4-3 over 3-4

by mooseface79 on Feb 7, 2009 10:51 AM CST Comment 16 comments

I am a fan of the 3-4 defense, but I don’t believe it is the right fit for us. Now I know we have been over this quite a bit over the past several weeks, but what the hell, lets fire it up again. I still don’t see Dorsey as a DE in the three four. I see him as an Albert Haynesworth type player ( minus some girth) that is going to be very disruptive in a 4-3. The key to a solid 4-3 is solidity at the Line and Linebacker position. This is where we need some help. I say get a stand out DE and two solid LB’s in free agency. They don’t have to be great just solid, consistent, and reliable. Just these three additions will make our secondary that much better, maybe one of the best in the league. Each and every position would feed off of the other. The 4-3 can be just as effective as the 3-4, just look at the Titans in ‘08. I don’t even think they had a superstar on defense, Just that they had a solid group of guys that worked together and made each other that much better. I think we are close to this with the 4-3.

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Arrowhead Pride's writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Arrowhead Pride writers or editors.

0 recs | Comment 16 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I commented on this yesterday

Is it the chicken or the egg?

What candidates are available to be considered for the DC job and what base system do they run?
-vs-
What players do we have now and who can we get and what system do they fit?

I think Pioli and Haley are going to be very busy next week, but somehow I think that Pioli already has some things in mind. If I were to guess, I’d say we’re sticking with a 4-3 base. We stand a good chance of landing a good LB and if we’re really lucky, we might get a decent pass rushing DE, but the odds of us scoring an army of LB’s suited to 3-4 aren’t that good. Our DT’s aren’t massive enough either. That being said, you have to look at possible DC’s who run a base 4-3.

by Buck'O on Feb 7, 2009 11:12 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Ok.

Im gonna go ahead and put myself out there. I dont really know the difference between a 4-3, 3-4, or at Tampa 2. Ok I admit it, I suck. I would appreciate it if someone would take the time to maybe break it down, and enlighten me on this subject. All I know is that we ran the Tampa 2 under Herm, and it was nt successful, but it was for Tony Dungy. I think under Marty we ran the 3-4, and the Defence was the bomb, and Gunther was the best thing since sliced bread. Why did we go away from that ? Can somebody help me out here? I really want to understand this better .

Toby J. Neal

by chiefs24 on Feb 7, 2009 11:16 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Google it. : )

"if our players are half as excited as I am right this moment then TonyG will win his first playoff game next season. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind."

by Chiefs_swagger on Feb 7, 2009 12:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

4-3 vs 3-4

When people talk about defenses, they identify them by how many d-line there are and then how many linebackers there are. so a 4-3 is 4 d linemen and 3 linebackers and a 3-4 is vice versa, make sense? Tampa 2 doesn’t follow those rules however, it’s talking about the 2 safeties. Where they are both responsible for the deep half of the field in coverage. the Tampa 2 can use both a 4-3 and 3-4 (but mostly a 4-3). The tampa 2 is a bend but don’t break defense, where they allow you to pass underneath the safeties and don’t give up the deep part of the field. that’s why everyone in KC wasn’t happy with our D, b/c it wasn’t the intimidating come at you blitz 8 kind of D. In a 4-3 you need 3 stud Linebackers (superstud MiddleLB) and a 3-4 you need badass D linemen. ESPECIALLY A BEAST AT NOSEGUARD that can clog up both “A” gaps (each side of the center), WHICH THE CHIEFS DON’T HAVE (AND DORSEY NEVER WILL BECOME, NOT HIS STYLE), so if you do switch to a 3-4, you wasted a pick in Dorsey last year, b/c he doesn’t have a spot to play at.

Hope this helped a little

by spencercole2 on Feb 7, 2009 12:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Wikipedia does a pretty good job explaining these.

I looked up the 46 defense (Buddy Ryan’s system in the 80s), the Tampa 2, and the Cover 3 definitions the other day. Spencercole2 did a good job summarizing, but I thought it was very interesting to read the full definitions along with their strengths and weaknesses. I think the 3-4 provides more blitzing options because it is easier to disguise who’s coming and who’s covering. I think the 4-3 relies on solid DEs that can rush the passer without help, and the MLB is essential to this formation. In a 3-4, the two ILBs can share some of the responsibilities.

The 3-4 is probably more effective against a West-Coast style offense because the short-passing area of the field is so clogged with LBs. Paired with the Tampa 2 DB alignment and you can protect against the short and long passing games. You are going to need a pretty exceptional NT flanked with big, quick DEs so you don’t have to bring the house to get to the QB.

The 4-3 should be more equipped to stop running games because the DL can occupy so much of the OL to give the LBs and SS room to get to the backfield. That alignment needs very fast LBs because they have to fill up so much area, and I think it is more susceptible to the short, quick passing game.

by etp_stl on Feb 7, 2009 1:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

AND NO LAUGHING ALLOWED!

Toby J. Neal

by chiefs24 on Feb 7, 2009 11:19 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Try Google-ing Football Defensive Strategies

Wikipedia has many categories explaining the different designs. And there is a plethora of other reference sites as well by Google.

"What we need is......more cowbell." - C. Walken

by ChiefMedic on Feb 7, 2009 12:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

4-3 v 3-4

Pioli will decide which style to play as he interviews dc’s and assesses their strengths. It’s mostly about the coach and personnel. Does he want to gut the front 7 to construct a 3-4 defense or add a few key guys and coach up our young guys, who are a promising group. I prefer the latter.

#58 belongs in the Hall

by Chiefho on Feb 7, 2009 11:21 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

WHAT!?

Titans in ‘08. I don’t even think they had a superstar on defense,/blockquote>
Yeah except Haynesworth, Bulluck, Hope, Finnegan, Harper, Kearse, and Vanden Bosch!

I’m all for the 4-3 but I think the Titans deserve a tad more credit

by 808NaNz808 on Feb 7, 2009 11:32 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

???? my comment got screwed up

by 808NaNz808 on Feb 7, 2009 11:33 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

They are all great players, just not superstars. Haynesworth might be the exception, but he hasn’t even played a full season since 2002. I am interested to see what he does on another team next year.

by mooseface79 on Feb 7, 2009 5:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Here's an accord

Haynesworth, Finnegan, and Hope deserve to be tagged as superstars, they were all voted to the Pro Bowl. But still three guys is nothing next to the star studded Steelers and Ravens defenses. You don’t necessarily need all stars to RUN a 4-3 but you need all stars to DOMINATE in a 4-3

by 808NaNz808 on Feb 7, 2009 10:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

This should help

I just front paged a FanShot about the differences between the 3-4 and the 4-3. Check it out.

Arrowhead Pride

by Chris Thorman on Feb 7, 2009 12:36 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Why limit yourself?

You need to play the defensive formation that best attacks your current opponents strengths. 3-4 or 4-3 is not an identity, it is a strategy. I remember a couple of years ago watching the pats play the vikes #1 rushing defense on MNF. All the commentators were all “oh my god how will the patriots ever contend with this rush defense”. How about by opening up with 25 consecutive passes and kicking their asses. Bellichick wasn’t stupid enough to play to the vikes strengths. He developed a team that was capable of functioning in the most effective formations given the opponent strength and weaknesses. The chiefs need to do the same thing.

All losses in the 2009 season will be Herm and Carls fault.

by Idahochief on Feb 7, 2009 11:07 PM CST reply actions 0 recs