Is a defensive 4-3 change coming to KC?

[arrwheader]

I saw this article from arrowhead addict. The guy had an interesting theory that KC might be thinking about switching to the 4-3 scheme based on some recent draft picks and other things. Thought it was worth discussing. What do you say experts? Any merit to what this guys saying?

Full article here:

https://arrowheadaddict.com/2018/10/...ges-andy-reid/

Does Brett Veach have a secret master plan to fix the defense?

Thomas Welte1 h ago
Has Brett Veach been planning on a long-term defensive overhaul for 2019 that includes a change at defensive coordinator?

Patrick Mahomes has taken the NFL by storm and made believers out of even his harshest critics, and the Kansas City Chiefs are widely considered to be Super Bowl contenders this season.

In the midst of the best start to a season a quarterback in a red and gold (and possibly any other color) uniform has ever had, there is a layer of anxiety from the Kansas City faithful. The offense is firing on all cylinders and has grabbed the attention of the media, but the defense leaves anyone who has followed the Chiefs with a gnawing sensation in their gut on game day.

The Kansas City Chiefs defense is bad. The Chiefs are currently last in the league in total defense. Even after a good showing against the Blake Bortles-led Jaguars, the Chiefs are still giving up nearly 20 yards more per game than the next worst defense, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.

While many are drooling over Patrick Mahomes, there remains a great many of us who are sitting at home having flashbacks to 2003, or to the 2013 wild card playoff games against the Colts, or the infamous no punt game. There is no shortage of victories squandered away by subpar defensive units in Kansas City Chiefs history.

Is it possible though that general manager Brett Veach has a secret master plan to fix the maligned unit? Or is the young shot caller for the Chiefs in over his head? Let’s take a look.

I am an avid podcast listener and have to drive a lot for my work. This combination leaves me with plenty of time to dive into a collection of true crime stories and conspiracy theory breakdowns. It was on a particularly long drive back in May, just a few weeks after the NFL draft, that I began to ponder what on earth the Chiefs were doing to their defense. This is when I started to form my own conspiracy theory about the Chiefs and the plan they have for their defense.

The Chiefs traded Marcus Peters this offseason. That move has been discussed ad nauseum, but it is worth mentioning simply because it made (and still makes) very little sense. They brought in Anthony Hitchens who had spent the past year playing inside for Dallas in their 4-3 defense. Then the draft came.

The Chiefs selected Breeland Speaks and announced him as a linebacker, an edge defender. Breeland Speaks is 283 pounds and ran a 4.87, oversized for a linebacker and not possessing the speed you want when dropping a guy into coverage. Their next selection was Derrick Nnadi who was a run stuffing nose tackle, but a bit undersized for a traditional 0 tech nose. Next came Dorian O’Daniel, an undersized but athletic linebacker from Clemson.

What do all of these players have in common? None of them are limited to, or traditional fits, in a base 3-4 defense. I watched a lot of tape on Speaks after the Chiefs drafted him, and Ole Miss played him all over the field. In my opinion, Speaks looked like a prototypical base (left) defensive end in a 4-3. Derrick Nnadi is a natural 1 tech, lining up between the center and guard and defending the run. Dorian O’Daniel makes sense as a weak side linebacker.

So here it is, my thought out theory: Brett Veach is stocking the Chiefs with defenders to make the switch to a base 4-3 defense in 2019.

As of this writing, 7 of the top 10 defenses in the NFL run a 4-3 base defense. I will add that caveat that in today’s NFL the gap between defensive philosophies is narrowing, and no team plays out of only one formation.

That said, as the rules have changed to create a cushion around the quarterback and wide receivers the league defenses are moving away from heavy press man schemes that rely on jarring the quarterback with a pass rush. That is not to say that teams are straying away from pass rushers, but instead they are focusing on using athletic linebackers and safeties to create disequilibrium in the short to intermediate parts of the field, a defensive line to apply pressure, and corners who are aiming to not give up the big play.

This defensive evolution appears to be a marriage of concepts from the Tampa 2 defensive philosophy and the Seattle Seahawks Legion of Boom philosophy. Looking at the Philadelphia Eagles defensive lineup may help you visualize the concepts.

Andy Reid ran a 4-3 defense in Philadelphia, but inherited a 3-4 team in Kansas City. Reid brought in Bob Sutton who, despite the teams recent struggles, did an excellent job of coaching in his beginning years in Kansas City. Things have changed drastically since then and I firmly believe Sutton will retire this offseason. This opens the door for the Chiefs to make a change on defense since, as their defense sits right now, they are not married to any particular defensive philosophy. They have several players who could play in either scheme.

So who could the Chiefs bring in to coordinate a new defense? Let’s look at some options.

[FAX]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

A lot of wishful thinking in this thread. I don't see it. They're going to roll with what they have, including Bob Sutton...

Well ... I think the one thing this unknown writer-person might be right about is the notion that Sutton may retire after this season.

If I were him, I would.

FAX

[O.city]

Has Ford been that bad vs the run this year though?

The issues I've seen are just where guys guess gaps wrong or play undisciplined up front.

I'd look at trying to get another super athletic ILB to put next to Ragland, beef up the front a little and secure the back end.

I don't think you're that far off.

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

I believe Hitchens is on the weak inside, which would mean he's essentially a 4-3 OUTSIDE LB. He played outside in college but inside in Dallas.

He's a good LB, just hasn't played well here for whatever reason.

I think he's been inconsistent. He's had some nice plays but he might be more suited to the 4-3.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Hammock Parties

I think he's been inconsistent. He's had some nice plays but he might be more suited to the 4-3.

He's played almost exclusively in a 4-3 zone defense all through college and into the pros in Dallas.

This defense is very different than what he's played for almost a decade prior.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by O.city

Has Ford been that bad vs the run this year though?

The issues I've seen are just where guys guess gaps wrong or play undisciplined up front.

I'd look at trying to get another super athletic ILB to put next to Ragland, beef up the front a little and secure the back end.

I don't think you're that far off.

He hasn't, no. But he's largely been effective trailing plays. He made a fantastic play on one of the first JAX drives last weekend simply staying out of the wash and reaching the runner as he was getting to the corner. He's made a lot of strides there that make him much more effective in the running game.

But if you put him in-line, he can't use that athleticism to stay out of the scrums. That's just abandoning his best attribute and asking him to lean heavily on one of his worst (basic core strength).

That's why I'd be just fine with him as a Will but less sure of his ability to play the Sam. If the TE can get around him and turn him into the wash, he's in trouble. But on the weak side, he can stay clear of that and if nothing else, use that athleticism to present a credible obstacle out there. And he can keep the play in front of him so the 'rush/stay' decision is a lot easier for him to make than it presently is playing mostly uncovered in a 3-4.

Then again, I get paid precisely dick to have these answers so I could be completely wrong.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

He hasn't, no. But he's largely been effective trailing plays. He made a fantastic play on one of the first JAX drives last weekend simply staying out of the wash and reaching the runner as he was getting to the corner. He's made a lot of strides there that make him much more effective in the running game.

But if you put him in-line, he can't use that athleticism to stay out of the scrums. That's just abandoning his best attribute and asking him to lean heavily on one of his worst (basic core strength).

That's why I'd be just fine with him as a Will but less sure of his ability to play the Sam. If the TE can get around him and turn him into the wash, he's in trouble. But on the weak side, he can stay clear of that and if nothing else, use that athleticism to present a credible obstacle out there. And he can keep the play in front of him so the 'rush/stay' decision is a lot easier for him to make than it presently is playing mostly uncovered in a 3-4.

Then again, I get paid precisely dick to have these answers so I could be completely wrong.

I'd just keep the set you've got him doing now, if you plan to keep him.

I hate guys doing this in contract years, but **** he's been good. Like, legit top 3 pass rusher in the league. I don't know that he will keep it up or if injuries will let him.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by O.city

I'd just keep the set you've got him doing now, if you plan to keep him.

I hate guys doing this in contract years, but **** he's been good. Like, legit top 3 pass rusher in the league. I don't know that he will keep it up or if injuries will let him.

He's gotta be considered for a long-term deal but I wouldn't franchise him. I know that's somewhat counter-intuitive but I just don't see a justification for paying him $17 million next season.

I'd see if something that puts $36 million in his pocket over the first three seasons with some nominal dead money after that would get the job done. If it doesn't, I'd transition tag him and see if the market ends up soft for him somehow.

The franchise tag has just skyrocketed so much that it doesn't make sense to use it on guys who you can't expect to be truly elite. He's played well to this point, but we'll never truly trust his health and in the NFL health is absolutely a skill (one of the most critical ones).

[O.city]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

He's gotta be considered for a long-term deal but I wouldn't franchise him. I know that's somewhat counter-intuitive but I just don't see a justification for paying him $17 million next season.

I'd see if something that puts $36 million in his pocket over the first three seasons with some nominal dead money after that would get the job done. If it doesn't, I'd transition tag him and see if the market ends up soft for him somehow.

The franchise tag has just skyrocketed so much that it doesn't make sense to use it on guys who you can't expect to be truly elite. He's played well to this point, but we'll never truly trust his health and in the NFL health is absolutely a skill (one of the most critical ones).

Yeah, it just doesn't really make sense anymore. Plus it's essentially killed all these mid level deals as guys now us the tag number as the guaranteed money.

I don't really know what you do with ford.

[dirk digler]

I am no defensive expert by any means but I think with the way the league is mostly all passing the 4-3, 3-4 is kind of out dated. I would think teams would start using more hybrid defenses like the 3-3-5 and 2-4-5. I saw the Ravens D against the Steelers running some 2-4-5 and they pretty much stuffed them.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

I am no defensive expert by any means but I think with the way the league is mostly all passing the 4-3, 3-4 is kind of out dated. I would think teams would start using more hybrid defenses like the 3-3-5 and 2-4-5. I saw the Ravens D against the Steelers running some 2-4-5 and they pretty much stuffed them.

And as more teams continue developing their RPO packages, those odd/small fronts will get abused.

You try to run a 2-4-5 against the Chiefs and you'll get obliterated.

Lets not forget that the OL has 5 guys plus the quarterback. Unless you're sending 6 guys, you have a numbers advantage in your secondary. Moreover, we've seen full well how ineffective sending 3 is. So whether you start in a 4-3 or a 3-4, the odds are high that at least 4 guys are going after the QB the vast majority of the time.

I don't think the concept of a 'base' defense is outdated at all. I think the idea of sticking with it 80% of the time is. That's why I think your best bet is to develop a base defense that dovetails nicely with your sub-packages. The best way to do that is a base with 4 down lineman, IMO, because I don't want my sub packages sending 3 or fewer even in obvious passing down situations.

[The Franchise]

Eagles run what.....the wide 9?

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by The Pest

Eagles run what.....the wide 9?

I think everyone occasionally busts out some wide 9 alignments but I don't think it's anyone's 'base' package. And really, it's not a personnel group as much as an alignment; the way you set your splits.

I think the Wide 9 is far easier to run with 3-4 personnel and I'm pretty sure Schwartz is a 4-3 guy. He was in Detroit anyway.

[FAX]

Originally Posted by O.city

Has Ford been that bad vs the run this year though?

The issues I've seen are just where guys guess gaps wrong or play undisciplined up front.

I'd look at trying to get another super athletic ILB to put next to Ragland, beef up the front a little and secure the back end.

I don't think you're that far off.

Actually, no. I don't believe so.

If you take away the TWO BLATANT (UNCALLED) HOLDS against the donks and the multiple times he's forced inside only to watch the ILBs fail to fill their gaps, he's played pretty darn stout.

FAX

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

And as more teams continue developing their RPO packages, those odd/small fronts will get abused.

You try to run a 2-4-5 against the Chiefs and you'll get obliterated.

Lets not forget that the OL has 5 guys plus the quarterback. Unless you're sending 6 guys, you have a numbers advantage in your secondary. Moreover, we've seen full well how ineffective sending 3 is. So whether you start in a 4-3 or a 3-4, the odds are high that at least 4 guys are going after the QB the vast majority of the time.

I don't think the concept of a 'base' defense is outdated at all. I think the idea of sticking with it 80% of the time is. That's why I think your best bet is to develop a base defense that dovetails nicely with your sub-packages. The best way to do that is a base with 4 down lineman, IMO, because I don't want my sub packages sending 3 or fewer even in obvious passing down situations.

Makes sense and I agree running your base d alot is not a good idea at all. I was just thinking while watching the Ravens D some you just don't know where the guys are coming from in a hybrid D, so you can send 5-6 from all different positions and they are all mostly fast guys.

I just think a player like Ragland is way out dated in this league. You need more fast\hybrid guys than thumpers for LB's.. Just imo.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

I just think a player like Ragland is way out dated in this league. You need more fast\hybrid guys than thumpers for LB's.. Just imo.

I agree.