If both are mastered, which is better and why? 3-4 or 4-3?

[the_future23]

Is 3-4 that much better or is a 4-3 just as good?

 

[kerouac9]

Depends on your personnel and what you're trying to take away. I'd add the Tampa-2 into that equation, as well.

 

[Poorknight1]

It's my humble opinion that the 3-4 is generally easier to staff. The 4-3 is predicated on having dominant ends that typically fit a specific athletic mold (extremely tall, lengthy, fast, etc.). There are obvious exceptions to this rule (Freeney, and the like). Unfortunately, those type of players typically command HUGE money which carries it's own set of problems. The OLB's in the 34 front are relied upon for a large portion of your pash rush and it's much easier (again, my opinion) to find smaller college ends to convert to pro OLB's.

Plus the 3-4 has some cool stuff that it does in regard to zone blitzing that allows you to make use of your more versatile athletes. Largely stuff that you typically don't see as much in the 4-3 or the Tampa 2 scheme that allow you to mask certain personnel deficiencies.

Lastly, the 3-4 seems like more of a "system" defense, if that makes any sense. If you have smart players, and everyone buys into doing their assigned job, it appears to be an easier defense to plug and play new guys into. Guys that may otherwise have some athletic deficiencies.

 

[kerouac9]

FWIW, I think each of the systems have the same basic philosophies. This is what we heard from Clancy Pendergast as well as from Bill Davis last year when we were running a lot of 4-3 defenses toward the end of the season.

In short, the 3-4 defense is a better run-stopping defense because you have 5 large guys close to the LOS and you have two 260-lbs OLBs containing the edge rush. The problem with the 3-4 is that it's not a great pass defense because you have a bunch of big guys and not enough little fast guys. The zone blitz scheme tries to get around this problem by disguising where the fourth or fifth pass rusher is coming from.

The 4-3 defense is a better pass-containment scheme because you have four guys who can collapse the pocket and get to the passer, as well as three faster LBs flowing to the ball on run downs or dropping back into coverage on passing downs. When you look at the Jags' 4-3 defense with Henderson and Strout two-gapping, it was a thing of beauty. What the 4-3 defense allows your players to do is specialize--the DEs don't have to worry about zone coverage responsibilities and can instead hone their pass rush techniques. The downsides are that the edge is harder to set and you have to trust your LBs to get around the corner to reach the ball carrier. Also, finding a 275+ lbs defensive end who can bull rush and speed rush with equal ability is a difficult task.

Personally, I believe the Tampa-2 brings the best of all worlds. You can use the smaller pass rush specialist DEs without having to re-train them as two-point LBs--guys like Freeney, Simeon Rice, Jared Allen, etc. You can use smaller LBs coming to the football. You can use bigger, slower CBs. But the Tampa-2 requires that players tackle toward their teammates (ESPN.com years ago did a really cool story on how Tampa defenders under Kiffin practiced tackling to force ball carriers toward their teammates years ago). Your safties have to be really smart players, and your MLB has to have the speed to drop way back into the defensive secondary.

Because LBs and CBs are disposable in the Tampa-2, I think that it best allocates your resources on the defensive side of the football.

 

[bg7brd]

Good stuff K9!

 

[Poorknight1]

But the Tampa-2 requires that players tackle toward their teammates (ESPN.com years ago did a really cool story on how Tampa defenders under Kiffin practiced tackling to force ball carriers toward their teammates years ago).

"Spill to the Will", baby! I concur, that was an excellent article.

 

[WildBB]

Good break down K9 and pk.

I think in our case especially, we're not stuck in one scheme. They may want to commit more to the one scheme as it progresses personell wise, but we have seen a combination of schemes here to varying degrees of success.
Some like a 4-2-5 on obvious third and passing situations, has been fairly prevalent here. Even a 3-2-6 has been used, with the Will backer used as basically a rush end.

I guess you could call them all offshoots of both 3-4 and 4-3 systems, as most teams use these in passing situations reguardless of the sytem they run.

So there is not a base pure system on three downs any more in the NFL because of the sophistication of the passing attacks., where teams run out five recievers and an outlet third downs on a regular basis.

 

[Duckjake]

t

he 3-4 defense is a better run-stopping defense because you have 5 large guys close to the LOS and you have two 260-lbs OLBs containing the edge rush. The problem with the 3-4 is that it's not a great pass defense because you have a bunch of big guys and not enough little fast guys. The zone blitz scheme tries to get around this problem by disguising where the fourth or fifth pass rusher is coming from.

This is exactly the opposite of what type players the Cards have. So as I've often said what are they doing playing a 3-4 with a bunch of little fast guys?

And if the 3-4 is not as good a pass defense why are teams in a pass happy league changing to it?

Confusing to say the least.

 

[Russ Smith]

t

This is exactly the opposite of what type players the Cards have. So as I've often said what are they doing playing a 3-4 with a bunch of little fast guys?

And if the 3-4 is not as good a pass defense why are teams in a pass happy league changing to it?

Confusing to say the least.

Because they're all copying Pittsburgh who despite having issues stopping the pass in some years always seem to have a really good defense.

I do agree though when we were in the 4-3 I thought we had more 3-4 personnel, now I tend to think the opposite. Grass is always greener I guess.

 

[Buckybird]

Clancy Pendergast as well as Bill Davis

2 great sources...they might know the defenses but had problems coaching them

 

[kerouac9]

t

This is exactly the opposite of what type players the Cards have. So as I've often said what are they doing playing a 3-4 with a bunch of little fast guys?

And if the 3-4 is not as good a pass defense why are teams in a pass happy league changing to it?

Confusing to say the least.

I think the benefit of a 3-4 in a pass happy league is that you can flood the zones with smaller, faster linebackers and get rid of the quick pass. There are far more serviceable linebackers in the NFL than there are good cornerbacks, and you really don't want a defensive end out in coverage very often. That's what the Jets did in the playoffs.

I think the idea with teams switching to a 3-4 is in part of necessity. The pass rushers coming out of college these days just aren't big enough to fill the needs for a 4-3 defensive team. Those 270 lbs DEs aren't going to be as useful to you on special teams, while your 255 lbs OLB can play on that unit and you save money under the cap.

Finally, Michael Lombardi says that a spread offense is only as good as the running back in the backfield, not necessarily the QB (perhaps why the Colts have foundered the last couple years). Because the 3-4 defense (ostensibly) bottles up the run well (4 of the top 5 rush defenses in 2010 were 3-4 Ds, and in 2009 as well), then you force your opponent to pass. It's like the old adage--only one bad thing can happen when you run the ball, but 3 bad things can happen when you pass.

 

[ARodg]

I think you're over complicating things K9. I think it's a simple matter that the NFL realized that confusing and getting to QBs is the only thing that can stop an Offense with today's rules. So they kill two birds with one stone by gettint better speed rushers (OLBs) and also confusing the QB based on where the rush will be coming from (Zone blitz)

 

[Russ Smith]

I think you're over complicating things K9. I think it's a simple matter that the NFL realized that confusing and getting to QBs is the only thing that can stop an Offense with today's rules. So they kill two birds with one stone by gettint better speed rushers (OLBs) and also confusing the QB based on where the rush will be coming from (Zone blitz)

Certainly true to a large extent.

The thing is the NFL is a copycat league so right now teams are all going 3-4. Eventually someone will have a great 4-3 defense and when enough teams are 3-4, then the 4-3 will seem confusing and then everyone will copy them too.

It's like fishing we go white bass fishing every year and there's always someone asking what color are you catching them on(flies or lures) and if you tell them chartreuse that's what they'll use. In the end the reason why everyone is catching them on chartreuse is, because everyone is using chartreuse, when they're biting the will take just about any color.

 

[kerouac9]

I think you're over complicating things K9. I think it's a simple matter that the NFL realized that confusing and getting to QBs is the only thing that can stop an Offense with today's rules. So they kill two birds with one stone by gettint better speed rushers (OLBs) and also confusing the QB based on where the rush will be coming from (Zone blitz)

But WHY are OLBs "better" speed rushers (whatever that means)? Yes, the top 4 sack leaders in the NFL in 2010 were OLBs, but 8 of the top 14 were DEs and 11 of the top 20 were DEs. There's no inherent positional advantage to pass rushing from the OLB position.

Guys like Cameron Wake, DeMarcus Ware, T-Sizzle, and Tamba Hali rush the passer the vast majority of the time they're on the field, anyway. It's not like an opposing OT is going to be surprised when DeMarcus Ware crosses the line.

Base personnel groupings are decided by (1) money and (2) talent. Look at the drafts of the past few years; heck, look at this year's draft. The top sack artists are getting lighter and smaller, and the price on the Mario Williamses and Julius Peppers of the NFL are only going to go up.

 

[Duckjake]

But WHY are OLBs "better" speed rushers (whatever that means)? Yes, the top 4 sack leaders in the NFL in 2010 were OLBs, but 8 of the top 14 were DEs and 11 of the top 20 were DEs. There's no inherent positional advantage to pass rushing from the OLB position.

Guys like Cameron Wake, DeMarcus Ware, T-Sizzle, and Tamba Hali rush the passer the vast majority of the time they're on the field, anyway. It's not like an opposing OT is going to be surprised when DeMarcus Ware crosses the line.

Base personnel groupings are decided by (1) money and (2) talent. Look at the drafts of the past few years; heck, look at this year's draft. The top sack artists are getting lighter and smaller, and the price on the Mario Williamses and Julius Peppers of the NFL are only going to go up.

Meanwhile our top sack guy is 6'8" 300lbs. The Cards do everything backwards.

 

[AZCARDSFANATIC]

I agree that it depends on personel, we did not belong in a 3-4 since we had only 2 good LB, Lenon and Washington, yet we had a plethora of decent DL and could rotate allot. The scheme itself lends to the 3-4 though, looking at the top 5 Defense in 4 categories state the same

Scoring: Pitt 3-4, GBay 3-4, Bal 3-4, Chi 4-3, Atl 4-3
Pass D: SD 3-4, Oak 4-3, Buf 3-4, NO 4-3, GBay 3-4
Run D: Pitt 3-4, Chi 4-3, NYJ 3-4, SD 3-4, Bal 3-4
Sacks: Pitt 3-4, SD 3-4, Oak 4-3, GBay 3-4, NYG 4-3

35% 4-3, 65% 3-4. Don's scrutinize the Buffalo pass D they faced the same average pass attempts per game as the others.

Know your personel and adapt to what they can do. Maybe we can prescribe to this idea.

 

[Seandonic]

The Jaguars defense was indeed a thing of beauty.

 

[bornnraisedwhodat]

If both are mastered, it really makes no difference. It depends on the play of the players.

The 3-4 is good for putting pressure on the QB and confusing them at times depending on how exotic your schemes are, and if you have the right players. You need a stout Nose Tackle that can take on double teams constantly, 2 big DE's that can play the run and seal the edges. And Fast athletic OLB's to rush the passer and some heady and quick ILB's that can cover.

A 4-3 is pretty simple if you stick to your base. But if it is stout with 2 elite pass rushers, dominant tackles, and 2 fast OLB's and a smart athletic MLB, it can be just as dangerous if not more that a 3-4.

It really comes down to your personnel, coaching staff, and what your prefer. But there is no "better" choice.

In 2010, the 2 Super Bowl teams were 4-3's and 1 seeds. In 2011, the 2 SB teams were 3-4 zone blitz teams.

 

[DoTheDew]

But WHY are OLBs "better" speed rushers (whatever that means)? Yes, the top 4 sack leaders in the NFL in 2010 were OLBs, but 8 of the top 14 were DEs and 11 of the top 20 were DEs. There's no inherent positional advantage to pass rushing from the OLB position.

Guys like Cameron Wake, DeMarcus Ware, T-Sizzle, and Tamba Hali rush the passer the vast majority of the time they're on the field, anyway. It's not like an opposing OT is going to be surprised when DeMarcus Ware crosses the line.

Base personnel groupings are decided by (1) money and (2) talent. Look at the drafts of the past few years; heck, look at this year's draft. The top sack artists are getting lighter and smaller, and the price on the Mario Williamses and Julius Peppers of the NFL are only going to go up.

i think it's more like this: The 3-4 is better is disguising where the rush is coming from and who is in coverage. Additionally, with 3 big DL, it is harder for the opposing OL to go one on one. Finally, 3-4 OLBs can line up wide and in an upright stance without creating a huge running lane. This makes it harder for the OT to "get over" especially if the 3-4 DEs do their jobs.

Teams like the Colts have really fast, but small DEs. They go wide on every play and because of their speed they can get there. But this is also why they get gashed on the ground by so many teams.

 

[conraddobler]

Depends on who you are playing.

The question is if it's mastered, and IMO that means it's relatively perfect so that to me assumes you have the right players to run either.

The only variable then would be what team you were playing or playing most often.

4-3 works against big lines, big backs, running attacks, 3-4 generally is better at stopping a passing type team.

That's just generic stuff, a lot depends on exactly what the team you're facing is trying to do.

I love the Bear 46 defense myself but it's not ever going to beat either the 4-3 or the 3-4 out as a base defense.

 

[kerouac9]

Depends on who you are playing.

The question is if it's mastered, and IMO that means it's relatively perfect so that to me assumes you have the right players to run either.

The only variable then would be what team you were playing or playing most often.

4-3 works against big lines, big backs, running attacks, 3-4 generally is better at stopping a passing type team.

That's just generic stuff, a lot depends on exactly what the team you're facing is trying to do.

I love the Bear 46 defense myself but it's not ever going to beat either the 4-3 or the 3-4 out as a base defense.

You have that backward, chap. Of the Top 10 pass defense teams, 5 are 3-4 and 5 are 4-3, but if you expand to the top half of defenses, 10 of the top 16 pass defenses in 2010 ran a 4-3 base.

4 of the top 5 rushing defenses ran a 3-4, and 6 of the top 10, and 9 of the top 16.

But I agree with you that it depends on what you have. There's not really a schematic advantage to one or the other (otherwise, the entire league would run only one of them). That's why I think that the massive changeover to the 3-4 defense we've seen in the past couple years has more to do with the players coming out of college than it does with a schematic advantage.

 

[Mulli]

You have that backward, chap. Of the Top 10 pass defense teams, 5 are 3-4 and 5 are 4-3, but if you expand to the top half of defenses, 10 of the top 16 pass defenses in 2010 ran a 4-3 base.

4 of the top 5 rushing defenses ran a 3-4, and 6 of the top 10, and 9 of the top 16.

But I agree with you that it depends on what you have. There's not really a schematic advantage to one or the other (otherwise, the entire league would run only one of them). That's why I think that the massive changeover to the 3-4 defense we've seen in the past couple years has more to do with the players coming out of college than it does with a schematic advantage.

This.