Back to the future with the 3-4 defense

[KYPack]

The Packers have announced the switch from the 4-3 defense played by former DC Bob Sanders to the 3-4 defense under new coordinator Dom Capers. For older Packer fans this brought a feeling of déjà vu. This is not the first time a Packer team has made that switch. After the '79 season, HC Bart Starr fired long time Packer player and coach, DC Hawg Hanner, and hired John Meyer as the new DC after the Packer defense ranked among the league's worst groups. With Meyer came the installation of the 3-4 defense. The 3-4 was the rage in the NFL in '80. Sixteen of the league's 28 teams were running the scheme by the '80 season. By 1985, the 3-4 reached it's high water mark. 23 of the NFL's 28 teams were using the 3-4 as their base D in '85.

NFL teams have been using the 3-4 for years. The 3-4 basically started in the 70's, with Houston and New England generally credited for being the innovators and implementers that first used it in '74. Teams go back and forth since that time from the 3-4 to the 4-3 for a variety of reasons

The Packers would use the 3-4 as the base of their defense from 1980 until Fritz Shurmur re-instated the 4-3 defense in the off-season of '94. ('93 saw the addition of Reggie White and you could point to the '93 season as the end of the strict 3-4 scheme under Ray Rhodes as DC).

The Pack would have some success with the 3-4 in the 14 or so years that they ran the scheme. In general, the Packers finished in the middle of the league's 28 teams while using a 3-4. The first year of using 3 down lineman was a disaster. GB was actually worse defensively that they had been the previous season. Then the team became acclimated to the new base D and made good improvement. The '81 & '82 clubs finished 9th, then 8th respectively out of 28 on D .

Then came the nightmare year, '83. The Starr-lead '83 team was an offensive juggernaut. Courageous QB Lynn Dickey was a tough field general with a strong arm and a ton of guts. His targets were All-Pro caliber receivers, who were fast and smart. Paul Coffman, James Lofton, and John Jefferson combined for 26 touchdowns and were threats to break long ones any time they caught a ball. The running backs were also solid pass catchers as well as good running backs. Even the fourth string back and Rat poster, Harlan Huckleby was good for 4 touchdowns as the Packers racked up 429 points. The problem was the defense. Meyer's boys were last in the NFL. 28th out of 28 teams, allowing 50 touchdowns, 6,403 yards (400.2 yds/GM), and giving up 439 points. They were one of the leagues top offenses with the leagues worst D. Starr's 9th year as coach was his last as the 8-8 record wasn't enough to off-set that horrible 3-4 defense. With Starr went DC John Meyer.

The Packers would stay with the 3-4 for approximately 10 more seasons. Forrest Gregg had used a 3-4 in his previous coaching seasons as had Gregg successor, Lindy Infante. Enter Mike Holmgren who had coached at SF, who used a 4-3. Most observers expected Holmgren to junk the 3-4, which he eventually did.

So the 3-4 has been around for 35 years or so,with the Packers employing it previously for 13-14 years in the past. Now we go back to the future by putting in a 3-4. The 3-4 has been wildly popular and almost phased out of the league over the last 35 years. It's usage ebbs and wanes.

Two factors seem in play to account for the rise and fall of the 3-4. Coaching and personnel availability. Teams begin to win playing a 3-4. The NFL is a copycat league and other teams adopt a 3-4, hiring assistants from the successful teams. Those teams begin to compete for 3-4 compatible players. The 3-4 type defenders get in short supply and teams draft and use 4-3 players. It comes and it goes. The Packers want to become aggressive and apply pressure on defense. So they change to a 3-4. I'm worried that we may be on the wrong side of the curve. Other teams are looking at making the same change. Will 3-4 players (mainly NT's and pass rushing LB's) be in more demand and dry up faster than in previous years?

One would hope not as the Packers go back to their earlier 3-4 days.

[rbaloha1]

Recall the Bruce Clark debacle.

Ray Rhodes as DC actually had much success with the 3-4. The roster was filled with 3-4 players like Paup, Bennett, Jurkovich, White, etc.

Wish the same could be said about the current roster.

[KYPack]

Recall the Bruce Clark debacle.

Ray Rhodes as DC actually had much success with the 3-4. The roster was filled with 3-4 players like Paup, Bennett, Jurkovich, White, etc.

Wish the same could be said about the current roster.

Right. I know Ray-Ray played some 3-4, but also put in 4-3, mainly to give Reggie an area of comfort. Ray was kind of the transition guy, IIRC. Of course Fritz was basically the full-blown 4-3 and everything else, guy

[Waldo]

I disagree that personnel is a reason to make this switch. I would wager that less than 20% of good players are better suited to one scheme or the other. The mediocre players are the ones that are better suited to one or the other, and there is near an unlimited supply of those.

Each defense has its rare pieces. A 4-3 is a defense of stars, comprised of several superplayers. 2 pass rushers that are stout against the run, 3 instinctive linebackers that can cover well, and generally uses 2 specialist DT's, a fattie that can stop the run, and a big that can both rush the passer and stop the run. Those 5 superplayers, the LB's and DE's, are hard to come by and in short supply.

OTOH the 3-4 is more of a specialists defense, especially a 1 gap. 2 pass rushers are needed, but stout against the run is not as much of a necessity. Only 2 instinctive LB's that can cover are needed. It needs a good run stopping fattie, which 4-3's can skimp on a bit, and 2 bigs that can stop the run and rush, but they don't need to be elite at either.

The spectrum of players that fit a 3-4 is so much wider than a 4-3. You almost never read scouting reports that player X is better suited to a 4-3 than 3-4. The few guys that is true for, the Coles and Montgomeries, aren't very good anyway. The 3-4 has its guys that don't have much place in a 4-3, quick undersized pass rushers that are a liability in base sets, huge athletic bigs not good enough to rush from the edge in a 4-3 and not stout enough to play DT in a 4-3. There is a good supply of those guys though. Just going through the draft it appears that you are better suited running a 3-4 instead of a 4-3, except at NT. Those guys are as rare as QB's. The 4-3 is like running the wildcat, getting a bunch of great players otherwise so that you can skimp on the QB (NT).

[Patler]

Re: Back to the future with the 3-4 defense

Then came the nightmare year, '83. The Starr-lead '83 team was an offensive juggernaut. Courageous QB Lynn Dickey was a tough field general with a strong arm and a ton of guts. His targets were All-Pro caliber receivers, who were fast and smart. Paul Coffman, James Lofton, and John Jefferson combined for 26 touchdowns and were threats to break long ones any time they caught a ball. The running backs were also solid pass catchers as well as good running backs. Even the fourth string back and Rat poster, Harlan Huckleby was good for 4 touchdowns as the Packers racked up 429 points. The problem was the defense. Meyer's boys were last in the NFL. 28th out of 28 teams, allowing 50 touchdowns, 6,403 yards (400.2 yds/GM), and giving up 439 points. They were one of the leagues top offenses with the leagues worst D. Starr's 9th year as coach was his last as the 8-8 record wasn't enough to off-set that horrible 3-4 defense. With Starr went DC John Meyer.

Ah, the 1983 Packers! Perhaps a nightmare defensively, but from a shear excitement perspective, one of the more entertaining years to watch.

They gave up 38 points, and won the game.
They gave up 47 points, and won.
They scored 41 points, but lost the game.
They had a blowout win 55-14.

With just a decent defense, this could have been a pretty good team. Of course, even when the Packers were scoring a lot of points, the defense got very little rest, because the Packers usually scored quite quickly. Lofton averaged a whopping 22.4 yds/rec., with 1300 yards on just 58 receptions. Coffman averaged 15.1, Jefferson 14.6 both with over 50 receptions. Even Gerry Ellis averaged 11.6 on 52 receptions.

Exciting games, entertaining games.

[cpk1994]

Re: Back to the future with the 3-4 defense

Then came the nightmare year, '83. The Starr-lead '83 team was an offensive juggernaut. Courageous QB Lynn Dickey was a tough field general with a strong arm and a ton of guts. His targets were All-Pro caliber receivers, who were fast and smart. Paul Coffman, James Lofton, and John Jefferson combined for 26 touchdowns and were threats to break long ones any time they caught a ball. The running backs were also solid pass catchers as well as good running backs. Even the fourth string back and Rat poster, Harlan Huckleby was good for 4 touchdowns as the Packers racked up 429 points. The problem was the defense. Meyer's boys were last in the NFL. 28th out of 28 teams, allowing 50 touchdowns, 6,403 yards (400.2 yds/GM), and giving up 439 points. They were one of the leagues top offenses with the leagues worst D. Starr's 9th year as coach was his last as the 8-8 record wasn't enough to off-set that horrible 3-4 defense. With Starr went DC John Meyer.

Ah, the 1983 Packers! Perhaps a nightmare defensively, but from a shear excitement perspective, one of the more entertaining years to watch.

They gave up 38 points, and won the game.
They gave up 47 points, and won.
They scored 41 points, but lost the game.
They had a blowout win 55-14.

With just a decent defense, this could have been a pretty good team. Of course, even when the Packers were scoring a lot of points, the defense got very little rest, because the Packers usually scored quite quickly. Lofton averaged a whopping 22.4 yds/rec., with 1300 yards on just 58 receptions. Coffman averaged 15.1, Jefferson 14.6 both with over 50 receptions. Even Gerry Ellis averaged 11.6 on 52 receptions.

Exciting games, entertaining games.

I remember that year. Especially the 47 point game you mention. MNF 48-47 over the Redskins. I was only 8 at the time, but it was the first MNF game I was allowed to stay up and watch to conclusion.

[KYPack]

Re: Back to the future with the 3-4 defense

Then came the nightmare year, '83. The Starr-lead '83 team was an offensive juggernaut. Courageous QB Lynn Dickey was a tough field general with a strong arm and a ton of guts. His targets were All-Pro caliber receivers, who were fast and smart. Paul Coffman, James Lofton, and John Jefferson combined for 26 touchdowns and were threats to break long ones any time they caught a ball. The running backs were also solid pass catchers as well as good running backs. Even the fourth string back and Rat poster, Harlan Huckleby was good for 4 touchdowns as the Packers racked up 429 points. The problem was the defense. Meyer's boys were last in the NFL. 28th out of 28 teams, allowing 50 touchdowns, 6,403 yards (400.2 yds/GM), and giving up 439 points. They were one of the leagues top offenses with the leagues worst D. Starr's 9th year as coach was his last as the 8-8 record wasn't enough to off-set that horrible 3-4 defense. With Starr went DC John Meyer.

Ah, the 1983 Packers! Perhaps a nightmare defensively, but from a shear excitement perspective, one of the more entertaining years to watch.

They gave up 38 points, and won the game.
They gave up 47 points, and won.
They scored 41 points, but lost the game.
They had a blowout win 55-14.

With just a decent defense, this could have been a pretty good team. Of course, even when the Packers were scoring a lot of points, the defense got very little rest, because the Packers usually scored quite quickly. Lofton averaged a whopping 22.4 yds/rec., with 1300 yards on just 58 receptions. Coffman averaged 15.1, Jefferson 14.6 both with over 50 receptions. Even Gerry Ellis averaged 11.6 on 52 receptions.

Exciting games, entertaining games.

The Monday Nite game against the Skins was the classic. Up and down all night long. Moseley missed a field goal at the gun to give the Packers a 48-47 win. The Pack went to overtime 4 times that season, losing 3 of 'em. A poor defense would have given them the the division. The Lions eaked out the Central title with a 9-7 record. A half ass D and the breaks evening out, the Pack would have been 11-5, 12-4 quite handily.

Bart Starr got hosed by management. Judge Robert Parins was functioning as the GM in those days. He allowed Mike Butler, a decent DE, to leap to the USFL for peanuts, after assuring Starr he's get him signed. That and the loss of several defensive starters saddled the Pack with one of the worst defenses in modern history.

The D was so bad, it took as fairly decent coaching job by Starr to even get to 8-8.

[KYPack]

I disagree that personnel is a reason to make this switch. I would wager that less than 20% of good players are better suited to one scheme or the other. The mediocre players are the ones that are better suited to one or the other, and there is near an unlimited supply of those.

Each defense has its rare pieces. A 4-3 is a defense of stars, comprised of several superplayers. 2 pass rushers that are stout against the run, 3 instinctive linebackers that can cover well, and generally uses 2 specialist DT's, a fattie that can stop the run, and a big that can both rush the passer and stop the run. Those 5 superplayers, the LB's and DE's, are hard to come by and in short supply.

OTOH the 3-4 is more of a specialists defense, especially a 1 gap. 2 pass rushers are needed, but stout against the run is not as much of a necessity. Only 2 instinctive LB's that can cover are needed. It needs a good run stopping fattie, which 4-3's can skimp on a bit, and 2 bigs that can stop the run and rush, but they don't need to be elite at either.

The spectrum of players that fit a 3-4 is so much wider than a 4-3. You almost never read scouting reports that player X is better suited to a 4-3 than 3-4. The few guys that is true for, the Coles and Montgomeries, aren't very good anyway. The 3-4 has its guys that don't have much place in a 4-3, quick undersized pass rushers that are a liability in base sets, huge athletic bigs not good enough to rush from the edge in a 4-3 and not stout enough to play DT in a 4-3. There is a good supply of those guys though. Just going through the draft it appears that you are better suited running a 3-4 instead of a 4-3, except at NT. Those guys are as rare as QB's. The 4-3 is like running the wildcat, getting a bunch of great players otherwise so that you can skimp on the QB (NT).

Yeah, I know

And that's a personnel decision. The Packers think the 3-4 will be an aggressive scheme for their personnel. So they got a 3-4 coach and now will try to acquire those kinds of guys you name. They also feel there is more of 'em available and they can get their hands on them easier than they could find guys to flesh out a 4-3. Personnel is a huge factor in making the switch.

Not only the guys you have, but your chances of obtaining the guys you need.

[Patler]

The Packers think the 3-4 will be an aggressive scheme for their personnel. So they got a 3-4 coach and now will try to acquire those kinds of guys you name. They also feel there is more of 'em available and they can get their hands on them easier than they could find guys to flesh out a 4-3. Personnel is a huge factor in making the switch.

Not only the guys you have, but your chances of obtaining the guys you need.

How long have the Packers been trying to put together a front 7 for the 4-3 without real good success? They seem to always be about 2 or 3 guys short. Even when it looked like they might have the starters, insufficient depth showed as soon as injuries cropped up. If there are in fact more players available for the 3-4, its worth the chance.

Sometimes success in sports is accomplished by doing what is less the norm, even if it really isn't "new".

[rbaloha1]

Agreed the draft is easier to acquire players to fit the 3-4 scheme. This years draft is filled with the right type of players. Expect a heavy dose of defensive palyers.

Again the current defense imo does not possess the right type of players for the 3-4. Some of the players should be traded or released.

For example: trading Cullen Jenkins and Brady Poppinga could be a viable options. Releasing Montgomery and Cole is advisable.

Guys like Thompson, Hunter, DL, Jolly are going to be fighting for roster spots.

[texaspackerbacker]

I tend to agree with what Waldo said above--that personnel doesn't have that much to do with the change, and that the great majority of players aren't overly suited for one and not the other.

It boils down to a matter of preference for the coaching staff on going to the 3-4. I've gotten psyched up about the change mainly because of the inherent effectiveness against the run--which was a clear weakness for the Packers last season. I don't like the idea that maybe (although not necessarily) the Packers will use more zone and less man coverage, but Capers is saying the right stuff--talking about flexibility and disguising coverage, so hopefully there won't be too much deviation, and what deviation there is will work.

What I also see as true, though, is that you can generally get more mileage out of lesser players with the 3-4. We're talking about Jamie Thompson and Jason Hunter--who basically weren't adequate in the 4-3. as good players--some say possible stars in the 3-4. We have two high quality ILBs, but arguably, less skill is required there too in the 3-4, as you have two to go sideline to sideline instead of just one. The DE position takes significantly less athleticism in the 3-4, and also is a haven for 4-3 "tweeners". Safety also should be easier to play, as I would assume with four LBs, they would have slightly less responsibility in run stopping.

I do not foresee a bad period early in the season while the players get used to the new scheme. That might be the case if coaches were learning right along with the players, but with Capers and his crew of 3-4 vets, the transition should be quick.

[Waldo]

Agreed the draft is easier to acquire players to fit the 3-4 scheme. This years draft is filled with the right type of players. Expect a heavy dose of defensive palyers.

Again the current defense imo does not possess the right type of players for the 3-4. Some of the players should be traded or released.

For example: trading Cullen Jenkins and Brady Poppinga could be a viable options. Releasing Montgomery and Cole is advisable.

Guys like Thompson, Hunter, DL, Jolly are going to be fighting for roster spots.

???

Jenkins is probably the best fit on the team. Poppinga is a perfect fit at Jack LB and is a good OLB backup.

Hunter is a MUCH better fit for the 3-4, Thompson was listed as a 3-4 OLB by many sources on draft day. Both are undersized in a 4-3 at end, but perfect fits at 3-4 OLB.

Cole and Montgomery aren't very good 4-3 players either. Heck Pickett can outrun Monty, not good for a DE, Cole is so slow it is downright absurd, they aren't very good in any scheme.

[Farley Face]

Agreed the draft is easier to acquire players to fit the 3-4 scheme. This years draft is filled with the right type of players. Expect a heavy dose of defensive palyers.

Again the current defense imo does not possess the right type of players for the 3-4. Some of the players should be traded or released.

For example: trading Cullen Jenkins and Brady Poppinga could be a viable options. Releasing Montgomery and Cole is advisable.

Guys like Thompson, Hunter, DL, Jolly are going to be fighting for roster spots.

???

Jenkins is probably the best fit on the team. Poppinga is a perfect fit at Jack LB and is a good OLB backup.

Hunter is a MUCH better fit for the 3-4, Thompson was listed as a 3-4 OLB by many sources on draft day. Both are undersized in a 4-3 at end, but perfect fits at 3-4 OLB.

Cole and Montgomery aren't very good 4-3 players either. Heck Pickett can outrun Monty, not good for a DE, Cole is so slow it is downright absurd, they aren't very good in any scheme.

Is the "Jack" LB you reference one of the inside spots? I've read ideally you want one of the ILBs to be a thumper and one to be more of a sideline to sideline guy. I see Bishop emerging in that thumper role, but I say that with no knowledge of the coverage role his projected spot will be asked to play in our new 3-4. Which one were you slotting Pop for?

(I agree with your Cole assessment by the way.)

Thanks,

FF

[Waldo]

Unlike the 4-3 where there is a nice naming convention, the LB names tend to vary somewhat from scheme to scheme in the 3-4. I've heard sam, mike, will, elephant, or sam, ted, mike, will, or sam, jack, mike, and will, depends o the coach. But yes, Jack is a ILB spot, the strongside inside linebacker, who is typically the lead block eater in addition to covering a little. This guy is one of the guys that'll be replaced by a DB on passing downs depending on the play. It is overall a very similar position to 4-3 sam, which Pops played. It can be a more happening spot though than it was in the 4-3 and there typically isn't as much in traffic trash to sift through, but I can see Hawk as the starter with Bishop and Pops fighting for the backup spot, while Barnett plays mike with Chillar behind him.

[Farley Face]

Unlike the 4-3 where there is a nice naming convention, the LB names tend to vary somewhat from scheme to scheme in the 3-4. I've heard sam, mike, will, elephant, or sam, ted, mike, will, or sam, jack, mike, and will, depends o the coach. But yes, Jack is a ILB spot, the strongside inside linebacker, who is typically the lead block eater in addition to covering a little. This guy is one of the guys that'll be replaced by a DB on passing downs depending on the play. It is overall a very similar position to 4-3 sam, which Pops played. It can be a more happening spot though than it was in the 4-3 and there typically isn't as much in traffic trash to sift through, but I can see Hawk as the starter with Bishop and Pops fighting for the backup spot, while Barnett plays mike with Chillar behind him.

Who typically covers the TE in a base 3-4? SOLB, SS, zone, or yes to all depending on the call? Chillar did ok in TE man last year but quality TEs have been giving us headaches for awhile.