Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

4-3 or 3-4 defense?

sackman

sackman

Hates the Counting Crows.
Club Member
I've always preferred the 4-3. It creates some matchup problems for the offense if you have four guys on the DL who can rush the passer and control the running game.

Football is a copy-cat sport, and based on what the Giants have done, I would expect both college and pro teams to start implementing 4-3 schemes.

I have to say that I prefer the 4-3 because if you can pull it off, it allows your secondary to play much more aggressively. When your front four can account for five OL plus the QB, you free up seven guys to cover 5 players. The numbers work in your favor.
 
I am going with what Nik says here. He called it perfect last year.
 
I think the 3-4 is the superior scheme, especially as the game becomes more pass-heavy, but it's really difficult to get the right athletes to execute it properly. I think there is something to be said for deception - and when the o-line doesn't know which 4 guys are rushing every snap - I think that's an advantage for the defense.

So - in summary - I like the 3-4 better for the NFL and the 4-3 better for college and HS. I think there is more risk with a 3-4 as it requires more gap discipline, but ultimately more reward as well.
 
Looks like a 4-2-5 is what is necessary to be successful in the PAC12 where you're lined up against spread offenses most of the time. You end up with smaller and faster linebackers playing a rover type position as well as corners playing safety.

MHS-04.jpg
 
sackman said:
I've always preferred the 4-3. It creates some matchup problems for the offense if you have four guys on the DL who can rush the passer and control the running game.

Football is a copy-cat sport, and based on what the Giants have done, I would expect both college and pro teams to start implementing 4-3 schemes.

I have to say that I prefer the 4-3 because if you can pull it off, it allows your secondary to play much more aggressively. When your front four can account for five OL plus the QB, you free up seven guys to cover 5 players. The numbers work in your favor.
Click to expand...

Agree completely. I have always preferred the 4-3 as well. DTs are always hard to find but the number of guys who can effectively play the nose in a 3-4 is very small. It seems like we have been cycling through 3-4s since the mid 70's but the only teams that it works well for consistently are teams that have good enough athletes to play either sceme. Seems also like the 3-4 is most effective when only a few teams run it. As more teams go 3-4 and teams are preparing for it regularly it becomes easier to beat it.

3-4 is a major liability in getting a consistent pass rush unless you have a dynamic rushing LB, that guy is even more effective blitzing in the 4-3 when he is going to get a 1 on 1 match-up.
 
The 3-4 is more of a run defense. It relies on having defensive linemen that can tie up the OL and allow the linebackers to make tackles. In the present day more and more offenses rely on the pass and the 4-3 is better at stopping the pass. Unless you have a NT that can tie up two OL guys on every play it becomes harder to run the 3-4 because the guards can then get to the second level and over power the linebackers.

I would say the 4-3 in preferred in the game today because of the offenses you see. If the option and a lot of running offenses were to come back into vogue then the 3-4 may be preferred.
 
A major advantage of the 3-4 is that it is easier to find pass-rushers at 3-4 OLB than it is at 4-3 DE.
 
In the pac 12,the 4-3 would be better. 3-4 would be more suitable for defending the run.
 
I like the 3-4 better than the 4-3 on the pro level.

I'm still wondering whether it translates to the college level if you're the type of program that expects student-athletes to be students and you actually abide by the practice time limits imposed by the NCAA.

To run an effective 3-4, I think you also have to have a sophisticated zone blitz scheme. I don't know that is something that a college player has the time to learn. It's the defensive equivalent to the offenses that Callahan and Weis were unable to have any success with at the college level unless they had a veteran QB running it. Playbook's too thick for a freshman to master.

There's also the issue of teaching DEs the 5 technique and also of finding NTs that command a double-team while still being disruptive.

I'd rather run a 4-3 base defense and then have the option to incorporate some zone blitz by dropping a DE off at times so a LB can blitz. We can also run some 4-2-5 Nickel off that for spread teams (again with zone blitz packages) as our secondary defense.

In 2012, expect to see what I'm talking about. In fact, I don't see it changing beyond that. You don't bring in as many DL recruits as we did with no LBs if you're thinking about running a 3-4 in the long-term.
 
Also, we talk a lot about the "5" technique for a 3-4 DE vs the "3" technique for a DT in a 4-3 defense. Then, there's the CU hybrid.

I thought people might like a quick primer on this.

Here's the basic numbering system. "0" technique means aligned over the center, "3" means aligned in the guard-tackle gap, etc.

​


765432101234567
TELTLGCRGRTTE






In a traditional 3-4, there's a NT playing the "0" (or shaded to a "1") to command a double-team from the center and guard to keep the MLB somewhat clean. Likewise, the two DEs are on a "5" to crash the OTs down and give blitzing OLBs a clean edge for rushing the passer.

In a traditional 4-3, the DTs play a "2" technique in a read-and-react style defense and a "3" technique in a gap penetration defense, while the DEs play a "4" or 5" depending on the style.

CU runs kind of a hybrid.

We have a NT who plays a "0" or "1". That's the spot Solis was recruited for.

Then, we have a DT who plays a "3". That's where we'll see Tupou.

At DE, we need one bigger guy who can play a "4" on the opposite side of the DT and occupy 2 gaps for run support.

The other DE (on the DT side) is a full "go" outside rush and contain.

It really is a hybrid. There are some 4-3 principles and some 3-4 principles. It's also an unbalanced front that can be confusing for opposing OLs.
 
Nik has put a lot more attention into this than I ever have. I look at what the Giants have done the last several years and I recognize that it works. If you can effectively neutralize the opponent's run game with your front four, while simultaneously generating a pass rush, you can really free up your defense to be more aggressive in the backfield.
 
The Giants still run a non-traditional front four because they utilize 3 de type players and one dt, and on clear passing situations they have all 4 speed rushers on the field. Also, they tend to play a big nickel with 5 db's but to make up for the fact that their back 7 is small, they play 3 safeties instead of the traditional 3 cornerback look. I truly believe that the 3 safety/ 2 linebacker look is the way to go if you have the personnel. To apply this to CU, I think that a Ray Polk type player is the ideal 3rd safety because he can support the run and cover the TE. The problem is to find the other 2.
 
All this comes back to a basic truth about the game, the scheme is less important than the guys running it. It's amazing how good a scheme looks when you have superior players and how bad that same scheme looks when you don't.

Would Ray Lewis be a bad player in a 4-3, would the Pittsburgh Steelers defensive stars look bad in a 4-3. At the same time the Giants run a 4-3 that sometimes looks like a 3-4, they have the players that could succeed in either.

It's fun to talk about schemes and game plans but in the end it comes down to my guys playing better than your guys. Coaches can get all excited about something drawn up on a white board but it's the players who play. The coaches just have to worry about getting the players in a position where they can excell. The great ones will excell in any scheme. The ones who aren't good enough will fail no matter what the coaches do. There are some guys in the middle who will do better in one than another but that is a question of finding the scheme for them not trying to fit them into the scheme.
 
MtnBuff said:
All this comes back to a basic truth about the game, the scheme is less important than the guys running it. It's amazing how good a scheme looks when you have superior players and how bad that same scheme looks when you don't.

Would Ray Lewis be a bad player in a 4-3, would the Pittsburgh Steelers defensive stars look bad in a 4-3. At the same time the Giants run a 4-3 that sometimes looks like a 3-4, they have the players that could succeed in either.

It's fun to talk about schemes and game plans but in the end it comes down to my guys playing better than your guys. Coaches can get all excited about something drawn up on a white board but it's the players who play. The coaches just have to worry about getting the players in a position where they can excell. The great ones will excell in any scheme. The ones who aren't good enough will fail no matter what the coaches do. There are some guys in the middle who will do better in one than another but that is a question of finding the scheme for them not trying to fit them into the scheme.
Click to expand...

Ray was bad in a 3-4. His game is to pursue sideline to sideline. He had a bad year when the Ravens tried it. He's not good at taking on OLs. He lobbied hard for the team to draft Ngata so they could go back to a 4-3 with basically 2 NTs taking up blockers on the inside like they had when they won the Superbowl.
 
Buffnik said:
Ray was bad in a 3-4. His game is to pursue sideline to sideline. He had a bad year when the Ravens tried it. He's not good at taking on OLs. He lobbied hard for the team to draft Ngata so they could go back to a 4-3 with basically 2 NTs taking up blockers on the inside like they had when they won the Superbowl.
Click to expand...

He's better in the 4-3, partly as you say because of his teammates keeping him clean. At the same time if he had been given 3-4 years to adjust to the 3-4 with his speed and physicality I think he is still a perenial pro-bowler.
 
If your DE's are athletic, the 3-4 and 4-3 are very interchangeable. 7 in the box either way. Personally, I would prefer to see us in a 4-2 nickel with a "tweener" nickel back (fast LB that is good in space).
 
The number of spread offenses just increased this year with all the new coaching hires. I would think the Buffs might consider a base 4-3 against teams like Stanford or USC, but convert to a 3-3 stack against the spread offenses.
 
BMoe82 said:
If your DE's are athletic, the 3-4 and 4-3 are very interchangeable. 7 in the box either way. Personally, I would prefer to see us in a 4-2 nickel with a "tweener" nickel back (fast LB that is good in space).
Click to expand...

I would assume that this is exactly why we have recruited guys like Tu'umalo, Harlos and Clark. I guess we're referring to them as linebackers this year but it would be easy to consider them as an extra safety when they're on the field.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top