Building a defense in the modern NFL

[Chris Meck]

Originally Posted by Detoxing

Dude. The question you posed is "Building a defense in the modern NFL".

And we're giving you the correct answer. It starts with a scheme switch. That IS today's NFL. Today's NFL is the 43 D.

Even Andy Reid himself says that. The ability to rush the passer from the interior line.

So if we're "Building a defense in the modern NFL", well the first and most fundamental building block is the scheme itself.

The scheme will dictate personnel. The personnel being smaller, quicker and the ability to pressure with 4-down linemen, allowing you to pressure whether you're in base/nickel or whatever.

The 34 has inherent issues that cause problems when defending today's NFL offenses.

It's not "obsessing", it's the correct response to your OP.

You're not in a base defense all that much. Everybody's BASE DEFENSE is pretty much a nickel and/or dime, regardless of whether they are a 3-4 or 4-3 in their BASE. It's not 1992. Last year, teams were in their base 33.1% of the time. This is because most teams use the 11 as their base offense these days. (3wrs, one back, one TE.) So your BASE defense is really just a personnel package that gets used less often than others. In all reality, it doesn't really matter all that much anymore.
from Football Outsiders:

We no longer separate 3-4 and 4-3 fronts in our stats. In all honesty, the distinction is becoming more and more meaningless in the modern NFL; the difference between a 4-3 defensive end and a 3-4 outside linebacker is more or less whether or not they have their hand in the dirt at the snap. Hybrid defensive schemes are the name of the game now, and trying to cram 2018 defensive strategy into a 1980s framework is less than useful.

So we can disagree, that's fine. I say it's just a personnel package that's used less than say, the nickel. Most nickel defenses are a 4 man line, but not all. Most dime packages are a four man line, but not all. There are all sorts of packages that we and every other NFL team use from time to time, regardless of what is listed as their "Base" alignment.

MY POINT is that the edge rusher is perhaps overvalued and the interior rusher is perhaps UNDERvalued and so we should be concentrating on the interior rushers going forward. And that CB's are now over valued due to the rules and so SAFETIES should be where we spend capital in the future as crap safety play (like we see every week) is a bigger problem than mediocre CB play. So basically the age-old concept of outside in is OUT and now INSIDE out is the way to build a defense in this era. Edge rush takes too long and leaves a pocket to throw from. CB's can't be physical so just get guys that can run with WR's and hope for turnovers and batted balls. Smart safety play keeps the big play away. Make the QB stand in there for 12 play drives with the pocket collapsing right in his face.

[ToxSocks]

Originally Posted by Chris Meck

You're not in a base defense all that much. Everybody's BASE DEFENSE is pretty much a nickel and/or dime, regardless of whether they are a 3-4 or 4-3 in their BASE.

Check it out Chris Meck: In a 43...playing in Nickel....you still have the same D-line you'd have while playing "base" 43. That's NOT the case in a 34.

That's the whole point. You are utilizing guys to play all 3 downs instead of "run down guys" (your 5-techs) and "pass down guys". I understand that everyone spends more time in passing formations than not. Clearly. That's the whole reason for the argument to switch to a 43.

What happens when a 34 base defense switches to nickel? The NT comes out, right? And now you're pass rushing with two larger OLB/DE types, and two guys who are generally lane cloggers. And your LB's, what are they in a base 34? Bigger guys right? So now you have LB's in coverage who aren't generally great in coverage. Your Reggie Ragland types.

Just because you can run multiple fronts does not mean you're putting the BEST guys out there to run said fronts.

Scheme dictates personnel. In a base 43 we rid ourselves of a NT. We rid ourselves of guys that are specifically run stuffers. You roll with your "base" dline even on passing downs, whether it's base or nickel. You get your $$$ out of said D-line instead of having guys come off the field on 3rd down.

You also have LB's who can run now, which is more optimum for Today's NFL. Who do you want in coverage, DoD or Tamba Hali?

Scheme dictates personnel. Personnel will dictate matchups, right?

Switching to a 43 means we no longer have to invest in 5-techs and NT's (big body guys with limited rush ability).

Your theory on today's NFL defense is NOT wrong. But the fundamental, core part of Today's NFL defense requires a switch to the 43 so that you can maximize your theory with players who are best able to carry it out.

Wanna run a 43 with 34 personnel? Sure. But it's not OPTIMAL. They are NOT interchangeable, because the personnel required to run them is different.

We're lucky to have a guy like Chris Jones or Allen Bailey who can in fact do both. Which makes a scheme switch even easier for a team like the Chiefs.

[Chris Meck]

Originally Posted by Detoxing

Check it out Chris Meck: In a 43...playing in Nickel....you still have the same D-line you'd have while playing "base" 43. That's NOT the case in a 34.

That's the whole point. You are utilizing guys to play all 3 downs instead of "run down guys" (your 5-techs) and "pass down guys". I understand that everyone spends more time in passing formations than not. Clearly. That's the whole reason for the argument to switch to a 43.

What happens when a 34 base defense switches to nickel? The NT comes out, right? And now you're pass rushing with two larger OLB/DE types, and two guys who are generally lane cloggers. And your LB's, what are they in a base 34? Bigger guys right? So now you have LB's in coverage who aren't generally great in coverage. Your Reggie Ragland types.

Just because you can run multiple fronts does not mean you're putting the BEST guys out there to run said fronts.

Scheme dictates personnel. In a base 43 we rid ourselves of a NT. We rid ourselves of guys that are specifically run stuffers. You roll with your "base" dline even on passing downs, whether it's base or nickel. You get your $$$ out of said D-line instead of having guys come off the field on 3rd down.

You also have LB's who can run now, which is more optimum for Today's NFL. Who do you want in coverage, DoD or Tamba Hali?

Scheme dictates personnel. Personnel will dictate matchups, right?

Switching to a 43 means we no longer have to invest in 5-techs and NT's (big body guys with limited rush ability).

Your theory on today's NFL defense is NOT wrong. But the fundamental, core part of Today's NFL defense requires a switch to the 43 so that you can maximize your theory with players who are best able to carry it out.

Wanna run a 43 with 34 personnel? Sure. But it's not OPTIMAL. They are NOT interchangeable, because the personnel required to run them is different.

We're lucky to have a guy like Chris Jones or Allen Bailey who can in fact do both. Which makes a scheme switch even easier for a team like the Chiefs.

I understand. I'm really not even arguing with you- I'm not anti-4-3. Our base defense is more a 4-2-5 than anything, just like everyone else in the league. I just view it as a different personnel grouping, one of many, and one that will be used less than others. But we're in agreement about the type of interior lineman that we should be looking at in the draft and FA. So, yes, the four man line should be the main idea that we should be building towards with all four being pass rush threats.

to other posters-no, I don't want to keep both fatties and passrushers. I want to move away from the fatties for the most part and draft and sign active pass rush players to play inside, at defensive tackle positions. A nickel set is more the base defense than anything else these days, but yes, a four man line helps cover for smaller, faster linebackers. I also think that edge rushers should no longer be considered the premium defensive position, and interior rushers instead should be. An Aaron Donald has a bigger impact on the game than a Dee Ford or a Justin Houston. Good players, nice to have, but not the same.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by Chris Meck

I understand. I'm really not even arguing with you- I'm not anti-4-3. Our base defense is more a 4-2-5 than anything, just like everyone else in the league. I just view it as a different personnel grouping, one of many, and one that will be used less than others. But we're in agreement about the type of interior lineman that we should be looking at in the draft and FA. So, yes, the four man line should be the main idea that we should be building towards with all four being pass rush threats.

to other posters-no, I don't want to keep both fatties and passrushers. I want to move away from the fatties for the most part and draft and sign active pass rush players to play inside, at defensive tackle positions. A nickel set is more the base defense than anything else these days, but yes, a four man line helps cover for smaller, faster linebackers. I also think that edge rushers should no longer be considered the premium defensive position, and interior rushers instead should be. An Aaron Donald has a bigger impact on the game than a Dee Ford or a Justin Houston. Good players, nice to have, but not the same.

What are your thoughts on fanginos scheme? Hes basically running an under scheme out of a 3-4 alignment. It's one defense that's actually really working right now.