 linemen) than if you were running a 3-4 (only 3 linemen + 1 LB).
A 3-4 pass rush relies on misdirection, a 4-3 pass rush relies more on winning individual matchups. In a 4-3, we would have Ziggy and Cam shooting single gaps to collapse the pocket-- which their build is better suited to. They do not have the wingspan that Aaron Smith or Diesel had, they are not built for holding ground and taking on two blockers. They are built for spreading those two blockers apart.
Very true. The 4-3 would resolve that. The burden of rushing the passer gets emphasized more by the DEs, both of whom are fresh and strong.
In a 4-3, Hood would be crashing the backfield and forcing the stretch back inside, lest they find themselves running into the backs of their own tackles and pulling guards, who presumably, have been shoved into the backfield by Hood and Heyward.
Hood always looks like he is on skates because he is being asked to do a duty that he is not built for. He is being asked to hold his ground or give ground, while maintaining control of two blockers and two gaps. Aaron Smith had the humngous wingspan to do that-- Ziggy and Heyward are more compact and made for splitting guards and tackles apart.
Just my $0.02. I could be wrong-- I am not Dick Lebeau nor a defensive mastermind of any sort.
# 1 I said OCASSIONALY
# 2 I beg to differ. We have exactly O LBs that can drop 25 yards and or cover RBs and tight ends down the seem, or on crossing routs. Ever see Woodley in pass coverage? Yeah, that's the ticket. Spencer, too short and at a 4.6 40.... you're asking for trouble. I'll agee that Timmons would make a great 4-3 MLB, the rest of the bunch, lets say I have my doubts.
# 3 30-40lbs? These guys lose that in water weigh in a game, EACH. Let me run some math here, DEs run about 300, DTs run about 330 that's 1,260 lbs if my math is correct, Hood is 320, Hampton, ?? 340 ( uh huh) Keisel 320 Harrison 240, and Woodley 285 ( and I'm being generous here) totaling 1,405 lbs. AND spread out over a much larger area, with better rush angles. a 3-4 tends to force the OL to spread out.
# 4 Shooting gaps The deal with blocking up a 4-3 is the OL can reduce the width of the gap and negate any advantage. Looking down the road, Baltimore's inovation of placing OGs 1 yard off the line of scrimage pretty much is going to eliminate and DTs from shooting gaps from here and forever more. Watch, this is going to spread through the league like wildfire.
Keep in mind , with every crashing lineman, means that there is an extra blocker downfield to pickoff a defender off if they don't make the play.
Hey, I'm no defensive genius either..... What I don't understand is the 3-4 has been one of the most effective defenses ( not just Lebeau's version) in the history of the game. Look around the league. While I will agree that on a year to year basis, 4-3s can be successsful. but if you look at the Giants for instance, they are somewhat inconsistent season to season, mainly because a 4-3 requires a higher level of individual talent to run. Frankly, talent we don't have at the moment.
As much as I loved our slant 4-3 we ran in the 70's with mostly hall of fame caliber players, our 3-4 has been a very consistent, and highly rated D for over 40 years, with nowheres near the talent. In fact we only have had one Hall member since, Rod Woodson.
Good discussion my friend. I'm enjoying it.