What the Heck is a Hybrid?
While most of the MSM is talking as if Denver's conversion to a 3-4 defense is a foregone conclusion, there are many knowledgeable writers, including our own HT, who have expressed the idea that the 3-4 may not be a done deal. A number of us have talked about a “Hybrid” defense. While I know that many readers probably have a good idea what a hybrid might entail, I'm sure there are others who may have questions about it. This is my best attempt to explain what what I think we might be seeing.
First thanks to styg50 for his help with the graphics.
Just to set the record straight, my background is on the offensive side of the ball. So I hope that HT and others will point out any oversights or misstatements I make so that we can all become better informed.
4-3 Even
To begin our look at a hybrid it might be helpful to start by looking at a "standard" 4-3 defense. The figure below illustrates a typical 4-3 defense. This defense is called a 4-3 Over. In line terminology when the center is not covered the alignment is called even, odd if the center is covered. A quick note on symbology. I grew up with a slightly different symbology. My coaches thought Vince Lombardi was God. So Vince if used Vs to designate defensive line therefore the only correct way to draw Xs and Os was with Vs and Os. Otherwise I hope everything else is self-explanatory.
4-3 Over
While this is the typical figure drawn to illustrate the 4-3, in fact the position and alignment of the players can vary considerably based on the defensive play calling. Since many teams favor running to the strong side of the formation, defenses will sometimes adjust by also shifting to the strong side as shown below. This alignment is known as a 4-3 Over. Notice that the Mike LB is partially shadowed by the RDT. This alignment makes it more difficult for the defense to get a clean block on the MLB, which can cause problems for some offenses.
4-3 Under
While most teams tend to run to the strong side, a number of teams do not. When Shaun Alexander was in his prime the Seahawks actually preferred to run to their left behind Walter Jones and Steve Hutchinson (two All-Pro lineman will do that for you). Under Marty the Chargers used to run weak side quite a bit as well, as did the Broncos when Zimmerman was on the left. To counteract a tendency to run weak side some defense will "Under" shift the line to a 4-3 Under. Notice that, even though the Mike is bubbled over the guard (there's no blocker between him the the O-lineman) it's still difficult for the guard to drive out to block the MLB without exposing both the A and B gaps on the strong side.
Hybrid
Now imagine if we split the RDE (on the left side of the picture) a little farther out and set him back about half a step. Then we have a formation like that shown below:
If you look carefully you'll notice that this looks awfully similar to a 3-4 defense. It's also very similar to the defense the Cardinals used in the playoffs. Actually, if you watched the Ravens, this is basically the defense they use when Terrel Suggs is healthy. How is this different than a 3-4? the real difference is in the player I've labeled "P." In a 3-4 this would be the ROLB; in a 4-3 Under the RDE. In the Hybrid defense this player is a, wait for it, "hybrid," a combination DE/LB. In the Cardinals system this position is called the Predator. That sounds like a much better football term than LB/E so I've labeled the position with a P.
How it Plays Out
Look at how this formation plays out. On a run to the left, the guard can't get out and block the MLB without exposing the A and B gaps. The SLB, SS, or CB can force on any run to the outside, depending on the formation, and there's always the threat of the Pred running the play down from behind. On a run up the middle, the RG still has a poor choice on blocking, the LT has a bad angle on the WLB and there's still the risk of the Pred undercutting the play form the outside. Finally, on a run to the weak side the tackle can't get out to block the Pred or WLB without exposing the edge to the LDT. Even with help from a FB there's no one to cut off the MLB.
How it Fits the Broncos
One of the problems with the 3-4 is that it just doesn't fit the Broncos current roster. Not only are there no obvious immediate solutions at NT, but a number of current contributors don't fit well with a 3-4. Not so with the Hybrid. At Pred, both Doom and Moss can contribute, Doom as a pass rusher, Moss for his ability to play in space. Thomas is a perfect fit at RDT and Woodyard/Winborn become a formidable tandem at WLB. Larsen may be good rotating with DJ at Mike and Boss fits at Sam. Or, if Boss's injuries are too big a concern DJ can move back to Sam. LDT is a bit of a problem since we'd really like someone who demands double-teaming in order to keep the RG off the MLB. But it's proabably easier to fill that role than to find a true NT. Powell may be able to play, D-Rob may return to form, or we may have to grab someone off FA. At RDE Ekuban provides a good pass rush and Peterson, Clemons, or even Crowder may be able to fill in on running plays.
Base Formation?
So will this modified 4-3 Under become the Broncos base defensive formation? I think the answer is sometimes. Most teams are only in their base formations maybe 40% of the plays anyway. In the Super Bowl I think I counted that the Steelers were in their base 3-4 less than 25% of the plays. Against some team, in some situations, I expect the Broncos to play something lie what I've described. At other times, say against team that want to run it up the gut, or go with two or three TEs, the Broncos may go back to a 4-3 Even, going so far as to remove the Pred, move Thomas out to a 5-technique and putting Peterson or Clemons in a 2-technique. One advantage of having lots of indistinct players is that you have lots of options and you don't lose much by substituting one player for another.
Offensive Nightmare
to give you an idea of the flexibility of a hybrid defense consider the following scenario. Second down and intermediate. Based on down and distance you expect the offense to pass but you don't want to bring in your nickel and expose yourself to a run.
Your P takes a hard edge rush. The RDT fakes an outside rush, then drops into coverage. Will delays then blitzes into the hole vacated by the LG following the RDT. Mike cheats up to the line and fakes a blitz before dropping into coverage while the LDT takes a hard charge into the A-gap. Sam fakes an edge rush and drops into the flat while the LDE also takes a hard edge rush. The SS checks the TE and seeing him stay into block, blitzes into the B-gap. The RG has a dilema: help the C or block the SS. Ultimately it doesn't matter because Will has come through unblocked since the FB went out to help on the Pred who had come free on the edge.
This is a Fan-Created Comment on MileHighReport.com. The opinion here is not necessarily shared by the editorial staff of MHR
25 comments
|
16 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Thanks for a solid article
Good discussion of an area that we all need to be very aware of. Whatever McD has in mind, we’ll appreciate it better if we can understand the otions we face. Thanks, SWG, and cheerfully Rec’d!
In Goodman We Trust
Great Post SlowWhiteGuy!
I really don’t care what they call it, I just a defense that acts and doesn’t react. Attack!
"I am not trying to start anything I am just saying that i think if you take Knowshon and draft D later you guys will be hella good next year" ...IamtheGreatest - The smartest Chiefs fan I ever had the priviledge of reading!
Nice job SWG!
Win or lose, do it fairly. -- Knute Rockne
by broncosmontana on Feb 10, 2009 10:28 PM MST reply actions
Awesome
And Predator is too cool….
chickachickachicka,,,
Concision in style, precision in thought, decision in life.
by Jeremy Bolander on Feb 11, 2009 12:38 AM MST reply actions
Yea, I like Predator...
I think we should change the names of the other LBs too. Insted of Will, Mike, and Sam, we could call them Warrior, Monster and Samurai. Maybe that would bring some attitude to the defense!
by SlowWhiteGuy on Feb 11, 2009 9:49 AM MST up reply actions
Can we make it a rule
that the predator has to have dreads?
Have a good time all the time...that's my motto. - Viv Savage
Predator Position
For this position, I will only accept a sexual tyrannosaurus who doesn’t have time to bleed.
…good lord, how much time of my life have I spent watching that movie?
Does everyone realize that two of the three main actors in that movie became United States Governors? Can any other movie claim to have as much political clout as Predator? And what connection does this have with the apocalypse?
~Uffdah
Pure eloquence SlowWhiteGuy!
I was working together something similar to your post. I like yours better. The hybrid does appear to fit our personal pretty well right now. I expect that we add 2 DT / NT types by trade, FA or Draft – but I think that we will have some version of a hybrid defense. With the rookies getting a year of NFL experience under their belt might give the flexibility to look at a 3-4 next year.
Excellent post
Very insightful and Rec’d!
I don’t want breakaway speed. I want break-some-poor-fool-as-I-bowl-you-over power getting 6 yards off a play that should have been stopped for 2 at most.
My vote is run what BYU and NM run, basically a 3-3-5
Get two guys like Barrett (Basically big and fast that can play sfaety or LB), get a good center fielder, and cause nightmares for an offense because they will never know who is coming other than the 3 down lineman.
"Me fail english, that unpossible" - Ralph Wiggum
"Duffman is thrusting in the direction of the problem" - Duffman
If you watched the Super Bowl...
The Steelers were in a lot of 2-4-5 packages. With our personnel I actually think we could run: 3-3-5, 2-4-5, or 4-2-5, mixing packages based on opponent and d&d. If you have 4 great lineman you want to keep them on the field. If you have 4 great LBs you want to keep them on the field. But when everyone is basically interchangeable, no REAL stars, you can mix and match however you want.
by SlowWhiteGuy on Feb 11, 2009 1:39 PM MST up reply actions 1 recs
Very true
I just like having a defense that the other team is having a hard time adjusting to, the whole advanatge to a 3-4 is that you try to confuse the blocking schemes by who is coming and when, but I agree if you have four good d-lineman like the Giants that can create pressure on the QB without a blitz then that is where you need to go to a 4-3 like the Giants, Pittsburgh d-fense is built on deception and that is what we used to have with Collier, but last year, it was so predictable that everyone in the stadium knew what defense we were running and when we were blitzing and where the blitzers were coming from. Most HS QB could of figured out our defense.
"Me fail english, that unpossible" - Ralph Wiggum
"Duffman is thrusting in the direction of the problem" - Duffman
I think we're a better team...
with WW on the field, but the only place I think he fits is a Will. DJ can play any of the positions but placing him at Will keeps WW off the field and leaves us a less effective unit overall.
by SlowWhiteGuy on Feb 11, 2009 10:54 PM MST up reply actions
Thomas...
probably can play RDE in a 3-4. Clemons and Peterson can also probable play DE. If we go 1-gap (which I think Nunnely may signal) then Powell or D-Rob may be able to play NT. If we go 2-gap we have no one to play NT. Ek could play DE on passing downs. Doom may be relegated to a pass rush specialist. I haven’t seen any indication that he can make the shift to LB. Moss may make the transition to LB in which case he could play either OLB. WW probably can play RILB depending on the scheme. Larsen could play LILB possibly. We haven’t really seen enough to know for sure. I think DJ could play any of the positions depending on the scheme though he is probably best suited for ILB.
by SlowWhiteGuy on Feb 11, 2009 11:02 PM MST up reply actions
Very nicely done, and very rec'd!
Our new coaching staff has discussed some possibilities (which I’ll cover in an MHR-U post very soon), and it’s going to be a fun time looking at all of the possibilities. Your work on the hybrid is solid, and I have nothing to add to it!
One thing to keep in mind is that even the coaches will have to see what personnel we end up with before committing to a base formation. I’m guessing they lean towards a 3-4, but a lot of variables between now and then will keep things up in the air.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
Thanks!
I’m looking forward to your post.
I agree with you that personnel has to drive scheme to some degree. It will every difficult for us to go to a 3-4 until we find a true NT. Maybe we have someone who can play the position, maybe we sign a FA, though I don’t see many available, maybe we get lucky in the draft.
by SlowWhiteGuy on Feb 12, 2009 8:50 AM MST up reply actions
Excellent SWG...and REC'D my friend!
Those that cant coach, compete!
Failing to plan is planning to fail.
It's a Bro-bra. Ha ha!
Excellent information. Rec’d. Thanks for this post!
-Harvey J. Neptune
"Practice doesn't make perfect. PERFECT practice makes perfect." - Vince Lombardi
As opposed to a Zenver Zronco.
-Harvey J. Neptune
"Practice doesn't make perfect. PERFECT practice makes perfect." - Vince Lombardi
SWG
Great article, very timely. I’m curious – watching the nfl rewind several times, it looks like slowik ran a 4-3 unders several times, using Doom in the RDE position. True? DJ was actually lined up in the usual Mike slot, and Boss in the usual Will.
Hillis in '09
I don't recall seeing a 4-3 Under...
I did see us split Thomas to a 5-technique and move Doom outside. But I didn’t see many plays where we lined the LDT over center except when we were toying with the 3-4. If you can remember a specific game or two I’ll try and go back and check.
But, lots of teams use a 4-3 Under alignment without basing their entire defense on it. The Cards and Ravens are the only ones I saw this year who seem to use it as their base defense.
by SlowWhiteGuy on Feb 16, 2009 12:03 PM MST up reply actions

by 









































