A 4-4-3 defense is a good idea. Especially since the forward pass was outlawed by the competition committee last month.

They outlawed the forward pass? Why? Now teams will be able to just crowd the line of scrimmage. I don't usually like shootouts but I do like the occasional touchdown. Football will be too boring this year. Maybe they'll bring it back next year after ratings drop.

Maybe they figure since DB's are no longer allowed to cover WR's, what's the point in having four of them? And since pass rushers are no longer allowed to tackle QB's, maybe they think they need the extra rushers to apply more pressure.

@#2....#1 was sarcasm.

A 4-4-3 is not a bad idea. With the number of teams running a West Coast style offense, with lots of crossing patterns, 5-12 yard passes, etc., having an undersized linebacker or second strong safety closer to the line of scrimage to cover the tight end or back coming out of the backfield, and to blitz occassionaly, is not a bad idea. I think NFL coaches get a little too stale and uncreative, at times.

Yes, the 4-4-3 is a very good idea, especially in a division with Palmer-Johnson-Houshyourdaddy and Roethlisberger-Ward-Miller. Well, its nice to know that Billick is still Billick

4-4-3?

Two Fullbacks, two centre-halves, 3 in midfield, two wingers and a centre-forward. A flexible formation, but one which relies on the centre-forward to hold the ball up and allow the midfield players and wingers to break and support him. I prefer 3-5-2 myself.

Oh, sorry wrong 'football'. I thought I saw 4-3-3. With the World Cup fast approaching I got excited...

how about Chelsea-Villareal, that's fast approaching too. I'm excited about that. One of the few quality matches we'll get here in the US.

Huh, I guess this really is Football Outsiders.

Isn't the "46" defense just a version of the 4-4-3, with the strong safety playing where the 4th linebacker would be?

Off-topic: Forgive me for asking this, but how is a post like #2 possible? You'd think that a person reading this particular website (especially during the offseason) would be well-aware of any significant rule changes. Heck, when the NBA changed its dress code, we didn't stop hearing about it for weeks.

I thought #2 was subtle sarcasm, but I could be wrong.

What sucks is Americans don't really care about the World Cup.

But on topic now: the 4-4-3 is good for like high schools where you know every other play is triple option or an iso. I'm more of a 3-4 fan because you get that extra DB and you hope your DLineman can take down double teams and occupy blockers. Maybe this is just saying the line of the Ravens isn't that good.

The Ravens are going to run a 4-4 and one of their linebackers limps when he walks and falls down when he tries to move laterally -- should be an interesting season for Baltimore fans.

I orefer a 3-5-2 formation with 3 central defenders and 2 wing backs. Then 2 controling midfielders in front of the defence and up front a classic #10 and 2 strikers.
I guess 443 is already played when the strong safety moves up to the LOS.

James, let's not bring back the 3-5-2 and the libero and Lothar Matthaus and every other bad memory of the 1990 World Cup (aka The Worst World Cup Ever).

Roeth-Ward-Miller isn't that bad because presumably at least one of the LBs can cover Miller decently (if they can't swing that they should just give up on this season). Palmer-TJ-Johnson is a massive problem though, and Roeth-Ward-Holmes when it arrives will be almost as bad. I mean, if you're effectively guaranteeing deep single coverage on one of the WRs every play ...

Actually, this is crazy - if their switch to 4-4-3 is driven by the lack of a decent 2nd safety, what the hell are they going to do when the opponent goes 3 or 4 WR? This seems like a fairly awful plan.

Re: 10
Not really. The 46 is a standard 4-3 with slightly different line and linebacker positioning. The center and both guards are covered by defenders before the snap. The DB's can be lined up anywhere, though the strong safety is normally in the box.

The steelers already play with 8 in the box pretty routinely. That said, there is a significant difference I think between the 8th guy being a safety (who might play deep occasionally) and (essentially) a defensive lineman.

There is potential value in developing a scheme that let's you get your best 11 on the field most of the time. Whether it adds enough to overcome the holes in such a scheme is unknown.

I hope the Ravens try it. Should be interesting.

Re #15

3-52 worked in 1990. Remember Bobby Robson spent his entire time as England Manager telling us England couldn't play 3-5-2?

Then he plays it and we are two missed penalties from the final. And we'd have beaten the Argies. (Now takes a moment to wipe the tears away). :(

Back on topic, if you play the Ravens, wouldn't you go 1 back, 3 WR, and force the Ravens out of this 4-4-3 base defense? If they don't like their 4th player in the secondary, you should have him on the field as much as possible. It'd be easier to run against too.

@#4….#2 was sarcasm.

Depending on the 46 defense used, it's always looked to me more like a 5-3-3. I know it's not, but that's often how the set-up looks. I'm not against this, but are the Ravens just looking to use every outmoded defense ever used? Last year is was the 46, now it's the 4-4, next Billick will split the defense into two arena league teams. I'm fine with a coach being creative and going back to history to uncover ideas - Belichick and the Pats have adopted and instituted many in the past few years. But these Raven teams just pick them up and drop them like high school girlfriends, and they're never going to find a working relationship that way. I don't know how I got that metaphor going.

SOME Americans don't care about the World Cup.

Of course, this is the time but not the place.

I would love to see a 4-4-3 on 10/29. Why? Because the Saints would be able to exploit it without getting too unconventional.

I mean, seriously, there is a reason that you don't see the 4-4 as a base defense very often once you get out of high school football (which, apparently has better referees than the pros because they can at least tell who's eligible by why they line up...).

3 WR, 1 RB and a Miller-esque tight end would get your QB killed eventually -- the protection just couldn't keep up with all the blitz permutations.

This is a Ryan gamble to be sure; but then the Ravens have already played with only one safety capable of pass coverage (it wasn't Will Demps, Jersey), so they might have a better shot than most at dealing with it.

#2 was sarcastic? Heck of a job, my friend. Few could appear so misinformed for 5 sentences without indicating the true nature of their post.

Formations are fine, but overload blitzes is where you make things happen. You can run overload blitzes out of a 3-4, 4-3 whatever it doesn't matter just run overload blitzes. I know it sounds simple for a website as advanced as this, so if somebody wants to elaborate on this go right ahead.

I love this luddite mentality, god-forbid a team try something different—it's certain to fail! Look what a disaster the 3-4/4-3 combo was for New England. I think every run should be up the middle and every pass a ten yard post to a WR; defenses should always rush four, play man and keep the safeties back. We ain’t playin’ no fruity arena-ball, ya-hear?

Re: 24

I think the assumption in going 3 WR is that it would force the Ravens to play a fourth DB (a thought they seem to find unappealing). So there wouldn't be eight in the box anymore.

That said, I think post #23 may be the better approach. A pass catching TE or RB (with outstanding speed) could be split wide (from a standard personel set) and force a very tough match-up with a Raven LB.

NO playing a 3WR, 1 RB with a TE in would mean that the TE and RB would have to continually block for you QB in a 4-4-3 package if they blitzed all 8 in. but against a Roth or Palmer you would get killed doing that becasue you have one DB on each reciever and a Ward or a Johnson could burn single coverage way to often to make it effective. Would love to see the Ravens try it though.

4-3 or 3-4 or 4-4-3
Last year in a rush of optimism I bought a ticket (before the season started) to the Dec. 25 Sunday night game between the Ravens and Vikings. From my upper deck endzone seat I noticed the Ravens were playing a base 3-4 most of that game. I think they played much less of the 46 than many casual observers realize.
I don't think anybody doubts that coaches game plan against specific opponents, not just in the abstract. Probably in other games last year the Ravens played a 4-3 base. It all depends on the strengths and weaknesses of your players and theirs, subject to the judgment of the coaches and D-coordinator. And I'm sure all teams operate more or less like that.
What this likely means in particular is that the Ravens may put different defensive packages on the field against the Steelers than say, the Bengals. Although both have very good offenses, the Steelers clearly are more of a power running team.

Post #2 was sarcasm directed at people who take sarcastic posts seriously.

Thats it i am going to create the "Sarcasm" Detector for FO. it will make your post turn a different color than noraml if it detects "Sarcasm" or "BS"

wait....

Hmmmm...
FO already has a different color for thier actual athuors so hmmm.... maybe put a liite mark by the athuors name if it detects "Sarcasm" like an * or maybe even a # sign some thing like that yea....

Maybe #4 was sarcasm directed at people who take sarcasm directed at people who take sarcastic posts seriously, then?

re#32

Oooooh, a sarcasm detector, THAT'S a useful invention.

Wow, multi-layered sarcasm. Not only was it sarcastic, it challenged the audience to ponder its sarcasticity. Nice job, Matt.

Green Bay for Life, you might want to check on your CO detector.

James, I cheer for Brazil. I prefer to think 1990 didn't exist, just like there was never a final match in 1998.

Slow day at work.

The Ravens claimed that they were going to play the 46 last year, but I found that they basically came up with a different base defense for each opponent. Sometimes it was a 5-2-4, 3-5-3, etc. Since Adalius Thomas is the only player I know of that can play DE, LB, and SS, a given personel package had many formations.
Ed Reed and S. Rolle are excellent in coverage, and McCallister sometimes is (or once was), so I think 3 DBs isn't such a bad thing when they are all substantially above average. I also think they gave themselves some decent depth at DB in the draft, that was their major defensive weakness last year, so I don't think 3 WR packages would be much of problem.

RE 35
Slow day at work.

thats why I came up with the Idea (today at least) of a sarcasm detector. I personally like the wit and humor of the 2nd post. But I guess some people just don't get it. But any way back on the topic of the hour which seems to be "Futbol". I personally try to watch as much of the European Soccer (just like you Euorpean guys I hate that word) League as possible. which unfortunatly that is like once a month with my work and honey-do list schedule. But i do enjoy watching as i can.

a lot of college and hs teams play the 4-4-3, but thats because a lot of hs and weaker-division college teams suck at passing.
in the nfl, where it seems almost as though most teams' base D is the nickel, i dont see how this is going to fly.

In all seriousness, some sarcastic posts are written to be read seriously, which makes it very difficult for the casual observer to discern the true intent of the poster.
I find this to be much more compelling a discussion than arguing whether a 4-4-3 is a sensible base scheme for the Ravens.

#32: you forgot to put a "*" or "#" by your name.

OK, I'm confused... did the forward pass get outlawed or not?

Re:41

Only for the Jets and Jags.

Aw, hell, we'll throw GB in too.

RE 42

hey leave are int/td ratio out of this conversation!!! :-)

but if you want ot include GB may as well add SF to that list as well ;-)