Thoughts on switching to a 3-4

[Maelstrom787]

OH ! So now we won the Superbowl running a 3-4, whats next... Dude 3-4 sucks at every level. Try wasting your words with others cus I aint buying your stuff bro.

Cheers

My stuff? You're not buying actual facts and the actual details of what Seattle has run schematically, instead favoring literal falsehoods.

 

[Chawker]

Let me know after a championship is reached.

Cheers

 

[Fade]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/A_Jude/status/1499087594021285888[/tweet]
The time to change on defense was 3 years ago, Pete. Thanks for wasting everyone's time, buddy.

The morons praising last year's $-$how on defense continue to get exposed. I want to thank these posters for the barrel of laughs I enjoyed reading their warped, cult like views of Pete's utter failure of a defense over the last 3 seasons. :lol:

Teaching old dog new tricks? Does anyone think this doesn't end in catastrophe?

Rasheem Green doesn't fit. Dunlap doesn't fit. Robinson doesn't fit. They need 2 big DE's that are not sloths, and they will need an EDGE guy opposite of Taylor, and another EDGE guy on top of that for inevitable injury replacement. I love Poona, but he is more of a 1T where he can use his leverage and quickness to split that gap between the Center and Guard, at 0T his smallish size gets exposed. The pieces they need cost a lot of money, and/or require high draft picks.

@ LBer Bobby should be traded/cut, with the money going toward the trenches. He is a shell of his former self and sentimentality loses games. Brooks would be better if they can get the proper D-Line in front of him. Barton doesn't fit, too small.

If they were to commit fully to this front. They would need about 5 of 7 new starters. Keeping Brooks & Taylor. That is why I don't see it happening fully. Just like the 5-2 front went out the window last year a month into the season, this will too, unless major acquisitions are made in Free Agency to build it correctly. Oh, and a real DC like Fangio who can teach it and run it proper.

Rookie DC who wouldn't be a DC anywhere else in the NFL (just like the last guy.) is going to go running to Pete for answers when he gets destroyed by McVay and Shanny, and it will devolve back to the same old same.

If they cut Wagner, sign Chandler Jones, Clowney, Calais Campbell, and Akiem Hicks, than this scheme switch might just work. :shock:

 

[Maelstrom787]

Let me know after a championship is reached.

Cheers

We'll just ignore the lil fact that both Super Bowl teams this year run predominantly 3-4 looks

 

[Jville]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/A_Jude/status/1499088647177465857[/tweet]

 

[QuahHawk]

I think the biggest missing piece is a 335 LB NT. A Wilfork or Ngata type.

I can seen this being a smooth transition for Bobby, Taylor, and Brooks. If we keep Bobby I'd much rather see him attacking the QB than dropping into coverage.

Not sure if Dunlap, Robinson, Collier, and Green would all fit here well. Maybe Dunlap at OLB but not stout enough for DE.

 

[Maelstrom787]

I think the biggest missing piece is a 335 LB NT. A Wilfork or Ngata type.

I can seen this being a smooth transition for Bobby, Taylor, and Brooks. If we keep Bobby I'd much rather see him attacking the QB than dropping into coverage.

Not sure if Dunlap, Robinson, Collier, and Green would all fit here well. Maybe Dunlap at OLB but not stout enough for DE.

Yep. The real need is a true nose. The rest of the scheme and overhaul concerns are really overblown.

Again, they've been running the same type of multiple stuff for years, and this is by no means a full change to a full on traditional 3-4.

 

[TwistedHusky]

Not sure what we are cheering for but I am with Fade on this.

We have a defense built on 4-3 personnel. We can shoehorn some players into roles to play 3-4 but not sure why, because they won't be exceptional at 3-4.

Even then, we still miss that 330lb NT everyone seems to think grows on trees. Danny Shelton was expensive to get and he wasn't even that great.

Who are you thinking?

And how does this shut down the pass?

This is as close to a sign that Pete is out of ideas as any. But if his new DC wants a 3-4 and thinks he can excel with it? sure. The only way this works is if we become heavy blitzers, and since blitzes are high reward, high risk (because they give up big plays) I don't see Pete greenlighting a blitz heavy 3-4.

And passive 3-4s get eaten alive. Which is the danger.

My hope is the new DC will get license to run the defense as he sees fit, in which case there is some weird reason for this change. But after 10 years + of Pete, I doubt he doesn't put heavy curbs on what we do with pressure as soon as he gets burned a few times (since blitz heavy teams will).

Fingers crossed.

 

[A-Dog]

Keep in mind this is just the base defense used on mixed down/distance situations. You can have guys on your roster that don't "fit" well in to a 3-4 base defense who can still play critical roles.

Remember that Cliff Avril, Michael Bennett, and Clint McDonald were 3 of the Hawks' four best pass rushers during the Superbowl winning season, but they weren't starters. Instead you had Red Bryant, Brandon Mebane, and Tony McDaniel starting on mixed downs.

So think of Dunlap, Green, and Robinson as contributing in the same way as Avril, Bennett, and McDonald - playing primarily on passing downs and providing relief of mixed downs.

And likewise, you have Woods, Ford, and Mone in the Bryant, Mebane, and McDaniel roles on mixed downs.

Ideally we can upgrade on one or two of those names but it's not like they're completely useless if the Seahawks double down on the 3-4/Bear/Stick front.

 

[Maelstrom787]

Not sure what we are cheering for but I am with Fade on this.

We have a defense built on 4-3 personnel. We can shoehorn some players into roles to play 3-4 but not sure why, because they won't be exceptional at 3-4.

Even then, we still miss that 330lb NT everyone seems to think grows on trees. Danny Shelton was expensive to get and he wasn't even that great.

Who are you thinking?

And how does this shut down the pass?

This is as close to a sign that Pete is out of ideas as any. But if his new DC wants a 3-4 and thinks he can excel with it? sure. The only way this works is if we become heavy blitzers, and since blitzes are high reward, high risk (because they give up big plays) I don't see Pete greenlighting a blitz heavy 3-4.

And passive 3-4s get eaten alive. Which is the danger.

My hope is the new DC will get license to run the defense as he sees fit, in which case there is some weird reason for this change. But after 10 years + of Pete, I doubt he doesn't put heavy curbs on what we do with pressure as soon as he gets burned a few times (since blitz heavy teams will).

Fingers crossed.

It's... really probably not that kind of change, though. We're getting caught up in the semantics of labeling 4-3 vs 3-4 when the reality is that it's a bit more like a spectrum than a black-and-white, this-or-that type of thing.

All comments continue to indicate the front continuing the same evolution its been going through for years, which is a multiple front.

All they've been saying is it may look a bit more like a 3-4 than it has in the past - but it's looked really, really similar to a 3-4 for some time now. It's multiple in nature. The 4-3 under front shares a whole, whole lot with a 3-4.

The same defensive roster deficiencies that existed going into this offseason exist coming out of it. There's no indication at all that they're going full traditional 3-4 and need to find 310 pound edges and a Sam Adams clone immediately.

 

[TwistedHusky]

You might be right.

Change is a good sign regardless. But change without risk generally means little reward.

If Pete is leaving some rope so the DC can do his job without interference? That is fantastic.

But he cannot just be able to succeed.

He has to be given latitude to fail.

Because things work, then they don't, then they do. It isn't linear.

And success comes from learning when you fail, not turtling up so you limit failure but also severely limit success.

Again, fingers crossed.



Just not sure our defense is that impressive of a roster. We have some decent young promising talent, but a lot of vets and aging players in key roles. Nothing that would scare an offense. Winning on defense is unlikely. But great coaches make average rosters look better - so you never know.

It couldn't get much worse so any improvement is welcome.

 

[Maelstrom787]

You might be right.

Change is a good sign regardless. But change without risk generally means little reward.

If Pete is leaving some rope so the DC can do his job without interference? That is fantastic.

But he cannot just be able to succeed.

He has to be given latitude to fail.

Because things work, then they don't, then they do. It isn't linear.

And success comes from learning when you fail, not turtling up so you limit failure but also severely limit success.

Again, fingers crossed.



Just not sure our defense is that impressive of a roster. We have some decent young promising talent, but a lot of vets and aging players in key roles. Nothing that would scare an offense. Winning on defense is unlikely. But great coaches make average rosters look better - so you never know.

It couldn't get much worse so any improvement is welcome.

I think that's still the problem overall - they've got gaps on the line that need to be filled.

I'd really, really love another solid edge and another solid tackle, preferably capable of true 0tech NT play. I think they need to obtain that no matter what they run.

I think it'll get better, but I can't agree that it can't get worse. This was the second best run defense in the league last year, at least going off of opponent YPC. I think they know the problem is with the pass rush, at least.

 

[A-Dog]

Even then, we still miss that 330lb NT everyone seems to think grows on trees. Danny Shelton was expensive to get and he wasn't even that great.

Who are you thinking?

Last year we had two of these massive NTs:
Al Woods 6-4 331
Brian Mone 6-3 345

Neither of them cost much at all, and I expect both of them to be back. They are actually fairly cheap to acquire because they aren't much use against the pass. Poona doesn't fit the mold at 310 pounds but even he can hold up due to his combo of a low center of gravity and long arms.[/quote]

And how does this shut down the pass?

That's a fair question. My thoughts (after reading a lot of Matty F. Brown stuff):

1) You now have two (hypothetically) top edge rushers for providing outside pressure rather than one in your typical 4-3 Under where you the Leo but then on the other side you have a Red Bryant type with a KJ Wright type behind him. This means the potential for a much more dangerous pass rush.

2) You now have one extra guy who is competent at dropping in to coverage, because both edge players will drop a significant amount of the time.

3) As a result of the above, you have more blitzing options because there's one more guy who can (potentially) replace the blitzer in coverage.

4) Deception. The offense doesn't know who is dropping, if a player is showing blitz you have to respect it, but you can't respect it too much either. It's easier to disguise your pass rushers and it's also easier to disguise your coverages.

5) Because the A and B gaps are always covered, the MIKE and WILL linebackers don't have to bite hard against play action, which allows them to get back in to their zone responsibilities more quickly. They can also flow to the ball quickly against screens. In general you don't need or even want huge ILBs - they aren't going to be filling A and B gaps a ton and you want them to be fast (which helps in coverage).

6) Quick inside throws are better covered by nature of the alignment. (I don't have a great grasp of why exactly this is, but it's one of the things I got from Brown)

7) The EDGE players are not put in to conflict against Zone Read or RPO plays, important against mobile QBs (like the above, I don't have a great grasp of why this is)

This is as close to a sign that Pete is out of ideas as any. But if his new DC wants a 3-4 and thinks he can excel with it? sure. The only way this works is if we become heavy blitzers, and since blitzes are high reward, high risk (because they give up big plays) I don't see Pete greenlighting a blitz heavy 3-4.

And passive 3-4s get eaten alive. Which is the danger.

It's not really a new idea, I see it more as a total commitment to the idea. I don't think it will be passive at all - not just because Pete and Clint have been talking it up as aggressive and attacking, and wanting to play more man coverage, but due to the fact that your biggest investment on defense - Jamal Adams - needs to be playing in a blitzing defense in order to play to his strengths. With a 3-4 you are in a way always blitzing even if you are only rushing four, because the offense will never know which four rushers are coming (unless KJ Wright is one of your edge players).

Yes there are some personnel needs in order to pull this off - primarily a stud OLB to play opposite Darrell Taylor - so I'm eager to see what happens in free agency.

 

[Tical21]

I appreciate this thread and its thoughtful and civil posts.

I've come to break out linemen as being one gap or two gap linemen. A linemen that can "excel" at both is rare. They can bring uncertainty to alignments. The incorporation of the Bear Front was, for me, a welcomed transition. In my eyes, Bryan Mone and Poona Ford are competitive two gap players. As such, they provide great value in allowing the backfield that extra man.

I'd welcome the return of Al Woods, who personifies man control (two gap) for one more year. Woods is a true heads up 0 technique nose tackle.

A 3-4 base is a balanced line. That's different than the unbalanced 4-3 based lines of years past. Two-gapping requires a defensive lineman to control the opposing offensive lineman, rip off the block and make the tackle. This defensive technique is common in 3-4 Defenses and 4-3 defenses that play an even front. The defensive techniques & alignments that are often played when playing man control are 0, 2, 4, and 6 techniques .... rather than the the 1,3,5 and 7 techniques we have heard in the past.

During this off season, I'm most interested in man or two gap linemen. Although, the talent collection they end up with in training camp will dictate what mix of fronts they can field.

Love the thread. Go Hawks!

Thanks for posting :2thumbs:

Good post, I didn't want to get this far in the OP, but i'm really glad someone did.

 

[Tical21]

Keep in mind this is just the base defense used on mixed down/distance situations. You can have guys on your roster that don't "fit" well in to a 3-4 base defense who can still play critical roles.

Remember that Cliff Avril, Michael Bennett, and Clint McDonald were 3 of the Hawks' four best pass rushers during the Superbowl winning season, but they weren't starters. Instead you had Red Bryant, Brandon Mebane, and Tony McDaniel starting on mixed downs.

So think of Dunlap, Green, and Robinson as contributing in the same way as Avril, Bennett, and McDonald - playing primarily on passing downs and providing relief of mixed downs.

And likewise, you have Woods, Ford, and Mone in the Bryant, Mebane, and McDaniel roles on mixed downs.

Ideally we can upgrade on one or two of those names but it's not like they're completely useless if the Seahawks double down on the 3-4/Bear/Stick front.

Good post. I also had these thoughts, but thought it was too nuanced for the OP. We're obviously going to need two interior rushers on passing downs, still. And if Rasheem wasn't a FA, I'm sure he'd be in the rotation in one of them. That said, I think he's a better run player than a pass rusher. So, I'd prefer not to bring him back as a sub-package specialist. I'd prefer to find a pass rusher instead.

I am not sure Robinson can slide inside. You could use Dunlap both inside and out, most likely. Collier is kind of the one guy you need something from.

 

[Tical21]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/A_Jude/status/1499087594021285888[/tweet]
The time to change on defense was 3 years ago, Pete. Thanks for wasting everyone's time, buddy.

The morons praising last year's $-$how on defense continue to get exposed. I want to thank these posters for the barrel of laughs I enjoyed reading their warped, cult like views of Pete's utter failure of a defense over the last 3 seasons. :lol:

Teaching old dog new tricks? Does anyone think this doesn't end in catastrophe?

Rasheem Green doesn't fit. Dunlap doesn't fit. Robinson doesn't fit. They need 2 big DE's that are not sloths, and they will need an EDGE guy opposite of Taylor, and another EDGE guy on top of that for inevitable injury replacement. I love Poona, but he is more of a 1T where he can use his leverage and quickness to split that gap between the Center and Guard, at 0T his smallish size gets exposed. The pieces they need cost a lot of money, and/or require high draft picks.

@ LBer Bobby should be traded/cut, with the money going toward the trenches. He is a shell of his former self and sentimentality loses games. Brooks would be better if they can get the proper D-Line in front of him. Barton doesn't fit, too small.

If they were to commit fully to this front. They would need about 5 of 7 new starters. Keeping Brooks & Taylor. That is why I don't see it happening fully. Just like the 5-2 front went out the window last year a month into the season, this will too, unless major acquisitions are made in Free Agency to build it correctly. Oh, and a real DC like Fangio who can teach it and run it proper.

Rookie DC who wouldn't be a DC anywhere else in the NFL (just like the last guy.) is going to go running to Pete for answers when he gets destroyed by McVay and Shanny, and it will devolve back to the same old same.

If they cut Wagner, sign Chandler Jones, Clowney, Calais Campbell, and Akiem Hicks, than this scheme switch might just work. :shock:

I mean, there is no measure by which we didn't have a top-10 defense in the second half of last year, and in many areas, considerably higher, especially on plays in which we called cover-3. Weird.

I did a dive of 3-4 MLBs, and Barton (listed at 240) is actually slightly above average weight for starters. The Patriots are really the only team with monsters. I am not high on Barton, but I don't think his weight is that huge of a factor here, especially since our alignment will almost be identical to last season on the interior.

I agree that this is at least a 2-year build to get right. They can throw some stuff together for this season, but will need two in order to get all the pieces dialed, unless they get quite lucky in the draft.

Norton wasn't a rookie DC. He was the Raiders DC for three years before we brought him in.

They have three seemingly really sharp young defensive coaches from trees you want them to come from. We'll see if they can cook up something spectacular. They could fall on their faces, but none seem the type. I'm optimistic.

 

[Fade]

Top 10, huh? LMAO.

Rookie DC is referring to Hurtt. He will go to Pete when adversity hits, and Pete will make suggestions that will lead back to how he's always done it. Passive, stay on top, simplify. Softzone, allow opposing QBs to get comfortable by telegraphing coverage presnap, can't get off the field. Can't force turnovers.

Pete should've retired after 2017 in hindsight. The game has passed him by.

 

[sc85sis]

I have no idea whether the game has actually passed Pete by or not, but I feel safe in the belief that he knows more about football than anyone who posts on this forum. That doesn’t preclude him from making mistakes; he makes them just like anyone else. But this idea that he knows less than we do because he’s older is mystifying to me.

 

[toffee]

[tweet]
The time to change on defense was 3 years ago, Pete. Thanks for wasting everyone's time, buddy.

The morons praising last year's $-$how on defense continue to get exposed. I want to thank these posters for the barrel of laughs I enjoyed reading their warped, cult like views of Pete's utter failure of a defense over the last 3 seasons. :lol:

Teaching old dog new tricks? Does anyone think this doesn't end in catastrophe?

Rasheem Green doesn't fit. Dunlap doesn't fit. Robinson doesn't fit. They need 2 big DE's that are not sloths, and they will need an EDGE guy opposite of Taylor, and another EDGE guy on top of that for inevitable injury replacement. I love Poona, but he is more of a 1T where he can use his leverage and quickness to split that gap between the Center and Guard, at 0T his smallish size gets exposed. The pieces they need cost a lot of money, and/or require high draft picks.

@ LBer Bobby should be traded/cut, with the money going toward the trenches. He is a shell of his former self and sentimentality loses games. Brooks would be better if they can get the proper D-Line in front of him. Barton doesn't fit, too small.

If they were to commit fully to this front. They would need about 5 of 7 new starters. Keeping Brooks & Taylor. That is why I don't see it happening fully. Just like the 5-2 front went out the window last year a month into the season, this will too, unless major acquisitions are made in Free Agency to build it correctly. Oh, and a real DC like Fangio who can teach it and run it proper.

Rookie DC who wouldn't be a DC anywhere else in the NFL (just like the last guy.) is going to go running to Pete for answers when he gets destroyed by McVay and Shanny, and it will devolve back to the same old same.

If they cut Wagner, sign Chandler Jones, Clowney, Calais Campbell, and Akiem Hicks, than this scheme switch might just work. :shock:

I am hoping Poona may work as a 3-5 DE, fingers crossed.

 

[toffee]

Top 10, huh? LMAO.

Rookie DC is referring to Hurtt. He will go to Pete when adversity hits, and Pete will make suggestions that will lead back to how he's always done it. Passive, stay on top, simplify. Softzone, allow opposing QBs to get comfortable by telegraphing coverage presnap, can't get off the field. Can't force turnovers.

Pete should've retired after 2017 in hindsight. The game has passed him by.

In hint sight, 20172018 were interesting year. the year John scouted Mahomes, and Josh Allen, the year Pete hired Ken Norton Jr.