Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
InboxChat RoomChat Room (0 fans in chatroom)

Re: 4-3 or 3-4 vs the read option

Posted: 1/14/2013 3:22 PM

Re: 4-3 or 3-4 vs the read option 


IMHO you're better off in a 43 if you're going to play against the read option.  Since the purpose of any option defense play is to limit the options of the QB and force him to make a mistake (or attack your strength) you are probably better able to focuse on playing a fundamentally good defense than a defense that sacrifices fundamentals for disguises.

The 34 relies more on the disquised zone blitz and catching the QB by surprise.  But against an option a blitz leaves an opening.  If you're playing base 34 v. 43 you are more likely to give up 3-4 yards rather than 2-3 yards just because of reaction times from your backers.


In general you just need to play an honest defensive set.  You do that with a solid front 7 that can play disciplined.  And a bend/don't break defese like Belichick/Romeo  that gives up small chunks of yards in the middle of the field but keeps everything in front of them and tightens up as they near the redzone. 

IMHO NFL defenses in the past 3-4 years have become more undisciplined at the line in response to pass-first offenses.  You get guys who gamble against the pocket pass and don't look to defend the run or stay home in their position in case of an option.  Positionally they've build around more ends with speed.

The success of the read option is likely going to see a response in defenses where they work more at fundamentals.  

Frankly this is a good time to ignore the trend on offense and go more pass oriented - not less.  And against a read option offense you want ends like Courtney Brown rather than Jabaal Sheard. 

Reply | Quote

Posted: 1/14/2013 11:01 PM

Re: 4-3 or 3-4 vs the read option 



0tter wrote:

IMHO you're better off in a 43 if you're going to play against the read option.  Since the purpose of any option defense play is to limit the options of the QB and force him to make a mistake (or attack your strength) you are probably better able to focuse on playing a fundamentally good defense than a defense that sacrifices fundamentals for disguises.

4-3 is better vs. mobile QBs. Exhibit A: 1991-1995 Browns 4-3  vs. Warren Moon and John Elway. They englobed him, whereas the 30 front was more confusing, but if the QB got by--that's a first down. Browns used the 40 vs. Cunningham, but went to a 3-4 in 1993 against the 49ers' Steve Young b/c it worked for the Giants. Even though they should have stuck with the 40.

The 34 relies more on the disquised zone blitz and catching the QB by surprise.  But against an option a blitz leaves an opening.  If you're playing base 34 v. 43 you are more likely to give up 3-4 yards rather than 2-3 yards just because of reaction times from your backers.

Same deal with the Flex 4-3 in '75-85 w/Landry, but in a 40 front. The LBs and DL were allowing extra space to read the D, but lost reaction time as a result.


In general you just need to play an honest defensive set.  You do that with a solid front 7 that can play disciplined.  And a bend/don't break defese like Belichick/Romeo  that gives up small chunks of yards in the middle of the field but keeps everything in front of them and tightens up as they near the redzone. 

That was the undoing of the Montana 49ers. BB/RAC used a nose-to-toes 30 front with cover-2 shell. Very basic, but basically, held them to FGs as the natural confines of an end zone gave a D an advantage. The O had to play in a compressed space, and with the talent the G-men had man to man, they could play an invincible D to a draw.



IMHO NFL defenses in the past 3-4 years have become more undisciplined at the line in response to pass-first offenses.  You get guys who gamble against the pocket pass and don't look to defend the run or stay home in their position in case of an option.  Positionally they've build around more ends with speed.

I see teams going to more big-nickel w/bigger DBs. Disadvantage: Read-Option teams will option them with bigger backs that can run and catch out of the backfield like Gore and Foster. You see more base nickel, but instead of using the base 4-DL you use some OLBs as DEs instead of real DEs in the "fast" nickels nowadays.

The success of the read option is likely going to see a response in defenses where they work more at fundamentals.  

Frankly this is a good time to ignore the trend on offense and go more pass oriented - not less.  And against a read option offense you want ends like Courtney Brown rather than Jabaal Sheard. 

Why the Quiet Storm? Sheard is a beast. Interesting take.

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/14/2013 11:24 PM

Re: 4-3 or 3-4 vs the read option 



kosartoslaughter wrote:
0tter wrote:

IMHO you're better off in a 43 if you're going to play against the read option.  Since the purpose of any option defense play is to limit the options of the QB and force him to make a mistake (or attack your strength) you are probably better able to focuse on playing a fundamentally good defense than a defense that sacrifices fundamentals for disguises.

4-3 is better vs. mobile QBs. Exhibit A: 1991-1995 Browns 4-3  vs. Warren Moon and John Elway. They englobed him, whereas the 30 front was more confusing, but if the QB got by--that's a first down. Browns used the 40 vs. Cunningham, but went to a 3-4 in 1993 against the 49ers' Steve Young b/c it worked for the Giants. Even though they should have stuck with the 40.

The 34 relies more on the disquised zone blitz and catching the QB by surprise.  But against an option a blitz leaves an opening.  If you're playing base 34 v. 43 you are more likely to give up 3-4 yards rather than 2-3 yards just because of reaction times from your backers.

Same deal with the Flex 4-3 in '75-85 w/Landry, but in a 40 front. The LBs and DL were allowing extra space to read the D, but lost reaction time as a result.


In general you just need to play an honest defensive set.  You do that with a solid front 7 that can play disciplined.  And a bend/don't break defese like Belichick/Romeo  that gives up small chunks of yards in the middle of the field but keeps everything in front of them and tightens up as they near the redzone. 

That was the undoing of the Montana 49ers. BB/RAC used a nose-to-toes 30 front with cover-2 shell. Very basic, but basically, held them to FGs as the natural confines of an end zone gave a D an advantage. The O had to play in a compressed space, and with the talent the G-men had man to man, they could play an invincible D to a draw.



IMHO NFL defenses in the past 3-4 years have become more undisciplined at the line in response to pass-first offenses.  You get guys who gamble against the pocket pass and don't look to defend the run or stay home in their position in case of an option.  Positionally they've build around more ends with speed.

I see teams going to more big-nickel w/bigger DBs. Disadvantage: Read-Option teams will option them with bigger backs that can run and catch out of the backfield like Gore and Foster. You see more base nickel, but instead of using the base 4-DL you use some OLBs as DEs instead of real DEs in the "fast" nickels nowadays.

The success of the read option is likely going to see a response in defenses where they work more at fundamentals.  

Frankly this is a good time to ignore the trend on offense and go more pass oriented - not less.  And against a read option offense you want ends like Courtney Brown rather than Jabaal Sheard. 

Why the Quiet Storm? Sheard is a beast. Interesting take.

SD:

Courtney Brown was one of the top fifty busts of all time ,

He's a sheet defensive end in any system , not for talent because of attitude .

Soft stinking pussy , just the type of goody two shoes mommas boy Browns fans think was so important .

Gimme the bad boy Sheard , and 10 more like him .

The Deacon Big Daddy Lipscomb  Ernie ladd Jack Youngblood , they'd of ripped off his head and sheet down his neck for staining their position with his pitiful weak ass play.

You want an Elephant along the lines of Woodley or Harrison , with the ability to get to the passer like Derrick Thomas or that kid in Denver now if you go 34 .

Leave the Courtney's home to do the ironing, but don't you ever bring no slob like tha back for my team.

We passed on the tone setter in Arrington , to get a thumbsucking baby sitter in Miss Courtney , hated the choice then , and it still  sends me into a rage recalling it now..

That sheet don't work on defense .

The Rats are great because if they didn't have football half them guys would be locked up .

You have to get guys with the mentality to bust you up and then laugh  at ya when your world comes tumbling in.

SoulDawg
WAR : OUR TIME HAS COME
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/14/2013 11:36 PM

Re: 4-3 or 3-4 vs the read option 



0tter wrote:

IMHO you're better off in a 43 if you're going to play against the read option.  Since the purpose of any option defense play is to limit the options of the QB and force him to make a mistake (or attack your strength) you are probably better able to focuse on playing a fundamentally good defense than a defense that sacrifices fundamentals for disguises.

The 34 relies more on the disquised zone blitz and catching the QB by surprise.  But against an option a blitz leaves an opening.  If you're playing base 34 v. 43 you are more likely to give up 3-4 yards rather than 2-3 yards just because of reaction times from your backers.


In general you just need to play an honest defensive set.  You do that with a solid front 7 that can play disciplined.  And a bend/don't break defese like Belichick/Romeo  that gives up small chunks of yards in the middle of the field but keeps everything in front of them and tightens up as they near the redzone. 

IMHO NFL defenses in the past 3-4 years have become more undisciplined at the line in response to pass-first offenses.  You get guys who gamble against the pocket pass and don't look to defend the run or stay home in their position in case of an option.  Positionally they've build around more ends with speed.

The success of the read option is likely going to see a response in defenses where they work more at fundamentals.  

Frankly this is a good time to ignore the trend on offense and go more pass oriented - not less.  And against a read option offense you want ends like Courtney Brown rather than Jabaal Sheard. 

SD:

You might want to spend a weekend on NFL films and look at Defensive End play during the period you was still slobberin on yourself and playing with toys too young to understand what real defensive ends look like .

Before you ever want to use that name as some example of something.

SoulDawg
WAR : OUR TIME HAS COME
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/15/2013 10:31 PM

Re: 4-3 or 3-4 vs the read option 



0tter wrote:

IMHO you're better off in a 43 if you're going to play against the read option.  Since the purpose of any option defense play is to limit the options of the QB and force him to make a mistake (or attack your strength) you are probably better able to focuse on playing a fundamentally good defense than a defense that sacrifices fundamentals for disguises.

The 34 relies more on the disquised zone blitz and catching the QB by surprise.  But against an option a blitz leaves an opening.  If you're playing base 34 v. 43 you are more likely to give up 3-4 yards rather than 2-3 yards just because of reaction times from your backers.


In general you just need to play an honest defensive set.  You do that with a solid front 7 that can play disciplined.  And a bend/don't break defese like Belichick/Romeo  that gives up small chunks of yards in the middle of the field but keeps everything in front of them and tightens up as they near the redzone. 

IMHO NFL defenses in the past 3-4 years have become more undisciplined at the line in response to pass-first offenses.  You get guys who gamble against the pocket pass and don't look to defend the run or stay home in their position in case of an option.  Positionally they've build around more ends with speed.

The success of the read option is likely going to see a response in defenses where they work more at fundamentals.  

Frankly this is a good time to ignore the trend on offense and go more pass oriented - not less.  And against a read option offense you want ends like Courtney Brown rather than Jabaal Sheard. 

Thanks for the detailed response. I thought 4-3 at first too, but then I was thinking that a fair amount of read option works off misdirection. If the offense isn't sure if the 4th (or 5th) rushers are coming from one side or the other, they could roll right into a tackle for loss. Likewise, you can't cause hesitation in a LBer who's shooting into the backfield anyway.

Just thinking.....
>>> Decleater <<<
Reply | Quote