Butler On Defensive Scheme: 'We Will Run The 3-4, But We Will Run Some 4-3 Also'

[polamalubeast]

http://www.steelersdepot.com/2015/01/butler-defensive-scheme-will-run-3-4-will-run-4-3-also/

[Psycho Ward 86]

Versatility, I like it. Time will tell.

[Dwinsgames]

we already have been doing this in subpackage football ... nothing new really

but is he going to start series in a 4-3 and others in a 3-4 ? that is the bigger question ( which is the primary formation and emphasis on who you draft etc )

[TXSTEELER75]

I like the versatility. I'm assuming in the 4-3 package Timmons will be the MLB, and Shazier lining up at the OLB. I could see promise in Worilds with him lining up in the down position. This will be very interesting.

[polamalubeast]

Steelers Depot @Steelersdepot · 7m 7 minutes ago
When the #Steelers were in their 3-4 base on 1st down in 2014 they allowed 8.74 yards per pass play. That includes the 6 sacks.

https://twitter.com/Steelersdepot

[Steelerette]

"Identifying as 3-4" is a couple rungs below "Block Numbers" as far as things I want to cling to. (For serious, bring back the block numbers.) If McCullers sharpens up into a solid NT, the answer to the question "Do we have the right personnel for 3-4" changes from "no" to "yes" IMO. But irrespective of that - you play the defense that fits your players, and you play the defense that will stop the other team. If he's being honest about that versatility - then I'm on board. Then again, it's just semantics; we ran a lot of 4-3 scheme this season anyway.

[86WARD]

we already have been doing this in subpackage football ... nothing new really

but is he going to start series in a 4-3 and others in a 3-4 ? that is the bigger question ( which is the primary formation and emphasis on who you draft etc )

My first thought exactly.

[Psycho Ward 86]

we already have been doing this in subpackage football ... nothing new really

but is he going to start series in a 4-3 and others in a 3-4 ? that is the bigger question ( which is the primary formation and emphasis on who you draft etc )

'We Will Run The 3-4, But We Will Run Some 4-3 Also'

hard to make it any clearer than that

[Dwinsgames]

'We Will Run The 3-4, But We Will Run Some 4-3 Also'

hard to make it any clearer than that


if you take it as said , in other words nothing has changed but the name in the media guide with the title of DC ( except the level of experience in the man with the title )

[Texasteel]

Theres an old saying. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it. Dick is gone, sorta, and Butler's now the man. If things change or stay remarkably the same we may not know till the season starts. Either way, we need more talent on the defensive side of the ball, mostly in the D-backfield.

[86WARD]

Parnell McPhee. Byron Maxwell.

[steelreserve]

Should be the obvious move. IF WE GO 4-3, WE DON'T NEED TO DRAFT 4 DIFFERENT POSITIONS ON DEFENSE, JUST DBs. If we can't see that, we need a clue.

[Dwinsgames]

Should be the obvious move. IF WE GO 4-3, WE DON'T NEED TO DRAFT 4 DIFFERENT POSITIONS ON DEFENSE, JUST DBs. If we can't see that, we need a clue.


who plays Rush DE ? in a 4-3 you better have a dominant one and a better than average one ( plus depth for both spots )

I see NO dominant Rush DE on our roster I see a bunch of Good to great DT types , I see some average DEs but if pressure is what you crave this group as it stands needs help in a 4-3

[Psycho Ward 86]

Parnell McPhee. Byron Maxwell.

Hear hear. Locking down Maxwell and one other cornerback in the draft that can make an instant impact could make the CB group immediately stacked if Cortez pans out

[86WARD]

if you take it as said , in other words nothing has changed but the name in the media guide with the title of DC ( except the level of experience in the man with the title )

QFT

[86WARD]

Hear hear. Locking down Maxwell and one other cornerback in the draft that can make an instant impact could make the CB group immediately stacked if Cortez pans out

Even if Cortez could be a nickel back for now...it would be a vast improvement...

[Moose]

Just PLEASE do away with that DAMN 5 yrd cushion the damn CB's give !!!!! Damnit !

[Bluecoat96]

Even if Cortez could be a nickel back for now...it would be a vast improvement...

Where would Will Gay fit in to all of this?

[86WARD]

I'd say probably the other starter until the "new guy" is up to speed?

[pepsyman1]

Just PLEASE do away with that DAMN 5 yrd cushion the damn CB's give !!!!! Damnit !

I can deal with the 5 yard cushion, it's when they are giving an 8-10 yard cushion that I want to throw something thru my TV set. It's usually on a 3rd and 5 too!

[steelreserve]

who plays Rush DE ? in a 4-3 you better have a dominant one and a better than average one ( plus depth for both spots )

I see NO dominant Rush DE on our roster I see a bunch of Good to great DT types , I see some average DEs but if pressure is what you crave this group as it stands needs help in a 4-3



So what? Even in that situation, the 4-3 SOLVES the linebacker position, it SOLVES the DT position, both of which are definite problems according to most here ... and it leaves us with one new maybe-problem that, worst case, is no more difficult to solve that either of the problems specific to the 3-4. The scenario you described is still way, WAY better than needing both NT and OLB as everyone seems to think we will in the 3-4.

As of now you gain in the 4-3 by making a serviceable player out of McLendon; between him, McCullers and Tuitt you have a great group of tackles; Heyward at one end basically doing what he does now, which is rush the passer, only that'd be the main point of a DE in that scheme ... if he is excellent at rushing as a 3-4 DE, I don't see how he'd be any less good at it in a 4-3. The other end is murky - you could try Jones there as 4-3 DEs can be lighter ... then again, everyone seems to think that Jones is unfit to play any position in either a 4-3 or 3-4, so I guess we might as well declare him a bust based on 8 or so full games as a pro and move on, right?

Maybe the other DE is someone not on the roster yet, but that gives us one problem to solve instead of two with the 3-4, with one of them (NT) being a difficult position. We already have a difficult position to fix (multiple DBs) and the odds of us completely addressing that, let alone a third tough-to-find player, are close to zero.

For the record, a high-pressure defense is not necessarily what I think we would need in the 4-3. It doesn't depend as much on that. What it DOES do is let dependable players be an asset while being just that - dependable. Then you're not looking at the impossibility of things like like Arthur Moats having 12 sacks or Steve McLendon manhandling two 300-pound offensive linemen at once, and going "oh shit, we need new players." They can just do what they're good at and it will help, and it doesn't have to be so boom-or-bust. It would not likely be the exciting, dynamic defense we were used to 6 or 7 years ago, but it would be a better defense than trying to make that out of parts that don't work. We are not reaching for the moon here - we need a defense that is respectable enough to give Ben, Bell and Brown a shot at winning the game, and what we have now isn't that. If we want it to be respectable while Ben still walks without a cane, taking several years to rebuild the rubble into another dominant 3-4 is not the way to do it. Especially when we continually pass over the necessary pieces anyway. This is the quickest way to get where we need to go with what we have, and involves a lot less lucky breaks and theoretical bullshit.

[Steeldude]

'We Will Run The 3-4, But We Will Run Some 4-3 Also'

hard to make it any clearer than that

But it sounds like he might be leaning more toward 4-3 as the primary when reading the quotes below...


Yes. I also think there’s still a place for the 3-4, and the reason I think there’s still a place for it is because you also have to be versatile as a defense as offenses are trying to be versatile



With what offenses are doing nowadays in the National Football League, they’re playing a lot of three wide receivers and a tight end and a running back, for the most part. In those situations, we’re going to be in kind of a 4-3 anyway, but we’re still going to be able to run the 3-4 also

[Psycho Ward 86]

you guys are over complicating this and thinking too deeply in terms of players being pure 3-4 'this position' players or 4-3 'this position' players. players nowadays need some of that versatility anyways. terrell suggs for example was basically a fringe 3-4 OLB and fringe 4-3 DE for a huge chunk of his career and excelled at it. yes yes, i realize we dont have a terrell suggs on this team, but versatility is the point im trying to make. this thread is making it sound as if we teams in the NFL are in their base defense even 80% of the time

[Dwinsgames]

you guys are over complicating this and thinking too deeply in terms of players being pure 3-4 'this position' players or 4-3 'this position' players. players nowadays need some of that versatility anyways. terrell suggs for example was basically a fringe 3-4 OLB and fringe 4-3 DE for a huge chunk of his career and excelled at it. yes yes, i realize we dont have a terrell suggs on this team, but versatility is the point im trying to make. this thread is making it sound as if we teams in the NFL are in their base defense even 80% of the time

to be a fringe player in both schemes at OLB or DE size is the all important factor ... you cant have 240 pound guys playing DE on one snap and OLB on the next ( will be completely ineffective as a DE) those players are forced to be Woodley size ( or Suggs size ) 6'2-6'4 260-270

so 6'2 -245 Jarvis Jones becomes obsolete .... Howard Jones obsolete ..... and many others as well because those players can not play both spots and you can not rotate players every other play to keep teams unbalanced when teams will go hurry up on you when they feel they have a personnel advantage .......

would it work , could it work ...certainly but just like anything else you have to have the right players in order to do so ............

[steelreserve]

So we make Jones obsolete, who everyone has been writing off as a bust anyway as a 3-4 OLB, and THAT is supposed to be the big problem with a 4-3? Doesn't sound to me like that changes much.

[Texasteel]

So we make Jones obsolete, who everyone has been writing off as a bust anyway as a 3-4 OLB, and THAT is supposed to be the big problem with a 4-3? Doesn't sound to me like that changes much.

I'm not quite ready to write off Jones yet. I thought Jones played pretty well before he got hurt. I would like to see him play out one more season. I can remember a lot of people ready to write of Timmons at this point. I was one of them. Turns out we were wrong.

[Mojouw]

If you think the pass rush was bad with a 3-4, watch how bad it would be with the same roster in a 4-3. Might have the backers for it. Shazier as the outside coverage guy. Timmons in the middle and Jones on the other edge. Still, without a pass-rusher in the down 4 you would basically have the Bengals defense.

If they want to manufacture sacks/pressure some 3-4 hybrid is the "easiest" path personnel wise. Draft should be telling.

[Bluecoat96]

If you think the pass rush was bad with a 3-4, watch how bad it would be with the same roster in a 4-3. Might have the backers for it. Shazier as the outside coverage guy. Timmons in the middle and Jones on the other edge. Still, without a pass-rusher in the down 4 you would basically have the Bengals defense.

If they want to manufacture sacks/pressure some 3-4 hybrid is the "easiest" path personnel wise. Draft should be telling.

I don't know. I think Heyward would be a f*cking monster in a 4/3, wherever he plays on the line. I really think he's that good.

[Steelman]

If you think the pass rush was bad with a 3-4, watch how bad it would be with the same roster in a 4-3. Might have the backers for it. Shazier as the outside coverage guy. Timmons in the middle and Jones on the other edge. Still, without a pass-rusher in the down 4 you would basically have the Bengals defense.

If they want to manufacture sacks/pressure some 3-4 hybrid is the "easiest" path personnel wise. Draft should be telling.

Except the Bungles actually have a decent secondary.

I don't foresee a huge shift into 4-3 this season, Butler might have some ideas, but I don't think he'd rock the boat that heavily so soon. UNLESS (and this is something I've wondered, with the LeBeau force-out) Tomlin wants to get his paws on the defense and decides he wants to go Cover-2.

What happens to Tuitt in a 4-3, isn't he basically tailor-made for the Aaron Smith position in a 3-4?

[Steeltreal]

As long as he doesn't drop Heyward into coverage in the Red zone like an ass or anytime at all really.

[LLT]

Well....if we did go to a 4-3 with the current roster, Here is how I would do it.

The Defensive Ends would be Tuitt and Moats (assuming Worilds is gone and Heyward switching out from DE to DT)

Defensive tackles would be Heyward and McCullers

Linebackers would be Timmons at mike..(Due to both his strength and his ability to call the signals)
Shazier at will...(would be able to cover the slot reciever)
and Spence at sam... (Spence is more versatile and athletic than Jones and can cover the TE)

And....we still need two starting CB's and a safety.

[Dwinsgames]

Well....if we did go to a 4-3 with the current roster, Here is how I would do it.

The Defensive Ends would be Tuitt and Moats (assuming Worilds is gone and Heyward switching out from DE to DT)

Defensive tackles would be Heyward and McCullers

Linebackers would be Timmons at mike..(Due to both his strength and his ability to call the signals)
Shazier at will...(would be able to cover the slot reciever)
and Spence at sam... (Spence is more versatile and athletic than Jones and can cover the TE)

And....we still need two starting CB's and a safety.


and lots of depth to cover up the starters at DE as that puts us at our limits for DEs IMO ( and Moats isnt under contract )

[TRASHMAN]

With our new DC I think it is perfect timing to transition into the 4-3. I'm sure it won't be done right away because Butler has been under the current system for quite a while and won't go in guns blazing. However, in the next few years a transformation into the 4-3 will make us a better defense with our current personnel.

Heyward, McCullers, Tuitt/McLendon, Jones/Tuitt/Draft Pick

Shazier, Timmons, Harrison/Jones

Terrible Draft Pick

Thomas Terrible

Everybody is up and arms about Jones but, theres no reason why he cant be a KBG.

Heyward would be even more of a factor without having to take on double teams so the linebackers can get through.

Tuitt could possible play the 4-3 in place of Jones because he is a Monster and he is a guy that could make such a transition. If not he'd be a solid DT in a 4-3.

Shazier and Harrison would wreak havoc on the Outside and if Jones sucks and or needs to be an OLB we could draft a 4-3 DE.

As for our secondary that is our main concern cause even if you get pressure on the quarterback you can only do so much when the 4 guys in back are getting diced every passing down cause this is a passing league.

Either way our current defense sucks ass and it needs to be changed. We really need to address the secondary for once because I'm tired of drafting the front 7 year after year and getting torched in the secondary.

[Dwinsgames]

welcome to the U ...

might I direct you here ( we try and keep like threads together when possible or not including an outside source as the starting point to the conversation )

http://www.steelersuniverse.com/forums/showthread.php/22056-Butler-On-Defensive-Scheme-We-Will-Run-The-3-4-But-We-Will-Run-Some-4-3-Also


Hope you enjoy SU !

[steelreserve]

What happens to Tuitt in a 4-3, isn't he basically tailor-made for the Aaron Smith position in a 3-4?

That or a 4-3 DT. I would do that and make Heyward a pass-rushing end, rather than the other way around.

Oh no, then we have no depth at DE. Guess what, we have no depth at DE or OLB now.

[GoSlash27]

Honestly, I don't think we're going to the 4-3.
Tomlin is all about flexibility at the expense of "pretty". He wants our defense to be competent at all looks without necessarily being "great" at any of them.
I suspect we won't have an identity in the standard sense moving forward. Rather than being a 3-4 or a 4-3, he wants us to be whatever we need to be to limit opposing offenses in one individual game.

[LLT]

and lots of depth to cover up the starters at DE as that puts us at our limits for DEs IMO ( and Moats isnt under contract )

They have to resign Moats. I will be very dissapointed if they didnt see what he did in limited play as he learned the defense.

As far as the DE's...I would start Tuitt, with Geathers behind him. Heyward can rotate back and forth as needed. "If" we resign Worilds, he and Moats are perfect DE's for the 4-3.




That or a 4-3 DT. I would do that and make Heyward a pass-rushing end, rather than the other way around.

Oh no, then we have no depth at DE. Guess what, we have no depth at DE or OLB now.

Heyward is FANTASTIC as a 3-4 end but his skill set is better served as a DT in the 4-3. He can still be an effective DE in the 4-3, but to maximize their talent...he should be moved to DT.

[TRASHMAN]

Thanks Dwinsgames!

In reality if Shazier and Jones are as good as we valued them on draft day then it shouldn't matter what defense we run as long as we get help in the secondary..

[steelreserve]

They have to resign Moats. I will be very dissapointed if they didnt see what he did in limited play as he learned the defense.

As far as the DE's...I would start Tuitt, with Geathers behind him. Heyward can rotate back and forth as needed. "If" we resign Worilds, he and Moats are perfect DE's for the 4-3.





Heyward is FANTASTIC as a 3-4 end but his skill set is better served as a DT in the 4-3. He can still be an effective DE in the 4-3, but to maximize their talent...he should be moved to DT.

In order to maximize talent, you get your best players on the field. That means Heyward, Tuitt, McLendon (who I believe will be much better as a 4-3 DT) and either McCullers or Jones/Moats. Any way you cut it, that leaves us with more guys able to play DT well than available DT positions. OK, so who would make the best DE out of the bunch? Heyward. Easy. So that's what you do.

No, making a switch isn't going to be perfect, but will it be a way better fit to our personnel than forcing the 3-4? You bet your ass it will. The DE thing is a minor, minor problem compared to the other ones we've got. Again, this solves two major problems that everybody's complaining about, and in exchange creates one small maybe-problem. I fail to see the issue, other than OMG, no way, it can't be done, bro.

[st33lersguy]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2329591-how-departure-of-dick-lebeau-impacts-steelers-draft-plans

INteresting read on this subject

[Mojouw]

Except the Bungles actually have a decent secondary.

I don't foresee a huge shift into 4-3 this season, Butler might have some ideas, but I don't think he'd rock the boat that heavily so soon. UNLESS (and this is something I've wondered, with the LeBeau force-out) Tomlin wants to get his paws on the defense and decides he wants to go Cover-2.

What happens to Tuitt in a 4-3, isn't he basically tailor-made for the Aaron Smith position in a 3-4?

They absolutely do. But without a pass rush that secondary got shredded when it mattered most. One of the main reasons many teams embraced a 3-4 front was that 4-3 pass rushing DEs are really hard to find.

I don't think it is as simple as Heyward gets pressure on the end of the line in a 34 so he would be a beast if turned loose in a 43.

Also aren't Jones, Moats, etc a bit small for 43 DE?

I bet we do see some more cover 2 looks from the D though.

[Dwinsgames]

They absolutely do. But without a pass rush that secondary got shredded when it mattered most. One of the main reasons many teams embraced a 3-4 front was that 4-3 pass rushing DEs are really hard to find.

I don't think it is as simple as Heyward gets pressure on the end of the line in a 34 so he would be a beast if turned loose in a 43.

Also aren't Jones, Moats, etc a bit small for 43 DE?

I bet we do see some more cover 2 looks from the D though.


yes they are a bit on the small side , and that is why moats played LB in Buffalo in a 4-3


Moats is 6-2 -250 ...

Jones 6-2 -245 ....

4-3 DE are usually in the 265-280 range

[Dwinsgames]

pretty good article for the novice but still leaves something for everyone about the 4-3 vs 3-4 schemes ...

from what I have been reading on this site its pretty clear to me many seem to thinka transition is easy peasy and players do not have to change much if any ...

read and then discuss again your mind likely will have changed to some degree http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2014/2/14/5411014/nfl-draft-2014-michael-sam-tweener-scouting-report

[LLT]

yes they are a bit on the small side , and that is why moats played LB in Buffalo in a 4-3


Moats is 6-2 -250 ...

Jones 6-2 -245 ....

4-3 DE are usually in the 265-280 range

I Don't think Jones has the frame to add the weight needed to make the change.

Worilds and Moats do. Moats occasionally lined up on the edge in sub packages for the Bills.

Not saying that either of them are the typical 6'4 270 rush DE's...but both have the same skill set as players like Rob Ninkovich who is 6’2” 260 lbs, Willie Young who is 6’4”, 251 lbs, or Cameron Wake at 6’3”, 258 lbs

[LLT]

pretty good article for the novice but still leaves something for everyone about the 4-3 vs 3-4 schemes ...

from what I have been reading on this site its pretty clear to me many seem to thinka transition is easy peasy and players do not have to change much if any ...

[/URL]

Its a huge transition. We would be looking at an evolving defense ...of about three years, until we had the perfect players for the positions.

But there are two different conversations in this thread.

1) CAN we make the transition?

2) IF we made the transition (or use 4-3 sub package) with current personnel...how would we do it?

[steelreserve]

It's pretty simple how the transition would turn out: it CAN be done, but no, it wouldn't be perfect, not for a while.

The deciding factor is that in the 3-4, we're far from perfect as-is; in fact, I think it's creating MORE holes in our lineup. And those holes require specialized players that are harder to find. Since we are already not doing well in our current defense, if there is ever a time to switch, this is it, as we do not have a lot to lose. We do, however, have plenty to gain.

[LLT]

It's pretty simple how the transition would turn out: it CAN be done, but no, it wouldn't be perfect, not for a while.

The deciding factor is that in the 3-4, we're far from perfect as-is; in fact, I think it's creating MORE holes in our lineup. And those holes require specialized players that are harder to find. Since we are already not doing well in our current defense, if there is ever a time to switch, this is it, as we do not have a lot to lose. We do, however, have plenty to gain.


Make no mistake about it...If we went with an all out transition (as opposed to occasional sub packet 4-3) the defense would be worse for a couple of years. There is just no way around that.

[GoSlash27]

Make no mistake about it...If we went with an all out transition (as opposed to occasional sub packet 4-3) the defense would be worse for a couple of years. There is just no way around that.

Agreed. And specialized 4-3 players are *always* harder to find (and more expensive to sign) than 3-4 players. One of the reasons we went to the 3-4.

[Psycho Ward 86]

Its a huge transition. We would be looking at an evolving defense ...of about three years, until we had the perfect players for the positions.

But there are two different conversations in this thread.

1) CAN we make the transition?

2) IF we made the transition (or use 4-3 sub package) with current personnel...how would we do it?

with that alone i cant get on board with making the 4-3 our base defense. ben will be 33 by next season. every personnel decision we make from here until ben croaks has to be based on 'will this give us the best chance to win NOW?'

i think ben's longevity is severely taken for granted. you never know with a guy that gets beat up like him. i saw it come up a long time ago and i think it needs to be brought up again:

How long do you people expect Ben to play at a high level?

[Hawkman]

with that alone i cant get on board with making the 4-3 our base defense. ben will be 33 by next season. every personnel decision we make from here until ben croaks has to be based on 'will this give us the best chance to win NOW?'

i think ben's longevity is severely taken for granted. you never know with a guy that gets beat up like him. i saw it come up a long time ago and i think it needs to be brought up again:

How long do you people expect Ben to play at a high level?

Kind of hard to say after he just had one of his best years at age 32......I say 4-5

[steelreserve]

Make no mistake about it...If we went with an all out transition (as opposed to occasional sub packet 4-3) the defense would be worse for a couple of years. There is just no way around that.

Doubtful. We were already scraping the bottom of the barrel. Only one direction to go, especially with a scheme that reduces glaring weaknesses instead of adds them artificially. I simply cannot see the drawback in using a scheme that better suits the players you have.



Agreed. And specialized 4-3 players are *always* harder to find (and more expensive to sign) than 3-4 players. One of the reasons we went to the 3-4.

No.



with that alone i cant get on board with making the 4-3 our base defense. ben will be 33 by next season. every personnel decision we make from here until ben croaks has to be based on 'will this give us the best chance to win NOW?'

i think ben's longevity is severely taken for granted. you never know with a guy that gets beat up like him. i saw it come up a long time ago and i think it needs to be brought up again:

How long do you people expect Ben to play at a high level?


Let's put it another way: How long do you think it will take to fix the 3-4 defense we have? That's not something we can do in a season anyway, probably even in two seasons. There is no advantage time-wise; in fact, one of the reasons I suggested for going to the 4-3 is because it would take less time to improve. We have inadvertently put together a roster designed for the 4-3 - minus a couple of guys, of course - while playing the opposite defense. I don't think the transition would be nearly as long as people think; contrary to that, I think we would start seeing improvement right away simply by making better use of players.

[LLT]

Doubtful. We were already scraping the bottom of the barrel. Only one direction to go, especially with a scheme that reduces glaring weaknesses instead of adds them artificially. I simply cannot see the drawback in using a scheme that better suits the players you have.




No.





Let's put it another way: How long do you think it will take to fix the 3-4 defense we have? That's not something we can do in a season anyway, probably even in two seasons. There is no advantage time-wise; in fact, one of the reasons I suggested for going to the 4-3 is because it would take less time to improve. We have inadvertently put together a roster designed for the 4-3 - minus a couple of guys, of course - while playing the opposite defense. I don't think the transition would be nearly as long as people think; contrary to that, I think we would start seeing improvement right away simply by making better use of players.

I really don't know what else to tell you.

If we move to a 4-3 we still have deficiencies in the secondary that are not yet addressed... as well as having to move players to different positions (some who will be using a skill set that isn't perfect for the position and will have to fill in until we draft the right personnel) ...as well as learning a new defensive philosophy.

That is not...and never has been conducive to a quickly "upgraded" defense.

Pat Kirwan says an average of three years... and at a minimum, it will take “two drafts and one free-agent period.”

[steelreserve]

I really don't know what else to tell you.

If we move to a 4-3 we still have deficiencies in the secondary that are not yet addressed... as well as having to move players to different positions (some who will be using a skill set that isn't perfect for the position and will have to fill in until we draft the right personnel) ...as well as learning a new defensive philosophy.

That is not...and never has been conducive to a quickly "upgraded" defense.

Pat Kirwan says an average of three years... and at a minimum, it will take “two drafts and one free-agent period.”


The secondary is going to be the same problem no matter whether we switch or not, and it's by far our biggest issue. So the question is, what lets you have the fewest other holes to address so you can focus your draft and FA efforts on fixing that?

Well, in the 3-4, you've got nose tackle and pass-rushing linebackers, both premium positions. In the 4-3 you've got maybe one defensive end to worry about. If you want to talk about skill sets not perfect for the position, under the 3-4 we've got McLendon, Moats, possibly Heyward since he is displaying as more of a rushing end than a prototypical "eat-up-two-blockers" lineman ... well, those guys all fit in nicely in a 4-3, and the odd man out appears to be Jones. Shazier would end up moving outside in this scenario, but since we literally just finished converting him from a 4-3 outside linebacker to a 3-4 inside linebacker, I can't see how that's a problem at all.

So the sticking point appears to be the learning curve, if any. I will take that any day over playing 3 or 4 guys in positions that their skills are less than ideal for, which, let's face it, is what we're doing in the 3-4.

We've got one guy (Jones) who might not pencil out in a 4-3. One guy. Who we haven't seen a lot of production from anyway. Everyone else is suited the same or better. Sorry, but to me it seems like what we're doing is a lot of looking up at the mountain and psyching ourselves out.

[Psycho Ward 86]

to me it feels like people are hitting the panic button on our 3-4 defense too fast. we were the #1 defense only 2 seasons ago. the defense this season trended towards improvement over the final month once we started playing the best men available. we can right the ship as we are

[polamalubeast]

to me it feels like people are hitting the panic button on our 3-4 defense too fast. we were the #1 defense only 2 seasons ago. the defense this season trended towards improvement over the final month once we started playing the best men available. we can right the ship as we are

The problem is that the defense regressed every year since 2010....This defense is bad in sacks, turnovers (and bad against the run and points per drive for the last 2 years)

[LLT]

The secondary is going to be the same problem no matter whether we switch or not, and it's by far our biggest issue. So the question is, what lets you have the fewest other holes to address so you can focus your draft and FA efforts on fixing that?

Well, in the 3-4, you've got nose tackle and pass-rushing linebackers, both premium positions. In the 4-3 you've got maybe one defensive end to worry about. If you want to talk about skill sets not perfect for the position, under the 3-4 we've got McLendon, Moats, possibly Heyward since he is displaying as more of a rushing end than a prototypical "eat-up-two-blockers" lineman ... well, those guys all fit in nicely in a 4-3, and the odd man out appears to be Jones. Shazier would end up moving outside in this scenario, but since we literally just finished converting him from a 4-3 outside linebacker to a 3-4 inside linebacker, I can't see how that's a problem at all.

So the sticking point appears to be the learning curve, if any. I will take that any day over playing 3 or 4 guys in positions that their skills are less than ideal for, which, let's face it, is what we're doing in the 3-4.

We've got one guy (Jones) who might not pencil out in a 4-3. One guy. Who we haven't seen a lot of production from anyway. Everyone else is suited the same or better. Sorry, but to me it seems like what we're doing is a lot of looking up at the mountain and psyching ourselves out.

Well...I have gone into depth about where players would probably play in a 4-3. I don't disagree that we have some players who could make the transition. But its still a change in defensive philosophy and more complicated than just telling a linebacker. "Okay...now you are a sam linebacker". All the players have to adapt regardless of experience. There are differences in alignment...differences in gap responsibility...differences in coverage responsibility. In the 3-4 our linebackers blitz while the front take up the blockers... The 4-3 defense predominately generates pass rush from the D-line with much less blitzing. The 3-4 allows for disguised coverages and blitzes...The 4-3 allows added pressure on the QB but also a defense that can drop up to seven men into coverage.

Gaps...alignment...coverage...timing...position responsibility...are all different and not only play off of a players specific position...but his ability to know THAT defense so well that he knows how to switch up those responsibilities based on what the other players are doing.

In other words...That sam linebacker....doesn't need to just learn the linebacking responsibilities of a 4-3...he has to learn the responsibility of the d-line...the other linebackers...the secondary...and how he fits into that scheme depending on the offense that is presented on each and every play.

[LLT]

The problem is that the defense regressed every year since 2010....This defense is bad in sacks, turnovers (and bad against the run and points per drive for the last 2 years)

Simply not true. We were the #6 ranked rush defense this year.

[polamalubeast]

Simply not true. We were the #6 ranked rush defense this year.


and 25th in rushing yards per attempts

[steelreserve]

Well...I have gone into depth about where players would probably play in a 4-3. I don't disagree that we have some players who could make the transition. But its still a change in defensive philosophy and more complicated than just telling a linebacker. "Okay...now you are a sam linebacker". All the players have to adapt regardless of experience. There are differences in alignment...differences in gap responsibility...differences in coverage responsibility. In the 3-4 our linebackers blitz while the front take up the blockers... The 4-3 defense predominately generates pass rush from the D-line with much less blitzing. The 3-4 allows for disguised coverages and blitzes...The 4-3 allows added pressure on the QB but also a defense that can drop up to seven men into coverage.

Gaps...alignment...coverage...timing...position responsibility...are all different and not only play off of a players specific position...but his ability to know THAT defense so well that he knows how to switch up those responsibilities based on what the other players are doing.

In other words...That sam linebacker....doesn't need to just learn the linebacking responsibilities of a 4-3...he has to learn the responsibility of the d-line...the other linebackers...the secondary...and how he fits into that scheme depending on the offense that is presented on each and every play.


So in other words, it's more complicated than our current most-complicated-defense-in-the-league that it takes players years to learn? Sorry, not buying it.

I've heard that learning-curve argument used here against drafting CB and NT in our current defense: "Why do that? They won't help us NOW, it takes at least two years to learn, so what's the point, next season we'll still be the same!"

Well, guess what, every option right now gives us that same issue. You look at who we have on defense, and other than Timmons, pretty much everyone we expect to have back has only been here a couple years and is not so locked into the LeBeau Complicated 3-4 Defense that it'll be some big project to unlearn. Players change teams all the time and go to new defensive schemes, and quite often thrive in them. It's a change, but it is not this big capsize-the-ship event that people are making it out to be. It's just different, that's all. I have no reason to believe we wouldn't be successful in a different scheme; I know we weren't successful in the current one; and it looks like there is more upside to the other one, if we could get past the tendency of fearing something new.

[Psycho Ward 86]

and 25th in rushing yards per attempts

look at games in which steve mclendon was healthy enough to play and cam thomas was replaced by tuitt. this run defense is good when healthy, and when the best men are allowed to play.

[steelreserve]

The #6 ranking means nothing. Some of the worst teams in the league routinely finish with the #1 and #2 passing defense, because opponents get a big lead and run the ball to use up the clock. We had a similar effect in 2014: Our obvious weak spot was passing defense, so teams attacked that. And in the shootout games, the run was an afterthought as teams played catch-up.

Our defense faced the third-fewest rushing attempts of any team in the league, but we were 400-500 yards above the other teams who faced similar numbers of attempts:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/rushing/sort/rushingAttempts/position/defense/seasontype/2

Project us with another 55-60 rushing attempts against, which would put us in the middle of the pack, and we're about the #20 run defense in yards allowed and 25th in YPA.

We did NOT have a good run defense. It was just that opponents ran the ball against us less, by two full games' worth.

This is just another symptom of our bigger problem, which is that for our defense to work against either the pass or the run, you need to win the line of scrimmage decisively, not just have a standoff. We clearly weren't doing that. Stats can be dangerous; look at the wrong ones for the situation, and they can tell a completely different story than what is actually happening on the field.

[GoSlash27]

I know we weren't successful in the current one; and it looks like there is more upside to the other one, if we could get past the tendency of fearing something new.

I don't see anybody in this thread or the organization opposed to switching because they "fear something new". I see them opposing it because they think it's a bad idea. Big difference.

[katmandu]

Just PLEASE do away with that DAMN 5 yrd cushion the damn CB's give !!!!! Damnit !x2.

I'd love to hear Coach Lake's take on this.

[katmandu]

to be a fringe player in both schemes at OLB or DE size is the all important factor ... you cant have 240 pound guys playing DE on one snap and OLB on the next ( will be completely ineffective as a DE) those players are forced to be Woodley size ( or Suggs size ) 6'2-6'4 260-270

so 6'2 -245 Jarvis Jones becomes obsoleteWhen has Jarvis ever been 245 ? More like 225.

I hope some of Harrison's lifting routine rubs off on this kid..... SOON!

[Dwinsgames]

When has Jarvis ever been 245 ? More like 225.

I hope some of Harrison's lifting routine rubs off on this kid..... SOON!

http://www.steelers.com/team/roster/Jarvis-Jones/92ceebdf-6088-4872-abf0-69a36014c8d2

[Mojouw]

I would rather try and find some outside rush linebackers than the DE and DTs with pass rush ability that are needed for a 4-3. It goes back to Bill Parcell's (planet) theory I think. Basically he said there are only so many guys that big and that fast on the planet. I believe he was talking about OT, but it is the same idea for a good to great 4 man pass rushing line. There are only so many Watt, Sapp, Jared Allen, Michael Strahan, type guys around at any given time. There are far more guys between 235-265 that are not quite DEs and not quite LBs that can suit some version of a 3-4 or even hybrid front. That "inefficiency in the market" (borrow some Billy Beane stuff for a minute) was why drafting for the 3-4 was a bite easier when less teams ran it. Although it is harder currently with more teams running the concept, it is still (in my humble opinion) easier to find the talent for it than it is for a 4-3.

Also if Heyward was such a stud 4-3 pass rushing prospect, why did he last until the 31st pick of the first round of the draft? DL with highly projectable pass rush skills for the 4-3 (because they are so darned hard to find) tend to go quite bit higher than that.

The Steelers do not have the personnel for much of what is needed for a 4-3. They are far closer to what is needed for a straight 3-4 or a hyrbidized 3-4 (ala Seattle or New England).

Another thought that I have not seen mentioned, in many 4-3 schemes the corners are pushed up and left on more of an island than in a Lebeau style 3-4. Anyone want to see that with this team's DBs? Now with Tomlin being a Cover-2 guy, maybe that would change, but that raises a whole other set of roster problems. Who is the deep drop LB (the Urlacher role? Most already have Shazier ticketed for the outside in a Steelers 4-3 and Timmons isn't what he once was in coverage)? Which of the current safeties would anyone want patrolling deep centerfield? Mitchell and Thomas both seem to better in the box type guys.

There are a host of other questions with any major scheme change. I am not saying that is an insurmountable obstacle to change, just to be careful what you wish for. If the goal is to return this unit to the baddest meanest bully on the #1 defense in the league block - they are closer in terms of player acquisition cycles for some sort of 3-4 than they are for a total overhaul into a 4-3.