FanNation - The Republic of Sport

Ed Reed Fan:4 TD'S IN ONE GAME said 11/24, 11:34 PM
Okay I gotta go w/ the 3-4 defense as my argument. This defense is used by and has been used by some of the best defenses around for quite a few years now, i.e. Baltimore (Rex Ryan, etc.), Pittsburgh (Dick Lebeau), San Diego, etc. I like it because you don't have to have as many specialty players as you do in a cover-2.

1. It's easier to disguise where a blitz is coming from. example: you can move lb's up to either or both ends of the DL to blitz one or both or you can send one, both, and/or a blitzing LB up the middle and/or a blitzing safety, like Pitts. does w/ Troy Polamalu.

2. It allows you to have "tweeners" on your defense. Guys who can play LB and DE like the Ravens Terrell Suggs or the Pats Adalius Thomas, etc. The offense never knows when they see these guys lineup if they're going to rush the QB, drop back in coverage, or peel off to cover RB's in the flats on passing downs, etc.

3. You don't have to have larger CB's who specialize in tackling & not so much as speed & coverage like you have to have in a cover 2. You can let your CB's cover and not be eaten up underneath on short passes like what frequently happens to cover 2 defenses when off. run things right.

Ed Reed Fan:4 TD'S IN ONE GAME said 11/25, 12:12 AM
In a 4-3 it's easier 4 a QB 2 c where the blitz is coming from & slide his line protection. In a 3-4 you can get just as much pressure on the QB and not have the QB know where the pressure will be coming from until after the ball is already snapped (too late).

You were talking about pass coverage in a 4-3 being better while at the same time blitzing 1 or 2 lb's. If you do that in a 4-3 that's alot of guys committed to getting to the QB but you have to keep in mind the RB to chip in the backfield & that leaves alot of ground uncovered. Like I said in a 4-3 that RB can see where the pressure will be coming from better than in a 3-4 which would keep him guessing. In a 3-4 your LB's can peel off accordingly to cover their zones or men, which leaves 1 or 2 to blitz if need be or send a safety in to blitz & let them drop back in coverage.

In your 1st argument you talk about pitch-outs being easier to cover w/ a 4-3. I think a 3-4 is just as good if not better because you still have a player occupy the tackle to that side and 2 lb's on each side where 1 can occupy the pulling guard. The leaves a lb, safety & cb to take on a blocking back (if applicable) & ball carrier. Not 2 shabby

Ed Reed Fan:4 TD'S IN ONE GAME said 11/27, 11:03 AM
In the 4-3 though the MLB has more ground to cover 2 make plays where in a 3-4 theres 2 MLBs 2 cover 4 each other. A 3-4 is spread out better 2 run zone pass coverage. Dallas is another team that runs a 3-4 well. The Packers are good in 4-3, but thats the scheme their d-coord likes & they acquire guys that fit it; same with all the examples of that I gave that run a great 3-4 (there are more of those than ones that run a good 4-3). You said the 4-3 can clog the middle better but that's not necessarily true. Look at Pitts. & SD they run a 3-4 & clog the middle w/ their large NTs Hampton & Williams. Just because there's another body doesn't mean they can clog the middle better; it's all in how you use your personnel & clogging the middle isn't needed during the course of a game as often as covering off tackle runs, which a 3-4 works better for. U can get plenty of sacks in a 4-3 but look how many sacks all the 3-4 teams i mentioned consistently get because they can hide their blitzes & disguise them better than in a 4-3. A 3-4 also lets you rotate LB's easier (see NE, another 3-4 team) & forces you to not only have run stuffing lb's but ones that can cover on passing downs too.