3-4 Defense vs. the 4-3 Defense

BobDigital21 · Half A Man

3-4 Defense vs. the 4-3 Defense

Burgh1979 · Head Dick

I agree that the 3-4 is a superior defense, if it is run correctly, and you have the right personel...you need to have a large yet still athletic front 3 that can eat up 4 O-linemen...you need to have fast, athletic LB's on the outside that are capable of pass rushing and are sure tacklers if the RB reaches the edge...you need to have ILB that are capable of coverage, blitzing, and are capable of being the leading tacklers on the team...and like all other defenses good DB's, and a sure tackling SS that is also a great coverage DB doesnt hurt...the model for the 3-4 is the Steelers D...Dom Capers was actually the man who returned the 3-4 Defense to its glory as the Steelers D coordinator in the mid 1990's, then came the copycats...

GoBearsGalason · Head Dick

Burgh, there is no such thing as a superior defense when it comes to 3-4 vs 4-3.

Both have their merits, and the successful application of either is entirely dependent upon personnel.

And it also depends upon the type of offense you are playing against.

As more teams take the ball vertical the 3-4 is slowly becoming the defense of choice due to the clutter it creates over the middle and the flexibility it allows for a pass rush. So if that is what you mean by "better" than I would agree.

JetBlackNinja · Head Dick

Not every team running the 3-4 is the 2004 Patriots. It takes more to run a proper 3-4, and good linebackers seem to be more scarce right now than good D linemen.

If you have the core players to make it happen (Chargers, Patriots) then go wild, but just writing up a 3-4 playbook and deploying "whoever is on the roster" to run it will get you SLAYED.

But at least you will be drafting high, and can work on the personnel at that point.

BobDigital21 · Half A Man

JetBlackNinja wrote:

Not every team running the 3-4 is the 2004 Patriots. It takes more to run a proper 3-4, and good linebackers seem to be more scarce right now than good D linemen.
If you have the core players to make it happen (Chargers, Patriots) then go wild, but just writing up a 3-4 playbook and deploying "whoever is on the roster" to run it will get you SLAYED.
But at least you will be drafting high, and can work on the personnel at that point.

Well IMO the 3-4 is better but the down side is it is harder to get the correct players to proform it.

also BB (the defensive genius) seems to favor the 3-4 and built his team that way...

Also asking Manning which is harder to play against?? He would probably have a strong opinion. (IE Patriots/Chargers)

JetBlackNinja · Head Dick

Belichick definitely brought the 3-4 back into "vouge" but as the years went on and more teams migrated to it, the Patriots modified it to keep "current".

The problem now lies in the simple fact that the "pivot piece" of the "Shifting 34" the Patriots have employed was McGinest, and he shuffled off to Cleveland this year. If the Patriots had drafted Manny Lawson, you could hope for something there, but now I will assume that they will find a way to use Jarvis Green in those packages. Basically if we have to play a "vanilla" 3-4 like we did for the first half of 05' we will be a 8-8 stinker in 06'.

Now that several teams run the 3-4 there isn't enough good 3-4 linebackers to go around, and Belichick never attempted to upgrade the aging LB core anyways.

typodragon · Half A Man

the real advantage of the 3-4 comes from the fact that it requires a player type that noone else wants. that lets you spend very little on your defense and then spend that money on your offense. look at the best teams that have run the 3-4, the pats and the steelers, and you'll see that those teams have powerful offensive talent which makes their defenses look alot better. If they weren't playing with a lead and able to come back when necessary, both of them would look alot less impressive. It is also worth mentioning that both those teams have long tenured and extremely talented coaching regimes. Neither of those teams is anywhere close to the degree of dominance displayed by the greatest 4-3 squads, like the 85 bears and the 2000 ravens, or even the greatest of the bucs teams of the last decade. Then look at the other teams in the league who play the 3-4. The texans are awful. The niners are awful. The browns are pretty awful. The raiders are dreadful. The dolphins have tons of talent and may turn out to be decent. with the 3-4 becoming more common, I suspect its effectiveness will heavily decrease because the demands of the 3-4 on its players are very different from those of the 4-3. The 3-4, especially the disciplined type run by teams like the pats, requires players to be far brighter than average to handle the complex responsibilities and shifting coverages. That plus the need for larger ends and linebackers puts a great strain on the ability to find players. Why do you think the loss of teddy bruschi totally wrecked the pats d. Colleges just are not putting out linebackers who can play in those schemes, which is one reason why the pats are having so much trouble finding players to replace their aging veteran defenders. Now with more teams looking for those rare combination players, the situation will only get worse. The 4-3 still offers a much clearer path to success, if you have good scouts. A team like indianapolis cheaply puts together a very tough pass defense, and gets so little credit. A team like minnesota puts together a collection of amazing talents and then gives them some of the worst coaching in the league.

cornhuskers_2002 · Punk Boy

3-4 best

Smiley67 · Punk Boy

Obviously there are circumstances for both defenses and based on personnel you might or might not have a choice. However, if I'm on offense I would much rather play against a 3-4 than a 4-3. I like the fact that I have you outnumbered on the line of scrimmage and will try to keep you outnumbered pushing the ball forward 3.4 yards. I'll try to beat you inside the guards forcing you to defend the middle of the line. The 4-3 defense is stouter up front (you don't need stats for that one). I have 5 in an I Formation against your 3-4 on the line of scrimmage.........for 60 minutes and on average, I have at least 1 bigger body than you do. Here's the thing, if I have the Hogs and Riggo you're in trouble either way but especially in a 3-4. You have a better chance of stopping speed AND power using a 4-3. I'm not knocking a 3-4, I love from a defensive standpoint I could send any or all LBs from any angle attacking the line. Given the choice, I'll take a 4-3 but I want both. Today's NFL defenses need the ability to play both...it's here.

Christopher Wallace · Head Dick

The one thing that no one mentions is that the 3-4 defense can be so versatile it can be a 4-3 or 5-2 if you have the right players.

Burgh1979 · Head Dick

JetBlackNinja wrote:

Belichick definitely brought the 3-4 back into "vouge" but as the years went on and more teams migrated to it, the Patriots modified it to keep "current". The problem now lies in the simple fact that the "pivot piece" of the "Shifting 34" the Patriots have employed was McGinest, and he shuffled off to Cleveland this year. If the Patriots had drafted Manny Lawson, you could hope for something there, but now I will assume that they will find a way to use Jarvis Green in those packages. Basically if we have to play a "vanilla" 3-4 like we did for the first half of 05' we will be a 8-8 stinker in 06'. Now that several teams run the 3-4 there isn't enough good 3-4 linebackers to go around, and Belichick never attempted to upgrade the aging LB core anyways.

Ninja, you have got to be kidding me, Belichick did not bring the 3-4 back into vogue, it was brought back before he was sh*t by Dom Capers (Blitzburgh) in Pittsburgh 11 years ago, before the little Chick was even a head coach in NE...You could even argue it was before that during Lebeau's first stint as the D-coordinator in the burgh...just shut the f*ck up when you have no clue what you're talking about.

saturn11 · Head Dick

This is a COOL thread.

I may be way off the mark, here, but...it seems like it's not only about which style of defense is better, "period", but which one is more effective in a given era.

Why wasn't the 3-4 being used as much before? Was it because teams were running offenses that the 3-4 wasn't effective against? Was the 3-4 brought back as a response to the West Coast offense? If more teams start using the 3-4, will it be easier to break it because there aren't enough of the right kind of players to go around?

Burgh? Ninja? You both seem to know a bunch...

School me.

Kliquid · Half A Man

In the NFL, it completely depends on the personnel. There are certainly teams that could benefit by making a switch from one to the other. The 3-4 seems to be the "flavor of the moment" for new coaches, but I certainly can't say that it's the best defense when there are teams like Chicago who completely dominate using the 4-3.

One thing's for sure... In the Madden games, the 4-3 is what I like to call "The Winning Defense."

lost in iowa · Head Dick

It is cyclic....the 3-4 is the flavor of the month because of the rules favoring the passing game...with more teams running a pass first offense the 3-4 works well....but get a running team with a good blocking Fullback and a blocking TE and you will wear out a 3-4 by the third qtr...how well a D works depends on the O it is working against

Vanni9283 · Head Dick

Kilguid,

Let me give some examples of teams that have had success switching from one defense to the other.

1. New England Patriots - struggled against the run in 2002 using a 4-3; went to primarily a 3-4 in 2003 and was one of the BEST run defenses in the league (it may have also been one of the contributing factors in their Super Bowl runs in 2003 and 2004).

2. Atlanta Falcons - struggled in Wade Phillips' 3-4 scheme in 2003; switched to a 4-3 in 2004 and was much more effective. (Keep in mind that their might have been other factors involved here, such as Vick's injury in 2003 and the coaching changes in 2004, but the switch from the 3-4 to the 4-3 was likely one of the factors that helped in significantly improving this defensive unit).

JetBlackNinja · Head Dick

Burgh1979 wrote:

JetBlackNinja wrote: Belichick definitely brought the 3-4 back into "vouge" but as the years went on and more teams migrated to it, the Patriots modified it to keep "current". The problem now lies in the simple fact that the "pivot piece" of the "Shifting 34" the Patriots have employed was McGinest, and he shuffled off to Cleveland this year. If the Patriots had drafted Manny Lawson, you could hope for something there, but now I will assume that they will find a way to use Jarvis Green in those packages. Basically if we have to play a "vanilla" 3-4 like we did for the first half of 05' we will be a 8-8 stinker in 06'. Now that several teams run the 3-4 there isn't enough good 3-4 linebackers to go around, and Belichick never attempted to upgrade the aging LB core anyways. Ninja, you have got to be kidding me, Belichick did not bring the 3-4 back into vogue, it was brought back before he was sh*t by Dom Capers (Blitzburgh) in Pittsburgh 11 years ago, before the little Chick was even a head coach in NE...You could even argue it was before that during Lebeau's first stint as the D-coordinator in the burgh...just shut the f*ck up when you have no clue what you're talking about.

I guess everything is bigger and better in Pittsburgh!

(including guys who follow you around on a forum and jock every one of your posts)

Burgh, get off my nuts.

11 years ago was 1995. Belichick certainly was "sh1t" by then as he was looked upon as a key figure in the Giants SB wins. You like to be point out how Belichick hasn't won a Super Bowl in the ONE season since his staff moved on, but Parcells has had all the time, and he can't do it without Belichick.

So again, get off my nuts and stop being so bitter. You got DOUSED for 40+ on your field in an AFC title game, but you won the next year so STOP CRYING.

Kliquid · Half A Man

Vanni9283 wrote:

Kilguid,
Let me give some examples of teams that have had success switching from one defense to the other.
1. New England Patriots - struggled against the run in 2002 using a 4-3; went to primarily a 3-4 in 2003 and was one of the BEST run defenses in the league (it may have also been one of the contributing factors in their Super Bowl runs in 2003 and 2004).
2. Atlanta Falcons - struggled in Wade Phillips' 3-4 scheme in 2003; switched to a 4-3 in 2004 and was much more effective. (Keep in mind that their might have been other factors involved here, such as Vick's injury in 2003 and the coaching changes in 2004, but the switch from the 3-4 to the 4-3 was likely one of the factors that helped in significantly improving this defensive unit).

I guess I don't understand your point. I was pretty much agreeing with you. No where in my post did I say that a team making a transition from one defense to another couldn't be successful.

alleyway202 · Punk Boy

Here is the real issue hello first I am new on here but I think we are missing true points of the arguement. if you look at the type of players you have to have to play the 3-4, the Mike Vrabels and Lil Joe Kleckos, and Jason Babins of the world are sure as hell happy about that 3-4 novelty. Wherelse could an undersized lineman(DE) geta chance to play, start, on a defense? Mike Vrabel is a bum!! But in BB scheme he is an important part. In a 4-3 an NFLO lineman pushes him all over the field on skates. Its personnel why do you think Bill Parcells want them big ass linebackers? They have to shed Guards and or fullbacks b4 they get to the ball carrier not just the fullback. They are lineman who can be coverted to pass coverage mostly zone easy transition quicker than you can make him stronger or faster. Look Major college programs have juniors and seniors that still after being in their cond program for four years starting at DE 250 to 265 poulds !!Thats Dog meat to the OL takles of today Dog meat so the best thing to do is trick em with novelty D's like the 3-4 . You get a compilation of 3-4 prototypes and I get 4-3 prototypical players I will send your O to the Icepacks. P.S. since this is a copycat league offensive coordinators are not surprised any more by the 3-4 they are catching on and you will see more 4 man fronts!

JetBlackNinja · Head Dick

alleyway202 wrote:

Here is the real issue hello first I am new on here but I think we are missing true points of the arguement. if you look at the type of players you have to have to play the 3-4, the Mike Vrabels and Lil Joe Kleckos, and Jason Babins of the world are sure as hell happy about that 3-4 novelty. Wherelse could an undersized lineman(DE) geta chance to play, start, on a defense? Mike Vrabel is a bum!! But in BB scheme he is an important part. In a 4-3 an NFLO lineman pushes him all over the field on skates. Its personnel why do you think Bill Parcells want them big ass linebackers? They have to shed Guards and or fullbacks b4 they get to the ball carrier not just the fullback. They are lineman who can be coverted to pass coverage mostly zone easy transition quicker than you can make him stronger or faster. Look Major college programs have juniors and seniors that still after being in their cond program for four years starting at DE 250 to 265 poulds !!Thats Dog meat to the OL takles of today Dog meat so the best thing to do is trick em with novelty D's like the 3-4 . You get a compilation of 3-4 prototypes and I get 4-3 prototypical players I will send your O to the Icepacks. P.S. since this is a copycat league offensive coordinators are not surprised any more by the 3-4 they are catching on and you will see more 4 man fronts!

Not just Vrable either. Bruschi is a converted D End, and McGinest played DE on 30%-40% of his snaps over the past few seasons. The whole thing is designed to change from a 3-4 to a 4-3 on a moments notice, but with the injuries and defections I think those days are coming to an end.