The Case for a 4-3 Base
by MikeDussault on Jul 30, 2010 6:54 PM EDT
in Opinion/Analysis
42 comments
Throughout the 2009 preseason Patriots fans and observers were surprised to see the team playing more of a 4-3 base defense, and this was even before Richard Seymour, a prototypical 3-4 defensive end, was traded. Bill Belichick has been using a 3-4 base defense long before the trend took over the NFL in the last five years, so this marked an interesting switch in philosophy.
Injuries and inexperience forced the Patriots back to the 3-4 defense in 2009. Of course Belichick has always run multiple fronts and in reality, you're only going to be in your base defense around fifty percent of the time so we don't want to make this seem like it's some kind of revolution. In fact, Albert Breer reported today that the Pats have still been running a majority of 3-4 defense in camp thus far. But with potential 3-4 OLB Shawn Crable cut and mini-camp's 3-4 OLB starter Derrick Burgess contemplating retirement might it be time for the Patriots to make a significant shift in base defense this year?
My thoughts after the jump...
When you look at the Patriots dynasty defense of the early 00's you see a roster filled with 3-4 defense prototypes. Willie McGinest and Mike Vrabel had the length and ability in coverage/setting the edge that are necessary to be Outside Linebackers in the scheme. The roster had large, two gap defensive lineman who specialized in holding up blocks allowing Tedy Bruschi, Ted Johnson and Roman Phifer to make plays all over the field.
Now when you look at the current Patriots defensive roster you see a team that looks far more suited to play the 4-3 defense. Ty Warren, Vince Wilfork and Ron Brace remain ideal 3-4 defensive lineman, but Mike Wright, Damione Lewis, Gerard Warren and Myron Pryor all seem to fit a 4-3 scheme a lot better. Lewis and Gerard Warren both played in the 4-3 defense last year, with Lewis consistently getting pressure on the quarterback from that scheme.
The linebacking corps looks even more 4-3 friendly. In a 3-4 scheme it will be hard to get enough snaps for all four talented young inside linebackers Jerod Mayo, Brandon Spikes, Gary Guyton and Tyrone McKenzie. But in a 4-3 scheme you could use almost any combination of those talented young linebackers on the field at any given time.
There was an interesting thread on the PatsFans.com message board that popped up today discussing this very question. I don't want to make it out to be a huge shift in philosophy, just simply a way that schematically the 2010 Patriots can play more to their strengths, especially in a two-gap 4-3. I asked the highly respected Chris Brown of SmartFootball.com about the switch last season and here's what he had to say.
Consider these two lineups, and you tell me which looks like it takes better advantage of the Patriots personnel:
3-4
T. Warren - Wilfork - G. Warren
Ninkovich/Woods - Mayo - Guyton/Spikes - Banta-Cain
4-3
T. Warren- Wilfork - Lewis - Banta-Cain
Mayo - Spikes/McKenzie - Guyton/Ninkovich (really BB could mix and match LBs however he wanted, they are that versatile)
The depth and ability to rotate appears far easier in a 4-3 scheme. Mayo and McKenzie look like they could play any of the 4-3 linebacker positions (McKenzie played all of them in college), and Mike Wright, Myron Pryor and Gerard Warren could all play numerous spots on the line.
You could also use Jermaine Cunningham (or Burgess if he doesn't retire) as a sub for Banta-Cain making it a far easier transition for the rookie since he would not have pass coverage responsibility. This 4-3 lineup looks like a lightning-fast one that can generate pass rush from the down lineman, or from blitzing linebackers.
When you look for a 3-4 OLB prototype only Pierre Woods looks anything close to Vrabel or McGinest physically, and we all know he's not the player either of those legends were. The rest are a collection of six-foot-two/six-foot-three 'backers who can run like the wind, but none are ideal to take on tackles who are six-foot-six with monstrous wingspans.
We know that Bill Belichick will never say goodbye to the 3-4 defense entirely and will continue to use it to teach defense in the early days of camp, but if nothing else, Belichick is known for putting his players in the best position to succeed. For 2010 that just might be the 4-3 defense.
3 recs |
42 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
because of our personnel
I don’t think we have much choice but to switch to a 4-3.
We can have 3-4, but we lack the outside presence from our LBs to fully contain… well the outside, as well as a pass rush.
I'm also a Raider Fan dammit!!! RAIDER NATION!!!!
Down with Big Brother!
the defense
needs to be built around Vince Wilfork, who in my opinion is the best defensive player on the field for our pats. So what ever BB dials up to get BIG V involved and effective is what works for me, whether thats plugging up 2 gaps in the 3-4 or getting more penetration in the 4-3 he is incredibly versatile.
Spokane WA only 2,266 miles from Foxboro MA
I read that...
they had Wilfork at RDE and G. Warren at NT today. I think they move Wilfork there when they need to.
by MikeDussault on Jul 30, 2010 11:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Or a Saints-style 3-3-5
The Pats are suddenly short on OLBs, so I wonder whether they should build packages to get maximum use out of their two areas of real strength and depth – Middle/Inside linebacker, and Safety. A 3-3-5 with the usual 3-4 D-line, and the three LB spots being Guyton/Mayo/Spikes/McKenzie in some combination, with McGowan on a LB-like roving commission in shorter zones, might compensate for some of the personnel deficiencies, especially at OLB.
Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.
Yes, I like that too...
Lots of safeties, middle linebackers and corners that will allow for a lot of versatility. McKenzie had a big day today. I’m excited.
by MikeDussault on Jul 30, 2010 11:39 PM EDT up reply actions
I even wondered about a Tampa-2 look
Guyton and Mayo as genuine Tampa-2 OLBs – all pass-coverage and high speed – and a McGowan S/MLB in the middle, playing the Urlacher role. It’s not quite ideal in terms of being fairly different from the trad 3-4, but it still fits with the bend-but-don’t-break philosophy of Belichick, and with athletic CBs in Butler, Bodden and McCourty and athletic Safeties in Chung and Meriweather, it’s not entirely outside the realm of possibility.
It also has the benefit of helping Cunningham segue into the NFL a little more easily – he’s played a lot of 4-3 DE, so it could be a springboard into OLB by keeping the concepts familiar.
On the whole, I’d prefer not to have to use it, but it does have the distinct advantage of getting the most experienced personnel on the field at once – Mayo, Guyton, McGowan, Chung/Sanders, Meriweather, Banta-Cain (at DE).
Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.
by Comedic.Sans on Jul 31, 2010 12:48 AM EDT up reply actions
Whatever design(s) they run,
they need to play more aggressively throughout the second half. This “prevent” nonsense is useless. I’d rather see them send FIVE on every snap when they have the lead. Opposing QB’s should know their time to throw will be in jeopardy on every down.
by couchpotato on Jul 31, 2010 11:53 AM EDT up reply actions
if they knew that, then they would adjust their play calls.
besides that, since we have quite a few DL that are versatile on the line, and fast LBs, I personally think the 4-3 would work best.
I'm also a Raider Fan dammit!!! RAIDER NATION!!!!
Down with Big Brother!
by patriotguy2 on Jul 31, 2010 12:10 PM EDT up reply actions
we could base our 4-3 on the bears, when urlacher was healthy.
I can see Mayo or Spikes as our Urlacher. :)
I'm also a Raider Fan dammit!!! RAIDER NATION!!!!
Down with Big Brother!
by patriotguy2 on Jul 31, 2010 12:11 PM EDT up reply actions
They would adjust their play calling to shorter routes.
I just find the 3-8 to be absurd. I prefer the 4-7.
An aggressive 4-7 design with 2 safeties, 4 DB’s, 1 LB, and 4 DL gives you maximum athleticism in the “prevent zone”, it gives you 4 DL in rush mode, and you have the 1 LB who can rush or drop back. I simply prefer 4 DL in rush mode. A five man OL cannot hold off G. Warren, Wilfork, Lewis, and T. Warren for any length ot time: not a chance. Toss in a LB blitz on occasion, and the QB is under a lot of pressure. His release time will be short. The routes will be short.
Or, use 3 safeties and remove the 1 LB. A 210 lb saftey offers even greater range for assisted pass coverage, and he still poses a threat as a fifth rusher.
by couchpotato on Jul 31, 2010 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions
they can. I think you are being over-confident about this.
Our line won’t be undefeatable. Co-Ordinators will find ways to exploit our lack of LBs.
a 5 man OL can hold off those 4, depending on who are the OL. If I were to bet money on that front 4, versus OUR 5 starting OL, including Mankins(also MAYBE with Kazcur instead) I will put money down on our OL when pass blocking. Chemistry is important as well when it comes to a great OL.
I'm also a Raider Fan dammit!!! RAIDER NATION!!!!
Down with Big Brother!
Interesting scenario ...
pitting the PAT’s O-line against … Warren, Wilfork, Lewis,Warren … in an all out bull rush. Let’s say it was a game scenario. PAT’s offense starting at their 20 yard line, 1st and 10, and the PAT’s are down by 10 pts with 8 minutes to go.
I’d put my money on those 4 DL ;-)
Plus, of course, they can sub in Pryor, Brace, and Wright if some 1st downs happened. BB has options to keep the DL fresh.
Either way, I don’t see how Kopen or Neal or Light have the bulk, strength, or the endurance to withstand the weight and physicality of that D-line in an all out bull rush, down after down. Mankins and Vollmer could.
I’ll give the O-line a couple of successes here and there, but those successes, IMHO, would be credited to Brady getting rid of the ball inside of 3 seconds: short pass route.
With:
1 safety playing left center field [Sanders]
1 safety playing right center field [Chung]
1 safety roaming in the middle of the field [Meriweather]
1 DB shading the right sideline [Wilhite]
1 DB shading the left sideline [Wheatley]
1 DB playing man on the left [Butler]
1 DB playing man on the right [McCourtey]
and those 4 DL bull rushing the QB on every down in a must pass scenario, I think this blows the passive, “prevent” defense approach right out of the water. It invites time killing draw plays, screens, and short dump offs in the flat.
Arguably, that is the intended purpose of the “prevent”. The difference is that the QB doesn’t have the luxury of a choice. With an aggressive QB rush by 4 DL, he has to shorten the routes, or a sack, more often than not, is inevidable.
So if a running back just so happens to get past 4 DL, which is not hard to do if they go on the outside,
You are going to rely on secondary to make the tackles? I know chung, meriweather, sanders, and maybe mccourty are tacklers, but if you think about it:
1) Meriweather and Chung are around 15 yards down the field, and the RB will likely still get 4 yards out of the play. Sanders would be deeper in the field, so he would possibly be their later.
2) McCourty and bodden or butler will likely be occupied with a WR who is trying to block them, so the chances of them stopping the RB in the backfield, or even preventing 4 yards, are sort of minimal.
Unless you have Chung near the center of the field, playing almost as a LB/Safety type, or even McGowan, that’s still only around 3 guys you can depend on to stop a RB.
With at least 2 LBs, a RB getting through would be more unlikely.
Just a side note on the 4 DL thing: The whole purpose of the 4 DL, is to pass rush. The only 4-3 I can think of right now that’s in the nfl, that can consistently pass rush, as well as stop the run, is the vikings. If we play the 4-3, or eve the 4-7 which I think is sort of worse in a way in terms of run stopping, stopping the run may be more difficult.
I'm also a Raider Fan dammit!!! RAIDER NATION!!!!
Down with Big Brother!
and also yeah, brady doesn't have to pass it far every play.
ALSO, take into account that that 4 DL will get tired if you continue having them “bull rush”(I quote because there is no such thing as bull rush. They just do their job, which is to TRY to rush the passer), and the thing is, OL works more as a team, so the OL doesn’t get tired as fast because they usually have double teams and such.
Also, don’t forget that we can have TEs block too. So if their is any problems with the pocket, we’ll just have a TE block. And also don’t forget that we have a RB to block as well.
That’s 7 blocker right there, for 4 DL.
I'm also a Raider Fan dammit!!! RAIDER NATION!!!!
Down with Big Brother!
All great points
but aren’t we pleased to see a RB running during “prevent” defense time.
If the 4 DL are occupying 5 OL and possibly a TE, I’d consider that a victory. That leaves 4 offensive options: RB + 3WR’s or 4 WR’s. Again, this is a “prevent” defensive scenaro where the clock is a big part of the objective.
I’m not a FB coach, but I am simply offering something different than the “prevent” defense we have routinely seen in the past couple of seasons which seems too passive to me. The PATS have lost a lot of 2nd halves, and I think the “prevent” is one contributing factor.
Well... usually if you have one TE blocking, and one RB, there are usually 3 WRs on the field.
but besides that, if it just so happens to work, I wouldn’t complain about it. But I just don’t see us limiting our defense to only 4 DL, and 7 DBs.
I'm also a Raider Fan dammit!!! RAIDER NATION!!!!
Down with Big Brother!
by patriotguy2 on Jul 31, 2010 10:09 PM EDT up reply actions
Me either, but
I do hope, more than anything, that they remain aggressive in the 2nd half. I’d prefer to see the “D” play as if they are trying to expand the lead vs protecting the one they have.
I think that if you closely at the games last year
where it might have seemed our problems were stemming from the use of a ‘prevent defense’ – in practically every one of those games the REAL problem was that our offense could not stay on the field.
A prevent strategy requires two parts: 1) The defense forces the other team to move down the field slowly and 2) your offense consumes time off the clock – which forces the other offense to have to gamble with deeper passes. We really sucked at (2) last year because of our frequent, inexplicable abandonment of the running game in 2nd halves and also our lack of reliable TEs as part of the passing game.
In the second halves of many games, our offense kept putting our defense into crappy situations.
I said this 5 months ago...
and everyone laughed and thought I was crazy.
Then a no count who never played a down (Crable) and a stop gap (Burgess) are gone and now I am a savant.
Hmmmm…
well at the time(5 months ago)
Crable was here, saying he was healthy.
Burgess was being brought back.
we were thinking of LBs in the draft to get.
Plus, we were a 3-4 team for quite a while, and very successful running one(in terms of bend don’t break).
I'm also a Raider Fan dammit!!! RAIDER NATION!!!!
Down with Big Brother!
by patriotguy2 on Jul 31, 2010 12:57 PM EDT up reply actions
You also proposed that the Patriots draft a CB in the 1st...
…which is how it actually panned out. This big difference, is that you also said that the Patriots should trade Vince and sign Peppers. That’s what I think most people were against.
by Richard Hill on Jul 31, 2010 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions
It's not a 4-3 personnel package, though
It’s a 3-4 team playing 4-3. More specifically, two-gap 4-3 (not one-gap penetration-type schemes).
Your idea involved shifting the Pats from a 2-gap 3-4 (or part-time 2-gap 4-3) to a full-blown Vikings- or Colts-type 1-gap 4-3 with so-so DTs and great DEs. That’s not what’s being advocated here.
This scheme has Wilfork and no Peppers!
Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.
by Comedic.Sans on Jul 31, 2010 8:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Believe me
I am crystal clear in what I advocated. No need to remind me.
You were vehemently against it as a I recall. 2 gap and 1 gap aside, and yes I understand the differences, 4-3 is different from 3-4.
Why the sudden change? rhetorical question
I'm particularly against 1-gap schemes
It’s all about personnel rather than coaching – you’d need those fast-twitch athletes who can penetrate instantly whether you’re using a 1-gap 3-4 (think Keiwan Ratliff at the Cowboys) or a 1-gap 4-3 (Peppers or Jared Allen). Those guys are ridiculously expensive and very, very hard to replace if they get hurt.
A 2-gap read-and-react system is as much about intelligence and ability to be coached as physical ability, and the former is easier to find than the latter (most NFL players are college grads, after all). 2-gap systems allow guys with so-so physical talent to outshine physical studs – think of Myron Pryor vs. Ron Brace. Once Brace clicks, he’ll be better, but Pryor’s a bright lad and worked out how to read 2 gaps faster.
If you need a reminder of just how expensive top-notch 1-gap personnel are compared to top-notch 2-gappers, look no further than the contracts of Albert Haynesworth, Julius Peppers, and Vince Wilfork. $100M, $8M… and $40M.
Is Julius Peppers twice the player of Vince? Not so much. Is Haynesworth two-and-a-half times better? Hah.
Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.
Also I have a 5 year old wilfork jersey hanging in my closet.
Only jersey I have ever owned. I get 5 more years out of that thing now that he re-signed. Saves me 75 clams this season. Rock on Vince, glad they kept you.
Passion is great...
but a heaping helping of practicality is always appreciated too. Gotta respect that, haha.
Keep the faith!
I also said they should draft ....
Hernandez and Spikes. And a “CPR”- able WR…Holt.
Grasshoppers…pay attention when I write.
You said they "should," not "they will." So you don't have devine writing powers.
I am not saying we should not pay attention when you write, but just that it seems like our saying that your guesses are better than ours in a way(like some so-called sports analysts).
I wrote down before december that Ryan Mathews was the best RB in the draft. At the time, I believe Spiller, Dwyer, and one or two other guys were ahead of him. He was considered a mid-second rounder at the time.
I wasn’t on this blog then(or was I?), but after the chiefs game in 08, after Brady went down, I said that Cassel will get us over 10 wins, because I liked his intangibles that game.
I said that Jerod Mayo was going to get Defensive rookie of the year in 08.
ALSO< I think we ALL said they should draft spikes. We all said they should draft a TE too. We all knew BB was going to draft a TE or two, and after getting rid of Galloway in 09, and for the fact that welker was injured coming into the 2010 season, it was apparent that BB was going to draft a WR.
We are not grasshoppers to you.
I'm also a Raider Fan dammit!!! RAIDER NATION!!!!
Down with Big Brother!
I see. Well in that case I shall. ;)
I'm also a Raider Fan dammit!!! RAIDER NATION!!!!
Down with Big Brother!
Should draft, sure. Should use them, too
I just hope the Pats remember they have them once they’re on the field and playing. David Thomas looks like he could’ve been a Dallas Clark-type TE/WR, too… except for the fact the Pats forgot to throw to him. As soon as he got to the Saints and a QB who likes spreading it to TE, he racked up some pretty impressive yardage in a short time.
Gronkowski was always my first choice as a “Pats-style” TE – he’s a stud blocker, big, athletic, and he happens to be able to catch passes, too. There’s a shade of Daniel Graham blocking ability in him, and he looks a little Kyle Brady-ish – and Hoodie lusted over Brady when he was coaching in Cleveland. I didn’t think the Pats would pick up Hernandez, but that was mainly a function of the fact I never thought Hernandez would drop as low as the 4th – I thought he’d be overdrafted by some team who fell in love with his speed/receiving ability, like so many other tweener TEs in the past (Kellen Winslow Jr, Ben Watson, Dustin Keller, Greg Olsen, etc)
A vet WR was always on the cards – it’s happened every year since… ever. I suspect they’d have done it even if the vet had no chance of making the team, if only to have one vet WR ‘teacher’ for every rookie/second year WR ‘student’. I guess they even did that, in hiring David Patten.
Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.
I was stoked they re-signed Bodden
I honestly thought he’d be priced outside the Pats allowables, but he may well have taken a Pats discount to stay with the team (I gathered the Texans offered him more, for one). If he was desperate enough to take a pay cut to stay with the team, he has added incentive to win this year. That can’t be a bad thing at all.
Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.
Also I am predicting...
locusts. And Famine. But only at the guy’s house who also likes the raiders.
I kill you!
I'm also a Raider Fan dammit!!! RAIDER NATION!!!!
Down with Big Brother!
i dont see how losing crable and burgess
stops us from running a 3-4. crable has never played a snap in a nfl game so we lost nothing there. and burgess was good down the stretch last year. burgess is what 32 i think i mean if we cant replace a 32 mediocre lb and a lb that has never played a nfl game then we got issues. banta cain woods ninkovich and cunningham can get the job done. pass rush doesnt always have to come from olb with better mlb and secondary it can come from many different angles i think the 3-4 allows a team to be more creative in creating a pass rush so my guess it would be better for the patriots to stay in BB bread and butter defense the 3-4.
I see your point
I dont think BB will change. He seems really keen on the 3-4 after running it so many years, but who knows for sure?
Maybe with more of a role on defense he will use some 4-3. Preseason wont be the judge. Will have to wait for the real thing…
i think BB will use 4-3 at times
he will use any variation wether it be 3-4 4-3 3-3-5 1-5-5 0-5-6 whatever gives BB the best chance of winning he will do it. But his base package his bread and butter it think will always be the 3-4 and i agree with that.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Media requests: Please email patspulpit at gmail.com
Related FanPosts on Pats Pulpit
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
