Building a defense in the modern NFL

[Chris Meck]

Originally Posted by Detoxing

With the wrong personnel is the point. We're trotting out 300+lb Dlinemen and asking them to rush the passer.

That's not as efficient as a true 43 D-line that can play lighter, smaller and quicker. Along with LB's who are also lighter, smaller and quicker.

Fair enough. It's a side discussion really, to what my main point is-which is that for decades, the NFL has placed a premium on pressure from the outside-i.e. edge rushers, OLB'ers, DE's, and shut-down corner play. Both are now handicapped by a)quicker developing passing games and b)no contact by DB's at all or it's a flag. Aaron Donald, for example, doesn't rush against the LT much, he's usually rushing against a guard. He gets inside that guard and eats your QB alive. That's what I'm talking about. I don't want Jones outside rushing out around the tackle-I want him on a guard, inside, on a bee-line to the QB.

So perhaps, like the Royals which found undervalued skills and rode it to a championship, the Chiefs should build a defense designed to collapse the pocket from the inside out and limit big plays downfield with superior safety play. SAFETY in the actual use of the word as well as the term for the position.

[ToxSocks]

Originally Posted by Chris Meck

Both are now handicapped by a)quicker developing passing games and b)no contact by DB's at all or it's a flag. Aaron Donald, for example, doesn't rush against the LT much, he's usually rushing against a guard. He gets inside that guard and eats your QB alive. That's what I'm talking about. I don't want Jones outside rushing out around the tackle-I want him on a guard, inside, on a bee-line to the QB.

Correct.

Which further supports the argument that the 43 is the optimum scheme for today's NFL.

[Chris Meck]

Originally Posted by Detoxing

Correct.

Which further supports the argument that the 43 is the optimum scheme for today's NFL.

Man you guys are really obsessing on this.

Okay, we're a 4-3 now.
We see this anyway, about half the time. This is not the point.

I'm not even against a 4-3. I don't even disagree that it should be our base defense. I just think it doesn't matter all the much because we'll be in our base defense about 20% of the time. I'm more concerned with the other 80%.

My point is, less run stuffer big guys and more pass rusher types from the inside positions. More Jones's and less Williams's. And that the Houston's and Ford's, while good players, affect the game less often than a force like an Aaron Donald due to his proximity to the QB at the snap. Good OT's just ride the edge rusher out most of the time and the QB has a nice pocket to throw from. Collapse it in his face and it's more chaotic.

[ToxSocks]

Originally Posted by Chris Meck

Man you guys are really obsessing on this.

Okay, we're a 4-3 now.
We see this anyway, about half the time. This is not the point.

.

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.

[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.

[ToxSocks]

Originally Posted by Chris Meck

Okay, we're a 4-3 now.
We see this anyway, about half the time.

But not with optimum players to run a 43.

[ToxSocks]

Originally Posted by Chris Meck

My point is, less run stuffer big guys and more pass rusher types from the inside positions. More Jones's and less Williams's. And that the Houston's and Ford's, while good players, affect the game less often than a force like an Aaron Donald due to his proximity to the QB at the snap. Good OT's just ride the edge rusher out most of the time and the QB has a nice pocket to throw from. Collapse it in his face and it's more chaotic.

Right. What you're describing is personnel that would match a scheme switch to the 43

In which your OLB's are smaller, quicker and better suited for playing in space/coverage and used less to rush. Your DE's are no longer "Run stuffer big guys" and instead guys like Houston and Ford, and guys like Jones and Bailey aren't there to eat space, but to rush the QB.

[Chris Meck]

Originally Posted by Detoxing

Right. What you're describing is personnel that would match a scheme switch to the 43

In which your OLB's are smaller, quicker and better suited for playing in space/coverage and used less to rush. Your DE's are no longer "Run stuffer big guys" and instead guys like Houston and Ford, and guys like Jones and Bailey aren't there to eat space, but to rush the QB.

DUDE. Yes, we have less than ideal personnel. YES we need quicker, faster d-linemen. NO a 4-3 isn't the answer because we're likely to be in it less than 30% of the time anyway. We'll be in a 4-2-5 more than we'll be in a 4-3 because that's. IT DOESN"T MATTER. the difference between an OLB and a DE is often just a hand in the dirt anyway. THAT PART is not the thing to be keying on.

We need less Williams/Nnadi types and more Jones's. You want a 4-3 base, that's fine but it's just ONE alignment that we'll see some of, and we already do, especially when we have the O'Daniel package on the field where he is essentially a LB'er with four pass rushers on the line in front of him. So yeah, I mean it's fine, but just calling it a 4-3 isn't an answer.

we're arguing semantics; I'm just saying the terminology is not important. We agree that the personnel is.

[ToxSocks]

Originally Posted by Chris Meck

DUDE. Yes, we have less than ideal personnel. YES we need quicker, faster d-linemen. NO a 4-3 isn't the answer because we're likely to be in it less than 30% of the time anyway.

There's a fundamental shift in the player acquisition process in a base scheme switch.

Your plan is to carry both small, fast D-linemen along with 5-techs? Along with smaller, quicker LB's? And a NT or two? There's only so many roster spots, dude. And you're not using your "43" line 30% of the time. You're using it 100% of the time. That's the whole point! Lol.

You can't have it both ways.

A major component in the scheme switch is that you don't have to have guys who only play "30% of the time" like we do now.

You get it? Maybe im just not explaining clear enough. Can someone else spell this out better?