4-3 vs 3-4 question

Their responsibilities can be the exact same thing on any given play, but I tend to think of a 3-4 OLB as an EDGE guy who will go all-out in rushing the QB MORE OFTEN than a 4-3 DE. The 4-3 DE will MORE OFTEN play the run-pass on a more balanced/equal basis.

But I could be wrong.

if the Giants were base 43, people wanted them to switch to 34 and vice versa.

Wink uses so many different alignments and loves his DBs so much, that he doesn't really use either enough to call it a base defense.

We have DL in, and then move up a 3rd/4th depending on the call (Thibs, Ojulari, etc). I think the days of a fixed D alignment are history

In comment 16212582 M.S. said:

Quote:

Their responsibilities can be the exact same thing on any given play, but I tend to think of a 3-4 OLB as an EDGE guy who will go all-out in rushing the QB MORE OFTEN than a 4-3 DE. The 4-3 DE will MORE OFTEN play the run-pass on a more balanced/equal basis. But I could be wrong.

I think in 4-3/3-4, the DE and OLB are interchangeable edge defenders. I.e., KT in a 3-4 is a stand up OLB defender, but in 4-3, he is a hand in ground rusher (like Strahan).

The biggest difference in 4-3 is that it require 3 good LBs (1 MB, and 2 ILBs). Where as a 3-4 or 2-4 only requires 2 ILBs. So harder to find good LBs for a 4-3 system.

But I could be wrong also.

In comment 16212585 logman said:

Quote:

if the Giants were base 43, people wanted them to switch to 34 and vice versa. Wink uses so many different alignments and loves his DBs so much, that he doesn't really use either enough to call it a base defense.

I had the same thought. When we traded for Simmons, we said this was a positionless defense. If we make that argument, isn't trying to discuss moving from a 3-4 to a 4-3 baseless?

Traditional 4-3 had 4 DL with hand in the dirt with 2 DEs, 2 DTs and 3LBs. Traditional 3-4 had 3 DL with hand in the dirt with 2DE, 1 NT and 4LBs.

I don't think the front 7 formations matter as much in the modern NFL b/c of the multiple secondary packages taking LBs off the filed, but modern 4-3 Defenses seem to favor bigger DEs (TJ Watt) and 3-4 Defenses seem to favor faster LBs.

The Giants D seems like it has enough guys to play "positionless" football, but in all honesty they might play faster if they had defined roles/responsibilities and less to worry about from down to down.

don't have the personnel to run a 4-3 defense.

And when we were running a 4-3 defense, you guys wanted to go back to the 3-4.

Main difference in 4-3, vs 3-4 is run gap responsibility. This applies to the linebackers as well as the d-line.
This is more of an even vs odd d-line alignment. Ultimately a 3-4 is a 5 man line.

In comment 16212603 Eric from BBI said:

Quote:

don't have the personnel to run a 4-3 defense. And when we were running a 4-3 defense, you guys wanted to go back to the 3-4.

You're probably right but maybe if Wink ever wanted to try it...

DE Leonard Williams
DT Dexter Lawrence
DT A'Shawn Robinson
DE Jihad Ward or Boogie Basham (neither ideal)

SAM Kayvon Thibodeaux
MIKE Bobby Okereke
WILL Azeez Ojulari or Isaiah Simmons

article is somewhat dated, but it may help.
Football 101: The Defensive Front Seven - ( New Window )

Those guys aren't really 4-3 defensive ends.

Again, Wink doesn't run traditional defenses regardless. Naming his defense 3-4 or 4-3 is a futile exercise. At different times, he has different numbers of DLs, LBs, and DBs on the field.

There is a need in some people to label and categorize. I suspect it's built into their DNA.

In comment 16212606 M.S. said:

Quote:

In comment 16212603 Eric from BBI said: Quote: don't have the personnel to run a 4-3 defense. And when we were running a 4-3 defense, you guys wanted to go back to the 3-4. You're probably right but maybe if Wink ever wanted to try it... DE Leonard Williams DT Dexter Lawrence DT A'Shawn Robinson DE Jihad Ward or Boogie Basham (neither ideal) SAM Kayvon Thibodeaux MIKE Bobby Okereke WILL Azeez Ojulari or Isaiah Simmons

KT as ILB reminds of when we had Mathias Kiwanuka out of position at LB when he was a natural DE, since we were loaded at DE. I remember those "can't have enough edge rusher" days... now we have none.

In comment 16212594 kdog77 said:

Quote:

Traditional 4-3 had 4 DL with hand in the dirt with 2 DEs, 2 DTs and 3LBs. Traditional 3-4 had 3 DL with hand in the dirt with 2DE, 1 NT and 4LBs. I don't think the front 7 formations matter as much in the modern NFL b/c of the multiple secondary packages taking LBs off the filed, but modern 4-3 Defenses seem to favor bigger DEs (TJ Watt) and 3-4 Defenses seem to favor faster LBs. The Giants D seems like it has enough guys to play "positionless" football, but in all honesty they might play faster if they had defined roles/responsibilities and less to worry about from down to down.

Sy thought the same as you a couple years ago after the Tampa Bay game with getting more rigid with a base.

Quote:

I have watched this defensive scheme over and over, multiple times from multiple angles ever since Patrick Graham was hired. While I know they are an “amoeba” front (one that often changes shape/alignment), I am having a hard time truly understanding what their plan is. Yes, I know the response is they “change it week to week and base it on matchups.” I think this is part of the big picture problem though. There is no identity, they are putting guys in spots they don’t belong, and it makes building depth very difficult. I am putting daily work into the 2022 Draft reports and stacks now and there just isn’t a flow to where NYG needs to infuse new talent. Whatever they’re doing or trying to do isn’t working and I don’t see long-term promise. I think they need to get more rigid with a 3-4 or 4-3 and build from there.

In comment 16212587 PatersonPlank said:

Quote:

We have DL in, and then move up a 3rd/4th depending on the call (Thibs, Ojulari, etc). I think the days of a fixed D alignment are history

We may run four down linemen, but do we ever actually run a 4-3?

A clip was recently posted by someone explaining how Wink's defense in fact keeps it very simple for his players while making it complicated for opposing offenses. It's not a complicated defense to pick up.

you guys are predictable.

I've run this site for almost three decades.

Every time any New York Giants defense struggles, you want to change it schematically. It's like clockwork.

To the point where BBIers were furious Spags was running a 4-3.

In comment 16212612 Eric from BBI said:

Quote:

Those guys aren't really 4-3 defensive ends. Again, Wink doesn't run traditional defenses regardless. Naming his defense 3-4 or 4-3 is a futile exercise. At different times, he has different numbers of DLs, LBs, and DBs on the field. There is a need in some people to label and categorize. I suspect it's built into their DNA.

Eric, question, as we cannot label this defense and we all call it a position less defense, isn’t that the cause of our struggles? Shouldn’t we commit to one or the other?

From an x and o perspective to say change it, my concern is the lack of an identity like the poster quoted SY above.

This isn't Patrick Graham or James Bettcher, both of whom did not have much of any DC background.

This is Wink, who ran top tier defenses for four years in Baltimore.

Again, if the defense wasn't struggling for the first two games, you wouldn't even be asking this question.

Last year, Wink somehow managed to put together a viable defense with castoffs. It was also a severely unit with its best players being sidelined except for Dexter Lawrence, who Wink has turned into a stud.

Wink will adjust, but you're using a rhetorical exercise to try to fix a larger problem.

when Wink uses more DLs, which he is bound to do against run-heavy teams, you'll guys will claim Wink changed his ways. That's now how this works.

who remembers fans saying Wink wasn't a good DC in losses last year and said he was an awesome DC in wins?

Strange.

when San Fran dominates the Giants OL on Thursday, we'll be back to Daboll and Kafka suck.

In comment 16212676 Eric from BBI said:

Quote:

when San Fran dominates the Giants OL on Thursday, we'll be back to Daboll and Kafka suck.

Well, that depends on who is calling the plays...

In comment 16212660 1st and 10 said:

Quote:

In comment 16212612 Eric from BBI said: Quote: Those guys aren't really 4-3 defensive ends. Again, Wink doesn't run traditional defenses regardless. Naming his defense 3-4 or 4-3 is a futile exercise. At different times, he has different numbers of DLs, LBs, and DBs on the field. There is a need in some people to label and categorize. I suspect it's built into their DNA. Eric, question, as we cannot label this defense and we all call it a position less defense, isn’t that the cause of our struggles? Shouldn’t we commit to one or the other?

The problem with this defense hasn't been that players don't know their assignments b/c it's a position less defense. It's been an execution problem.

Someone with more expertise can correct me, but to my eyes it looked like - at least for the first 3 quarters against the Cardinals - that the ILBs/OLBs aren't executing properly - as in, not setting the edge, not filling the right gap, missing tackles, being hesitant when they need to attack, etc.

Need an infusion of DL/Edge with the next draft class.

In comment 16212676 Eric from BBI said:

Quote:

when San Fran dominates the Giants OL on Thursday, we'll be back to Daboll and Kafka suck.

I realize that Wink is a great coordinator Eric, not saying he sucks atall. I am just trying to understand the 60 points in 6 quarters.

In comment 16212697 1st and 10 said:

Quote:

In comment 16212676 Eric from BBI said: Quote: when San Fran dominates the Giants OL on Thursday, we'll be back to Daboll and Kafka suck. I realize that Wink is a great coordinator Eric, not saying he sucks atall. I am just trying to understand the 60 points in 6 quarters.

The defense didn't throw a pick six or allow a punt being blocked for a touchdown.

Defense has not been good, but the offense and special teams have contributed to points against and bad field position.

In comment 16212606 M.S. said:

Quote:

In comment 16212603 Eric from BBI said: Quote: don't have the personnel to run a 4-3 defense. And when we were running a 4-3 defense, you guys wanted to go back to the 3-4. You're probably right but maybe if Wink ever wanted to try it... DE Leonard Williams DT Dexter Lawrence DT A'Shawn Robinson DE Jihad Ward or Boogie Basham (neither ideal) SAM Kayvon Thibodeaux MIKE Bobby Okereke WILL Azeez Ojulari or Isaiah Simmons

So you're suggesting a 4-3 under (referring to Eric's post on the Defensive Front Seven) with Kayvon as the SAM?

Was going to say, it's not a whole lot but 14 points were not related to the defense at all.

I agree with Eric's point above. While the Giants are nominally a 3-4 team, they actually run a 4-2-5 scheme the large majority of plays. That's because most other teams now run 3-WR sets as their base offense which means the D pretty much has to have 3 corners on the field on all plays.Clearly an issue the Giants have, especially against the run, is that they have to move Thibo and Az who are more OLB types up to the DE. My criticism is more in just the way they are lined up in those spots. For starters they are lining up pretty much in front of the OTs which means they have poor angles to the QB. I'd like to see them line up a step or a step and a half outside the OT giving them a) a running start and b) better angles to the QB. The other thing I would like to see is the Giants move Thibo around something like Dallas does. Right now the Giants pass rush looks very predictable with the 4 main guys lining up across from an OL, putting their hands in the OL's chest off the snap and only very late in the rush actually trying to disengage. They have to work to try and create some seams that their faster guys can try to exploit.

But with 4 DL you know 95%+ of the time those 4 DL will rush the QB. A 3-4 is more versatile and in theory harder for the offense to read, in that if you want to rush 4, either of your standup OLB can rush the QB (or dropping back is more natural from their stance).

In comment 16212676 Eric from BBI said:

Quote:

when San Fran dominates the Giants OL on Thursday, we'll be back to Daboll and Kafka suck.

Based on Rams, hard to predict SF performance on D. Rams led most offensive catagories (yds, 1st downs, 3rds, TOP, passing yds, fewest punts). (2) Stafford picks a large difference. SF had 1 sack by a LB. Underwhelming...

in a 3-4, your talent tends to be at NT and OLBs. Players are often multiple (positionless), your rush comes from the OLBs and your ILBs hunt down the ball.

In a 4-3, your talent is at DE, MIKE, and WILL, and is predicated on SPEED. Your DEs are the rush, your MIKE and WILL hunt down the ball as the edges contain and funnel inside to them.

KT and Ojulari are definitely not 4-3 fits at SAM or WILL, you'd be wasting them as square pegs in round holes. Okereke is the player would do fine in either front, but it would take time to reverse the build, just like it has to get to this point where their personnel is better suited to 3-4 base. Read Joey's thread.

In comment 16212835 JonC said:

Quote:

in a 3-4, your talent tends to be at NT and OLBs. Players are often multiple (positionless), your rush comes from the OLBs and your ILBs hunt down the ball. In a 4-3, your talent is at DE, MIKE, and WILL, and is predicated on SPEED. Your DEs are the rush, your MIKE and WILL hunt down the ball as the edges contain and funnel inside to them. KT and Ojulari are definitely not 4-3 fits at SAM or WILL, you'd be wasting them as square pegs in round holes. Okereke is the player would do fine in either front, but it would take time to reverse the build, just like it has to get to this point where their personnel is better suited to 3-4 base. Read Joey's thread.

Well Jon that's the thing in that the multiple approach doesn't appear to be working and hasn't for a number of years; we're nominally a 3-4 base but switch to a 2-4 when we don't have the personnel to run it well.

You only get so many resources available to you each offseason, and NYG is in the midst of turning over just about every spot on defense, plus depth. Also, there will be injuries and misses via draft and UFA that happen along the way.

Wink's calling a very weird game so far, he's trying to protect the youth, namely the secondary. But, the front seven are also off to a slow start, and the lack of run defense and pass rush makes it all much harder.

of penciling in players as starters, plus players, and superstars before they set foot on an NFL practice field.

Starting with high expectations only fuels the lack of perspective when a unit gets off to a slow start.

They're working through it, hopefully the last 20 minutes in AZ are an indicator they're waking up and beginning to play on instinct.

Is more like what Wink runs
I am concerned that we don't have the personnel for it.
It involves blitzing and getting home plus having physical corners and LBs who can cover the middle of the field
The Cardinals gauged us in the middle for 2 quarters and Athens first drive if the 3rd.
Not sure exactly what changed but it was just in the knick of time

can we (and by we I mean the Giants, not BBI) switch to a double Sumo d-line defense with Sexy Dexy and others switching in and out as necessary to give the team different looks?

In comment 16212751 Snorkels said:

Quote:

I agree with Eric's point above. While the Giants are nominally a 3-4 team, they actually run a 4-2-5 scheme the large majority of plays. That's because most other teams now run 3-WR sets as their base offense which means the D pretty much has to have 3 corners on the field on all plays.Clearly an issue the Giants have, especially against the run, is that they have to move Thibo and Az who are more OLB types up to the DE. My criticism is more in just the way they are lined up in those spots. For starters they are lining up pretty much in front of the OTs which means they have poor angles to the QB. I'd like to see them line up a step or a step and a half outside the OT giving them a) a running start and b) better angles to the QB. The other thing I would like to see is the Giants move Thibo around something like Dallas does. Right now the Giants pass rush looks very predictable with the 4 main guys lining up across from an OL, putting their hands in the OL's chest off the snap and only very late in the rush actually trying to disengage. They have to work to try and create some seams that their faster guys can try to exploit.

So in that case everyone's possibly two-gapping by engaging the lineman head-on and trying to read the flow?