1 Gap vs 2 Gap (3-4) (1 Viewer)

[CaliSaint4Life]

i was reading this thread through (good job, people) and I'm still confused.
the op says the 3-4 under is the way to go and mentions that the end plays a 4, the nose a shade, and the other end pays a 5 ....and they bring an OLB up on the TE. How is that different from what they did with the 4-3 because the line was aligned the exact same way?

Read this my friend.

Link: Y! SPORTS

Yet there was another element of the Giants “3-4” that was universally overlooked. It was not a 3-4 in the strict “2-gap” sense. This returns us to the opening thesis about gap concepts. The Giants aligned in what was essentially a 4-3 “under” front with Taylor almost always positioned on the open side of the offensive formation, away from the tight end. A 4-3 “under” features a “three-technique” defensive tackle, a “one-technique” tackle and a strong-side defensive end. Taylor was simply the weak side defensive end; all he did was stand up in a two-point stance rather than put his hand on the ground. But that change in alignment demanded a different kind of athlete, and that marked a demarcation point in the defensive evolution of the NFL.

 

[ELLIASJWILLIAMS]

Read this my friend.

Link: Y! SPORTS

WHat im confused @ with that article is that most people including SP himself would agree that the Giants D was a typical 2gap. SP even said that the D wouldn't be like you saw with the Giants.

Yet as you read that article and make sense of it....it fits. Taylor wasn't a big guy(T-sizzle) So the under front fits him because it would put an End over the LT and free him up for 1 on 1's with RB's are sometimes hed be untouched. That fits what the 3-4 under is designed to do. IT also protects him in the running game. (galette)

The over would be used more if you had a 265lb guy on the weakside that can hold up against the run. I guess its just all by personnel...but why so many different view points on the defense that was run.


Was it truly a 5tech 0tech 5tech 3-4 or was it an under.



OR was it a traditional 3-4 with under concepts? Meaning guys would line up in the traditional 3-4 odd but upon the snap guy swould attack the gaps designed for the under front. NT attackes the left shoulder of the center and so on.

Thats the theory i have for right now.

 

[CaliSaint4Life]

WHat im confused @ with that article is that most people including SP himself would agree that the Giants D was a typical 2gap. SP even said that the D wouldn't be like you saw with the Giants.

Yet as you read that article and make sense of it....it fits. Taylor wasn't a big guy(T-sizzle) So the under front fits him because it would put an End over the LT and free him up for 1 on 1's with RB's are sometimes hed be untouched. That fits what the 3-4 under is designed to do. IT also protects him in the running game. (galette)

The over would be used more if you had a 265lb guy on the weakside that can hold up against the run. I guess its just all by personnel...but why so many different view points on the defense that was run.


Was it truly a 5tech 0tech 5tech 3-4 or was it an under.



OR was it a traditional 3-4 with under concepts? Meaning guys would line up in the traditional 3-4 odd but upon the snap guy swould attack the gaps designed for the under front. NT attackes the left shoulder of the center and so on.

Thats the theory i have for right now.

I would say it's a little bit of both. I'm pretty sure every real 3-4 defense does a little bit of two-gapping. That's the benefit of the front - versatility, blitz angles, dynamic gap discipline, and the ability to disguise pressure.

I can almost promise you we will probably do some two-gapping this year. Why? The read option. From what I can see, you don't blitz (or attack) the RO - you react to it. Sproles even said that some of our guys were two gapping the holes in the OTA's and during minicamp. I was very happy to hear that

Also, two-gapping 3-4 defense can be difficult to run against. It's almost like you can't trust what you see. Look at this example. In a 4-3 or a one-gapping 3-4, everyone is assigned to one gap. If the guy responsible for the gap is out of place or gets beaten bad, you have an obvious hole to run through. It isn't like that with two-gap discipline. The down lineman are reading the back and the blockers so what looks like a hole or a running lane could close soon as the 0-tech or 4-tech reads what hole you are hitting.

The two-gap system is very good in that example but it also has it's downfalls (that have been well documented). Hard to find that beast NT, the same can be said for that beast two-gapping 4-tech (Richard Seymour and Aaron Smith). Also, no longer can you just sit back and react to what an offense is doing, you have to attack them and try to dictate their playcalling.

I think the key is the ability to do both. Attack and react, depending on the situation. We don't need to be able to two-gap an entire game, just when it's called for. I think that will be key for us this season on D.

I think this is a great discussion and I hope it becomes a 100-page thread, but I do think too much is made of one-gap and two-gap defensive concepts, the same with 3-4 and 4-3. In a few years, I predict that every defense in the NFL will be multiple and the lines between defensive fronts will be blurred. For all the talk about Rob Ryan running a one-gap 3-4 defense, there were times last year when the Cowboys were lined up in the old school 3-4 front - two 4-tech DEs lined up over the face of the OT and a nose lined up on the face of the center, typical two gap front. It's all situational.

 

[Boondock]

Since the draft, Ive been of the opinion that we are building towards a 2-Gap, 3-4. The types of players we have drafted lead me to believe this. The future of our d-line consists of Cameron Jordan, John Jenkins and Akiem Hicks. Those are all 2-Gap types of linemen. Also, we drafted Rufus Johnson who is a 6-5/270 lbs. rush type of linebacker. Payton can say whatever he would like, but the actions we have shown tell a different story. Smoke screen!

 

[ELLIASJWILLIAMS]

I would say it's a little bit of both. I'm pretty sure every real 3-4 defense does a little bit of two-gapping. That's the benefit of the front - versatility, blitz angles, dynamic gap discipline, and the ability to disguise pressure.

I can almost promise you we will probably do some two-gapping this year. Why? The read option. From what I can see, you don't blitz (or attack) the RO - you react to it. Sproles even said that some of our guys were two gapping the holes in the OTA's and during minicamp. I was very happy to hear that

Also, two-gapping 3-4 defense can be difficult to run against. It's almost like you can't trust what you see. Look at this example. In a 4-3 or a one-gapping 3-4, everyone is assigned to one gap. If the guy responsible for the gap is out of place or gets beaten bad, you have an obvious hole to run through. It isn't like that with two-gap discipline. The down lineman are reading the back and the blockers so what looks like a hole or a running lane could close soon as the 0-tech or 4-tech reads what hole you are hitting.

The two-gap system is very good in that example but it also has it's downfalls (that have been well documented). Hard to find that beast NT, the same can be said for that beast 4-tech two-gapping (Richard Seymour and Aaron Smith). Also, no longer can you just sit back and react to what an offense is doing, you have to attack them and try to dictate their playcalling.

I think the key is the ability to do both. Attack and react, depending on the situation. We don't need to be able to two-gap an entire game, just when it's called for. I think that will be key for us this season on D.

I think this is a great discussion and I hope it becomes a 100-page thread, but I do think too much is made of one-gap and two-gap defensive concepts, the same with 3-4 and 4-3. In a few years, I predict that every defense in the NFL will be multiple and the lines between defensive fronts will be blurred. For all the talk about Rob Ryan running a one-gap 3-4 defense, there were times last year when the Cowboys were lined up in the old school 3-4 front - two 4-tech DEs lined up over the face of the OT and a nose lined up on the face of the center, typical two gap front. It's all situational.

I'm actually wondering if the results of the Draft may have changed what we had plans to do. We were a bit smallish b4 the draft. We end up with Jenkins in the 3rd. Which instantly beefs up the whole line because it allows Hicks to be moved to end. We got our interchangeable safety that can play both positions and then we picked up a 275lb passrusher to coach up for a year.

My point is that b4 the draft i think it was necessary to run an underfront with the line shifted. IF anything you wanted it to protect Vilma at all cost so keeping him off that bubble was the gameplan. I remember when LEwis started getting older and complaining about now having enough big bodies in front protecting him. Fast forward....to after the draft and you have Jenkins/Hicks to go along with Jordan. So now that you have that size up fornt is it necessary to shift the lineman? Or can you line them up in the odd front more often and then shift as you read the offense knowing that

I keep mentioning Jenkins because of that 2nd round grade. I remember we were talking about the draft and someone mentioned that because the draft didn't have a deep 1st round it meant that quality could still be found in the 2nd and 3rd round. Well a 2nd round grade should mean he can come in and push for immediate snaps or start. Since bunkley wasn't exactly the next coming of Norman Hand im leaning towards the latter. Hicks is also expecte to make a big jump and im guessing the big jump is STARTING however im sure they have no qualms with him being the top backup either.

I guess it depends on how the TC turns out but im wondering if we will truly base out of an under front. I think it would be beneficial in streamlining the defense and protecting vilma if we did but it would limit our versatility in the base...yet Ryan has such a big bag of Nickel/sub defenses that being a basic base wouldn't seem to hurt.

Also i expect us to two gap in the 2-4-5 Nickel front. I remember Sproles mentioning that was being done and i also remember them talking about working on the nickel that day. I've had a theory that we will run more against nickel fronts to make defense pay for putting a bunch of DB's on the field and that would solidify that. IT would then bring me to if the offense was in nickel then certainly the Defense was working on its nickel package and the 2-4-5 makes perfect sense as far as timing for 2gapping. The lineman initially 2gap to defend against the threat of run and then once that threat is no longer they switch to passrush mode. That should keep us from getting gashed up the middle so much because u'll have Hicks/Jordan with coleman possibly rotating in some.

 

[CitySaint]

Will the switch to a 3-4 be more or less effective verses certain blocking schemes?

I've been reading about how in a Zone Blocking scheme it's difficult for an O-line to be productive in the run game verses a 3-4, particularly a good 2 gapping 3-4. They literally have to adjust and switch things up between man blocking and zone to be effective. This season we play atleast 8 or 9 games verses teams that primarily run Zbs.

 

[bleedit1960]

Great read ELLIASJWILLIAMS and others. Been reading alot on this defense. Another article on 1 gap and 2-gap and 3-4 defense.

The 3-4 Defense: A Primer | bruces1g's Football Blog | FanNation.com

 

[sammymvpknight]

For those at TC...what is our base defense personnel and alignment?

I know that Cam Jordan is RDE with Hicks and Coleman at LDE. Are they playing a base 3-4 over or under? Is Bunkley/Jenkins playing strong or weak side 1-tech?