MHR University - 3-4: Position Responsibilities and Blocking Theory (Part One)

Thank you

It’s great to have another Xs and Os guy onboard the staff. Especially an offense guy!

Next to the NT position, the issue of the LBs is important. Your questions about who goes where are the crux of what the coach will have to consider. A lot depends on what happens in the reloading season (as you mentioned). But here are my humble thoughts.

I like the idea of putting Woodyard at ROLB. I also like the idea of DJ at RILB. DJ is a proven MLB and ROLB, and with his tackling skils (2nd in NFL in 2007) and his experience over Woodyard, I would let the young Woodyard play the athletic ROLB and let DJ play the RILB spot that plays more towards experience.

If Larsen plays at LB instead of FB in my scenario, he could get the LILB position. I think he’s more of a run stopping guy. If Webster stays he should be an ILB. With his over pursuit issues, his weaknesses might be lessened at ROLB where he would do slightly less run coverage. However, I’d rather have DJ at the position (and a better LB than Webster at LILB).

Any of the current DTs might get a look at NT, though I’m not excited at any prospects right now. Depending on the system, some 4-3 DTs can make the conversion to DE (particularly in a Fairbanks, where DEs are typically bigger but slower). Our current DEs can play at DE in most cases, and some could get a look for transistion to LB (faster guys).

All in all, the 3-4 has so many more variables than the 4-3, that predictions are difficult to make. But it makes the process a lot more fun for the fans to speculate on!

…because there is so much more material out there. If we indeed move to the 3-4, there will be tons of information that go beyond this article. One could write books on the forms and functions of the 3-4, and my write-up is only scratching the surface.

and thank YOU sir!

It will be an exciting year for us fans, because the change to a 3-4 (if it happens) opens up a new world of possibilities.

Picture yourself on the defensive side of the ball. You are the RE.

In my example, the offense has decided to put a TE on your side of the formation (the weak side), in addition to the the TE on the other side. Instead of your regular assignment (occupying the LT and LG so the ROLB can get around the LT), you will hit the gap outside the LT and inside the L-TE (your side). To cover your absence, the RILB will take the LG / LT gap. The LE keeps the gap that I explained earlier in the article.

In this manner, you have forced the weak side TE to stay in and block, or the QB gets a devastating blitz on the weakside. If a run happens, the gaps are filled. At no time is the strong side left vulnerable in the cross rush.

I think the misunderstanding happens when one forgets that the RE is lined near the LT, and the LE is lined near the RT. The terms right and left are “as seen from the side being discussed”. The LT is on the left side of the offense, but the right side of the defense (as seen from each team). Likewise, the LE is on the left of the defense, but is on the offense’s right.

I probably confused things by listing the LE keeping his own gap. The RE (in the play I described) hits the gap between the LT and TE, while the RILB hits the gap between the LT and LG. The ROLB will still go wide for the blitz (or zone).

In part 2, I’ll have some illustrations to make things clearer as we look at trench warfare in the 3-4.

You can easily detect a zone blitz, even with little coaching / playing experience. The OLBs creep up to the line (giving a 5-2 look) and anyone (DL or LB) drops back while others charge forward. Very physical play (hits from zone come at a distance creating harder hits), but very beautiful to watch (a lot of movement and trickery).

1) If the three down linemen are responsible for only one gap apiece, are linebackers responsible for the other gaps?

If the DL is one gap, they are shooting a gap but must be effective enough to draw blocks from the OLmen on either side of that gap. When the line men mae the move to cover that DLman, the LBs take the holes created. More on this (with illustrations) in Part 2.

2) Even if we eventually move to a 3-4 with a two-gap NT might this be a good interim solution for us?

It is very possible that whatever we do, we spend a year in transition with the people we have. This doesn’t mean we have to sacrifice games. It just means that we might build towards a goal, and use what we have in the best manner in the meantime. Coaches like to play a system towards what they have, Since we might make a radical transition (switching to what we have the best people for – a 3-4), we might be in between systems in terms of personnel.

3) How is it [the Phillips] against the run? How would it affect the linebackers?

It’s just fine. Instead of giving each DLman a choice of which gap to block up to stop the run, the DLmen have an assigned gap and hit it right away. This gives more speed towards pass rushing, but if the play is a run the gap is still occupied and the LBs take the remaining one.

The biggest affect on the LBs is that they have an assigned gap in the Phillips, but in a two gap program they read the play a bit more to see which gaps open. Both approaches have strengths and weaknesses. One is quicker (one gap), but less flexible.

4) Do the inside backers have to be bigger if the three guys up front are one-gappers?

Not neccassarily. The Phillips relies more on speed and pass rushing by the DL, so you may want speedy LBs to take advantage of the system. You may also want big LBs to stop anything that gets through. In the Fairbanks, you may have speedy LBs to zone the midfield, now that the 3 DLs (and one of the LBs) is occupying the line, but you could use bigger guys to shut down the run. But it isn’t even that simple.

The beauty of the 3-4 is that it isn’t so black and white. Most teams have a combination of LB types (unlike the more “role-centric” approach of the 4-3). A team may lean a certain way in LB type, but still have some variety. The extra LB adds this flexibility.

5) Would it affect the feasibility of moving DJ (or even Woodyard) into the middle?

My thoughts are here, from an answer I type to FirstFan only a few minutes ago:

I like the idea of putting Woodyard at ROLB. I also like the idea of DJ at RILB. DJ is a proven MLB and ROLB, and with his tackling skils (2nd in NFL in 2007) and his experience over Woodyard, I would let the young Woodyard play the athletic ROLB and let DJ play the RILB spot that plays more towards experience.

6) In the long I’d love too see elements of the Lebeau zone-blitz. Any thoughts on that?

There will always be zone blitz plays in the playbook of a 3-4 team (even a 4-3, but to lesser extent). But I doubt we would move to the system in its entirety.

In football, more “physical” as a slang term typicaly means more force and strength, as opposed to agility, speed, or finesse.

You are right, of course. Every player must be “physical”, and every player must have elements of other traits too. But in comparing the 3-4 and the 4-3, the 3-4 lineman must rely more on brute strength and force than his 4-3 counterpart because he is outnumbered.

A one gap 3-4 lineman must be strong enough to muscle through two offensive linemen (or threaten it) to draw a double team. The two gap lineman must be strong enough to withstand an offensive linemen, and then muscle his way into the gap he determines where he know faces a second linemen. In either case, being outnumbered, the DLmen must be able to rely more on brute strength.

In the 4-3, the linemen shouldn’t be puny or weak. But comparitvely speaking, they have an extra guy and can rely more on other elements besides strength.

I love a SB that somes down to the end of the game. It was fun to not have a blowout!

The one gap system still requires a large set of people who can draw double teams, does it not?

I was going to say no because HT writes, in the first article linked above, “[The Phillips] is not what people think of when they think of the 3-4, because the original 3-4 was/is strictly a 2-gap system.” Meaning the Phillips isn’t, which I initially interpreted to mean that the linemen, which HT in the same article characterized as “relatively undersized”, aren’t double teamed. But in today’s article he notes that “[e]ach should demand double coverage, whether hitting a gap [or] holding up O-linemen”, so I see where you’re coming from. The difference between a two-gapper and a one-gapper in a 3-4, then, would seem to be that the former must hold his ground while seeing how the play develops, while the latter is free to fire into his assigned gap and try to get into the backfield. Hence the Phillips allows the linemen to be more aggressive and to mount a more effective pass rush. As far as handling double teams, I imagine it’s a different skill set if you’re agressively trying to penetrate a gap rather than trying not to be moved. In the former case quickness would be an asset and in the latter mass would be more important.

Since in the Phillips the linemen are responsible for only one gap apiece, presumably the (inside?) linebackers are responsible for the remaining ones. Otherwise the uncovered gaps would be a superhighway for the other team’s backs. What I’m wondering is, would that affect the size and skill requirements for the linebackers? I’ve read that in a 3-4 the inside backers can be relatively small and fast, that it’s the outside backers, especially on the strong side, who need to be relatively big. In that case I’ve been wondering about the feasibility of putting DJ and Woodyard in the ILB spots, which would give us two playmakers with a nose for the ball in the middle of the field. But even if that’s the case, and I’m not sure it is, I’m wondering if having two relatively small, fast linebackers at ILB is something that works for the 3-4 in general, or only for the two-gap 3-4 in which the ILBs don’t have gap responsibilities of their own.

If it’s feasible to put DJ and Woodyard in the middle where does that leave Larsen? One possibility is he could be our runstopper on the strong side. Or maybe he should, after all, be one of the two guys in the middle. One thing I like about the 3-4 is it gives us lots of possibilities at linebacker. Not only DJ, Woodyard, and Larsen, but also Dumervil and Moss, in addition to our other returning linebackers, are potentially part of the mix. If either Dumervil or Moss is able to successfully make the transition to OLB, even if not immediately as a starter, that would leave us awfully deep at linebacker. With only three positions to fill we’d also be in relatively good shape on the line, especially in the Phillips system. It’s been pointed out that Powell is unproven, which he is, but I also remember reading that he was doing really well before he got injured. And he does handle double teams well, from what I’ve heard. With only one-gap responsibilties Robertson might thrive at NT and Powell could back him up. That would give us several candidates for the DE spots. Thomas in particular, with his size and explosiveness, might make an ideal 3-4 defensive end. I just see a lot of potential using a Phillips 3-4 as, at the very least, a transitional system on the way to a more conventional 3-4.

Naturally, as HT has pointed out time and again, each system has strengths and weaknesses. A Phillips 3-4 would not only utilize our existing personnel better, it would probably give us a better pass rush and a more aggressive defensive approach in general. Its weakness, I’m guessing, would be in covering short passes over the middle. If the ILBs are responsible for gaps, surely that would delay them for a split second in dropping into zone coverage. HT also mentions in the earlier article that “[t]he LBs start further back than they would in a 4-3,” which initially surprised me. But in a 3-4, at least the common, two-gap version, the lineman are covering all the gaps and the linebackers are already in position for pass coverage. Maybe this is partly because the linemen are responsible for all the gaps, leaving the linebackers time to read and react, and partly because the philosophy of this kind of defense is to bend but not break. An attacking defense has a better chance of stopping the offense cold and getting off the field, but is also more vulnerable to the big play. For this reason, if we go to a Phillips 3-4 I would think that having solid safety play would be especially important. If we draft a safety at number twelve, and another in the middle of the draft, that might give us a small clue as to what the coaching staff plans to do. Just some thoughts.

…I was just another pro football fan who had to rely on the media for news. Now we’re all together in a community that combines news, anaysis, and friendly banter in an excellent format. We are all better for it!