Teams working back towards the 4-3

[GreenBaySlacker]

The NFL has a trend where some teams are going back to the 4-3... I can relate. I'm under the belief that the dline is where it all starts. You get 4 dlinemen that take 6 guys to block, and everything gets easier.
GB took the 3-4 and evolved it into a 2-4-5..... I like the 3-4
I think it's time to drop the 2-4-5 , and go back to an actual 3-4 defense. With 3 actual dlinemen. Even when we play the pass. We can't abandon the dline and expect to get a rush and stop the run...

 

[Arthur Squires]

I am a fan of the 4-4-3. But the foundation is having superb front 4, with a hybrid LB/Safety that can do it all in run and pass game. We ran it when I played in HS and also used it when I helped coach in So Cal..But the way the NFL has become so pass happy I don't see it being effective. I agree though the 2-4-5 is a headache last season. Interesting to see how they run that without Hyde!

 

[Mondio]

Burnett comes down and is better and Brice, who can cover a lot of ground is used more and more paired with HaHa at safety

 

[Dantés]

Every team in the NFL is using sub packages more than base defense at this point, regardless of whether their base is 3-4 or 4-3. Teams are using too many wide receivers and throwing too often to stay in base. If the Packers just played a 3-4 base defense all the time, they'd get shredded like you wouldn't believe.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The NFL has a tend where some teams are going back to the 4-3... I can relate. I'm under the belief that the dline is where it all starts. You get 4 dlinemen that take 6 guys to block, and everything gets easier.
GB took the 3-4 and evolved it into a 2-4-5..... I like the 3-4
I think it's time to drop the 2-4-5 , and go back to an actual 3-4 defense. With 3 actual dlinemen. Even when we play the pass. We can't abandon the dline and expect to get a rush and stop the run...

You come up with that suggestion at least once every single offseason. Unfortunately it doesn't make more sense the more you bring it up though.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

You come up with that suggestion at least once every single offseason. Unfortunately it doesn't make more sense the more you bring it up though.

And the packers keep playing sub packages and continue to get waxed in the trenches every year.....from the days of raji complaining about not having help until now.... still sucking....

It's weird how a 4-3 team can play 3 dlinemen in their sub packages against Rodgers... but somehow it's a proven fact that every team will"shred us" if we tried.....

I'm never going to stop wimm. Not until GB starts putting 3 quality dlinemen on the field, and not expecting olb s to do the work...

Here is what blows my mind... we had peppers, Mathew's, Perry, and a handful of splash olbs on the roster the last 3 years. With hardly any success at getting to the qb. Yet nobody thinks a change of strategy is in order... 27 mil a year tied up into 2 olbs the next 2 years. " we still need some olb depth" according to many here... and the wheel goes round and round...

I say put 3 dominant dlinemen on the field at once. Then see if those olbs can get some pressure...

 

[Half Empty]

Don't you have to HAVE three dominant DL?

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

Don't you have to HAVE three dominant DL?

Exactly... Ted doesn't value the dline in his scheme it seems. All olbs and an extra couple tweener snacks is the plan. All speed and tackling. And turnovers... power in the trenches has been abandoned.

 

[Mondio]

Exactly... Ted doesn't value the dline in his scheme it seems. All olbs and an extra couple tweener snacks is the plan. All speed and tackling. And turnovers... power in the trenches has been abandoned.

WTF are you talking about? Just signed one of the best young DT's on the league to a new contract last year and used a first round pick on another guy in Clark that is still younger than half of this years draft class and looks to have all the tools to be very good in this league. He's got 5 years of growth in him yet and is nowhere near his ceiling.
Hardly proves that he "doesn't value the Dline. and it's not his scheme. He's the GM He doesn't pick the scheme or coaches. He picks one coach and that coach assembles his staff.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

WTF are you talking about? Just signed one of the best young DT's on the league to a new contract last year and used a first round pick on another guy in Clark that is still younger than half of this years draft class and looks to have all the tools to be very good in this league. He's got 5 years of growth in him yet and is nowhere near his ceiling.
Hardly proves that he "doesn't value the Dline. and it's not his scheme. He's the GM He doesn't pick the scheme or coaches. He picks one coach and that coach assembles his staff.

Does it matter that Clark was outplayed in every way by a dope smoking veteran dlineman making 3$mil a yr???

I like the Clark signing. But he could still turn out like datone. A project player who we developed for some other team...

Daniel's is our only good dlineman. That's what the hell I'm talking about. Guion has been carrying a huge load for us the last few years. Like every year, if one of those two were to go down with a big injury. Our dline would get steamrolled by every team worse than it already does...

Nobody gives an explanation on how other teams play 3 dlinemen against the great #12. But we can't against anyone??? Nobody ever. You will get ridiculed if you suggest we try... instead we talk about signing a 3rd big money olb... it's just crazy...if peppers, mathews, and Perry didn't work... then it doesn't work!!!

 

[Dantés]

And the packers keep playing sub packages and continue to get waxed in the trenches every year.....from the days of raji complaining about not having help until now.... still sucking....

It's weird how a 4-3 team can play 3 dlinemen in their sub packages against Rodgers... but somehow it's a proven fact that every team will"shred us" if we tried.....

I'm never going to stop wimm. Not until GB starts putting 3 quality dlinemen on the field, and not expecting olb s to do the work...

Here is what blows my mind... we had peppers, Mathew's, Perry, and a handful of splash olbs on the roster the last 3 years. With hardly any success at getting to the qb. Yet nobody thinks a change of strategy is in order... 27 mil a year tied up into 2 olbs the next 2 years. " we still need some olb depth" according to many here... and the wheel goes round and round...

I say put 3 dominant dlinemen on the field at once. Then see if those olbs can get some pressure...

A few things.

1. The Packers ranked 12th (4.0) in yards allowed per carry and 8th (94.7) in yards allowed per game. They were also tied for 7th (40) in sacks So it isn't as though the front 7 getting dominated was a glaring issue.

2.People want to add an OLB because pass rush is vitally important. If there's a great pass rushing 34DE, then that would be great too. But this EDGE class is pretty good, and this DL class really isn't.

3. If your gripe is with too much sub package, then your issue is really with the entire league and the direction of football-- not just with the Packers.

4. Teams aren't really "shifting back" to a 4-3 base. The league is still roughly split 50/50 between 3-4 and 4-3. It's been that way for a while. There is a shift league wide towards more sub packages as teams throw more and more.

5. You're confused regarding the nature of sub package in 3-4 and 4-3 defenses. A 4-3 might take a LB off the field and shift to a 4-2-5 nickel where they have 4 linemen with their hand on the dirt, 2 interior linemen and 2 edge players. A 3-4 effectively does the same thing when they go to a 2-4-5. They remove one an interior lineman (usually the NT) and bring an extra DB on the field. The OLB's act as edge rushers the same way that the DE's do in a 4-2-5. A guy like Perry actually looks and plays more like a 43DE than a 34OLB. So in both cases, you end up with two interior DL, two edge rushers, two linebackers, and 5 defensive backs.

 

[Dantés]

Does it matter that Clark was outplayed in every way by a dope smoking veteran dlineman making 3$mil a yr???

I like the Clark signing. But he could still turn out like datone. A project player who we developed for some other team...

Daniel's is our only good dlineman. That's what the hell I'm talking about. Guion has been carrying a huge load for us the last few years. Like every year, if one of those two were to go down with a big injury. Our dline would get steamrolled by every team worse than it already does...

Nobody gives an explanation on how other teams play 3 dlinemen against the great #12. But we can't against anyone??? Nobody ever. You will get ridiculed if you suggest we try... instead we talk about signing a 3rd big money olb... it's just crazy...if peppers, mathews, and Perry didn't work... then it doesn't work!!!

By the end of the season, Clark was the better player between him and Guion. He actually looked better as soon as they started giving him snaps.

 

[Dantés]

Can I get an example of the really successful 3-4 teams that are using 3 interior linemen most of the time?

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

A few things.

1. The Packers ranked 12th (4.0) in yards allowed per carry and 8th (94.7) in yards allowed per game. They were also tied for 7th (40) in sacks So it isn't as though the front 7 getting dominated was a glaring issue.

2.People want to add an OLB because pass rush is vitally important. If there's a great pass rushing 34DE, then that would be great too. But this EDGE class is pretty good, and this DL class really isn't.

3. If your gripe is with too much sub package, then your issue is really with the entire league and the direction of football-- not just with the Packers.

4. Teams aren't really "shifting back" to a 4-3 base. The league is still roughly split 50/50 between 3-4 and 4-3. It's been that way for a while. There is a shift league wide towards more sub packages as teams throw more and more.

5. You're confused regarding the nature of sub package in 3-4 and 4-3 defenses. A 4-3 might take a LB off the field and shift to a 4-2-5 nickel where they have 4 linemen with their hand on the dirt, 2 interior linemen and 2 edge players. A 3-4 effectively does the same thing when they go to a 2-4-5. They remove one an interior lineman (usually the NT) and bring an extra DB on the field. The OLB's act as edge rushers the same way that the DE's do in a 4-2-5. A guy like Perry actually looks and plays more like a 43DE than a 34OLB. So in both cases, you end up with two interior DL, two edge rushers, two linebackers, and 5 defensive backs.

The problem is we replaced dlinemen with dbacks. We. The packers abandoned the line. And against tough teams, we were exposed. Are always exposed...

I just reference the shift back to the 4-3. I couldn't back that statement with stats. Except I heard the announcers mention 4 dlinemen a number of times last year. Like its a lost art form coming back. And I heard some teams have been going back to the 4-3.....

I respect your answer though

 

[Half Empty]

WTF are you talking about? Just signed one of the best young DT's on the league to a new contract last year and used a first round pick on another guy in Clark that is still younger than half of this years draft class and looks to have all the tools to be very good in this league. He's got 5 years of growth in him yet and is nowhere near his ceiling.
Hardly proves that he "doesn't value the Dline. and it's not his scheme. He's the GM He doesn't pick the scheme or coaches. He picks one coach and that coach assembles his staff.

So, one really go DL and one that might turn out that way (or might not)?

 

[RicFlairoftheNFL]

Rather run a 3-4 if I have athletic linebackers. With a 4-3 you run the risk of a Jermichael Finley beating you down the seam.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

You're confused regarding the nature of sub package in 3-4 and 4-3 defenses. A 4-3 might take a LB off the field and shift to a 4-2-5 nickel where they have 4 linemen with their hand on the dirt, 2 interior linemen and 2 edge players. A 3-4 effectively does the same thing when they go to a 2-4-5. They remove one an interior lineman (usually the NT) and bring an extra DB on the field. The OLB's act as edge rushers the same way that the DE's do in a 4-2-5. A guy like Perry actually looks and plays more like a 43DE than a 34OLB. So in both cases, you end up with two interior DL, two edge rushers, two linebackers, and 5 defensive backs.

Good job explaining it unfortunately Eli or Slacker won't understand it for the umpteenth time.

I just reference the shift back to the 4-3. I couldn't back that statement with stats. Except I heard the announcers mention 4 dlinemen a number of times last year. Like its a lost art form coming back. And I heard some teams have been going back to the 4-3.....

You don't understand that defensive ends playing in sub packages in a 4-3 defense have basically the same body type than outside linebackers doing the same in a 3-4.

As an example Peppers played DE in a 4-3 while lining up at OLB in a 3-4.

Rather run a 3-4 if I have athletic linebackers. With a 4-3 you run the risk of a Jermichael Finley beating you down the seam.

Unfortunately the Packers get beat by tight ends way too often in their current scheme as well.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

Good job explaining it unfortunately Eli or Slacker won't understand it for the umpteenth time.



You don't understand that defensive ends playing in sub packages in a 4-3 defense have basically the same body type than outside linebackers doing the same in a 3-4.

As an example Peppers played DE in a 4-3 while lining up at OLB in a 3-4.



Unfortunately the Packers get beat by tight ends way too often in their current scheme as well.

Wimm is just soar. This debate has been going on a number of years. Might as well take it another...

You wimm. You said a million times that olb, is Basicly a de most the time... but apparently only when it suits your argument...because before that you argued a million times about Aldon Smith being a olb. I thought he was a de at the time. BOY WAS I WRONG!!! I say peppers is a olb and we need a de in front of him?!?!?! And I'm the idiot.....

Let's go way back. Remember my 5-2 4 from the old days. Took years of for it. Quick recap for those who can't remember. It starts with a dominant nose tackle who forces the double team, and still makes plays. Two dtackles. And two small DEs who can run with a te or rb in short passes if they have to... kgb, and our stable of 4-3 dlinemen including BIG Grady Jackson at nose. I was a big fan of Grady. That's how long this debate goes back for me...

Second part of the strategy is to have CBs who can shut down the opposing #1 wr. And cover man. . Because a stud receiving target is the great equalizer. Meaning you can double him and he still wins sometime... our roster was perfect for it.
I felt dumb when I realized my 5-2 was a 3-4..... I just didn't know what a 3-4 was back then .lol

We hadn't fielded a great dline since Cullen Jenkins left... if it was my defense. A real 3-4 with a dominant nose and shut down CBs like woodson and Harris. If we had something similar to that the last 7-8 years, and consistently was the reason we failed in the playoffs against great offenses...? I would definitely shut up about it. But instead I get a tired Daniel's/Guion. Peppers and 3 lbs. And a extra tweener to help bend but not break...



Tough teams make our dynamic speed defense look like crap when it counts.

It's time to put a defensive line back on the field. Not a olb who is only a de when it suits you. That to me is a olb still. Because in my 5-2-4, there's still 3 dlinemen taking blockers so the DEs (or were actually olbs)can get around the corner....

Can't stop 5 good dlinemen with 5 good olinemen every play...

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Wimm is just soar. This debate has been going on a number of years. Might as well take it another...

You wimm. You said a million times that olb, is Basicly a de most the time... but apparently only when it suits your argument...because before that you argued a million times about Aldon Smith being a olb. I thought he was a de at the time. BOY WAS I WRONG!!! I say peppers is a olb and we need a de in front of him?!?!?! And I'm the idiot.....

Let's go way back. Remember my 5-2 4 from the old days. Took years of for it. Quick recap for those who can't remember. It starts with a dominant nose tackle who forces the double team, and still makes plays. Two dtackles. And two small DEs who can run with a te or rb in short passes if they have to... kgb, and our stable of 4-3 dlinemen including BIG Grady Jackson at nose. I was a big fan of Grady. That's how long this debate goes back for me...

Second part of the strategy is to have CBs who can shut down the opposing #1 wr. And cover man. . Because a stud receiving target is the great equalizer. Meaning you can double him and he still wins sometime... our roster was perfect for it.
I felt dumb when I realized my 5-2 was a 3-4..... I just didn't know what a 3-4 was back then .lol

We hadn't fielded a great dline since Cullen Jenkins left... if it was my defense. A real 3-4 with a dominant nose and shut down CBs like woodson and Harris. If we had something similar to that the last 7-8 years, and consistently was the reason we failed in the playoffs against great offenses...? I would definitely shut up about it. But instead I get a tired Daniel's/Guion. Peppers and 3 lbs. And a extra tweener to help bend but not break...



Tough teams make our dynamic speed defense look like crap when it counts.

It's time to put a defensive line back on the field. Not a olb who is only a de when it suits you. That to me is a olb still. Because in my 5-2-4, there's still 3 dlinemen taking blockers so the DEs (or were actually olbs)can get around the corner....

Can't stop 5 good dlinemen with 5 good olinemen every play...

Whatever, I have been done explaining the basic principles of NFL defenses to you for quite some time as you're not interested in learning something about it.

One thing though, the Packers don't need to change their basic scheme in subpackages but have to add more talent to make it work.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

Whatever, I have been done explaining the basic principles of NFL defenses to you for quite some time as you're not interested in learning something about it.

One thing though, the Packers don't need to change their basic scheme in subpackages but have to add more talent to make it work.

As with any scheme....

And don't think I hadn't learned what you are teaching. I get it. I just disagree at a fundamental level. Dline is very important imo. It's an after thought in GB. And I'm saying for the umpteenth time. It is the reason our scheme fails year after year after year.

 

[mradtke66]

It's time to put a defensive line back on the field. Not a olb who is only a de when it suits you. That to me is a olb still. Because in my 5-2-4, there's still 3 dlinemen taking blockers so the DEs (or were actually olbs)can get around the corner....

Well, a 3-4 OLB is a DE sometimes and a OLB sometimes.

You're almost right. a 3-4 is a 5-2 on running plays. There is stops.

On passing plays, a 3-4 looks just like a 4-3. One 3-4 DE and the NT become a 4-3 NT and 3-technique DT, typically the weak/right 3-4 DE. The DE is the same as the 4-3 left/strong 4-3 DE.

The right/weak 3-4 OLB becomes the 4th lineman and rushes the passer. The left/strong 3-4 OLB plays a role similar to the 4-3 strong OLB. Hit the TE (which typically denotes the strength of the offensive formation) and drop into coverage.

The nice thing about a 3-4 is that, optimally, any of the 4 linebackers can become the 4th rusher. The easy to see case is motioning the TE across the formation. Strength has changed, roles for the left and right sides of the defense flip accordingly. This of a 3-4 of a "balanced" front. IE, the left OLB is now weakside, he rushes and the right, now-strong-side OLB becomes the cover man.

Can't stop 5 good dlinemen with 5 good olinemen every play...

Sure you can.

Rushing 5 is risky. The entire league rushses 5 or more about 30% of the time. Depending on the coordinator, that number can be as low as 20%. There is a reason for that. If you rush 5, you have to make a concession in coverage. You have to, due to that pesky 12-men on the field penalty. With only 6 in coverage, you have two options. Single High Safety or Don't Cover One of the 5 Eligible Receivers.

Now that you are weaker in coverage, the counter is simple: Three step drop, quick throw. Even rushing 5, the quarterback is not seriously threatened.

Now I know what you're going to say. We'll just get a great lineman like Jenkins and two great cornerbacks like Woodson and Harris. While the solution is simple, it is not easy. You premise might as well begin, "All we need to do is win the Powerball Jackpot, put a golden saddle on our Unicorn, and Fly at twice the speed of light. Why is that so hard?"

Also: even when we had Jenkins in 2010, we played more 2-4 Nickel than Base 3-4.

Stop. Beating. This. Dead. Horse.

 

[McKnowledge]

Does it matter that Clark was outplayed in every way by a dope smoking veteran dlineman making 3$mil a yr???

I like the Clark signing. But he could still turn out like datone. A project player who we developed for some other team...

Daniel's is our only good dlineman. That's what the hell I'm talking about. Guion has been carrying a huge load for us the last few years. Like every year, if one of those two were to go down with a big injury. Our dline would get steamrolled by every team worse than it already does...

Nobody gives an explanation on how other teams play 3 dlinemen against the great #12. But we can't against anyone??? Nobody ever. You will get ridiculed if you suggest we try... instead we talk about signing a 3rd big money olb... it's just crazy...if peppers, mathews, and Perry didn't work... then it doesn't work!!!

Kenny Clark was drafted, he is in his second year, and he will get better.

 

[McKnowledge]

Well, a 3-4 OLB is a DE sometimes and a OLB sometimes.

You're almost right. a 3-4 is a 5-2 on running plays. There is stops.

On passing plays, a 3-4 looks just like a 4-3. One 3-4 DE and the NT become a 4-3 NT and 3-technique DT, typically the weak/right 3-4 DE. The DE is the same as the 4-3 left/strong 4-3 DE.

The right/weak 3-4 OLB becomes the 4th lineman and rushes the passer. The left/strong 3-4 OLB plays a role similar to the 4-3 strong OLB. Hit the TE (which typically denotes the strength of the offensive formation) and drop into coverage.

The nice thing about a 3-4 is that, optimally, any of the 4 linebackers can become the 4th rusher. The easy to see case is motioning the TE across the formation. Strength has changed, roles for the left and right sides of the defense flip accordingly. This of a 3-4 of a "balanced" front. IE, the left OLB is now weakside, he rushes and the right, now-strong-side OLB becomes the cover man.



Sure you can.

Rushing 5 is risky. The entire league rushses 5 or more about 30% of the time. Depending on the coordinator, that number can be as low as 20%. There is a reason for that. If you rush 5, you have to make a concession in coverage. You have to, due to that pesky 12-men on the field penalty. With only 6 in coverage, you have two options. Single High Safety or Don't Cover One of the 5 Eligible Receivers.

Now that you are weaker in coverage, the counter is simple: Three step drop, quick throw. Even rushing 5, the quarterback is not seriously threatened.

Now I know what you're going to say. We'll just get a great lineman like Jenkins and two great cornerbacks like Woodson and Harris. While the solution is simple, it is not easy. You premise might as well begin, "All we need to do is win the Powerball Jackpot, put a golden saddle on our Unicorn, and Fly at twice the speed of light. Why is that so hard?"

Also: even when we had Jenkins in 2010, we played more 2-4 Nickel than Base 3-4.

Stop. Beating. This. Dead. Horse.

Pack should've re-signed Jenkins. He ate up a lot of space and freed up CM3 and other rushers. He also allowed Charles Woodson and Nick Collins to go 1 on 1 when blitzing. Jenkins would literally take on 2 OLineman at a time. Maybe the Packers would consider Johnathan Hankins to shore up depth.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

Well, a 3-4 OLB is a DE sometimes and a OLB sometimes.

You're almost right. a 3-4 is a 5-2 on running plays. There is stops.

On passing plays, a 3-4 looks just like a 4-3. One 3-4 DE and the NT become a 4-3 NT and 3-technique DT, typically the weak/right 3-4 DE. The DE is the same as the 4-3 left/strong 4-3 DE.

The right/weak 3-4 OLB becomes the 4th lineman and rushes the passer. The left/strong 3-4 OLB plays a role similar to the 4-3 strong OLB. Hit the TE (which typically denotes the strength of the offensive formation) and drop into coverage.

The nice thing about a 3-4 is that, optimally, any of the 4 linebackers can become the 4th rusher. The easy to see case is motioning the TE across the formation. Strength has changed, roles for the left and right sides of the defense flip accordingly. This of a 3-4 of a "balanced" front. IE, the left OLB is now weakside, he rushes and the right, now-strong-side OLB becomes the cover man.



Sure you can.

Rushing 5 is risky. The entire league rushses 5 or more about 30% of the time. Depending on the coordinator, that number can be as low as 20%. There is a reason for that. If you rush 5, you have to make a concession in coverage. You have to, due to that pesky 12-men on the field penalty. With only 6 in coverage, you have two options. Single High Safety or Don't Cover One of the 5 Eligible Receivers.

Now that you are weaker in coverage, the counter is simple: Three step drop, quick throw. Even rushing 5, the quarterback is not seriously threatened.

Now I know what you're going to say. We'll just get a great lineman like Jenkins and two great cornerbacks like Woodson and Harris. While the solution is simple, it is not easy. You premise might as well begin, "All we need to do is win the Powerball Jackpot, put a golden saddle on our Unicorn, and Fly at twice the speed of light. Why is that so hard?"

Also: even when we had Jenkins in 2010, we played more 2-4 Nickel than Base 3-4.

Stop. Beating. This. Dead. Horse.

Radke! Been a while.
Good to hear from you again.

I realize the weaknesses in the 5-2. Or base 3-4. But we need to get some quality dline. Stack it up so that playing 3 dlinemen isn't such a bad idea anymore. We need to get some push from up front.

At the beginning of the year, our lbs were getting g a lot of sacks. Daniel's, Guion, we're killing it. Pennell was a bigger impact than we ever have him credit for imo. All the mid range guys came in and made a couple plays each... can't remember the numbers but I thi K we led the league in sacks, or was close, around week 5. Then a few injuries and the dline wasn't impactful anymore. Lbs quit getting sacks. Ilbs and CBs got injured. And the losing streak happened....

Just like a few other years I mentioned it. 2 guys carried the line. If one were to go down, we would have fell apart. This was one of those years. Daniel's and Guion carried us. Clark became visible at the end finally. But was an after thought most the year.

I couldn't resist kicking the dead horse one more time. lol. Sorry.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

Kenny Clark was drafted, he is in his second year, and he will get better.

I agree. I really like the Clark pick. But it was a planned project player... we need more guions. Couple of him.
Hopefully Clark comes out kicking buttons next season. It will help a lot!

Another nose tackle is needed too. A stump like Pennell.8