PDA

View Full Version : When you have the ideal personnel...


LonghornsLegend
05-05-2008, 12:54 AM
Which defense do you think is the most effective? That means you have the proper players at each position to run your defense and its running on all cylinders...We have seen some great defense in each of these formations.

Dam8610
05-05-2008, 01:08 AM
What do you want to be best at?

If it's taking away the run, 3-4
If it's taking away the pass, Tampa 2

BlindSite
05-05-2008, 01:39 AM
43 Defense easily imo.

The cover 2 defense isn't. Its just a shell most of the time these days anyway.

Dam8610
05-05-2008, 01:53 AM
The cover 2 defense isn't. Its just a shell most of the time these days anyway.

Cover 2 is a play. Tampa 2 is a scheme. The Colts, Bucs, and Lions probably will run the purest forms of the Tampa 2 this year.

kmartin575
05-05-2008, 01:56 AM
Cover 2 is a play. Tampa 2 is a scheme. The Colts, Bucs, and Lions probably will run the purest forms of the Tampa 2 this year.

Chiefs as well.

LonghornsLegend
05-05-2008, 01:56 AM
Cover 2 is a play. Tampa 2 is a scheme. The Colts, Bucs, and Lions probably will run the purest forms of the Tampa 2 this year.

That's what I meant, I actually thought it was all the same, I just thought Tampa 2 was a variation of the Cover 2 defense that Dungy made...Wasn't certain though.

BlindSite
05-05-2008, 02:19 AM
Tampa 2 was the brain child of Dungy and Kiffin, I think Lovie was in there as well coaching the secondary or linebackers or something. Its an evolution of a Chuck Noll defense.

It differs from the play cover 2 in that the safeties traditionally don't split and cover the field 50/50 that's actually a 43 defense thing. The more common thing if for the safeties to be roving and have a bigger role. Your FS needs to be as good as some corners and your SS needs to be able to smash people over the middle.

Your MLB then becomes somewhat of a third safety dropping back to keep the play in front of him. Basically you need fast mobile hard hitters in order to be effective.

In a cover 2 play the there's a hole behind cornerbacks and generally every player covers a small area with holes allowing good offenses to find placed to put the ball.

I don't like the Tampa two because if you've got a playmaking wide receiver like Steve Smith for example or a Terrell Owens or a Westbrook/Reggie Bush type running back who can make players miss in the secondary even with the defense coming around the ball they get beat.

Also if you run right at the heart of a tampa 2 defense with a power running scheme you can break it down. Bettis smashing Chicago around in his final year and Stephen Davis consistently trashing the Tampa Defense in 03 are evidence of this off the top of my head.

badgerbacker
05-05-2008, 02:34 AM
I think the best defense is the one that can provide the most different looks. This being said, if you had the personnel to run it a hybrid defense that could provide elements from many different defenses would be the way to go. This being said, I voted other. Thinking about it as just an either/or answer though, I'd probably say 3-4 since that tends to be the defense that can provide the most creativity and flexibility.

Dam8610
05-05-2008, 02:40 AM
Tampa 2 was the brain child of Dungy and Kiffin, I think Lovie was in there as well coaching the secondary or linebackers or something. Its an evolution of a Chuck Noll defense.

It differs from the play cover 2 in that the safeties traditionally don't split and cover the field 50/50 that's actually a 43 defense thing. The more common thing if for the safeties to be roving and have a bigger role. Your FS needs to be as good as some corners and your SS needs to be able to smash people over the middle.

Your MLB then becomes somewhat of a third safety dropping back to keep the play in front of him. Basically you need fast mobile hard hitters in order to be effective.

In a cover 2 play the there's a hole behind cornerbacks and generally every player covers a small area with holes allowing good offenses to find placed to put the ball.

I don't like the Tampa two because if you've got a playmaking wide receiver like Steve Smith for example or a Terrell Owens or a Westbrook/Reggie Bush type running back who can make players miss in the secondary even with the defense coming around the ball they get beat.

Also if you run right at the heart of a tampa 2 defense with a power running scheme you can break it down. Bettis smashing Chicago around in his final year and Stephen Davis consistently trashing the Tampa Defense in 03 are evidence of this off the top of my head.

So you're saying a Tampa 2 defense is bad because a playmaker can beat it? A playmaker can beat any defense, that's what makes talent so valuable. As for running the ball, yes, because the Tampa 2 is designed to stop the pass, it is weaker than it is against the run. In its best state, however (see: Tampa 2001), it attacks the QB while still being able to stop the run very effectively. The scheme as a whole, however, is designed to attack the QB, which in today's NFL is probably the best thing a defense can do against most of the top offenses of the league.

DragonFireKai
05-05-2008, 02:40 AM
If you've got the right personel, a 46 Bear defense is straight scorched earth.

Dam8610
05-05-2008, 02:42 AM
If you've got the right personel, a 46 Bear defense is straight scorched earth.

Give me any of the current top offenses against that 46 Bear and I'd be shocked if it wasn't torched.

GermanSaint
05-05-2008, 03:14 AM
i prefer the tampa 2 thing. especially the colts-philosophie with small and quick players in the back 7 who can hit and intercept passes. in a good healthy system any DB can do wonders , if he is only quick/fast and able to under-run the passing routes . the LBs are also very cheap , mostly the colts let their LBs go after their rookie contracts , it seems that they always find the right guy in the 2-5th rounds.

DragonFireKai
05-05-2008, 03:15 AM
Give me any of the current top offenses against that 46 Bear and I'd be shocked if it wasn't torched.

The Eagles ran primarily a 46 in 1991 and played some historically good offenses, and still came out with the best defense of the super bowl era. If you have the right personel, the 46 is lethal, but if you don't have versitile ends and a proper zone safety you're gonna get burned.

Dam8610
05-05-2008, 03:34 AM
The Eagles ran primarily a 46 in 1991 and played some historically good offenses, and still came out with the best defense of the super bowl era. If you have the right personel, the 46 is lethal, but if you don't have versitile ends and a proper zone safety you're gonna get burned.

How are you defining "best defense of the Super Bowl era"? For my money, that title belongs to the 2000 Ravens.

BlindSite
05-05-2008, 05:41 AM
So you're saying a Tampa 2 defense is bad because a playmaker can beat it? A playmaker can beat any defense, that's what makes talent so valuable. As for running the ball, yes, because the Tampa 2 is designed to stop the pass, it is weaker than it is against the run. In its best state, however (see: Tampa 2001), it attacks the QB while still being able to stop the run very effectively. The scheme as a whole, however, is designed to attack the QB, which in today's NFL is probably the best thing a defense can do against most of the top offenses of the league.

It can be beaten easier than schemes that use a free deep safety.

Dam8610
05-05-2008, 05:53 AM
It can be beaten easier than schemes that use a free deep safety.

As opposed to two free deep safeties? Or are you advocating usage of Cover 1/Cover 3 zones? Either way, that's why a Tampa 2 defense ideally has a great safety that it can rely on to diagnose a play and do whatever is necessary, such as John Lynch in his Bucs hayday, or the reigning defensive player of the year, Bob Sanders.

A Perfect Score
05-05-2008, 06:29 AM
How are you defining "best defense of the Super Bowl era"? For my money, that title belongs to the 2000 Ravens.

yeah, that was a pretty good defense...if only we were still that good.


i think in nowadays NFL, its vital to be able to use differant looks. For example, lets look again at those dastardly ravens. Our current defense uses 3-4, 4-3, and 46 base looks. Thats why its so effective, cause with offenses are complex and varied as they are today, a defense with equally as many looks is key. With ideal personnel, you would have versatile athletes who could fill numerous positions from any defense as provide differant looks towards an offense.

Sniper
05-05-2008, 06:55 AM
It's hard for me to say I want a 4-3, 3-4, 4-6 or whatever. I prefer to bring different looks every single play. Like a 4-3, then nickel, then 4-3, 3-4, nickel, dime, 4-6 etc... This is what Jim Johnson did this year against the Patriots and it almost got the Eagles a victory and certainly contained the Pats. The Eagles were coming out with 4-3, 3-4, 3-3-5, 4-2-5, 3-1-6 etc... I suppose the 3-4 give you the most flexibility though.

Go_Eagles77
05-05-2008, 07:01 AM
How are you defining "best defense of the Super Bowl era"? For my money, that title belongs to the 2000 Ravens.

I think he might be referring to it statistically. The 91 eagles D was #1 against the pass and #1 against the run. I'm not saying it's the best, but statistically you can't get much better than that.

Dam8610
05-05-2008, 07:05 AM
I think he might be referring to it statistically. The 91 eagles D was #1 against the pass and #1 against the run. I'm not saying it's the best, but statistically you can't get much better than that.

Meh, you can have yardage, I'll take points allowed any day of the week.

Brent
05-05-2008, 07:18 AM
with ideal personnel they should all work equally

NY+Giants=NYG
05-05-2008, 09:14 AM
Which defense do you think is the most effective? That means you have the proper players at each position to run your defense and its running on all cylinders...We have seen some great defense in each of these formations.

Depends on DC then. How many fronts does he have? Which fronts does he like using the most? I like the 4-3 personally, but I am a fan of the 3-4 as well. If I had my way, I'd do what the Pats do, and switch back and forth.

It makes the OC of the team have to re-do on the fly their blocking schemes and running plays on the sideline to adjust for the 4-3.

Also you can run alot more defensive fronts combining 3-4 fronts with the 4-3 fronts. Makes it harder to game plan against.

JT Jag
05-05-2008, 10:13 AM
Let's put this in simple terms.

Which of these front sevens would you prefer?

LDE - Jared Allen
DT - John Henderson
DT - Tommie Harris
RDE - Aaron Schobel

SLB - Michael Boley
MLB - DeMeco Ryans
WLB - Lance Briggs

or...

DE - Aaron Smith
NT - Vince Wilfork
DE - Igor Olshansky

LOLB - Shawne Merriman
LILB - Patrick Willis
RILB - David Harris
ROLB - DeMarcus Ware

bigbluedefense
05-05-2008, 11:03 AM
Without writing an essay breaking down every scheme, I think we all know where i stand on this.

A properly run 3-4 is the best defense you can have, but its also the hardest defense to build. And like Shock said, a proper 3-4 front can offer many hybrid looks and really confuse an offense. Schematically the best defense but like i said, the hardest to build. Best to disguise.

a traditional 4-3 defense is starting to become obsolete. Bc at its peak, its just as difficult maybe slightly less difficult to build as a 3-4 but is not as good schematically bc it doesn't disguise schemes very well. In today's game, disguising what youre doing is critical, and traditional 4-3 and Tampa 2 defenses have a difficult time disguising. I think the packers are the only high octane defense that runs a traditional old school pure 4-3 defense. Maybe the Titans as well.

a 46 defense (which is my 2nd favorite) is somewhat easy to build, and very effective. The problem with the 46 is it tends to rely on man coverage a lot, and if you ask qbs how they feel on that, they feel more comfortable throwing at man coverage opposed to zone.

Tampa 2 is the worst of the all the schemes, but is also the easiest to build and get up to a respectable status. Its also the cheapest defense to build. Thats why I recommend that any team built with high investments on offense should compliment their offense with a Tampa 2 defense. The problem I have with Tampa 2 is the simple schemery and the fact that premiere WRs will carve up those zone coverages. Its also weaker against the run over a course of a season.

I say over the course of the season bc towards the end of the season, youll see a dropoff in run defense with these teams because those little bodies start breaking down. Also in the postseason, schemetry becomes even more important and Tampa 2 defenses are too basic to fool anybody. It relies on player performance too much.

Having that said, I don't hate the Tampa 2 anymore. I like some of the hybrid Tampa 2 teams, I dislike the pure Tampa 2 styles like Tampa and Indy run, but again, I no longer hate the scheme because I do understand that it can still be very effective. I just feel that its not the best scheme ideally compared to the rest.



Damn i said i wouldn't write an essay and I did. I didn't even say half of what i wanted to either. To properly discuss this topic would take too long. I know some of my arguments are half assed, but to explain my stance in full detail would take too long.

DragonFireKai
05-05-2008, 11:48 AM
How are you defining "best defense of the Super Bowl era"? For my money, that title belongs to the 2000 Ravens.

Yay. Time to shred someone.

The 2000 Ravens gave up 3,967 yards
The 1991 Eagles gave up 3,549 yards (The fewest of the 16 game schedule)

The 2000 Ravens gave up 4.3 yards per play.
The 1991 Eagles gave up 3.9 yards per play. (No other modern defense has gone below 4.0)

The 2000 Ravens gave up 373 first downs
The 1991 Eagles gave up 359 first downs. (No Other Modern defense has allowed fewer than 360)

The Ravens were slightly better at forcing turnovers.
The 2000 Ravens had 49 Turnovers
The 1991 Eagles had 48 turnovers (The only team to break 50 is another 46 team, the 85 Bears.)

The difference between the 1991 Eagles and the 2000 Ravens is that the Eagles were hitched to a tragically bad offense, that made Trent Dilfer and Co look like the 2007 Patriots.

bigbluedefense
05-05-2008, 11:59 AM
Yay. Time to shred someone.

The 2000 Ravens gave up 3,967 yards
The 1991 Eagles gave up 3,549 yards (The fewest of the 16 game schedule)

The 2000 Ravens gave up 4.3 yards per play.
The 1991 Eagles gave up 3.9 yards per play. (No other modern defense has gone below 4.0)

The 2000 Ravens gave up 373 first downs
The 1991 Eagles gave up 359 first downs. (No Other Modern defense has allowed fewer than 360)

The Ravens were slightly better at forcing turnovers.
The 2000 Ravens had 49 Turnovers
The 1991 Eagles had 48 turnovers (The only team to break 50 is another 46 team, the 85 Bears.)

The difference between the 1991 Eagles and the 2000 Ravens is that the Eagles were hitched to a tragically bad offense, that made Trent Dilfer and Co look like the 2007 Patriots.

The 46 bear is my 2nd favorite scheme of all time (i generally like the 46 period, including the Jim Johnson 46).

However, I don't know if the Bear style of 46 would hold up against today's offenses, because like Marino shown in the past, as well as the 49ers, a spread offense will shread the 46 bear.

Don't believe me? Go back and look at gametape of the 46 bear against the 49ers and dolphins. They used to have some games on youtube before google bought it. But now its no longer there. Your best bet is buying gametape of the Bears from 84-88. Or the 91 eagles, I believe they played the 49ers that year if im not mistaken.

I still love that scheme though. I used to have Buddy Ryan's 46 playbook for Philly. I bought it off ebay. But lost it in the process of moving. Didn't get to finish it :(


Also don't go soley on numbers. While I agree that the Eagles 46 with Buddy was one of the best defenses ever, i honestly feel that we can't put it in the same context as other defenses, bc regardless of how poor that Eagles offense was, all time great defenses should carry a team to a championship. No one remembers units unless they win championships, thats just how it is.

CC.SD
05-05-2008, 12:01 PM
It just depends on where your dominant players are. If you've got an amazing 3 technique, run a 4-3 or a cover 2. Rushbacker or NT? 3-4. Et cetera.

Iamcanadian
05-05-2008, 12:02 PM
Which defense do you think is the most effective? That means you have the proper players at each position to run your defense and its running on all cylinders...We have seen some great defense in each of these formations.

All 3 have proved very capable of winning the Super Bowl so I just don't see any advantages for any of them.

DragonFireKai
05-05-2008, 12:11 PM
Also don't go soley on numbers. While I agree that the Eagles 46 with Buddy was one of the best defenses ever, i honestly feel that we can't put it in the same context as other defenses, bc regardless of how poor that Eagles offense was, all time great defenses should carry a team to a championship. No one remembers units unless they win championships, thats just how it is.

TEAMS win championships. Not defenses, not QBs, and certainly not WRs like some here think. The defense can only do so much. Let's look at the 1991 Eagles offense against the 2000 Ravens offense.

The 2000 Ravens had 5,014 yards of total offense
The 1991 Eagles had 4,302 yards

The Ravens averaged 4.7 yards per play
The Eagles averaged 4.3 yards per play

The Ravens gained 288 first downs
The Eagles gained 249 first downs

The Ravens scored 29 TDs
The Eagles scored 25 TDs

The Ravens lost 26 Turnovers
The Eagles lost 43 turnovers. (That's the killer)

Despite being hitched to this offense, the Defense still dragged the team to a 10-6 record in a division that included that years super bowl champion, and the winner of next years super bowl.

The 2000 Ravens had the better team, but the 1991 Eagles had the best defense of the modern era.

bigbluedefense
05-05-2008, 12:57 PM
TEAMS win championships. Not defenses, not QBs, and certainly not WRs like some here think. The defense can only do so much. Let's look at the 1991 Eagles offense against the 2000 Ravens offense.

The 2000 Ravens had 5,014 yards of total offense
The 1991 Eagles had 4,302 yards

The Ravens averaged 4.7 yards per play
The Eagles averaged 4.3 yards per play

The Ravens gained 288 first downs
The Eagles gained 249 first downs

The Ravens scored 29 TDs
The Eagles scored 25 TDs

The Ravens lost 26 Turnovers
The Eagles lost 43 turnovers. (That's the killer)

Despite being hitched to this offense, the Defense still dragged the team to a 10-6 record in a division that included that years super bowl champion, and the winner of next years super bowl.

The 2000 Ravens had the better team, but the 1991 Eagles had the best defense of the modern era.

While i get what youre saying and agree to an extent, i dont know if we can say that they were the best with certainty. At the end of the day, the greats make that extra play when the chips are down. Its not just about teh numbers. Special defenses have trademark plays, they show up and make plays at opportune times. And that xfactor transcends any stat. I think the Eagles defense should get critical acclaim, but im not ready to call it the best ever.

DragonFireKai
05-05-2008, 01:30 PM
While i get what youre saying and agree to an extent, i dont know if we can say that they were the best with certainty. At the end of the day, the greats make that extra play when the chips are down. Its not just about teh numbers. Special defenses have trademark plays, they show up and make plays at opportune times. And that xfactor transcends any stat. I think the Eagles defense should get critical acclaim, but im not ready to call it the best ever.

That defense made more plays than any other defense in history. The offense simply put them in that deep of a hole. They held the Dallas Triplets to 90 total yards. They shut down Warren Moon's run and shoot in houston. They held Steve Young and Jerry Rice to 85 passing yards. Who did the Ravens face? Steve McNair, at best. The Ravens had one defensive TD, the Eagles had four. The Ravens had 34 sacks, the Eagles had 54. The Eagles made far more plays than the Ravens did.

The defense can't do a whole lot when the offense is throwing pick sixes with regularity. If your defense forces the third most turnovers in history, and your team is only +5 in the turnover margin, one side of the ball isn't doing their job, and it's not the defense that's failing.

Shiver
05-05-2008, 01:55 PM
Let's put this in simple terms.

Which of these front sevens would you prefer?

LDE - Jared Allen
DT - John Henderson
DT - Tommie Harris
RDE - Aaron Schobel

SLB - Michael Boley
MLB - DeMeco Ryans
WLB - Lance Briggs


That is your ideal 4-3 defense?

Here is mine:

LE - Mario Williams
NT - Haloti Ngata
UT - Kevin Williams
RE - Osi Umenyiora

LOLB - Julian Peterson
MLB - Patrick Willis
ROLB - Keith Bulluck

NY+Giants=NYG
05-05-2008, 01:57 PM
That is your ideal 4-3 defense?

Here is mine:

LE - Mario Williams
NT - Haloti Ngata
UT - Kevin Williams
RE - Osi Umenyiora

LOLB - Julian Peterson
MLB - Patrick Willis
ROLB - Keith Bulluck


I wouldn't mind that personnel, with our DC, and then love to see what would happen.

bigbluedefense
05-05-2008, 02:40 PM
That defense made more plays than any other defense in history. The offense simply put them in that deep of a hole. They held the Dallas Triplets to 90 total yards. They shut down Warren Moon's run and shoot in houston. They held Steve Young and Jerry Rice to 85 passing yards. Who did the Ravens face? Steve McNair, at best. The Ravens had one defensive TD, the Eagles had four. The Ravens had 34 sacks, the Eagles had 54. The Eagles made far more plays than the Ravens did.

The defense can't do a whole lot when the offense is throwing pick sixes with regularity. If your defense forces the third most turnovers in history, and your team is only +5 in the turnover margin, one side of the ball isn't doing their job, and it's not the defense that's failing.

hmmm, this is interesting. i remember watching some of them, and have always been aware of their dominance but those #s do really stand out. i don't have much material on them, im gonna see what i can gather on these guys and try to break them down if i can get my hands on some gametape.

bsaza2358
05-05-2008, 02:43 PM
The Eagles D from back then was so dominant, I'm quite sure that no team in the NFL these days could assemble that kind of talent for more than 2 years in a row without crippling both its salary cap and its offense. They were unbelievable. Best defense I've ever seen in my 21 years of watching football.

DragonFireKai
05-05-2008, 04:17 PM
hmmm, this is interesting. i remember watching some of them, and have always been aware of their dominance but those #s do really stand out. i don't have much material on them, im gonna see what i can gather on these guys and try to break them down if i can get my hands on some gametape.

That defense sent 5 players to the pro bowl, and three were first team all pro. The Ravens sent 3 to the pro bowl, and only Ray Lewis made the All Pro team. They had Reggie White in his prime, believe it or not, he was on the downside of his career when he went to Green Bay. Across from White they had Clyde Simmons, and the two accounted for 28 sacks, 7 turnovers, and 215 tackles. Andre Waters was Rodney Harrison before Rodney Harrison. The team had 6 players with over 100 tackles. They had ten players record a sack.

And just to give you an idea of how important this defense was to that team, let's look at the other teams who's offense turned the ball over 40 or more times.

2007 Ravens, 40 TOs, 5-11
2006 Raiders, 46 TOs, 2-14
2006 Browns, 42 TOs, 4-12
2005 Packers, 45 TOs, 4-12
2005 Saints, 43 TOs, 3-13
2004 Dolphins, 42 TOs, 4-12
2004 Browns, 40 TOs, 4-12
2004 49ers, 40 TOs, 2-14
2002 Rams, 45 TOs, 7-9
2002 Vikings, 41 TOs, 6-10
2002 Panthers, 40 TOs, 7-9
2002 Redskins, 40 TOs, 7-9
2001 Rams, 44 TOs, 14-2
2000 Chargers, 50 TOs, 1-15
2000 Cardinals, 44 TOs, 3-13
2000 Jets, 40 TOs, 9-7
1999 Cardinals, 40 TOs, 6-10
1999 Vikings, 40 TOs, 10-6
1998 Chargers, 51 TOs, 5-11
1998 Raiders, 43 TOs, 8-8
1997 Saints, 55 TOs, 6-10
1997 Bills, 42 TOs, 6-10
1997 Cardinals, 42 TOs, 4-12
1997 Bears, 41 TOs, 4-12
1996 Jets, 46 TOs, 1-15
1996 Rams, 44 TOs, 6-10
1996 Falcons, 41 TOs, 3-13
1995 Cardinals, 43 TOs, 4-12
1995 Jets, 42 TOs, 3-13
1995 Panthers, 41 TOs, 7-9
1994 Oilers, 42 TOs, 2-14
1994 Bengals, 41 TOs, 3-13
1994 Redskins, 40 TOs, 3-13
1993 Oilers, 45 TOs, 12-4
1993 Falcons, 42 TOs, 6-10
1992 Patriots, 45 TOs, 2-14
1992 Broncos, 43 TOs, 8-8
1992 Cardinals, 42 TOs, 4-12
1992 Seahawks, 41 TOs, 2-14

The 39 teams that had over 40 TOs since 1992 have averaged 5 wins. There were 4 notable outliers, the 1993 Oilers, 1999 Vikings, 2000 Jets, and 2001 Rams had winning seasons despite the massive amounts of turnovers. The Rams, Vikings, and Oilers all had high octane offenses remenicent of Hawaii with Timmy Chang at the Helm, they'll turn it over, but they're also scoring near 400 points a season. The Jets played in a pitifully weak conference in the AFC East in 2000.

The 1991 Eagles played in one of the strongest conferences in history, with a 14 win Redskins team that would go on to win the Super Bowl, an 11 win Cowboys team that would go on to win 3 of the next 4 Super Bowls, an 8 win Giants team, and a Cardinals team who, despite sucking, was one of the strongest last place teams in the league that year.

The Eagles had an offense every bit as bad as any team on that list. Yet, on the strength of that defense alone, clawed their way to 10 wins.

BlindSite
05-05-2008, 05:43 PM
with ideal personnel they should all work equally

Yeah, you're right.

Every single play in the NFL is perfect if everything clicks. Problem is people are seldom perfect and the opposition comes to work too.

TheGreatEscape
05-05-2008, 06:12 PM
I'll take a basic 4-3 with LB that can come up to play standing up on the line, the DE's capable of playing hand down on the line and standing up a safety you can bring up for 46 looks but a 4-3 base. Simply put I love having a DLine that sets the tone for your D and that's easier in a 4-3 because that set up puts the DL in the best position to control the game. Actually I really like a 52 but that's cause that's what my high school varsity ran and I loved playing the end in that d cause it let me play hand on the ground like I always have and pick my hand up and move around more pre-snap.

Nalej
05-05-2008, 06:21 PM
I like the versitility of the 3-4.

SenorGato
05-05-2008, 06:26 PM
Give me a kickass 2-gap ready 3-4.

You can pretty much do anything if you the personnel to run that...

Dam8610
05-06-2008, 04:23 AM
Yay. Time to shred someone.

The 2000 Ravens gave up 3,967 yards
The 1991 Eagles gave up 3,549 yards (The fewest of the 16 game schedule)

The 2000 Ravens gave up 4.3 yards per play.
The 1991 Eagles gave up 3.9 yards per play. (No other modern defense has gone below 4.0)

The 2000 Ravens gave up 373 first downs
The 1991 Eagles gave up 359 first downs. (No Other Modern defense has allowed fewer than 360)

The Ravens were slightly better at forcing turnovers.
The 2000 Ravens had 49 Turnovers
The 1991 Eagles had 48 turnovers (The only team to break 50 is another 46 team, the 85 Bears.)

The difference between the 1991 Eagles and the 2000 Ravens is that the Eagles were hitched to a tragically bad offense, that made Trent Dilfer and Co look like the 2007 Patriots.

"Shred"? Please. Like I said before, you can have yardage, I'll take points allowed any day of the week, and considering the Ravens were slightly better in another category that I value more highly than yardage (turnovers), you really hurt your case here.

Dam8610
05-06-2008, 04:44 AM
Without writing an essay breaking down every scheme, I think we all know where i stand on this.

A properly run 3-4 is the best defense you can have, but its also the hardest defense to build. And like Shock said, a proper 3-4 front can offer many hybrid looks and really confuse an offense. Schematically the best defense but like i said, the hardest to build. Best to disguise.

a traditional 4-3 defense is starting to become obsolete. Bc at its peak, its just as difficult maybe slightly less difficult to build as a 3-4 but is not as good schematically bc it doesn't disguise schemes very well. In today's game, disguising what youre doing is critical, and traditional 4-3 and Tampa 2 defenses have a difficult time disguising. I think the packers are the only high octane defense that runs a traditional old school pure 4-3 defense. Maybe the Titans as well.

a 46 defense (which is my 2nd favorite) is somewhat easy to build, and very effective. The problem with the 46 is it tends to rely on man coverage a lot, and if you ask qbs how they feel on that, they feel more comfortable throwing at man coverage opposed to zone.

Tampa 2 is the worst of the all the schemes, but is also the easiest to build and get up to a respectable status. Its also the cheapest defense to build. Thats why I recommend that any team built with high investments on offense should compliment their offense with a Tampa 2 defense. The problem I have with Tampa 2 is the simple schemery and the fact that premiere WRs will carve up those zone coverages. Its also weaker against the run over a course of a season.

I say over the course of the season bc towards the end of the season, youll see a dropoff in run defense with these teams because those little bodies start breaking down. Also in the postseason, schemetry becomes even more important and Tampa 2 defenses are too basic to fool anybody. It relies on player performance too much.

Having that said, I don't hate the Tampa 2 anymore. I like some of the hybrid Tampa 2 teams, I dislike the pure Tampa 2 styles like Tampa and Indy run, but again, I no longer hate the scheme because I do understand that it can still be very effective. I just feel that its not the best scheme ideally compared to the rest.



Damn i said i wouldn't write an essay and I did. I didn't even say half of what i wanted to either. To properly discuss this topic would take too long. I know some of my arguments are half assed, but to explain my stance in full detail would take too long.

How is the traditional 4-3 becoming obsolete? The Giants just won the Super Bowl with an attacking 4-3 in the mold of a Jim Johnson defense. Is that not considered a "traditional" 4-3? Before that, the Colts won it all in the most vanilla Tampa 2 scheme ever, and that defense stepped up in the postseason. That said, I foresee a bit of a scheme change coming for the Colts with the addition of Wheeler. They've already shown they're willing to adapt their scheme to matchup better to a team (see: Week 2 against the Titans last year), and Wheeler IMO is very reminiscent of Marcus Washington, a guy who even the Colts under Dungy used off the edge pretty often, and who was and is a very good blitzing LB. I could easily see the Colts using Wheeler in the same role.

bigbluedefense
05-06-2008, 10:00 AM
How is the traditional 4-3 becoming obsolete? The Giants just won the Super Bowl with an attacking 4-3 in the mold of a Jim Johnson defense. Is that not considered a "traditional" 4-3? Before that, the Colts won it all in the most vanilla Tampa 2 scheme ever, and that defense stepped up in the postseason. That said, I foresee a bit of a scheme change coming for the Colts with the addition of Wheeler. They've already shown they're willing to adapt their scheme to matchup better to a team (see: Week 2 against the Titans last year), and Wheeler IMO is very reminiscent of Marcus Washington, a guy who even the Colts under Dungy used off the edge pretty often, and who was and is a very good blitzing LB. I could easily see the Colts using Wheeler in the same role.

i don't consider our defense a pure conventional 4-3. We're more of a 46 style defense that incorporates a lot of zone blitzing as well as fire techniques.

And our 4 ace nickel package is definitely not conventional. Technically im wrong grouping defenses into categories, bc if you want to get technical, it varies on fronts and defensive coordinators. its not as simple as we're making it out to be.

For simplicity, I consider GB's scheme a conventional 4-3.

Ultimately, every defense uses some or all of the 4 following philosophies.

1. the 2 gap 3-4
2. the 46
3. the tampa 2/cover 2
4. the zone blitz technique

how much of each defensive philosophy is used by each team depends on personnel and coordinator preferences.

DragonFireKai
05-06-2008, 03:05 PM
"Shred"? Please. Like I said before, you can have yardage, I'll take points allowed any day of the week, and considering the Ravens were slightly better in another category that I value more highly than yardage (turnovers), you really hurt your case here.

You'd honestly trade 20 sacks, three defensive TDs, and 418 yards for 1 more turnover? Points are a function of field position, and when opposing teams get 10+ turnovers inside of your red zone, you're going to give up some field goals. The Eagles offense directly gave up 23 points, and indirectly gave up another another 45 on turnovers in the their own red zone, plus even more on turnovers outside their 20. That was an issue that the Ravens didn't have to contend with.

no love
05-06-2008, 04:17 PM
Ultimately I think the real answer comes down to dollars and cents. What defense can give you the most bang for your buck that enables you to fill holes with players who fetch less money on the market, while also being able to pay for marquee names.

I know in the past, the Eagles and the Bears have thrived off of the 46 and attacking style 4-3 defenses. But these schemes require the most skilled players who have experience in the scheme and cost the most. With the turnover associated with the salary cap, it is difficult to build the type of defense that the Ravens have built over the years without sacrificing a bit on the offensive end.

It is for this reason that many teams ran the Tampa-2 and the 3-4 defenses, especially with the salary cap era. Both schemes utilize a lot of tweeners, undersized players, and role players who are easier to draft in later rounds and not as expensive. Just as an example, Tampa 2 lbs, dts, and cbs are cheaper than they would be in a 46 because of what they are required to do. In the 34, OLB and DE's are cheaper.

So while the 46 and attacking 4-3 defenses might be the best defenses when you have the players. The tampa-2 and 3-4 allow for a more balancing TEAM.

Iamcanadian
05-07-2008, 06:36 AM
Tampa 2 was the brain child of Dungy and Kiffin, I think Lovie was in there as well coaching the secondary or linebackers or something. Its an evolution of a Chuck Noll defense.

It differs from the play cover 2 in that the safeties traditionally don't split and cover the field 50/50 that's actually a 43 defense thing. The more common thing if for the safeties to be roving and have a bigger role. Your FS needs to be as good as some corners and your SS needs to be able to smash people over the middle.

Your MLB then becomes somewhat of a third safety dropping back to keep the play in front of him. Basically you need fast mobile hard hitters in order to be effective.

In a cover 2 play the there's a hole behind cornerbacks and generally every player covers a small area with holes allowing good offenses to find placed to put the ball.

I don't like the Tampa two because if you've got a playmaking wide receiver like Steve Smith for example or a Terrell Owens or a Westbrook/Reggie Bush type running back who can make players miss in the secondary even with the defense coming around the ball they get beat.

Also if you run right at the heart of a tampa 2 defense with a power running scheme you can break it down. Bettis smashing Chicago around in his final year and Stephen Davis consistently trashing the Tampa Defense in 03 are evidence of this off the top of my head.


There is no substantial difference between a Cover 2 and a Tampa 2. Dungy, Lovie, Marinelli all coached at Tampa and when they left, they simply changed the name to a Cover 2. Dungy said he copied the defense from Chuck Noll's Pittsburgh's team and I'm guessing he saw no reason after he left Tampa to continue to call it by that name. Lovie Smith and Marinelli followed suit. Each team that plays a Cover 2 has a few different wrinkles but in essense, It is exactly the same defense.
Every defense has its strengths and weaknesses but Tampa and Indy have won the Super Bowl playing it and Chicago at least got to the Super Bowl using that system.
Every system of defense is effective if you have the personnel to run it, if you don't have the proper personnel then every defenses weaknesses can be exposed.
The Colts as mentioned won the Super Bowl using a Cover 2, New England and Pittsburgh using a 3-4 won a Super Bowl and the Giants using a basic 4-3 won a Super Bowl so it really doesn't matter which defense you use, each can bring you a Super Bowl victory if you have great personnel.

DeathbyStat
05-07-2008, 06:54 AM
The 46 bear is my 2nd favorite scheme of all time (i generally like the 46 period, including the Jim Johnson 46).

However, I don't know if the Bear style of 46 would hold up against today's offenses, because like Marino shown in the past, as well as the 49ers, a spread offense will shread the 46 bear.

Don't believe me? Go back and look at gametape of the 46 bear against the 49ers and dolphins. They used to have some games on youtube before google bought it. But now its no longer there. Your best bet is buying gametape of the Bears from 84-88. Or the 91 eagles, I believe they played the 49ers that year if im not mistaken.

I still love that scheme though. I used to have Buddy Ryan's 46 playbook for Philly. I bought it off ebay. But lost it in the process of moving. Didn't get to finish it :(


Also don't go soley on numbers. While I agree that the Eagles 46 with Buddy was one of the best defenses ever, i honestly feel that we can't put it in the same context as other defenses, bc regardless of how poor that Eagles offense was, all time great defenses should carry a team to a championship. No one remembers units unless they win championships, thats just how it is.


You can buy play books on ebay?

Iamcanadian
05-07-2008, 06:57 AM
Ultimately I think the real answer comes down to dollars and cents. What defense can give you the most bang for your buck that enables you to fill holes with players who fetch less money on the market, while also being able to pay for marquee names.

I know in the past, the Eagles and the Bears have thrived off of the 46 and attacking style 4-3 defenses. But these schemes require the most skilled players who have experience in the scheme and cost the most. With the turnover associated with the salary cap, it is difficult to build the type of defense that the Ravens have built over the years without sacrificing a bit on the offensive end.

It is for this reason that many teams ran the Tampa-2 and the 3-4 defenses, especially with the salary cap era. Both schemes utilize a lot of tweeners, undersized players, and role players who are easier to draft in later rounds and not as expensive. Just as an example, Tampa 2 lbs, dts, and cbs are cheaper than they would be in a 46 because of what they are required to do. In the 34, OLB and DE's are cheaper.

So while the 46 and attacking 4-3 defenses might be the best defenses when you have the players. The tampa-2 and 3-4 allow for a more balancing TEAM.

Sorry to be critical but this is garbage. New England and Pittsburgh switched to a 3-4 defense for a number of reasons, their HC's believed strongly in that defense and it gave both teams a huge edge in the draft as they were left with all the tweeners that nobody else would draft. That gave them a sizable advantage on draft day. However draft picks are slotted in the draft and get their pay based on what slot they are taken in. There is no difference in pay between the #15 pick for New England and Pittsburgh and the #15 pick for a basic 4-3 team, they get exactly the same money.
Over time many teams switched to a 3-4 defense and all draft advantages were lost.
The Cover 2 defense which was copied from Chuck Noll's Pittsburgh teams of the past and brought back into fashion under Tony Dungy who coached for Noll. He strongly believed in the defense and it also gave him a huge advantage on draft day as a lot of his personnel couldn't play for a 3-4 team or a basic 4-3 team. Again there is no savings in cap dollars since everybody is slotted by their draft position and each draftee receives the money paid to that pick.
As the Cover 2 defense has spread, the draft advantage has dried up.
The spread of the 3-4 and Cover 2 defenses had nothing to do with money and everything to do with winning Super Bowls.

no love
05-07-2008, 12:58 PM
Sorry to be critical but this is garbage. New England and Pittsburgh switched to a 3-4 defense for a number of reasons, their HC's believed strongly in that defense and it gave both teams a huge edge in the draft as they were left with all the tweeners that nobody else would draft. That gave them a sizable advantage on draft day. However draft picks are slotted in the draft and get their pay based on what slot they are taken in. There is no difference in pay between the #15 pick for New England and Pittsburgh and the #15 pick for a basic 4-3 team, they get exactly the same money.
Over time many teams switched to a 3-4 defense and all draft advantages were lost.
The Cover 2 defense which was copied from Chuck Noll's Pittsburgh teams of the past and brought back into fashion under Tony Dungy who coached for Noll. He strongly believed in the defense and it also gave him a huge advantage on draft day as a lot of his personnel couldn't play for a 3-4 team or a basic 4-3 team. Again there is no savings in cap dollars since everybody is slotted by their draft position and each draftee receives the money paid to that pick.
As the Cover 2 defense has spread, the draft advantage has dried up.
The spread of the 3-4 and Cover 2 defenses had nothing to do with money and everything to do with winning Super Bowls.

I am a little confused to your point, because you said that coaches switched to this scheme because of draft day advantages, but then you contradict that by say that the draft advantage has dried up. In either case, you don't venture to explain how some players who excel in these defenses are cheaper on the market than those who play in 4-3 schemes.

Managing your cap based on personnel and philosophy on building a team have everything to do with winning super bowls. The scheme you run is very much tied into this.

Mike Nolan has reiterated this a couple of times that there is a belief that running a 3-4 is much more cost effective due to the price of LB (the corps of your team) compared to that of linemen. 3-4 linemen are cheaper due to fact that their responsibilities are not to rush the passer. Even your best 3-4 OLB's are paid less than your top notch pass rushing DE's, it's in the franchise tag. Additionally, LB's give you the best bang for your buck with special teams value as well.

As far as the tampa-2. While the draft advantage has lessoned, it is still there. You will ALWAYS be able to find undersized LB's who can EXCEL in a Tampa-2 in the later rounds. And while you can always find steals, it is easier when a talented player drops due to knocks on his size. Same goes for cornerbacks in the tampa 2, guys will drop because of speed concerns but may excel in a tampa 2 when they would otherwise fail in a 4-3.

Crickett
05-07-2008, 01:02 PM
The difference between the 1991 Eagles and the 2000 Ravens is that the Eagles were hitched to a tragically bad offense, that made Trent Dilfer and Co look like the 2007 Patriots.

Tragically bad you say? You mean like setting a record for most games without a touchdown bad?

Wyndham
05-07-2008, 04:24 PM
There's no right answer. "When you have the ideal personnel," all formations will work.

A 3-4 with a dominant NT anchoring the line and powerful, explosive edge rushes to pressure the QB, or a cover-two with a penetrating DT, quick ends and mobile 'backers and DBs ... it doesn't matter. The key is having that personnel.

yourfavestoner
05-07-2008, 04:51 PM
Cover 2 is a play. Tampa 2 is a scheme. The Colts, Bucs, and Lions probably will run the purest forms of the Tampa 2 this year.

Exactly. The Colts' favorite play on defense is actually a Weakside Cover 3. They'll come out in a Cover Two look, then before the ball is snapped, FS Bob Sanders will move down into the box to defend the run/weakside curl-flat area, while SS Bethea will rotate over the top to defend the deep middle. The Colts really only run Cover Two on third and long situations.

bigbluedefense
05-07-2008, 06:09 PM
Most Tampa 2 teams run a ton more Cover 3 than Cover 2 nowadays. Mainly bc they need 8 in the box to stuff the run, so your options on 1st and 2nd down are limited.

Cover 2 has almost become a 3rd and long play. Its rarely used by Tampa 2 teams on running downs.

bigbluedefense
05-07-2008, 06:13 PM
You can buy play books on ebay?

yeah, old playbooks that are obsolete. look it up, youll be amazed at what you can find.

DragonFireKai
05-09-2008, 03:13 PM
Tragically bad you say? You mean like setting a record for most games without a touchdown bad?

I've already outlined how the Ravens offense was superior to the Eagles offense in pretty much every way.

Dam8610
05-10-2008, 02:20 AM
Exactly. The Colts' favorite play on defense is actually a Weakside Cover 3. They'll come out in a Cover Two look, then before the ball is snapped, FS Bob Sanders will move down into the box to defend the run/weakside curl-flat area, while SS Bethea will rotate over the top to defend the deep middle. The Colts really only run Cover Two on third and long situations.

Wow, props for recognizing that, very true, Sanders is too much of a force in the short field to send him deep too often, but sometimes he does just read and react (i.e. his AFC Title saving 3rd and 4 play, I don't think he had the short responsibility).

Dam8610
05-10-2008, 02:20 AM
yeah, old playbooks that are obsolete. look it up, youll be amazed at what you can find.

Well, I know what will be on my birthday/christmas list.

scottyboy
05-10-2008, 07:49 AM
gimme a 3-4 with LT coming off the edge and I'd win every game and murder QB's.

I like the versatility of a 3-4. I like having the speed rushers coming off the edge killing QB's. THe element of surprise. You never know who the 4th rusher is or where he's gonna come from. With a good DC, and personel, you can confuse the **** out of offenses and go nuts.

MetSox17
05-10-2008, 01:38 PM
I agree with Wyndham on this one and say they all work just as effectively, when you have the right personnel.

If you have humongous, athletic linemen with pass rush potential in a 3-4, you can throw around some over-sized LB's back there and just let them go crazy blitzing. I think we can all agree that that is the key to a successful 3-4 defense. The linemen. The reason the Patriots defense for a while looked so damn impressive is because of Warren, Seymour and Wilfork. They're all studs in that defense, and they make their old ass LB's look good.

In the 4-3, again, if you have great defensive line play you can make anything work. The Giants are the best example of that. Great pass rushers, solid LB's, and their secondary was pretty ugly at times, but they weren't exposed as much (only when T.O played them) because of the rush.

All in all, with the right personnel, you can play anything and be good at it.

Heck, you can run a 1-3-7 defense if you have Calais Campbell gain 50 lbs and take on Quadriple teams at the L.O.S...