I thought about this just a bit ago, and someone who is more knowledgeable about football, please help me. When watching the 3-4 defense, you have four defensive backs, four roaming linebackers, and three linemen. The defensive backs' responsibilities involve containment, and coverage in some combination of man and zone. The four linebackers have varying responsibilities, including coverage, pass rushing and actual offensive line lockdown duties. The three defensive linemen have the responsibility of shutting down 4 of the offensive linemen in different arrangements, and one of the three putting rush pressure on the quarterback by getting free, generating big play potential. The whole premise of the 3-4 is to never give up the big play, put pressure on the quarterback, and force the defense into a mistake. Ball hawks, big hitters and fast men off the edge are ideal as they can do this wonderfully, but also necessary are individuals who can 'prevent mistakes' so to speak: guys who lock down and have large areas of tackling ability. The 3-4 is never going to lead the league in fewest yards allowed on the ground. It's just going to prevent the other team from putting up a lot of big gains. The problem I see with this sort of defense, is in the responsibilities of the individuals in certain offensive arrangements. The 3-4 defense is very hard to read if you're on the outside looking in, but there is a lot of ability to force the 3-4 into reacting in certain ways to certain situations. This is what happened today at the Meadowlands when Jonathan Vilma got burned for a touchdown. He came up to cover the run at the goal line, but behind him there was no one. Let me ask you this. The average fan looks at that and says, "Wow, Vilma got killed. That sucks." But he's a linebacker. He's supposed to react to the run and stuff it. He has to charge the line. If he doesn't, it's a surefire touchdown. Behind him, we have no one. No one in the end zone, no one covering the spot that is most in Tom Brady's line of sight. Typically, offenses faced with a goal line passing situation runs a receiver across the middle, dragging a safety over, and the 3-4 has 'coverage' there, because the defensive back runs along with the receiver, and you have a normal play. But what happened today was very different. There was no "Five and In" pattern called, there was no receiver near the goal posts. There was a huge void in that back field, one that had poor Mr. Vilma to cover its entirety by himself. The problem with a 3-4, is that when you isolate a guy who is responsible for multiple duties, you can beat him with pure physics. Make him go the one way he has to, and then switch his responsibility quickly enough, into an area where no one else is home. Now, some of you will say the 4-3 has this same problem, but that's not so true. The 4-3 is a lock you down, hit your RB with losses, and hope to God the stellar defensive backs will stop you cold. Look at the Ravens when they play a 4-3. They give most of their players one, maybe two responsibilities, and its on them to not blow it. Ray Lewis will always either be in coverage, or rushing the passer in a 4-3. He comes out of coverage to play the run, but if he blows it, there's Ed Reed to back him up, since in a 4-3 Tampa Cover 2, the safeties usually cover that back area, and pick up a guy. When you watch Tampa Bay in the 2002 Super Bowl, watch how that amazing Defense played. Where are the big plays? The defensive ends on the edge, and the defensive backs making big plays. Hammer it in their face, and let your linebackers roam around and fill in space. Back to the 3-4. The Patriots always, always, always have multiple looks, different alignments, and switch things up to force the offense to make a mistake in their schemes, or generate a mismatch that can't be audibled on fast enough. They always look to generate confusion and rely on superior athletic ability to lock down a chunk of the offensive line, to let the one-three guys who blitz to come down like a hammer on the QB. A rookie LG is a nightmare against this defense. If a team lines up against the Pats Defense, they have two options to succeed. The run is always good for a couple of yards if you have a great set of linemen who adjust to new blockers flawlessly. Unfortunately, most lines don't have a talent set so wonderful, someone misses a block, fails to drive someone down field, and then Thomas Jones walks into a mass of flesh that results in a 1 yard gain. The other option is to have a quarterback who can cerebrally pick apart the gaps, find spaces to succeed, and score a few touchdowns. Chad did a great job of this today, in spite of having no time to pass, he was able to find the gaps in the defense, ignored the fear that a tenacious front 7 brings to quarterback, and was able to produce plays. Now, a great play set against the 3-4, one that capitalizes on the weaknesses of their defense, will make these gaps in coverage larger. By picking on someone who has 3 duties at once. By looking to break open the mid size play, and to abuse someone who is stretched too thin. By giving multiple looks, by counter-confusing the defense, by leaving someone on an island - one they have to run back and forth on. Vilma, I don't blame you for that touchdown pass. I blame the fact that you were put in a position where you were going to fail. Not by Mangini, but by the Patriot's play that was called, since you're in a defense that they didn't need film to plan for, one that they need only to check within their own home for the solution. Sorry to ramble, but, thought?
So if the 3-4 is so flawed, why does New England, San Diego and Dallas have such great success using it?
The difference is that, other teams have DLs that can actually close down the running lane all by themselves, but Jets do not. Thus Vilma gets another responsibility that shouldn't be his.
The 3-4 definitely requires more out of the LBs, but it allows you to be more flexible and creative while getting what should be a quicker, more athletic defense on the field. I think our coaching staff let us down on that side of the ball today, and then of course our front 7 has no consistent play makers. I think the 4-3 could provide a slight improvement to our run defense, but I still don't see us getting any penetration against the pass until somebody steps up. Even Vilma, while a tackling machine in the 4-3, still failed to make the big plays (sacks, takeaways) that we expected of him. We need a gamebreaker up front, which we haven't had since the 1 or 2 games Abraham would actually play in every season.
The 3-4 is not flawed. It's a defense designed to shut down the run and force the opponent to pass, at which point the right outside linebacker is freed up to blitz from a wider angle than normal which puts great pressure on the offensive line to both cover him and any other blitzer (normally an interior LB) coming up the middle. The Jets personnel for the 3-4 is very flawed. They can't do the stop the run thing and that basically gives them no control of the flow. At no point since they implemented the 3-4 have they looked more than modestly competent at running it. Not only can they not stop the run but they have to blitz defensive backs to get any real kind of pass pressure and that leaves them very thin in pass coverage. What do the Jets need to do to get better at the 3-4? Get better people to play in it in the front 7.
That is incorrect. In recent years, the following 3-4 teams all led the league in fewest rushing yards allowed. 2005 Chargers 2004 Steelers 2002 Steelers 2001 Steelers
The 3-4 is an anti-run defense that was designed originally to handle the Earl Campbell/Eric Dickerson/Walter Payton/Barry Sanders type attacks that lived off of a huge talented tailback who set everything else up. The coaches who bought into the 3-4 were almost universally ex-defenders who knew exactly what killed defenses: pounding running games with the potential to break a long one on any play.
The 3-4 is a great defense if you have the personnel. If you don't have a monster nose tackle who needs to be double teamed on most plays it's not going to be the right defense. If you don't have 2 gap 300 pound ends who can hold there group again it's going to be a problem. The linebackers are another story all together. You need 4 unique guys weighting at least 240 pounds with multiple skill sets.
The 3-4 became popular in the 1970s when Don Shula implemented it. The problem with the 3-4 is it is difficult to generate a pass rush, as we saw today with the Jets. Teams that were successful with the 3-4 had excellent rush linebackers. Steelers with Greg Lloyd and later Joey Porter Giants with Lawrence Taylor Chargers with Shawne Merriman Oilers with Robert Brazile (Bum Phillips was a huge proponent of the 3-4) Saints with Pat Swilling and later Renaldo Turnbull The Raiders had great success with the 3-4 with Ted Hendricks and Rod Martin as the OLBs. The Broncos also had extended success with the 3-4 from the mid-1970s through the early 1990s. The Bengals made it to two Super Bowls with a 3-4. Reggie Williams was the key right outside linebacker. The Bills great teams of the late 1980s/early 1990s ran a 3-4. Of course, Bruce Smith was great, but outside linebackers Cornelius Bennett and Darryl Talley were just as important. In 1980, the Falcons were arguably the best team in the NFL during the regular season. Unfortunately, they suffered a horrible last minute defeat at the hands of the Cowboys in the Divisional Round. The Falcons ran a 3-4 that year. Jeff Yeates, Don Smith, and Jeff Merrow were the linemen. The linebackers were the key to the defense. Al Richardson was the LOLB. He was a rookie and an All-Pro that year. The inside linebackers were Fulton (Captain Crazy) Kuykendall and Buddy Curry. Joel Williams was the ROLB. Only the Lions and Eagles allowed fewer yards on the ground that year. By the way, the greatest individual effort by a defensive player, in my opinion, was made by Williams in that Dallas-Atlanta playoff game. Williams blitzed and just narrowly missed sacking Danny White. White got the ball off before being sacked. Williams was on the ground after having taken down White. Preston Pearson caught the pass and took off down the field. Some 40 yards later, Williams had chased down Pearson and stripped him of the ball, which was recovered by Atlanta. If you can find the footage, you will be amazed. In conclusion, I am with you on this. The Jets need better players in their front seven. Most of all, they need a dynamic outside linebacker. Bryan Thomas and Victor Hobson are okay. Okay is okay. The Jets need somebody dynamic.
Cakes: Gracias for the clarification. I guess my read on the 3-4 was skewed as I figured it was to allow a few rushing yards and prevent the big play translated into allowing more rushing yards. I forgot that most of any given teams rushing yards in a game come from said big play. So basically, by everyone's read...we need a guy like Adalius Thomas on the outside, and we needed Dwayne Robertson to eat Kim von Oelhoffen while we had him, become one person, and take up two guys?
I think of the utmost importance is a dynamic outside linebacker. A quality nose tackle is the second biggest key. The Chargers have both. Shawne Merriman and Jamal Williams are those guys. Their left end, Luis Castillo, is also a big player for them, as well as the other outside linebacker, Shaun Phillips. Re: Thomas- The problem is those types of linebackers don't grow on trees. The Cowboys have one in DeMarcus Ware. Joey Porter could have been acquired. He's better than Victor Hobson, but what's the sense in bellyaching about that now? Most teams don't run the 3-4 because it is hard to find the necessary dynamic OLB and the quality nose tackle. There are not enough guys like Taylor, Brazile, Swilling, and Porter out there. Some stuff on Brazile- http://www.houstonprofootball.com/team/olb1.html
Hey guys, I've been thinking up this theory for a while and would greatly appreciate the input on int: Is the massive NT really the only option in a 3-4 defense? Up until this point the most successful 3-4 teams have had the massive body anchoring the center of the d-line. This point I am not arguing. But, would it be possible to change the make-up of a 3-4 by utilizing a smaller, quicker DT with the ability to penetrate and get up-field, compensating for the lack of size with larger and stronger linebackers playing behind him? Let's say, hypetheticaly we switch the classic Ted Washington/Sam Adams/Jason Ferguson type DT for a quicker, pass-rushing type DT in the mold of let's say, Warren Sapp (seems like a poor example, I know, but please hold off on the Raiders 3-4 years comments and retorts until you read the whole thing!). Set behind hind him two linebackers in the 240-250lbs. weight range with the proper strength to take on guards and play/disrupt the run w/o the immediate support of a lane-clogger in front of them. Now, supposing that you have on the roster a NT who has a quick-enough first step to give the center some trouble but whose size does not seem to necessitate a double-team from either of the guards. Allow him to utilize his pass-rushing and penetration skills to get into the backfield and disrupt (not necessarily stop) the run from there. If this NT can create enough hesitation from the HB, making him change directions in a shrunken backfield (a condition that should already be created by the DEs of a normal 3-4 scheme) with at least one linebacker pinning or at least occupying one of the guards in place and stuffing the hole, allowing your playside OLB to attack the ball-carrier while the awayside OLB to cover the reverse and giving your CBs and safties the ability to come up and support the run. This scheme could possibly even be augmented with the help of some larger DEs in the mold of Louis Castillo or someone with DeWayne's body-type (minus the arthritic, bone-on-bone condition in his knee). You still would have the advantage of the match-up difficulties the 3-4 typically creates in run-blocking, plus, depending on the skill level of your NT, you may be able to have him command a double-team based on his ability to penetrate the backfield and get to the fb or possibly the ballcarrier. Of course, the scheme is not infallible. You do need to find the personnelle suited for this defense which would not be easy to come-by. But, as was stated before by Cakes, the type of players needed to make the 3-4 successfull aren't exactly a dime-a-dozen either. I am not attempting to offer this as a replacement to the current model but simply as an alternative option to the predominant concept if you cannont find the players required to run what we now know as the 3-4 defense. Of course you wouldn't be able to flip-flop between schemes based on your roster turn-over and you would have to make a long-term commitment to either one scheme or the other. Please feel free to comment, would love the input. Cheers! P.S. I think that I should defend my use of Sapp as an example in this post since most people already know what happens when you take a 3 technique DT and try to use him as a 3-4 NT. My problem with the Sapp situation was always that I felt the Raiders were trying to force him into a role that he just wasn't suited for instead of relying the strengths he already had. I was always of the opinion that the defense might have been more successful if they allowed him to utilize his pass-rushing ability and perhaps slightly reworked the scheme. I guess Sapp just had the unfortunate luck of having the shoulder width, girth, and wight of what appeared to be a classic 3-4 NT.
The basic difference between the 4-3 and the 3-4 is that in the 3-4, the linemen are more used to create opportunities for a blitzing linebacker.
