The 3-4 Positional Post (AKA Why I'd Rather Not Run the 3-4 Defense)
by KaloPhoenix on May 19, 2009 2:42 PM CDT
Email
PrintFrom the FanPosts. -Chris
With more and more talk of the 3-4 being our "base" defense, and us running "variations" of the 3-4, I did a little more scavenging, and watched a little more tape from last year. What I saw didn't exactly get my hopes up for a 3-4 lineup. So, without further ado, I present a positional breakdown of the 3-4, where our guys fit, and my case against the full switch.
"There will be a transition," Capers said. "How fast you transition into a true 3-4 is based on your personnel and how well they adapt to the things you ask them to do. You've got to be flexible enough to keep some 4-3 elements but also keep enough flexibility to feature your best football players."
The switch can be done, yes. I also believe we'll end up in the 3-4 full time within the next 2-3 years. However, as Dom Capers says above, there's got to be some pieces in place to make this switch happen. Too often (on both sides of the ball) people forget the distinct differences in scheme switches. It's not just having Tamba step back into an OLB that creates this defense. There are matchups and gaps that have to be addressed, and it's a completely different philosophy outside of "stop the run, rush the passer".
Now, before I start, let me go over some of the advantages of switching to the 3-4, for those who may not know.
1. Linebackers are "easier" to get than a solid 4-3 pass rushing DE (don't we know it).
2. At any given time, there are 5 men on the line of scrimmage that can rush the passer.
3. Until the ball is snapped, the offense only knows where three of the five men on the line of scrimmage will be . This makes it harder to determine blocking assignments pre-snap, and harder on the QB to audible.
Keep these in mind as I dissect the positions.
First off is your Nose Tackle. He is responsible for both "A" gaps, and is lined up in the zero technique. His one and only job is to plug the center of the line and make sure nobody can get through. This is the heart of the defense. If the NT cannot hold his ground, the offense will run roughshod over the center of a 3-4 defense. Tank is a strong player, and he's got the size to play NT. However, we're talking about a guy who had trouble holding down ONE gap last year. A different mindset may change that. Knowing he doesn't have to get penetration, as long as that trench is his, may allow him to play more to his strengths. Tank Tyler - NT, 3-4 Acceptable Fit
Next up: 3-4 DE's. They line up in the 5-technique, and are responsible for the "B" and "C" gaps on their respective sides. These are the guys typically listed as DT/DE 'tweeners. Their number one job is to stuff the run and eat up blockers the LB's typically would have had to shed. Tyson Jackson is this kind of player, and is a good fit. On the other side, Magee might be the answer, but that places Glenn Dorsey as a "depth" player. I don't think the coaches would want to do that, but Dorsey presents one of the bigger problems in this defense. As we saw last year, he struggled with lining up over the offensive guard. This defense would have him lining up opposite a better, potentially bigger, more agile offensive tackle. His arm length will be much shorter than that of most tackles, so his ability to get into the gap will be impeded by someone whose arms can get there first. I know it's been beaten to death, but I just don't see Dorsey fitting this defense. Tyson Jackson - DE, 3-4 Perfect Fit Alex Magee - DE, 3-4 Acceptable Fit Glenn Dorsey - DE, 3-4 Poor Fit
On to the 3-4 ILB's. These guys are run stoppers, and mid-range pass coverage. The running game depends completely on the ability of the 3 DL to contain the run and tie up blockers. As there are 5 offensive linemen (not including TE), if the DL doesn't hold blocks well, there are 2+ offensive linemen bearing down on LB's. Thus, the ILB's must be able to shed blocks effectively on players much larger than they are. Check out a quote from Ray Lewis from a couple years back:
"We're in the 46 defense now, and finally, finally again, I get to play football. My job is not to take on offensive linemen, but to make running backs not want to play against me"
It's an all-too-telling quote from one of the toughest guys in the sport: playing 3-4 ILB is rough. I believe we've got a tough as nails guy in Zach Thomas, who may have seen better days, but is still capable of making this a better team. However, slotting in DJ as the other ILB? Shedding blocks is not his forte, but we're currently lacking a better option. He's good in pass coverage, but having a guard plow him over every play is not going to get the best production out of him. Zach Thomas - ILB, 3-4 Good Fit Derrick Johnson - ILB, 3-4 Poor Fit
Finally, the 3-4 OLB's. These guys are the athletes, the pass rushers, and the glory-mongers of this defense. They must be able to get the the Quarterback, and they must be able to drop into pass coverage. This area is of special concern for this team after last year. We desperately needed someone who could come in and make a big difference. We picked up Vrabel. Playing on the outside in 2007, Mike picked up a hefty 12.5 sacks. That's big production and will improve this team next year. However, the other spot seems to be up for grabs. There are several players trying out for the position, but the consensus seems to be Tamba Hali. Tamba is not a good pass coverage option, and there's so much to think about. From former Bengals DE/OLB David Pollack:
"The biggest thing is when you play defensive end, you don't have to think. You line up, you have an assignment and you do that assignment regardless. When you move to linebacker, your assignment is predicated on formations. You have to know when it's Cover 2, if they run at me, what to do or what my responsibilities are if you see action away from you. There's a lot more thinking, so it can really slow you down. What killed me is I would have everything right and then a guy would go in motion, and that changed what I was supposed to do. When you are (at 4-3) end and you're an effective pass rusher, you can get in a rhythm. You can figure out what the guy across from you likes to do when he run blocks or how you can beat a guy when he backs up to pass block. It's different when you play with your hand off the ground."
That screams adaptability to me. Tamba was not rated highly as an OLB coming out of college. Many just didn't think he had the skillset or speed to transition to a 3-4. Currently, he's a decent secondary option at DE, and as the quote says, that's just getting into a rhythm and playing your man for 4 quarters. An OLB changes from play to play. Half of the job is pass coverage, and the other half is pass rush. Unfortunately, Tamba's terrible at one, and mediocre at another. Mike Vrabel - OLB, 3-4 Perfect Fit Tamba Hali - OLB, 3-4 Poor Fit
Now, there's no hard and fast rule to all of this, mind you. Players develop, and skillsets are found. New coaches may milk some more skill/effort/talent out of these guys. But, you look at this lineup see the strong side as being really strong...but our weak side being really weak. If I were an opposing offense, I'd run at that side of the line all day, and roll my QB to the weakside during passing plays.
-Vrabel----Jackson----Tank----Dorsey----Hali-
-------------------Thomas------DJ--------------------
You play the scheme that fits your players. Like I said, we will eventually run the 3-4 exclusively. I truly believe that. When that happens, we may very well not have any of the young players on the weakside of our front seven on the team. There are other schemes (gone over and referenced at length) that fit those three players better, and don't sacrifice the talents/skills of the other players. If we're making the full switch, let's get what we can from them in a different scheme this year, really show the league that they can play, then try to trade them away for draft picks/players that fit the 3-4. As it is, I just struggle to see how we can let three 1st round picks potentially waste away in an unfit scheme.
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.
165 comments
|
12 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
we will eventually run the 3-4 exclusively.
I can’t see that happening with Dorsey still on the roster. And unless we can trade him for a first round pick, I don’t see him leaving. And unless he plays in a 3-tech this season so he has the chance to wow people, I can’t see him demanding a first round pick in a trade. And if we do play a 4-3 under so he can wow people (and if he does wow people), why would we trade him and go to an exclusive 3-4?
See where I’m goin’? =)
Marley will be walking soon...she could probably play Linebacker better than some of the guys we had.
And you won't get a debate from me.
I’d rather stick with the 4-3 under/over with the personnel that we have now. However, drafting Jackson and MaGee, as well as bringing in Vrabel and Thomas, tells me that the switch is happening eventually.
"I don't know if I want to go to New York. They'll have to pay me a lot more money because I like it here in Kansas City." -- Roger Maris
4-3 Under is what we will run
Since Pendergast ran the 4-3 Under before, I do not see why he would change now? Especially when our personnel lines up so much better at it… The only person in the Chiefs management that ran a 3-4 was Pioli and he is not a coach and he has stated many times that he provides the players for his coaches, not the other way around. With that I am looking to see a 4-3 Under with Jackson, Dorsey, Tank, Magee across the front 4 with DJ in the middle with Vrable and Thomas rotating at the other ILB position. Then Hali and McBride rotating as the pass rushing OLB opposite either Jackson or Magee depending on the play, they also move inside on 3rd down and Hali and McBride stay in on the edges with Vrabel alternating…
MaGee is not a 4-3 DE...
…let alone a pass rushing, predator style of player. The kid is a 4-3 DT or a 3-4 DE, and that’s what he’s best at.
I know he played 4-3 DE a little bit his senior year, but he got manhandled. 3.5 sacks as the featured DE does not a pass rusher make.
"I don't know if I want to go to New York. They'll have to pay me a lot more money because I like it here in Kansas City." -- Roger Maris
He is for the 4-3 Under Base Formation
He does not have to be a great pass rusher, the base formation is about stoping run. On passing downs he will move inside with Jackson, or at the very least they will remove Tank, Keep Dorsey and add another pass rusher outside.
He can provide enough pressure on the early downs while stuffing the run. This puts Four 300lb linemen on the field and lets the LBs do whatever they want.
A key with the 4-3 Under is its flexibility. There is no reason to think we will not have a large front against like formations on early downs. The players then rotate and swap for passing downs. We rotated them and changed them out regularly before (all teams do) so we will do that again as well, but now with even more depth and flexibility than before.
+1 on a 300 lb per man Front
Let's Kick some ASS in 09 or Die trying
by Steve_Chiefs on May 19, 2009 5:44 PM CDT up reply actions
Pass rush comes from the Predator position in the 4-3 Under.
MaGee isn’t a pass rusher. I’d actually be more comfortable with MaGee playing LDE and Jackson playing the predator than the other way around.
I agree that we’ll swap stuff around, but I’d much rather see the 3-4 when we’re expecting the run. Put five guys on the line and go nuts.
"I don't know if I want to go to New York. They'll have to pay me a lot more money because I like it here in Kansas City." -- Roger Maris
why does our defense have to fit into a traditional mold?
Just based on what i’ve seen of the patriots defense and the defense pioli would like to have it will not be a traditional defense. The patriots will line up with 5 lineman one down and 2 the next and everywhere in between and no we don’t have the personnel to run a traditional 3-4 or a traditional 4-3 but we can run some variations and keep people guessing which i believe is ultimately the goal of a 3-4 to keep the offense guessing.
by ChiefsfanJon on May 19, 2009 6:44 PM CDT up reply actions
I would like to know
When you’ve ever seen a 2-man line. I know Belicheck has busted out the no lineman formation and just stacked DB’s, but I’ve only witnessed that a handful of times.
"I don't know if I want to go to New York. They'll have to pay me a lot more money because I like it here in Kansas City." -- Roger Maris
The Pats 3-4 has been in base D only from what I've seen
3-4 first down most times to be sure.
2-4,2-5,1-5,1-6 were shown often depending on down and distance.
I agree with ChiefsfanJon and others in hoping that this will be an extremely flexible, situational defense.
To add to that, regarding New England
I’ve seen Wilfork and Jarvis Green as the only down lineman with Seau, Vrabel, Bruschi, Adalius Thomas, and a Pierre Woods or Rosevelt Colvin as linebackers.
I just hadn't witnessed them running that, I guess.
Thanks for the info. Like I said, I’ve seen no DL’s out of them, but never 2. Belicheck’s ridiculous. =)
"I don't know if I want to go to New York. They'll have to pay me a lot more money because I like it here in Kansas City." -- Roger Maris
I think in that case
Most times, the NT would play the strong side 1 tech, with the other DL playing usually the weakside 3 tech.
The LB’s are all over the place, and that’s the point I guess.
You can only run that in a 2nd and +10 or a 3rd and +7 because of the lack of manpower upfront.
I think he had quite a few tackles for loss as a DE.
I’m a bigger fan of running plays for loss than sacks, although sacks are always nice. He switched to DE out of team need. Pretty much an ideal 3-4 DE who understands the game as a DT, and understands winning d-line play in general. These guys we have on the front line aren’t going to make a lot of sacks or give a lot of speeches, but I am hopeful that they’re going to be recognized as the heart and sould of the team. Listen to some of Magee’s comments. He gets it.
Big long-winded question. Magee says simply “It’s football, man.”
Sure, we may see some 4-3 stuff in passing situations, and maybe Tank will rotate out on those plays. But I think this team is going to have a base 3-4 on 1st and most 2nd down situations. And if it’s effective in pushing the pocket vertically, they may just stick with it on 3rd ‘n’ long.
Bottom line for THIS thread is that Pioli is NOT bending things outta shape to serve his personal preferences on defense. He’s making moves that make a whole lot of sense to me, addressing the problems that the team had with its defensive philosophy. This gives guys who are already on the roster, like Alphonso Boone, Ron Edwards, Tamba Hali and Turk McBride a chance to THRIVE, where they were square pegs in a round hole, before.
Might it take 2 to 3 years for the defense to REALLY turn things around? Perhaps. But I’m looking for sooner rather than later, with some nasty surprises in store for the NFC East this season.
TFL's are great.
And I don’t doubt that he can stuff run. I also think he’ll play an integral part of our 3-4 defense for several years. Pioli likes him. As far as stopping behind the LoS, I’ll take both. Sacks are plays for loss, too. =)
My debate here involves Dorsey, Johnson, and Hali. They haven’t played the 3-4 before, and changes quite a bit about the way they play, or doesn’t necessarily play to their strengths. They’re first round picks that we’ve put our faith behind as fans of the team, and we want to see them succeed.
That said, they’re not Pioli’s first rounders. If he believes we’re ready for the 3-4, we’ll implement it, and we as fans will roll with it.
"I don't know if I want to go to New York. They'll have to pay me a lot more money because I like it here in Kansas City." -- Roger Maris
Hear what you're sayin', Kalo
but these guys weren’t exactly part of a thriving defense. Dorsey was good, and will get better for another couple years, reaching a plateau for a few more years. The 3-4 looks like the shortest path to consistent defense, with the players they have. They players they’ve added will help it short-term in terms of depth, if not (Jackson) as starters, and long-term as the kind of d-linemen you need for the whole thing to work.
Meanwhile, Tyler gets back to the 325 (or more) that’s more natural for him, Hali and Johnson drop to 250-260 and move to LB. Even compared to the 4-3 from last year, when they cheated a LB up to the line at the snap, the front 5 is going to more massive (to the tune of 100-200 or more lbs), AND be harder to turn the corner on, with more speed to the edge, with the flanking OLBs up at the line.
More than anything else, just giving-up on the reliance of 4 guys to get everything done up front, with the other 7 guys vainly trying to defend all the real estate down the field, will make a HUGE difference for the better. DEs with a little DT in ’em. NT with a little MOUNTAIN in ’im. LBs with a little DE in ’em. Much better than DEs with a lot of LB in ’em and LBs with job descriptions that better fit a S.
I hear all this talk about how Dorsey’s job just got tougher, when LAST year, they were expecting the front 4 to stop the run, finish running plays to the edge, and pressure the QB. No, my friends. Dorsey’s job just got easier.
Compared to last year
and that debacle of a front line, Dorsey’s job can’t go anywhere but up. Does a full switch with a defined responsibility of taking up blockers change his mindset? Maybe. I know he wasn’t happy with the performances and was getting frustrated. Here’s hoping the switch doesn’t equate to more of that. The kid’s a young talent, and the sky’s the limit. All we want is for him to be as successful as he can, and if it’s in a Chiefs uniform, even better.
Are we going to get better? It’s going to be hard not to, especially with Vrabel, Thomas, and Jackson added in. It’s also not Gunther at the helm. That should help, too. My point is that the improvements would be seen at the 4-3 level as well. Which is better? We’ll never really know. I’ll throw my support behind the decision, even if it is a full switch to the 3-4.
"I don't know if I want to go to New York. They'll have to pay me a lot more money because I like it here in Kansas City." -- Roger Maris
by KaloPhoenix on May 19, 2009 10:13 PM CDT up reply actions
I just think we all need to realize there is no cause for alarm
concerning Dorsey, it’s been well documented that his rookie season numbers are comprable to pro bowl D linemen that are currently in the league. It’s a tough position to adapt to from college to the pros and it takes even special players like Glenn Dorsey a couple years to get it down.
According to Gretz...
they have been lining up in a 3-4 not a 4-3 under.
Yes But...
Just because we are practacing in a 3-4 now doesn’t mean we will play in one. I dont imagine that we are tiping our hand just yet. It would not suprise me if this is just a part of the transition trough the practices to work through and adjust to multiple changes, not just to a 3-4.
How many times do you have to be told something before you'll believe it?
There are exactly NO indications the Chiefs are running a 4-3 Under as their base defense.
Call it what you want...
3-4, 4-3 Under, we have not been lining up in a traditional 3-4 or 4-3. We are all just speculating at this point.
No indications?
Seriously?
There have been numerous interviews with players that have referenced the “under” scheme, our DC ran the 4-3 under scheme in Arizona and our personnel seems to fit that system better.
Do you know what scheme we are running? Who is ‘telling’ us that we aren’t running a 4-3 under? I haven’t heard anything from Pioli or Haley that would suggest that a 4-3 under wont be our base?
Granted, I agree with you and I think the only time the under will be played is in certain situations, but I just thought it was strange that you have such confidence when noone has any ACTUAL information.
"...Said he couldn't go on the American way"
If there are numerous players referencing the under scheme, cite it
This 4-3 Under is a myth.
4-3U is myth. 3-4U probably isn't, IMO.
Hybrid is what they’ll call it, if Hali puts his hand in the dirt on at least one 3rd-down situation in 16 games. And the 4-3 under fan(atics) will say “See? 4-3!” even if it only happens once all season. Not worth arguing about. But the idea of slanting the d-line toward the strong side is “under,” at least as I understand it. But it clearly seems it will flow from 3-4 principles, when it comes to job description and expectations from the wide bodies up front.
I can't find the player interviews becasue I forgot who said it
but interview with Haley
Q: How did you line up on defense on the front seven?
HALEY: "I knew that was coming."
Q: I gave you 10 minutes.
HALEY: "We lined up the entire 36 minutes in an ‘under front.’"
and others. You can take that for what it is. My point was never that we are for sure running the under. It’s that you can’t be certain without knowing for sure what we ARE running.
And you don’t.
How do I know you don’t? Because no one does. We have a DC and HC that ran the 4/3 under last year a GM that ran a 3-4, different interviews that say both, and personnel that is questionable in both.
So until YOU can cite me what we ARE running, calling the 4-3u a myth is just silly.
I am with hmills though. I bet we will see mix of both schemes.
"...Said he couldn't go on the American way"
Dagda
Does that do it for you?
Marley will be walking soon...she could probably play Linebacker better than some of the guys we had.
Dagda
There are exactly NO indications the Chiefs are running a 4-3 Under as their base defense.
I think Haley’s first comments after one of the practices contained the phrase “spent most of the time in an under”
Marley will be walking soon...she could probably play Linebacker better than some of the guys we had.
I follow pretty close and have not seen a single utterance
Let’s substantiate this if it’s true. But I don’t think it is.
That doesn’t mean they won’t run some 4-3 Under, but to this point, there hasn’t been a single signal from the Chiefs that they will.
The head coach referenced it as mentioned
In his Q&A from 4/17 he says that the defense lined up in an under front base defense the entire practice…it’s the very last 2 minutes of the video. You can watch and read it here. Furthermore, he specifically refuses to answer if it was a 4-3 or 3-4 under alignment.
He does not specifically mention “4-3,” but enough was said to allow for reasonable speculation of a 4-3 under. Not to mention his repeated references to the Chiefs using “variations” of 3-4 and 4-3 defenses to make the transition easier.
Finally, the 4-3 under is not a myth. Please see KaloPhoenix’s excellent post on the defense with reference links.
I could continue with the links allowing, if not stating, from the head coach that we will use a transitional defense before fully becoming a 3-4 D. The 4-3 Under is one of the most likely transitional formations. There is more than enough from Haley himself to warrant the speculation.
I don't have religion, I have Baduizm...and Billie Holiday.
by DThomasReigns on May 21, 2009 5:36 PM CDT up reply actions
Also, Dagda, please try to be a little less combative, especially when you do not substantiate any of your claims.
I don't have religion, I have Baduizm...and Billie Holiday.
by DThomasReigns on May 21, 2009 5:39 PM CDT up reply actions
Mr Moderator Sir
A little evening pick me up
and this one should be easy :)
Aren’t you all glad that my online skills are improving :)
Let's Kick some ASS in 09 or Die trying
by Steve_Chiefs on May 21, 2009 5:56 PM CDT up reply actions
Very. :)
But I can’t read what is written in the first pic. Do you have a link to a larger version?
I don't have religion, I have Baduizm...and Billie Holiday.
by DThomasReigns on May 21, 2009 6:47 PM CDT up reply actions
Tried no luck should have used diff picture
Herding cats was the theme though :)
Let's Kick some ASS in 09 or Die trying
by Steve_Chiefs on May 21, 2009 6:55 PM CDT up reply actions
I can definitely see that from the pic, but now I am really curious to read the caption.
I don't have religion, I have Baduizm...and Billie Holiday.
by DThomasReigns on May 21, 2009 6:57 PM CDT up reply actions
I blew up the pick AND put on my reading glasses :(
And it looks Czeckoslavakian to me.
I will choose better in future
http://www.stupidvideos.com/video/commercials/Cat_Herding/#520
Let's Kick some ASS in 09 or Die trying
by Steve_Chiefs on May 21, 2009 7:06 PM CDT up reply actions
And this one is AP vs DTR
http://www.stupidvideos.com/video/commercials/Cat_Herding/#37615
Let's Kick some ASS in 09 or Die trying
by Steve_Chiefs on May 21, 2009 7:08 PM CDT up reply actions
It's not for me to substantiate a negative.
To this point, individuals affiliated with the Chiefs have ONLY mentioned a 3-4.
One of the reasons I struggle with this is 1-gap -vs- 2-gap definitions.
My original source on the 4-3 under is described as a 1-gap D with Mike and Will LBs having responsibility for the strong side B gap and weak side A gap, respectively.
Without going into too much detail, I think what I’m rebelling against in the 4-3 under people’s thinking is that I see the goal as sealing from the middle out, using the front 3. The way I see it, Jackson might be lined up closer to the center than most 4-3 under! people seem to think, depending on how wide he can get and still combine with the NT to stuff anything that’s run inside of him. Same with Dorsey on the right side, although the way I see him lining up is pretty much exactly the way the 4-3 under discussions go.
I think that’s why I’m draggin’ my feet on the 4-3 under thing. I don’t want to see Thomas and Johnson sustaining concussions in the first quarter of play. I want them to be able to TRUST that the front 3 will stuff everything between the tackles, so they can pin their ears back and play instinctively. I’m with the 4-3 under people who say that Thomas will be “the guy” in terms of making reads on the fly, and be the LB most likely to drop back in zone, depending on what the TE does, but I don’t think he’ll be made responsible for the A gap on the strong side. More likely, he’ll be insurance against the C gap, when the LOLB, with HIS ears pinned back, is trying to turn the corner on the TE, and the two of them run themselves out of the play.
So when you 4-3 under guys are talking about Jackson in the 5-technique, I think his job description will entail a lot more honoring the B gap and helping Tyler in the A gap (filling the hole from HIS side with the bodies of flying offensive linemen, if they have the audacity to get in his way). We’ll also expect miracles from him in the C gap, and like as not, he’ll deliver, but I’m expecting the C gap to be the lane that Thomas will be filling on running plays to the strong side (likely with DJ right on his heels), which is where the action is gonna be, as soon as offenses realize there just isn’t anything up the gut for ’em.
As for DJ, I can see his job description as being very simple: home in on the halfback. Wherever he goes, that’s where you go, DJ. With or without the ball, you meet him at or behind the line of scrimmage on every play.
It’s not for me to substantiate a negative.
To this point, individuals affiliated with the Chiefs have ONLY mentioned a 3-4.
How would you interpret Haley’s statement that they spent most of the practice lined up in “an under front”?
And if you interpret that as being a 3-4 under, what do you think are the important differences between a 3-4 under and a 4-3 under?
Marley will be walking soon...she could probably play Linebacker better than some of the guys we had.
I'm no expert, PVC, but I'll give it a shot.
When it comes down to it, the only technical difference I see is whether the guy on the right side has his hand in the dirt or not. And I think we’re going to see less 4-3 than 3-4 when it comes to that. Aspects of the 4-3 under? You bet. Aspects of the 3-4? You bet.
What I see developing, though, is a scheme that has a 3-4 flavor, but more of an under alignment. To contrast it with the 3-4, I’d say it’s set up more to give the RDE (RDT in 4-3) more opportunities to single-up against the guard. Hope I got the A and B gaps from the USC site straight. But in essence, what I see is something that gives the ILBs less to worry about between the offensive tackles than what is described on that site, and mentioned by 4-3 under fans.
I think I’m getting at the essential difference between what EVERYONE seems to be saying here and the sense that I’m getting from Pioli’s picks and what the CHIEFS are saying. Will Thomas and Johnson be expected to fill in the middle, when necessary? Certainly. But I think the theme of the scheme is to seal from the middle out with the front 3, and leave the other 8 guys free to fill from the C gap to the sideline.
Tyler and Jackson would be expected to collapse toward the B gap on the strong side as needed, and Dorsey would be expected to collapse toward the A gap on the weak side as needed. Even if they don’t quite succeed in getting there, the idea is that they’d STILL be tying up blockers and the offense wouldn’t have any more linemen to spend on stopping the ILBs and Ss who are homing-in on the runningback. Again, I’d have DJohnson just spying on the RB virtually every play, and Zach Thomas varying his assignment depending on his read. BOTH would be crashing the middle on those rare occasions when the offense dared to run at the heart of this much-stouter KC middle. But I think that with the inside-out philosophy, the majority of running plays would be going outside after they find there’s no hay to be made in the middle.
What Pete Carroll describes at the USC Footbal Analysis ’page is a 1-gap D, with MLB (SILB in 3-4) responsible for the B gap on the strong side, and the WLB (WILB in 3-4) is responsible for the A gap on the weak side. I see more of a 2-gap philosophy in the 3-4/4-3 the Chiefs will be running.
Where it TOTALLY looks like 4-3 under as I understand it, is you take that first diagram in the above-cited URL, and change the 3-4’s ROLB label to DE and change the 3-4’s RDE label to DT, and the Chiefs’ 3-4 is Pete Carroll’s 4-3 under. This would explain a lot of the (needless) hair-splitting by a lot of worked-up Chiefs fans!
When it comes down to it, the only technical difference I see is whether the guy on the right side has his hand in the dirt or not.
It was a rhetorical question for Dagda, because this difference you listed is, I think, the only difference.
Marley will be walking soon...she could probably play Linebacker better than some of the guys we had.
Currently
This defense is lacking a dominant pass-rushing RDE, so a 4-3 is not the best fit.
This defense is lacking solid ILB’s and possibly lacking pass-rushing OLB’s, so a 3-4 is not the best fit.
Tell me again why we can’t just use the 4-3 under as our permanent base defense? (not you specifically Kalo…just a rhetorical question)
Marley will be walking soon...she could probably play Linebacker better than some of the guys we had.
The short answer is because Pioli doesn't want to
Despite what he and Hailey might say about wanting to fit the scheme around the players, the reality is probably that Pioli intended to go with the 3-4 from the beginning because thats what his background is.
Aside from that, I think people are getting caught up in these sexy terms like “4-3 Under”.
All the 4-3 under is is the nose tackle scoots over 3 inches to shade to the TE side A gap rather than being heads up over the Center and you are playing an oversized 3-4 type DE at RDE and an undersized 3-4 type OLB playing LDE. All you’re doing is playing the 4-3 with 3-4 personnel in other words. This means they are less than optimal than if you just played a straight 4-3 with 4-3 personnel.
3-4 teams show 4 man fronts ALL THE TIME. The 4-3 “under” is not a new invention, its been mixed in with schemes for decades. Just now it has a sexy name because people are thinking that sitting on the fence not optimizing to 3-4 or 4-3 either way sounds like a good idea. I disagree.
got that backwards
and you are playing an oversized 3-4 type DE at RDE and an undersized 3-4 type OLB playing LDE
Got that backwards, flip the sides those guys are on.
I'd agree.
With the exception of moving the RDE/UT in to shade the guard, rather than head up over the tackle. You’re spot on otherwise.
Really, it’s called a bunch of teams trying to switch to 3-4’s, not having the personnel, and stacking players to cover for it. It’s not a permanent solution. It’s a stacking scheme to throw the QB off a few times during the game. However, teams are running it more and more often, so other teams pick it up and run with it.
We’re still moving towards the 3-4.
"I don't know if I want to go to New York. They'll have to pay me a lot more money because I like it here in Kansas City." -- Roger Maris
What we could do is run a 3-4 under
which, if my understanding is correct, would be a base 3-4 except shifting the RDE (Dorsey) in towards the 3-tech, shifting the RILB out to the 4/5 tech, and having the ROLB as a standup pass-rushing predator in the 8/9 tech.
Which is damn close to the 4-3 Under/Over
And the defense Pendergast played last year. But yes, that’s what I’d rather have.
"I don't know if I want to go to New York. They'll have to pay me a lot more money because I like it here in Kansas City." -- Roger Maris
Yeah,
pretty sure that the only distinction between the 4-3U and the 3-4U is whether or not the ROLB puts the hand down or not, and I think Tamba might play best without the hand down.
4-3U
Tamba wouldn’t put his hand down. The Predator rushes from a standing position in Pendergast’s hybrid.
Really, it would just be gap responsibilities in the differences.
"I don't know if I want to go to New York. They'll have to pay me a lot more money because I like it here in Kansas City." -- Roger Maris
Wouldn't it be the same gap responsibilies in either 3-4U/4-3U?
RDE shifts in to 3-tech, now only responsible for his B gap and the RILB shifts outside to the 4/5 tech and gains C-gap responsibility while ROLB takes everything to the outside of the C-gap with emphasis on containment.
3-4U
Would require the NT to line up over the center and still be responsible for both “A” gaps.
4-3U would require the NT to shift over and focus more on that B gap…unless the LILB is stepping up to take it.
"I don't know if I want to go to New York. They'll have to pay me a lot more money because I like it here in Kansas City." -- Roger Maris
Would this work, or am I a retart?
1————-TE————-RT————-RG————-C————-LG————-LT
Vrabel———-Jackson———————Tank——————-Dorsey———Hali/Magee (pass/run)
1————————————-Thomas————-Johnson
Marley will be walking soon...she could probably play Linebacker better than some of the guys we had.
Not a retart.
If everyone’s a down lineman, that’s a 5-2.
OLB’s standing, depending on how close to the line Vrabel is, it’s a 4-3 Under.
Vrabel standing and Hali down, that’s just our 4-3.
It just depends on how you’ve got ‘em set up. I assume you’ve got tank shading the Center, Jackson shading the RT, Dorsey shading the LG, and Hali shading the LT.
"I don't know if I want to go to New York. They'll have to pay me a lot more money because I like it here in Kansas City." -- Roger Maris
It didn’t work exactly right
I meant for Tank to be in a “one-and-a-half” tech (A gap responsibility)
and DJ should be farther right, taking the C gap to the left if Hali/Magee takes an inside move, and taking the B gap if the DE heads outside the tackle
Marley will be walking soon...she could probably play Linebacker better than some of the guys we had.
Well, that's basically a 4-3.
Vrabel’s gotta be standing in that situation, because you’d need him for pass coverage…especially if DJ’s all the way over to the right.
If we’re trying to play to Dorsey’s strengths, he’s shooting B gap 90% of the time and slashing through the LG, meaning Hali/MaGee wouldn’t take that gap. Thomas would take the open A gap, Tank would play the other A gap and try to pull a double from both the guard and center, Jackson would leverage push the RG into the backfield, Vrabel either cuts around Jackson or smashes the TE, and Hali/MaGee would take the C gap outside the LT.
In that formation, DJ’s theoretically not getting crushed by an OL, and is more free to do what he does best. Then again, I’m talking about the 4-3 Under again. =)
"I don't know if I want to go to New York. They'll have to pay me a lot more money because I like it here in Kansas City." -- Roger Maris
Almost the same
As what I put up above, this is closer to where I think we will be, exept Hali will be 50lbs. lighter than Magee, so he will be where Vrabel is.
Vrabel is worlds better than Hali.
And we didn’t trade for him to rotate with Thomas. The guy is a solid SOLB, and is good at getting to the QB, as well as in pass coverage.
Tamba hasn’t done anything to prove to me that he can rush standing, and proved little when he was on the ground. He’s also never played serious pass coverage in the NFL.
Vrabel’s proven, Tamba’s still a question mark. I’d rather start the proven one in his natural position.
"I don't know if I want to go to New York. They'll have to pay me a lot more money because I like it here in Kansas City." -- Roger Maris
Until Vrabel shows up I will reserve judgement as a KC Chief :)
Let's Kick some ASS in 09 or Die trying
by Steve_Chiefs on May 19, 2009 5:43 PM CDT up reply actions
Fair enough.
You’re entitled to that.
"I don't know if I want to go to New York. They'll have to pay me a lot more money because I like it here in Kansas City." -- Roger Maris
Agree about Tamba
I am not convinced he will even find a starter’s position with so little experience as an outside linebacker. I think you are right in your post saying that he may be utilized as a pass rusher in certain downs. My guess is that he will struggle with the transition.
BTW – Mega rec KP.
Vrabel and Thomas are 80 years Old!
Zach is going to be the anchor and Vrabel is going to rotate. Vrabel rotated last year in New England. He will see alot of playing time and will coach up the younger players, but will not be in for every snap. Vrabel also played ILB last year for NE as well. He will be all over in several positions, but not as the primary. These guys also have to stay healthy for the entire year…
Vrabel played ILB due to injuries.
Everybody rotates. He started 14 games last year. He’s got experience as a 3-4 OLB. He’s a leader and will command respect from the younger guys during this switch.
There will be opportunities for the formations you’re listing as the situation calls for it. I just can’t fathom a situation this year where Vrabel isn’t in our starting lineup, if he’s healthy.
"I don't know if I want to go to New York. They'll have to pay me a lot more money because I like it here in Kansas City." -- Roger Maris
I Agree With That
Ultimately I think we are not really going to have “Starters” in many of the positions on Defense. I think we are going to be mixing this up almost every other snap. Vrabel could well be the starter, but I think he will split more of his time than is typical. We just have too many players at that position…
Just remember that other positions need some roster space to.
Is’nt it typical to have 8-9 LB’s on final 53? maybe less with a 4-3?
Let's Kick some ASS in 09 or Die trying
by Steve_Chiefs on May 19, 2009 6:19 PM CDT up reply actions
DJ should move back to OLB
DJ makes a much better OLB than Tamba and he would be much more effective as a coverage\rush guy. If he doesn’t play outside the Chiefs are not utilizing his strengths. I’m not sure who would take the Inside spot should he play outside though.
by KC.Jester on May 19, 2009 4:47 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
I don't disagree
DJ was an excellent blitzing OLB in the Texas 4-3. He loves to get to the QB.
My problem with it isn’t his size (like some may comment), but with his ability to shed blockers. In a 3-4, he’s putting himself against the LT just about every time. He could get away with it if we had Tank smash the right “A” gap and the RDE take the “C” gap to distract the LT…but any good OC would figure out the holes if you do that most of the time.
If he can get on the dummies, or get in the weight room to get a little stronger, I’m okay with experimenting with him at OLB. I just think he’s a weak fit at ILB, and a weaker fit at OLB.
"I don't know if I want to go to New York. They'll have to pay me a lot more money because I like it here in Kansas City." -- Roger Maris
DJ hasn't shown any ability to get to the QB in the NFL
He’s had plenty of chances. He doesn’t get there.
DJ's WILB in this D.
But other than sideline-to-sideline stuff, I also expect to see him shootin’ the C gap on a fairly regular basis.
Why wouldn't Dorsey fit as the Nose Tackle?
Yeah he could be taller and weigh 20 pounds more but that guy constantly worked against 2 people last season. He could hold the middle of line better than anybody the Chiefs have.
That's been discussed around here
But Tank’s commented that they want him to line up as NT, and that Dorsey’s playing the 3-tech in an interview. Whether or not that still stands is debatable. Most think he’s a better 1-v-1 player and that he was mis-utilized last year.
"I don't know if I want to go to New York. They'll have to pay me a lot more money because I like it here in Kansas City." -- Roger Maris
Because Dorsey wasn't drafted #5 overall to play NT
He has Warren Sapp type ability as a 3 technique DT. You can crumble that up and throw it in the trash if you put him at Nose Tackle. They aren’t even remotely similar.
Putting Dorsey at NT is like drafting Jake Long and putting him at Center. Could he do it? Probably. Would he be a Pro Bowl Center just as likely as a Pro Bowl LT? NOt a chance in hell.
by ChiefDJ on May 19, 2009 5:01 PM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
And the same goes as a 3-4 DE.
Rec’d.
"I don't know if I want to go to New York. They'll have to pay me a lot more money because I like it here in Kansas City." -- Roger Maris
Warren Sapp?!?!? hahaha
I saw nothing last year that reminded me of Warren Sapp except the general build. Maybe you saw something different. Warren Sapp found his success in a 4-3 and there is no spot in the 3-4 that would ever let Dorsey become Sapp. So whatever the calculus was for drafting Dorsey, the notion that he will be the 2nd coming of Sapp is out the window.
In Dorsey. I see the guy on the Chiefs roster who could best stand up to a double team and hold his ground, nothing more. To my eyes, that makes him the nose.
Wow, that last sentence reads kinda funny.
by LennytheCool on May 19, 2009 8:16 PM CDT up reply actions
Dorsey was drafted by the past regime for the 4-3.
Hence why he was referenced to Warren Sapp. He also played to take up blockers because our LB’s were terrible last year.
He was not put into a position to use that ability and still won’t be in a 3-4.
"I don't know if I want to go to New York. They'll have to pay me a lot more money because I like it here in Kansas City." -- Roger Maris
All I know is
Jackson – Tyler – Dorsey – Magee
Vrabel – Thomas – Johnson
Looks a whole hell of a lot better than
Jackson – Tyler – Dorsey
Vrabel Thomas Johnson Hali
the latter puts dorsey, johnson, and hali into very awkward fits
I just can't wrap my head around MaGee at pass rushing DE.
The kid didn’t rush the passer in college. What makes everyone think he could do it there? Jackson and MaGee on the ends is asking for another year of minimalistic pass rush.
Tamba’s had two years of 7.5+ sacks in the NFL. He had 11 sacks the year before we drafted him. MaGee’s CAREER number is 6.5. His best year was a 3.5 sack campaign. He’s good at TFL’s, and he’ll be a good player rotating in for Dorsey and Tank.
I understand being disgruntled with Tamba, but change just for change’s sake is rarely a good idea.
That said, the 4-3 for another year (in some variation) would be my preference with Tamba as our RDE. Let’s do another draft/FA period and evaluate a full switch to the 3-4 next year.
"I don't know if I want to go to New York. They'll have to pay me a lot more money because I like it here in Kansas City." -- Roger Maris
*do it here
"I don't know if I want to go to New York. They'll have to pay me a lot more money because I like it here in Kansas City." -- Roger Maris
'do it as soon as possible
another year is a given for both O and D and to think different is a Pipe Dream :)
Let's Kick some ASS in 09 or Die trying
by Steve_Chiefs on May 19, 2009 7:06 PM CDT up reply actions
Right on, KP.
It’s tough to argue that Hali would be WORSE at DE than last year, with a lot more bulk and a more modest/natural job description for the other 3 linemen. Magee isn’t a pass rushing DE, although he can probably get some pressure and disrupt things, from time to time. But he’s not the guy you want with the dual responsibility of containing the QB and containing the outside running game. We want him to honor the middle, and force the RB to take a bad angle if he tries to turn the corner outside, so the LB/DB can get TFL or minimal gain.
Heck, I don’t want Hali to have DE responsibilities, either. Give him a free step or two before the LT gets his mitts on him and he WILL have a speed advantage. But even just lining up wide in the 4-3 look might be all it takes to give Zac Thomas or Jarrad Page a free run up the B-gap on the blitz. Having said all that, I still think the 3-4 philosophy (3 beasts and 2 blitzers) is going to permeate this defense from the get-go, with different (better) role for 3 of the d-linemen.
This alignment would be OK for getting pressure,
but it would struggle with containment and in space, likely needing extra LB help on both flanks, meaning 6 hats trying to handle what we’re HOPING that 5 guys will get done, with 3 widebodies plus 2 big LBs. Magee seems to think of himself as more of an interior guy. His switch to DE was because of problems with the d-line at his alma mater. Likely he drew lots of extra attention as one of a small number of real PLAYERS on that front. Very respectable showing, but not attention-grabbing.
But if that 4-man front got great push in the middle and the ends could shed their blockers QUICKLY, their problems in space might be mitigated by their getting to the QB before he has time to maneuver. That being said, I still think that you’re asking for trouble in today’s NFL by expecting a guy with enough STOUT to stuff the run between the tackles to also have enough FAST to run down QB’s and RB’s in space. The 4-3 of the past was based on a (forgotten) assumption by DC’s that QB’s are all from the Elvis Grbac mold, and more and more QBs in the league have pretty good wheels. The fix was using ’tweeners at DE, and it rarely works.
awkward positions are inevitable
but that’s why they have all offseason and all preseason to get accustomed to their new roles. on the chiefs website today dorsey said "On the outside (at end) you have little more time and a little more space, but more responsibility. It’s different. I’m embracing it. I feel I can do it." so why not give him a year to try it and if it doesn’t work out we have next year’s draft
by ChiefsfanJon on May 19, 2009 6:47 PM CDT up reply actions
We don't want Hali and Dorsey to end up like This?
Borrowed :)
Let's Kick some ASS in 09 or Die trying
I think that there has been a lot of notes and debate about this switch on this and other Chiefs’ boards due to the simple fact that us fans are quite nervous about how this switch is going to work out. Going from the 30th worst rush defense in the NFL last year to a new system sure makes me nervous.
On the bright side,
It’s going to take a whole lot of work and a real team effort to be worse than last year.
by LennytheCool on May 19, 2009 8:18 PM CDT up reply actions
Heh. But if they put their minds to it,
anything’s possible!
I’m looking forward to this season. It seems to me that the GM and HC understand personnel and scheme.
And some of us are just keenly aware of the problems with 4-3 as conceived by Cunningham and Edwards
and want to talk about how the new philosophy is likely to play out.
Regardless of opinion, great post, Kalo.
Rec’d it a few hours ago, but I didn’t comment.
I don't have religion, I have Baduizm...and Billie Holiday.
Thanks DT.
I’m glad I can spark a little controversy during some boring offseason times.
"I don't know if I want to go to New York. They'll have to pay me a lot more money because I like it here in Kansas City." -- Roger Maris
You have had some great posts, Kalo, keep it up.
I don't have religion, I have Baduizm...and Billie Holiday.
by DThomasReigns on May 19, 2009 9:49 PM CDT up reply actions
I love them too, but I intentionally stay removed.
I tend to delve so deeply into a subject I enjoy that I ultimately end up ruining my ability to enjoy it.
I have learned my lesson many times before.
I consider myself studied enough to understand the concepts of the O and D, but I want to retain my blissful ignorance on gameday. If I don’t restrain myself, I would be an analytical mess and lose the enjoyment that made me love the game in the first place.
I hope to maintain a balance between game fanatical euphoria and post-game analytical ambivalence. :)
I don't have religion, I have Baduizm...and Billie Holiday.
by DThomasReigns on May 19, 2009 9:44 PM CDT up reply actions
Thank you and I'll take it! :)
I don't have religion, I have Baduizm...and Billie Holiday.
by DThomasReigns on May 19, 2009 10:06 PM CDT up reply actions
Don't mind if I join you...
This is a looooooooooooong off-season. Thank goodness for posts like this one!
Seriously!
I am so terrible when it comes to the speculation aspect. Thank god for the AP community.
I’ll throw down with the posts during the pre-season and regular season when I have something concrete to analyze, but I suck retart balls when it comes to the offseason. :)
I don't have religion, I have Baduizm...and Billie Holiday.
by DThomasReigns on May 19, 2009 10:12 PM CDT up reply actions
Oh get over yer damn self, and enjoy!
I’d rather see you share some of your wisdom than spend the energy explaining how you’re not going to share it.
Myself, I’m coming off a tough semester of teaching and family crises, and it’s GREAT to just unplug and talk football!
Bah... Being analytical and watching the coverage schemes to see who is doing their job.....
why a play broke down, why something worked or didn’t, and being able to read the keys to know what’s comming before it happens is exactly what makes watching defense so much fun!
The Powers Of Astute Observation Are Often Mistaken As Cynacism By Those That Do Not Posses Them -- G.B. Shaw
by Texas Chief on May 20, 2009 12:28 PM CDT up reply actions
Yeppers. Wish I could get real game film.
NFL Game Rewind on my laptop is far from ideal for seeing who’s lining up where and what they’re doing. sigh The networks shoot for drama more than football-geek content.
Damn would I ever like to have access to...
Game film that is shot showing all 22 men on the field.
The tight shots are ok for TV I guess, but I’d much rather have wider shots that show all 22 players and allow you to make key reads pre-snap and watch a play develop post snap.
Sure, the tight shots of the QB and the pocket only are nice for being able to see the sweat flying and close ups of sacks and throws, but Having an all 22 view would be my preference.
The Powers Of Astute Observation Are Often Mistaken As Cynacism By Those That Do Not Posses Them -- G.B. Shaw
I was thinking the same thing with my rewind account last night
I think it would be cool to be able to customize your view, set up default views and such. If it ever happens it will probably be when the NFL finally starts streaming games online.
I dont see how a broadcast could be set up to let you choose your views, but a web stream could for sure.
"...Said he couldn't go on the American way"
I suffer from a case of homerism
and tend to think things will all work out. But realistically if we are truly transitioning to the 3-4, it will take some time to learn the new system. I don’t think we are going to be an overnight sensation. Plus, a lot of players we had are probably NOT a good fit, like Dorsey. More transition, more mediocrity. I need to temper my expectations.
However...
…if we’re going to do it, now-ish is the time. I don’t want the full transition because I’d like a few more guys who, in my mind, are suited to the scheme. However, our defense is not good. It (more than likely) won’t be in the top half of the league this year. I’m willing to suffer through another season with a small upgrade in defensive ranking if it gets our guys in the right mindset/skillset for several years after that.
"I don't know if I want to go to New York. They'll have to pay me a lot more money because I like it here in Kansas City." -- Roger Maris
by KaloPhoenix on May 19, 2009 10:36 PM CDT up reply actions
Agree, we need to bite the bullet because we are building something here
I like what Pioli is trying to do so far. Stabilizing the team by adding some vets, and some important pieces (3-4 ends) that we lacked. Best thing he has done is getting Cassel. He may never be Joe Montana, but I think he can be really good. We may not be world beaters this next season, but if we can stay healthy, put some pressure on the QB, and protect our QB, we can be competitive and win some games. I just wish I could skip ahead to the Super Bowl season…
Yeah. We didn't get Ron Brace, did we?
He went to NE. Tyler and Edwards in the rotation at NT is something to be optimistic about, but will it pan out? If there’re problems at the nose, Pendergast should go with more of a 4-3 look. But even then, I expect to see an imMEdiate shift in d-line philosphy in a blue-collar direction.
This ain’t rocket science, and if the plan and the training are on-the-money, the transition should go much more quickly than many seem to think. I don’t expect to see this coaching staff whining about players messing-up. I see ’em making sensible plans that fit their players and put a hurt into the bad guys.
Running a 3-4 doesn't necessarily mean having two 5-tech DE's
Especially since Pioli said he sees Jackson as the LDE instead of the RDE. If they are both 5-tech positions, there wouldn’t be a difference. Plus Jackson played on the right so that would make even less sense.
IMO, Jackson will be a 5-tech LDE and Dorsey will be a 3-tech RDE.
I'd love that.
Best chance for him to display his skillset, IMO.
"I don't know if I want to go to New York. They'll have to pay me a lot more money because I like it here in Kansas City." -- Roger Maris
by KaloPhoenix on May 20, 2009 12:00 AM CDT up reply actions
Wouldn't that really be the 4-3 Under at that point?
Seems like that is it, he would be the Under Tackle? At least that is what I am hoping for…
From Gretz this morning...
"A lot of people are thinking this is a straight 3-4 defense and it’s not," said Dorsey. "Being at an end is a new place for me, but it’s not going to be a classic 3-4 end on every snap. I think I can do it. It’s something new to get used to. I’m trying to get better with it and trying to improve one day at a time. There’s a place for me in this defense."
H/T to markkc in the Fanshots
Well, if he’s getting comfortable and has faith that he’ll succeed in it, I guess I do, too.
"I don't know if I want to go to New York. They'll have to pay me a lot more money because I like it here in Kansas City." -- Roger Maris
I think this confirms
that the Chiefs won’t be running just the 3-4 but also the 4-3 under to give all of our players a chance to play to their strengths. This is good for Dorsey and I have a good feeling that he’ll succeed this year in the new scheme.
There's no hope with dope...
If Dorsey is not on the field for all three downs
we won’t be getting #5 value out of him. I hope they figure out a way to use him all the time.
Marley will be walking soon...she could probably play Linebacker better than some of the guys we had.
by PVChiefsfan on May 20, 2009 10:02 AM CDT up reply actions
There's nothinig wrong with rotating D-Line players to keep fresh pass rushers on the field throughout the game
It’s better than having a defense that is unable to stop the run in the 4th quarter because they are all gassed on the line. Jon Abrams for rhe Falcons last year should be a lesson that all DC’s have to watch and learn from. Guys like the $100M Hanesworth average less than 60% of the defensive snaps, and still manage to be worth their draft position (although not his contract =P )
The Powers Of Astute Observation Are Often Mistaken As Cynacism By Those That Do Not Posses Them -- G.B. Shaw
by Texas Chief on May 20, 2009 12:32 PM CDT up reply actions
lined up more or less like this,
1————-TE————-RT————-RG————-C————-LG————-LT
1——————-Jackson———————Tank——————-Dorsey
Vrabel—————————————————————————————————Hali
1————————————-Thomas————-Johnson
isn’t Dorsey essentially facing the same linemen as a 4-3 DT would? he may have to face the LT some of the time, but i don’t see how a defense could use the LT on him very often when they have to account for Hali (or some other OLB) on every play. that leaves him matched up against a guard with some help from the C and/or LT, much like a 4-3 DT would. but now the help also has to worry about 2 ILBs that may blitz (not to mention the S, a la Rodney Harrison).
3-4, 4-3 Under- how about the secondary
I understand and agree with many of the excellent posts on the new defense. My concern is the ability of our Cover 2 trained secondary to handle the rest of the field. We are still looking at two 2nd round picks (Flowers and Pollard), a 5th rounder (Carr) and a 7th rounder (Paige) to take care of the rest of the field. I don’t think that Flowers or Carr can ever even approach Ashante Samuel nor do we have a Rodney Harrison in the secondary.
We might improve against the run provided Tank along with Edwards can handle over center but with Hali and Vrabel in the 3-4, I don’t think we can generate enough of a pass rush to protect our corners. I think that is why we are gambling on Washington. Flowers and Carr were somewhat protected in a Cover two; they won’t be now. BTW I don’t believe in the Cover Two, at least the bend don’t break version practiced by Herm, but I feel the transition for the corners could be as or even more challenging than that for Dorsey or Johnson. I don’t have much faith in Hali or McBride so I will leave them out of the equation.
Pollard and Paige can hit when they connect but I don’t think either has the speed to contain big plays if we allow a five step quarterback drop. I am very surprised that we have not spent some free agent bucks on a veteran safety or at least a corner.
I see this years version of the defense giving up 21 to 28 a game and I don’t feel that we have the wide receivers, offensive line, tight end or a pass catching running back to score that many points. I hope for the best and am glad about the new regime but it will take time.
3-4, 4-3, 5-2, 4-3 under, 3-4 under... have nothing to do with the secondary...
Those are all designations for the scheme that the front 7 line up in.
You can run a 43 cover2, or a 34 cover 2, or a 43under man, or a 34 under man weak zone strong, or a 43 nickel, or a 34 man strong, or a 43 under quarters, a 34 over dime , etc etc….
Secondary coverage responcibilities are ALMOST completely seperate from front 7 alignment. In some cases you have to adjust your LB’s and Ends in some coverage schemes, but for the most part defensive alignment has little to do with the coverage scheme.
The Powers Of Astute Observation Are Often Mistaken As Cynacism By Those That Do Not Posses Them -- G.B. Shaw
by Texas Chief on May 20, 2009 12:37 PM CDT up reply actions
Even without worrying about the front 7 scheme
If I’m not mistaken its pretty much understood that we will not be running Herm’s cover 2 anymore and it sounds like T.Fletch is just concerned that the corners and safteys we have on staff will have problems changing schemes.
I don’t know much about the secondary schemes, so Is there a huge difference in responsibility of the corners from switching to a new coverage system?
"...Said he couldn't go on the American way"
Short answer: Yes.
Cover 2
Straight Zone
Weak Zone
Strong Zone
Straight Man
Weak Man
Strong Man
Nickel
Dime
Quarters
Zone Dog
Man Dog
and on and on and on…..
Each have some variations of who is responcible for covering which players, or which zones of the field, or who blitzes, or where the coverage is rolled too, or where the play is to be directed (forced to).
The Powers Of Astute Observation Are Often Mistaken As Cynacism By Those That Do Not Posses Them -- G.B. Shaw
by Texas Chief on May 20, 2009 12:56 PM CDT up reply actions
Understood.
What I’m trying to understand is if there is a different ‘type’ of corner or saftey that you look for depending on your coverage scheme.
I mean obviously if there is a scheme that calls for more blitzing from a saftey then you’ll want a saftey who can blitz. But we spend so much time talking about the personnel for the switch to the 3-4 and I haven’t heard anything about if our corners and safteys will be able to run a different scheme.
It does comfort me though because it seems like you don’t have to marry your defense to a coverage scheme. Just from what you listed it seems like they have enough scheme options to choose one that fits the players we have for the secondary.
"...Said he couldn't go on the American way"
yeah, you use what works for you.
Don’t be supprized if you see a whole heck of a lot of zone coverages, nickel, dime and maybe even quarters.
Flowers and Carr were added to the team specifically for thier abilities in a cover 2 (which is a zone variation).
Zone Corners typically need to be big enough to smack someone at the line and change the direction of their release, and strong enough to challenge for the ball in the air. But they don’t have to be particualrly fast, because they have a safety playing over coverage. They can focus on smacking a guy off the snap in the 5 yard window because they don’t have to have the closing speed to stay with their man in single coverage. They can play under coverage and let the safety move in to play over.
Man corners have got to have the speed and movement abilities to plaster a receiver and stick to them like glue. They have to have good change of direction, and exceptional start-stop ability. They get no help. Man corners are left on an island to defend a single player without any help in a lot of cases. Flowers and Carr havent really shown an ability to do this yet. That doens’t mean they can’t, but it was not what they were drafted for.
The Powers Of Astute Observation Are Often Mistaken As Cynacism By Those That Do Not Posses Them -- G.B. Shaw
That makes sense.
Like I said I would be way more worried if there weren’t a million different zone schemes we can run.
And I like to bitch about Herm’s cover 2 but it probably would’ve been much more effective if we could’ve gotten some pressure on the qb. You give a decent qb enough time and he WILL find a hole in zone coverage.
"...Said he couldn't go on the American way"
Been watching on NFL ReWind
Actually I’m liking Tank and Turk both more than I thought from reading I’ve re-watched Games 2, 3 and the Atlanta game from December. Tyler covered a lot of ground on a lot of plays. That Thomas guy wearing the current Thomas’s #55 looked pretty bad. Had to Google the ’08 Chiefs Roster to figure out who he was.
Turk played with a lot of power and athleticism, from what I saw. Will analyze some more, but I can see him providing depth at either DE or even starting at ROLB. This would free up Vrabel for the LOLB, assuming Hali doesn’t win starter spot at ROLB.
for sure
Turk is going to be great. Don’t forget that Gun had him playing 30 pounds under his normal weight and turk mentioned he was uncomfortable at that weight.
Can’t wait to see him bulk up and play some NT
"...Said he couldn't go on the American way"
I think this is exactly the kind of thing we're all getting at here.
Tank, Turk, Dorsey, Johnson, Tamba, etc…we’ve all seen them in the 4-3. I hate “change for change’s sake”, but the 4-3 we saw last year was one of the more abysmal defenses anyone has ever seen in the NFL. An oddsmaker in Vegas couldn’t make more favorable odds for an improvement.
The fact is, nobody was “good” last year on this defense. We have a secondary that shows promise, a couple of LB’s that could show promise, and a defensive line that has a TON to prove. However, I don’t feel the least bit arrogant in saying we won’t be the worst defense in our division this year. As a matter of fact, I’ll say that SD may be the only one who beats us statistically this year. We still won’t be “good”. So rare is it that a team turns it around in one season. Miami and Atlanta did it last year, but there’s a reason they get referenced time and time again: it just doesn’t happen.
Pioli’s making the transition. Next year we’ll probably see so many schemes our heads will spin. Lots of people around here (myself included) look at the guys we have, and the schemes we’ll run, and overanalyze THIS SEASON as if this makes or breaks the franchise. We ARE switching. We WILL put some guys in positions they haven’t played. A good number will fail. Dorsey, Tamba, and DJ are products of an old system, and the new regime isn’t looking at them as “must-keep-1st-rounders” that we might be, outside of a salary cap standpoint. I’d wager we may see some fan favorites and guys that have won our hearts through hard work and dedication let go before we make the full switch.
We all want the best in the end, and we know, without doubt, that Scott Pioli and Todd Haley aren’t making “change for change’s sake”. They honestly believe that everything they’re doing is what’s best for the team. So even though I don’t want to run it, based on what our guys have done in the past, it’s what’s in the best interests for those whose jobs it is to decide the best interests of the team to do it.
Bring it on.
"I don't know if I want to go to New York. They'll have to pay me a lot more money because I like it here in Kansas City." -- Roger Maris
by KaloPhoenix on May 26, 2009 9:12 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
I'm just catchin' up in this window of down time after finals.
So if I’m overanalyzing, I’m lovin’ it. Might go into the office for a few hours tomorrow, but I’m on half-days at worst ‘til Labor Day, baby! Spend a lot of evenings and weekends grading, but the payoff is summertime for teachers! It’s been a long, tough winter, I’ll tell ya what.
Lately been learnin’ about formation jargon, and tryin’ ta fit it in with my unschooled understanding of things. Finally took another look at your graphic at the top of this page, with my brain ready to grok the numbering system. I see the 3-4 the Chiefs are most likely to run as looking more like the 4-3 under, with the RDE playing more of a 3-tech than the one in your diagram and, rather than head-on with the C, I see the NT as being more of a 1-tech, edging toward the strong side, and Jackson at LDE maybe closer to 6 than 5, if it’s more like the 4-3 under. But if my sense is on-the-money, I can even see Jackson shading toward 4-tech, if that’s what it takes for Tyler and him to clog up the interior right side, which I think is going to be priority #1 for those 2 guys. If they can win the 3-on-2 all day long, this D will be a long way towards being successful.
Anyhoo, the term “hybrid” that’s coming out of Arrowhead seems to fit what I’m talking about. I gathered from the statements here and elsewhere that the priorities for the d-line would change from an individual effort penetration idea to more of a 3-man team whose job is to frustrate the o-line idea. I reasoned then that some of the things you were saying about ILBs taking on Gs all the time didn’t jibe with what I was thinking, based on what I’d seen and heard.
Perhaps knowing a lot more about football in the first place makes it harder for you to follow where I’m going, because you have set ideas on how the 3-4 is played, and I don’t? Maybe you’re having trouble visualizing how the term “hybrid” might translate onto the field? Yeah! That’s it! Your knowledge and wisdom are no match for my ignorance and loquacity! You WILL be assimilated. Resistance is futile!
As for nobody playin’ well last year on the Chiefs’ D, I disagree. A lot of good things being done by a lot of players, with a lot of confused assignments on the field. But some pretty awful play by #55 (Pat Thomas, I believe?), in particular. I’m just havin’ fun goin’ over some of these games, with no clock tellin’ me where I gotta be and what I gotta do.
Yup. Perimeter players on D are a question-mark for me, too.
I’m optimistic that no. 1 they will get more pressure from the front 7 and no. 2 that Pendergast will have the guts to use them more aggressively.
On a side note, I don’t see the kind of WRs on the roster, other than maybe Bowe, who are going to give these guys top-notch opposition in training camp and practice. While I like the idea of adding another vet like Toomer, short-term, I’m not sure that, short of Anquan Boldin or Braylon Edwards (Plax, even if signed is going to attend how many practices?) or similar player.
This is the biggest chink in the armor that I see on D, right now. All the x’s and o’s in the world with your front 7 is no substitute for lockdown corner play. I’m confident that the front will be stronger than last season. But if the DBs are playing passively, the D will not play at championship level. Looking at the players KC has, right now, I’ve been speculating on mixing-in a lot of inverted coverages, with Flowers as a safety-valve down the field, and last year’s safeties bringing a lot more PHYSICAL to the line of scrimmage on the edges. But I’ve had no takers.
In my opinion...
Our secondary played very well last year. That’s the only part of our defense I’ve seen on the field that played how they were supposed to. It’s not their fault the opposing quarterback had all day to pick apart the defense.
I fully attribute most of our close games to INT’s and broken up passes by the secondary. With a semi-upgraded front 7 and another year under Flowers and Carr’s belts, I think we’re set. Say what you will about physicality, our CB’s read plays like veterans last year…even Leggett. That will only improve.
"I don't know if I want to go to New York. They'll have to pay me a lot more money because I like it here in Kansas City." -- Roger Maris
Hope you're right.
I saw too much cushion and too little in the way of jamming too often for my tastes. But even playing off the WRs more than I like to see, consistent pressure from the front 7 might allow the DBs to break on the ball more consistently. I agree that if the pressure is such that the DBs can keep their eyes on the backfield more, and don’t have to turn tail, maybe they can build the training they’ve had thus far, and not have to scrap it.
But again, what I saw, didn’t seem designed to take on the better offenses and QBs. The better QBs (and a few un-better – heh) can hit the WR if nothing is done to disrupt the timing. Unfortunately, the success of pressure-plus-jam is often ascribed to sheer luck, when the ball falls beyond the WR’s outstretched fingers. To me it’s more of a “fortune favors the prepared mind” sort of thing that flows naturally from a “smack ’em in the mouth” philosophy.
I want the Chiefs to beat the best, and you don’t beat the best by feasting on unforced errors. You get inside their heads and beat ‘em with unceasing pressure on the QB and the more you respect a WR, the less cushion you should give him to play with. That whole "They don’t want him to get behind them" rant is the best friend a WR could have.
Where do the players come from & how many other teams want them too?
The biggest issue I have is that some of the most important components of the scheme are not actually played as such in college. An OLB in college is way different than a 3-4 OLB, so you’re projecting. The Patriot Way also demands that the OLB should be 6-4 and run a 4.6 forty. Know how many OLB/Safeties meet this criteria? Maybe 3 or 4 a year and they are generally high demand in any scheme (The 2010 class has TX-OLB-Kindle, Clemson-DE-Sapp, VATech-FS-Chancellor and that’s it, relax the forty time a bit and there’s still only a few more that meet that criteria). The other key position that is fairly rare is the NT, I think there’s 3 or 4 in 2010 and there’s probably 8 teams wanting to draft one. It’s gonna take a bit of luck to get the right personnel.
+1
High demand and low supply.
Means some of the ones that don’t fit need some good coaching.
And some good scouting to get the best possible prospects.
Let's Kick some ASS in 09 or Die trying
by Steve_Chiefs on May 20, 2009 6:08 PM CDT up reply actions
That could swing the pendulum the other way, Kane.
There are still a number of DCs (like Cunningham), who want athleticism more than stout from their DTs and DEs, and don’t value the Gilbert Brown’s of the league as much as some. That eases a little of the pressure on this talent pool. Also, they’re a bit easier to find because you scheme (and acquire talent) to play to their strengths – core body strength – and while you’re sure to pat ’em on the back for pursuing sideline-to-sideline, you also scheme to minimize the how often they end up having to – by job description, depth, and a 3-and-out mindset. Let the other talent scouts be blinded by sack totals and highlight reels, when your scouts are looking for STRONG players in the middle who hold their ground and get an upfield push all day long with no letdown.
The popularity of the 3-4 flows largely from its being easier to acquire talent. Short-term, I tend to agree that the Chiefs may want to add some more proven talent at LB with all their cap room. Longer-term, there are quite a few low-cost ‘tweener prospects that get cut when they fall short of the mark at DE in some other team’s 4-3.
On LBs: 2 out of 14 now showing on the roster are 6’4’’ or above. Pay close attention to those we know have significant playing time. Care to re-state your criteria for NE LBs? Maybe they just SEEM fast, because of a very strong d-line that knows its role and frees its LBs to play fast and instinctively.
McKenzie, Tyrone LB UDF 6’2" 243 12/11/1985 0 South Florida
Appleby, Antonio LB ACT 6’3" 245 1/25/1987 0 Virginia
Redd, Vince OLB ACT 6’6" 260 9/1/1985 2 Liberty
Ciurciu, Vinny LB ACT 6’0" 235 5/2/1980 7 Boston College
51 Mayo, Jerod ILB ACT 6’1" 242 2/23/1986 2 Tennessee
52 Alexander, Eric LB ACT 6’2" 240 2/8/1982 5 Louisiana State
54 Bruschi, Tedy ILB ACT 6’1" 247 6/9/1973 14 Arizona
55 Seau, Junior LB ACT 6’3" 250 1/19/1969 19 USC
58 Woods, Pierre LB ACT 6’5" 250 1/6/1982 4 Michigan
59 Guyton, Gary OLB ACT 6’3" 242 11/14/1985 2 Georgia Tech
Banta-Cain, Tully LB ACT 6’2" 265 8/28/1980 7 California
95 Colvin, Rosevelt LB ACT 6’3" 250 9/5/1977 10 Purdue
96 Thomas, Adalius OLB ACT 6’2" 270 8/18/1977 10 Southern Mississippi
Crable, Shawn OLB ACT 6’5" 243 12/26/1984 2 Michigan
Stack the deck much? Not content with publishing the ILBs, or Special Teams/emergency backups, UFAs, wanna count the Safeties too? Here are 2009’s Projected starters:
OLB Adalius Thomas 6’2"
ILB Jerod Mayo
ILB Tedy Bruschi
OLB Pierre Woods 6’5"
The 6’2" Thomas is ‘school of hard knocks vet from Baltimore Ravens, a proven talent. The rule is not “my rule”, it may not even be the Pat’s rule, it just something I read that said it was the Pat’s rule, it was cited when the Pats got a veteran that didn’t qualify. I cannot tell you whether any or all of these gents could run the forty under 4.6. I entirely agree with your point that the Pats were advantaged by taking players that Gunther & other stat obsessed DC’s didn’t want. Only trouble is that was then, this is now, there are a number of clubs trying to clone the Pats success…how many are going to rigorously aplly the “Pat’s Rules”? I don’t know, more than the Chiefs? Almost certainly. Wanna have some fun? Check out these articles addressing the Patriots OLB situation…
http://football.realgm.com/src_teamarticle/570/20090514/patriots_out_of_options_at_olb/
I’m pretty sure if the Pats are concerned, we probably should be as well.
Heh. Just wanted to be thorough in my search for all those monster LBs!
I still think that it revolves around the core strength and job definition of the d-line. The fact is that there are a lot of ‘tweeners looking for jobs in the NFL, who are good athletes. It kinda matches my view of the Denver Broncos’ RB philosophy of a few years back, when they scouted for 7’s across the board (all-around players), rather than a 10 in speed or pass-catching (at the expense of, say, pass protection), but set the table for them to succeed with great blocking and scheme.
Same thing applies for LBs, if you’re not distracted by the combine and 40 times. And even if other teams DO “come around” to the new way of thinking, there are still more people to choose from.
Having said THAT, you STILL like the guy who’s an inch taller, 10 lbs heavier, or a step quicker, all else being equal. And you’re right on the nose with the migration toward more size in the LB corps. Applying this “rule” to the Chiefs, you see Donnie Edwards, 210 lbs dripping wet by the 4th quarter, gone, and Hali (and possibly McBride) switching to LB. Over time, I expect to see the Chiefs pursue more ‘tweeners at LB in the draft and elsewhere, but this team already looks like it’ll play better (and bigger) than last year, with mostly the same people they already had.
DJ might end up being the lightest at the WILB. His goal is to stay DOWN at 238 (for speed, according to his Wed podcast with Petro). A little light for a 3-4 LB, but not far off from Jarod Mayo, who projects as the starter, according to your post.
As for the pendulum swinging the other way, I can EASILY see a GOOD DC, realizing he has stumbled across Richard Dent, Russell Maryland, Neil Smith and Reggie White, to play a MEAN, OLD-SCHOOL, 4-3. But even with more teams looking for the 3-4 types, it’s still easier to stock the shelves with big men whose job is to play big in the trenches, without laying extra expectations on them to finish a lot of plays in space.
I think that Pioli and Haley are at least current, and probably a bit ahead of the rest, when it comes to knowing the kinds of players they want. The coaching end of it is probably more about clear message and (as) objective (as possible) evaluations that are understood as well by the players as by the coaches. There’s prob’ly too much put into “genius scheming,” especially when it takes a genius to play your system.
Blah blah blah. ;o)
Thx, Kane!
Read the Dolefuls link.
One commenter threw out Quentin Moses as likely to be waived by MIA, now. Did a quick look-up on HIM, and other than textbook vital stats, he doesn’t look like much.
http://www.nfl.com/players/quentinmoses/profile?id=MOS284854
Another comment:
It’s not like the Patriots to get caught short at one position; of course, with Scott Pioli now in Kansas City, maybe the front office isn’t as sharp as it used to be. It’ll be interesting to see if and how they address this problem in the months to come.
My sense, bottom line, though, is that Pioli is more about creating good situations for his LBs, first and foremost. Chiefs might have the LBs they need already in-house. After years of seeing struggling defenses overpay for LBs and miss the point on the d-line, and struggling offenses reaching for star-power at RB/QB, without fixing o-line, I’m view the LB sitch in KC with more equanimity than most. I think that if the d-line questions are answered in the affirmative (Dorsey a fit? Boone a fit? Tyler and Edwards at the nose?), that the paradigm shift on d-line in itself is likely (to MY mind, at least) to generate more LB success, and we’ll all think that Pioli’s a genius for knowing he already had a few diamonds-in-the-rough at LB, when in actuality, he just set the table for whoEVER lined up behind the re-formulated d-line.
Personally, my attention is more on the DBs, and just how aggressively they will be able to play. They should enjoy more pressure from their front 7, by scheme, if nothing else, but these guys are 1-on-1 in space, where any talent deficit is going to be magnified, and the current d-backfield comes from cover-2, which is something ELSE I’d like to see the Chiefs migrate away from, but might not be able to, for a few years. I think the front 7 will be BETTER than last year, and I can HOPE they’ll be dominant, but I can’t expect it. I think dominant D necessitates more aggression from the DBs at the line than KC’s CBs have been asked to show.
What the Chiefs have said
To this point, we have one utterance from Haley commenting that the Chiefs spent most of one practice on ‘an under front’. Other than this, EVERY SINGLE quote, whether it’s from Jarrad Page, Derrick Johnson, Haley or others affiliated with the Chiefs, indicates this team has moved to a 3-4 Base defense. Further, the Chiefs now list 4-3 ends Hali, McBride, Studebaker, and Walters as linebackers. SURE, the Chiefs will run some 4-3 Under, but if the Chiefs say they’re running a 3-4 as their base, what makes you think they’re running a 4-3 Under as their base? Hopeful thinking?
Tired of this argument...
say they’re running a 3-4 as their base, what makes you think they’re running a 4-3 Under as their base?
You’re forgetting..
“A lot of people are thinking this is a straight 3-4 defense and it’s not,” said Dorsey. “Being at an end is a new place for me, but it’s not going to be a classic 3-4 end on every snap. I think I can do it. It’s something new to get used to. I’m trying to get better with it and trying to improve one day at a time. There’s a place for me in this defense.”
I’m curious what qutoes from Haley you are referring to that talk about us using the 3-4 as the base?
Again, I’m not of the opinion that we are using the 4-3u as the base, but you crack me up everytime becasue you sound SO SURE that we aren’t running it. Then you complain about people not citing their sources and you don’t site yours.
How about we agree on something. We have no idea what base defense the chiefs will run as their ‘base’ or if they will even have a base. About the only thing we can be sure of is that we won’t be running a traditional 4-3
"...Said he couldn't go on the American way"
I'm sure?
I’m sure of nothing, except what is stated by the Chiefs themselves. And to this point, all we’ve heard is references to a 3-4. Yet, this thread, one of the most commented on this forum, persists with the idea that this team is running a 4-3 Under. Sure, running a 4-3 Under makes sense, but this ISN’T what the Chiefs have said on the topic.
(And FYI, a 4-3 Under IS a traditional 4-3. It’s not novel by any means. There is a 4-3 Even, 4-3 Over, 4-3 Under… all with long traditions in the NFL and elsewhere in the NFL. If you want novel, see the A-10 offense. THAT’s novel.)
Dagda, just let it go.
We are all just speculating, and we do not need a written notice from the team to do so.
I don't have religion, I have Baduizm...and Billie Holiday.
Erykah Badu is on notice. Amel Larrieux is catching up to you quickly. Let me see what you got, Erykah.
by DThomasReigns on May 30, 2009 10:34 AM CDT up reply actions
I don't have a problem with speculation.
Speculation is the fun part. What I have a problem with is Skrappy et al. insisting the Chiefs are running a 4-3 Under (see Skrappy’s first response in this thread). Sure, they’ll run a 4-3 Under. And a 3-4. And at times a 2-5, a 5-4, etc. But to insist that the Chiefs are running a 4-3 Under is assinine. First, there is nothing officially pronounced on the matter – hints, sure, but nothing official. And second, the players that HAVE been quoted on it indicate it’s a 3-4.
Dagda, thank you for this response.
I think if you had phrased it this way earlier, there would have been far less grief.
I can completely respect this opinion.
I don't have religion, I have Baduizm...and Billie Holiday.
Erykah Badu is on notice. Amel Larrieux is catching up to you quickly. Let me see what you got, Erykah.
by DThomasReigns on May 30, 2009 6:49 PM CDT up reply actions
IMO
Isn’t what we’re talking about actually a 5 man front with 2 ILB’s? And it would show as a 5 man front whether in a 4-3 or a 3-4. So it probably doesn’ t matter what WE call it. Sounds like mostly 3 down linemen with 2 OLB/Tweener types playing up near the LOS and 2 ILB’s. Dorsey’s statement indicates to me that the front 3 will be in the gaps most of the time. I don’t know of course but I doubt the coaches talk about the D in terms of 4-3 or 3-4 or 5-2. Those terms (at least to me) imply a sort of rigidity and our defense most likely will be anything but rigid or static.
Not very long ago
I was strongly in the 4-3 under camp but have since changed my mind. It’s a challenge speculating with so little reliable information.
Did anyone say novel?
No, I believe that was only you.
Maybe traditional was the wrong word, but if that’s the only thing you can hark on, I’m happy.
Still waiting on which official statements from the chiefs about running the 3-4 you are referencing….Seriously. I just spent the last 15 min searching AP and the web and the only source I can find about the switch is adam schelfer. Was there some big press conference I missed that they said we were running a 3-4? Take a look at primetime’s post in late march.
Back on February 18th, we heard via Adam Schefter that the Kansas City Chiefs were likely to employ the increasingly popular 3-4 defense.
The reasons were obvious:
* Scott Pioli and Bill Belichick ran the 3-4 in New England
* Todd Haley came from Arizona where the Cardinals ran a 3-4/4-3 hybrid defense with new Chiefs defensive coordinator Clancy Pendergast
* The 3-4 makes more sense when you lack quality linebackers (vs. defensive linemen)
So let’s take a look at the score card. Haley mentions running an under front during a press conference. Dorsey talks about how everyone thinks this is going to be a tradition 3-4 and it’s not. Adam Schfefler reports that we are switching to a 3-4.
Sports writer or Coach and player?
Seriously though Dagda. I could care less about being right, I just want to know. If you can show me any official statements from Hale/ Pioli that are saying they are going to a 3-4 I will be happy.
"...Said he couldn't go on the American way"
I'd like to see something 'official' too
but what we are left with are comments from those in the know. And, if the coaches aren’t ‘on the record’ about it, then who better than the players? To this point, not a single one has uttered 4-3 Under, yet at least three (Jarrad Page, Derrick Johnson, and Glenn Dorsey) have mentioned the 3-4.
None of this is here nor there. My point all along is that there are MULTIPLE instances on this thread alone and elsewhere in the blogosphere where people INSIST the Chiefs are running a 4-3 Under, and presuming it to be their base defense despite evidence to the contrary and no evidence in support that contention.
Novel?
You wrote “the one thing we can be sure is [the Chiefs] won’t be running a traditional 4-3.” Something non-traditional is… novel. They are synonyms.
A hybrid 3-4/4-3 doesn't necessarily equal a 4-3 Under
This is my last point: Pendergast ran some 3-4 (Whisenhunt’s preference) and some 4-3 (Pendergast’s background) in Arizona. They never described this hybrid as a 4-3 Under. Sure, they undoubtedly ran some under fronts. Everyone who runs a 4-3 does. This is not unusual. Further, they never said they ran a 4-3 Under as their base.
SOOO… if the Chiefs aren’t talking about a 4-3 Under, why can’t we just call it a hybrid 3-4/4-3 defense? This more accurately encapsulates the full spectrum of notions they’re covering as they transition to rightly being called a 3-4 defense.
Legal Counsel Dagda has a Point
and if we forever run whatever we run this year successfully.
We will hereby call it the Dagda D :)
“Has a BEEEEEEEautiful ring to it.” says Grigs!
Let's Kick some ASS in 09 or Die trying
by Steve_Chiefs on May 30, 2009 7:33 PM CDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Mark Sanchez’s rumored squeeze, Kate Upton, is on cover of Sports Illustrated’s swimsuit issue
- ‘Twould be a shame if Hines Ward didn’t retire a Steeler
- Video: Tim Tebow asked to Military Ball by Louisiana Airwoman
- We’ll see how Brandon Jacobs’ football skills translate to the squared circle
- Bill Belichick wore a hoodie to a golf tournament
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
