Exploring the 3-4 defense - why it can work for us

[Hawg73]

When I heard that the Pats were planning on moving to a 3-4 base defense this year I will admit to being a little confused, I had always thought scheme wise it was past it's time and offenses had found ways to exploit it and force the league back to a base 4-3 scheme with the exception of Pittsburgh, who has used the 3-4 for more than 20 years and a few others who will use it on an situational basis. I found myself questioning why a bonafide defensive genius would make a move like this and adopt a "dinosaur" D when he could have just corrected the problem with better personnel - or so I thought. I have heard Belichick himself say that often in a system like ours the only difference is: "which guy puts his hand on the ground" and it sounded like he was discounting its significance and I wondered if he was just setting up a smokescreen to confuse our competitors. In the aftermath of the draft the players we picked and his comments since then indicate that the Pats are serious about it.

I don't pretend to be a football coach and often found the difference between a 3-4 and a 4-3 to be fairly minimal between all the blitzing packages that teams employ in the NFL., especially the modern version. I remember when Chuck Fairbanks brought the 3-4 to the Pats from Oklahoma in the early 70's he made comments to the effect that he did so because we had more good LBs than DLs, but there are a lot more reasons than that to want to adopt this D as your base even if there are cons to go with the pros.

Back in those days having the dominating front four was a huge deal and I can name every member of the Ram's fearsome foursome and the Viking's purple people eaters from that era some thirty-odd years later. The guys that manned those fronts became stars, sacks became a legitimate statistic and it was exciting watching these supremely talented guys totally destroy offenses. When I learned that Fairbanks was moving away from my desire to build our own bigtime front four I was not a happy camper but our D improved dramatically - at least in part because of scheme, but also because we had the kind of personnel to make it work the way it was designed. One key here was that it was not commonly employed by anybody at that time (except Bum Phillip's Oilers and I forget who did it first) and it screwed up offenses who couldn't really practice against it since their scout teams didn't know how to run or simulate it, in the same way that the wishbone offense has worked at the college level. BC for instance, has had a tough time in recent years with lower ranked teams that used the wishbone because they lack familiarity with it.

Of course, over time many teams adapted it and it became commonplace. The NFL - like nature, abhors a vaccum and O's adapted to facing it and the cycle was repeated once again as teams got tired of seeing their backfield shredded by passing attacks and shifted back to the 4-3.

Now once again the 3-4's presence is growing in the league with the Steelers, Falcons, Texans, Patriots and Ravens now using or planning to use that alignment. I began to ask myself why this is so and tried to research the 3-4 to figure out why we are going that way. We all know that the Pats run D stunk last year and this has to be the reason - or is it?

There are some basic tenets of the 3-4 defense- among them :

- It is currently uncommon and provides opposing offenses with problems with experience versus it - especially in causing confusion amongst the younger players trying to block against it and its ability to overload to one side of the field or the other.

- The opposing QB can no longer key on a single MLB to determine where the ball is going.

- Requires a capable nose tackle to alleviate it's vulnerability to the run up the middle.

- Linebackers typically make less than defensive lineman so it can help minimize salary cap problems - it is also somewhat easier to find "tweeners" or guys who are good athletes, but lack the size to be effective run-stopping DEs but will function well at OLB in the 3-4. In other words the OLB's in this system will function more like a DE at times.

In looking at the Patriots current personnel, I think I can see why they can effectively employ this D.

Richard Seymour has had success in the past collapsing the middle and controlling blockers and I liked him there, but can see that he could be effective head up on an offensive tackle - using his strength to control his gaps and shed the same way he did inside. He doesn't seem to have the kind of pure speed that many 4-3 DEs have today, but in the 3-4 the pass rush responsiblities will fall more upon the OLBs. This move might hurt him statisically since 3-4 lineman function more as shields for the linebackers and Seymour can definitely do that. On the other side, Bobby Hamilton plays a similar style and I think can be effective with Ty Warren being the X factor at both end an Nose Tackle. Whether it be Warren, Dan Klecko or somebody else we need somebody to step up big and take over the middle or this change will just not work. NTs in the 3-4 are supposed to be immoveable objects that can fight off multiple blocks - holding their ground at all costs. It is a demanding postion and there are not that many guys who are good at it. Whether our NT will come from the current roster remains to be seen but there is little doubt that somebody has to step up.

The acquistion of Rosey Colvin is probably the main key to adopting this D and I will expect that he will function as a weak side pass rusher better than 50% of the time bringing pressure in a scheme designed to free him up and utilize his outstanding speed. This is not news to anybody who follows the Pats closely, but the 3-4 can make him even more effective than he was in Chicago. Which would be great news for us. We now have our own guy to function in a role not unlike Pittsburgh's Jason Gildon who pass rushes approximately two thirds of the time.

We already had a pretty flexible (but not deep) linebacker group and have sometimes used variations of the 3-4 particularly in 2001. One of the big sacks in the Super Bowl came when Mike Vrabel lined up at LDE and the OT got confused and Vrabel came in untouched. Expect to see a lot more of this in 2003. I'm not really sure what they will do with Roman Phifer in this D. I have heard speculation that they will move him inside but I can't figure out how it will all pan out so won't get into it here. One thing that is likely is we will be looking long and hard for another ILB before we go to camp based on all the problems we had when Bruschi went out of the lineup. It is looking like a potential starting front 7 comprised of guys who can all rush the passer, with McGinest an 8th guy who can still bring heat in a swing role.

To sum up, we have used confusion and shifting sets over the last few years as a basic strategy, in part to cover up personnel problems and partly to keep offenses off balance. If we can find an effective NT shifting to this look might allow us to make it even more confusing for them. Imagine the fun.

 

[Undertaker #59*]

Nice post Hawg...


I am no expert, but what I understood about the differences between the two defenses was mainly the way in which the DL played. The way I understood it, and I could certainly be wrong, is in a 4-3 the DL "shoots a Gap", pretty much only worrying about that gap, but in a 3-4 each of the 3 DL goes head up on his guy and tries to control 2 gaps on either side of the OL blocking him.

My understanding of BBs system is that it has ALWAYS been 2 gap, hence the only difference between the 4-3 and the 3-4 to him is whether the Elephant Back has his hand on the gound or not. With the patriots, that role is largely played by McGinist, who usually has his hand down, but with the Giants, it was LT who played that role, and he was always in a 2 point stance.

I think there might be a misconception about the NT in BB's defense. Yes, in a typical 3-4, you want the HUGE guy to occupy space and blockers....like what buffalo did for years with the 325lb Ted Washington. But again, going back to the Giants, before Eric Howard, the NT was Jim Burt....I do not know his stats, but from what I remember be was not that huge presence in the middle, but he certainly got the job done. I think that is what BB was looking for when he drafted Klecko....I do not know why BB has this varience in the NT position, but it seems to me that he does.

Again, I'm no expert, I have never coached, and I only played in high school....this is just what I thought I understood about these defenses being a casual fan. If Flagg is still here, I would love to hear his insight into this.

 

[pookie]

To sum up, we have used confusion and shifting sets over the last few years as a basic strategy, in part to cover up personnel problems and partly to keep offenses off balance. If we can find an effective NT shifting to this look might allow us to make it even more confusing for them. Imagine the fun.

Nice writing Hawg....once again.

I agree with your summary here very much. I look forward to seeing not only the return of the 3-4, but the fine mixture of packages that BB will toss about. I bet he takes even more liberties with his defensive packages this season. He'll be feeling more comfortable and confident with the infusion of new defensive talent on board. You know he's gotta be touching himself thinking about what kind of crazy defensive sets he's going to put out against opposing offenses this season. With the addition of Colvin, Warren, Rodney Harrison, and possibly doses of Klecko on top of the defensive talent we already have..... yikes. I wouldn't want to game plan against Belichik's defense. I also hope to see that whacked out "roaming defense" that features basically everybody standing and there seems to be no rhyme or reason as to where any defender is going until the ball is snapped.

 

[Undertaker #59*]

.

 

[Guest]

Hawg,

I agree with you that the Nose Tackle is the key and right now it remains to be seen if the Pats really have the personnel to play a 3-4. Last year I felt that we lacked size inside to begin with and clearly didn't have a true nose tackle. Size is an issue: Both the Bills and Jets ran a 3-4 up until last year and when they changed to a 4-3 they were looking to downsize their line. The Steelers starting NT is 6-1, 320 Casey Hampton. That is classic NT proportions, a short stocky 300 pounder. The Pats other DTs are all too tall; height usually equates to poor leverage and poor leverage was a knock on the Pats all of last year. Klecko has a real chance to make the position his own in my opinion, although he might be a little small.

Once you move beyond the NT the Pats have all the right personnel for the 3-4 although I still doubt that we will ever see Belichick be limited by running only one system. Chaos is the name of the game for BB and running both systems at once is the best way to keep teams off balance. That's why I referred to it as a non-system, the Pats can switch formations without changing their personnel on the field. The Pats have a bunch of players ideally suited to the pass-rush responsibilities of the 3-4 including new additions Warren and Banta-cain.

My concerns are two-fold -- we still lack a run stuffer and we need to avoid the trap that the Pats sprung on the Steelers last season. The Pats showed the league how to whip the Steeler D like it was a dessert topping and they need to be careful they don't find themselves at the same disadvantage. The Steelers were strong against the run so the Pats exposed their susceptibility to the pass. The Steelers took most of the season to figure out how to stop it because they lacked the personnel and their system was completely ingrained. Lee Flowers was a liability for them in the secondary, a need they addressed in the draft. The Pats traded their lone free safety and picked up an second SS, another move that points to an increased susceptibility to the pass in my opinion. Personally I love the 3-4 and am eager to see what the Pats can do with it.

 

[Hawg73]

Re: Re: Exploring the 3-4 defense - why it can work for us

Hawg,

I agree with you that the Nose Tackle is the key and right now it remains to be seen if the Pats really have the personnel to play a 3-4. Last year I felt that we lacked size inside to begin with and clearly didn't have a true nose tackle. Size is an issue: Both the Bills and Jets ran a 3-4 up until last year and when they changed to a 4-3 they were looking to downsize their line. The Steelers starting NT is 6-1, 320 Casey Hampton. That is classic NT proportions, a short stocky 300 pounder. The Pats other DTs are all too tall; height usually equates to poor leverage and poor leverage was a knock on the Pats all of last year. Klecko has a real chance to make the position his own in my opinion, although he might be a little small.

Once you move beyond the NT the Pats have all the right personnel for the 3-4 although I still doubt that we will ever see Belichick be limited by running only one system. Chaos is the name of the game for BB and running both systems at once is the best way to keep teams off balance. That's why I referred to it as a non-system, the Pats can switch formations without changing their personnel on the field. The Pats have a bunch of players ideally suited to the pass-rush responsibilities of the 3-4 including new additions Warren and Banta-cain.

My concerns are two-fold -- we still lack a run stuffer and we need to avoid the trap that the Pats sprung on the Steelers last season. The Pats showed the league how to whip the Steeler D like it was a dessert topping and they need to be careful they don't find themselves at the same disadvantage. The Steelers were strong against the run so the Pats exposed their susceptibility to the pass. The Steelers took most of the season to figure out how to stop it because they lacked the personnel and their system was completely ingrained. Lee Flowers was a liability for them in the secondary, a need they addressed in the draft. The Pats traded their lone free safety and picked up an second SS, another move that points to an increased susceptibility to the pass in my opinion. Personally I love the 3-4 and am eager to see what the Pats can do with it.

What if there is no free safety in the traditional sense? What if the deep ball responsiblities come at the snap? Is that even possible?

I wonder if that is what he has planned since clearly Milloy and Harrison will get the bulk of the time. If they don't do some tinkering with the definitions of the postion I expect Harrison to play FS. Belichick seems to think he can play there and according to Fred McCrary Harrison was hurting last year which limited his speed and helped give rise to the belief that he has lost mobility. That may be a misread on him - the guy is still fairly young and I'm banking on him showing more quicks than is commonly believed.

I can't believe that BB would go into the season with two "slow" safeties knowing that it probably wouldn't work. It is a testament to the enormus faith I have in the man, that I really don't question such a move. I guess I just trust him and that isn't really like me. Either one of those guys can cover circles around Lee Flowers.

On the subject of BB - I heard him on the radio the other day and he was more forthcoming than usual - a post draft reaction, I guess. You should have heard him on Klecko - while he was saying the cautious things his voice betrayed real excitement at what this kid can do and gave the impression that Bill doesn't believe that DK is just another rookie. Maybe we have our NT and have enough OLB rushers to make it successful.

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: Re: Exploring the 3-4 defense - why it can work for us

What if there is no free safety in the traditional sense? What if the deep ball responsibilities come at the snap? Is that even possible?

I wonder if that is what he has planned since clearly Milloy and Harrison will get the bulk of the time. If they don't do some tinkering with the definitions of the position I expect Harrison to play FS. Belichick seems to think he can play there and according to Fred McCrary Harrison was hurting last year which limited his speed and helped give rise to the belief that he has lost mobility. That may be a misread on him - the guy is still fairly young and I'm banking on him showing more quicks than is commonly believed.

I can't believe that BB would go into the season with two "slow" safeties knowing that it probably wouldn't work. It is a testament to the enormous faith I have in the man, that I really don't question such a move. I guess I just trust him and that isn't really like me. Either one of those guys can cover circles around Lee Flowers.

On the subject of BB - I heard him on the radio the other day and he was more forthcoming than usual - a post draft reaction, I guess. You should have heard him on Klecko - while he was saying the cautious things his voice betrayed real excitement at what this kid can do and gave the impression that Bill doesn't believe that DK is just another rookie. Maybe we have our NT and have enough OLB rushers to make it successful.

I'm pretty excited about Klecko too. I remember what a royal pain his dad was for the Pats when he played with the Jets. I also watched a few clips on Dan Klecko on PFW video news and he reminds me a lot of his dad. I think the Pats have a couple of options with him. They might use him as the NT or they could put Warren at nose and use Klecko situationally in a 4-3 next to Warren. Think about that for a moment. Imagine how relentless he can be and then imagine him just inserting him into the lineup to wreak havoc.

I'm not so much disappointed with who the Pats did select (not sure about Kingsbury...) as I am disappointed with who they PASSED up.

Regarding the safeties, Belichick favors cover two and in that arrangement the Pats safeties are usually split and supporting the corners. The less speedy the safety the deeper they have to play. The faster the safeties, the smaller the window in the cover two between the safety and the corner. I think teams will target that area a little more without Tebucky. I suspect that BB isn't entirely happy with that situation but he felt that it becomes less of an issue if we can get pressure on the QB. I also think that Wilson's who is reportedly better in man-coverage than zone (it remains to be seen if his cover abilities in college translate to NFL caliber receivers) gives BB the option to play less zone -- but that is purely wishful thinking right now. Is Wilson good enough to beat out Otis and Poole? That is one of the key battles for the Pats in camp in my opinion. If it turns out that they solved the other corner, we will be in pretty good shape.

 

[Hawg73]

NR - good points about the backfield. We can almost be assured that Wilson won't play much 2nd corner this year but like the reports and he won't have to play like an all-pro to beat out Otis.
Plus we can't forget Ty Poole.


It was frightening to watch him struggle last year. Let's just hope the pass rush is much improved or we are in trouble at that spot.

Who did you think they should not have passed up on in the draft?

 

[patriotmarty12]

Good stuff, Hawg, I think it will be even more exciting when in the future they, get youth at LB and you have theses, young LB's making play's behind this new D-line, I believe we are seeing the foundation's right now of the dominating Defence alot of us die hard Pat's fan have been waiting for along time, one that can put pressure on you from every point on the field.. Just thinking about this send's chill's up my spine........ And this is what opposing teams have to look forward too....

 

[Undertaker #59*]

Back to lurking for me...

 

[pookie]

Back to lurking for me...

No man! Your post was beautiful.... It was just coincidence that you and I were typing replies at the same time.

 

[Hawg73]

Back to lurking for me...

I don't know why unless its the sore fingers.

Getting back to your point about gaps - it is my understanding that the 4-3 can be played either way depending on your lineman's abilities. For instance, Tampa Bay plays a one-gap so that their talented linemen like Sapp can quickly shoot a gap and disrupt a play before it gets started. The risk you run here is giving up the big play, but if you have enough guys shooting gaps it can totally screw up an offense. The Buddy Ryan 4-6 was another one-gap D -they had the talent to make it work. One thing to key in on is do the lineman shift before the snap and try to position themselves between blockers - if so, you are probably looking at a one-gap scheme.

The Pats play a two-gap style under BB & RC to try and control first and then seek pigskin and I don't expect that will change.

I don't really think you can play a one-gap in a 3-4 set because there are too many gaps for the number of available linemen. I used to get in trouble in high school because I was more effective using quickness to shoot gaps against bigger guys and my coach used to get p.o.'d at me - but it was too hard to control a guy who was usually substantially bigger than me. I did what I had to do to survive.

 

[Guest]

Who did you think they should not have passed up on in the draft?

Obviously it is a little too late for a mock draft. The reason that I didn’t do one is that based on BB’s history I was fully prepared for a bunch of low-visibility “football player” type picks but I was hoping he might break the pattern. Last year I did a lot of preparation for the draft and was somewhat disappointed. This year I am a little less patient because a number of the picks that we made sacrifices to get haven’t quite lived up to that level of sacrifice. Is Rohan better than the two players we could have drafted in his place (or a move we could have made with those two picks?) Is Graham? Again, they were not bad but I felt the potential was there to do better.

A lot of people have suggested that the Pats didn’t need a lot of flashy picks to have a successful draft. However, “flashy” is an over-used term. Some players like a Randy Moss are deserving of the attribution, some such as Jordan Gross are not. The term has been used by a lot of people in the media to suggest that the players the Pats could have selected are ”flashy” and therefore not worthy of notoriety or selection. That is a generalization that is innacurate. It is also a panacea. How many “flashy” offensive lineman are really out there? And wouldn’t everyone be happy if we got stuck with one of them if they were being honest with themselves? The “flashy” ones get recognition because they play in a program that gets air time – with good reason. They play a competitive schedule and their recruitment process serves as a pre-screening process for the league. It isn’t a guarantee but it also isn’t a mark against them.

Who would I have picked? I am not sure it is as simple as that. Strategically I would have approached it differently so I would have been working with a different hand. I would not have sought pre-draft trades at all. I would take my chances on draft day, knowing that worst case I still have two mid-round picks, 13 total, and that I am a power broker in the draft. I would, as BB did, try to move up in the first round. Failing that, I would have stayed where I was at 14 and not move up to 13. (At that point I do think that New England was starting to panic over Warren and that is never a good thing. However, and this is a big however, I firmly believe that they could have had success with a draft-day trade and the subsequent trade up in the first round would have been unnecessary.) If it panned out that I couldn’t move up I would have use the 19th pick for any number of players who could help us this year.

Belichick likes to target specific players and I think he closes his mind to the other players on the board. He makes a trade, packages the winnings to move up again and grab the one guy he thinks he has to have. That’s where I would differ. There is no ONE guy. I would go in with a fairly broad list of players who would solve a need then make sure that I get players from that list. In each round I would take the “best player that solves a need” approach. Not a CB if the better prospect of the two happens to be a left tackle. I also wouldn’t keep addressing that same need. It is done, in the past, the next selection is a separate problem – start over and solve it.

Here’s a partial and not definitive list. I think we could have had a diverse draft that addressed a number of areas. Assumes the first pick has been made (for Jonathan Sullivan) these are in no real particular order, some of these guys were definitely on the board at 19. Others are second or third round options.

Kwame Harris, LT (Smart and very athletic for a tackle)
Boss Bailey LB (along with Colvin the athleticism would make Tebucky long forgotten.)
Jeff Faine C
Eric Steinbach OG
Sammy Davis CB
Kevin Curtis WR (Utah, highest Wonderlic in the draft 48/50, 7th ranked receiver, very productive, no significant downside other than at 5’11 he is “too short,” we took a guy who is 5’11-1/2)
Teyo Johnson WR ( If you are taking a runner on another TE/WR…)
Andre Woolfork CB
Kelley Washington WR
Lee Suggs RB (went in the fourth round)


Nnamdi Asomugha CB (j/k: Did anyone that wasn’t at the draft party catch the priceless look on the painted faces of the Raiders fans as they tried to pronounce that one?)

The point is add a player like Harris or Bailey and this draft would have been an A+ by anyone’s estimation. The trades might be nice but I'll take the player now rather than the draft pick later.

 

[dropKickMurphy]

.....A lot of people have suggested that the Pats didn’t need a lot of flashy picks to have a successful draft. However, “flashy” is an over-used term. Some players like a Randy Moss are deserving of the attribution, some such as Jordan Gross are not. The term has been used by a lot of people in the media to suggest that the players the Pats could have selected are ”flashy” and therefore not worthy of notoriety or selection. That is a generalization that is innacurate. It is also a panacea. How many “flashy” offensive lineman are really out there? And wouldn’t everyone be happy if we got stuck with one of them if they were being honest with themselves? The “flashy” ones get recognition because they play in a program that gets air time – with good reason. They play a competitive schedule and their recruitment process serves as a pre-screening process for the league.....

That's not always the case. These days, it seems that the flash factor is dictated more by what a player shows in the workouts than how he performs in games. Take, for example, Dewayne Robertson. He was deemed flashy enough that a lot of people believe that the Jets beat the Patriots to the punch in trading thei 2 first round picks to get him (as opposed to the Pats, who parlayed their 2 first round picks into Ty Warren, Eugene Wilson, and a first round pick next year.
Consider that Robertson played for a mediocre program, in a league (SEC) in which the majority of teams are poor to mediocre. Far from dominating the league, Robertson did not even make 1st team All-SEC (he was named to the second team). Yet, he wows the scouts with a fast time in the 40, and with an impressive bench-pressing performance, and suddenly he's the next great NFL defensive lineman? Sorry, but I'll wait until he proves it on the football field before I send him to Canton (or blow 2 first round picks on him).
On the other hand, Dan Klecko, playing on a poor team in what may have been the toughest conference top to bottom, does indeed dominate his opponents in actual game situations. He is named the Big East defensive player of the year, and no one who lined up against him disputes it. Did you see how ecstatic Dan Koppen was when he found out that Klecko would be his team mate?
And everyone is giving Baltimore kudos for moving up to pick Boller. Funny, it seemed that there were a lot of questions about Boller until he pulled that trick at the workout where he threw the ball a mile from his knees. Suddenly, he's a "flashy" pick, and the Ravens were able to steal him. Again, let's wait about 3 years to decide if Boller is worth Eugene Wilson plus whomever the Pats get with that #1 pick next year.

....The point is add a player like Harris or Bailey and this draft would have been an A+ by anyone’s estimation. The trades might be nice but I'll take the player now rather than the draft pick later.

Again, NR, who cares if the draft is rated A+ by anyone at this point? You could be right about any of those players, but that will only be proven out by how they develop as NFL players over the next couple of years. The "draft experts" all have a tendency to grade a teams' draft by how closely that team's player evaluation matched their own.
With only 15 months separating us from the Pats' Super Bowl victory, Belichick still deserves the chance to build the team his way. When his evaluation of a player differs from that of Mel Kiper, I'll give Belichick the benefit of the doubt.
I agree that with the buildup to this draft, it may have been a letdown to not get the immediate gratification of at least one glamor pick. What we got instead were the types of moves that the Cowboys and 49ers used to make to stay on top for the long term. How successful we will be remains to be seen. There is, however, a clear logic, a philosophy of looking at the future as well as the present, that Belichick is following. I like what I'm seeing.

 

[Wandering Athol]

Bumping this great thread for several reasons:
1) The insightful commentary by the posters recognizing the need for a NT from outside the current roster (the Pats would add Ted Washington before the 2003 season and draft Wilfork in 2004).
2) Wilson and Wilfork for Boller! ROFL Say what you want about Wilson post-2004, but his play during their last 2 Super Bowl-winning runs was fantastic for a young guy.
3) NoRespect's draft list is interesting to say the least (I find it particularly amusing that the guy he kids about, Asomugha, might've turned out to the best player he mentioned.
4) The average post length on the Planet seems to have gone down by 80% since 2003, which has been replaced to some extent by more posts on average. A reflection on our society?

Anyways, without further ado, here's an interesting piece on the 3-4, the role the Patriots played in re-introducing it to the league in the 1970s, and one panel's vote for the best 3-4 players of all-time at each position:

http://www.profootballweekly.com/PFW/Features/NFL+Features/2008/34defense.htm
Like many innovations, the advent of the 3-4 defense in the NFL came more out of necessity than inspiration.

“I think one reason teams went from the ‘40’ (defense) to the ‘30’ was it became harder to find effective defensive linemen,” Hall of Fame DT Merlin Olsen said recently. “That became especially true with the liberalization of the holding rules in 1978. I came into the league in 1962, when the 4-3 was the only defense being played. In 1974, we (the Los Angeles Rams) faced the New England Patriots, who were the first team to move to the Oklahoma (3-4) defense, but as I began covering the NFL for NBC in 1977, I saw more and more teams switching to the ‘30.’ When I ended my TV announcing career in the early 1990s, I saw the trend reversing back.

“I think the 3-4 was successful early because it was simply different than what offensive coordinators had seen. It forced new blocking schemes, and anytime you do something different, you can take an offense out of its comfort zone.”

Although Joe Collier had used a 3-4 package in Buffalo in the 1960s and was one of its first advocates in pro football, it was not the base defense there. That did not happen until former Oklahoma head coach Chuck Fairbanks arrived in New England in 1973. A year later he switched the Patriots to the aptly named “Oklahoma” defense, and the Houston Oilers quickly followed suit at the urging of then-Oilers defensive coordinator Bum Phillips. Thus began a trend that would take over defensive football for nearly 20 years.

Phillips had to first convince Oilers head coach Sid Gillman to abandon the 4-3 tradition, but that task was made easier for him after Houston traded with the Chiefs to obtain the prototypical nose tackle of that era, Curley Culp. Culp arrived with nine games to play and was immediately dominant. Soon, so was the Oilers’ defense, and before long the 3-4 was sweeping through pro football. But as with any scheme, it also had its weaknesses, and in the opinion of Hall of Fame DT Dan Hampton, the biggest was the toll it took on the three down linemen.

“In my view, teams go with the 3-4 because they cannot find enough good big guys,” Hampton said, echoing Olsen. “If all you have is players who are 6-foot-4, 245 pounds, you’re going with the 3-4, but they cannot seem to stay with it because you cannot underestimate the beating your three linemen take in the 3-4. They are at such a disadvantage that they don’t last long.

“The 3-4 is a simple premise. You have your front seven, and you’re going to get a helmet on a helmet, but that is not what the reality is. Offenses are going to double the nose tackle play-side every time and try to double the defensive end play-side if they can. They cannot allow that defensive end to get inside leverage. If that happens, then the tackle has to just seal him and the inside linebacker comes in and makes a form tackle.

“So it’s an interesting scheme, but it’s like nitrous oxide. You get the benefits of messing up an offense, but it does not last and sometimes ends up breaking, usually body parts of your nose tackle and your ends.”

In other words, it’s a defensive front that is physically and mentally demanding because the linemen must be both stout and unselfish, taking on blocks to free up the linebackers behind them. And those linebackers, especially on the inside, have to control their gap and make the bulk of the tackles against the run. That is why, over time, even the 3-4 defenses began to seek ever bigger men, both on the nose and at inside linebacker.

“In the early days of the 3-4, the nose man was a smaller, quick guy who could use leverage,” Olsen recalled. “They were short and broad physically. They were often a bit off the ball, not right on the line of scrimmage. It was a read position. It was more a challenge of leverage than strength.

“That changed a little, and I think Fred Smerlas was one of the first nose tackles to get in the center’s face. Fred was bigger, maybe 300 pounds, and would force the center into errors by making him react so quickly, whereas earlier in the 1970s the nose man would react to what the center would do and try and defeat him with leverage.

“The best nose tackles can react to the run and tie up blockers but also pass-rush enough to keep the quarterback deep in the pocket. Sacks usually came from the outside, and in the ‘30’ that meant the outside linebackers. Look at all the great pass-rushing linebackers and they’ll tell you that without help from the inside they would have a tough time getting to the quarterback. All the great pass-rushing linebackers like (Lawrence) Taylor, (Andre) Tippett or (Rickey) Jackson had excellent nose tackles.

“The defensive ends in the ‘30’ are more run-oriented. They’re nose up on the tackle, which is a horrible position from which to rush the passer. Even the great ‘30’ defensive ends had to have subtle moves to go along with the power they needed to play the run. Howie Long was incredible. He was quick enough and had good hands and great change of direction.

“I never knew why, but most defensive coordinators love linebackers. It doesn’t matter if it’s a 3-4 or a 4-3. They put big guys in a place so the linebackers could make plays. With the 3-4, that is even more pronounced because the defensive line is a sacrificial lamb for the linebackers to get the plays and the glory.”

Within six years after Fairbanks introduced the 3-4 in New England, it had been adopted by more than half the NFL teams (16 of 28 teams in 1980). That grew until by 1985, 23 of the league’s 28 teams ran the 3-4 as their primary defensive front. That was the high point for the 3-4, which went into a slow decline. In 1992, 15 teams ran the 4-3 as its base defense and only 13 used the 3-4, the first time in 12 years that there were more 4-3 defenses in the NFL than 3-4s.

The number continued to dwindle until by 1996, even the Patriots had abandoned it, despite the fact it remained the defense favored by their head coach, Bill Parcells. The falloff continued until by 2001, only the Steelers were still using the 3-4 as a base front, as they had since 1982. That was the nadir for the 3-4, which is now undergoing a bit of a renaissance. Four teams (Houston, Atlanta, Baltimore and New England) employed the 3-4 in 2002, and it has continued to regain popularity, with 11 teams using it primarily this year while 21 remain in the 4-3 mostly.

Despite this resurgence, it is clear that the 3-4 era began in 1974 and reached its peak from 1980-1992. Who were the best of the practitioners of the 3-4? That is open to debate. So John Turney, the well-respected researcher and historian who is a member of the Pro Football Researchers Association, polled a panel of 45 former NFL players and coaches with intimate knowledge of the 3-4 era and asked them to name an all-time 3-4 front seven.

Here are the selections:

DRE Lee Roy Selmon
Tampa Bay Buccaneers
(21 votes)

Notes: Nine seasons, seven Pro Bowls, four-time NFLPA NFC Defensive Lineman of the Year.
Sacks: 78
Forced fumbles: 28
Fumbles recovered: 10

[...]

Others receiving votes: Elvin Bethea, Houston Oilers (16 votes); Richard Seymour, Patriots (three votes); Leonard Marshall, Giants (two votes); others (three votes).

NT Curley Culp
Kansas City Chiefs / Houston Oilers / Detroit Lions
(18 votes)

Notes: Fourteen seasons, six Pro Bowls, 1975 Newspaper Enterprise Association (NEA) Defensive Player of the Year.
Sacks: 93
Forced fumbles: 14
Recovered fumbles: 10

[...]

Others receiving votes: Fred Smerlas, Bills/Patriots (12 votes); Ruben Carter, Broncos (five votes); Joe Klecko, Jets/Colts (three votes); Tim Krumrie, Bengals (two votes); others (five votes).

DLE Howie Long
Oakland Raiders
(19 votes)

Notes: Thirteen seasons, eight Pro Bowls, 1989 NEA co-Defensive Player of the Year, 1985 NFL Alumni Defensive Lineman of the Year, NFLPA AFC Defensive Lineman of the Year (1984, 1985).
Sacks: 91½
Forced fumbles: 14
Recovered fumbles: 10

[...]

Others receiving votes: Bruce Smith, Bills/Redskins (13 votes; he was a right end but received votes at both DE spots); Art Still, Chiefs/Bills (three votes); Jacob Green, Seahawks/49ers (two votes); others (six votes).

ROLB Lawrence Taylor
New York Giants
(41 votes)

Notes: Thirteen seasons, 10 Pro Bowls, AP Defensive Player of the Year (1981, 1982, 1986), five-time NFLPA NFC Linebacker of the Year.
Sacks: 142
Forced fumbles: 40
Recovered fumbles: 11
Interceptions: 9

[...]

Others receiving votes: Pat Swilling, Saints/Lions/Raiders (two votes); Robert Brazile, Oilers (one vote); DeMarcus Ware, Cowboys (one vote).

RILB Harry Carson
New York Giants
(33 votes)

Notes: Thirteen seasons, nine Pro Bowls, NFLPA NFC Linebacker of the Year (1978, 1979).
Sacks: 19
Forced fumbles: 9
Recovered fumbles: 14
Interceptions: 11

[...]

LILB Randy Gradishar
Denver Broncos
(31 votes)

Notes: Ten seasons, seven Pro Bowls, 1978 AP Defensive Player of the Year.
Sacks: 19½
Forced fumbles: 10
Fumble recoveries: 13
Interceptions: 20

[...]

Others receiving votes (votes for the two ILB spots were counted together): Steve Nelson, Patriots (nine votes); Sam Mills, Saints/Panthers (seven votes); Matt Millen, Raiders/Redskins/49ers (two votes); Vaughan Johnson, Saints/Eagles (two votes); others (six votes).

LOLB Andre Tippett
New England Patriots
(22 votes)

Notes: Eleven seasons, five Pro Bowls, 1985 NEA co-Defensive Player of the Year, NFLPA AFC Linebacker of the Year (1984, 1985, 1987), NFL Alumni Linebacker of the Year (1987).
Sacks: 100
Forced fumbles: 17
Recovered fumbles: 14
Interceptions: 1

[...]

Others receiving votes: Kevin Greene, Rams/Steelers/Panthers/49ers (10 votes); Rickey Jackson, Saints/49ers (five votes); Carl Banks, Giants/Browns (five votes); others (three votes).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Click on the link above to see more detailed write-ups on the individual, "best evah" players, including some comments by our own John Hannah.

Couple of thoughts:
1) I find it amazing that only ONE team in the NFL was using the 3-4 as its base defense only 7 years ago. Belichick was genius for recognizing that if he adopted the 3-4 during this time frame, he would be able to get the bodies he needed to run it through the draft with little competition.
2) Hampton's comments concerning the longevity of d-linemen employed in the 3-4 concerns me, particularly in light of all the injuries we've seen Seymour battle the last few years.
3) Nice to see Culp and Gradishar (who is the prototypical weak-side 3-4 ILB; think Donnie Edwards) get some press. Culp was a 6-time All-Pro; Gradishar an 8-time All-Pro. Why are these guys not mentioned more often at HOF time?
4) Taylor's forced fumbles are what really set him apart from the pack. An absolute game changer unlike anything I've seen before or since at LB....although Derrick Thomas (who should be in the HOF) had his LT-like moments.