For years and years, many posters pleaded for the return to the 3-4 defense. But I'm surprised I haven't seen more celebration on the site for its return.
The last time the Giants ran a 3-4 defense (1993), Dan Reeves was head coach. It's literally been a quarter of a century.
Psyched? Indifferent? Curious?
While we will certainly still see 4 man fronts it will be a nice change to have a creative DC that confuses offenses. It is easier to find 3-4 OLB's than it is to find 4-3 DE's. It is difficult to find NT for the 3-4 but the Giants already have arguably the best one in football and Tomlinson could play there if needed.
When he was drafted I thought that Goodson would be a better fit as a 3-4 ILB due to his style of play. This team needs to add a talented ER next year but they could do fine with Vernon, Martin, Carter, and Moss.
that I despaired of ever having four.
Maybe it is easier to find 3-4 style LBs. At least they won't have to cover Jason Witten anymore, so that's a plus regardless of what they do.
that If Bettcher gets a HC job in a year the Giants will likely hire a DC that runs a 4-3.
had more to do with seeing a mediocre defense on the field and repeatedly failing at drafting LB's for most of the past 10 years or so. This team could not draft 4-3 linebackers worth a shit, and they always tried turning 3-4 LB's into 4-3 DE's and LB's. Switching to a 3-4 would have made finding them much easier.
The defense has been middle of the pack or worse for most of the past decade, and sometimes people just want to see change.
I just want to see a good defense on the field. I don't really care whether its a 4-3 or a 3-4.
to intelligently comment on the pros/cons of such a change
As the Giants have shown, the annual turnover is large enough that it is easy to reload in 1 offseason.
It was probably more about the fact that there will never be another LT and that they could get guys like Strahan as dominant DEs.
If the Giants had not switched, JPP would still be here and the draft would have been about DBs and replacement LBs.
The Giants have had success with both....the key is personal.
The 4-3 needs great DEs....not sure we have any right now.
The 3-4 needs great NT....which Snacks is one of the best!
So I am all for it
In comment 13965401
| I think it gives you the opportunity to find values in players through free agency and the draft that aren't otherwise there when running a traditional 4-3. Kareem Martin and Lorenzo Carter could pay huge dividends in this defense due to scheme and neither cost us a ton in resources.
Also, this roster was closer to having the personnel to make this move than most realized. It takes advantage of our best player in Snacks and it also puts our biggest money player in a position to succeed in Vernon. I did not like that we had so much money tied up on our DL yet could not get pressure with 4. Even prior to trading JPP, I felt the switch gave us a little more versatility to get another dynamic pass rusher in the mix that could attack the quarterback on a near every down basis.
I'm souped about Vernon too, I expect a great year from him. He was kind of miscast as a 4-3 DE, a more natural fit as a hybrid 3-4 leo-joker-predator.
I think the focus on shoring up OL has ignore the defense - which has ZERO depth
I also think JPP was team leader and still had some in his tank (despite hand injury he is only 29 years old!! )
I can easily see our Defense being team weakness
However, it requires that you have a very strong and athletic LB core, something JR didn't put a lot of focus on. I'm ok with the two middle guys. We will see if OV can play one OLB. Beyond that, not sure with current personnel where the pass rush will be coming from.
Talented people on the field in any way to pressure the qb is ok in my book
I'm very interested. I like variety and will enjoy watching a new defensive strategy. I'm optimistic, but on a personal level Bettcher is still wait and see.
For some Giants defense again
Harder to find top 4-3 DE's and the college game is running more 3-4 and has more undersized 4-3 DE's to possibly convert to OLB. Also, defending the RPO is much easier with 3-4 OLB.
I am pumped!
was somewhat predicated on having LT on that defense -- taking nothing away from those other great LBs -- but one of the reasons it was so effective and is remembered so fondly is that LT made it otherworldly. We won't have that this time around.
My feeling was that your best pass rushers should -- to a degree -- determine which kind of formation you use. Guys like Strahan, Osi, Tuck, and JPP may not have fit a 3-4.
We all kind of saw how you . . . negate, shall we say, a 4-3 pass rusher by making Kiwanuka into a 4-3 LB. He was an OK LB, but drafted as a pure, 4-3 pass rusher. It would have been interesting to see him play his whole career in that role, but the DL was loaded, the LBs weren't and they were trying to get him on the field.
As we all know by now, Betcher's D is a multi-look hybrid -- NOT a traditional 3-4. But one PLUS to running it is that the Giants will need better LBs than they've had in decades.
At this point, Vernon is the only proven pass rusher on the team. Betcher seems smart enough to exploit that. He AND JPP were not enough to get to QBs last year. In the 4-3 SB years, the Giants always had THREE pass rushers. Just two never gets it done, and now they're down to just Vernon and a bunch of unproven guys (unless Ogletree provides some). Hopefully some of them will emerge as legit pass rushers, because they're gonna need to generate a rush from somewhere. Will it come from the Edge LBs? Will one of the new DLs turn into a Leonard Marshall? Who knows?
I honestly don't care what formation they use as long as they stop the run and rush the passer.
than the atrocity it's been over the last number of seasons in the 4-3, then it's a raging success. I just want to keep adding pieces which will result in some damn season to season consistency. Going from "good" to "top 10" to "historically bad" is a roller coaster I'm ready to get off from.
Belichick played only 2 DL most of the game. It was a 2-4-5. I don't know if we currently have enough talent at DB for that right now (and maybe too much at DL to take them off the field), but maybe we'll eventually see a little of that?
that the 4-3. The just aren't that many DEs that can play the run and really rush the passer. 4-3 is really dependent on having 3 of those guys. I think the 3-4 allows you to take advantage of different player's skill sets that might not work in a 4-3.
Looking forward to it.
Is a better defense against the run for certain. It allows for you to put (3) 300 lb monsters on the line instead of (2), it also allows for more stunting, and more blitzing, unless you are a read and react guy like Rod Rust, it allows for a very aggressive defense.
at this point I just want a good defense.
Based on the success the Badgers had in making that shift under Aranda and sustaining it with 2 subsequent DC's.
I only care about the DC putting our players in the spots that get us the best results. I hate when coaches come in and say we are running X, even though the world knows our players are better suited for Y.
But the biggest thing is that the last 20 years of tape they have on our old Defense is worthless now.
We were one of the worst Pass D in the league last year.
Anything that will improve this critical area will be welcome.
Good to see quicker more mobile lbs in there to address the short and intermediate zones.
Hard to see any improvement in the back of the secondary and with regard to secondary depth...
Building on what dorgan said, it may often look like a 50.
So you can manufacture wide open pass run lanes.
It's not just the front 3 as you worry it may be. It's an insane blend.
but not expecting instant results.
Loved the versatility of the 3-4 - and raised on 70's-90's Giant football have very fond memories of the 3-4's the Giants ran with LT.
Giants don't have an LT though - I DO believe having 4 down linemen every play is a liability in todays pass happy league - 3-4 offers more creativity and flexibility - if healthy, Giants should be VERY effective in this alignment.
Hell, Snacks is 2 men on his own anyway.
In comment 13965411
| No matter how your front seven is constructed.
Couldnt have said it better.
Bettcher from what I have read runs more of a one gap 3-4 defense which is not the 3-4 defense that most Giants fans know from the 80's and early 90's. Also from what I have read the Giants will play in a nickel defense 605-70% of the time..
So its not important to me whether they run a 4-3 or a 3-4. Good defense is good defense.
However moving JPP opened the door wide for them to move to a 3-4 defense. Vernon can and has played off the line in Miami so its not something he is unfamiliar with.
Bottom Line.. i dont care what they call it.. as long as its good.
The alignments as 4-man front, or 5-Man front. That may be more indicative of how the defense will line up.
Unfortunately we don't have a "56", where teams have to know where that specific player is at all times. That's what really made our old 3-4 defense click. Multiple interviews have been given about how offenses had to "Taylor" their game plans around where. "56" was positioned on the field. We don't have a player like that.
You have 4 gaps plus 2 ends.
You have 5 defenders on the line or soon to be on the line. -Each- can at least occasionally smash face with a offensive linesman and defend that space. A few of your 5 could do that all game long, and defend both sides, i.e. two gaps... or all game long and just the one. But each of the five can do it to some degree.
Then. Each of your 5 can also jump gaps. Some more instantly than others, but, given a wide open gap all can do it, even big Harrison, and some can also create space for themselves as Harrison, Hill and Tomlinson should, others fly into it so quickly or use a blended technique maybe McIntosh. But given an unnacounted for spot all can do it.
Then, while doing that, all five are also able, to varying degrees, to get sideways and grab runners heading for gaps or ends -other than- the one that they just went through. Playing run on the way to the passer. All five but in various ways. So that should account for all six spots.
So it's infinitely variable.
Set plays. Known to all 11 defenders, so if weak spots are created in the line, on any given set plays, then those are accounted for by some of the other 6 players, in a scripted manner.
Then, obviously. Your remaining two lbs ought to have some PD chops and chase chops.
Looking forward to seeing the new D in action.
is most exciting to me. Excited to change to the one gap 3-4 aggressive style Bettcher plays. Hoping this simplifies things for the defense and they can play fast. Also, excited because some posters have stated it is easier to find 3-4 guys in college then 4-3 defensive ends.
Not much competition for 3-4 linebackers and DEs. I've always thought that was one of the reasons Belichick's defenses were so successful. Not sure if that's still the case.
Someone said to not expect this to be the 80s version of 3-4. From what we have heard about Bettcher so far, I think this will be a hybrid of many things, not just straight 3-4. I am very excited to see what this defense looks like and how it performs.
Do the Giants have the talent to raise this defense to respectability in 2018?
That's all the matters.
But glad to see JPP gone. Really hard to root for a team when it's star defensive player is taking 50% of the plays off.
And last but not least... one mo' chance for Eli Apple. If he fucks up, put it on Jerry Reese's tombstone.
the way I look at it, they wont be in the base formation for much more then 50% of the snaps, so it doesn't matter to me what label we slap on this defense.
what I am most concerned/excited for in this scheme change is to see our guys being put in positions to succeed. we give snacks room in the middle to dominate as NT, give OV a little more flexibility to stand up, come off the edge and rush the passe. bring Landon down in the box and let him shoot gaps to make big plays.
the past few years it has felt like we have been forcing these guys to play into specific roles within the system rather play into their strengths, and it seems by labeling this a change to a 3-4 front may be a signal they are moving away from that.
from play the run first since 2004 to attack the QB. Excited for the change. Not expecting miracles or the 86 defense just some schemes from this century will be an upgrade.
In comment 13965431
| look like a 50 most of the time, but it will also look like a 4-3 some of the time.
I'll have to go watch a little Arizona film to refresh my memory on Bettcher's version of the 3-4 but from what I remember he dropped his ws OLB off the line often and slid his frontage over to resemble a 4 quite often.
Ah the Base 50, my old favorite defense. I expect fire heavy calls.
We've not had the kind of dominant DEs or the LBs needed to make the 4-3 work -- and against the pass it hasn't. New look, new personnel, different capabilities suggest that the 3-4 could be a better fit.
In comment 13965374
FatMan in Charlotte said:
| that point flies under the radar. People have been very quick to judge that Vernon and JPP took plays off, but there were games where they played nearly every defensive snap.
They had to have been gassed at certain points.
I might be in the minority, but I've been very happy with Vernon's play. I've not seen him be a liability and he's shown he'll play through injuries. I think too many get caught up in his salary.
I agree and he's also played the run very well on that edge.
I was never upset we shifted to the 4-3 because we no longer had the NT or LBs to run a great 3-4. Plus, that was the way the league was moving. Now, I don't care what scheme we run again; I just want to see a better and more consistent D.
for a long time. I like linebackers, and hated the way our 4-3 was designed to minimize their impact. So I'm psyched for the change.
The bad news: we don't have all the right pieces in place for it to work effectively yet. We need another OLB who can run the field, and until we see Lorenzo Carter in action it's hard to figure out who that will be.
The good news: lots of quality college programs use the 3-4, which means finding LBs and DLs accustomed to that system in the draft isn't that tough. I thought it was harder to find good 4-3 guys, actually.
I'm guessing we might have a really interesting and effective defense by 2020. But it'll take that long to get everything in place.
the great giants and bears defense in mid-80s to early 90s were 3-4, but philly's was a 4-3. it's the players and the coaching, not the high-level scheme.
In comment 13966065
| the great giants and bears defense in mid-80s to early 90s were 3-4, but philly's was a 4-3. it's the players and the coaching, not the high-level scheme.
xtian - The Bears ran a 46 D, which is a type of 4-3.
The base D does matter at the DE position. The gap responsibilities and edge responsibilities do change if there is a man lined up next to you. There's depth at nose tackle, but I'd expect growing pains at DE.
shift to more 3-4 PERSONNEL as opposed to the 4-3 types. As dep and others alluded to, the base really doesn't matter as much any more. But I was reading something months ago about Belichick preferring the 3-4 mostly because it's cheaper and easier to find the players to find the players to fit that scheme and still be very effective. Top tier DEs and DTs are amongst the highest paid players on a football team. But hybrids who can play DE AND OLB are generally easier to find because they can't play DE in a 4-3 and they are generally less expensive (excluding Justin Houston and Von Miller...and our OWN Oliver Vernon, lol).