I went back to week 7 and watched the Cardinals, Lions, Cowboys and Jets games to see how the Giants play the 34 defense. It appears they play a 34 "under" front. I've included two snapshots of their alignments during the Cowboys game that really shows how they align their down-linemen when running the 34 scheme.
In this shot, moving from left to right along the down-linemen, they have a 3-technique, a 1-technique and the DE aligned in the C-gap. I guess we'll call the DE in the C-gap the 5-technique, although he isn't aligned quite right to be called that (inside shoulder of DE to outside shoulder of T).
In this shot, moving from left to right along the down-linemen, they have they have a 3-technique, a 1-technique and this time they align the in the 4i-technique (inside shoulder of DE to inside shoulder of tackle). They also move the SAM LB down to play the 6-technique (square against the TE).
The Giants have a few variations, but these formations are used the majority of the time when in the 34. They rotate their down-linemen through the different positions. Tomlinson tends to run the 1-tech and 3-tech. Everyone else (Willliams, Lawrence and Hill) play all of the techniques. Williams is a huge upgrade over Olsen Pierre, who was cut after the Dallas game.
I went back to watch three 2017 Arizona Cardinal games to see how Bettcher played the 34 there. He basically played it the same, but he played it using a 4i-0-4i more often. If you have time, go back and watch that defense. Wow, are they fast. Bettcher had much better personnel there, with Chandler Jones and Golden playing the OLB positions and Karlos Dansby and a young Buchanon in the middle.
In conclusion, the Giants appear to play an under 34 front: a 3-technique, a 1-technique, and a 5-technique/4i-technique. The OLB playing on the 3-tech side has weak-side contain (cut-back) responsibilities. So, in a way it is similar to a 43 defense, which is why having big OLB's (6'5 265) is so important. Then, when they play nickel, those "OLBs" turn into 43 defensive ends. I like the 34 because I think it makes it a little harder to throw the short and intermediate routes over the middle. It also allows the DC to have one thumper MLB and one fast, coverage type MLB on the field. The DC can blitz any combination of LBs, which can cause confusion with the offense's blocking assignments.
thats why i like the LW trade, he is pretty versatile and is already our best DL player. oncwe get a strong edge(force player) and another ILB we should have a solid front 7 an d that wins games....
Plus two oversized or super strong lbs at the line any gap or end,
Plus two fast actual pass defending lbs (regardless if where they line up)
Can play like a multiple 5-0-6.
We haven't had the players .
There is no reason to settle for neither giant '4/3 de type olbs' nor quick fast pass defending lbs.
Have one quality or the other. Not neither.
There is no reason to settle for neither giant '4/3 de type olbs' nor quick fast pass defending lbs.
Have one quality or the other. Not neither.
Due to- you still have 7 to make up for Blitzer who isn't in p.d.
--------------
I like the 34 because I think it makes it a little harder to throw the short and intermediate routes over the middle. It also allows the DC to have one thumper MLB and one fast, coverage type MLB on the field. The DC can blitz any combination of LBs, which can cause confusion with the offense's blocking assignments.
-------------------
I prefer a 4-3 unless you have a super-super pass-rushing OLB or a super-super all-around dominant defensive lineman.
While the OP mentions short and intermediate routes- imo you'll be able to run these routes because the 3-4 is susceptible to getting the running game shoved down their throats. Once you get the running game going -- it's all over. Too much is relied upon a 3-4 for quickness at the expense of power. A 4-3 imo is more preferred. Not saying you can't have that with a 3-4 -- I just think 4-3 overall is better.
The OP mentions a "thumper MLB." Okay-- who is it? And if not available in FA then if you draft him it will take time for him to be an impact won't it? Considering you aren't getting him in rd 1 and maybe not even rd 2. And ofc GMEN don't have a rd 3. SO where is this "thumper" coming from?
Additionally, "the thumper" is outweighed and usually "over-powered" by the OL coming at him. Not saying 3-4 can't work but I like the 4-3 better.
This is the first image, with the strong-side DE in what I think is 5-technique, C-gap.
So, where is that in this group? The talent isn't there and it was only there in 2016. In fact, Giants haven't had freT defenses for a while. 2008 was amazing. 2010 was very good. 2012 was ok. The rest? Freaking bad.
Clearly the Giants don't have the personnel to run this scheme effectively since they have no one on the edge that can beat anyone one-on-one, but have figured out how to stop the run with the guys they have.
If you fire JB and PS - you're starting over (again) and the next guy might want to bring back the 4-3 or a wide 9 or whatever - then you need a whole new personnel grouping to fit that guy's scheme.
Clearly the Giants don't have the personnel to run this scheme effectively since they have no one on the edge that can beat anyone one-on-one, but have figured out how to stop the run with the guys they have.
If you fire JB and PS - you're starting over (again) and the next guy might want to bring back the 4-3 or a wide 9 or whatever - then you need a whole new personnel grouping to fit that guy's scheme.
Exactly, blowing it up, the new coaches need three years to "bring in their players", etc, etc, and the cycle repeats itself.
The issues that I am seeing on the defensive side of the ball are more personnel than anything else. They simply don't have the players. The personnel issues become glaring when in the nickel. I think what they have is good enough to effectively run the 34 now that they have Williams. Although they all rotate through the different down-lineman positions/techniques, the down-linemen play certain positions more than others. For example, during the Dallas game, LW played the 5/4i the majority of the time when they ran the 34. That is exactly what he is suited for and that is what Bettcher needed to run the 34; a true 5-technique.
Bettcher and this defense need at least one more offseason to try to fill the holes they have in personnel. Unfortunately, I don't think they can fill all of the holes they have on defense in one offseason; the offense needs help too.
In both scenarios, the coaches are using what they have to build a defense. I still really like what Bettcher is doing with the 34. When Carl Banks said Bettcher doesn't have a scheme, I'm not sure what Carl is talking about.
Link - ( New Window )