Do you think a 4-3 formation could be a good one ?

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

4 hours ago, hondo in seattle said:

I think the OPs question was interesting because I hear it said on tv that the Bills employ the 4-3 as their base defense.  Yet the OP suggests we try the 4-3.   Why should we try 4-3 when we're already 4-3?  Well, because we're actually a 4-2 defense as we all know.  

 

In the old days, the 4-2 would be called a "pass prevent" defense and it is good against the pass.  An important consideration in a league where the pass is getting more and more important over the years - a trend that's likely to continue.

 

With this lighter formation, we do seem to struggle against bigger backs.  But, weirdly, the run D that McD and Frazier have created with this 4-2 is currently ranked as the 3rd best run defense in the league.  

 

Would the 4-3 provide greater blitz opportunities?  Maybe.  A 4-3 with a blitzing linebacker would mean, obviously, 5 guys going after the QB with 6 in coverage.  

 

But I think McD and Frazier prize coverage over pressure.  They typically want 7 in coverage.  And, given our rankings (#2 pass, #3 run, #1 overall), they're probably not eager to experiment with new/different ideas.  

 

 

Also run defense is helped because 7 guys are seeing the running back get the ball and flying to their gap

[Motorin']

1 minute ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

Also run defense is helped because 7 guys are seeing the running back get the ball and flying to their gap

 

Except it didn't work that well against the Titans, who utilized 2 TE's and FB's in a power running system...  Klein adds value against power running teams, imo. 

[FLFan]

By all means let’s change literally everything about the design of the number one defense in the NFL, just because I guess. Great plan.  You should get in touch with McDermott right away. 

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

23 minutes ago, Motorin' said:

 

What did they play with Klein only seeing 3 snaps?

sarcasm?   Did I miss something?

 

[LeGOATski]

1 minute ago, SlimShady'sSpaceForce said:

sarcasm?   Did I miss something?

 

He meant against Tenn

[Motorin']

1 minute ago, SlimShady'sSpaceForce said:

sarcasm?   Did I miss something?

 

 

We were talking about the Titans game. Not the Jets game. 

[strive_for_five_guy]

Wow, this might be the first thread in awhile where at least the first few responders  show some intelligence and are respectful to the OP.  I’ll stop there!

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

2 minutes ago, Motorin' said:

 

Except it didn't work that well against the Titans, who utilized 2 TE's and FB's in a power running system...  Klein adds value against power running teams, imo. 

Sure- I was more pointing towards the surprise they tend to have good run d despite a “lighter” personnel package. 
 

The Titans offense has the Bills defense’s number. I see Cleveland as a likely similar problem. Maybe worse with Henry out. Hope to avoid them both in the post season. 

[LeGOATski]

7 minutes ago, Motorin' said:

 

Except it didn't work that well against the Titans, who utilized 2 TE's and FB's in a power running system...  Klein adds value against power running teams, imo. 

I think even if they want to go heavy to stop the run we'd see more 5-2 before we see 4-3.

[In Summary]

The Bills won't play three LB's to stop a 12 yard run if it means some remote chance they give up a 30 yard pass play.  Not who they are.  With a 4 man defensive front and not being a blitzing team, no way they play an extra LB just to rush the passer.  The rare occasion is simply an opportunistic changeup, not their bread and butter.  

 

Yes, I miss seeing an NFL that involved more running and LB play - even the 3-4 the Bills had that necessitated a rush backer.  However, anything short of facing Henry at RB and the Bills will be Nickle start to finish.

[GunnerBill]

5 hours ago, hondo in seattle said:

I think the OPs question was interesting because I hear it said on tv that the Bills employ the 4-3 as their base defense.  Yet the OP suggests we try the 4-3.   Why should we try 4-3 when we're already 4-3?  Well, because we're actually a 4-2 defense as we all know.  

 

In the old days, the 4-2 would be called a "pass prevent" defense and it is good against the pass.  An important consideration in a league where the pass is getting more and more important over the years - a trend that's likely to continue.

 

With this lighter formation, we do seem to struggle against bigger backs.  But, weirdly, the run D that McD and Frazier have created with this 4-2 is currently ranked as the 3rd best run defense in the league.  

 

Would the 4-3 provide greater blitz opportunities?  Maybe.  A 4-3 with a blitzing linebacker would mean, obviously, 5 guys going after the QB with 6 in coverage.  

 

But I think McD and Frazier prize coverage over pressure.  They typically want 7 in coverage.  And, given our rankings (#2 pass, #3 run, #1 overall), they're probably not eager to experiment with new/different ideas.  

 

But a bit more base 4-3 against heavy run teams isn't a new idea. It is a ploy they used really successfully against the Ravens in the playoffs. I thought they should have done it more at Tennessee tbh as well. I wonder, a little bit, if the fact Taron had just signed a big deal was a bit of a deterrent when considering taking him out more to put Klein in? We had some of these discussions in the spring when considering whether Zaven Collins and/or JOK made any sense for us at the draft. I am absolutely fine with the Bills being mainly a nickel D. The league is no longer run and stop the run. It is pass and stop the pass. But there are those teams with more limited QBs and great backs who try and take advantage of that by going against the grain and I would like to see a bit more of that Ravens game change up deployed in other situations. Indy feels like one, New Orleans maybe too. I think against New England I'd be more tempted to stick with the 4-2-5 predominantly because I do think Belichick and McDaniels would go right after AJ Klein is he was playing as a 4-3 OLB. 

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

3 hours ago, LeGOATski said:

He meant against Tenn

 

3 hours ago, Motorin' said:

 

We were talking about the Titans game. Not the Jets game. 

 

oops.  My bad

 

[Ethan in Cleveland]

Situation specific, yes. Taron is great in coverage and Edmunds is at his best dropping deep middle. 

In the 4-3 they are best if they play Klein at MLB and Edmunds outside. They did this a little last year down the stretch when Klein was playing so well. They also played Klein outside and Edmunds at middle too.  I think Klein is a liability at OLB but holds his own quite nicely in the middle. 

[Italian Bills]

3 hours ago, In Summary said:

The Bills won't play three LB's to stop a 12 yard run if it means some remote chance they give up a 30 yard pass play.  Not who they are.  With a 4 man defensive front and not being a blitzing team, no way they play an extra LB just to rush the passer.  The rare occasion is simply an opportunistic changeup, not their bread and butter.  

 

Yes, I miss seeing an NFL that involved more running and LB play - even the 3-4 the Bills had that necessitated a rush backer.  However, anything short of facing Henry at RB and the Bills will be Nickle start to finish.

 

3 hours ago, In Summary said:

The Bills won't play three LB's to stop a 12 yard run if it means some remote chance they give up a 30 yard pass play.  Not who they are.  With a 4 man defensive front and not being a blitzing team, no way they play an extra LB just to rush the passer.  The rare occasion is simply an opportunistic changeup, not their bread and butter.  

 

Yes, I miss seeing an NFL that involved more running and LB play - even the 3-4 the Bills had that necessitated a rush backer.  However, anything short of facing Henry at RB and the Bills will be Nickle start to finish.

When i opened this thread was not to say that we have to change the way we are playing D, i’m not crazy.. i opened this thread to ask your opinion about using a 4-3 formation here and there using three LBs to rush the passer more and to be more consistent at stopping the run against teams with great backs like Henry, Kamara, Taylor, etc. 
And those teams don’t have great QBs that can make you pay the price to play that formation few snaps during the game. I do also agree that the nickel is the right asset. 

Edited November 16, 2021 by Italian Bills

[ChronicAndKnuckles]

9 hours ago, Italian Bills said:

I lately have this in my mind … using all our three LBs together to give more pressure on other QB and because our three LBs are quick enough to pass over opposite tackles. 
Maybe dropping Milano in the middle letting Edmunds and Klein go for the QB. 

 

Another reason because we could use a 4-3 formation is because we do have four strong defensive backs and anyway we could switch from the 4-3 to a nichel or dime formation if needed. 
 

What you think ? 

 

Not in this day and age. If you switch to a 4-3 base then that means you have to get rid of a DB like Taron Johnson or even Wallace (a very good player despite what some people say here.) I think 10+ years ago this would've worked tremendously. I've very impressed w/ Klein and I do agree that he should see the field more, but at the same time we're number 1 though so I don't think they should mess w/ what they got. 

 

Some packages w/ all 3 backers would be pretty sweet especially in obvious running downs

Edited November 16, 2021 by ChronicAndKnuckles

[MAJBobby]

4 hours ago, Motorin' said:

 

lol, that is a true statement. The Bills were not exclusively nickel against the Titans, because they were in 4-3 on 3 plays. On the other 50 plays they were in nickel. 

So calling the DC a liar. Got it. 

[frostbitmic]

They should have some packages for a 4-3 defense.

 

They should also have some packages for a 5-2 as well and throw another pass rusher or plug in the middle of the line.

 

The more things you can do, the more your opponent has to prepare for. It could also confuse the offense enough to get them to blow through their timeouts as well.

[Miyagi-Do Karate]

9 hours ago, JGMcD2 said:

I don’t think we’re taking Taron Johnson off the field. Maybe a little more against run heavy teams… but we’ll play predominantly nickel. 

 

We need more Taron, not less. 

[Motorin']

17 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:

So calling the DC a liar. Got it. 

 

No, I'm saying you're reading compression is lacking.

 

Frazier said the only game they didn't exclusively play nickel was against the Titans. They were in nickel 94% of plays against the Titans. So 6% of the time they weren't in nickel. 

 

You said Frazier claimed they didn't play nickel against the Titans. 

[In Summary]

35 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

But a bit more base 4-3 against heavy run teams isn't a new idea. It is a ploy they used really successfully against the Ravens in the playoffs. I thought they should have done it more at Tennessee tbh as well. I wonder, a little bit, if the fact Taron had just signed a big deal was a bit of a deterrent when considering taking him out more to put Klein in? We had some of these discussions in the spring when considering whether Zaven Collins and/or JOK made any sense for us at the draft. I am absolutely fine with the Bills being mainly a nickel D. The league is no longer run and stop the run. It is pass and stop the pass. But there are those teams with more limited QBs and great backs who try and take advantage of that by going against the grain and I would like to see a bit more of that Ravens game change up deployed in other situations. Indy feels like one, New Orleans maybe too. I think against New England I'd be more tempted to stick with the 4-2-5 predominantly because I do think Belichick and McDaniels would go right after AJ Klein is he was playing as a 4-3 OLB. 

• Could be TJ's money but could also be analytics based risk assessment.  Maybe TJ simply guards you against more big plays than would Klein or 3rd LB?  
• McDermott and Frazier, college and pro secondary players respectively, understand the defensive backfield and are arguably playing to their experience and coaching strengths.  If Klein (or 3rd LB) and TJ were a draw on inherent talent, I'd still expect the coaches to lean TJ/nickel over 4-3.
• TJ and Poyer aren't afraid to hit so they're not necessarily run game liabilities IMO.  I've joked that Poyer is our most physical linebacker.
• I like Klein to jumpstart the pass rush if the front 4 are ineffective.  I wouldn't ask that of Edmunds.
• Most times the Bills have one guy (sometimes two) over 300 lb while the opponent's line has five.  Edmunds and Milano are not Shane Conlan and Jim Haslett.  We're built to stop the premier passing teams and not the two or three premier inside running games.
• The base 4-3 vs nickel debate is hopefully just about getting past those couple of teams than could derail your playoff seating.