info about Pendergast and his Cardinal scheme

[Mr. Krab]

Scheme flexibility

Do the Cardinals run a 3-4 or 4-3 defense? The answer is, well, yes.

By Eric Edholm
Jan. 30, 2009

TAMPA, Fla. - Cardinals LB coach Bill Davis leaned back in his seat, exhaled and tried to remember a conversation he had five years and two jobs ago.

"I have been so many places, you tend to forget what you did when and when things happened," Davis said "It all blends together."

Indeed. In 17 NFL seasons, Davis has worked for eight clubs and has run or been a part of just about every kind of defensive scheme there is. He has been around long enough to have seen the 3-4 defense go out of style and subsequently come back as, what Steelers offensive coordinator Bruce Arians calls it, "the vogue defense right now," including his own team's superior unit.

But do the Cardinals run a 3-4 also? The answer might surprise you.

"Everybody puts us in that 3-4 category, but what we are is an 'under front, a 4-3 'under' defense, "Davis explains. "The 'under' is almost a 3-4. As 3-4 [defenses] go, it's not really what we do here."

An 'under' defense slants towards the tight end. Likewise, an 'over' front shifts away from the tight end. As he explains the workings of the Cardinal's defense, Davis starts talking, then does as any good coach or teacher would: He grabs a pen and paper. "Well,here, let me show you want i mean ..."

Pretty soon, he's scratching out the defensive scheme on a paper, the same one the Cardinals will use to try to stop the Steelers on Sunday. He also, for comparison, sketches out the traditional 3-4 defense and the 4-3 'even' front, both of what he has taught and coached in the NFL.

"When you're talking about the 3-4 team, you have the three D-lineman," Davis said. "Then you have [two] outside 'backers; then [the inside linebackers] bubble on the guards."

Bubbling, in the defensive terms, is to line up across from an uncovered offensive lineman. In the 3-4, it's the two offensive guards that most often don't have a defensive lineman in front of them. The defensive ends are lined up in a five-techniques, or on the outside shoulder of the offensive tackles. The nose tackle is head up across from the center.

Said Davis: "These guys [defensive linemen] are supposed to two-gap, and these outside [linebackers] are interchangeable rush-or-pass guys. And that's the dynamic of the 3-4."

But in the 4-3 'under' front, like the Cardinals use as their base defense which looks similar to the 3-4 to the naked eye, the biggest difference is in the outside linebackers. The strong-side linebacker is still outside the tightend. But the other outside guy - the Cardinals call this player their "Predator" - is almost always rushing the passer, although the Cards will occasionally drop him into covers to mix things up. Other differences: The nose tackle shades to the A-gap (in between the center and the guard) on the tightend side, and the end on that side moves between the tackle and tightend.

Davis explained that the 3-4 defense creates the most confusion for the offense in terms of which outside linebacker is doing what, and the standard 4-3 offers the least unpredictability. The Cardinals 4-3 'under' scheme is somewhere between the two in terms of causing the offense to guess who is rushing and who is dropping.

The only player in the 4-3 'under' who is left uncovered is the "Mike," or the middle linebacker. In the Cardinals' scheme, that's usually Gerald Hayes. "That's my thumper, more of a thick guy," Davis said, circling the capital M on his piece of paper. "In the 'over' front, when i was in Atlanta [2001 to 2003], we put Keith Brooking - we were actually playing an even scheme, too - but we stacked Keith right behind the three [technique] and he got to run and make players and use his athleticism, and he made his first Pro Bowl playing behind the three."

But in this scheme Hayes, listed at 249 pounds ("or a little less than that," he admits with a wink and smile), is the only uncovered linebacker. That means he often will be taking on 300-pound guards head on. On Sunday, it could be Steeler ORG Darnell Stapleton and his 305 pounds that will meet Hayes more than once. "You don't think about," Hayes says, "you just do it. You can't worry about taking those guys on. It comes with the territory."

Antonio Smith and Darnell Dockett are the ends in this system, backed up by rookies Kenny Iwabema and Calais Campbell. Bryan Robinson and Gabe Watson are the nose tackles. Chike Okeafor is the primary strong-side linebacker, now that Clark Haggans is out with and injury.

Karlos Dansby is the weak-side linebacker. The way the defense is set up, he has a nice protective shield to keep potential blockers at bay. "what we've done with Karlos is put him behind a three-technique, so basically - we call these anchor points - he's got a wall in front of him," Davis said. "So he can run and use his athleticism. The center can't get him because the nose is on him. The guard can't get him because the end is on him. And the tackle can't get him because the predator is on him. So this is your athlete that can run, go cover ground and make plays.

Th "Predator" position is manned by Bertrand Berry and Travis LaBoy, assuming LaBoy is healthy enough to play Sunder. Both guys really are defensive ends by trade, but Davis considers them his guys.

"At the end of the day, I have these guys [the "Predators"] in my meeting room, so that puts us closer to this scheme [4-3 under]," he said. "And i put them in a two-point stance. This is the key right there: This guy right here [the three-technique weak side end] almost makes us have to rush the passer. As soon as you move him inside [from a five-technique], his responsibility in this is to play this very same gap."

Davis has coached this scheme with the Giants and 49ers, but this is the first time in a while one of his defenses has used it as the base grouping. He has picked up pieces of different schemes from a bunch of different schools around the league and likes the flexibility of what he and the other defenses have discover in the 4-3 'under' formation.

"The [Bill] Belichicks, [Dom] Capers, the [Bill] Parcells, that whole group ... they play the 'under' front most of the time, but they move to it," Davis said. "So are we a 3-4? Almost."

It just depends on how you look at it. Or under it.

[aturnis]

What I don't like about this is...

He was apparently running a 4-3/3-4 hybrid no? Like Mecca said, he had oodles of talent, and not the greatest results.

Wisenhunt is a Pittsburgh guy. That means something, and even though he was an offensive coach, I'm sure defense is a big deal to him. He had to have learned a lot in Pittsburgh. He should know how important defense is, and not just defense, but the 3-4 defense.

Well anyway, if Wisenhunt never trusted Pendergast to do the job, gave him a chance(forced to really), and still fired him. Well, lets just say it doesn't say a whole lot of good about our new D coordinator.

[orange]

Mr. Krab's,

LOL at your valiant but vain attempt to make the author appear literate. You'll have to do a lot more editing to get to that point.

"... the traditional 3-4 defense and the 4-3 'even' front, both of what he has tought and coached in the NFL."

CRIPEY. Is this guy actually paid to put words in print?

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Mecca

It must just be me but Page and Pollard don't strike me as guys who would start on good teams.

Good teams generally have coaches who know how to utilize their players strengths, and with Pollard he's never been used that way. On a GOOD team, Pollard might actually start, and he might actually be GOOD. He was every bit the man at Purdue that Bob Sanders was at Iowa. He's not a cover 2 safety, but don't tell the idiots that were running the show that.

You want to talk about guys that don't belong, let's talk about Page.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Coach

This part is true, but also another thing is that I felt that Arizona had more talent than KC does on the defensive side.

Originally Posted by Mecca

I'd be a bit concerned here because Arizona has quite a bit of talent to work with, they atleast have a "core" that their team is built around.

You guys are WAY overestimating Arizona's "talent" on the defensive side of the ball. Their "core" consists of a 2nd-tier safety, a streaky DT, a 2nd-round LB, and a CB that they can't find a spot for because he's not good enough to play CB fulltime.

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

Originally Posted by ChiefRon

If we can build a pass rush, and "coach up" Morgan, Page, and Pollard...

Then maybe the ideal scenario would be to trade down (if at all possible) and still snag Brown, possibly find a late round gem LB or DE...

Maybe we would be ok.

Surely not as bad as last year.

You gotta' get Pollard out of coverage. He tries, but it's just not his thing. You put him in charge of shutting down the run up the middle and applying a little extra pressure on outside and interior blitzes, and he'll produce for you.

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Good teams generally have coaches who know how to utilize their players strengths, and with Pollard he's never been used that way. On a GOOD team, Pollard might actually start, and he might actually be GOOD. He was every bit the man at Purdue that Bob Sanders was at Iowa. He's not a cover 2 safety, but don't tell the idiots that were running the show that.

You want to talk about guys that don't belong, let's talk about Page.

Bingo. In a rushing defense, the FS has to be your "miracle man" when the pressure and the sack don't bear fruit.

Page barely "flashed" at all in 2008, while Morgan stepped up and played a hell of a game against Denver at Arrowhead. I think Morgan could step again and really shine with the right scheme and coaching.

Why does Krumrie have a job? Seriously? Is his patented "Bitchy Slap Fight Drill" such an Awesome Tool Of The Gods, that he must be retained at all costs?

Meh.

[the Talking Can]

interesting, thanks....

[tmax63]

My question is how good/bad is the talent on D? I've read many times that it takes anywhere from 2-4 years to really know what you got from a rookie d-lineman. The chiefs have 2 guys going into year #3 under questionable coaching/scheme and a 2nd yr. guy. I'm thinking that although alot of folks on this board have given up on T-D-T already that they still have a chance to develop. I strongly agree that the Chiefs need a good pass rusher and better lb's and better quality depth as the injuries showed last year.

[Coogs]

Originally Posted by Mr. Krab's

Other differences: The nose tackle shades to the A-gap (in between the center and the guard) on the tightend side, and the end on that side moves between the tackle and tightend.

OK! Can anybody here tell me weather or not either one of these two differences in the NT position... or the DE position would be a move in the positive direction from the straight 3-4 for Glen Dorsey... and Glen Dorsey only.

Most here seem to think he can not play the NT in a straight 3-4. Is this slight move over into the gap a play to his strength?

Or, if he is still more of a DE candidate in this scheme?

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by Cosmos

Among the many interesting things to keep track of is watching certain players fall off the roster because they either don't fit the new scheme, or they suck as players and won't be protected by the previous staff.

At the same time, their is going to be some players that will excel in the scheme, or will take to the new and "improved" coaching.

Page and Pollard are two players that I believe are going to benefit big time from this scheme. Cover 2's require safeties to cover a lot more ground than any other defense.

The Tampa 2 look demands a good pass rush. They have corners who jam receivers at the line to keep receivers from running in full sprint to the second level. If the receiver has enough time to recover and get back to full speed, there's nothing your defense can do.

In other words, when the pass rush disappears, the safeties in a Tampa 2 are always going to look bad. I think Page and Pollard are easily the two players who will benefit the most from a scheme change.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by Coogs

OK! Can anybody here tell me weather or not either one of these two differences in the NT position... or the DE position would be a move in the positive direction from the straight 3-4 for Glen Dorsey... and Glen Dorsey only.

Most here seem to think he can not play the NT in a straight 3-4. Is this slight move over into the gap a play to his strength?

Or, if he is still more of a DE candidate in this scheme?

Coogs, don't listen to anyone who says Dorsey can be a 3-4 NT. They're out of their mind. Dorsey is not a space-eating guy whose job is to stand there and absorb blockers. And he'll never be strong enough to do it because he has some knee problems that will always keep him from gaining enough leg strength to be great at getting that leverage. His strength is going to be as a 1-gap tackle that darts through the line.

Unfortunately, that means that as a 3-4 DE, it's not a whole lot different. He'll be more of a guy who absorbs blockers and stuffs the run than he will be a pass rusher. And he might be too short for the role. No doubt his place is as a 4-3 DT. But much as I like Dorsey, you don't build an entire defense around him. He might be out of place, but that shouldn't stop the Chiefs from thinking about running a 3-4.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by tmax63

My question is how good/bad is the talent on D? I've read many times that it takes anywhere from 2-4 years to really know what you got from a rookie d-lineman. The chiefs have 2 guys going into year #3 under questionable coaching/scheme and a 2nd yr. guy. I'm thinking that although alot of folks on this board have given up on T-D-T already that they still have a chance to develop. I strongly agree that the Chiefs need a good pass rusher and better lb's and better quality depth as the injuries showed last year.

The key is that when you run a 4-3, you need great pass rushers off the edge and that has become one of the toughest things to find. Arguably the second-most difficult position to find outside of QB. And you need to find not one but TWO of them.

That's why a lot of teams run a 3-4. Much easier to find pass rushers. And arguably, that might be where this team could be the strongest. You don't need pass rushers on the line here. You need 3 DTs who can occupy blockers and keep linemen off the LBs, who can then fill in the gaps.

[Coogs]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

I think Page and Pollard are easily the two players who will benefit the most from a scheme change.

But wouldn't a 4-3 scheme that benifits Dorsey be because he can line up in a gap? In this system, he would still be in a gap. Maybe not the same one as his best 4-3 role would be, but in a gap none the less.

And for that matter, I know I asked about Dorsey only... mostly because he is a #5 overall pick, but would this slight shift over benifit Tyler more than a straight up on the Center setup as well?

[Coogs]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

Coogs, don't listen to anyone who says Dorsey can be a 3-4 NT. They're out of their mind. Dorsey is not a space-eating guy whose job is to stand there and absorb blockers. And he'll never be strong enough to do it because he has some knee problems that will always keep him from gaining enough leg strength to be great at getting that leverage. His strength is going to be as a 1-gap tackle that darts through the line.

But isn't that what this would be? A 1-gap tackle?

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by Darth CarlSatan

You put him in charge of shutting down the run up the middle and he'll...

SUCK ASS