http://www.behindthesteelcurtain.co...ntality-looking-at-our-draft-and-defense-thru
Coach's Corner: Retiring the Steelers "3-4" mentality and looking at our draft picks with "3-3" eyes
By ericsarmy333 on May 2, 2016, 3:38p 62
Steven Bisig-USA TODAY Sports
TWEET SHARE (206)
"The 4-3 Defense and 3-4 Defense are antiquated terms that don't help fans understand the types of players their teams are looking for in the draft or in recruiting. Here are some updated terms that will bring some clarity"
This quote was taken from THIS ARTICLE. It's a good read (and I highlight a lot of it below) and before we get started (and after you are done reading) 58Steel has written an amazing fan post on the subject of a 3-3-5 defense which I've linked here if you want to brush up on the formation first.
That said, let us begin with:
PART 1: THE REACTION TO THIS YEAR'S DRAFT
Over the past few days we've seen a lot of people on this site up-in-arms over the players selected by Pittsburgh in the 2016 draft, and at first I was on the fence about whether or not they were good fits for our team, specifically for our defense.
Many people seemed to think Baylor DT Andrew Billings was a big miss and seeing as he was still hanging around in the 4th round his rankings on the big board (in hindsight) seemed ridiculously out of touch with the Steelers' priorities.
Yes, they took Javon Hargraves in the 3rd, but why not Billings in the 3rd? Or hell, why not Billings in the 1st!!
The Steelers run a 3-4 defense!
Daniel McCullers isn't our guy, and Steve McLendon has left for greener pastures.
The team needs a nose tackle, STAT!
The disgust was evident and everywhere.
Now, being new to the community, I might've put a little too much stock in the big board rankings as this was my first draft experience with BTSC. Having spent countless hours reading up on the draft this year I came across the big board and will argue that there isn't a better tool available on the entire internet that can provide you with links and information on the players in the draft, let alone the ones the Steelers should (key word) be interested in.
But there it is, the rankings. The interest. What "we need" on defense.
If I can pinpoint one reason for the overall disgust and disappointment in our draft it is this: people don't like being surprised...even worse, people don't like being told they are wrong. Even worse, unless you work for the front office, you have no clue what our defense needs because you have no clue what formations and schemes we intend to run.
From my side, I simply put too much stock in the rankings, €”not just on the big board, but the countless mocks that I read, and therefore I was simply amazed when players like Billings, Robinson, Reed, and many other "big men" kept falling like a Duquesne freshman strutting her stuff down Carson Street, in high heels, at 2am on a Friday night, after leaving Jimmy D's.
The consensus, even among the "experts' was that these NT-type players had 1st round grades, however most went in the 2nd round, and as you work your way out to the EDGE, things got better in terms of priority. Seems like overall 3-techs were more highly coveted than 0-techs, and 5-techs than 3's, etc.
Anywho, you can imagine I was taken for a loss when, other than Hargraves, the Steelers selected players who were not really favorites of Steeler Nation, or being championed as the future saviors of our defense.
To some level, I think that "groupthink" took over and the well-read, well-respected members of the board dominated the conversations, and over time convinced a lot of people who we needed to take. As a community we became so enamored by those players that the subsequent letdown we felt when we didn't land them (because they were either off the board or not the right fit, etc) made us hate the players we took "in their place".
To a lot of people's credit (even though the writing was on the wall) the BTSC community got it right it terms of priorities, predicting that the Steelers needed to address three key defensive positions in the 1st 3 rounds, that being CB, S, & NT, just not the individual players most wanted to represent those positions of need.
Every year, or at least lately, there's a player in the first round who seems destined to fall into our lap, and fall some have, so I suspect that everyone thought things would work out that way this year. And man was it close. But the draft, she does have her surprises, both good and bad, and you've got to roll with them. Some years will be better than others, and for every year we get lucky, you would expect a year when the worst case scenario plays out, and I feel like the 1st 2 rounds played out that way for the Steelers.
This was one of those years where the Steelers had real needs that could not wait to be addressed with 4th and 5th round picks, or depending upon how the draft fell. Unfortunately, other teams also had those same needs (or just wanted to screw us over...Bengals I'm looking in your direction!!) and we got burned.
If I've learned anything about the draft process it's that a team's needs, specifically how they prioritize positions and players, is just impossible to predict.
We as fans are ill-equipped to do that and shouldn't get caught up in placing players on pedestals for this reason. We might have access to their tape and combine stats, but outside of that we are at a BIG disadvantage as it pertains to virtually everything else teams need to check/review/critique.
Fans trying to accurately rank college players, specifically how they might fit their favorite NFL team, is somewhat akin to the average man trying to pick his wife based on watching the Miss America pageant.
"I've seen the tape. Would you look at those measurements! What more do I need to make the call?"
Never mind the fact that we are NOT experts at crafting defensive schemes and have no clue what our current "regime" plans to do in the future. Yes, we know what we've seen in past seasons, however what we are seeing now is very much a defense in transition; therefore, our needs, and the players who fit those needs, are changing as well (just as the game is always changing).
We know that Mike Tomlin and company keep saying that the Steelers' base defense is a 3-4, and at the same time they freely admit that we only use a traditional NT in a 3-4 about 30% of the time. I would argue that your base defense is defined as the formation you spend the most time in. If I said to you, "My religion is Christianity...I practice it about 30% of the time. The other 70% of the time I'm Buddhist, Taoist, and Hindu". You'd be confused, and probably answer, "well then you're not really Christian, are you?"
Seems contradictory to me, but I guess there's a need to maintain a sense of vagueness and ambiguity. It's common sense that you don't tell the enemy your battle plans, even if you do tip your hand in the draft and in free agency, both in terms of the players you select and their order of importance.
This (finally) brings me to the point of this fanpost (yes, buckle up, I'm just getting started).
We need to look at the players taken in this year's draft through the lens of different defensive formations/schemes and see how (and if) they fit for what we might be trying to do in the future under Butler's leadership and direction.
It's a tall order I know, and at risk or trying to sound like an expert (which I'm not) I will simply take some of the paragraphs from the previously quoted article (again, right here) and then expand a bit on how I think our current draftee's fit.
If you see parenthesis, these things ( ), that means I am writing, otherwise it's the author of the article.
PART 2: THE 2-4 AND 3-3 PERSONNEL
2-4 personnel vs 3-3 personnel
The 2-4 or 3-3 labels serve primarily to describe the types of players on the field. The 2-4 is going to feature only two true defensive linemen that are always going to be lined up with their hands in the dirt with an opposing blocker on either shoulder.
Then in place of defensive ends there will be two DE/OLB hybrid players on the edges in stand-up positions who specialize in attacking the edge and providing a pass-rush. The two inside linebackers behind these players are normal inside linebackers.
The 3-3 front features three true defensive lineman as the "defensive end" though they may line up on the edge, are big and sturdy enough to play interior gaps or face a double team. The nose tackle will generally be a standard big guy, with some exceptions.
The three linebackers behind the DL all need to be fairly versatile as well and although one of them might be the designated primary edge-rusher, each of them need to be competent performing as inside linebackers or blitzers.
(when in the 3-3, linebackers should be "versatile". Think of how (if) a player like Travis Feeney would be used in this role. Sound like a good fit for him? I think so.)
Each style has certain requirements on the types of players that are required and which style a team chooses largely depends on if the defense has easier access or an easier time developing a couple of really athletic edge rushers and tackles as the 2-4 calls for or can find and develop the kinds of versatile, tweener players that make the 3-3 work.
(I'm not sure we have access to the athletic edge rushers as needed in the 2-4. Bud Dupree yes, James Harrison for 1 more year, but no one really after that. Again, what intrigues me is the mention of the "versatile, tweener players" that make the 3-3 work. Again, Feeney fits the mold here.)
The 2-4-5 is ultimately a defense of specialization as the main pass-rushers are going to be the two stand-up edge rushers. The defense deploys them on the edge because that's the easiest way to utilize a pure pass-rusher and they aren't asked to do a great deal other than control the edge and provide pressure. The defensive tackles will tend to specialize in clogging up the interior and helping collapse the pocket while the linebackers are running free as support players.
(So, if I understand this correctly, what they are saying is a 2-4-5 really becomes a 4-2-5 formation, just with the 2 EDGE players outside two DL. So, in essence, it's a 4 front "lite" formation and the outside supplies the pressure)
Without access to the kind of elite pass-rushers that can attack the edge and overcome an offense's best efforts at pass protection, the 2-4-5 is not a superior nickel package. It can also struggle against the run if defensive tackles aren't sturdy or the linebackers are deficient. However, it is the simplest and best way to allow big, fast, and powerful athletes to impact the game and attack the quarterback.
The 3-3-5, or 8-3, is more a defense of versatility and disguise that will require the DL to all be strong at filling interior gaps and ideally decent or good at collapsing the pocket. The linebackers are not specialists but "jacks of all trades" that can be transformed into superior pass-rushers by virtue of the system disguising where they are blitzing from.
(Now, looking through a "3-3 lens" I can certainly understand why they've started to target players like Travis Feeney and Tyler Matakevich, these "Jack of all trades" LB's will have a home.)
Without versatile and intelligent players, the 3-3 is dead in the water, but when those pieces are in place it can pick on offense's weaknesses with greater precision and bring pressure from all angles.
(Again that word "versatile" and "intelligent players". Sounds a lot like Davis, who can speak 3 languages. Serious on a side note, how many NFL players can even speak Chinese. This dude has a future outside the NFL when he's done, probably working to bring the NFL to other countries and spread the brand. Back to my point about intelligent players, Tyler Matakevich is also said to be a film junkie and very smart at learning defenses and his role within them. And then we've got some current players who have all the athleticism in the world and simply can't perform within our defense...yes Sharmarko I'm looking at you.)
2-4 vs 3-3 philosophy
At their hearts, the 2-4 and 3-3 are basically extensions of 4-3 Over and 4-3 Under philosophies. The Over front is generally the defense people are thinking of when discussing teams that "spin down" safeties into linebackers and linebackers into defensive ends.
(Again, I can't help but think of players like Feeney and Davis being perfect for a 3-3 due to their versatility, speed, sound tackling abilities, height, and strength. These are not players who will be bullied, stiff-armed into submission ala Blake, or too slow to cover TE's and other big WR's. Now let's move down the article a bit to this paragraph.)
Just yesterday in the NFL draft the Pittsburgh Steelers chose Bud Dupree from Kentucky, a 6'4" 270 pound edge athlete that will have obvious utility as an edge rusher in their nominally 3-4 defense.
Of course, you can't play a true 3-4 defense anymore with two players of Dupree's size and skill at outside linebacker or you'll be picked apart by spread formations that ask them to cover slot receivers and tight ends in space. It would be a waste of Dupree's pass-rushing and edge talents to ask him to drop in coverage as often as the Steelers would ask of previous OLBs in their zone-blitz driven defense and counterproductive regardless.
So do the Steelers maintain their zone blitz/cover 3 philosophy from a 3-3 front or do they maintain their preference for playing two powerful edge rushers by instead utilizing a 2-4 that is less well suited for disguising blitzers? That may well depend on how quickly Dupree comes along as well as the other OLBs on the roster.
(That is the question, why not both. But whatever the case, I see our base 3-4 defense being a 3rd option.)
The fact that Pittsburgh is supposed to be a 3-4 base team has less to do with their nickel package than which players they want on the field and what they want to do behind the front.
To take another example, the 3-4 oriented Alabama Crimson Tide will generally remove their 2nd outside LB/pass-rusher from the field in their "4-2-5" nickel package and instead play fronts that utilize 3-3 personnel.
This style of defense can often be as effective at rushing the passer as the 2-4-5 but unless the single edge rusher is a dominant player, the team essentially needs someone to pull double duty as both a good DE/NT/ILB and a dangerous pass-rusher.
(Wow. Hell of a task to be a DE/NT/ILB and a dangerous pass-rusher. "Can I do anything else for you while I'm on the field...bake a cake, nit you a terrible towel out from Deangelo's hair??")
Updating the language
Football punditry is desperately behind the ball in terms of using accurate and descriptive terminology to explain what's happening today on the football field. You'll often hear talking points about a team in the draft or in recruiting that revolves around finding ideal fits for a 4-3 or 3-4 base defense.
More often than not, talking points based on those terms will have very little value in describing what those teams are looking for and how they'll deploy players. In an age where the nickel package is really the base defense, teams will be defined more by whether they prefer to play three true defensive linemen or only two.
(Maybe when you start to think of the nickel as the base, our picks and our priorities start to make more sense.)
While someone can refer to the NFL as "THE National Football League" and it somehow catch on within a month as a way to make professional football sound like an important and serious business enterprise, updating schematic language is less likely to catch on as easily.
However, try thinking of defenses as either 2-4 or 3-3 when evaluating this current draft or your team's recruiting season and see if that helps your understanding of why your team makes their personnel choices.
Ok. I'm coming out of the parenthesis now... I know, that was a bit jarring huh?
If you read the last paragraph and then try to take the time to understand the new roles of LB's, DE's, NT's, DT's, and Safeties within these new formations (2-4 or 3-3) by going to 58Steel's Fan Post then things start to make a little more sense as to why we drafted some of the players we did, and maybe why we didn't draft others.
Personally I would say we drafted for, and are built better to transition into a 3-3. So what does that mean? What are our needs?
Versatility. Athleticism. Intelligence. Jack of all trades.
And I get it. It's hard to be excited about a "jack of all trades" type player because when his skillset is broken down, or when his tape is looked at, nothing really stands out as elite.
But what other choice do we have? Gone are the days of specialization, because those types of players can be schemed around and their weaknesses can be exploited.
Your OLB's are too big and slow?
They can't cover. Attack them over the middle. "Dink and dunk" them to death.
Your NT is too disruptive.
Scheme him off the field and go spread.
Teams have gotten really good at identifying other team's weaknesses and exploiting them (Blake anyone?) so it only makes sense to get well rounded players who can do it all for you, within the limits of their position. This is why Dallas took a chance on Jaylon Smith in the early 2nd, and then Myles Jack goes just a few picks later. They are game changers if healthy.
15 years ago they would've been type-cast as a safety or maybe running back (Jack was that too) because they were too small (and too fast) to be LB's. "That's a waste of good speed" someone would've said. But back then LB's didn't need to be well-rounded speed demons, they needed to be freakin' monsters.
Look at Greg Lloyd, Jason Gildon, and Levon Kirkland and imagine them trying to cover Gronk. These guys would be pure EDGE/DE's today, not LB's. Ask Kirkland what his "40" time was and he's likely to show you a video of him chuggin' some malt liquor.
The LB's of today must be expected to play everywhere: sideline to sideline, stack the box, set an edge, and drop into coverage against TE's and/or WR's. If they can do that, and do it well, they are perhaps the most coveted player in all of football. And they are rare.
Think back to Sir Mix-A-Lot's song "Baby Got Back" when he says, "36-24-36?" Well, for the NFL the new perfect measurement for a LB is 6'3, 240, 4.4.
Big and strong enough to mix it up around the LOS, tall and fast enough to mow down RB's and WR's. In short, all types of disruptive.
That said, and getting back to my original point, looking at the draft thru "3-3" eyes makes me think we did the right thing going after players who display versatility: speed, height, strength, sound tackling skills (mostly) and whenever possible, intelligent, well rounded football players.
PART 3: OUR 2016 DRAFTEE'S
Looking at the measurements above, Feeney fits the mold of a new-age 3-3 LB. Tall, fast, and strong. A lot to work with for a 6th round pick.
Tyler Matakevich had almost 500 tackles in his career. Damn the combine stats, that dude got to the ball A LOT!! And he's a big film junkie and a student of the game. Worth a flyer in the 7th round? You bet.
Davis is above 6'0'', I bet will play around 200lbs, and runs a 4.4. Plus he's played both CB and Safety. He speaks 3 languages. He is an intelligent, versatile player who was either #1 or #2 in tackles for 3 straight years.
Burns. Hmmmm. Well, if I had to comment on Burns right now, based on the little I've read and seen, I would probably say, "we got the worst 1st round corner in the draft. But, Is that still better than the best 2nd rounder CB? Absolutely (if you agree with the ranking) And does it serve a need. You bet it does."
He's tall(ish), fast, not that great at tackling, but not bad either. "willing" might be the best term. Maybe a little bit of a reach but he had a late 1st/early 2nd round grade, and with Neal and Joseph gone, who was the alternative at CB or Safety we should've selected? The next best safety (arguable) would've been a BIG reach. He was the best on the board in a worst case scenario.
Hargraves fits into the Steeler's traditional 3-4 like a pig in poop, but can he sub in for Heyward and Tuitt when we change to a 4-2-5 front? Will they even need him to?
One common theme amongst most of the defensive players we took was TACKLING. Most had very good numbers in that department which pleases me very much.
Personally I'm a big believer that if you aren't tackling well at a college level you aren't going to just suddenly "get it" when you move up to the big boy league. Some of these WR's or TE's look like Dwight Howard nowadays. You think that's going to make it easier? Besides, you think college coaches didn't try to teach him the fundamentals and mechanics of tackling over the 3 or 4 years he was playing for them? You think they just let it go and said, "no biggie, he'll learn it when he gets to the NFL?" You think he's going to get better as the game gets faster and more complicated?
Overall I remain cautiously optimistic about the players we've selected because I'm starting to see the benefits of "these types of players" in a 3-3 and the versatility they will add to our defense.
If we are to continue onwards and maintain harmony within the BTSC community we must learn these new formations, shed the oppressive shackles of the 3-4 moniker and the type casted defensive positions thereunder (especially 3-4 OLB/ILB), or perish (JK. It's not that serious).
PART 4: PUTTING OUR NEW (AND OLD) PLAYERS INTO A 3-3-5
DL: Tuitt, Hargrave, and Heyward up front.
LB's: Feeney, Timmons, and Shazier in the middle.
CB'S: Golson, Cockrell, and Burns (boundary and field).
Safeties: (FS) Mitchell, (SPUR?) Golden/Davis (BANDIT?) Gay/Grant
You would then add Dupree as the weak side DE and probably take away Feeney if and when they switch to a 4-2-5.
The 3-3-5: LB's
These first two points are bold predictions I know. Try not to get angry at me.
I foresee Timmons either (1) retiring after this year (hey, 15 million is a hell or a nest egg and the dude has a lot of miles on him) or (2) being let go, which is why I believe he will retire instead. I say this because I believe it's time to let Vince step up and fill that void becuase he can do it, and do it at a minimum of cost.
I also foresee Jarvis being let go if he doesn't agree to stay at his current salary, and even then it might just be a 1 year contract. If he's kept, he's kept for depth purposes until we fully transition, and we should find out soon enough as to whether or not the Steeler's pick up his 5th year option.
IMO he's really an older version of OLB, a "Lebeau OLB" if you will. He hasn't materialized as much of a pass rusher, really isn't fast enough to drop back into coverage the way a 3-3-5 would demand, and overall I foresee the older style 3-4 OLB being phased out.
Dupree would/could act as a weak side DE in 4-2-5 formations (which would give Tuitt or Heyward a breather) and then him and Moats will be enough in your base 3-4, used sparingly of course, and he could also work in a 3-3-5 (dude did run a 4.56 40 at 270 lbs at the combine).
The only reason we would really need JJ is if we ran a 2-4, with two DE/OLB push rushers operating on the shoulders of our two defensive linemen, and even then it's or lack of a better option unless Feeney can step in an pass rush.
To quote 58Steel's article:
"First, Jarvis. He is not athletic enough to maximize and execute the "spirit of the 3-3-5," which again, is to disguise, but also to get fast athletes flying around the field. He has shown versatility (dropped in coverage much more than any other Steeler OLB in 2015). So you could make it work with JJ. I just wouldn't expect the results you're looking for."
AND
"The Steelers have not met with ANY prospects that could be considered ILB's. The lone exception might be Jatavis Brown, who really is more in the mold of a LB/S hybrid (get to those later). So it would seem if the Steelers are going to run a 3-3-5, they are going to do it with the LB's on hand, or use a LB/S hybrid at the risk of being overly small at LB."
Not anymore. IMO Feeney is JJ's replacement in this setup. In a 3-3-5 they could roll with a combination of Feeney, Dupree, and Shazier. The size/speed/versatility is there. Then add Vince Williams into the more traditional base 3-4 and ILB and put either Feeney/Moats at OLB once JJ/Harrison are gone.
The 3-3-5: CB's
FOR THE CB'S AND SAFETIES I WILL USE A LOT FROM 58STEEL'S FAN POST.
PORTIONS OF HIS POST ARE IN ITALIC, MY WORDS ARE BOLDED AND (IN PARENTHESIS).
The CB's act like typical CB's in any defense. Many 3-3-5 defenses, however, designate a "boundary" corner, and a "field" corner. The boundary corner is stronger in run support, while the field corner is better at coverage. This distinction has little relevance in the NFL. It does have relevance when you consider the teams that run the 3-3-5, one team specifically. Ohio State ran it while Bradley Roby was there. Roby was the boundary corner. When Roby went to the NFL, Doran Grant took over as boundary corner because of his tackling ability. Roby went on to play safety at Denver, but the Broncos use him as their primary nickelback. I will get to Doran Grant in a bit, but I feel it instructional to note the connection.
(Think they have an idea what to do with Grant? Think there was a reason for drafting him?)
The Steelers CB's in 2015 for use in a 3-3-5 would be Ross Cockrell and Senquez Golson. I'll get to Will Gay shortly. You can debate all you want if either Cockrell or Golson are starter capable, but for the purposes here, that's who we would have (unless Cortez Allen has a giant A-HA! moment).
(Well, now they can add Burns to that group.)
The 3-3-5: Safeties
The 3-3-5 utilizes 3 safeties, 1 free safety, and 2 hybrids. The free safety is exactly what you would think of from that term. The Steelers have Mike Mitchell here. Some may argue that Mitchell is better suited for Strong Safety. They may be right. But he is the Steelers FS and although not an All-Pro, he played immensely better in his second year in Pittsburgh. Mitchell should be viewed as a strength. The Steelers have met with one FS, or "coverage" safety prospect. This is Vonn Bell. Interesting again, the connection to Ohio State here, a team which utilized the 3-3-5. If Bell were selected by the Steelers, it would seem to suggest a move to SS by Mitchell.
The other two safeties in a 3-3-5, are often called Strong Safety(s). They have been referred to as the key to the "30 Stack." Both, as I stated, are hybrids. In most 3-3-5 schemes, they are referred to as the SPUR and the Bandit. They do most of the adjusting, based on formation. The spur is the stronger of the 2, a LB/S hybrid.
(Could this also be what Feeney was intended for? Is he enough of a hybrid to assume this type of a role? I simply don't know)
He will more often line up to the strong side of the formation. You would typically think of him as a "box safety," strong in run support, but the spur still must be able to cover TE's.
(AH HA! Sounds like Davis to me, covering TE's I believe was one of his strong suits Maybe this is why they were also interested in Cash but decided to go with someone else, someone better in coverage, maybe a safety who use to be a corner?)
Right now Robert Golden would be the spur for the Steelers (Again, unless Shamarko has a huge A-HA! moment. Incidentally, the spur position would seem to be the exact position Shamarko would have been drafted for.) The Steelers have met with 7 LB/S hybrids. Again, Scott has listed them. Some lean toward the LB side, some the S side. I wouldn't pretend to know enough about all the responsibilities of the spur position to get an idea of which ones would fit it best. I could see a case being made for either. Suffice to say, however, the Steelers could easily find a prospect that would allow them to fill the spur position.
The bandit position is more of a hybrid S/nickelback that quarterbacks the defensive backfield. The Steelers bandit position would be filled by Will Gay. He is strong in run support, has been the slot corner of choice, and has the most familiarity/knowledge of the defense of all the current DB's. (Although the Steelers were not utilizing the 3-3-5 in scheme last year, they may have at least had some of it conceptually. This would speak a lot toward their reluctance to use Boykin in the "slot," preferring Gay there.)
Which brings Doran Grant back into the picture. Grant filled the same role as a Buckeye as his predecessor, Bradley Roby. The Broncos use Roby as a nickelback/safety. It does not take much of a leap to think the Steelers could do the same thing with Grant. The Steelers' DB coach, Carnell Lake, mentioned the possibility of Grant playing safety the day he was drafted. Could the role of bandit be more of what the Steelers have in mind?
End 58Steel's post
CONCLUSION (FINALLY!!)
If you made it this far I commend you. I know, this was the longest fan post ever. I just reached page 10 in Microsoft Word so it's time to hit the send button. I sincerely hope this helped explain what might be meant for some of our draftee's and will hopefully generate some thoughtful (yet still respectful) debate on the future of the Steelers' defense and how our neeb's fit into Butler's plans.
Coach's Corner: Retiring the Steelers "3-4" mentality and looking at our draft picks with "3-3" eyes
By ericsarmy333 on May 2, 2016, 3:38p 62
Steven Bisig-USA TODAY Sports
TWEET SHARE (206)
"The 4-3 Defense and 3-4 Defense are antiquated terms that don't help fans understand the types of players their teams are looking for in the draft or in recruiting. Here are some updated terms that will bring some clarity"
This quote was taken from THIS ARTICLE. It's a good read (and I highlight a lot of it below) and before we get started (and after you are done reading) 58Steel has written an amazing fan post on the subject of a 3-3-5 defense which I've linked here if you want to brush up on the formation first.
That said, let us begin with:
PART 1: THE REACTION TO THIS YEAR'S DRAFT
Over the past few days we've seen a lot of people on this site up-in-arms over the players selected by Pittsburgh in the 2016 draft, and at first I was on the fence about whether or not they were good fits for our team, specifically for our defense.
Many people seemed to think Baylor DT Andrew Billings was a big miss and seeing as he was still hanging around in the 4th round his rankings on the big board (in hindsight) seemed ridiculously out of touch with the Steelers' priorities.
Yes, they took Javon Hargraves in the 3rd, but why not Billings in the 3rd? Or hell, why not Billings in the 1st!!
The Steelers run a 3-4 defense!
Daniel McCullers isn't our guy, and Steve McLendon has left for greener pastures.
The team needs a nose tackle, STAT!
The disgust was evident and everywhere.
Now, being new to the community, I might've put a little too much stock in the big board rankings as this was my first draft experience with BTSC. Having spent countless hours reading up on the draft this year I came across the big board and will argue that there isn't a better tool available on the entire internet that can provide you with links and information on the players in the draft, let alone the ones the Steelers should (key word) be interested in.
But there it is, the rankings. The interest. What "we need" on defense.
If I can pinpoint one reason for the overall disgust and disappointment in our draft it is this: people don't like being surprised...even worse, people don't like being told they are wrong. Even worse, unless you work for the front office, you have no clue what our defense needs because you have no clue what formations and schemes we intend to run.
From my side, I simply put too much stock in the rankings, €”not just on the big board, but the countless mocks that I read, and therefore I was simply amazed when players like Billings, Robinson, Reed, and many other "big men" kept falling like a Duquesne freshman strutting her stuff down Carson Street, in high heels, at 2am on a Friday night, after leaving Jimmy D's.
The consensus, even among the "experts' was that these NT-type players had 1st round grades, however most went in the 2nd round, and as you work your way out to the EDGE, things got better in terms of priority. Seems like overall 3-techs were more highly coveted than 0-techs, and 5-techs than 3's, etc.
Anywho, you can imagine I was taken for a loss when, other than Hargraves, the Steelers selected players who were not really favorites of Steeler Nation, or being championed as the future saviors of our defense.
To some level, I think that "groupthink" took over and the well-read, well-respected members of the board dominated the conversations, and over time convinced a lot of people who we needed to take. As a community we became so enamored by those players that the subsequent letdown we felt when we didn't land them (because they were either off the board or not the right fit, etc) made us hate the players we took "in their place".
To a lot of people's credit (even though the writing was on the wall) the BTSC community got it right it terms of priorities, predicting that the Steelers needed to address three key defensive positions in the 1st 3 rounds, that being CB, S, & NT, just not the individual players most wanted to represent those positions of need.
Every year, or at least lately, there's a player in the first round who seems destined to fall into our lap, and fall some have, so I suspect that everyone thought things would work out that way this year. And man was it close. But the draft, she does have her surprises, both good and bad, and you've got to roll with them. Some years will be better than others, and for every year we get lucky, you would expect a year when the worst case scenario plays out, and I feel like the 1st 2 rounds played out that way for the Steelers.
This was one of those years where the Steelers had real needs that could not wait to be addressed with 4th and 5th round picks, or depending upon how the draft fell. Unfortunately, other teams also had those same needs (or just wanted to screw us over...Bengals I'm looking in your direction!!) and we got burned.
If I've learned anything about the draft process it's that a team's needs, specifically how they prioritize positions and players, is just impossible to predict.
We as fans are ill-equipped to do that and shouldn't get caught up in placing players on pedestals for this reason. We might have access to their tape and combine stats, but outside of that we are at a BIG disadvantage as it pertains to virtually everything else teams need to check/review/critique.
Fans trying to accurately rank college players, specifically how they might fit their favorite NFL team, is somewhat akin to the average man trying to pick his wife based on watching the Miss America pageant.
"I've seen the tape. Would you look at those measurements! What more do I need to make the call?"
Never mind the fact that we are NOT experts at crafting defensive schemes and have no clue what our current "regime" plans to do in the future. Yes, we know what we've seen in past seasons, however what we are seeing now is very much a defense in transition; therefore, our needs, and the players who fit those needs, are changing as well (just as the game is always changing).
We know that Mike Tomlin and company keep saying that the Steelers' base defense is a 3-4, and at the same time they freely admit that we only use a traditional NT in a 3-4 about 30% of the time. I would argue that your base defense is defined as the formation you spend the most time in. If I said to you, "My religion is Christianity...I practice it about 30% of the time. The other 70% of the time I'm Buddhist, Taoist, and Hindu". You'd be confused, and probably answer, "well then you're not really Christian, are you?"
Seems contradictory to me, but I guess there's a need to maintain a sense of vagueness and ambiguity. It's common sense that you don't tell the enemy your battle plans, even if you do tip your hand in the draft and in free agency, both in terms of the players you select and their order of importance.
This (finally) brings me to the point of this fanpost (yes, buckle up, I'm just getting started).
We need to look at the players taken in this year's draft through the lens of different defensive formations/schemes and see how (and if) they fit for what we might be trying to do in the future under Butler's leadership and direction.
It's a tall order I know, and at risk or trying to sound like an expert (which I'm not) I will simply take some of the paragraphs from the previously quoted article (again, right here) and then expand a bit on how I think our current draftee's fit.
If you see parenthesis, these things ( ), that means I am writing, otherwise it's the author of the article.
PART 2: THE 2-4 AND 3-3 PERSONNEL
2-4 personnel vs 3-3 personnel
The 2-4 or 3-3 labels serve primarily to describe the types of players on the field. The 2-4 is going to feature only two true defensive linemen that are always going to be lined up with their hands in the dirt with an opposing blocker on either shoulder.
Then in place of defensive ends there will be two DE/OLB hybrid players on the edges in stand-up positions who specialize in attacking the edge and providing a pass-rush. The two inside linebackers behind these players are normal inside linebackers.
The 3-3 front features three true defensive lineman as the "defensive end" though they may line up on the edge, are big and sturdy enough to play interior gaps or face a double team. The nose tackle will generally be a standard big guy, with some exceptions.
The three linebackers behind the DL all need to be fairly versatile as well and although one of them might be the designated primary edge-rusher, each of them need to be competent performing as inside linebackers or blitzers.
(when in the 3-3, linebackers should be "versatile". Think of how (if) a player like Travis Feeney would be used in this role. Sound like a good fit for him? I think so.)
Each style has certain requirements on the types of players that are required and which style a team chooses largely depends on if the defense has easier access or an easier time developing a couple of really athletic edge rushers and tackles as the 2-4 calls for or can find and develop the kinds of versatile, tweener players that make the 3-3 work.
(I'm not sure we have access to the athletic edge rushers as needed in the 2-4. Bud Dupree yes, James Harrison for 1 more year, but no one really after that. Again, what intrigues me is the mention of the "versatile, tweener players" that make the 3-3 work. Again, Feeney fits the mold here.)
The 2-4-5 is ultimately a defense of specialization as the main pass-rushers are going to be the two stand-up edge rushers. The defense deploys them on the edge because that's the easiest way to utilize a pure pass-rusher and they aren't asked to do a great deal other than control the edge and provide pressure. The defensive tackles will tend to specialize in clogging up the interior and helping collapse the pocket while the linebackers are running free as support players.
(So, if I understand this correctly, what they are saying is a 2-4-5 really becomes a 4-2-5 formation, just with the 2 EDGE players outside two DL. So, in essence, it's a 4 front "lite" formation and the outside supplies the pressure)
Without access to the kind of elite pass-rushers that can attack the edge and overcome an offense's best efforts at pass protection, the 2-4-5 is not a superior nickel package. It can also struggle against the run if defensive tackles aren't sturdy or the linebackers are deficient. However, it is the simplest and best way to allow big, fast, and powerful athletes to impact the game and attack the quarterback.
The 3-3-5, or 8-3, is more a defense of versatility and disguise that will require the DL to all be strong at filling interior gaps and ideally decent or good at collapsing the pocket. The linebackers are not specialists but "jacks of all trades" that can be transformed into superior pass-rushers by virtue of the system disguising where they are blitzing from.
(Now, looking through a "3-3 lens" I can certainly understand why they've started to target players like Travis Feeney and Tyler Matakevich, these "Jack of all trades" LB's will have a home.)
Without versatile and intelligent players, the 3-3 is dead in the water, but when those pieces are in place it can pick on offense's weaknesses with greater precision and bring pressure from all angles.
(Again that word "versatile" and "intelligent players". Sounds a lot like Davis, who can speak 3 languages. Serious on a side note, how many NFL players can even speak Chinese. This dude has a future outside the NFL when he's done, probably working to bring the NFL to other countries and spread the brand. Back to my point about intelligent players, Tyler Matakevich is also said to be a film junkie and very smart at learning defenses and his role within them. And then we've got some current players who have all the athleticism in the world and simply can't perform within our defense...yes Sharmarko I'm looking at you.)
2-4 vs 3-3 philosophy
At their hearts, the 2-4 and 3-3 are basically extensions of 4-3 Over and 4-3 Under philosophies. The Over front is generally the defense people are thinking of when discussing teams that "spin down" safeties into linebackers and linebackers into defensive ends.
(Again, I can't help but think of players like Feeney and Davis being perfect for a 3-3 due to their versatility, speed, sound tackling abilities, height, and strength. These are not players who will be bullied, stiff-armed into submission ala Blake, or too slow to cover TE's and other big WR's. Now let's move down the article a bit to this paragraph.)
Just yesterday in the NFL draft the Pittsburgh Steelers chose Bud Dupree from Kentucky, a 6'4" 270 pound edge athlete that will have obvious utility as an edge rusher in their nominally 3-4 defense.
Of course, you can't play a true 3-4 defense anymore with two players of Dupree's size and skill at outside linebacker or you'll be picked apart by spread formations that ask them to cover slot receivers and tight ends in space. It would be a waste of Dupree's pass-rushing and edge talents to ask him to drop in coverage as often as the Steelers would ask of previous OLBs in their zone-blitz driven defense and counterproductive regardless.
So do the Steelers maintain their zone blitz/cover 3 philosophy from a 3-3 front or do they maintain their preference for playing two powerful edge rushers by instead utilizing a 2-4 that is less well suited for disguising blitzers? That may well depend on how quickly Dupree comes along as well as the other OLBs on the roster.
(That is the question, why not both. But whatever the case, I see our base 3-4 defense being a 3rd option.)
The fact that Pittsburgh is supposed to be a 3-4 base team has less to do with their nickel package than which players they want on the field and what they want to do behind the front.
To take another example, the 3-4 oriented Alabama Crimson Tide will generally remove their 2nd outside LB/pass-rusher from the field in their "4-2-5" nickel package and instead play fronts that utilize 3-3 personnel.
This style of defense can often be as effective at rushing the passer as the 2-4-5 but unless the single edge rusher is a dominant player, the team essentially needs someone to pull double duty as both a good DE/NT/ILB and a dangerous pass-rusher.
(Wow. Hell of a task to be a DE/NT/ILB and a dangerous pass-rusher. "Can I do anything else for you while I'm on the field...bake a cake, nit you a terrible towel out from Deangelo's hair??")
Updating the language
Football punditry is desperately behind the ball in terms of using accurate and descriptive terminology to explain what's happening today on the football field. You'll often hear talking points about a team in the draft or in recruiting that revolves around finding ideal fits for a 4-3 or 3-4 base defense.
More often than not, talking points based on those terms will have very little value in describing what those teams are looking for and how they'll deploy players. In an age where the nickel package is really the base defense, teams will be defined more by whether they prefer to play three true defensive linemen or only two.
(Maybe when you start to think of the nickel as the base, our picks and our priorities start to make more sense.)
While someone can refer to the NFL as "THE National Football League" and it somehow catch on within a month as a way to make professional football sound like an important and serious business enterprise, updating schematic language is less likely to catch on as easily.
However, try thinking of defenses as either 2-4 or 3-3 when evaluating this current draft or your team's recruiting season and see if that helps your understanding of why your team makes their personnel choices.
Ok. I'm coming out of the parenthesis now... I know, that was a bit jarring huh?
If you read the last paragraph and then try to take the time to understand the new roles of LB's, DE's, NT's, DT's, and Safeties within these new formations (2-4 or 3-3) by going to 58Steel's Fan Post then things start to make a little more sense as to why we drafted some of the players we did, and maybe why we didn't draft others.
Personally I would say we drafted for, and are built better to transition into a 3-3. So what does that mean? What are our needs?
Versatility. Athleticism. Intelligence. Jack of all trades.
And I get it. It's hard to be excited about a "jack of all trades" type player because when his skillset is broken down, or when his tape is looked at, nothing really stands out as elite.
But what other choice do we have? Gone are the days of specialization, because those types of players can be schemed around and their weaknesses can be exploited.
Your OLB's are too big and slow?
They can't cover. Attack them over the middle. "Dink and dunk" them to death.
Your NT is too disruptive.
Scheme him off the field and go spread.
Teams have gotten really good at identifying other team's weaknesses and exploiting them (Blake anyone?) so it only makes sense to get well rounded players who can do it all for you, within the limits of their position. This is why Dallas took a chance on Jaylon Smith in the early 2nd, and then Myles Jack goes just a few picks later. They are game changers if healthy.
15 years ago they would've been type-cast as a safety or maybe running back (Jack was that too) because they were too small (and too fast) to be LB's. "That's a waste of good speed" someone would've said. But back then LB's didn't need to be well-rounded speed demons, they needed to be freakin' monsters.
Look at Greg Lloyd, Jason Gildon, and Levon Kirkland and imagine them trying to cover Gronk. These guys would be pure EDGE/DE's today, not LB's. Ask Kirkland what his "40" time was and he's likely to show you a video of him chuggin' some malt liquor.
The LB's of today must be expected to play everywhere: sideline to sideline, stack the box, set an edge, and drop into coverage against TE's and/or WR's. If they can do that, and do it well, they are perhaps the most coveted player in all of football. And they are rare.
Think back to Sir Mix-A-Lot's song "Baby Got Back" when he says, "36-24-36?" Well, for the NFL the new perfect measurement for a LB is 6'3, 240, 4.4.
Big and strong enough to mix it up around the LOS, tall and fast enough to mow down RB's and WR's. In short, all types of disruptive.
That said, and getting back to my original point, looking at the draft thru "3-3" eyes makes me think we did the right thing going after players who display versatility: speed, height, strength, sound tackling skills (mostly) and whenever possible, intelligent, well rounded football players.
PART 3: OUR 2016 DRAFTEE'S
Looking at the measurements above, Feeney fits the mold of a new-age 3-3 LB. Tall, fast, and strong. A lot to work with for a 6th round pick.
Tyler Matakevich had almost 500 tackles in his career. Damn the combine stats, that dude got to the ball A LOT!! And he's a big film junkie and a student of the game. Worth a flyer in the 7th round? You bet.
Davis is above 6'0'', I bet will play around 200lbs, and runs a 4.4. Plus he's played both CB and Safety. He speaks 3 languages. He is an intelligent, versatile player who was either #1 or #2 in tackles for 3 straight years.
Burns. Hmmmm. Well, if I had to comment on Burns right now, based on the little I've read and seen, I would probably say, "we got the worst 1st round corner in the draft. But, Is that still better than the best 2nd rounder CB? Absolutely (if you agree with the ranking) And does it serve a need. You bet it does."
He's tall(ish), fast, not that great at tackling, but not bad either. "willing" might be the best term. Maybe a little bit of a reach but he had a late 1st/early 2nd round grade, and with Neal and Joseph gone, who was the alternative at CB or Safety we should've selected? The next best safety (arguable) would've been a BIG reach. He was the best on the board in a worst case scenario.
Hargraves fits into the Steeler's traditional 3-4 like a pig in poop, but can he sub in for Heyward and Tuitt when we change to a 4-2-5 front? Will they even need him to?
One common theme amongst most of the defensive players we took was TACKLING. Most had very good numbers in that department which pleases me very much.
Personally I'm a big believer that if you aren't tackling well at a college level you aren't going to just suddenly "get it" when you move up to the big boy league. Some of these WR's or TE's look like Dwight Howard nowadays. You think that's going to make it easier? Besides, you think college coaches didn't try to teach him the fundamentals and mechanics of tackling over the 3 or 4 years he was playing for them? You think they just let it go and said, "no biggie, he'll learn it when he gets to the NFL?" You think he's going to get better as the game gets faster and more complicated?
Overall I remain cautiously optimistic about the players we've selected because I'm starting to see the benefits of "these types of players" in a 3-3 and the versatility they will add to our defense.
If we are to continue onwards and maintain harmony within the BTSC community we must learn these new formations, shed the oppressive shackles of the 3-4 moniker and the type casted defensive positions thereunder (especially 3-4 OLB/ILB), or perish (JK. It's not that serious).
PART 4: PUTTING OUR NEW (AND OLD) PLAYERS INTO A 3-3-5
DL: Tuitt, Hargrave, and Heyward up front.
LB's: Feeney, Timmons, and Shazier in the middle.
CB'S: Golson, Cockrell, and Burns (boundary and field).
Safeties: (FS) Mitchell, (SPUR?) Golden/Davis (BANDIT?) Gay/Grant
You would then add Dupree as the weak side DE and probably take away Feeney if and when they switch to a 4-2-5.
The 3-3-5: LB's
These first two points are bold predictions I know. Try not to get angry at me.
I foresee Timmons either (1) retiring after this year (hey, 15 million is a hell or a nest egg and the dude has a lot of miles on him) or (2) being let go, which is why I believe he will retire instead. I say this because I believe it's time to let Vince step up and fill that void becuase he can do it, and do it at a minimum of cost.
I also foresee Jarvis being let go if he doesn't agree to stay at his current salary, and even then it might just be a 1 year contract. If he's kept, he's kept for depth purposes until we fully transition, and we should find out soon enough as to whether or not the Steeler's pick up his 5th year option.
IMO he's really an older version of OLB, a "Lebeau OLB" if you will. He hasn't materialized as much of a pass rusher, really isn't fast enough to drop back into coverage the way a 3-3-5 would demand, and overall I foresee the older style 3-4 OLB being phased out.
Dupree would/could act as a weak side DE in 4-2-5 formations (which would give Tuitt or Heyward a breather) and then him and Moats will be enough in your base 3-4, used sparingly of course, and he could also work in a 3-3-5 (dude did run a 4.56 40 at 270 lbs at the combine).
The only reason we would really need JJ is if we ran a 2-4, with two DE/OLB push rushers operating on the shoulders of our two defensive linemen, and even then it's or lack of a better option unless Feeney can step in an pass rush.
To quote 58Steel's article:
"First, Jarvis. He is not athletic enough to maximize and execute the "spirit of the 3-3-5," which again, is to disguise, but also to get fast athletes flying around the field. He has shown versatility (dropped in coverage much more than any other Steeler OLB in 2015). So you could make it work with JJ. I just wouldn't expect the results you're looking for."
AND
"The Steelers have not met with ANY prospects that could be considered ILB's. The lone exception might be Jatavis Brown, who really is more in the mold of a LB/S hybrid (get to those later). So it would seem if the Steelers are going to run a 3-3-5, they are going to do it with the LB's on hand, or use a LB/S hybrid at the risk of being overly small at LB."
Not anymore. IMO Feeney is JJ's replacement in this setup. In a 3-3-5 they could roll with a combination of Feeney, Dupree, and Shazier. The size/speed/versatility is there. Then add Vince Williams into the more traditional base 3-4 and ILB and put either Feeney/Moats at OLB once JJ/Harrison are gone.
The 3-3-5: CB's
FOR THE CB'S AND SAFETIES I WILL USE A LOT FROM 58STEEL'S FAN POST.
PORTIONS OF HIS POST ARE IN ITALIC, MY WORDS ARE BOLDED AND (IN PARENTHESIS).
The CB's act like typical CB's in any defense. Many 3-3-5 defenses, however, designate a "boundary" corner, and a "field" corner. The boundary corner is stronger in run support, while the field corner is better at coverage. This distinction has little relevance in the NFL. It does have relevance when you consider the teams that run the 3-3-5, one team specifically. Ohio State ran it while Bradley Roby was there. Roby was the boundary corner. When Roby went to the NFL, Doran Grant took over as boundary corner because of his tackling ability. Roby went on to play safety at Denver, but the Broncos use him as their primary nickelback. I will get to Doran Grant in a bit, but I feel it instructional to note the connection.
(Think they have an idea what to do with Grant? Think there was a reason for drafting him?)
The Steelers CB's in 2015 for use in a 3-3-5 would be Ross Cockrell and Senquez Golson. I'll get to Will Gay shortly. You can debate all you want if either Cockrell or Golson are starter capable, but for the purposes here, that's who we would have (unless Cortez Allen has a giant A-HA! moment).
(Well, now they can add Burns to that group.)
The 3-3-5: Safeties
The 3-3-5 utilizes 3 safeties, 1 free safety, and 2 hybrids. The free safety is exactly what you would think of from that term. The Steelers have Mike Mitchell here. Some may argue that Mitchell is better suited for Strong Safety. They may be right. But he is the Steelers FS and although not an All-Pro, he played immensely better in his second year in Pittsburgh. Mitchell should be viewed as a strength. The Steelers have met with one FS, or "coverage" safety prospect. This is Vonn Bell. Interesting again, the connection to Ohio State here, a team which utilized the 3-3-5. If Bell were selected by the Steelers, it would seem to suggest a move to SS by Mitchell.
The other two safeties in a 3-3-5, are often called Strong Safety(s). They have been referred to as the key to the "30 Stack." Both, as I stated, are hybrids. In most 3-3-5 schemes, they are referred to as the SPUR and the Bandit. They do most of the adjusting, based on formation. The spur is the stronger of the 2, a LB/S hybrid.
(Could this also be what Feeney was intended for? Is he enough of a hybrid to assume this type of a role? I simply don't know)
He will more often line up to the strong side of the formation. You would typically think of him as a "box safety," strong in run support, but the spur still must be able to cover TE's.
(AH HA! Sounds like Davis to me, covering TE's I believe was one of his strong suits Maybe this is why they were also interested in Cash but decided to go with someone else, someone better in coverage, maybe a safety who use to be a corner?)
Right now Robert Golden would be the spur for the Steelers (Again, unless Shamarko has a huge A-HA! moment. Incidentally, the spur position would seem to be the exact position Shamarko would have been drafted for.) The Steelers have met with 7 LB/S hybrids. Again, Scott has listed them. Some lean toward the LB side, some the S side. I wouldn't pretend to know enough about all the responsibilities of the spur position to get an idea of which ones would fit it best. I could see a case being made for either. Suffice to say, however, the Steelers could easily find a prospect that would allow them to fill the spur position.
The bandit position is more of a hybrid S/nickelback that quarterbacks the defensive backfield. The Steelers bandit position would be filled by Will Gay. He is strong in run support, has been the slot corner of choice, and has the most familiarity/knowledge of the defense of all the current DB's. (Although the Steelers were not utilizing the 3-3-5 in scheme last year, they may have at least had some of it conceptually. This would speak a lot toward their reluctance to use Boykin in the "slot," preferring Gay there.)
Which brings Doran Grant back into the picture. Grant filled the same role as a Buckeye as his predecessor, Bradley Roby. The Broncos use Roby as a nickelback/safety. It does not take much of a leap to think the Steelers could do the same thing with Grant. The Steelers' DB coach, Carnell Lake, mentioned the possibility of Grant playing safety the day he was drafted. Could the role of bandit be more of what the Steelers have in mind?
End 58Steel's post
CONCLUSION (FINALLY!!)
If you made it this far I commend you. I know, this was the longest fan post ever. I just reached page 10 in Microsoft Word so it's time to hit the send button. I sincerely hope this helped explain what might be meant for some of our draftee's and will hopefully generate some thoughtful (yet still respectful) debate on the future of the Steelers' defense and how our neeb's fit into Butler's plans.
