Man you guys are really obsessing on this.

Okay, we're a 4-3 now.
We see this anyway, about half the time. This is not the point.

I'm not even against a 4-3. I don't even disagree that it should be our base defense. I just think it doesn't matter all the much because we'll be in our base defense about 20% of the time. I'm more concerned with the other 80%.

My point is, less run stuffer big guys and more pass rusher types from the inside positions. More Jones's and less Williams's. And that the Houston's and Ford's, while good players, affect the game less often than a force like an Aaron Donald due to his proximity to the QB at the snap. Good OT's just ride the edge rusher out most of the time and the QB has a nice pocket to throw from. Collapse it in his face and it's more chaotic.

I believe you're onto something

Dude. The question you posed is "Building a defense in the modern NFL".

And we're giving you the correct answer. It starts with a scheme switch. That IS today's NFL. Today's NFL is the 43 D.

Even Andy Reid himself says that. The ability to rush the passer from the interior line.

So if we're "Building a defense in the modern NFL", well the first and most fundamental building block is the scheme itself.

The scheme will dictate personnel. The personnel being smaller, quicker and the ability to pressure with 4-down linemen, allowing you to pressure whether you're in base/nickel or whatever.

The 34 has inherent issues that cause problems when defending today's NFL offenses.

It's not "obsessing", it's the correct response to your OP.

But not with optimum players to run a 43.

Right. What you're describing is personnel that would match a scheme switch to the 43 LMAO

In which your OLB's are smaller, quicker and better suited for playing in space/coverage and used less to rush. Your DE's are no longer "Run stuffer big guys" and instead guys like Houston and Ford, and guys like Jones and Bailey aren't there to eat space, but to rush the QB.

You're not in a base defense all that much. Everybody's BASE DEFENSE is pretty much a nickel and/or dime, regardless of whether they are a 3-4 or 4-3 in their BASE. It's not 1992. Last year, teams were in their base 33.1% of the time. This is because most teams use the 11 as their base offense these days. (3wrs, one back, one TE.) So your BASE defense is really just a personnel package that gets used less often than others. In all reality, it doesn't really matter all that much anymore.
from Football Outsiders:

We no longer separate 3-4 and 4-3 fronts in our stats. In all honesty, the distinction is becoming more and more meaningless in the modern NFL; the difference between a 4-3 defensive end and a 3-4 outside linebacker is more or less whether or not they have their hand in the dirt at the snap. Hybrid defensive schemes are the name of the game now, and trying to cram 2018 defensive strategy into a 1980s framework is less than useful.

So we can disagree, that's fine. I say it's just a personnel package that's used less than say, the nickel. Most nickel defenses are a 4 man line, but not all. Most dime packages are a four man line, but not all. There are all sorts of packages that we and every other NFL team use from time to time, regardless of what is listed as their "Base" alignment.

MY POINT is that the edge rusher is perhaps overvalued and the interior rusher is perhaps UNDERvalued and so we should be concentrating on the interior rushers going forward. And that CB's are now over valued due to the rules and so SAFETIES should be where we spend capital in the future as crap safety play (like we see every week) is a bigger problem than mediocre CB play. So basically the age-old concept of outside in is OUT and now INSIDE out is the way to build a defense in this era. Edge rush takes too long and leaves a pocket to throw from. CB's can't be physical so just get guys that can run with WR's and hope for turnovers and batted balls. Smart safety play keeps the big play away. Make the QB stand in there for 12 play drives with the pocket collapsing right in his face.

DUDE. Yes, we have less than ideal personnel. YES we need quicker, faster d-linemen. NO a 4-3 isn't the answer because we're likely to be in it less than 30% of the time anyway. We'll be in a 4-2-5 more than we'll be in a 4-3 because that's. IT DOESN"T MATTER. the difference between an OLB and a DE is often just a hand in the dirt anyway. THAT PART is not the thing to be keying on.

We need less Williams/Nnadi types and more Jones's. You want a 4-3 base, that's fine but it's just ONE alignment that we'll see some of, and we already do, especially when we have the O'Daniel package on the field where he is essentially a LB'er with four pass rushers on the line in front of him. So yeah, I mean it's fine, but just calling it a 4-3 isn't an answer.

we're arguing semantics; I'm just saying the terminology is not important. We agree that the personnel is.

Check it out Chris Meck: In a 43...playing in Nickel....you still have the same D-line you'd have while playing "base" 43. That's NOT the case in a 34.

That's the whole point. You are utilizing guys to play all 3 downs instead of "run down guys" (your 5-techs) and "pass down guys". I understand that everyone spends more time in passing formations than not. Clearly. That's the whole reason for the argument to switch to a 43.

What happens when a 34 base defense switches to nickel? The NT comes out, right? And now you're pass rushing with two larger OLB/DE types, and two guys who are generally lane cloggers. And your LB's, what are they in a base 34? Bigger guys right? So now you have LB's in coverage who aren't generally great in coverage. Your Reggie Ragland types.

Just because you can run multiple fronts does not mean you're putting the BEST guys out there to run said fronts.

Scheme dictates personnel. In a base 43 we rid ourselves of a NT. We rid ourselves of guys that are specifically run stuffers. You roll with your "base" dline even on passing downs, whether it's base or nickel. You get your $$$ out of said D-line instead of having guys come off the field on 3rd down.

You also have LB's who can run now, which is more optimum for Today's NFL. Who do you want in coverage, DoD or Tamba Hali?

Scheme dictates personnel. Personnel will dictate matchups, right?

Switching to a 43 means we no longer have to invest in 5-techs and NT's (big body guys with limited rush ability).

Your theory on today's NFL defense is NOT wrong. But the fundamental, core part of Today's NFL defense requires a switch to the 43 so that you can maximize your theory with players who are best able to carry it out.

Wanna run a 43 with 34 personnel? Sure. But it's not OPTIMAL. They are NOT interchangeable, because the personnel required to run them is different.

We're lucky to have a guy like Chris Jones or Allen Bailey who can in fact do both. Which makes a scheme switch even easier for a team like the Chiefs.

Can we all agree that LB is the most important position on D?

There's a fundamental shift in the player acquisition process in a base scheme switch.

Your plan is to carry both small, fast D-linemen along with 5-techs? Along with smaller, quicker LB's? And a NT or two? There's only so many roster spots, dude. And you're not using your "43" line 30% of the time. You're using it 100% of the time. That's the whole point! Lol.

You can't have it both ways.

A major component in the scheme switch is that you don't have to have guys who only play "30% of the time" like we do now.

You get it? Maybe im just not explaining clear enough. Can someone else spell this out better?

Whatever defense you build you better hope you win a SB with it in year one because the NFL will neuter it with rule changes the first chance it gets.

Civil, enjoyable debate from Chris and Detox

Both making great points, but kinda talking past each other to an extent

I do agree that 43 is the way to go, because it can give you that same base front 4 personnel in a nickel package... you'll always have a rotation of 4 pass rush capable D line, because the scheme dictates you draft and develop a 4 man rotation

A timely discussion idea by Chris at any rate, great thread

In this new era of arena ball 50 burger games... how to adjust defensively is a critical issue

You need to be able to collapse the pocket with 4. Basically follow the Giants D model when they won their two SBs.

:facepalm:

Ideally yes. This has been pretty much the only way to beat elite QB's for about 50 years now.