3-4--The Defense Equivalent of ZBS

[texaspackerbacker]

As this hunt for a new Defensive Coordinator has dragged on/progressed--take your choice of words, I have come to think more and more positive about the idea of the Packers going to the 3-4. Why?

The answer lies in what people see in the ZBS on offense. What is so good about ZBS? You can get maximum performance without superstar talent. Just look at the RBs who have been so great in Denver, and then gone on to mediocrity elsewhere, Ruben Droughns, for example. Likewise, with O Linemen, there is a very limited number of top of the line stars available. It is a helluva lot easier to find smaller mobile ZBS types than it is to find great power linemen who are so cloddish as to be liabilities in pass blocking. etc.

The strength of the 3-4 is similar. There just aren't that many Haynesworth-class DTs or Reggie White-type DEs available. As people have been talking draft this year, what has been the consistent downside of players like Orakpo, Everett Brown, and several others? Speed rushers who couldn't do the job against the run that a 4-3 DE has to do. They and a lot of others would, however, stand a chance of being quality players in a 3-4--similar to Demarcus Ware. On a lesser scale, Jason Hunt, Popinga, Jamie Thompson should do significantly better as 3-4 OLBs than they have done in the 4-3 where the responsibility is greater.

Ironically, the Bates/Sanders 4-3 does some of the same thing--using scheme to get the most out of limited talent.

[Waldo]

The ZBS and 3-4 are not the same at all. The 3-4 is a fundamentally different defense than a 4-3, similar to how a WCO is fundamentally different than a run n' gun.

The ZBS is a blocking scheme that all teams use, similar to lead/trap running. Some teams pick players that block better this way, some teams pick players that block better other ways. Every team in the league runs ZBS plays. Some teams call themselves ZBS team, some don't, all use it.

Cheaper lineman is not one of the big reasons to use it nowadays. Athletic lineman is. GB's line is mostly built of tackles. Clifton, Colledge, Barbre, Moll, Giacominni, Sitton and Tausher all came into the NFL having played T in college. Tackles are usually inherently better pass blockers than ideal power C's and G's. Zone runs are typically good runs to call when you have a line of athletic pass blockers. The origional WCO used mostly zone runs. Reeves created a system of only zone runs and called it the ZBS, and got dinky athletic interior lineman to run it for the cheap factor. Our use of it (as well as most teams in the league that zone run more often than not) is because they draft lineman that excel in pass blocking.

[texaspackerbacker]

The ZBS and 3-4 are not the same at all. The 3-4 is a fundamentally different defense than a 4-3, similar to how a WCO is fundamentally different than a run n' gun.

The ZBS is a blocking scheme that all teams use, similar to lead/trap running. Some teams pick players that block better this way, some teams pick players that block better other ways. Every team in the league runs ZBS plays. Some teams call themselves ZBS team, some don't, all use it.

The point is, it's a lot easier to find players that block better in ZBS than say power blocking systems . Similarly, it's a lot easier to find 3-4 OLBs--to small to be 4-3 DEs and not good enough in coverage to be 4-3 OLBs.

Yeah, every team uses some ZBS plays--like most 4-3 teams on occasion go to a 3 man line.

[Waldo]

The ZBS and 3-4 are not the same at all. The 3-4 is a fundamentally different defense than a 4-3, similar to how a WCO is fundamentally different than a run n' gun.

The ZBS is a blocking scheme that all teams use, similar to lead/trap running. Some teams pick players that block better this way, some teams pick players that block better other ways. Every team in the league runs ZBS plays. Some teams call themselves ZBS team, some don't, all use it.

The point is, it's a lot easier to find players that block better in ZBS than say power blocking systems . Similarly, it's a lot easier to find 3-4 OLBs--to small to be 4-3 DEs and not good enough in coverage to be 4-3 OLBs.

Yeah, every team uses some ZBS plays--like most 4-3 teams on occasion go to a 3 man line.

It is better to use when you have a line built of former OT's that are good at pass blocking. They aren't power maulers, instead are quick on their feet and good with their hands. And when you call a pass, your QB doesn't get killed. Most power run teams aren't the best at keeping their QB upright when they get pass happy.

[texaspackerbacker]

Agreed. That's what killed Dallas this season.

[Waldo]

Agreed. That's what killed Dallas this season.

Poor Big Ben. That Pittsburgh running game is going to kill him.

A line built of pass blockers is no cheaper than a line built of power run maulers. A line built of guys that are both great pass blockers and power run maulers is nearly an impossible task to assemble nowadays.

[mission]

Why did I know this was a Tex thread when seeing the title?

[pack4to84]

texaspackerbacker I agree with your statement. This is what I have been trying to get across. 3-4 defense is easier to draft for. Every year there are DE/OLB coming out in the draft. But not 4-3 DE that come out that are ready to start. They have to gain weight and bulk up. Which normal requires 1 to 2 years before they make a impact. Where in a 3-4 OLB can be drafted and start day one. Because college is filled with DE slash OLB.

Your also right about ZB teams normally don't have to draft 1st rd OL. Using round one for impact players. Rd 2-4 on OL help. Getting impact players in rd 1 equals to less big money busts and getting instant help.

[Waldo]

Very few teams are built from first round OL. It is rare that a non tackle is drafted in the first. The first is generally reserved for LT's.

[bobblehead]

Tex, this thread is making sense almost accidently. If you averaged the rankings of the 3-4 defenses and averaged the rankings of the ZBS rush offenses you would probably find that they both rank much higher than their counterparts....so yes, you are right, the 3-4 is like the ZBS.

[Guiness]

I think the 3-4 and ZBS are alike in another way - the reason they are successful is not because they are inherently more effective than the 4-3 and a power running scheme, it's because they are not as common...

This gives two advantages - players suited to that system are more readily available. It's not that Reuben D., Gary Orlando and Tatum Bell are not good players, it's that they proved to not be good players in a more power running game.

The other advantage to is that teams have more trouble scheming for it, as they don't see it as often. Coaches search for tape and information, and player's instincts can prove to be wrong.

[Waldo]

I think the 3-4 and ZBS are alike in another way - the reason they are successful is not because they are inherently more effective than the 4-3 and a power running scheme, it's because they are not as common...

This gives two advantages - players suited to that system are more readily available. It's not that Reuben D., Gary Orlando and Tatum Bell are not good players, it's that they proved to not be good players in a more power running game.

The other advantage to is that teams have more trouble scheming for it, as they don't see it as often. Coaches search for tape and information, and player's instincts can prove to be wrong.

Every team runs zone runs, it is a standard football play that the players have been playing since HS, and likely every team in the pros and NCAA ranks has zone runs in their playbooks. Every team sees it all the time.

[pbmax]

The difference between zone runs and the ZBS we christened it here with M3's and Jags arrival was the insistence that you run nothing else. Jags bragged that they had four run plays and that was it. Outside zone left, inside zone left, inside zone right, outside zone right. This is the system he learned from Alex Gibbs in Atlanta, the father of the Broncos run scheme.

Gibbs also insisted on smaller, more athletic lineman. He thought this would be to their advantage against fat boys on the D line. While we don't see the same consistent results here, the blocking technique he taught was to put non-playside lineman/backers (pursuit) on the ground by cutting them. This had the twin advantage of wearing them out having to jump up again to make the play and creating cutback lanes.

As Waldo points out, colleges and other pro team run zone runs quite often. You saw a lot of it at Wisconsin, although there was not the insistence on smaller, more athletic lineman like Gibbs prefers.

So it might be more accurate to say "Gibbs ZBS" as opposed to a zone run scheme. Then there is the fact that M3, after having the troubles they have had with the O line and the short yardage problem earlier in his tenure, has also installed more familiar power O and gap plays. And certainly everyone remembers the fullback dive. The play that everyone liked because it was working, and then used it to question the sanity of M3 when it failed twice in a row.