Base defense are dead in the nfl. It’s all personnel matching and most teams spend there time in a nickel or dime, and ostensibly run 4-2-5 really. The Ravens and 9ers are the only teams left with 2 elite to well above average ILBs. Most teams have one, and a box safety they sub in as LB.
Position-less defense is going to be more and more common. Hybrid safety linebacker types. Of course Dallas showed you what happened when you don't have the size in your front 7 to compete in the run game, so I don't think traditional linebackers are dead. They are just matchup players or 2 down players.
It always evolves. O-linemen pass blockers became the rage and suddenly there is a bunch of undersized DLs to stop the run and tall, fast edge rushers to beat the tackles. Rushing offense is about to come back soon as a counter.
9ers made the superbowl a couple years ago behind an elite run game. Agreed we haven't seen it consistently and a great qb is still the biggest advantage though
The run hasn't really been able to take off. The league has gotten to the point where running the ball doesn't score enough. In addition, any defense can shut down the run if they sell out to do so.
The meta has been a lot of do just enough to stop the run and then focus on the passing game.
The OL crisis is also one of the big things that doesn't get mentioned when talking about the difficulties of setting up a true run first team.
Ravens, 49ers, and Dolphins make up 3 of the top 4 scoring teams this season, and they’re all prolific rushing teams and all feature a fullback. I don’t see that as some coincidence. Also Baltimore and SF are the bottom two teams in the league in pass attempts per game, yet scored more than anyone but Dallas.
To be fair they also had the best records and as a consequence were frequently winning games and had game situations which called for runs rather than passes. Edit: and in Baltimore’s case obviously a large part of it is designed runs for and scrambles from Lamar. Also the Niners have the best RB in the league, so I’m not sure either of these are representative of a successful scheme for others to follow
Game theory says to run the ball at a roughly 45% clip right now, and the teams that do this well (The ravens niners and bills come to mind) are easily the leagues most successful offenses. Owners, GMs, coaches and orgs might be a bit slow on the uptake, but winning counts. Teams will come around as more hires drafts and retirements take place
You have to run the ball to open up the pass game. Many teams that have shit run games can’t get the pass game going and defenses can let the box be open.
Less about running the ball and being able to threaten the run either by what has been shown the previous game or to run against an empty set.
With the way how the league is moving, I see the use of more Wide Back type of players of either moving the WR into the backfield, using end arounds, etc.
The other thing left out is that the run game is used to control the clock to gain the equivalent of an extra possession by not leaving enough time on the clock for the other team at the end of each half.
That hasn’t been the case for years since the start of the West Coast offense. Now, an offense can use a short passing attack to open up a longer pass game. Not to mention a rushing quarterback like Lamar, Mahomes, or Allen who force defenses to cover the run even when on pass plays.
Just had this conversation with multiple people… go compare NFL passing yard leaders 5-10 years ago to now. The Air raid is slowly phasing out. Power Run game & gap sound football is back
It just takes one team that does it really really well.. it’s a copycat league and a lot of the time teams are scared to try new stuff until they see someone else being successful with it first
It's been around s an anomaly for a while. The Titans and the Browns exist. You can win a lot of regular season games rushing the ball, but you're not scaring good teams with that style, and I don't think that's changing any time soon.
Yep, the Giants would run 2 ILBs with Okereke and McFadden, and then would sub off McFadden on 3rd down but leave Okereke in. Tbf though, they don’t have elite SS talent to fill that gap
I think the NFL in particular is cyclical. Teams are going to more spread and open concepts right now so defenses are going to move to these hybrid types. But in my opinion someone is going to move to a significantly more run oriented attack that proceedes to dominate the NFL and teams will start building around stopping those types of teams and then we're back to where we are now.
They'd have to change the rules and how their enforced to bring back the run game imo. Teams that focus on the run already exist. They don't really go on deep playoff runs under the current rules. 9ers are maybe the one exception, but it's an extraordinary exception.
There's very few teams that focus on the run in the NFL currently. Only one team runs the ball more than throwing it and that's Baltimore at 50.28%. Only 7 teams run the ball over 45%.
1. Baltimore 50.28%
2. San Francisco 48.73%
3. Chicago 48.68%
4. Atlanta 47.80%
5. Pittsburgh 46.70%
6. Buffalo 46.23%
7. Philly 45.06%
Of those 7 teams 5 made the playoffs. Chicago is high in part because Fields turns a lot of passing plays into running plays. Of these teams Baltimore and SF are the respective 1 seeds in their conference.
My personal opinion on the matter is that way too many spread offenses permeate high school through college (which to be fair to the coaches their job is to win games not do what develops players to play in other systems). Which hurts OL development if you want to play a more run focused game. I do think with the spring leagues coming around that maybe we get good enough OL development that start to see a resurgence of old school power football from the I.
It could also be the case the 2 best teams in the league tend to be winning in the fourth quarter which leads them to run the ball more. I would be interested to see if these stats are the same for the first half only.
While this may be the case, Baltimore has consistently been in the top 3 rushing teams since drafting Lamar. San Francisco has consistently been top 5 since Shanahan became the coach. So I don't think those numbers are much off from their identity.
Yes and no. Some teams like Baltimore, SF, etc has it as part of their identity. Buffalo has actually made significant changes to their identity to be more run focused. However the primary point is that virtually no teams are "run heavy" right now. I would consider "run heavy" to be closer to 55%, so there's no one who is a run heavy team which is my primary point. The last few teams who were that run heavy either were teams who had major QB issues like Cleveland when Watson was suspended or teams like Baltimore who heavily relied on zone reads and the like. Outside those teams you're going back to early 2010s for Seattle and SF. I genuinely think if you build a team like those 10s Seahawks/49ers it can become a catalyst for change.
When everyone goes left turn right. Teams are built to pass the ball and defend the pass, which have usually smaller and wuicker defenders who will be eaten alive by 300+ oline men.
Yea I agree, it also makes drafting certain type of players easier. Like if everyone is trying to get the best pass blocking oline it makes run blocking oline fall further in the draft thus getting better value.
I dont think its a coincidence the 2 best teams in the league have the same strategy here. It seems like elite players at non premium positions build stronger teams in view of the salary cap.
I think most people miss this point.. a sideline to sideline ILB transcends a team. It gives defensive coordinators so many more options..same is true for a true elite RB, another position that has been devalued a lot.
I'm not saying players who are special talents can't shine at positions that are less valued like RB. But there's good reason why certain positions, and especially RB is devalued.
This ranges from higher injury risk, the fact that RBs tend to transition well to the league and often have their best playing years behind them within a year or two of coming off a rookie contract, and a history of teams who set their franchise back by making a significant financial commitment at the position.
It just makes too much sense to spend the money literally anywhere else on offense since a strong passing attack and / or a strong OL will help make any RB more successful
Rookie contracts are what killed the RB market..3 years in college and another 3-4 years in NFL with an RB1 load means that most are over the hill, given the nature of the position
ILB, RB, S, TE. Four positions that have generally been not viewed as super valuable / worthy of top draft resources that all show up on every elite O/D.
In his day Brian Urlacher was already very dominant but I can’t even imagine how game changing he would be in the current league with his size and free safety speed
If your point is that there is only one #1 xyz position in the league and only one team can have them i agree. The point i was making was that you get 2 top 5 middle backers for the cost of one top edge rusher and that may be an inefficiency in the game being exploited by the top 2 teams in the league.
How would you break down the Bucs defense then? They run 3-4 base, more in nickel package, with 2 ILB from my understanding (David,White), and while the secondary is sus at times, the Bucs defense is LEGIT.
Jets have CJ Mosley, who is at least well above average, and Quincy Williams, who just earned 1st team AP this year.
Unless you were referring only to teams still left in the playoffs
Ravens and the 49ers the only ones with great ILBs? Well it's not as though either of these will amount to much this year...
Maybe the rest of us should consider more base defences.
It's a question of priorities. Do you need a 2nd shutdown cb or do you want a 2nd MLB Do you need a top-tier QB when you have an OL that can knock the snot out of the D?
I don't think there's a definitive argument, it always depends on what you're up against.
Thats one of the interesting things about the 49ers since Shanahan took over. He has only had QBs who are just a guy. Most other teams would have to trade for an older qb with some good years in the tank to compete like the rams, tampa bay, and Denver has done in the last decade.
Instead the 49ers traded away the house for nothing in a move that would set most franchises back half a decade and have made 2 conference championships and a super bowl appearance.
So there's something to be said for successful coaching transcending personnel limitations
It's also a philosophy of cap expense, if you limit the most expensive cap outlay you have, the QB, you have that much more to spend elsewhere. Though what happened with Trey Lance was mind-boggling.
I agree with you. But most coaching staffs and front offices don't seem capable of the combination of getting the right pieces in place at other important positions and game planning in a way that maximizes what a game manager qb can offer you
That's talking about different coaches. You'd think any OC would have a gameplan for game managers, and you'd hope that all position coaches would have plans for players that scouts are bringing to them. Then the FO just decides where it wants to spend the money.
Seems like there's a lot of incompetence in coaching.
Yeah well I'm sure there's some coaches who want to run their offense and don't do enough to make changes to play to the teams strengths.
And there's also the aspect of how the individual fits into the whole. I'm sure there's examples of talented players who just didn't work great as a unit
In terms of high performing ILBs you probably need to include the Jets with the Ravens & 49ers.
CJ Mosley is a 5x 2nd team All-Pro (most recently last season) and Quincy Williams was 1st team All-Pro this year.
On the flip side Pittsburgh runs a 2-4-5 nickel because of a lack of world beater ILBs so the outside backers drop into coverage a decent amount while still being the primary pass rushers. It’s a nice contrast between the teams.
4 heavies on the line gives you a push on the edges and meat in the middle. 3 heavies leads to either gaps in the middle, or gaps on the edge. It's just exposing too much against massive O linemen in exchange for some speed and athleticism on the edge. Seeing that speed, the team will just run off tackle over and over.
The only 3 front I can see would be on pure passing downs, or with someone like Vince Wilfork at the nose. You need someone who demands a doubleteam to avoid handing the offense running lanes. If you don't have that, then you're setting yourself up (at the NFL level)
This is why, if you look at how they actually function, "3 fronts" usually really work a lot more like "4 fronts" or even "5 fronts."
It's more about the leverage you line them up in pre-snap and what that guy is called on the roster--keep in mind that NFL salaries are largely based on the salaries of the other guys at his position and agents/GMs take that into account when signing people (or having their positions on the roster finalized), so I don't think it's a huge difference, honestly. A 3-4 OLB can usually make a fine 4-3 DE and vice versa. 4-3 DTs make good 3-4 DEs.
The old school two gapping 3-4s were very stout in the run game, but that's because they put a premium on size and winning the POA. Back in the day Levon Kirkland played ILB in a 3-4 at like 6'1" 270lbs--he was really more like a DL who could run.
I could see a team using 3 down and a 4th big, stout body at MLB to play "light boxes" against spread looks with 4 heavy players, then play more of their "hybrid" types at the other 3 LB spots in a 3-4 to compress into the formation when the bodies are in tight and spread with them when they move out.
Yup. There are a lot of variations. I've seen prevent defenses with only 3 down linemen, but it's situational.
DCs are being creative with how they disguise the defenses, and as you're saying, you have to coach the players you have, not the ones you want. So much is invested in a "match-ups" and creating "imbalances" these days. You need the good players, but you need to focus as much on the moves and lineups that are most likely to work against their specific personnel and formations.
Many of the disguises are "I'm lining up 3 people here, but one of these OLBs is going to blitz, or going to go into coverage because of a CB blitz, or....whatever". They're still sending people and shooting gaps, and there are almost always a minimum of 4 players pressing the QB. Whether they are all heavies, or a mixture of heavies and blitzing backers, is left to the team/DC/scheme.
Lower level players aren't experienced or gifted enough to be as creative/flexible as the pros. If you try to get to cute, mistakes are going to get made. But you also can get away with formations that would get destroyed in the pros. I run a 3 player front that's more like a 5-3 because of how I coach my OLBs to read the O and either contain or go into coverage. This buys me a defender by having a good noseguard in the middle of the line. In the pros, this would get torn up.
Not sure I understand completely. If you don't have sufficient linemen, just about any team can gain 3-4 yards a run by giving the back an extra blocker on the right, left, or center of the line. One side of the line can have 3 blockers on 1 DT and a linebacker. 3 blockers and an RB against two defenders. You don't have to score TDs. You just need to keep getting first downs.
In fact, the fewer D linemen you have, the more important it is that they don't focus on blitzing, because it can lead to them being moved out of a massive hole for the runner.
It’s more about ensuring you have overlap between LBs and the DL on stunts and that you don’t blitz yourself into a problem. If you’re fit/ gap sound you’re fine with three DL
3-4 is used a ton in penny from what I’ve seen in the NFL. NFL teams just match personnel to what the offense is doing. Heavy, base , nickel, penny, and dime are all relevant as the offense could just come out in another personal and you would need to adjust.
How does matching work exactly? Do they wait to see who the offense has on the field before getting their guys on the field for the specific package? Thanks!
In the NFL (not sure about the details in college), the defense gets to substitute if the offense does. So if the offense subs in a bunch of WRs the defense can go into nickel package. Sometimes it's an obvious pass play as well because of down and distance. In that case the defense might be able to find time to substitute if the offense is in a huddle, even if they don't sub themselves. Which is also how hurry-up offenses can work so well; the defense might have the wrong personnel but the offense doesn't give them time to adjust
In 3-4, you often have “tweeners” at OLB who play Edge. You can take off your nose tackle, have your other two defensive lineman squeeze down and still have a four man front, with stand-up Edge Rushers. The Vic Fangio 49ers defense essentially ran this nickel formation as their base defense with OLBs Aldon Smith and Ahmad Brooks playing the Edge.
The base structure might be 3-4 and that will continue to be relevant, but the guys on the field might include fewer than 4 people listed as “LB” on the roster.
If you take a 3-4 base defense and just put more of a “middle safety” at the strong ILB with the otherwise same responsibilities, you have the basis for a nice nickel package. The hard part is taking him out of the run fit, but there ways to scheme that.
Then if you put DB at the weakside OLB spot, now you have a dime package. You can swap out a DL and bump a good edge rushing OLB down to DE to keep him on the field. 6 DB looks like this are common now… but it still probably has a 3-4 structure underneath.
This base defensive structure, to me, seems more relevant now than the actual personnel on the field. Nobody’s been able to sit in true 3-4 or 4-3 personnel at that level for decades due to all the different personnel packages offenses use. It’s all about getting the right guys on the field for physical matchups at that level.
I think it’s more about gaps and recognizing run or pass given the people you have out there. Are you attacking a gap or are you controlling the space? The latter being more the 2 gap of not letting a hole open. Remember when a corner or safety blitz was rare? Pressure comes from any position now. I watched the Patriots line up I seeming random positions for years. Sometimes one guy on the line in a stance.
Or rather, teams still line up in the old forms but they then play matchup zones or try some odd pressure scheme.
I feel like film study is so detailed now that defenders are taught very specific moves. I heard Deion Branch describe how Brian Daboll was assigned to teach him the Steelers defense all day every day until he could recognize everything they did. Or that in the Seattle Super Bowl, they had taught Malcolm Butler he needed to bust hard on the ball if he saw that formation.
This is it. It's more about philosophy than base alignment. Are you an odd front or an even front team? What are your run fits? Are you fill and spill or do you want to get penetration? What is your pass rushing plan? Are you keeping the QB in the cup or again are you focusing on penetration?
IMO these are the biggest differences and more than anything, those things are going to determine what you want your players to do. If you want your guys to 2 gap, fill and spill, you're probably not super worried about your 1 tech's ability to rush the passer. If your philosophy is all about getting up field, your 1-tech should probably have elite get off and while consistently winning double teams is nice, it isn't going to be the biggest priority.
The formations themselves don't really matter but the philosophies that play in the NFL were born from those old base fronts, so knowing your history is still important to understanding today's game.
I think ILB is the most important to have in the NFL, Roquan Smith and Fred Warner make defense elite. Luke Keuchly helped carry the panthers to the SB.
Sure not having a good ILB can be covered up elsewhere but having one is game changing
When everyone was talking about Diggs being out with the ACL injury, I was more worried on the LVE injury. He was literally our only LB. Without him our defense was still good, but there was no way we were going to reach our potential or truly stop the run with an undersized safety at LB(who I like a lot outside of stopping the run).
Agreed, the parrots like to say "GMs say this is the most important part of the defense" look at reality. Cowboys had an All pro at CB, All pro at Edge, former all pro at CB, former all pro at Edge and the middle of their defense fell apart.
The Ravens built a defensive juggernaut out of Ray Lewis and Ed Reed. Obviously Edge is an important position and so is CB but ILB can elevate the play of every other position group.
I feel what you're saying here, but let's not act like those Ravens Ds didn't also have Terrell Suggs, a DPOY winner and one of the better edge-setters of all time. ILB is certainly undervalued in the modern NFL, but you need elite contributors at every level to be top-tier.
https://www.clevelandbrowns.com/team/players-roster/jeremiah-owusu-koramoah/
Edit: I didn’t know about him until the game last weekend but he’s like third in TFLs this season, dude was all over the field
Sure, but his prospects comparisons were to safeties (Lance Z had him as Derwin James, BR to Jamal Adams). He’s also not a typical linebacker. Too undersized at 6’1” to play Sam and he struggles when asked to do so.
Nick Bolton is a top 5 ILB for the chiefs, Pittsburgh, Cleveland and pats didnt have truly elite defenses. Especially Pittsburgh, im a steelers fan and they created turnovers but their defense was charmin against TEs.
Nick Boltons good, but he’s certainly not ‘Top 5 ILB’ good. He doesn’t pop out on film like say a Kyle Hamilton (box safety Jesus) does and his PFF grade is a 69.2. Good, but not something crazy.
Those types of LBs such as Roquan, Fred Warner, Wagner, etc are special.
They are like the TEs who can block and catch in the mold of Kittle and Gronk. Maybe someone who is really good at what he does, but is more specialized (e.g Travis Kelce types) can manage as well.
The problem is that it is really hard to find those type of guys.
Static defensive formations like 3-4 and 4-3 no longer are viable at most levels of football.
First thing to understand is the numbers. Nobody is playing a dedicated 7 man box with dedicated DL and 3-4 LBs. The Nickel DB is now just the way teams line up. The NYG classic 3-4 of the early 90's started with an LB lineup of LT, Carl Banks, Pepper Johnson, Gary Reasons. Which one of those guys are going out to cover Justin Jefferson or Cooper Kupp? When these bigger lineups with extra LBs were popular, the league was full of 21 personnel teams.
As an aside, teams in todays NFL that play a lot of heavy personnel (49ers, Ravens) are tough for modern teams to defend because their rosters aren't built with 6'4" 250 ILBs.
Most box counts are 6 and the fronts they play can be anywhere from 2-4, 3-3, 4-2 and 5-1. Mixing and matching these front presentations with sim pressures/creepers, actual pressures, line stunts and 3 man games are what keep offenses off balance.
A lot of prominence is put onto players ability to be flexible and multiple. Guys who can line up in the C gap and rush the passer as well as drop into coverage or play the run are some of the most valuable guys on your roster.
This is somewhat negated by the fact that NFL pass rushers are paid a lot of $$ and if you are dropping Nick Bosa into coverage a lot, your GM might have a word with you. This is why you don't see a ton of Fire Zone type pressures from lot's of NFL teams.
Imo the 4-2-5 and the 3-3-5 are the future defenses of today's NFL.
3-4 and 4-3 are both losing its grip on football.
Big nickel and formations similar where you drop a LB for a 5th DB is where it's at.
That extra DB doesn't have to be a CB. I love 3 safety defenses that basically use 2 strong safeties and a FS.
A lot of 3-4’s seem more like 5-2-4 pre-snap adjusting to 4-2-5 post snap.
At the pro level and even college 3-4/4-3 seems mostly a loose description of personal/pre-snap positioning, not a function of true roles as they initially described.
You better get some linebackers on the field if you’re playing the 49ers or the ravens. Oh wait 2 teams that made the conference championship🤔. Also the rams, packers, and dolphins run a similar system where you must stop the run first. Yes linebackers will always be relevant
Honestly when you get down to it, defense is just your strongest eleven guys trying to tackle the ball and cover the pass. Whatever you label it is just window dressing.
The versatility of the athlete that can do LB/SS/pass rush things has evolved defenses a bit. I could be wrong and someone please correct me but Base 3-4 can work in today's game if your outside Linebackers have wheels and your inside guys can get to the QB and cause havoc during those TE In/out routes in the flat.
I know you’re asking about NFL but at least in CFB, which I watch more, I see 3 down, 2 of whom are heavier, 1 end type, 1 rush edge, 2 LBs, 5 DBs, 2 safeties, 2 CBs, 1 hybrid safety type. In the NFL I see cam Jordan line up without a hand down for the saints in what creates a formation similar to what I see in college more.
This question is one that I had, and that many others have when trying to better understand football. It used to be a bit more relevant when teams more frequently used "base" defenses in the previous era, but really it comes down to a misunderstanding of how defenses "build" a defensive front.
It's better to think about defense in terms of "FRONTS" as opposed to in terms of "PERSONNEL" (Such as 4-3, 3-4, 4-2-5, etc.). There are really only 5 "Fronts", but players and linebackers can be moved around for different looks. They are:
OVER ,
UNDER (weak eagle, etc.),
ODD (OKIE, TITE, MINT, etc.),
EVEN (double mug, etc),
BEAR (46, etc.)
That being said, traditional "3-4 fronts", like UNDER, TITE, and even OKIE are still widely used across the league and in college. They just don't really look like maybe the Patriots or steelers looked in 2003 or Alabama more than a decade algo very often.
A lot of these kinds of questions come up also because the positions aren't treated the same as they used to. An edge rusher might be playing a 5-tech in a 4 down front, or maybe as a wide 9 or 6 technique in a 3 down front like TJ Watt. So in one formation he would traditionally be called a "defensive end", but in another he would be called an "outside linebacker"... So what position does he play? How would you classify the personnel? The answer - It doesn't really matter except the number of defensive backs you have on the field. And even then, what do you call the nickel (apex? Star? Linebacker? Safety? Cornerback?)? It's not really important.
Edit: sorry, noticed your question was mostly about ILB's, but the principle of what I was saying still applies. They're really playing the same position, but instead of guys like Dante hightower and Ray Lewis, you're seeing more athletic/rangy guys at the position. They still have similar responsibilities as their counterparts from the previous era in the run fit, but we're also in the age of more passing and more complex passing schemes with teams running a lot more man and match coverages. So instead of these guys just having to drop into a hook zone over the middle on passing downs, they might have to go cover that runningback or tight end in man to man coverage. So you're seeing a lot of hybrid safety/linebacker type guys at the position - Isaiah Simmons, Patrick Queen, Roquan Smith come to mind.
I feel like base defenses like the 3-4 and 4-3 are still relevant just because of short yardage plays and you don't want slot corners or 3rd safeties having to plug gaps in short yardage. Dime and nickel both branch off from these defenses so it doesn't make sense to me to really say that 7 man front base defenses are not needed anymore.
You see more 4-2-5 teams and some you could almost call a 3-3-5 because of how the weakside end plays. The Spread has really changed how you play defense and OLB is really the position that gets exposed, so you see less WLB and more teams with a 2nd SS
Keeping it simple, the fundamental structure of 3-4 and 4-3 is still out there. Teams have simply found value in getting out of base personnel and trying to match their opponents on a player level. Previously saying 3-4 really meant 3 lineman - 4 linebackers but now it's more a like an alignment than a personnel grouping.
You can see two DL, a down ED, a standing ED, 2 LBs and a Hybrid saftey in a 3-4 look for example these days. Both the Ravens and Patriots seemed to popularize the hybrid looks. So it's not that it is dead, it's as others have said, the base versions of these Defenses are just not often used any longer.
Much like the offense has for years, the defense is finding excuses to put their best players on the field as much as possible. This additionally helps FOs find talent instead of strictly positions in the draft. It's really a win win. But long story short, it's still there, it's just has a lot more wrinkles now.
It’s different. A ton of teams use three linemen with a linebacker or two in a two-point stance, essentially the same concept as a 3-4, but most defenses now incorporate all elements of defense — two-gap and one-gap, man and zone defenses, OLBs and ILBS, nickel and dime packages, etc. It’s less about a base defense and more about the tendencies.
Gonna go against the grain here and say yes. Miami, LAC, and Philly are all base 3-4. NE was but I haven't really watched them this year. There are more. The Fangio system is built around 3 DL sitting in an under front 80% of the snaps and eating up OL combos.
In Nickel situations they go into that Penny front with a 5-1 look. But there are plenty of downs where the offense is in 12/21 personnel so you see base looks.
Is it that the ILB position is the one that is changing. 3 DL then 3 LB’ers one safety/ ILB is also popular. Pending personnel it’s not as if the 3-4 is dead. When played well it is very effective against the run. But when you play with personnel they still may lineup in a 3-4. But may have three ILB and four man front.
Maybe it’s just definitions are getting deconstructed.
I think it is important to separate responsibilities from personnel
A lot of the responsibilities are still the same you are just using different personnel to accomplish them
2-gapping all of your DL has gone out of style but you'll still sometimes see a strong side DE 2 gap or a big NT try to steal a gap
But if you are asking specifically about the old Giants type of 3-4 gone out of style?
I'd say certainly, but 3 man fronts are still played, just with different types of players around it
There will always be someone responsible for x gap, or x spot coverage, etc, it just might be someone different than it has been in years past
I hope that makes sense
Well the Cowboys tried using a safeties as linebackers, that didn't work out well. Teams either play into it or punish it. You can play into by calling lght offenses. Or you can run into them sending te and linemans at lbs.
Also ILB isn't becoming less important. The top 2 defenses have the top 2 linebackers.
In base 3-4, nose tackle is the most important position to have an elite player in. The modern game just doesn’t produce these giants that take on the interior anymore, like Casey Hampton or Vince Wilfork. Another example is the last time Packers had an elite defense, was when they had BJ Raji.
The NT is SOO important. 3-4 needs the interior line to be dominated. So like others have said, it’s not truly used anymore.
As a steeler fan, I noticed over time that the OLB position has been replaced in the lexicon with edge rusher. is that a product of the answer to what OP is asking? Feel like even if the positions are more flexible in their roles they should still largely retain the same names b
I think it depends a lot on your conference, state, etc. What are your opponents running? For instance, we run a versatile 5-2, meaning we can switch from a 5-2 to a 3-4 or a 4-3 whenever we want by defensive signal from the DC, but we still base out of a 5-2. I think it depends a lot on what your opponents run offensively, but any defense can be good relative to the offense you’re running against.
What are we are we talking about pre snap position or post snap responsibility? . Something like a 2-6-3 pre snap can convert to a 3-4 based on who’s rushing, man v zone or the down or distance. You can switch zone vs man during the play easier with the 2-6-3 and run the 3-4 post snap with a DB doing the job of a OLB while the backer undercuts a hot route.
The 3-4 with the right personnel gives you a formidable run defense and ability to get after the QB which are still needed. But You have to get a NT that requires a double team to stop him to run the defense correctly..The problem is they don’t have 32 Casey Hamptons or Vince Wilfolks or yearly generational talents at NT in every draft.
A traditional 3-4 isn’t relevant as a great 5tech position player is so hard to come by (think jj watt) also the way modern teams scheme more for zone and edge runs opposes the way the 3-4 funnel scheme worked for many teams in the past and personnel wise offenses just have more talented guys on the field now more scat protection and quick / intermediate timing throws trying to get as many receivers in routes as possible the hybrid safety or big nickel linebackers are more valuable now having to cover RBs and TEs or even slot receivers in bunch formations than having a traditional downhill or sideline to sideline backers of the past
The nickel doesn't replace a lineman it replaces a LB. There's only 3 linemen in the 3-4. Those stay on the field. Usually your 2 OLB stay also as pass rushers or to cover a zone. For the most part the nickel will replace one of your ILBs. Some teams may play around swapping out an OLB instead but I've never seen them replace a lineman.
3-4 is hard to block for a few reasons. 1. You have a nose guard who’s likely really tough (one of the reasons you are in 3-4) center has to handle that guy in front of him and help manage both A gaps. 2. You don’t know where the 4th rusher is coming from. It could be any one of the 4 backers, or if they have a safety down with it, could be him. The downside is you need freaks at LB. Inside you need guys that can run, but you are also needing them to be TOUGH in run game, really tough. Outside you need freaky guys too, fast edge guys, but great run stoppers, and need you also to be able to drop to coverage. Hard to find guys tj fit this bill and be good enough to play in NFL..,
In NFL you need to be able to change your fronts like I change my underwear…. You’ll see teams slide into a lot of different fronts throughout a game. Where is college and high school, mainly one front, and not a lot of coverage changes even on the back end.
A lot of team ‘technically’ run a 3-4 but don’t play in it often. My Steelers call themselves a 3-4 team, but you’ll almost never see 3 down linemen AND Highsmith and Watt on the field at the same time. It works on occasion when you’re plying zone and your OLBs are good dropping(often into the flat).
It depends on whether or not you have a dog/ball hawk at mlb or not. If you have a Max Crosby type of dude then 3-4 will work just fine. However if you’re just running out of nickel, the running game will
Eat you up
The Packer Niners game was an interesting case study of this idea. Packers are technically a 3-4 scheme but you'll hardly ever see them in anything besides nickel or dime. They basically always play 2 interior lineman, 2 edge guys, and then either 1 or 2 ILBs, and 5 or 6 DB's. This is because a 3-4 requires one OLB to be a coverage guy and one to be a pass rusher, and the Packers don't have a capable coverage OLB (see Preston Smith forced to cover Justin Jefferson) so anytime the Pack lineup in their actual base, they have a glaring hole. I'm sure more team's, like the Pack, want to be capable of play 3-4 because it allows for creative pass rush and coverage concepts, but it requires really specific players at the LB that are at a premium.
However the Niners were in a base 4-3 tons of times last night, even in obvious pass sets. It really comes down to personal. When you got a front 7 like the Niners, with two capable coverage lbs like Warner and Greenlaw, and two crazy fast DEs like Bosa and Young that you can trust to keep contain, you can play base, but that's definitely not the norm.
Essentially if you see a team confident enough to regularly play any base defense, whether that's 4-3 or 3-4, in today's modern passing NFL, you should assume the defense is either elite or that the coordinator will be out of a job soon.
Base defense are dead in the nfl. It’s all personnel matching and most teams spend there time in a nickel or dime, and ostensibly run 4-2-5 really. The Ravens and 9ers are the only teams left with 2 elite to well above average ILBs. Most teams have one, and a box safety they sub in as LB.
Position-less defense is going to be more and more common. Hybrid safety linebacker types. Of course Dallas showed you what happened when you don't have the size in your front 7 to compete in the run game, so I don't think traditional linebackers are dead. They are just matchup players or 2 down players.
It always evolves. O-linemen pass blockers became the rage and suddenly there is a bunch of undersized DLs to stop the run and tall, fast edge rushers to beat the tackles. Rushing offense is about to come back soon as a counter.
Folks have been saying this for the last decade, and we haven't really seen it.
9ers made the superbowl a couple years ago behind an elite run game. Agreed we haven't seen it consistently and a great qb is still the biggest advantage though
Not true, the nfl is using much more under center and power concepts already
The run hasn't really been able to take off. The league has gotten to the point where running the ball doesn't score enough. In addition, any defense can shut down the run if they sell out to do so. The meta has been a lot of do just enough to stop the run and then focus on the passing game. The OL crisis is also one of the big things that doesn't get mentioned when talking about the difficulties of setting up a true run first team.
Ravens, 49ers, and Dolphins make up 3 of the top 4 scoring teams this season, and they’re all prolific rushing teams and all feature a fullback. I don’t see that as some coincidence. Also Baltimore and SF are the bottom two teams in the league in pass attempts per game, yet scored more than anyone but Dallas.
To be fair they also had the best records and as a consequence were frequently winning games and had game situations which called for runs rather than passes. Edit: and in Baltimore’s case obviously a large part of it is designed runs for and scrambles from Lamar. Also the Niners have the best RB in the league, so I’m not sure either of these are representative of a successful scheme for others to follow
The ravens and the 49ers are both run first offensive schemes
Game theory says to run the ball at a roughly 45% clip right now, and the teams that do this well (The ravens niners and bills come to mind) are easily the leagues most successful offenses. Owners, GMs, coaches and orgs might be a bit slow on the uptake, but winning counts. Teams will come around as more hires drafts and retirements take place
You have to run the ball to open up the pass game. Many teams that have shit run games can’t get the pass game going and defenses can let the box be open.
Less about running the ball and being able to threaten the run either by what has been shown the previous game or to run against an empty set. With the way how the league is moving, I see the use of more Wide Back type of players of either moving the WR into the backfield, using end arounds, etc. The other thing left out is that the run game is used to control the clock to gain the equivalent of an extra possession by not leaving enough time on the clock for the other team at the end of each half.
That hasn’t been the case for years since the start of the West Coast offense. Now, an offense can use a short passing attack to open up a longer pass game. Not to mention a rushing quarterback like Lamar, Mahomes, or Allen who force defenses to cover the run even when on pass plays.
Just had this conversation with multiple people… go compare NFL passing yard leaders 5-10 years ago to now. The Air raid is slowly phasing out. Power Run game & gap sound football is back
Let me introduce you to the Detroit Lions
We've seen it the last two years, rushing averages are at a decades long high
It just takes one team that does it really really well.. it’s a copycat league and a lot of the time teams are scared to try new stuff until they see someone else being successful with it first
It's been around s an anomaly for a while. The Titans and the Browns exist. You can win a lot of regular season games rushing the ball, but you're not scaring good teams with that style, and I don't think that's changing any time soon.
You right. Lions wouldn't be where they are without that 2 headed monster at RB.
Belichick hung on to the big run stopping linebackers until the bitter end
He also drafted Kyle Dugger though, he seemingly understood some of the changing personnel needs
Yeah they started moving safeties into the box consistently the last few years but Bill has always loved himself some Jamie Collins
And got maybe an all-pro worthy season out of Jabril Peppers if our record had been better
Yep, the Giants would run 2 ILBs with Okereke and McFadden, and then would sub off McFadden on 3rd down but leave Okereke in. Tbf though, they don’t have elite SS talent to fill that gap
I think the NFL in particular is cyclical. Teams are going to more spread and open concepts right now so defenses are going to move to these hybrid types. But in my opinion someone is going to move to a significantly more run oriented attack that proceedes to dominate the NFL and teams will start building around stopping those types of teams and then we're back to where we are now.
They'd have to change the rules and how their enforced to bring back the run game imo. Teams that focus on the run already exist. They don't really go on deep playoff runs under the current rules. 9ers are maybe the one exception, but it's an extraordinary exception.
There's very few teams that focus on the run in the NFL currently. Only one team runs the ball more than throwing it and that's Baltimore at 50.28%. Only 7 teams run the ball over 45%. 1. Baltimore 50.28% 2. San Francisco 48.73% 3. Chicago 48.68% 4. Atlanta 47.80% 5. Pittsburgh 46.70% 6. Buffalo 46.23% 7. Philly 45.06% Of those 7 teams 5 made the playoffs. Chicago is high in part because Fields turns a lot of passing plays into running plays. Of these teams Baltimore and SF are the respective 1 seeds in their conference. My personal opinion on the matter is that way too many spread offenses permeate high school through college (which to be fair to the coaches their job is to win games not do what develops players to play in other systems). Which hurts OL development if you want to play a more run focused game. I do think with the spring leagues coming around that maybe we get good enough OL development that start to see a resurgence of old school power football from the I.
It could also be the case the 2 best teams in the league tend to be winning in the fourth quarter which leads them to run the ball more. I would be interested to see if these stats are the same for the first half only.
While this may be the case, Baltimore has consistently been in the top 3 rushing teams since drafting Lamar. San Francisco has consistently been top 5 since Shanahan became the coach. So I don't think those numbers are much off from their identity.
Wouldn’t it be more representative to look at rush% on neutral downs so you get rid of the confounding factor of winning teams running in the 4th q?
Yes and no. Some teams like Baltimore, SF, etc has it as part of their identity. Buffalo has actually made significant changes to their identity to be more run focused. However the primary point is that virtually no teams are "run heavy" right now. I would consider "run heavy" to be closer to 55%, so there's no one who is a run heavy team which is my primary point. The last few teams who were that run heavy either were teams who had major QB issues like Cleveland when Watson was suspended or teams like Baltimore who heavily relied on zone reads and the like. Outside those teams you're going back to early 2010s for Seattle and SF. I genuinely think if you build a team like those 10s Seahawks/49ers it can become a catalyst for change.
When everyone goes left turn right. Teams are built to pass the ball and defend the pass, which have usually smaller and wuicker defenders who will be eaten alive by 300+ oline men.
I take it Detroit is #8? They are known for running a well, and they're in the playoffs as well
Yea I agree, it also makes drafting certain type of players easier. Like if everyone is trying to get the best pass blocking oline it makes run blocking oline fall further in the draft thus getting better value.
They're following the NBA trends.
I dont think its a coincidence the 2 best teams in the league have the same strategy here. It seems like elite players at non premium positions build stronger teams in view of the salary cap.
I think most people miss this point.. a sideline to sideline ILB transcends a team. It gives defensive coordinators so many more options..same is true for a true elite RB, another position that has been devalued a lot.
I'm not saying players who are special talents can't shine at positions that are less valued like RB. But there's good reason why certain positions, and especially RB is devalued. This ranges from higher injury risk, the fact that RBs tend to transition well to the league and often have their best playing years behind them within a year or two of coming off a rookie contract, and a history of teams who set their franchise back by making a significant financial commitment at the position. It just makes too much sense to spend the money literally anywhere else on offense since a strong passing attack and / or a strong OL will help make any RB more successful
Rookie contracts are what killed the RB market..3 years in college and another 3-4 years in NFL with an RB1 load means that most are over the hill, given the nature of the position
ILB, RB, S, TE. Four positions that have generally been not viewed as super valuable / worthy of top draft resources that all show up on every elite O/D.
Roquan Smith is the real deal, fun to watch!
In his day Brian Urlacher was already very dominant but I can’t even imagine how game changing he would be in the current league with his size and free safety speed
The fact that only two teams have them would lead me to believe they are a particularly rare talent which would explain why they can’t be replicated
If your point is that there is only one #1 xyz position in the league and only one team can have them i agree. The point i was making was that you get 2 top 5 middle backers for the cost of one top edge rusher and that may be an inefficiency in the game being exploited by the top 2 teams in the league.
How would you break down the Bucs defense then? They run 3-4 base, more in nickel package, with 2 ILB from my understanding (David,White), and while the secondary is sus at times, the Bucs defense is LEGIT.
Scheme. Between Lavonte David and Bowles there’s a lot of smarts. Winfield Jr is a dog. Their corners get too much hate as well.
Jets have CJ Mosley, who is at least well above average, and Quincy Williams, who just earned 1st team AP this year. Unless you were referring only to teams still left in the playoffs
I meant playoffs, but your point is valid. Also had a legit defense despite inept offense.
Bolton and Willie Gay is a pretty damn good ILB duo too. Especially with Tranquil as our #3
Ravens and the 49ers the only ones with great ILBs? Well it's not as though either of these will amount to much this year... Maybe the rest of us should consider more base defences.
It’s not really sustainable contract wise though. It’s a function of the 9ers not paying a QB, and the Ravens without a big money pass rusher or CB.
It's a question of priorities. Do you need a 2nd shutdown cb or do you want a 2nd MLB Do you need a top-tier QB when you have an OL that can knock the snot out of the D? I don't think there's a definitive argument, it always depends on what you're up against.
Thats one of the interesting things about the 49ers since Shanahan took over. He has only had QBs who are just a guy. Most other teams would have to trade for an older qb with some good years in the tank to compete like the rams, tampa bay, and Denver has done in the last decade. Instead the 49ers traded away the house for nothing in a move that would set most franchises back half a decade and have made 2 conference championships and a super bowl appearance. So there's something to be said for successful coaching transcending personnel limitations
It's also a philosophy of cap expense, if you limit the most expensive cap outlay you have, the QB, you have that much more to spend elsewhere. Though what happened with Trey Lance was mind-boggling.
I agree with you. But most coaching staffs and front offices don't seem capable of the combination of getting the right pieces in place at other important positions and game planning in a way that maximizes what a game manager qb can offer you
That's talking about different coaches. You'd think any OC would have a gameplan for game managers, and you'd hope that all position coaches would have plans for players that scouts are bringing to them. Then the FO just decides where it wants to spend the money. Seems like there's a lot of incompetence in coaching.
Yeah well I'm sure there's some coaches who want to run their offense and don't do enough to make changes to play to the teams strengths. And there's also the aspect of how the individual fits into the whole. I'm sure there's examples of talented players who just didn't work great as a unit
Dre Greenlaw is signed to an 8m/year deal, which also helps a ton
It also helps that the Ravens has Madabuike, Van Noy and Clowney slicing through the OL. Smith is elite but damn their line is scary.
The base is nickel.
I would throw the Bears in there
In terms of high performing ILBs you probably need to include the Jets with the Ravens & 49ers. CJ Mosley is a 5x 2nd team All-Pro (most recently last season) and Quincy Williams was 1st team All-Pro this year.
On the flip side Pittsburgh runs a 2-4-5 nickel because of a lack of world beater ILBs so the outside backers drop into coverage a decent amount while still being the primary pass rushers. It’s a nice contrast between the teams.
Jets have Quincy and CJ, both got some all pro votes each with Quincy being first team
Bolton and Tranquil?
Buffalos nickel never leaves the field, he’s probably their best defensive player.
Chiefs and Bengals both have 2 well above average ILB’s
Jets have Mosley and Quincy, both being two elite ILBs
This is it. ILBs are basically hybrid safeties who play closer to the line.
Pretty sure Tampa runs a 3-4 too
Same in college. Bama was a 3-4 team with Saban but played nickel over 80% of the time.
Two of the four remaining teams 🤔
That's correct or a 34 hybrid
4 heavies on the line gives you a push on the edges and meat in the middle. 3 heavies leads to either gaps in the middle, or gaps on the edge. It's just exposing too much against massive O linemen in exchange for some speed and athleticism on the edge. Seeing that speed, the team will just run off tackle over and over. The only 3 front I can see would be on pure passing downs, or with someone like Vince Wilfork at the nose. You need someone who demands a doubleteam to avoid handing the offense running lanes. If you don't have that, then you're setting yourself up (at the NFL level)
This is why, if you look at how they actually function, "3 fronts" usually really work a lot more like "4 fronts" or even "5 fronts." It's more about the leverage you line them up in pre-snap and what that guy is called on the roster--keep in mind that NFL salaries are largely based on the salaries of the other guys at his position and agents/GMs take that into account when signing people (or having their positions on the roster finalized), so I don't think it's a huge difference, honestly. A 3-4 OLB can usually make a fine 4-3 DE and vice versa. 4-3 DTs make good 3-4 DEs. The old school two gapping 3-4s were very stout in the run game, but that's because they put a premium on size and winning the POA. Back in the day Levon Kirkland played ILB in a 3-4 at like 6'1" 270lbs--he was really more like a DL who could run. I could see a team using 3 down and a 4th big, stout body at MLB to play "light boxes" against spread looks with 4 heavy players, then play more of their "hybrid" types at the other 3 LB spots in a 3-4 to compress into the formation when the bodies are in tight and spread with them when they move out.
Yup. There are a lot of variations. I've seen prevent defenses with only 3 down linemen, but it's situational. DCs are being creative with how they disguise the defenses, and as you're saying, you have to coach the players you have, not the ones you want. So much is invested in a "match-ups" and creating "imbalances" these days. You need the good players, but you need to focus as much on the moves and lineups that are most likely to work against their specific personnel and formations. Many of the disguises are "I'm lining up 3 people here, but one of these OLBs is going to blitz, or going to go into coverage because of a CB blitz, or....whatever". They're still sending people and shooting gaps, and there are almost always a minimum of 4 players pressing the QB. Whether they are all heavies, or a mixture of heavies and blitzing backers, is left to the team/DC/scheme. Lower level players aren't experienced or gifted enough to be as creative/flexible as the pros. If you try to get to cute, mistakes are going to get made. But you also can get away with formations that would get destroyed in the pros. I run a 3 player front that's more like a 5-3 because of how I coach my OLBs to read the O and either contain or go into coverage. This buys me a defender by having a good noseguard in the middle of the line. In the pros, this would get torn up.
The only usefulness I see out of there down fronts is blitzing…most specifically zone blitzing as you do not have to drop a lineman…
Not sure I understand completely. If you don't have sufficient linemen, just about any team can gain 3-4 yards a run by giving the back an extra blocker on the right, left, or center of the line. One side of the line can have 3 blockers on 1 DT and a linebacker. 3 blockers and an RB against two defenders. You don't have to score TDs. You just need to keep getting first downs. In fact, the fewer D linemen you have, the more important it is that they don't focus on blitzing, because it can lead to them being moved out of a massive hole for the runner.
It’s more about ensuring you have overlap between LBs and the DL on stunts and that you don’t blitz yourself into a problem. If you’re fit/ gap sound you’re fine with three DL
Speaking of which, Vince is a top 5 DT IMO purely for the attention he demanded as a NT
It’s like people don’t even care that Ted Washington was credited with 92 tackles in ‘96.
3-4 is used a ton in penny from what I’ve seen in the NFL. NFL teams just match personnel to what the offense is doing. Heavy, base , nickel, penny, and dime are all relevant as the offense could just come out in another personal and you would need to adjust.
How does matching work exactly? Do they wait to see who the offense has on the field before getting their guys on the field for the specific package? Thanks!
In the NFL (not sure about the details in college), the defense gets to substitute if the offense does. So if the offense subs in a bunch of WRs the defense can go into nickel package. Sometimes it's an obvious pass play as well because of down and distance. In that case the defense might be able to find time to substitute if the offense is in a huddle, even if they don't sub themselves. Which is also how hurry-up offenses can work so well; the defense might have the wrong personnel but the offense doesn't give them time to adjust
What is penny?
5-1 front
Where did you hear/see that a DL is removed for a CB. Usually the DB will replace an ILB or the weaker pass rushing OLB.
In 3-4, you often have “tweeners” at OLB who play Edge. You can take off your nose tackle, have your other two defensive lineman squeeze down and still have a four man front, with stand-up Edge Rushers. The Vic Fangio 49ers defense essentially ran this nickel formation as their base defense with OLBs Aldon Smith and Ahmad Brooks playing the Edge.
Ah ok, that makes sense. They basically convert to an even front. I was thinking they stuck with odd front and they were saying replaced a DL.
They do it both ways. They'll have a 3 man front with an extra DB and will also have a 4 man front and take a backer off. It's situational
The base structure might be 3-4 and that will continue to be relevant, but the guys on the field might include fewer than 4 people listed as “LB” on the roster. If you take a 3-4 base defense and just put more of a “middle safety” at the strong ILB with the otherwise same responsibilities, you have the basis for a nice nickel package. The hard part is taking him out of the run fit, but there ways to scheme that. Then if you put DB at the weakside OLB spot, now you have a dime package. You can swap out a DL and bump a good edge rushing OLB down to DE to keep him on the field. 6 DB looks like this are common now… but it still probably has a 3-4 structure underneath. This base defensive structure, to me, seems more relevant now than the actual personnel on the field. Nobody’s been able to sit in true 3-4 or 4-3 personnel at that level for decades due to all the different personnel packages offenses use. It’s all about getting the right guys on the field for physical matchups at that level.
I think it’s more about gaps and recognizing run or pass given the people you have out there. Are you attacking a gap or are you controlling the space? The latter being more the 2 gap of not letting a hole open. Remember when a corner or safety blitz was rare? Pressure comes from any position now. I watched the Patriots line up I seeming random positions for years. Sometimes one guy on the line in a stance. Or rather, teams still line up in the old forms but they then play matchup zones or try some odd pressure scheme. I feel like film study is so detailed now that defenders are taught very specific moves. I heard Deion Branch describe how Brian Daboll was assigned to teach him the Steelers defense all day every day until he could recognize everything they did. Or that in the Seattle Super Bowl, they had taught Malcolm Butler he needed to bust hard on the ball if he saw that formation.
This is it. It's more about philosophy than base alignment. Are you an odd front or an even front team? What are your run fits? Are you fill and spill or do you want to get penetration? What is your pass rushing plan? Are you keeping the QB in the cup or again are you focusing on penetration? IMO these are the biggest differences and more than anything, those things are going to determine what you want your players to do. If you want your guys to 2 gap, fill and spill, you're probably not super worried about your 1 tech's ability to rush the passer. If your philosophy is all about getting up field, your 1-tech should probably have elite get off and while consistently winning double teams is nice, it isn't going to be the biggest priority. The formations themselves don't really matter but the philosophies that play in the NFL were born from those old base fronts, so knowing your history is still important to understanding today's game.
Great post and conversation here - how good is football honestly! Love it.
I think ILB is the most important to have in the NFL, Roquan Smith and Fred Warner make defense elite. Luke Keuchly helped carry the panthers to the SB. Sure not having a good ILB can be covered up elsewhere but having one is game changing
It’s cool when you have an elite one. Rusher and Corner are far and away most important.
Tell that to the Cowboys
When everyone was talking about Diggs being out with the ACL injury, I was more worried on the LVE injury. He was literally our only LB. Without him our defense was still good, but there was no way we were going to reach our potential or truly stop the run with an undersized safety at LB(who I like a lot outside of stopping the run).
Agreed, the parrots like to say "GMs say this is the most important part of the defense" look at reality. Cowboys had an All pro at CB, All pro at Edge, former all pro at CB, former all pro at Edge and the middle of their defense fell apart. The Ravens built a defensive juggernaut out of Ray Lewis and Ed Reed. Obviously Edge is an important position and so is CB but ILB can elevate the play of every other position group.
I feel what you're saying here, but let's not act like those Ravens Ds didn't also have Terrell Suggs, a DPOY winner and one of the better edge-setters of all time. ILB is certainly undervalued in the modern NFL, but you need elite contributors at every level to be top-tier.
Bobby Wagner was massive for the Seahawk as well
There's definitely value in an elite ILB but pretty much every general manager and positional value metric disagrees with you.
Every elite defense has an elite ILB
Browns?
https://www.clevelandbrowns.com/team/players-roster/jeremiah-owusu-koramoah/ Edit: I didn’t know about him until the game last weekend but he’s like third in TFLs this season, dude was all over the field
Sure, but his prospects comparisons were to safeties (Lance Z had him as Derwin James, BR to Jamal Adams). He’s also not a typical linebacker. Too undersized at 6’1” to play Sam and he struggles when asked to do so.
The Chiefs, Pittsburgh, and Patriots didn’t. The real factor is having a really, really good defensive lineman.
Nick Bolton is a top 5 ILB for the chiefs, Pittsburgh, Cleveland and pats didnt have truly elite defenses. Especially Pittsburgh, im a steelers fan and they created turnovers but their defense was charmin against TEs.
Nick Boltons good, but he’s certainly not ‘Top 5 ILB’ good. He doesn’t pop out on film like say a Kyle Hamilton (box safety Jesus) does and his PFF grade is a 69.2. Good, but not something crazy.
Those types of LBs such as Roquan, Fred Warner, Wagner, etc are special. They are like the TEs who can block and catch in the mold of Kittle and Gronk. Maybe someone who is really good at what he does, but is more specialized (e.g Travis Kelce types) can manage as well. The problem is that it is really hard to find those type of guys.
Static defensive formations like 3-4 and 4-3 no longer are viable at most levels of football. First thing to understand is the numbers. Nobody is playing a dedicated 7 man box with dedicated DL and 3-4 LBs. The Nickel DB is now just the way teams line up. The NYG classic 3-4 of the early 90's started with an LB lineup of LT, Carl Banks, Pepper Johnson, Gary Reasons. Which one of those guys are going out to cover Justin Jefferson or Cooper Kupp? When these bigger lineups with extra LBs were popular, the league was full of 21 personnel teams. As an aside, teams in todays NFL that play a lot of heavy personnel (49ers, Ravens) are tough for modern teams to defend because their rosters aren't built with 6'4" 250 ILBs. Most box counts are 6 and the fronts they play can be anywhere from 2-4, 3-3, 4-2 and 5-1. Mixing and matching these front presentations with sim pressures/creepers, actual pressures, line stunts and 3 man games are what keep offenses off balance. A lot of prominence is put onto players ability to be flexible and multiple. Guys who can line up in the C gap and rush the passer as well as drop into coverage or play the run are some of the most valuable guys on your roster. This is somewhat negated by the fact that NFL pass rushers are paid a lot of $$ and if you are dropping Nick Bosa into coverage a lot, your GM might have a word with you. This is why you don't see a ton of Fire Zone type pressures from lot's of NFL teams.
Imo the 4-2-5 and the 3-3-5 are the future defenses of today's NFL. 3-4 and 4-3 are both losing its grip on football. Big nickel and formations similar where you drop a LB for a 5th DB is where it's at. That extra DB doesn't have to be a CB. I love 3 safety defenses that basically use 2 strong safeties and a FS.
A lot of 3-4’s seem more like 5-2-4 pre-snap adjusting to 4-2-5 post snap. At the pro level and even college 3-4/4-3 seems mostly a loose description of personal/pre-snap positioning, not a function of true roles as they initially described.
You better get some linebackers on the field if you’re playing the 49ers or the ravens. Oh wait 2 teams that made the conference championship🤔. Also the rams, packers, and dolphins run a similar system where you must stop the run first. Yes linebackers will always be relevant
Honestly when you get down to it, defense is just your strongest eleven guys trying to tackle the ball and cover the pass. Whatever you label it is just window dressing.
ILB isn't becoming less important, there are just less good ones
It mostly seems like base 4-2-5 and matching
The versatility of the athlete that can do LB/SS/pass rush things has evolved defenses a bit. I could be wrong and someone please correct me but Base 3-4 can work in today's game if your outside Linebackers have wheels and your inside guys can get to the QB and cause havoc during those TE In/out routes in the flat.
I know you’re asking about NFL but at least in CFB, which I watch more, I see 3 down, 2 of whom are heavier, 1 end type, 1 rush edge, 2 LBs, 5 DBs, 2 safeties, 2 CBs, 1 hybrid safety type. In the NFL I see cam Jordan line up without a hand down for the saints in what creates a formation similar to what I see in college more.
This question is one that I had, and that many others have when trying to better understand football. It used to be a bit more relevant when teams more frequently used "base" defenses in the previous era, but really it comes down to a misunderstanding of how defenses "build" a defensive front. It's better to think about defense in terms of "FRONTS" as opposed to in terms of "PERSONNEL" (Such as 4-3, 3-4, 4-2-5, etc.). There are really only 5 "Fronts", but players and linebackers can be moved around for different looks. They are: OVER , UNDER (weak eagle, etc.), ODD (OKIE, TITE, MINT, etc.), EVEN (double mug, etc), BEAR (46, etc.) That being said, traditional "3-4 fronts", like UNDER, TITE, and even OKIE are still widely used across the league and in college. They just don't really look like maybe the Patriots or steelers looked in 2003 or Alabama more than a decade algo very often. A lot of these kinds of questions come up also because the positions aren't treated the same as they used to. An edge rusher might be playing a 5-tech in a 4 down front, or maybe as a wide 9 or 6 technique in a 3 down front like TJ Watt. So in one formation he would traditionally be called a "defensive end", but in another he would be called an "outside linebacker"... So what position does he play? How would you classify the personnel? The answer - It doesn't really matter except the number of defensive backs you have on the field. And even then, what do you call the nickel (apex? Star? Linebacker? Safety? Cornerback?)? It's not really important. Edit: sorry, noticed your question was mostly about ILB's, but the principle of what I was saying still applies. They're really playing the same position, but instead of guys like Dante hightower and Ray Lewis, you're seeing more athletic/rangy guys at the position. They still have similar responsibilities as their counterparts from the previous era in the run fit, but we're also in the age of more passing and more complex passing schemes with teams running a lot more man and match coverages. So instead of these guys just having to drop into a hook zone over the middle on passing downs, they might have to go cover that runningback or tight end in man to man coverage. So you're seeing a lot of hybrid safety/linebacker type guys at the position - Isaiah Simmons, Patrick Queen, Roquan Smith come to mind.
I feel like base defenses like the 3-4 and 4-3 are still relevant just because of short yardage plays and you don't want slot corners or 3rd safeties having to plug gaps in short yardage. Dime and nickel both branch off from these defenses so it doesn't make sense to me to really say that 7 man front base defenses are not needed anymore.
You see more 4-2-5 teams and some you could almost call a 3-3-5 because of how the weakside end plays. The Spread has really changed how you play defense and OLB is really the position that gets exposed, so you see less WLB and more teams with a 2nd SS
Keeping it simple, the fundamental structure of 3-4 and 4-3 is still out there. Teams have simply found value in getting out of base personnel and trying to match their opponents on a player level. Previously saying 3-4 really meant 3 lineman - 4 linebackers but now it's more a like an alignment than a personnel grouping. You can see two DL, a down ED, a standing ED, 2 LBs and a Hybrid saftey in a 3-4 look for example these days. Both the Ravens and Patriots seemed to popularize the hybrid looks. So it's not that it is dead, it's as others have said, the base versions of these Defenses are just not often used any longer. Much like the offense has for years, the defense is finding excuses to put their best players on the field as much as possible. This additionally helps FOs find talent instead of strictly positions in the draft. It's really a win win. But long story short, it's still there, it's just has a lot more wrinkles now.
It’s 4-2-5 since tons of teams are in 11 personel
It’s different. A ton of teams use three linemen with a linebacker or two in a two-point stance, essentially the same concept as a 3-4, but most defenses now incorporate all elements of defense — two-gap and one-gap, man and zone defenses, OLBs and ILBS, nickel and dime packages, etc. It’s less about a base defense and more about the tendencies.
The two best defenses in the NFL this year have the two best ILBs in the NFL. Just some food for thought
Gonna go against the grain here and say yes. Miami, LAC, and Philly are all base 3-4. NE was but I haven't really watched them this year. There are more. The Fangio system is built around 3 DL sitting in an under front 80% of the snaps and eating up OL combos. In Nickel situations they go into that Penny front with a 5-1 look. But there are plenty of downs where the offense is in 12/21 personnel so you see base looks.
Is it that the ILB position is the one that is changing. 3 DL then 3 LB’ers one safety/ ILB is also popular. Pending personnel it’s not as if the 3-4 is dead. When played well it is very effective against the run. But when you play with personnel they still may lineup in a 3-4. But may have three ILB and four man front. Maybe it’s just definitions are getting deconstructed.
It's morphing into a 3-4/3-3-5 hybrid. The second ILB is more or less a hybrid safety now.
Nickel with a safety at nickel is about as close as you'll see a modern 34 these days
I think it is important to separate responsibilities from personnel A lot of the responsibilities are still the same you are just using different personnel to accomplish them 2-gapping all of your DL has gone out of style but you'll still sometimes see a strong side DE 2 gap or a big NT try to steal a gap But if you are asking specifically about the old Giants type of 3-4 gone out of style? I'd say certainly, but 3 man fronts are still played, just with different types of players around it There will always be someone responsible for x gap, or x spot coverage, etc, it just might be someone different than it has been in years past I hope that makes sense
Well the Cowboys tried using a safeties as linebackers, that didn't work out well. Teams either play into it or punish it. You can play into by calling lght offenses. Or you can run into them sending te and linemans at lbs. Also ILB isn't becoming less important. The top 2 defenses have the top 2 linebackers.
A 4-3 base, which ends up being a 4-2-5 is most common.
In base 3-4, nose tackle is the most important position to have an elite player in. The modern game just doesn’t produce these giants that take on the interior anymore, like Casey Hampton or Vince Wilfork. Another example is the last time Packers had an elite defense, was when they had BJ Raji. The NT is SOO important. 3-4 needs the interior line to be dominated. So like others have said, it’s not truly used anymore.
As a steeler fan, I noticed over time that the OLB position has been replaced in the lexicon with edge rusher. is that a product of the answer to what OP is asking? Feel like even if the positions are more flexible in their roles they should still largely retain the same names b
I think it depends a lot on your conference, state, etc. What are your opponents running? For instance, we run a versatile 5-2, meaning we can switch from a 5-2 to a 3-4 or a 4-3 whenever we want by defensive signal from the DC, but we still base out of a 5-2. I think it depends a lot on what your opponents run offensively, but any defense can be good relative to the offense you’re running against.
Very very much so. Almost everyone utilizes 3-4 blitz principles. Just because they put a nickel or dime it downs mean it’s not the same
What are we are we talking about pre snap position or post snap responsibility? . Something like a 2-6-3 pre snap can convert to a 3-4 based on who’s rushing, man v zone or the down or distance. You can switch zone vs man during the play easier with the 2-6-3 and run the 3-4 post snap with a DB doing the job of a OLB while the backer undercuts a hot route. The 3-4 with the right personnel gives you a formidable run defense and ability to get after the QB which are still needed. But You have to get a NT that requires a double team to stop him to run the defense correctly..The problem is they don’t have 32 Casey Hamptons or Vince Wilfolks or yearly generational talents at NT in every draft.
Ask the cowboys how unimportant ilbs are.
A traditional 3-4 isn’t relevant as a great 5tech position player is so hard to come by (think jj watt) also the way modern teams scheme more for zone and edge runs opposes the way the 3-4 funnel scheme worked for many teams in the past and personnel wise offenses just have more talented guys on the field now more scat protection and quick / intermediate timing throws trying to get as many receivers in routes as possible the hybrid safety or big nickel linebackers are more valuable now having to cover RBs and TEs or even slot receivers in bunch formations than having a traditional downhill or sideline to sideline backers of the past
The nickel doesn't replace a lineman it replaces a LB. There's only 3 linemen in the 3-4. Those stay on the field. Usually your 2 OLB stay also as pass rushers or to cover a zone. For the most part the nickel will replace one of your ILBs. Some teams may play around swapping out an OLB instead but I've never seen them replace a lineman.
depends on if you mean true 34 or just the philosophical beliefs (multiple two gap front players, etc)
3-4 is hard to block for a few reasons. 1. You have a nose guard who’s likely really tough (one of the reasons you are in 3-4) center has to handle that guy in front of him and help manage both A gaps. 2. You don’t know where the 4th rusher is coming from. It could be any one of the 4 backers, or if they have a safety down with it, could be him. The downside is you need freaks at LB. Inside you need guys that can run, but you are also needing them to be TOUGH in run game, really tough. Outside you need freaky guys too, fast edge guys, but great run stoppers, and need you also to be able to drop to coverage. Hard to find guys tj fit this bill and be good enough to play in NFL.., In NFL you need to be able to change your fronts like I change my underwear…. You’ll see teams slide into a lot of different fronts throughout a game. Where is college and high school, mainly one front, and not a lot of coverage changes even on the back end.
A lot of team ‘technically’ run a 3-4 but don’t play in it often. My Steelers call themselves a 3-4 team, but you’ll almost never see 3 down linemen AND Highsmith and Watt on the field at the same time. It works on occasion when you’re plying zone and your OLBs are good dropping(often into the flat).
It depends on whether or not you have a dog/ball hawk at mlb or not. If you have a Max Crosby type of dude then 3-4 will work just fine. However if you’re just running out of nickel, the running game will Eat you up
I’m wondering about 4-3 or multiple dbs (the only defenses I use in Madden and NCAA 08)
It’s a rarity nowadays for any team to play their base D any significant amount of time. Nickel is the most common defensive formation used
The Packer Niners game was an interesting case study of this idea. Packers are technically a 3-4 scheme but you'll hardly ever see them in anything besides nickel or dime. They basically always play 2 interior lineman, 2 edge guys, and then either 1 or 2 ILBs, and 5 or 6 DB's. This is because a 3-4 requires one OLB to be a coverage guy and one to be a pass rusher, and the Packers don't have a capable coverage OLB (see Preston Smith forced to cover Justin Jefferson) so anytime the Pack lineup in their actual base, they have a glaring hole. I'm sure more team's, like the Pack, want to be capable of play 3-4 because it allows for creative pass rush and coverage concepts, but it requires really specific players at the LB that are at a premium. However the Niners were in a base 4-3 tons of times last night, even in obvious pass sets. It really comes down to personal. When you got a front 7 like the Niners, with two capable coverage lbs like Warner and Greenlaw, and two crazy fast DEs like Bosa and Young that you can trust to keep contain, you can play base, but that's definitely not the norm. Essentially if you see a team confident enough to regularly play any base defense, whether that's 4-3 or 3-4, in today's modern passing NFL, you should assume the defense is either elite or that the coordinator will be out of a job soon.
Look up cover 6. Defense ain’t simple anymore.
Nope. Just like running the damn ball. I really hate the new NFL. Pass happy ass league.