should we run more 4-3 looks?
-
our pressure looked pretty good today when our OLB'ers, basically hybrids in Kruger/Sheard...put their hands in the dirt. The 3-4 is supposed to stop the run better but we can all see how that's working out. I just don't see how our OLB'ers would help in the run game any less if they put their hands down. They're both still edge setting well. I don't think we should scrap the 3-4 but we should get a 4th OLB'er like Mingo to run the 3-4 in certain games and then in other games have Kruger/Sheard/Armonty/Mugshot rotating around the DE spots. Would keep our guys fresh. Take next week for instance, we should run the 4-3 most of the game. It obviously would be asking a lot of our LB'ing corp given that they aren't really stopping the run in a scheme that is designed just for that...but fuck at some point we have to let the defense pin it's ears back and get after people. Kruger deposited Michael Ohers ass into Charlie Whitehursts lap...than got up and buried his sack in Charlies facemask as he was throwing.....did that with his hand in the dirt. Let's run more of that.
-
How exactly does the 3-4 stop the run better than the 43? More specifically, I think you're putting too much stock into these numbers. Pettine and O'Neil don't have to abandon their systems and change scheme in radically different ways. If anything that would be counter productive at this point.
-
How exactly does the 3-4 stop the run better than the 43? More specifically, I think you're putting too much stock into these numbers. Pettine and O'Neil don't have to abandon their systems and change scheme in radically different ways. If anything that would be counter productive at this point.
The 3-4 was intended to stop the run. It involves player positioning as well as different personnel. The OLB'ers can't be traditional 4-3 OLB'ers nor can they be 4-3 DE's. Of course there have been 3-4 defense's that have gotten after the QB just fine, and that comes down to finding really good players. But schemewise it's using 4 LB'ers that in a traditional 3-4 would play well back of the line and allow the LB'ers time to diagnose the run and engage and shed the blockers. In a 4-3 the tackles get their hands on the DE's quicker which, again depending on personnel, can be an "advantage". Obviously there have been some 4-3 defense's that have stopped the run very well...and they usually consist of a "very good" Mike. Carolina is an example with Kuechly.
How exactly does the 3-4 stop the run better than the 43? More specifically, I think you're putting too much stock into these numbers. Pettine and O'Neil don't have to abandon their systems and change scheme in radically different ways. If anything that would be counter productive at this point.
-
The 3-4 was intended to stop the run. It involves player positioning as well as different personnel. The OLB'ers can't be traditional 4-3 OLB'ers nor can they be 4-3 DE's. Of course there have been 3-4 defense's that have gotten after the QB just fine, and that comes down to finding really good players. But schemewise it's using 4 LB'ers that in a traditional 3-4 would play well back of the line and allow the LB'ers time to diagnose the run and engage and shed the blockers. In a 4-3 the tackles get their hands on the DE's quicker which, again depending on personnel, can be an "advantage". Obviously there have been some 4-3 defense's that have stopped the run very well...and they usually consist of a "very good" Mike. Carolina is an example with Kuechly.
How exactly does the 3-4 stop the run better than the 43? More specifically, I think you're putting too much stock into these numbers. Pettine and O'Neil don't have to abandon their systems and change scheme in radically different ways. If anything that would be counter productive at this point.
The 3-4 was intended to stop the run. It involves player positioning as well as different personnel. The OLB'ers can't be traditional 4-3 OLB'ers nor can they be 4-3 DE's. Of course there have been 3-4 defense's that have gotten after the QB just fine, and that comes down to finding really good players. But schemewise it's using 4 LB'ers that in a traditional 3-4 would play well back of the line and allow the LB'ers time to diagnose the run and engage and shed the blockers. In a 4-3 the tackles get their hands on the DE's quicker which, again depending on personnel, can be an "advantage". Obviously there have been some 4-3 defense's that have stopped the run very well...and they usually consist of a "very good" Mike. Carolina is an example with Kuechly.
I was being sarcastic because the whole idea that the 34 regardless if it's a traditional 2 gap or wilkinson 1 gap being wholly superior to a down 43 against the run is stupidity. Both come down to talent and execution. Switching to a different philosophy doesn't make you a better defense.
And if you're implying such, then why would the Browns run more 4 down looks? Clearly, to you, the current alignment is specifically to shut down opposing rushes.
-
The 3-4 was intended to stop the run. It involves player positioning as well as different personnel. The OLB'ers can't be traditional 4-3 OLB'ers nor can they be 4-3 DE's. Of course there have been 3-4 defense's that have gotten after the QB just fine, and that comes down to finding really good players. But schemewise it's using 4 LB'ers that in a traditional 3-4 would play well back of the line and allow the LB'ers time to diagnose the run and engage and shed the blockers. In a 4-3 the tackles get their hands on the DE's quicker which, again depending on personnel, can be an "advantage". Obviously there have been some 4-3 defense's that have stopped the run very well...and they usually consist of a "very good" Mike. Carolina is an example with Kuechly.
I was being sarcastic because the whole idea that the 34 regardless if it's a traditional 2 gap or wilkinson 1 gap being wholly superior to a down 43 against the run is stupidity. Both come down to talent and execution. Switching to a different philosophy doesn't make you a better defense.
And if you're implying such, then why would the Browns run more 4 down looks? Clearly, to you, the current alignment is specifically to shut down opposing rushes.
I was being sarcastic because the whole idea that the 34 regardless if it's a traditional 2 gap or wilkinson 1 gap being wholly superior to a down 43 against the run is stupidity. Both come down to talent and execution. Switching to a different philosophy doesn't make you a better defense.
And if you're implying such, then why would the Browns run more 4 down looks? Clearly, to you, the current alignment is specifically to shut down opposing rushes.
all things being equal it does technically put players in a better position to stop the run. But you're absolutely right it does come down to personnel. But I do believe the best run defense of all time was the Ravens (3-4) and the best pass defense of all time was one of the steeler teams from the 70's who I believe ran a 4-3. The list of best run defense's in history is for the most part 3-4 schemes I believe but there are obviously 4-3's in there like the 85 bears and surprisingly the 06 Vikes who weren't overall a very good team that year. The the teams that consistently stopped the run the best over a stretch of time were mainly 3-4's...steelers/patriots/ravens.
I'm implying the Browns run more 4 down looks because there are times this season where the opposing team has abandoned the run and they know our OLB'ers are coming anyway so just line em up with their hands in the dirt. That's exactly what happened late in the 4th quarter. When Kruger shit on Oher and drove him straight into Whitehurst he had his hand in the dirt. His best pressure throughout the game was when his hands were down. When a team is running all over us...stand em up. We have the talent at OLB'er to run a hybrid, so I'm really implying we run more of a hybrid. Our OLB'ers are standing up way too fucking much. Against the Saints they were getting their hands down in the 1st quarter....not surprisingly we were shitting all over Brees than they started running too good and our OLB'ers stood up the rest of the game. Even in the 2nd half when Brees just started passing all over us, we still stood em up which I just didn't understand. Same with the Ravens game, they stood the entire game though against Blt.
-
yes.
we've had other discussions here about that specific topic.
i say call the D whatever you want and let the outside compact like it did today and you could call it silver bug shit,
how much for a 2nd half half/gallon of that shite?
-
-
The way I've seen it all along is a seemingly good group of players (won't name em all but we know) can't ALL have regressed this badly as a unit. That screams that something is wrong with chemistry, scheme or communication. Furthermore, the blitz calls outside the one late were awful this game. They could not have been more scripted and easy to pickup. Also, explain how sending 7 guys and playing DB's 8 yards off WR's makes any sense?
All I know is someone is a wizard of half-time speeches.
-
also, the D was noticeably better against the run when Fatass Phil "I swing at players after plays I don't do anything on" Taylor was on the bench
-
This was something i noticed as well. That 4 man front that u saw was not a traditional 4-3 it was a nickel package that weve seen with crennel mangini and horton. Its a 4 man front with 1 or two linebackers and an extra nickle or safety. We played alot of it in the second qtr and i thought we were much more effective in it at stopping the run and containing the the pass. Hopefully this is a formation we see much more in coming weeks especially against the steelers. Another thing pettine is going to have to realize is that our cornerbacks are much better in zone than in man coverage. He needs to back off the man and go to zone a little more often to help these struggling corners like haden and skrine.
-
-
The way I've seen it all along is a seemingly good group of players (won't name em all but we know) can't ALL have regressed this badly as a unit. That screams that something is wrong with chemistry, scheme or communication. Furthermore, the blitz calls outside the one late were awful this game. They could not have been more scripted and easy to pickup. Also, explain how sending 7 guys and playing DB's 8 yards off WR's makes any sense?
All I know is someone is a wizard of half-time speeches.
-
that's a bad job out of you, you know that right? one gap opens and the runner goes straight to the 3rd level. Such a terrible idea. And you were being completely serious I know.
We may need more 9-2 looks
-
also, the D was noticeably better against the run when Fatass Phil "I swing at players after plays I don't do anything on" Taylor was on the bench
wasn't that more a function of the Titans going away from the run? I really didn't see any miraculous change in our ability to stop the run in the 2nd half...just saw less of it.
also, the D was noticeably better against the run when Fatass Phil "I swing at players after plays I don't do anything on" Taylor was on the bench
-
that's a bad job out of you, you know that right? one gap opens and the runner goes straight to the 3rd level. Such a terrible idea. And you were being completely serious I know.
Yea, my bad. We need more 9-5 looks.
-
I'll take that 3 extra men on the field penalty all day.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login