3-4 and run defense

[entropyrulesall]

Over the past year (and longer) I've seen many threads on the 3-4, it's benefits, would we play it, etc, and then the fans realizing that our 4-3 Under defense is played with many 3-4 type players and that we run an ameoba, hybrid defense. I don't want to re-hash those points again.
But in the context of the run defense in the past two games, Bobby Wagner's return from injury to Mike, trap plays, getting gashed up the middle, and putting your best players on the field at critical moments, would running a pure 3-4 help in run D (and our overall weaknesses) more than the 4-3 Under/Hybrid I see us frequently playing? Of course we would never go 100% in either direction but should we be slanted more 3-4?

I know Pete wants to make teams 1 dimensional on offense, so that might explain why we dared Clemons/Glennon to beat us in the air. But if teams know the passing game is not as giving as running then won't they just run on us until we prove we can stop them? And when we do stop the run, won't they go Play-action? This is what TB basically did.

So how about 3-4 looks something like: Bennett-McDaniel-Bryant upfront Wright-Wagner-Smith-Avril (or Irvin). This leaves LOB in back playing press-man or Cover 1 with Kam in the Box. There are countless other combinations but you get the point.

I would think in these scenarios we are protected well on both passing and running but can still mix it up with more exotic zone blitzes and even Nickel looks.

For some reason this defense struggles against TE/RBs, small fast WRs, traps up the middle, and bunch packages and maybe a mostly 3-4 defense is the answer.

I'm still learning all these nuonces of PC's 4-3 and thought it would be a good conversation for the board.

 

[Basis4day]

Correct me if i'm wrong. Don't most teams in the league run a base 3-4? I had assumed so, and figured that is a major reason PC/JS have been successful with their defensive personnel is because more teams are clamoring for the players that would fit a traditional 3-4.

That being said. Our defense is basically a Hybrid anyway and we're a better defense when Clem is playing.

 

[Sports Hernia]

It doesn't matter what defense you run if your linebackers are out of position like the last 2 games.

 

[Tical21]

Although it is closer, the majority run a 4-3. I count 11 3-4 teams, could be off by 1-2.

We run a 3-4, but one of the OLB's has a hand down. I always blocked it like an odd front. Taking Mebane off the field in favor of Malcolm Smith isn't going to help you stop the run.

Pete Carroll doesn't coach a 3-4 defense. He coaches a 4-3 under.

 

[hawkfan68]

Over the past year (and longer) I've seen many threads on the 3-4, it's benefits, would we play it, etc, and then the fans realizing that our 4-3 Under defense is played with many 3-4 type players and that we run an ameoba, hybrid defense. I don't want to re-hash those points again.
But in the context of the run defense in the past two games, Bobby Wagner's return from injury to Mike, trap plays, getting gashed up the middle, and putting your best players on the field at critical moments, would running a pure 3-4 help in run D (and our overall weaknesses) more than the 4-3 Under/Hybrid I see us frequently playing? Of course we would never go 100% in either direction but should we be slanted more 3-4?

I know Pete wants to make teams 1 dimensional on offense, so that might explain why we dared Clemons/Glennon to beat us in the air. But if teams know the passing game is not as giving as running then won't they just run on us until we prove we can stop them? And when we do stop the run, won't they go Play-action? This is what TB basically did.

So how about 3-4 looks something like: Bennett-McDaniel-Bryant upfront Wright-Wagner-Smith-Avril (or Irvin). This leaves LOB in back playing press-man or Cover 1 with Kam in the Box. There are countless other combinations but you get the point.

I would think in these scenarios we are protected well on both passing and running but can still mix it up with more exotic zone blitzes and even Nickel looks.

For some reason this defense struggles against TE/RBs, small fast WRs, traps up the middle, and bunch packages and maybe a mostly 3-4 defense is the answer.

I'm still learning all these nuonces of PC's 4-3 and thought it would be a good conversation for the board.

What about Mebane? Why would you take the best run plugger out of the 3-4 defense? The ideal 3-4 lineup in my opinion is McDaniel, Mebane, and Bryant with Clemons, Wright, Wagner, and Smith at LBs.

 

[Happypuppy]

We use variants; search for some of the the 4-3 over and under threads in the forum.

 

[ivotuk]

Although it is closer, the majority run a 4-3. I count 11 3-4 teams, could be off by 1-2.

We run a 3-4, but one of the OLB's has a hand down. I always blocked it like an odd front. Taking Mebane off the field in favor of Malcolm Smith isn't going to help you stop the run.

Pete Carroll doesn't coach a 3-4 defense. He coaches a 4-3 under.

I don't understand why people find it necessary to "correct" a post post rather than discuss it. It's like people are so ready to jump in and criticize a post or demonstrate their knowledge but most of the time it comes off as not very smart at all. Especially when there is nothing to correct.

The OP said "that our 4-3 Under defense is played with many 3-4 type players." So your last sentence is basically redundant and unnecessary since the OP stated "I don't want to re-hash those points again."

I do agree that keeping Mebane on for run stuffing is preferable. I think Bennet/McDaniel on 1st and sometimes 2nd down would make a good LDE then swap him and Bryant out for Bennett/Avril/Irvin on passing downs.

I think that is a lot of what Pete and Dan are doing right now while searching for the best "fits" in down and distance situations. THAT, could be part of the reason our defense struggles run stuffing early although I'd have to look at the all-22 to see what kind of substitutions take place to be sure.

Maybe Pete & Dan are experimenting early on, then when things look bad they go back to the tried and true sets on defense. Dan Quinn did say he was going to be more aggressive, and that might include rotations and experimentation.

It does seem odd though that the defense looked great with KJ at MLB and Malcolm at OLB, then falters when BWagz comes back. Like they mentioned on the radio, as soon as people started commenting on M Smith's play, Bobby tweeted "Ill be back next week." I suspect he isn't quite healthy enough to be playing full time and might be "over trying" because of Malcolm's success. Herr Vagner might be attempting to put out some good film too, and costing his team mates opportunities in the process.

I think this defense has the chance to be elite, 2000 Ravens elite, but they and the coaches need to get their game plan figured out with all the new talent on the team. These guys haven't had a lot of time together, and Quinn is new at this NFL defensive coordinator stuff. If they get it together in the next week or two, we could make the New Orleans Saints look really bad, and make Drew Brees look pedestrian.

I really hope they get it figured out before the San Francisco game though because that's the biggie and I would love nothing more than to humiliate them in their own house.

 

[Tical21]

Although it is closer, the majority run a 4-3. I count 11 3-4 teams, could be off by 1-2.

We run a 3-4, but one of the OLB's has a hand down. I always blocked it like an odd front. Taking Mebane off the field in favor of Malcolm Smith isn't going to help you stop the run.

Pete Carroll doesn't coach a 3-4 defense. He coaches a 4-3 under.

I don't understand why people find it necessary to "correct" a post post rather than discuss it. It's like people are so ready to jump in and criticize a post or demonstrate their knowledge but most of the time it comes off as not very smart at all. Especially when there is nothing to correct.

The OP said "that our 4-3 Under defense is played with many 3-4 type players." So your last sentence is basically redundant and unnecessary since the OP stated "I don't want to re-hash those points again."

Fair point. My intent wasn't to correct. I was too tired to expand. My point was that Pete Carroll has no experience coaching a 3-4. He teaches the 4-3 under, and always has. As long as he is here, I suspect that is what we'll run. He's a little too old, frankly, to learn a whole new defense and implement it. I might be missing the point of your argument, but I think that is what you were getting on me for. Unless you were implying that we should run the same front, but with different personnel. I wasn't correcting the OP at all, I was actually attempting to give very poorly explained reasoning. 3-4 coaches coach the 3-4, 4-3 coaches coach the 4-3. It is pretty rare that you see somebody switch, although not unheard of.