Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

4-3 defense

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by lvbronx View Post
    Another LB we let go was Woodyard, who I think is better than either of the ILBs we have now and has had a good career with Ten.
    Woodward is VERY missed. Probably the best ILB we have had Sonce 56. His leadership also is HUGELY missed. Dudes a natural leader.he has been a captain every single year he's been in the league. I would love to get Woodward back somehow.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Butler By'Note View Post
      Move the Sam back, slightly move over the Mike and Will and they're there. The linemen already play the same techniques needed, it's just a simple alignment tweak....

      And moving Miller to weak side end.
      OK. So, Miller becomes split-side 5/9 tech? Who has tight-side 9 tech? Walker? Wolfe? Where's the rest of the depth? Barrett?

      Whom do you envision as the Sam-Mike-Will Backers?

      Peko, Gotsis, Kerr, Harris and Peko might be OK as 1-2-3 techs, but switching spots for linemen on either side of the ball is an experiment. Malik Jackson didn't excel until he moved from a split front to Phillips' odd front. They might need to add another inside D-Lineman with some lead in his butt.

      The main thing is to stick with one-gap/spill run D. The big difference is one less Backer for pursuit to the sideline. Miller could provide back side pursuit on run plays.
      "Stultum est timere quod vitare non potes." ~ Publilius Syrus

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by beastlyskronk View Post
        Correct me if I’m wrong, but this seems more geared towards run defense. I’ve always thought that a 34 alignment puts a lot of stress on ILBs regardless of philosophy and if you run it particularly in today’s NFL you better have some very talented versatile ILBs. I think it’d better if the 34 OLBs were better in coverage because you could disguise your coverages more. They say Von is good in coverage but I don’t see it personally, I think he looks awkward in coverage.
        Defenses are built to stop the run first. If they don't, they are in trouble.

        Odd-front two-gap run D needs Outside backers to set the edge and funnel run plays to the Inside Backers while the D-Linemen soak up the blocks of the O-Line by commanding a double. Teams with big, physical Outside Backers are probably playing two-gap.

        3-4 D traces its origin to Joe Collier who adapted it from Bud Wilkinson's Oklahoma 50. Odd-front Inside Backers playing two-gap run D have way more reads than odd-front Backers playing one-gap.

        Don't today's 3-4 Outside Backers rush the passer more often than they cover? And, when they do cover, isn't it mostly short zone and almost never man? I would think that a 3-4 using Zone Blitz would tend to drop an Outside Backer. Four pass rushers is considered normal, but Phillips sent five and called it Dog which goes back to the 50 D.

        3-4 defenses usually have their Inside Backers cover the Backs, don't they? They'd like one of them to cover the TE, but many teams have been using Safeties for that recently in a Nickel look sometimes with three Safeties which turns a 3-4 into a 3-3-5 and a 4-3 into a 4-2-5.
        Last edited by samparnell; 01-16-2018, 02:33 PM.
        "Stultum est timere quod vitare non potes." ~ Publilius Syrus

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by samparnell View Post
          OK. So, Miller becomes split-side 5/9 tech? Who has tight-side 9 tech? Walker? Wolfe? Where's the rest of the depth? Barrett?

          Whom do you envision as the Sam-Mike-Will Backers?

          Peko, Gotsis, Kerr, Harris and Peko might be OK as 1-2-3 techs, but switching spots for linemen on either side of the ball is an experiment. Malik Jackson didn't excel until he moved from a split front to Phillips' odd front. They might need to add another inside D-Lineman with some lead in his butt.

          The main thing is to stick with one-gap/spill run D. The big difference is one less Backer for pursuit to the sideline. Miller could provide back side pursuit on run plays.
          I see Miller as the weak side end, Peko as the nose tackle, Gotsis as the 3 tech and Wolfe/Walker as the strong side ends. Shelby Harris would be the sub for the 3 tech, and if kept Kerr /young peso would be the backup nose tackle. Shane Ray would be the backup at weak side end.

          At backer, based on current personnel (assuming RFAs and ERFAs are kept) I would try Shaq Barrett and Brandon Marshall as the Mike backer, with Nelson and Anderson being depth guys who would probably be limited to Will based on their size. But I would keep those two strictly for depth and special teams abilities. In free agency I'd add at least one LB and I'd draft at least 1 as well.

          Ideally the Broncos LBs in a 4-3 would be Draft Pick at Will-Marshall at Mike and Free agent at Sam.

          Regardless of which scheme they play, the Broncos are hurting at LB right now, and this needs to be addressed.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by lvbronx View Post
            Another LB we let go was Woodyard, who I think is better than either of the ILBs we have now and has had a good career with Ten.
            Woodyard had a tremendous season as the weakside linebacker in 2012, but in 2013 he was moved to middle linebacker (I don't remember the reason, I think we were still playing a 4-3 scheme) and struggled because of his size, getting benched at one point. WIth the Titans, he had to adapt and learn how to play inside linebacker in a 3-4 scheme but I still think he's a natural weakside linebacker in a 4-man front.
            sigpic

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by munoz1987 View Post
              No, No, No!!!

              It's no Coincidence this D became an All time Great Defense once they switched to a true 3-4 D. Von was born to be a 3-4 OLB. 4-3 D or 4-3 D hybrid waste his talents.

              You don't buy a Corvette then put snow tires on it.
              What if you're an American expatriate living in Norway who wants to take your Corvette out for a spin during winter?
              Would that be ok?

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by samparnell View Post
                Defenses are built to stop the run first. If they don't, they are in trouble.

                Odd-front two-gap run D needs Outside backers to set the edge and funnel run plays to the Inside Backers while the D-Linemen soak up the blocks of the O-Line by commanding a double. Teams with big, physical Outside Backers are probably playing two-gap.

                3-4 D traces its origin to Joe Collier who adapted it from Bud Wilkinson's Oklahoma 50. Odd-front Inside Backers playing two-gap run D have way more reads than odd-front Backers playing one-gap.

                Don't today's 3-4 Outside Backers rush the passer more often than they cover? And, when they do cover, isn't it mostly short zone and almost never man? I would think that a 3-4 using Zone Blitz would tend to drop an Outside Backer. Four pass rushers is considered normal, but Phillips sent five and called it Dog which goes back to the 50 D.

                3-4 defenses usually have their Inside Backers cover the Backs, don't they? They'd like one of them to cover the TE, but many teams have been using Safeties for that recently in a Nickel look sometimes with three Safeties which turns a 3-4 into a 3-3-5 and a 4-3 into a 4-2-5.
                I’m just saying that what we ask our ILBs to do in this style of defense is a lot, a lot for what their talent level is IMO. Even in a one gap 3-4 they’re still going to have to take on oline men just based on the alignment more often than playing with 4 down linemen. They were fine there this season with Peko making a big difference in the run game but Marshall is solid against the run as is Davis when he isn’t overrunning his gaps.

                However their man coverage responsibilities seem a tad much at times given what we currently have at the position. When they have to go out wide against a TE so our safeties can play 2 high it causes a huge mismatch because if I’m a QB I’m sending my RB out wide and I know one of those guys will get open. Trevathan made Marshall look so good in coverage because of how versatile he was in coverage, being able to man a TE or RB out wide and cover a variety of routes, being able to cover RBs out of the backfield, and being adept in zone coverage. It allowed us to put Marshall in a position to succeed in coverage.

                Marshall can get to the flats and isn’t too bad at carrying the RB up the sideline on a wheel route, he’s also pretty good against the lesser receiving threats at TE. However Davis is pretty bad in coverage throughout so it forces Marshall to have a wider range of coverage responsibilities and as a result they’ve both looked lost in coverage pretty much all season.

                Switching to a base 4-3 likely wouldn’t change much given how often we’re in nickle and dime sets but Corey Nelson is way better in coverage than Davis so unless we want to test him at ILB (he did record 67 tackles 2 seasons ago with Marshall in and out the lineup) we’d have to try him as a WLB which is what he’s best suited for IMO. He probably would’ve supplanted Davis this season if not for his season ending injury and might not actually be a liability against the run with our current dline.

                As far as getting OLBs in a 34 that can cover better, that’s just an evolution I’d like to see. They’re primarily pass rushers now so you kind of have to try and hide them in coverage a bit when you do drop them. If you can find a guy that can rush the passer and drop back (a rarity that would surely require premium draft capital) then it would open up a lot of potential doors in what you can do schematically especially if both OLBs can drop back effectively. Anthony Barr is a guy who’s become good in both areas as the SLB for the Vikings.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Butler By'Note View Post
                  I see Miller as the weak side end, Peko as the nose tackle, Gotsis as the 3 tech and Wolfe/Walker as the strong side ends. Shelby Harris would be the sub for the 3 tech, and if kept Kerr /young peso would be the backup nose tackle. Shane Ray would be the backup at weak side end.

                  At backer, based on current personnel (assuming RFAs and ERFAs are kept) I would try Shaq Barrett and Brandon Marshall as the Mike backer, with Nelson and Anderson being depth guys who would probably be limited to Will based on their size. But I would keep those two strictly for depth and special teams abilities. In free agency I'd add at least one LB and I'd draft at least 1 as well.

                  Ideally the Broncos LBs in a 4-3 would be Draft Pick at Will-Marshall at Mike and Free agent at Sam.

                  Regardless of which scheme they play, the Broncos are hurting at LB right now, and this needs to be addressed.
                  Everything in this post is absolutely rediculous (this entire thread is actually). The Broncos are not switching to a 4-3. We have had one of the best defenses in the NFL over the past 4 seasons, a switch in schemes would be ludicrous. Instead of using this draft to fix the offense we would have to spend the entire draft for the next 3 seasons getting players to fit a 4-3. There is not 1 player in our front 7 that is a better fit in that even front.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Marshall is trash, period. If we were to switch to this I want a new MLB. Draft Jerome Baker in round 2 and we’ve got one.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by beastlyskronk View Post
                      I’m just saying that what we ask our ILBs to do in this style of defense is a lot, a lot for what their talent level is IMO. Even in a one gap 3-4 they’re still going to have to take on oline men just based on the alignment more often than playing with 4 down linemen. They were fine there this season with Peko making a big difference in the run game but Marshall is solid against the run as is Davis when he isn’t overrunning his gaps.

                      However their man coverage responsibilities seem a tad much at times given what we currently have at the position. When they have to go out wide against a TE so our safeties can play 2 high it causes a huge mismatch because if I’m a QB I’m sending my RB out wide and I know one of those guys will get open. Trevathan made Marshall look so good in coverage because of how versatile he was in coverage, being able to man a TE or RB out wide and cover a variety of routes, being able to cover RBs out of the backfield, and being adept in zone coverage. It allowed us to put Marshall in a position to succeed in coverage.

                      Marshall can get to the flats and isn’t too bad at carrying the RB up the sideline on a wheel route, he’s also pretty good against the lesser receiving threats at TE. However Davis is pretty bad in coverage throughout so it forces Marshall to have a wider range of coverage responsibilities and as a result they’ve both looked lost in coverage pretty much all season.

                      Switching to a base 4-3 likely wouldn’t change much given how often we’re in nickle and dime sets but Corey Nelson is way better in coverage than Davis so unless we want to test him at ILB (he did record 67 tackles 2 seasons ago with Marshall in and out the lineup) we’d have to try him as a WLB which is what he’s best suited for IMO. He probably would’ve supplanted Davis this season if not for his season ending injury and might not actually be a liability against the run with our current dline.

                      As far as getting OLBs in a 34 that can cover better, that’s just an evolution I’d like to see. They’re primarily pass rushers now so you kind of have to try and hide them in coverage a bit when you do drop them. If you can find a guy that can rush the passer and drop back (a rarity that would surely require premium draft capital) then it would open up a lot of potential doors in what you can do schematically especially if both OLBs can drop back effectively. Anthony Barr is a guy who’s become good in both areas as the SLB for the Vikings.
                      What you describe sounds more like a personnel problem than one of scheme/coverage. Denver has gotten by in the past few years by not devoting high, middle draft picks or free agents on Inside Backers. On Cover 1, defenders usually count from outside in which usually puts a Back on a Backer unless a Safety is in the box.

                      If Safeties are in deep halves, the under coverage is usually four zones unless it's Combo. If an opposing RB is a regular route runner, game planning can be done to put a Safety on him especially in a Nickel look. Deep halves can be straight Cover 2, Cover 2 Robber or Tampa 2. If Tampa, an Inside Backer covers the seam receiver which is sort of a Combo with four short zones. Cover 2 Robber and Tampa 2 show Middle of Field Open, but close it while straight Cover 2 leaves it open. That's why all three should be used in addition to Zone Blitz.
                      "Stultum est timere quod vitare non potes." ~ Publilius Syrus

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by crp24lbc View Post
                        Everything in this post is absolutely rediculous (this entire thread is actually). The Broncos are not switching to a 4-3. We have had one of the best defenses in the NFL over the past 4 seasons, a switch in schemes would be ludicrous. Instead of using this draft to fix the offense we would have to spend the entire draft for the next 3 seasons getting players to fit a 4-3. There is not 1 player in our front 7 that is a better fit in that even front.
                        Denver already plays a split front much of the time. It's either a 4-3 or 4-2-5 look depending on the personnel package and where they line up.

                        As previously stated, it isn't the alignment, it's what is done from the alignment. Regardless of the D being in an odd or split front, they still play one-gap/spill run D.

                        Miller already plays at LOS most of the time and fills the role of a DE anyway. Denver is pretty thin in the Backer Dept. especially on the Inside.

                        Major personnel changes aren't necessary to play in a split front unless the switch is to two-gap/funnel run D. If the Broncos played an odd-front two-gap/funnel, they would also require major personnel changes. However, I don't think either of these will happen.
                        "Stultum est timere quod vitare non potes." ~ Publilius Syrus

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X