3-Men Rush

[mraynrand]

What's the percentage of plays are we are only sending 3 men?

Only on 3rd and 14 or longer!

[mraynrand]

Just in fairness to the defense, did you guys notice how fast Bress got the ball out of there, even on some of those third and long downs? That was unreal. You bring the heat on that stuff and it could be goodnight Eileen* on the back end.






* I don't really know what goodnight Eileen means, it just sounded kindof like the Ketih Jacksony thing to say

[sharpe1027]

If the purpose is to bring heat on a consistent basis, why wouldn't you want a scheme where your DL can bring that over and over again? In a passing-Maddenesque league we're in now I would think you would want as many players who can bring the heat as often as possible.

Why is it that you think more pressure can be generated with a 4-3 than with a 3-4? I'll concede that most 4-3 systems are designed to generate more pressure from the DEs. I disagree that you have "more" players that can bring pressure in a 4-3, you simply have "different" players. I think you will find 3-4 teams generate more sacks. My understanding was the 3-4 became so popular recently because it was able to create more pressure, albeit at the downside of being more vulnerable to the run.

In reality though, we are often in something other than a true 3-4 anyway.

[gbgary]

whether we rush 3, 4, or whatever, the fact that we're playing soft zone is more maddening to me than anything else.

[mraynrand]

The 3-4 also has the glorious offshoot of the zone blitz*





*not that you can't zone blitz in the 4-3, but you really don't want Julius Peppers or Aaron Kampman in coverage**

**Well, I guess you don't really want Raji in coverage either, so what the hell is my point?

[gbgary]

The 3-4 also has the glorious offshoot of the zone blitz*





*not that you can't zone blitz in the 4-3, but you really don't want Julius Peppers or Aaron Kampman in coverage**

**Well, I guess you don't really want Raji in coverage either, so what the hell is my point?

they're not really in coverage...they're in a spot that no one is expected to be in. a throwing lane.

[mraynrand]

they're not really in coverage...they're in a spot that no one is expected to be in. a throwing lane.

yeah, I know. i sorta lost control of that post

[wist43]

Just in fairness to the defense, did you guys notice how fast Bress got the ball out of there, even on some of those third and long downs? That was unreal. You bring the heat on that stuff and it could be goodnight Eileen* on the back end.






* I don't really know what goodnight Eileen means, it just sounded kindof like the Ketih Jacksony thing to say

That's what happens when you don't jam receivers and redirect them. Regardless of which front you're running - if you give receivers a free release off the line, and simply allow them to get into their patterns unfettered - yeah, it's gonna be a messy stat line for any defense. Yet that's what Dom does all too often.

It's one thing if you don't have decent CB's, but I would argue we have enough talent at that position to bump and run, or jam and release into a zone. Allowing free releases on top of a soft front?? That's a recipe for big yards and big pts.

[wist43]

The 3-4 was originally designed as a run stopping defense. 2 gapping DL that ate up blockers and allowed the LB's to roam free and make plays. The primary pass rush came from the ROLB (Lawrence Taylor, Derrick Thomas, Tim Harris - remember him??) Harris had 19.5 sacks in 1989 for the Packers.

Offenses eventually caught up to the static look of a base 3-4, and like always happens in the league, the pendulum swung back in favor of 4-3's. DC's that stuck with it though, Dick Lebeau comes to mind, got more creative with their front seven alignments and it actually became more advantagous to rush the passer out of the 3-4, and had the added benefit of being able to go cheap on DL.

My first recollection of any DC going to a 2-5 was Fritz Shurmer when he was with the Rams in the 80's. As I remember, that look got ate alive and nobody else tried to copy it. I assume he went to that look b/c he had more quality LB's than DL and couldn't compete with a standard 3-4/4-3 base, but I don't remember the rationale. Anyway, it didn't work then - and I certainly hate it every time I see Capers trot it out there.

[Fritz]

"That's what happens when you don't jam receivers and redirect them. Regardless of which front you're running - if you give receivers a free release off the line, and simply allow them to get into their patterns unfettered - yeah, it's gonna be a messy stat line for any defense. Yet that's what Dom does all too often."

Wist, while I too wish more jamming had happened in the NO game, if it were really so simple and straightforward that jamming receivers at the line is always, always, better, then why wouldn't every single defensive coordinator in the league do that every single play?

What bothers me is the way you make these blanket statements, as if the right answer is obvious, and the problem is simply that Capers loves himself so much - or loves his effeminate defensive scheme so much - that he can't see the obvious and so calls instead obviously useless defenses.

It's really, really unfair of you to make such statements. Really, a fan on Packerrats can see exactly the right defense, and Capers can't? That's bullshit, period.

Of course we can question Capers's calls. Often, I think you might have some interesting points to make - and I've said so - but you lose me (and others, I think) with this approach, this attitude, that if only Capers and the rest of us weren't so in love with pussy defenses, we'd see the obvious answer.

But it's not that simple. Sure, the choices are debatable. That's partly why we're all here. But the choices are not obvious. So please, stop with the whole "if Capers weren't so stupid/narcissistic/pussified" thing.

[wist43]

"That's what happens when you don't jam receivers and redirect them. Regardless of which front you're running - if you give receivers a free release off the line, and simply allow them to get into their patterns unfettered - yeah, it's gonna be a messy stat line for any defense. Yet that's what Dom does all too often."

Wist, while I too wish more jamming had happened in the NO game, if it were really so simple and straightforward that jamming receivers at the line is always, always, better, then why wouldn't every single defensive coordinator in the league do that every single play?

What bothers me is the way you make these blanket statements, as if the right answer is obvious, and the problem is simply that Capers loves himself so much - or loves his effeminate defensive scheme so much - that he can't see the obvious and so calls instead obviously useless defenses.

It's really, really unfair of you to make such statements. Really, a fan on Packerrats can see exactly the right defense, and Capers can't? That's bullshit, period.

Of course we can question Capers's calls. Often, I think you might have some interesting points to make - and I've said so - but you lose me (and others, I think) with this approach, this attitude, that if only Capers and the rest of us weren't so in love with pussy defenses, we'd see the obvious answer.

But it's not that simple. Sure, the choices are debatable. That's partly why we're all here. But the choices are not obvious. So please, stop with the whole "if Capers weren't so stupid/narcissistic/pussified" thing.

Fritz, it's a chess match... no, there generally aren't "blanket" solutions; but there are antidotes to what an offense is doing. I'm simply pointing out what they are. That's what Aikman was doing when he was criticizing Capers for not jamming receivers during the game.

If they are doing a, b, and c; and the proper response is x, y, and z - if the DC doesn't adjust, then it's noticable. That's what Aikman is criticizing, and that's what I'm pointing out. If an offense isn't geared to 3 step drops, then it isn't as important to get a jam at the line, but if you are giving them a 10 yard cushion, and they are simply playing pitch and catch that's a different story.

Take for example the attempted pass to Graham on the 1 yd line. He was lined up "wide" in the slot, Williams was a couple 2-3 yds off the LOS... it's a physical mismatch in favor of Graham. Given the alignment I was sure they were going to throw either the quick slant (which they did), or a fade to the corner. Williams had to be positioned for either, and given the physical mismatch, jamming Graham didn't make sense. He was lined up properly, played the right coverage, and made the play.

You don't play chess, do you??

[pbmax]

Okay, now we've got some real content to consider. This is some good talk. And I think Wist makes a good point about not using the talent up front to its best effect. I don't quite understand this defensive-linemen-eating-up-blockers scheme in the first place, exactly, but to draft guys who are penetrators (that sounded wrong, somehow) and not use them that way is the whole square-peg-round-hole thing. How will the defensive coaching staff resolve this? Does anyone think they're unsure how to use these guys without changing the scheme?

There is more to consider than just 3-4 scheme though when talking about the assembled talent. Each of his sub packages except 3rd and really long and Sproles (Psycho and Dollar) involve a 4 man line, usually 2 DL and 2 OLBs. That's four, not three. Its undersized compared to 3 DL and one OLB playing the LOS, but its not 2 or 3 people attacking the QB.

If Dom were to run 3-4 most snaps, he would REALLY be misusing his talent. As wist states, Dom's sub packages and TTs talent acquisition this offseason are really geared to pass rushers who work in a 4 man line. Which is what he puts out there for almost all pass plays. Raji, Worthy, Daniels and Merling are all, in some basic way, more 4-3 tackles than 3-4 Ends or Noses. This is why several people on the board said it looked like the draft presaged Dom playing more of a 4-3 look. He is, but as wist is fond of pointing out, its a 4-3 with 2 DL, 2 OLBs, two traditional LBs and Woodson. And that is the pass defense.

The reason that is the plan is because of Matthews and the lack of productive, prototypical 3-4 ends. Matthews has to rush, he is best used moving around and his coverage cannot be his predominant responsibility. Clay in a 2-4 is almost always rushing. Also, Walden plays a lot to remove the need to have Matthews in coverage to prevent mismatches with Perry in base like versus the 49ers.

The lack of prototypical 3-4 ends tracks back to Neal failing to stay healthy and unsuspended, Jenkins leaving (even though he did not start his last year at DE), Jolly being in jail and Wilson simply being just a guy. Outside of Jenkins/Raji and Matthews, the third best pass rushers on the team have been OLBs (Kampman, Jones, Zombo, Walden, Perry). To send one of the OLBs into coverage hurts the pass rush substantially and you would need to do this regularly if you stayed 3-4 in passing downs.

The reason TT went non-traditional DTs this offseason is pass rush, pure and simple. They weren't worried about the run D (or perhaps were worried, but far less so than about pass rush). So when the time came to choose players, pass rush was paramount and they choose players accordingly (Worthy over Penn State dude and Daniels) with fit into base 3-4 a secondary concern.

It fits together given the scheme, but it can leave you thin of big bodies if you need to play more base 3-4. Which is why I think wist will get one wish and see Neal, when activated, take Richardson's spot rather than Merling.

[pbmax]

The 3-4 was originally designed as a run stopping defense. 2 gapping DL that ate up blockers and allowed the LB's to roam free and make plays. The primary pass rush came from the ROLB (Lawrence Taylor, Derrick Thomas, Tim Harris - remember him??) Harris had 19.5 sacks in 1989 for the Packers.

...

My first recollection of any DC going to a 2-5 was Fritz Shurmer when he was with the Rams in the 80's. As I remember, that look got ate alive and nobody else tried to copy it. I assume he went to that look b/c he had more quality LB's than DL and couldn't compete with a standard 3-4/4-3 base, but I don't remember the rationale. Anyway, it didn't work then - and I certainly hate it every time I see Capers trot it out there.

[video=youtube;qa-QMnXNw3Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa-QMnXNw3Q[/]

Fritz went with that Eagle when he was besieged with DL injuries and had just scrubs left.

[NewsBruin]

It's been implied multiple times in this thread, but it is worth emphasizing the distinction between "down linemen" and "pass rushers." Not all pass rushers are down linemen, and, occasionally, a down lineman will not rush the passer.

It's an elementary statement compared to what's already been thrown out here on the last few pages.

When teams were starting to make the most recent great change from 4-3 to 3-4 (something like the early/mid-2000's), I was skeptical, because I thought that smaller guys attacking an o-line would wear down faster over a season and be more easily blocked in run and pass. I didn't think the blocking confusion aspect really was worth the cost in effectiveness. Until the Ravens pulled off a Super Bowl win, I didn't think a 3-4 could be successful over 18-19 games. I just thought it was a way for teams to acquire relatively cheaper tweeners and for football analysts to get excited over something the average fan didn't know much about.

And honestly, I don't know much about Capers' interpretation of the 3-4 and its subsequent variations in our defense to do much more than keep reading. Carry on.

[channtheman]

It got us the game winning interception against Seattle.

*Game losing interception.