3-4 Defense

B

Bogtrotter07

Guest
Never run around blocks...particularly in the interior!!! Enormous gaps open up when that happens!

Check the Navy game tapes. Everybody wanted to attribute the fullback running wild to schematic advantages, cheap blocks, or supernatural causes. The fact of the matter is, we spent too much time running around blocks, and that is something no coach can fix (on a chalkboard). I don't know much, but that is one thing I do understand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rtrn2glory
i'm talking about in regards to running the ball...every defense nowadays is predacated on stopping the run...and the general consencus on doing this is to have your d line get blocked so your LB's can tackle...obviously you're right in regards to if a d lineman reads pass set, he needs to get after the QB, but day one when a Def coordinator is drawing up a scheme its objective is to stop the run.

I'm open to correction on this, but even on running downs, I'm pretty sure a 4-3 DE is never looking to take on an OT's block. They're usually shooting through a B or C gap trying to hit the RB in the backfield.

It's one of the biggest differences between the 3-4 and 4-3, and it's mainly why this thread got started.

What? Are you saying that 3-4 defensive ends play more like 4-3 tackles or better yet like old 5-2 defensive tackles? I have heard others refer to a 3-4 as a 5-2 by another name but that does not strike me as quite right. Is the only difference the OLB' s assignmets in a 3-4 reflect more up-to-date defense of more modern offenses?

I mean because your (thank you very much really neat graphic) shows the 3-4 as a basic angle defense, just like the old 5-2, which I made a living off. The one thing you knew about a 5-2 was the lineman in question, even an end, wasn't going to end up where he started. So that is where the running play went. The biggest difference may have had more to do with the level. In those days a scraping linebacker may have had contain. (Which was a really good thing for an offense.)

I'll take my answer off line. (quaint, huh?)
 
Last edited:

rtrn2glory

Well-known member
Messages
16,163
Reaction score
6,450
Fair, but a 4-3 DE is never going to stand there and wrestle with the OT on running down, is he?

He chips the OT, reads the flow of the play, and tries to make the tackle if it's coming his way, no?[/QUOTE]

your thinking more along our lines now...a "chip" is hitting the O lineman, which in a lot of cases turns into getting blocked, on your way to the ball to give the LB more ample time to make a read...i see what you're saying here, but i don't think we've ever said that D linemen aren't suppose to tackle the guy if he can, but i still go back to the beginning that says the DL must command from one or multiple OL to stop the run effectively. if you're not stopping the run with your DL being double teamed it's prolly time to find some new LB's.
 

Who'saWildManNow

Bald Prick
Messages
3,863
Reaction score
485
to the contrary Wild Man...3 man fronts are far more success against the spread option than 4. Believe it or not...

Gotcha, all I know is what I saw at the Navy game and the 3-4 just plain did not work.. Diaco may have switched schemes at some point.. but after halftime I was about 6 tall bud lights in after a pre-game and angry.. so my wits were not about me. I think I remember him saying he was gonna switch to the 4-3 for Army.. and that worked out well. I'd honestly have to study up on schematics to really get into the conversation this thread has created. I do like reading it, it's interesting.
 
B

Bogtrotter07

Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zibby32
to the contrary Wild Man...3 man fronts are far more success against the spread option than 4. Believe it or not...

Gotcha, all I know is what I saw at the Navy game and the 3-4 just plain did not work.. Diaco may have switched schemes at some point.. but after halftime I was about 6 tall bud lights in after a pre-game and angry.. so my wits were not about me. I think I remember him saying he was gonna switch to the 4-3 for Army.. and that worked out well. I'd honestly have to study up on schematics to really get into the conversation this thread has created. I do like reading it, it's interesting.

Again, three or four man front, it doesn't matter if you run around blocks. I believe, especially with what everyone is saying, that was the problem. It certainly showed up on tape.
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
your thinking more along our lines now...a "chip" is hitting the O lineman, which in a lot of cases turns into getting blocked, on your way to the ball to give the LB more ample time to make a read...i see what you're saying here, but i don't think we've ever said that D linemen aren't suppose to tackle the guy if he can, but i still go back to the beginning that says the DL must command from one or multiple OL to stop the run effectively. if you're not stopping the run with your DL being double teamed it's prolly time to find some new LB's.

I think the main difference is this: 3-4 D-linemen are concerned primarily with (1) holding their blocks, and (2) controlling their lanes. They're going to end up with very few Tackles for Loss/ Sacks. Those come primarily from OLBs in a 3-4.

In a 4-3, the DEs are getting most of the Tackles for Loss/ Sacks. Yes, they're still chipping, reading the flow of the play, etc. but they're the ones penetrating into the backfield when necessary, not the LBs.
 
Last edited:

rtrn2glory

Well-known member
Messages
16,163
Reaction score
6,450
basically it's this:

3-4 is about complete gap control

4-3 - penetration up field, still want to control gaps, but more concerned with disrupting the play in the backfield.
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
Gotcha, all I know is what I saw at the Navy game and the 3-4 just plain did not work.. Diaco may have switched schemes at some point.. but after halftime I was about 6 tall bud lights in after a pre-game and angry.. so my wits were not about me. I think I remember him saying he was gonna switch to the 4-3 for Army.. and that worked out well. I'd honestly have to study up on schematics to really get into the conversation this thread has created. I do like reading it, it's interesting.

All credit for this explanation goes to FightingIrish44 on the II board:

"We played a 3-4 Cover 4 vs. Navy. Unfortunately, I deleted the game and can’t look at exactly what went wrong. What I do know is the defense was unsound. I know this because of the game the Navy FB had. If you’re playing it correctly, the FB should rarely get the ball (only when they block it a certain way that makes the FB the carrier). We didn’t get beat because of a 3-4. The front doesn’t matter. What matters is execution. Like I said, I wish I still had the game on my DVR. I think part of the problem was the coaches gave the OLB’s and safeties predetermined assignments. So instead of reacting to how Navy blocked the play, which would determine the proper assignments, our OLB would play the pitch and the QB would cut inside him. That’s just an example that I recall. They also got us good with their unbalanced formation.

Vs Army, we played a 4-4. The base alignments were:

DE’s in 5 techs (outside shade of OT)
DT’s in 2i’s (inside shade of OG)
ILB’s in 30′s (outside shade of OG at depth)
OLB’s outside end man on line of scrimmage.
Safety run the alley to direction of flow
CB’s deep half (essentially man-to-man vs the WR.

This alignment takes away the midline option and forces the veer option (FB aiming point at guard).

The DT’s just plug the A gap all day long.

The DE’s were responsible for “squeezing” the down block of the OT. Then they tackled whatever threat was there (FB). Squeezing the down block allows the ILB to flow over the top.

ILB’s read flow and check their B gap. If open, attack and tackle the FB. If closed, which it usually was, scrape to the C gap and play QB. The OLB’s read the wing back to their side and reacted to his block. Maintain outside leverage and play pitch on wide blocks by wing backs. Squeeze down blocks by wing backs and play QB.

We executed pretty much flawlessly that game. It was beautiful. However, we changed the structure of our base defense’s. This is not generally a good idea, but was acceptable because we didn’t know how to stop Navy out of our base defenses. So don’t be surprised if we come out in a 3-4 Cover 4 vs. Navy and Air Force next year."
 
Top