PDA

View Full Version : Defenses in the playoffs for 2010-2011


The MVPlaya
01-20-2011, 09:16 PM
going into the playoffs for 2010-2011

6/12 teams run a base 3-4

1/12 don't really have a "base" formation of 4-3 or 3-4 (Saints)...(Patriots could be put in here)

6/12 run a base 4-3

After wild card round

5/8 teams run a base 3-4
3/8 run a base 4-3

After divisional round

3/4 teams run a base 3-4
1/4 teams run a base 4-3

tsiguy96
01-20-2011, 09:18 PM
the bigger thing to notice, 3 teams left in the playoffs are ranked 1-2-3 in stopping the run. what your stats tell me, it doesnt matter WHAT your base formation is, it matters if its successful.

The MVPlaya
01-20-2011, 09:23 PM
the bigger thing to notice, 3 teams left in the playoffs are ranked 1-2-3 in stopping the run. what your stats tell me, it doesnt matter WHAT your base formation is, it matters if its successful.

2/3 teams run a 3-4 defense...

How does my stats tell you it doesn't matter what you run?

WTF?

If you want to talk about run defense,

The defenses ranked from 1-7 in stopping the run were all 3-4 defenses other than chicago, thats 6/7 teams in the top 7 that run a 3-4.

You're right, there is no trend here...

Broncos fans...:rofl:

It's just you though, you're a known dumbass.

The MVPlaya
01-22-2011, 02:45 AM
doesn't look like many people like to talk about football.

Ya'll are obviously more interested in what Kobe is saying about the fans.. just look @ the thread views and replies...

Hotwheelz
01-22-2011, 03:04 AM
doesn't look like many people like to talk about football.

Ya'll are obviously more interested in what Kobe is saying about the fans.. just look @ the thread views and replies...
Denver fans are stupid.

The FO is incompetent.

Nobody but retreads want to coach the Broncos.

We (the board) understand that these are your positions. We, as a whole, would appreciate it if you would stop bringing this up in every thread and post unless the thread is specifically related to those topics. We would appreciate it if you stopped acting like an ass.

If you did these things then perhaps people would be willing to engage you in football talk.

Odysseus
01-22-2011, 05:12 AM
doesn't look like many people like to talk about football.

Ya'll are obviously more interested in what Kobe is saying about the fans.. just look @ the thread views and replies...

Thanks for the post. What do you think we should do? :)

primetime714
01-22-2011, 08:51 AM
The bottom 3 rushing defenses (which includes the Broncos) all ran a 3-4 last year. The 3-4 can obviously be a successful scheme and perhaps has more upside than a 4-3, but you still need to have the players to run it. A D-Coord that has been successful with it never hurts either.

houghtam
01-22-2011, 09:36 AM
17 of the last 20 Super Bowl winners finished in the top 10 in either rushing or rush defense. I think 14 or 15 of them finished in the top 10 in both.

I don't think it makes much of a difference what scheme you run. The formula for greatness is, as it has always been, run the ball, stop the run.

tsiguy96
01-22-2011, 09:41 AM
2/3 teams run a 3-4 defense...

How does my stats tell you it doesn't matter what you run?

WTF?

If you want to talk about run defense,

The defenses ranked from 1-7 in stopping the run were all 3-4 defenses other than chicago, thats 6/7 teams in the top 7 that run a 3-4.

You're right, there is no trend here...

Broncos fans...:rofl:

It's just you though, you're a known dumbass.

wow, you really have gone off the deep end.

Royalfan19
01-22-2011, 09:48 AM
going into the playoffs for 2010-2011

6/12 teams run a base 3-4

1/12 don't really have a "base" formation of 4-3 or 3-4 (Saints)...(Patriots could be put in here)

6/12 run a base 4-3

After wild card round

5/8 teams run a base 3-4
3/8 run a base 4-3

After divisional round

3/4 teams run a base 3-4
1/4 teams run a base 4-3

You fail to account for the fact that by seeding, three of the 4-3 teams were forced to play each other - Seattle vs. NO, winner vs. the Bears. By definition two of those three teams had to be eliminated.

You also fail to take into account of the fact that of the 4 teams with bye weeks, 3 used the 3-4, so by definition, 3 of the 3-4 teams would never have a chance of being eliminated in the wild card round of the playoffs.

Your trend has more to do with seeding than the performance of 3-4 playoff teams vs. 4-3 teams.

CEH
01-22-2011, 10:07 AM
going into the playoffs for 2010-2011

6/12 teams run a base 3-4

1/12 don't really have a "base" formation of 4-3 or 3-4 (Saints)...(Patriots could be put in here)

6/12 run a base 4-3

After wild card round

5/8 teams run a base 3-4
3/8 run a base 4-3

After divisional round

3/4 teams run a base 3-4
1/4 teams run a base 4-3

Nice breakdown. Mind doing 2009

tsiguy96
01-22-2011, 10:14 AM
You fail to account for the fact that by seeding, three of the 4-3 teams were forced to play each other - Seattle vs. NO, winner vs. the Bears. By definition two of those three teams had to be eliminated.

You also fail to take into account of the fact that of the 4 teams with bye weeks, 3 used the 3-4, so by definition, 3 of the 3-4 teams would never have a chance of being eliminated in the wild card round of the playoffs.

Your trend has more to do with seeding than the performance of 3-4 playoff teams vs. 4-3 teams.

http://www.hongfire.com/cg/data/7/PWNED.jpg

The MVPlaya
01-22-2011, 10:18 AM
You also fail to take into account of the fact that of the 4 teams with bye weeks, 3 used the 3-4, so by definition, 3 of the 3-4 teams would never have a chance of being eliminated in the wild card round of the playoffs.

Your trend has more to do with seeding than the performance of 3-4 playoff teams vs. 4-3 teams.

And seeding is based off what?

Exactly.

But you point is pretty valid....

However, my point rebuttal would be - every single 4-3 that faced a 3-4 this post season was eliminated.
:thumbsup:

The MVPlaya
01-22-2011, 10:19 AM
wow, you really have gone off the deep end.

nice response that had nothing to do with football, until you had to have someone else come trough with a thought out post in which you followed with cheerleading.

Like I said, you're a known dumbass.
:rofl:

tsiguy96
01-22-2011, 10:25 AM
nice response that had nothing to do with football, until you had to have someone else come trough with a thought out post in which you followed with cheerleading.

Like I said, you're a known dumbass.
:rofl:

it doenst change the fact that your basically an idiot. there is more successful 3-4 teams this year than 4-3 teams. so what? the formation does not a great defense make, the ability to add players and have them run your formation successfully does. but ignore all that, continue on with your crying, 3-4 isnt going to happen this year regardless of what people want. and as john fox has said multiple times, base formation does not matter as it changes essentially every play. but you know more about john fox when it comes to NFL defenses..

The MVPlaya
01-22-2011, 10:34 AM
it doenst change the fact that your basically an idiot. there is more successful 3-4 teams this year than 4-3 teams. so what? the formation does not a great defense make, the ability to add players and have them run your formation successfully does. but ignore all that, continue on with your crying, 3-4 isnt going to happen this year regardless of what people want. and as john fox has said multiple times, base formation does not matter as it changes essentially every play. but you know more about john fox when it comes to NFL defenses..

I agree that 3-4 isn't what makes a defense great, but I think it does play a role in this game.

More and more teams are moving towards that direction and it does open up more possibilites than say, a generic 4-3. The 3-4 requires far greater talent and dynamic players which could be 1 of the reasons why they're so great...base formation or not base formation, the 3-4 and 4-3 require more dynamic skills on the DL and LB position.

Let's be clear, the best defenses in the league run 3-4.

tsiguy96
01-22-2011, 10:36 AM
I agree that 3-4 isn't what makes a defense great, but I think it does play a role in this game.

More and more teams are moving towards that direction and it does open up more possibilites than say, a generic 4-3. The 3-4 requires far greater talent and dynamic players which could be 1 of the reasons why they're so great...base formation or not base formation, the 3-4 and 4-3 require more dynamic skills on the DL and LB position.

Let's be clear, the best defenses in the league run 3-4.

guess what happens when everyone is moving to 3-4 (which they arent, browns are going back to 4-3 as are we). the need for players that fit the role of 3-4 positions goes up, thus they are harder to find in FA and in the draft. is it a huge deal? no, but it makes a difference. the fact is, the 3-4 by itself doesnt make a team great as we found out this year, nor does a 4-3. the ability to execute it is what matters.

The MVPlaya
01-22-2011, 10:46 AM
guess what happens when everyone is moving to 3-4 (which they arent, browns are going back to 4-3 as are we). the need for players that fit the role of 3-4 positions goes up, thus they are harder to find in FA and in the draft. is it a huge deal? no, but it makes a difference. the fact is, the 3-4 by itself doesnt make a team great as we found out this year, nor does a 4-3. the ability to execute it is what matters.

That is true, the ability to execute.

However - when you take the best of the best, the 3-4 is superior formation/defense.

tsiguy96
01-22-2011, 10:56 AM
That is true, the ability to execute.

However - when you take the best of the best, the 3-4 is superior formation/defense.

you keep going back to this, but it doesnt matter. what matters is what youre team can execute, if you can execute a 4-3 and be a top 3 team but then you switch to 3-4 and you are 20th, guess which is better? if you are comparing the best of the best of the best to tell which formation is better, i still dont think it matters because all that team did better was execute their formation better. arguably the best defense of all time, the 85 bears, was a 4-3. 2001 ravens were right there too, and if i remember right they ran all sorts of different defensive formation with base formation being 4-3. formation doesnt matter, if it did make that big of a difference every team would run the same formation.

iforgotmypassword
01-22-2011, 10:57 AM
Whatever ever happend to the Baltimore style 4-3 with 2 fattys in the middle. none of this speed technique DT. Just 2 big ol fattys.

gyldenlove
01-22-2011, 10:57 AM
Here is how 2009 broke down:

6 4-3 teams and 6 3-4 teams.

3 of the 3-4 teams were seeded beyond the wild card round, and the remaining 3 went 0-3 against 3-4 teams.

In the divisional round the 4-3 teams went 3-0 against 3-4 teams.

In the championship round, there were 3 4-3 teams and 1 3-4 team, and the super bowl featured 2 4-3 teams.

The 2 teams that met in the super bowl finished 19th and 25th in rush defense, of the top 9 rush defenses 7 made it to the playoffs.

This goes to show that MVPlaya understands nothing about sample size and sample bias, and demonstrated clearly that no conclusion can be drawn about 4-3 vs. 3-4 based on playoffs over 1 or 2 years of playoffs.

SportinOne
01-22-2011, 10:59 AM
That is true, the ability to execute.

However - when you take the best of the best, the 3-4 is superior formation/defense.

i can't agree with this. my argument for this is based on the assumption, and in some cities maybe this assumes too much (oakland...), that NFL coaches have a far deeper understanding of the game and all that it entails than us fans do.

now, given this semi-fact, if the 3-4 was significantly "better" than the 4-3 wouldn't the vast majority of coaches utilize it?

Now, I do think that a coaches selection of a base defense is probably a lot more complex than, "which is better." But in the end, no new coach is afraid to blow things up and install what they think gives them the best chance to win. In fact, some will sacrifice great players (Kampman, Peppers, etc..) because they simply can't use them effectively in the defense they think is best.

SportinOne
01-22-2011, 11:01 AM
This goes to show that MVPlaya understands nothing about sample size and sample bias, and demonstrated clearly that no conclusion can be drawn about 4-3 vs. 3-4 based on playoffs over 1 or 2 years of playoffs.

You just disproved his theory with your theory, which is based off of "1 or 2 years of playoffs."

;D

gunns
01-22-2011, 11:01 AM
The Pats, Steelers, 49ers, Packers, Ravens, Cardinals, Broncos, Chiefs, Redskins, Dolphins, Bills, Browns, Cowboys, Jets and Chargers all run some form of the 3-4. That's 5 out of 15 in the playoffs but that has to do with seeding and a limited amount in the playoffs.

The Packers run both. The 3-4 not only is great for the run defense but for putting pressure on the QB. The 3-4 teams traditionally put more pressure on the QB than 4-3's. Yes I would like to stay with 3-4 but overall I'd like to mix it up but that could take more personnel than we are able to acquire. Has been successful for the Pack though. The thing about the 3-4 and 4-3 is it runs in cycles. 10 years from now it will be trending to the 4-3 more than likely.

The MVPlaya
01-22-2011, 11:05 AM
you keep going back to this, but it doesnt matter. what matters is what youre team can execute, if you can execute a 4-3 and be a top 3 team but then you switch to 3-4 and you are 20th, guess which is better? if you are comparing the best of the best of the best to tell which formation is better, i still dont think it matters because all that team did better was execute their formation better. arguably the best defense of all time, the 85 bears, was a 4-3. 2001 ravens were right there too, and if i remember right they ran all sorts of different defensive formation with base formation being 4-3. formation doesnt matter, if it did make that big of a difference every team would run the same formation.

How does it not matter? When you say it doesn't matter, are you saying that they are the same? Are you saying the 4-3 and 3-4 both provide equally the same capabilities?

I am trying to say the game is evolving to a 3-4 league, and that the BEST defenses in the league are 3-4. You're talking about execution, which is true, but you're completely ignoring the trend of a 3-4.

The #1 defenses for the past 5 years have been a 3-4.

This trend is current, and it's happening right now. If you go back to 4-5 years you'll see much more 4-3 defenses, and much more success from them. But as you move towards 2010, you'll see more of the top defenses are 3-4.

I am not saying the 4-3 formation can't be good... I'm just saying the 3-4 can be better when you take the ELITES.

And I have no clue why you brought up the 85 bears, the game is so much different then, it is geared towards the offense so that is completely irrelevant. It's not even something worth talking about...for **** sake, the son of the father of that defense is running a 3-4 today.

The MVPlaya
01-22-2011, 11:08 AM
Here is how 2009 broke down:

6 4-3 teams and 6 3-4 teams.

3 of the 3-4 teams were seeded beyond the wild card round, and the remaining 3 went 0-3 against 3-4 teams.

In the divisional round the 4-3 teams went 3-0 against 3-4 teams.

In the championship round, there were 3 4-3 teams and 1 3-4 team, and the super bowl featured 2 4-3 teams.

The 2 teams that met in the super bowl finished 19th and 25th in rush defense, of the top 9 rush defenses 7 made it to the playoffs.

This goes to show that MVPlaya understands nothing about sample size and sample bias, and demonstrated clearly that no conclusion can be drawn about 4-3 vs. 3-4 based on playoffs over 1 or 2 years of playoffs.

I brought the topic up for discussion, and I obviously only took a 1 year sample size...

My point is more and more teams are running the 3-4 and more and more 3-4 defenses are turning up to be in the top 10 year by year...

The MVPlaya
01-22-2011, 11:10 AM
The #1 defense for the past 5 years have been a 3-4.

The MVPlaya
01-22-2011, 11:13 AM
i can't agree with this. my argument for this is based on the assumption, and in some cities maybe this assumes too much (oakland...), that NFL coaches have a far deeper understanding of the game and all that it entails than us fans do.

now, given this semi-fact, if the 3-4 was significantly "better" than the 4-3 wouldn't the vast majority of coaches utilize it?

Now, I do think that a coaches selection of a base defense is probably a lot more complex than, "which is better." But in the end, no new coach is afraid to blow things up and install what they think gives them the best chance to win. In fact, some will sacrifice great players (Kampman, Peppers, etc..) because they simply can't use them effectively in the defense they think is best.

All I'm saying is that it is evolving... there are more defensive coaches in the league who are familiar with the 4-3 than 3-4. I don't think a coach would install a 3-4 without knowing every little detail (unless your name is Slowick).

gyldenlove
01-22-2011, 11:29 AM
You just disproved his theory with your theory, which is based off of "1 or 2 years of playoffs."

;D

My theory is that you can't conclude anything based on 1 playoff year, that is proved by the fact that last years playoffs are in strong disagreement with this years playoffs.

Cito Pelon
01-22-2011, 12:23 PM
And the top teams in turnover differential made the playoffs. There's a lot of factors to winning. You never know how it will all come together.

The MVPlaya
01-22-2011, 12:34 PM
And the top teams in turnover differential made the playoffs. There's a lot of factors to winning. You never know how it will all come together.

Top 5 teams in takeaways in the AFC were 3-4.

just a thought...

CEH
01-22-2011, 12:35 PM
And the top teams in turnover differential made the playoffs. There's a lot of factors to winning. You never know how it will all come together.

You're correct. All you have to do is look at the defense of the 2005 Denver Broncos


During John Fox's 9 years only Pittsburgh generated more turnovers than the Pathers. God I love that stat. Nothing changes a game faster than get a timely turnover

The MVPlaya
01-22-2011, 12:38 PM
You're correct. All you have to do is look at the defense of the 2005 Denver Broncos


During John Fox's 9 years only Pittsburgh generated more turnovers than the Pathers. God I love that stat. Nothing changes a game faster than get a timely turnover

That is a great stat.

However, his best years were prior to 2005... but his defenses do show a lot of consistency in TO's from year to year.. always at the middle/upper level of the NFC...

peacepipe
01-22-2011, 12:51 PM
i can't agree with this. my argument for this is based on the assumption, and in some cities maybe this assumes too much (oakland...), that NFL coaches have a far deeper understanding of the game and all that it entails than us fans do.

now, given this semi-fact, if the 3-4 was significantly "better" than the 4-3 wouldn't the vast majority of coaches utilize it?
Now, I do think that a coaches selection of a base defense is probably a lot more complex than, "which is better." But in the end, no new coach is afraid to blow things up and install what they think gives them the best chance to win. In fact, some will sacrifice great players (Kampman, Peppers, etc..) because they simply can't use them effectively in the defense they think is best.

the vast majority of coaches out there can't coach a 3-4 defense. Which is why losing mike nolan was a big deal.

SportinOne
01-22-2011, 12:51 PM
here's a stat: the team that goes 1-0 in week 22 wins the super bowl 100% of the time.

So all we gotta do is tell fox to do that.

SportinOne
01-22-2011, 12:55 PM
the vast majority of coaches out there can't coach a 3-4 defense. Which is why losing mike nolan was a big deal.

this is a multi-billion dollar industry with cutting edge technology at the finger tips of basically everyone involved, is it really that hard to train people how to coach/run a 3-4 if it were in fact superior?