FalcFans Forums

At this point, I think we're all assuming that the Falcons will eventually move to a 3-4. It's the preferred defense of new coordinator Mike Nolan, after all.

Whether that transition happens in a year or if it takes two is up for debate, but I'm going to proceed as though the Falcons will at least gesture in that direction in 2012. That could mean a hybrid defense where players do occasionally line up in a 3-4 formation or one that incorporates elements of that scheme into the Falcons' D, so it would be instructive to know who will end up where.

Before we get into the breakdown, note that the Falcons don't have every single piece they need to make the transition work. A change would also mean that certain free agents—I'm thinking John Abraham—would . The secondary could be effective in either a 4-3 or 3-4, as long as it's more aggressive, so we won't spend much time on them today. It's also possible that the Falcons will simply roll out a 4-3 again.

Now, keep in mind that the team could run a 3-4 similar to the Cowboys', which does not require a hulking nose tackle and relies more on speed and shooting the gaps. That would require less of a personnel bloodbath to get done and wouldn't require a sacrifice in the kind of versatility that's so helpful for nickel packages. Your typical enormous blubbery NT isn't awesome in passing situations.

This is my look at how the Falcons' current personnel might fit into a 3-4. Please note that it's likely to be wrong, wrong, wrong and that the team hasn't committed to the switch yet before you read this. Take the jump with me.



The Mighty 3-4
Defensive Line
Defense Ends: Corey Peters, Jonathan Babineaux, Peria Jerry, Ray Edwards.

Why: Peters is almost the ideal 3-4 defensive end, in my mind. He's big, has pretty good explosiveness and has proven himself capable of going after the passer and getting after the runner. Ditto Babs, who is aging but still should fit in nicely. The two of them together could really cause problems up front.

Jerry's a big question mark. Like Peters and Babs, he's got size but isn't big enough to be a nose tackle, so he'd be better off as an end. If the Falcons can actually get him going, he could be an effective reserve at minimum.

The Falcons may have to try to trade Edwards, who would seem to be a little big to come off the edge in a 3-4 and would need to bulk up a bit to play end in the scheme. On paper, though, his run-stopping would make him a stellar fit.

There's enough depth here that the Falcons could probably get by with this, assuming they don't jettison Edwards or try him at OLB. Peters and Babs should be able to make the transition with relative ease.

Defensive Tackles: ????

This is the big question. If the Falcons run a traditional 3-4, they don't have anybody on the roster who is big enough and nasty enough to fill the 3-4. Maybe Corey Peters could if they bulked him up, but I think he'd be a better fit as an end.

There are a couple of free agents nose tackles the Falcons could try out, and they could ask Vance Walker to be the backup when they want to run smaller and nimbler. If they choose to run a less traditional 3-4 with a smaller NT, Walker could probably fill that role as well. We're not 100% certain he's coming back, though.

Linebackers
Outside Linebackers: Lawrence Sidbury, Kroy Biermann, Cliff Matthews, possibly Sean Weatherspoon and John Abraham


To me, Sidbury is the clear winner in a shift to the 3-4. He's got the combination of size, lateral agility and pass-rushing acumen necessary to play linebacker in the scheme, and he could blossom into an excellent starter if given the chance. I'd pencil him in as a starter right now if I didn't know I'd somehow wind up wrong.

Opposite him there's some interesting possibilities. If the team brings back Kroy Biermann, he could have some success. He did play linebacker in college at Montana, after all. Cliff Matthews has an enormous amount of talent and could also fit in the system, though he'll need some time to learn it.

I wonder what happens to Sean Weatherspoon. He's such a talented player in so many ways, but he's not a traditional thumper against the run game like Curtis Lofton and Akeem Dent. It won't matter if he's routinely getting into the backfield, something he's certainly capable of doing, and he could be a truly elite OLB if Nolan determines he's a fit. That's a bit of a question at this point, especially if he can't put on a little extra weight without losing speed.

Spencer Adkins is also a dark-horse candidate, though I think there's enough talent outside that they'd probably slot him inside.

Inside Linebackers: Curtis Lofton, Akeem Dent, possibly 'Spoon and Adkins

Lofton wouldn't struggle to play ILB in a 3-4, but the Falcons have to re-sign him first. He's gotten better in coverage and we already know he's capable of handling runs up the middle, should they get by our mysterious hulking nose tackle. The important thing for ILBs is to be strong and athletic, because you'll be asked to do a little bit of everything.

Dent is far less proven, but he did play ILB in a 3-4 in college and knows his way around the system. As a traditional run-stopping linebacker with fundamentally sound tackling, he'll probably start gunning for a starting job in a 3-4, assuming the Falcons don't see fit to put 'Spoon inside. My only concern with Dent would be coverage, which he isn't ideally suited for.

Adkins probably makes the most sense inside. He's fairly well-rounded and has quality athleticism. 'Spoon could also make it happen inside, but it would be a waste of his pass-rushing ability.

The Verdict: The Falcons have several quality pieces and could probably field two defensive ends and three out of the four necessary linebackers to make the switch to a 3-4. The big question marks in my mind would be nose tackle and, depending on how guys like 'Spoon and Sidbury adapt to the system, outside linebacker.

If Nolan did decide to make the change, I think it's feasible. It would likely be a tough transition in one year, though.

http://www.thefalcoholic.com/2012/1/18/ ... ke-in-2012

This article shows a clear lack of understanding. There's a reason why the prototype 3-4 defensive end is 6-5/300, because it's not about penetration, it's about gap control. You need a guy that has the strength to be able to hold the point of attack against bigger guards/tackles, but also the quickness to get off the blocks and get upfield. That's why the 3-4 DE is somewhat a tweener with the height of a DE and the bulk of a DT. It's what people refer to as "stack and shed" defenders.

The Falcons do not have any of those players. Jonathan Babineaux is not a good stack and shed guy. In fact, none of the Falcons defensive linemen are that good at it. Babineaux is a guy that is smaller, quicker, and built around attacking and shooting gaps rather than anchoring and holding them. It's one of the reasons that the Falcons have had their issues vs. the run, because when we face bigger/better guards that can prevent Babs from getting penetration, he's largely neutralized.

Peters could potentially be OK as a 3-4 defensive end, but his problem is getting off blocks. And Peters is more likely to be a backup/rotational guy than what I'd call a potentially good starter.

The other issue is that in most 3-4 schemes, because of it being a "two-gap" system, the inside linebackers have to take the brunt of a lot of the responsibility of the gap control of the interior A gaps. That's why the scheme prefers the bigger 6-4/250-pound linebackers like Karlos Dansby. Because they have to be willing and able to take on blockers.

Curtis Lofton and Sean Weatherspoon would most likely be our two interior LBs. Akeem Dent and Spencer Adkins would likely be their backups. But Lofton & Weatherspoon aren't good taking on blocks. They are guys that you want to be free of blockers and flowing downhill to the football. Thus it puts more importance to have beefier guys up front that can play in that scheme. This is why the Cardinals defense struggles, because they run a version of the 3-4 where their DEs (Dockett & Campbell) are more about penetrating, but they have smaller, undersized LBs (Washington & Lenon) that are those "run and hit" guys, and it's why few teams ever have issues running the ball on them. It's why they were better when they had guys like Dansby and Gerald Hayes in the middle, who were more "run stuffer types."

And obviously you need that big beefy nose tackle that is one of the keys of it.

We don't even really have the personnel to run a true hybrid scheme like Buffalo does. We might see some zone blitz looks, but we already did that under BVG, so it's not like I think Nolan will be adding any new wrinkles.

We'll have a better outlook at the future if the Falcons go after a bigger NT in the draft/free agency (like a Terrance Knighton), and target some more tweeners on the outside like Sidbury and Matthews were coming into the league, or some more beef up front along the D-line.

imho we are 2-3 years away from having the players to switch. Nolan has coached the 4-3 and will have to be the one adjusting in the short term. Perhaps we run the 3-4 a few series a game. The article above is more than a glass half full when imagining who will play where. It's really scary to have almost our entire defensive front playing out of position, we worked to hard and too long to get a solid D, don't blow it up now!!!!

But do we really want to make this switch? It seems more of a "re-building" choice than a step forward with what we have.

I look forward to hearing Nolan's take on the D< and his plans for what will be the primary base.

EDIT: and AJC just posted it.

Q and A with new defensive coordinator Mike Nolan
12:24 pm January 18, 2012, by Chris Vivlamore


Mike Nolan (Associated Press)

C-Viv reporting from Flowery Branch.

Here are excerpts of Mike Nolan’s conference call with the Atlanta media Wednesday after being named the team’s new defensive coordinator. The biggest highlight is he does not plan to switch to a 3-4 scheme, saying the team has been built as a 4-3 scheme and that currently works best with the personnel.

Q. Will you switch to 3-4 defense?

A. It’s my philosophy that you build your scheme around the players and not the other way around. What has been built there is a very solid foundation on a 4-3 defense. In my 25 years in the NFL, 14 years as a coordinator, seven of them have been in a 4-3 and seven have been in a 3-4. I’m very familiar with both. When I’ve been in a 4-3 I’ve frequently used the 3-4 as part of it. It would appear to me that is what is best for that football team.

Q. What do you know about team and its personnel?

A. I have limited knowledge. I’ve looked at some of it. I know they have a solid group. Overall, it’s an outstanding football team. They have been in the playoffs three of the last four years. They have a very good quarterback. As a group, Mike [Smith] and Thomas [Dimitroff] have done an outstanding job of putting together a roster. I’m just excited to be a part of it and hopefully add something to the defensive side.

Q. What is your relationship with Mike Smith?

A. Mike and I did work together in Baltimore. … I became defensive coordinator and Mike was the linebacker coach. I think we were together one year before he got the coordinator’s job at Jacksonville and let. … I’ve always had tremendous respect for Mike. I think he’s an outstanding coach. He’s coached some very good players. I think he gets a lot out of his players. He’s an outstanding person. We’ve stayed in contact and remained friends.

Q. You had other options, was it your relationship with Mike that brought you here?

A. It was the whole picture. Knowing Mike has a lot to do with it. I’ve also known Thomas for a number of years, but not near as well as I’ve known Mike. …. Big picture to me looked very good and it still does. … To me it’s a good fit.

Q. The secondary has been an issue. They are 20th in the league. Do you have a philosophy there or a plan to fix it?

A. I haven’t had a chance to look over all the players too much, so I can’t comment on an individual basis. But as a whole, I will say this, I think the secondary today is one of the most important areas today more than it was 15-20 years ago just because of the quarterback play nowadays. There are probably more good quarterbacks in the league than there has ever been. Outside of pass rush, the secondary is where the quarterback attacks you the most. It’s real import to have a good secondary. I’m kind of familiar with some of the guys. I think it’s a solid group but in order to play well it obviously takes 11 guys so you can’t put it all on one position. All I can say is it is a vital part of success nowadays in football. … People always talk about having four starting DBs but I think the future is there are really five starting DBs if these quarterbacks keep doing what they are doing.

Q. Coach Smith said he was looking for a certain skill set in new coordinators. In your case, what you do consider your skill set?

A. I think it really starts with what your philosophy is. The thing I’ve really prided myself on over the years is I’ve been very fortunate to be with some outstanding coaches over the years. … The coaches I’ve worked with have made me better. I hope I’ve made them better. Over my years in the NFL, I would say you build your schemes around your players, not the other way around. From a philosophical standpoint, or a skill standpoint, I’d like to think that I’ve been able to, along with the guys I’ve coached with, been able to do what’s best for the players and in turn for the team, whether that is 3-4 or 4-3, whether that’s more blitzes or less blitzes. Because some players do that well and some don’t. What I mean by that is some blitz well and some don’t. Some are better suited for different things. Outside of that, I believe I’m extremely passionate about what I do. I think the best job in football is coordinating. I’ve been a head coach before and there is a lot of thrill in that. But when you get to put your hands on players and coach them and teach them and see them have success and get to call plays, that’s a great job.

Q. Were you given the option of saying you wanted to coach 3-4 or were you told we are a 4-3 team?

A. When Mike and I watched film, he really asked. He said this is what we’ve built to, this is what we are but he said ‘What do you see it looking like?’ I was curious. It was the first thing I said to Mike is ‘What is your vision for this group?’ Mike was very honest and said we’ve built of 4-3 and this is where we are, what we look like, but I want you to look at it as well. When we were watching film together, he said ‘I can see the wheels turning in your head right now.’ Which they are because when I’m watching it I’m trying to see. But he, at no time, said ‘If you want this, this is what we’ve got to do it on.’ Mike is open-minded about that. But I do believe that the vision for them and the target they’ve been hitting is one we want to stay consistent with it and go forward in that respect. If I felt like it could easily be tweaked to got to something else because I felt it could be better, I would obviously suggest it. But I think the track they’ve been on is a good one. 4-3 or 3-4 is very relevant as long as you are doing what your players allow you to do.

Q. Are you looking for three-down guys?

A. The more three-down guys you can get the better. There is no question about that. These are when guys are talking about who do draft, it’s hard to draft a two-down player in my opinion. In the real high first round, you’ve got to try to get as many three-down guys as you can. Sometimes you don’t. Sometimes it takes years for those guys to develop into three-down players. … The way offenses are tempoing the game, you can’t get that guy on and off the field without a penalty. When an offense is in a hurry-up mode, you can’t send a lot of guys on and off the field so you need as many three-down guys as you can get otherwise you just bite the bullet and leave them out there.

Q. What is your pass rush philosophy?

A. … You are going to play a Cam Newton differently then you are going to play a Drew Brees or a Tom Brady. There is a lot that goes into the pass rush, the pass coverage. But they are so tied together and the success of either one, is so tied together. … I would rather have 10 guys get four sacks then only four guys get 10 sacks each because it’s a lot more difficult for an offense to look at your entire defense and say ‘We’ve got to block them all guys. That guy might come, that guy might come.’ That’s a real stress for a quarterback.

Q. Do you intend to keep the rest of the staff in place?

A. That’s Mike’s area, but it’s my understanding that Mike would like to keep everybody and keep this staff intact.

Tweet
–D. Orlando Ledbetter, The Atlanta Falcons beat blog

Not much there, to my reading, beyond that ATL will stay as a 4-3.

I would argue that you're really not poised to take many steps forward anyway with what we already have. Your two best pass rushers (Abraham and Babineaux) are on the downsides of their careers. So if you're going to continue to build up your 4-3 defense, you're going to have to replace both in the next year or two.

The reality of the situation is that over the Mike Smith era, you have had a handful of impact players: Abraham, Babs, Grimes, Spoon, and Moore. And then a large number of complementary/role players. The problem for us has been, you've never had more than 2 or those guys play at their peak levels at the same time. If you had John Abraham in his '08 form, Babs in '09, Grimes in 2010, Spoon at 2011 form, and Moore in his 2010 all playing at the same time, you would have one of the league's premier defenses.

The point I'm trying to get at is that you need more guys like that. Where are the next gen of these players? There really aren't any. And I think the Falcons would have had to spend the next 3 or so years trying to add these players with their 1st and 2nd round picks anyway, and whether it's to piggy back on the 4-3 or to add 3-4 players, really doesn't make a lot of difference.

The only difference is that if you stick with the 4-3, you probably get a bit more mileage out of many of those complementary/role players in your front 7 over the next year or two that you probably wouldn't have gotten had you tried to make an immediate switch.

therin lies some of our problem, but it's a dead horse now and doesn't need another beating ..

One of the reasons I very much like the Nolan hire ( outside of his obvious resume ) is he is going to come in here with fresh eyes and not going to play favorites. BVG had to work with the hand he was dealt, and did an okay job with it, but there were times when some players needed a foot in the a$$ and didnt follow through...And when playing against elite QB's after the score got up, the defense lost thier fire. I dont see this happening with Nolan. I could be wrong but everything I read about him suggest otherwise...

One of my neighbors and the father of one of my kid's friends is a huge Dolphins fan..Flag on the house, sticker on the car, jersey on every friday during football season in morning meeting. Die hard fan ( and Florida too ugh ). We usually chit chat about football. Tebow was a fun thing to talk about, but this morning we had about a 19 minute talk about Nolan. Dude thinks we got the best hire and was particularly sad to see him go. Even though they had an atrocious season ( by his standards ) he tells me the defense never sells out or deflates..

Mike Smith gets by with a little help from his friends.

On the Official board, there are a few that worry that a hybrid scheme would set us back, but I disagree. I think we have most of the pieces in place to work a short hybrid system, and with the current and developing QB in the our division it is almost a necessity. I dont think DeCouldn't is going to cut it as a zone FS in Nolan's new scheme...We will have to see who they draft or get in FA.

I'm just not sure we are going to have a "new" scheme. I'm just not convinced that Nolan is going to do much more differently than BVG did.

More press man? Sure. But are the Falcons really going to vary up their looks more than they did under VanGorder? No, I don't think so. I think there's a perception out there because of the use of zone in the back end, that the Falcons under BVG were a vanilla defense. Which IMO isn't true. I also think people aren't acknowledging the difference between the Falcons using "too much zone" and thinking that equates them using "a lot of zone." Meaning, if they used it 30% of the time, then it should have been 15%.

My only real complaints about BVG are that I think there were "too many" instances where it was 3rd & 2 or 3rd & 3, and our corners were lined up 5 yards off the line of scrimmage. And that's a major reason why I think the Falcons weren't particularly good at getting off the field on 3rd down. I also think they didn't do enough jamming of slot receivers like Colston and TEs like Jimmy Graham and Jermichael Finley when we played teams like the Saints & Packers.

So I'm not sure Nolan is going to do a lot of different things that this defense didn't do under BVG. Just saying schematically, I don't expect a huge amount of change.

The big question for me is whether or not on those 3rd & 8s or 3rd & 10s when we play teams like the Saints and Packers, are the Falcons going to be able to get off the field instead of giving up those 9 or 11-yard completions that they manage to give up much too often.

But IMHO, that's less about scheme, and more about talent and guys playing faster, stronger, and smarter.

Yea but that's what happens when you go through a season like 2007 and Babs AND Abe are about all their is on defense.

I mean we get rid of Lawyer Malloy, Trey Lewis, Chris Houston, Eric Coleman, Keith Brooking, Jamaal Anderson, and discontented Michael Boley and DeAngelo Hall and a lot of reserves; just just no way that kind of turn-over can can be orderly!!

We selected our Qb, Running back, in 08 and basically had some skill positions on offense.....

On defense we can see that we have just about changed about 80% of the players but obviously at different times..... This is nothing
you don't know; but I don't see this as that many terrible mistakes as I do see it as starting from very little on defense!!

You're right Cyril. And seeing the fruits of all the work they (i.e. management) had done so far in 3 seasons get so thoroughly dismantled in the playoffs by the Packers.

And thus the mistake that was made when they basically decided that everything was all well and good and basically give up their resources to continue to improve that defense via the draft.

And they were right in their assessment that the talent they accumulated so far would really start to gel this year, because it did and we had our best defense we've seen under Mike Smith, and frankly in Atlanta since definitely 2002, and possibly since 1998. But they face so much turnover this off-season, and if they don't hit a triple/homerun with one of their top picks this year, and/or Robinson & Edwards start to live up to their contracts, this progress that we've made over the past 4 years might get negated by back-sliding.

The way you build elite defenses is typically using 1st and 2nd round picks and hitting on the vast majority of them over the course of 4-6 off-seasons, not just 3. Sure, they hit with Spoon, Moore, and Lofton, and missed with Jerry. That's a fine start, but it's only 3 off-seasons. And then they've missed with their big FA moves to supplement that of Robinson and Edwards. Now, maybe that changes and Mike Nolan will know how to get the best from those guys. But even if he gets Robinson playing at the level he was at in 2010 or in Houston, and Edwards to the level he was in Minnesota, they are still complementary players. Good ones, but just complementary guys.

And we have 5 1st or 2nd round picks over the next 3 off-seasons, and IMO if this defense really is going to be anything special, then the Falcons are probably going to hit on at least 3 or 4 of them on the defensive side of the ball. And by "hit" I mean get a player at least as good as Curtis Lofton. But ideally 2 or 3 those guys will be players like JOhn Abraham, Jonathan Babineaux, of yesteryear that IMO were true impact playmakers.

You do realize that chances of that are slim. That would mean 80% of those draft picks would have to be more or less All-Pro's. The odds/statistics are really stacked against that happening.

I'm very much aware of that AJ51. Thus one the key reasons why I've been critical against the Jones trade, because it took away 3 key opportunities for us to add such players to the defense. And had that been 3-4 out of 5-7 is much more realistic number.

Baltimore is the template.

1st & 2nd Round Picks (1996-00)
1996 - Ray Lewis (1st) - HR
1996 - DeRon Jenkins (2nd) - single
1997 - Peter Boulware (1st) - Triple
1997 - Jamie Sharper (2nd) - Double
1997 - Kim Herring (2nd) - single
1998 - Duane Starks (1st) - single?
1999 - Chris McAlister (1st) - Triple

1st & 2nd Round PIcks (2001-05)
2001 - Gary Baxter (2nd) - double
2002 - Ed Reed (1st) - HR
2002 - Anthony Weaver (2nd) - single
2003 - Terrell Suggs (1st) - HR
2004 - Dwan Edwards (2nd) - single
2005 - Dan Cody (2nd) - strike-out

1st & 2nd Round PIcks (2006-10)
2006 - Haloti Ngata (1st) - triple
2009 - Paul Kruger (2nd) - single
2010 - Sergio Kindle (2nd) - strike-out
2010 - Terrence Cody (2nd) - single

Other Notable Hits (1996-2010)
1997 - Cornell Brown (6th) - single
2000 - Adalius Thomas (6th) - triple
2001 - Ed Hartwell (4th) - single
2002 - Chad Williams (6th) - single
2003 - Jarret Johnson (4th) - single
2006 - Dawan Landry (5th) - single
2008 - Tavares Gooden (3rd) - single
2009 - Ladarius Webb (3rd) - double

If you look over New England's drafts, particularly with their defensive picks in the first 5 or so years of the Parcells Era (1993-97), you'll similar success with pickups like WIllie McGinest, Ty Law, Lawyer Milloy, Ted Johnson, Tedy Bruschi. It would be these players that would establish the core of the defense that would be with them in '01 that would make up that formidable defense. And then obviously would supplement that with pickups like Richard Seymour, Ty Warren, and Vince Wilfork from '01 to '04.

The disappointment comes from the fact that both Mike Smith and Thomas Dimitroff were in Baltimore and New England. And while they weren't there for the early stages of those defensive-building process, they certainly reaped the benefits from them, and should have learned lessons from it.

And I don't want to say that this is the only way to do it, but it certainly seems to be the best method. The 49ers defense and its current construction is a good example of a team that didn't quite build this way (a lot of high picks accumulated over several years). But the difference between the Falcons and these other teams that are having much more defensive success is that when these guys are hitting, they are hitting on guys like Patrick Willis in Round 1 or Aldon Smith in Round 1, and with Navorro Bowman and Ray McDonald in Round 3, and hitting on FA pickups like Justin Smith and Carlos Rogers. Justin Smith goes to San Fran from Cincinnati and becomes the best 3-4 DE in the league. Rogers is an underachiever in Washington, and becomes a Top 10 corner for the 49ers in Year 1.

The Falcons have yet to really have that sort of pick or FA signing on defense, the closest being Weatherspoon. That is going to have to change if Mike Nolan is going to be able to work the miracles that people think he is going to work on defense.

so in your opinion how much input will Nolan have in determining our defensive picks this offseason? Ore is it all TD and Smith?

He'll have quite a bit of influence. In most if not all functional organizations, the assistants have a lot of input on the players they pick for their respective positions. Generally speaking, that influence only starts to stand out in the later rounds of the draft. If he's "pounding the table" as they often refer to it in scouting circles for a particularly free agent or prospect, then it increases the chances we sign/draft that guy.

His influence won't eclipse TD or Smitty, and those guys will definitely have big input in the big decisions. I don't think Nolan is going to watch the tape and basically run down which of our FAs he wants, and which he doesn't want, and we're going to strictly follow that blueprint.

But you can be certain he will be a major consultant to any and all defensive acquisitions this off-season. Functional organizations may not have coach and GM (or owner in some cases) exactly sharing one brain and married at the hip, but there is ample communication between the two and neither will make a move without consulting the other.

But Nolan is going to come in and outright change or tweak on what we're looking for at each position group in order to fit the scheme he's installing, and then it'll be up to TD and the scouting dept. to find those players.

The expectation that he's going to import a bunch of guys he coached in Miami, Denver, and San Fran probably isn't accurate. The lower tier FAs, you can certainly sneak those guys in. Maybe we go out and get one of the bigger names from those teams, but probably not more than that. If the falcons only plan on re-sigining 8 of their 17 FAs, then that is going to mean there are going to be 9 spots on the roster that can/could be filled by other veterans cheaply. That along with the later rounds of the draft is where Nolan could really flex his muscle if he so desired.