Jigglypuff Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 It says it's a 2 gap, at it's basic package ,you miss that? Also called a 34Ok... Ok. I will admit it. we are 3-4 defense now... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tribal Chief Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 Ok... Ok. I will admit it. we are 3-4 defense now...lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MSalmon Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 lolYa boi please paste your links in my Nolan article thread. Well let them speak for themselves Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bawse Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 the posts speak for themselves. You should take your own advice, dudeagreedNolans schemes for every team he's coordinated has spoken for themselves, there's no high horse here, just blatant observations whilst watching other teams outside of the Falcons for years. Nolan is not a traditional 3-4 guy, it's really quite simple if you were to watch ANY of his packages for ANY of the teams he's coached. Some people(you) just look at the 3-4 and say OK WHOA, WE WILL BE STRICTLY RUNNING A 3-4 BASE GUYS, THAT'S IT. HERE WE GO. No... it doesn't work like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romfal Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 (edited) we've always run 3-4 looks under Nolan, we will run more 3-4 looks now and will have better personnel to run that 3-4 base package, be it with a 0tech NT or a 1 tech NT, does not matter. We will always have 4-3 lineups ready, amoeba looks and any form of hybrid between the two schemes. We will rush more from the outside linebacker position than the hand in the dirt DE position, reason why we how have a position group coach for that. We will probably have a Leo position as well for the 4-3 Under looks. Edited March 14, 2014 by Romfal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GEORGIAfan Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 we've always run 3-4 looks under Nolan, we will run more 3-4 looks now and will have better personnel to run that 3-4 base package, be it with a 0tech NT or a 1 tech NT, does not matter. We will always have 4-3 lineups ready, amoeba looks and any form of hybrid between the two schemes. We will rush more from the outside linebacker position than the hand in the dirt DE position, reason why we how have a position group coach for that. We will probably have a Leo position as well for the 4-3 Under looks.Let me come in with an assist. Our 4-3 under Mike Nolan. Our 3-4 under mike NolanBoth require a 0-tech/1-tech NT, a 3-tech DT, and a 5-tech DE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bawse Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 ^^^^ Thank you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tribal Chief Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 Nolans schemes for every team he's coordinated has spoken for themselves, there's no high horse here, just blatant observations whilst watching other teams outside of the Falcons for years. Nolan is not a traditional 3-4 guy, it's really quite simple if you were to watch ANY of his packages for ANY of the teams he's coached. Some people(you) just look at the 3-4 and say OK WHOA, WE WILL BE STRICTLY RUNNING A 3-4 BASE GUYS, THAT'S IT. HERE WE GO. No... it doesn't work like that.actually, I've never said we would be strictly running a 3-4. If I have, show me. All my posts regarding the subject have been in response to those questioning others knowledge and to those pretending to know for a fact that we won't be switching over. Don't really care about roddys comments but when the GM pretty much confirms it, there must be some truth to it. You bring in 2 players from a 3-4 scheme, you already have 3 or 4 players that were scouted as 3-4 OLB on the roster. Babs can play de in a 3-4 front, peters can play both. Common sense allows to to see the bigger picture. Every team that runs a full 3-4 even has a mixture of 4-3 in their defense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GEORGIAfan Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 Who said were a traditional 43 under ? Not me. We actually stayed mostly 43 according to an article with Nolan quotes his first yearEven in our "4-3", we were never a TRUE 4-3 with 2 1 gap DTs. We had an 1-tech NT and a 5-tech DE. Those are not standard pieces and more resemble a 3-4 defense. Our problem was that we did not have the pieces to run that, which is why we got a proper NT and 5-tech DE in Soliai and Jackson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MSalmon Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 actually, I've never said we would be strictly running a 3-4. If I have, show me. All my posts regarding the subject have been in response to those questioning others knowledge and to those pretending to know for a fact that we won't be switching over. Don't really care about roddys comments but when the GM pretty much confirms it, there must be some truth to it. You bring in 2 players from a 3-4 scheme, you already have 3 or 4 players that were scouted as 3-4 OLB on the roster. Babs can play de in a 3-4 front, peters can play both. Common sense allows to to see the bigger picture. Every team that runs a full 3-4 even has a mixture of 4-3 in their defense.Not too mention showing where a DL lines up as evidence were not a 34 is ludicrous. Whether it's a 0 tech, 1 tech, 5 tech whatever at it's base it's either 3 or 4 down linemen. Haven't seen a double bubble since parcells and giants I believe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Radical Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 From the previous thread, where TDs original interview was posted...Shade nose, as Dimitroff put it, is 1 technique, not the 0 NT you see in the classic 3-4. Both the 3-4 and 4-3 can have NTs. A 3-4 DE can be an inside DT or a DEin a 4-3.Versatility was what these guys were signed for. We aren't just switching schemes.Our 3-4 looks have been weak, so we brought in more scheme versatile guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osiruz Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 Let me come in with an assist. Our 4-3 under Mike Nolan. Our 3-4 under mike NolanBoth require a 0-tech/1-tech NT, a 3-tech DT, and a 5-tech DE.Alright Threads over. If both olbs are standing, its a 3-4, you Can call it a fart blossom for all I care, but its a 3-4 "hybrid." I like to keep ish simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bawse Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 actually, I've never said we would be strictly running a 3-4. If I have, show me. All my posts regarding the subject have been in response to those questioning others knowledge and to those pretending to know for a fact that we won't be switching over. Don't really care about roddys comments but when the GM pretty much confirms it, there must be some truth to it. You bring in 2 players from a 3-4 scheme, you already have 3 or 4 players that were scouted as 3-4 OLB on the roster. Babs can play de in a 3-4 front, peters can play both. Common sense allows to to see the bigger picture. Every team that runs a full 3-4 even has a mixture of 4-3 in their defense.The guys we've brought in makes our looks more versatile and gives Nolan more options, nothing more, nothing less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MSalmon Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 Even in our "4-3", we were never a TRUE 4-3 with 2 1 gap DTs. We had an 1-tech NT and a 5-tech DE. Those are not standard pieces and more resemble a 3-4 defense. Our problem was that we did not have the pieces to run that, which is why we got a proper NT and 5-tech DE in Soliai and Jackson.Why are you arguing with me? I never said were a 43 under, never said we ran a double bubble 34...it comes down to number of front 7 in relation to whether it's LB or DL whether 3 or 4...yes I know you can put a safety in place of a LB in a 34 as well. Or go to Nickle and remove a LB...but the basic of 4 and 3 man fronts are the number of linemen not the way they shade Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeytonMannings Forehead Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 Good point. Not too mention one benefit of 34 is you can find a "lesser" 43 college end and plug him in and be a star. Countless numbers of not elite college DEs becoming studs in 34..James Harrison comes to mindActually James Harrison was a stand up linebacker at Kent State. And pass rushing talent is pass rushing talent. If you can't rush the passer in a 4-3 you aren't going to be any better at it as a 3-4 OLB. You still have to rush against NFL level offensive tackles at the end of the day. Kroy did have his best season Nolan's first year, but it still didn't translate into any more sacks, and when teams figured out that it was all smoke and mirrors and that Abe was still the only real threat, the passing numbers steadily went up.4-3 UnderCan't speak for everyone, but I think the reason posters around here keep throwing out the 4-3 under is because that front shares a lot of similarities with the 3-4 fronts (which also come in the over/under variety) that are common around the league. In fact in some schemes they are identical. When people throw out Seattle's defense, that puts me in the mind the thoughtprocess of the way the roster should be constructed. A 4-3 team with 3-principles.Oh, and Seattle isn't a base under team, at least not in the traditional sense. The base under, which is synonymous with Kiffin is a fairly straightforward one-gap, attacking defense. Seattle has steadily moved away from that as they've developed their personnel. They don't attack gaps at the snap anymore. What Pete Carroll has built is a multiple front amalgom of 4-3 stuff he got from Kiffin and 3-4/hybrid schemes that he learned while working for George Seifert which is more read and react than one gap attack.Marvin LewisThe Ravens were a 4-3 defense when they won the Super Bowl in 2000 with Marvin Lewis as the coordinator. BUT... Marvin Lewis's first job in the NFL was as Pittsburgh's linebackers coach and his first year as a coordinator in Baltimore he ran... you guessed it, a 3-4 defense, and the Raven's would have stayed a 3-4 if they had been able to sign linebacker Chad Brown from Pittsburgh, but he went to Seattle and the Ravens went to a 4-3.Marvin Lewis adapted a huge chunk of what he learned in Pittsburgh into the Ravens' package. In a lot of ways they were built exactly like a 3-4 team with big bodies on the interior, athleticism on the edge and a hybrid designated pass rusher who could move from linebacker to end that became Peter Boulware. All of this talk of 3-4 or 4-3 by the time coaches get to this level, they have massive amounts of experience in both schemes and a lot of this stuff gets cross pollinated to the point where the differences in some cases are all but semantical. Pete Carroll uses the LEO in his defense. Marvin Lewis the ELEPHANT. Nick Saban uses the JACK. Does anyone know the differences in these positions? NONE. They do exactly the same thing.This is why a lot of posters in the know chafe with all this talk of a swtich. The switch has already happened. Nolan has his scheme in place, he's just now going to be able to execute it better because there are better players here now. X and O wise, nothing is going to look different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Radical Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 Not too mention showing where a DL lines up as evidence were not a 34 is ludicrous. Whether it's a 0 tech, 1 tech, 5 tech whatever at it's base it's either 3 or 4 down linemen. Haven't seen a double bubble since parcells and giants I believeWe run both 3 down and 4 down linemen looks, incorporating elements of both of them into each other.It's not my fault some of these cookie-cutter ****tards can't wrap their heads around this concept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tribal Chief Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 From the previous thread, where TDs original interview was posted...Our 3-4 looks have been weak, so we brought in more scheme versatile guys.of course the looks will be weak if you don't have players that fit the scheme. You mean to tell me you didn't know that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tribal Chief Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 The guys we've brought in makes our looks more versatile and gives Nolan more options, nothing more, nothing less.fact or opinion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jigglypuff Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 Mass what's the difference between having your hand in the dirt if you're a defensive end in a 4-3 versus an outside linebacker rushing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MSalmon Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 We run both 3 down and 4 down linemen looks, incorporating elements of both of them into each other.It's not my fault some of these cookie-cutter ****tards can't wrap their heads around this concept.Lol ok.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Radical Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 This why a lot of posters in the know chafe with all this talk of a swtich. The switch has already happened. Nolan has his scheme in place, he's just now going to be able to execute it better because there are better players here now. X and O wise, nothing is going to look different.And you're not going to find this kind of stuff in bull**** blogs in the AJC or on Wikipedia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Radical Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 of course the looks will be weak if you don't have players that fit the scheme. You mean to tell me you didn't know that.WE'VE BEEN RUNNING THE SAME **** SINCE NOLAN GOT HERE. ALL HE DID WAS BRING IN PLAYERS BETTER SUITED TO OUR HYBRID SCHEME BECAUSE THEY ARE MORE VERSATILE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SyCo Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 Ffs who cares Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Radical Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 fact or opinionFact you jackass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bawse Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 fact or opinionFactual my friend... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.