Breaking down the Defense

Recent news also states that the Green Bay Packers, (and several other teams in the NFC North) are going to be switching to predominately a 3-4 base defensive formation, over the more-prevalent t 4-3 (the Bears love it). In response to a conversation I had recently about defensive strategies, today, the Second and One Playbook, after much perusing the vast web of football knowledge on the Internets - attempts to demystify the 3-4 defensive formation. This is my first attempt at a full "Playbook" entry.

First, a bit about the numbers. In these formations, the first number indicates the number of linemen (not DBs/secondary), whereas the second indicates the number of linebackers. It's not like "you run the 3-4 when they're actually 3rd and 4, or when your record is 3-4," although that logic is certainly more amusing. By convention, then, the 4-3 uses four linemen, and the 5-2 uses five linemen. 

Obviously, then, the front seven for the 3-4 uses three linemen (two ends and a nose tackle; the former typically line up across from the guards, and the latter lines up across from the center*), and four linebackers, two inside (or middle, whatever you'd like to call them) LBs, and two outside LBs. The rest of the eleven, of course, consists of the free safety, the strong safety, and the two cornerbacks. 

The job of the linemen, as is the job for most linemen, is to block and plug gaps to prevent any sort of a run game from opening up.

There are typically many uses for the four linebackers. They're already set back for pass coverage, but for example, in a standard 4-man rush (such as those seen in the 4-3), the D-line normally takes this job, whereas things are slightly more ambiguous for the 3-4. Often, if fast enough, one of the linebackers stars as the 4th man (call it a pseudo 4-3). However, in theory, anyone in the secondary could also come out of the ether on the rush, which really serves to confuse the offense's read of the D on pass plays. 

One of the problems with the 3-4, as can be implied from lack of personnel on the line, is that the 3-4 can be swamped by all of the blocking going on up front, often leading to breakout runs, overstimulated and frustrated defensive ends, and broken remotes/TVs/coffee tables/egos on the part of the fans.

Cornerbacks: Like receivers, but with more hand-waving: the secondary can do anything, really, depending on the particular scheme devised. Cornerbacks are generally thought of as the ones who attempt to mirror receivers, leaping in front of them, and breaking up the pass on the intermediate-length sort of routes - which isn't far off from the truth. A friend of mine has the staunch opinion that receivers who are too jumpy or drop too many balls should simply be sent out to play cornerback for a while. 

The free safety (FS) usually serves to jog around downfield and attempt to get in the way of any deep balls that may sail out. The strong safety (SS) stays closer to the line, and, in a pinch, can participate in those "46" and "eight-men-in-the-box" formations, which, in my opinion, are effective if not used too often; the over-boxed defense is a conditioned team with absolutely zero pass coverage, especially if the secondary is weak and or slow (I like to call these sorts of secondaries "tertiaries.")

So, for the more visually-inclined, to the left is the Second and One Whiteboard O' Wisdom, where I have depicted a typical 3-4 formation. I have the linebacker on the line on the strong side. 

And that's all for this edition; Defensive Coordinator MC has work to do elsewhere. Remember kids: if you keep dropping balls, wear a cup.

EDIT: I'm not sure why my strong-side receiver is a little "O" in the above diagram. Pretend it's Steve Smith or one of those little 5'9" receivers to humor me.

*Somebody once told me that the best way to find someone (especially a female) who doesn't understand football is to simply ask "what do you call the person who snaps the ball?" If they say something like "uh...the person who snaps the ball?!" your question is answered. Preferably, this question best follows "what do you call the person who punts" or any of these other "who's buried in Grant's tomb"-style of inquiries.

Counting your Cards?

What a great NFC Championship game: as a friend of mine remarked last night, "...Who the heck are the Cardinals?!?!?!?!" I mentioned earlier that I love these sorts of "Cinderalla" stories, and the Group from Glendale's rise to dominance is a true Scrapyard-to-Boulevard tale. This is a team that looked absolutely dreadful during most of the season, losing by 21 points to the Vikings and Jets, by 28 to the Eagles, and 40 to the Patriots. In other words, they've had their feathered tails kicked up and down the field. I'm surprised Kurt Warner can even stand upright for the number of times he's been folded, spindled, and mutilated in the backfield. And now, by some inexplicable twist of fate, Ken Whisenhunt's Deck o' 'Cards are advancing to Super Bowl 43 and the entire state of Arizona is higher than Ricky Williams on a Friday night! 

Also, in addition to the head coach having a funny name, their defensive coordinator's name is Clancy Pendergast. Two outrageously funny names in the Superbowl?* Amazing. Whisenhunt and Pendergast. It sounds like a law firm. Or something from a Dr. Seuss book. Pendergast. That sounds like how the Eagles' defense was feeling after Kurt Warner's 4th touchdown. 

Speaking of Kurt Warner, Second and One affords Kurt Warner, JJ Arrington, and Larry Fitzgerald the Single Best Play of the Postseason award. At the beginning of the 2nd quarter, Warner pitched to Arrington, who was seemingly covered on all sides. Arrington ran outside, and heaved it back to Warner, who then connected with Fitzgerald on the deep route for 62 yards and the touchdown. This was, of course, continuing the extremely enjoyable Warner/Fitzgerald show, which resulted in one of the greatest accumulations of fantasy points I have ever seen for any given QB and WR (70 or thereabouts).

The obvious question to ask here is "What happened to the Eagles?"; my answer is that I think they were dead on arrival. Despite sparks of brilliance in the third quarter, McNabb had chemistry issues with receivers, often simply not connecting. Of course, it doesn't help Philly's cause that Arizona's D looked none too shabby, mixing up their jumpy, swampy zone coverage with solid man-to-man defense. And Arizona had the momentum. These guys have not won a championship game since before my father was born. Heck, coming from Chicago, even they were probably feeling residuals of the Cubs' legendary curse. And one could tell it; this Cardinal team is so unbelievably stoked about winning a trip to the Big One. Contrarily, for the Steelers, this is almost par for the course to the point where they didn't even have the thirty tons of confetti at Heinz Field. I could imagine someone in the Steelers organization saying in an uptight British accent "Ah yes, we've won another one, haven't we?" as compared to the Cardinals' fans, reduced to tears and unintelligible screams of glee. 

***

The AFC Championship game was honestly to be expected. Joe Flacco is a rookie, and rookies make rookie mistakes. Baltimore committed several tactical errors, including punting on 4th down past midfield, in a championship game, when down by 13. This game also had several notable casualties, including Hines Ward and the very talented Willis McGahee.

I've watched a lot of football, and it is my opinion that some teams, as a whole, have very sophisticated offenses (In college, people will sometimes refer to such offenses as "West Coast-ish" or "SEC-style"). Same goes for the NFL. There are teams that are bright on offense and teams that just aren't. The Giants (despite the Earth, Wind, and Fire hullaballoo and all of their magnetic razzle-dazzle), in my opinion, did not have a sophisticated offense this year. Instead, most of their offensive effort became focused on "aw, #$*&%, how do we convert yet another unlikely third down with Eli Manning?"-type scenarios." The Chicago Bears' offense also isn't particularly brilliant, consisting of a) running Matt Forte repeatedly into the line, and b) chucking it 6o yards downfield and hoping that they either hit someone on their team or draw a pass interference flag. The Baltimore ravens did not have a sophisticated offense, just a sophisticated defense. And absolutely nothing about Detroit was sophisticated. 

By contrast, Miami had a pretty sophisticated offense, interspersing their routine with wacky wildcat formations that seemed ripped right out of Friday Night Lights. They simply sputtered in their execution. Now the Steelers. There is a sophisticated offense. I can't help but notice that the Steelers have some very interesting offensive formations. One of my favorites is the 3 tight end set (There is an excellent analysis of this formation c/o Dagger over at Post Game Heroes, despite it being a little dated; Jerame Tuman is a Cardinal now). For those who don't wish to read the whole thing in its glossy, full-color glory, there are many uses for three tight ends. Two tight ends can be lined up to make a super strong side** whilst a third lines up at fullback, etc. But one of the best is for massive fakeouts that appear to be best for critical short-yardage situations. 

One lines up two tight ends, you know, where tight ends usually line up, and sticks a third several yards back; a handoff is faked to a running back while all three TEs initially attempt to throw blocks. Then, one of the ends on the line begins to sneak outside. As the defense becomes spread out, defenders realize "Aw shucks, this ain't a running play!" and begin chasing everyone, predominantly the outside end, thinking this is where the ball is going to end up. Meanwhile, the third, back-set TE (who initially served to draw defenders away from the RB and the other TE) takes off and gets enough real estate that the QB can find him. I'm sure it's maddening to try and defend against. 

***

Anyway, will the betting on the Cards result in a win? Stay tuned for more analysis. And remember kids: if at first you don't succeed, running back punts is not for you.

*As a general rule, coaches with funny names are never in the Superbowl. Thinking back, in recent memory, we've had Dungy, Smith, Coughlin, Belicheck, Gruden, etc. Tomlin fits in there nicely, but Whisenhunt?

** Clarifications for those who don't know; in those more traditional (i.e., non-Steeleresque) offensive formations, the "strong side" of the line refers to the side with the TE.