- Joined
- Nov 3, 2011
- Messages
- 5,872
So the many recent posts regarding personnel and scheme got me thinking naturally about our defense and what I think Coach D'Nofrio might be trying to accomplish as an end result. The recent shift toward a larger front 7 coupled with recruiting for the hybrid DE/LB position certainly suggests a move toward the 3-4, but what type?
As Lu pointed out, I'm a trombonist, not a defensive coordinator (dammit Jim!) so I spent the better part of this morning poring over various online readings on different iterations of the 3-4 and came across some interesting - potential of course - ideas.
Alignment of the front 7
If I'm reading the interwebs correctly, one example of a hybrid 3-4 defense is the 4-3 Under look, which can then shift back to a standard 3-4 depending on the situation. The difference is mainly in alignment of the front 7: in a "traditional" 3-4, the NT is playing a Zero technique, lined up directly over center, and the DEs play the 5 tech (over the tackles.) This alignment can also be described as a "2-gap" scheme, in that each lineman is responsible for both of the gaps on either side of his respective OL. A brief aside - we saw footage of our DL practicing 2-gap technique in a recent practice video.
In a 4-3 Under look, the NT shades off-center, one DE plays 5 tech over the weakside guard, and the other DE splits the strong side guard and tackle (the 3-gap). The strongside linebacker acts as the 4th DL in this situation.
I believe it's Coach D's intent to implement BOTH the traditional 3-4 and 4-3 Under looks into the defense, which is one of the reasons the learning curve is so **** steep. It requires our DL and LBs to essentially learn two entire sets of gap responsibilities and switch seamlessly between them depending on down and distance. Now, if it works, it's a thing of beauty which allows for both penetration and gap control, and also provides the framework for lots of turnovers in the LBs and secondary.
Personnel
From a personnel standpoint, I think we'll see guys like McCord and Gilbert in that hybrid DE (LEO) role - that's pretty well been established. The strongside DE is primarily a run stopper - think Chick/Shayon Green, or Kamalu. The NT should be Curtis Porter or Robinson, but I can see Renfrow being brought in for this reason as well - basically we need someone in this position who can take on double-teams and hold the point of attack. The weakside DT is essentially a 1-gap penetrating lineman - Olsen Pierre, in my opinion.
With our traditional 3 LBs being pretty well set in Perryman, Gaines, and Armbrister, I think you'll see Perryman at the SAM position - in this instance, the most versatile and demanding LB position, as it requires the ability to jam/follow TEs, drop into zone, and rush the passer. Gaines and Armbrister (Kirby too) can play MIKE and WILL. In this scheme, the MIKE is still the "field general", and has a variety of responsibilities from controlling running lanes to blitzing to dropping into short zone coverage. I think Gaines is our man here with Kirby being groomed for the future. The WILL backer may well end up the leading tackler on the team, as he is usually uncovered in this alignment - expect Armbrister's stats to shock a lot of folks.
Advantages/Hinderances
If I can point to a current NFL defense that I think D'Nofrio would most like to resemble, it would be that of the San Fransisco 49ers (I can already hear the gaffaws of indignant laughter from the No'Frio crowd - bear with me on this one). The 9ers run both the 4-3 under and the traditional 3-4. The advantages of this scheme have already been covered, but as I mentioned earlier, the single biggest disadvantage is the mental and physical requirements of the front 7, particularly the DL and even more particularly the DTs. It's why strongman Corey King can get pushed back 5 yards on every play. If your body isn't perfectly aligned to your gap assignment, you're gonna end up on your *** no matter how much you can bench...
Summary
Overall, I think this type of defense is (finally) well-suited to our current and future personnel. We're just going to have to accept that as long as coach D is running the show, our front 7 will most likely have a 2-year learning curve. I do expect a vastly improved defense this year and going forward in the short-to-medium term. I think you can expect to see more penetration at the point of attack from our DL, as well as more sacks, hurries, and INTs from our LBs. You'll also see some pretty gaping holes at times that will cause you to throw your remote control at the cat.
I didn't talk about the secondary at all, mainly because this post is too long as it is and my thumbs hurt from typing all this rambling mess out on a tablet. I'll try and look into that later on, or someone else can feel free to take up the reins.
Thoughts?
As Lu pointed out, I'm a trombonist, not a defensive coordinator (dammit Jim!) so I spent the better part of this morning poring over various online readings on different iterations of the 3-4 and came across some interesting - potential of course - ideas.
Alignment of the front 7
If I'm reading the interwebs correctly, one example of a hybrid 3-4 defense is the 4-3 Under look, which can then shift back to a standard 3-4 depending on the situation. The difference is mainly in alignment of the front 7: in a "traditional" 3-4, the NT is playing a Zero technique, lined up directly over center, and the DEs play the 5 tech (over the tackles.) This alignment can also be described as a "2-gap" scheme, in that each lineman is responsible for both of the gaps on either side of his respective OL. A brief aside - we saw footage of our DL practicing 2-gap technique in a recent practice video.
In a 4-3 Under look, the NT shades off-center, one DE plays 5 tech over the weakside guard, and the other DE splits the strong side guard and tackle (the 3-gap). The strongside linebacker acts as the 4th DL in this situation.
I believe it's Coach D's intent to implement BOTH the traditional 3-4 and 4-3 Under looks into the defense, which is one of the reasons the learning curve is so **** steep. It requires our DL and LBs to essentially learn two entire sets of gap responsibilities and switch seamlessly between them depending on down and distance. Now, if it works, it's a thing of beauty which allows for both penetration and gap control, and also provides the framework for lots of turnovers in the LBs and secondary.
Personnel
From a personnel standpoint, I think we'll see guys like McCord and Gilbert in that hybrid DE (LEO) role - that's pretty well been established. The strongside DE is primarily a run stopper - think Chick/Shayon Green, or Kamalu. The NT should be Curtis Porter or Robinson, but I can see Renfrow being brought in for this reason as well - basically we need someone in this position who can take on double-teams and hold the point of attack. The weakside DT is essentially a 1-gap penetrating lineman - Olsen Pierre, in my opinion.
With our traditional 3 LBs being pretty well set in Perryman, Gaines, and Armbrister, I think you'll see Perryman at the SAM position - in this instance, the most versatile and demanding LB position, as it requires the ability to jam/follow TEs, drop into zone, and rush the passer. Gaines and Armbrister (Kirby too) can play MIKE and WILL. In this scheme, the MIKE is still the "field general", and has a variety of responsibilities from controlling running lanes to blitzing to dropping into short zone coverage. I think Gaines is our man here with Kirby being groomed for the future. The WILL backer may well end up the leading tackler on the team, as he is usually uncovered in this alignment - expect Armbrister's stats to shock a lot of folks.
Advantages/Hinderances
If I can point to a current NFL defense that I think D'Nofrio would most like to resemble, it would be that of the San Fransisco 49ers (I can already hear the gaffaws of indignant laughter from the No'Frio crowd - bear with me on this one). The 9ers run both the 4-3 under and the traditional 3-4. The advantages of this scheme have already been covered, but as I mentioned earlier, the single biggest disadvantage is the mental and physical requirements of the front 7, particularly the DL and even more particularly the DTs. It's why strongman Corey King can get pushed back 5 yards on every play. If your body isn't perfectly aligned to your gap assignment, you're gonna end up on your *** no matter how much you can bench...
Summary
Overall, I think this type of defense is (finally) well-suited to our current and future personnel. We're just going to have to accept that as long as coach D is running the show, our front 7 will most likely have a 2-year learning curve. I do expect a vastly improved defense this year and going forward in the short-to-medium term. I think you can expect to see more penetration at the point of attack from our DL, as well as more sacks, hurries, and INTs from our LBs. You'll also see some pretty gaping holes at times that will cause you to throw your remote control at the cat.
I didn't talk about the secondary at all, mainly because this post is too long as it is and my thumbs hurt from typing all this rambling mess out on a tablet. I'll try and look into that later on, or someone else can feel free to take up the reins.
Thoughts?
Last edited:
