Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Heads up - Denver not running a 3-4 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter moleculo
- Start date
Jene Bramel
Footballguy
It's an interesting semantic argument.
Many 3-4 looks have five men on the line. A number of 4-3 teams do as well, with the SLB over the TE. Would you call those fronts a 52? The thrust of this argument appears to be twofold. First, the Broncos are using players who look like and have been down linemen on the edge. Two point stance or not, they were linemen so they're linemen here, especially since they're aligning on the line in the first level of defense. Second, these DE players aren't dropping in coverage much, so they're essentially two point stance linemen.
I'm not sure the Broncos are particularly special in that regard. Baltimore, Green Bay, Pittsburgh all have defenses that look like the Broncos current front at times.
It's another way of making the argument that today's 3-4 defenses aren't the 3-4 fronts of yesteryear. There aren't many 2-gap three man lines with flexed end/linebackers and a double bubble behind. Still, I think the convention is likely to remain three-point stance covering an OL = DE, two point stance outside the tackle box = LB.
As IDPers, I'd expect that we'll continue to see a push to consider expanded IDP lineups with flexible DE/OLB hybrid positions if the trend toward multiple front and 3-4 schemes continues. Whether or not that brings an end to positional classification issues is debatable, I guess, but it's clearly getting harder to define many of the edge rushing defensive playmakers as one position or the other.
Many 3-4 looks have five men on the line. A number of 4-3 teams do as well, with the SLB over the TE. Would you call those fronts a 52? The thrust of this argument appears to be twofold. First, the Broncos are using players who look like and have been down linemen on the edge. Two point stance or not, they were linemen so they're linemen here, especially since they're aligning on the line in the first level of defense. Second, these DE players aren't dropping in coverage much, so they're essentially two point stance linemen.
I'm not sure the Broncos are particularly special in that regard. Baltimore, Green Bay, Pittsburgh all have defenses that look like the Broncos current front at times.
It's another way of making the argument that today's 3-4 defenses aren't the 3-4 fronts of yesteryear. There aren't many 2-gap three man lines with flexed end/linebackers and a double bubble behind. Still, I think the convention is likely to remain three-point stance covering an OL = DE, two point stance outside the tackle box = LB.
As IDPers, I'd expect that we'll continue to see a push to consider expanded IDP lineups with flexible DE/OLB hybrid positions if the trend toward multiple front and 3-4 schemes continues. Whether or not that brings an end to positional classification issues is debatable, I guess, but it's clearly getting harder to define many of the edge rushing defensive playmakers as one position or the other.
coolnerd
Footballguy
From what I know you are correct. The 5-2 historically came first playing stand-up DEs who were always on the line. It was primarily a college defense. Once teams started passing more many of those 5-2 DEs started acting more like the pro style 3-4 OLB. In the 3-4 those ends became LBers and dropped more in coverage and was used percentage wise more in the pros. Some 3-4 OLB, play on the line most if not all the time. If both do it looks like a 5-2. The principle of the defenses cross a lot, and often one looks like the other.I always thought a 3-4 was a 5-2 but with more athletic ends that sometimes dropped in to coverageMaybe I was ahead of the curve?good link/post BTW
Jene Bramel
Footballguy
Thanks for posting the article. 
moleculo
Footballguy
AFAIK, the key to making this work is a good secondary, because the OLB's cant' be counted on to run a good zone. I think this explains the Dawkins/Goodman signings, and the emphasis on the secondary in the draft (as opposed to DL and NT specifically). If BDawk plays down in the box, it becomes more of a 5-3, which would be pretty solid in run-support.
I believe that going to a 5-2 will hide some of the warts of this D talent wise, and really fits the available personnel much better. I think that this was a transitional move en-route to a more traditional 3-4, giving a year for Doom/Ayers/Moss/etc to acclimate to a new position without taking them completely out of their comfort zone. I think it's actually pretty clever on Nolan's part.
My concern is that covering the TE and RB's in the flat will be tough - that will be the Achilles heel of this D. Gates will have monster games against this D.
I believe that going to a 5-2 will hide some of the warts of this D talent wise, and really fits the available personnel much better. I think that this was a transitional move en-route to a more traditional 3-4, giving a year for Doom/Ayers/Moss/etc to acclimate to a new position without taking them completely out of their comfort zone. I think it's actually pretty clever on Nolan's part.
My concern is that covering the TE and RB's in the flat will be tough - that will be the Achilles heel of this D. Gates will have monster games against this D.
trader jake
Footballguy
5-2??
Just sounds like Denver is running a 3-4 defense with personnel that doesn't fit the scheme. That's not uncommon in year 1 of a new regime, but I bet it looks like a traditional 3-4 at this time next year.
Just sounds like Denver is running a 3-4 defense with personnel that doesn't fit the scheme. That's not uncommon in year 1 of a new regime, but I bet it looks like a traditional 3-4 at this time next year.
Jene Bramel
Footballguy
It's rare to find a 3-4 that doesn't run zone.
The first 3-4 schemes were built to stop the run -- some called them 3-4 rather than 5-2 because of the gap responsibilities, some because of the two vs three point stance issue -- and frequently only rushed three players, leaving the other eight behind in zone coverage.
Later versions of the 3-4 that brought more pressure -- the 1-gappers of Bum Phillips and Joe Collier and the like -- still used a lot of zone coverage, though it may have been rolled zones at times. **** LeBeau's pressure 3-4 is a disguised zone coverage. Bill Parcells runs predominantly Cover-2 behind a fairly vanilla 3-4.
I think the Broncos drafted secondary players because they needed secondary players. Aging cover corners (one still doing it in Bailey, the other a mess in Bly), the loss of Darrent Williams, Foxworth moving on, plenty of turnover at the safety spots. They needed bodies and long term potential. They've certainly tried to address the line and linebackers in recent seasons and in this draft, too. The majority of guys they've drafted recently haven't worked out. Moss, Dumervil, Crowder, Thomas among some UDFAs and late round picks that have contributed but aren't game changers.
Nolan has morphed his defense toward a run defense whenever possible. He quit the 3-4 for a year in SF because he didn't have the uglies up front and he morphed away from it frequently last year, too, though it's less clear if that was a run defense issue. In this case, I'd guess that he's thinking along the lines of: my linebackers aren't athletic enough to play an all-around role, I'll put them on the line and work from a zone blitz format. It'll be interesting to see how the process changes if the backers can't get pressure and how Dawkins affects the coverage calls.
The first 3-4 schemes were built to stop the run -- some called them 3-4 rather than 5-2 because of the gap responsibilities, some because of the two vs three point stance issue -- and frequently only rushed three players, leaving the other eight behind in zone coverage.
Later versions of the 3-4 that brought more pressure -- the 1-gappers of Bum Phillips and Joe Collier and the like -- still used a lot of zone coverage, though it may have been rolled zones at times. **** LeBeau's pressure 3-4 is a disguised zone coverage. Bill Parcells runs predominantly Cover-2 behind a fairly vanilla 3-4.
I think the Broncos drafted secondary players because they needed secondary players. Aging cover corners (one still doing it in Bailey, the other a mess in Bly), the loss of Darrent Williams, Foxworth moving on, plenty of turnover at the safety spots. They needed bodies and long term potential. They've certainly tried to address the line and linebackers in recent seasons and in this draft, too. The majority of guys they've drafted recently haven't worked out. Moss, Dumervil, Crowder, Thomas among some UDFAs and late round picks that have contributed but aren't game changers.
Nolan has morphed his defense toward a run defense whenever possible. He quit the 3-4 for a year in SF because he didn't have the uglies up front and he morphed away from it frequently last year, too, though it's less clear if that was a run defense issue. In this case, I'd guess that he's thinking along the lines of: my linebackers aren't athletic enough to play an all-around role, I'll put them on the line and work from a zone blitz format. It'll be interesting to see how the process changes if the backers can't get pressure and how Dawkins affects the coverage calls.
HockeyScotty
Footballguy
I read the article which was very interesting , but I just don't see it.
I am not even an apprentice defensive alignment analyst, so take this with a grain of salt:
But the thing that stuck out was that in a 5-2 alignment the DE (now called "DG") are heads up on the interior OG's (the 2 gap) with the DE (what are called OLB in the 3-4) being heads up on the tackles (the 4 technique). Basically it is "man" defense in the trenches.
The 3-4 however typically has the DE's line up in the 3 gap between the OT and OG, or at least one of them does and the other might line up on the tackle in the 4 technique, depending upon the strong side shift of the offense. The OLB line up outside the OT or TE.
In either case there are "zone blitzes" that drop a DE into coverage at times. The point is to disguise the blitz by switching up where the pressure is coming from.
I have not yet seen the Broncos ever line up in the 5-2 formation as described so far this pre-season, whether the OLB are standing up or have a hand down. In every single situation that the Broncos base defense has been on the field (that I've seen), the DE are 3-technique and the OLB are "outside" the tackles.
Now maybe that isn't an indicator of the difference between the two schemes, but the variation isn't a 5-2 with DE dropping into coverage at times, it is a 3-4 with disguised blitzers (an aggressive hybrid to fit the personnel).
If I am seeing this wrong please help me to understand what you see.
I am not even an apprentice defensive alignment analyst, so take this with a grain of salt:
But the thing that stuck out was that in a 5-2 alignment the DE (now called "DG") are heads up on the interior OG's (the 2 gap) with the DE (what are called OLB in the 3-4) being heads up on the tackles (the 4 technique). Basically it is "man" defense in the trenches.
The 3-4 however typically has the DE's line up in the 3 gap between the OT and OG, or at least one of them does and the other might line up on the tackle in the 4 technique, depending upon the strong side shift of the offense. The OLB line up outside the OT or TE.
In either case there are "zone blitzes" that drop a DE into coverage at times. The point is to disguise the blitz by switching up where the pressure is coming from.
I have not yet seen the Broncos ever line up in the 5-2 formation as described so far this pre-season, whether the OLB are standing up or have a hand down. In every single situation that the Broncos base defense has been on the field (that I've seen), the DE are 3-technique and the OLB are "outside" the tackles.
Now maybe that isn't an indicator of the difference between the two schemes, but the variation isn't a 5-2 with DE dropping into coverage at times, it is a 3-4 with disguised blitzers (an aggressive hybrid to fit the personnel).
If I am seeing this wrong please help me to understand what you see.
Jene Bramel
Footballguy
No impact unless the five man front consistently stops the run well enough to get the defense off the field and limit the tackle opportunity for all. I don't see that happening. There will be no difference in Williams' responsibility, whether it's called a 34 or 52 front.
thatguy
Footballguy
Dumervil has definitely "worked out", especially when we consider that he was a fourth round draft pick. He has easily outperformed his draft position and is arguably the 3rd best player on Denver's defense after Champ and D.J. - now, that may not be saying a whole lot given the company, but he is absolutely a difference maker for that defense. Out of that draft class, only Mario Williams has more sacks than Dumervil.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes Dumervil playing the hybrid will also increase his sack production. Guys like Dumervil and Freeney need to be up rushing the outside with speed they arn't the justin tuck bull rushing style. Putting him out there gives him a 8+ sack season and DJ and Dawkins clean up the middle. Good post on Dumervil 
