Bear Offense vs. Packer 3-4 Defense

[AZ54]

The Packers are switching over to the 3-4 defense and after watching ESPNs update on Packer's camp and listening to their chat about how the DEs and LBs have to change roles somewhat I got to thinking how our offense will fare against them. I view the 3-4 as more of a stout run defense that gets it's pass rush in part because of the opportunities to bring a 4th or 5th pass rusher from multiple locations. Pass coverage with 4 LB has some limitations so the pass rush is key. They've got personnel issues with guys like Kampman, the Packer's best pass rusher, who now lines up as a LB. Which means he'll have to cover someone from time to time.

 

On our side we're going to use Olsen in a lot of different positions (TE, WR, H-back) meaning they won't be able to know pass/run as well depending on personnel. If we go to the recently reported double-split-wide TE formation with WR in the slot positions how will they handle that? You can't really go to a nickel D because we could line up two TEs on the outside of the OTs and run. Are they going to leave their LBs to cover Hester and Bennett? I just see some nice advantages we have with spreading out the offense. On top of that Forte is a pretty good WR making him a threat out of the backfield.

 

If this is effective we're going to find out quickly and in a big way because after Green Bay we play Pittsburgh.

 

[Mongo3451]

The Packers are switching over to the 3-4 defense and after watching ESPNs update on Packer's camp and listening to their chat about how the DEs and LBs have to change roles somewhat I got to thinking how our offense will fare against them. I view the 3-4 as more of a stout run defense that gets it's pass rush in part because of the opportunities to bring a 4th or 5th pass rusher from multiple locations. Pass coverage with 4 LB has some limitations so the pass rush is key. They've got personnel issues with guys like Kampman, the Packer's best pass rusher, who now lines up as a LB. Which means he'll have to cover someone from time to time.

 

On our side we're going to use Olsen in a lot of different positions (TE, WR, H-back) meaning they won't be able to know pass/run as well depending on personnel. If we go to the recently reported double-split-wide TE formation with WR in the slot positions how will they handle that? You can't really go to a nickel D because we could line up two TEs on the outside of the OTs and run. Are they going to leave their LBs to cover Hester and Bennett? I just see some nice advantages we have with spreading out the offense. On top of that Forte is a pretty good WR making him a threat out of the backfield.

 

If this is effective we're going to find out quickly and in a big way because after Green Bay we play Pittsburgh.

I also like the face we are spliiting Olsen and Clark out. Not only does the defense have to think about how to guard the extra size outside, it could also place emmense pressure on the safeties to deal with Hester and Bennett underneath. I could also see Forte running all day on a seam route.

 

Of course everything has it's pitfalls. By us going big on the outside, we are essentially shifting our speed to the middle of the field where the defense prefers them.

 

In a nutshell, like any new wrinkle, we must make the defense pay a price before it can become plan altering for the opposition.

[lemonej]

I would hope that the fact that one of the players they are really counting on to play an important role in that defense number one draft pick BJ Raji nose tackle not yet being signed will hurt them. The fact that a lot of the players will be learning a new scheme should lead to a few blown assignments in the first game of the season. I can remember when the Bears went from Blache's scheme to the Tampa 2 and we had a few guys blowing assignments the whole year.

[AZ54]

Yes, I haven't heard of Ravi signing yet and that can't hurt us at all, especially since conditioning was never considered one of his traits.

 

As far as our speed being on the inside, of course they'd be lined up that way but there's nothing stopping them from running a quick out pattern while the TE is running upfield to clear out the DB, S, LB (whoever is out there). Greg Olsen has pretty good speed too, not elite but enough to get upfield. I'm looking forward to seeing how we match up with them from a formation point of view. I know their CBs are tough at the LOS but I think our TEs and RBs will give us an advantage.

[ptatc]

The Packers are switching over to the 3-4 defense and after watching ESPNs update on Packer's camp and listening to their chat about how the DEs and LBs have to change roles somewhat I got to thinking how our offense will fare against them. I view the 3-4 as more of a stout run defense that gets it's pass rush in part because of the opportunities to bring a 4th or 5th pass rusher from multiple locations. Pass coverage with 4 LB has some limitations so the pass rush is key. They've got personnel issues with guys like Kampman, the Packer's best pass rusher, who now lines up as a LB. Which means he'll have to cover someone from time to time.

 

On our side we're going to use Olsen in a lot of different positions (TE, WR, H-back) meaning they won't be able to know pass/run as well depending on personnel. If we go to the recently reported double-split-wide TE formation with WR in the slot positions how will they handle that? You can't really go to a nickel D because we could line up two TEs on the outside of the OTs and run. Are they going to leave their LBs to cover Hester and Bennett? I just see some nice advantages we have with spreading out the offense. On top of that Forte is a pretty good WR making him a threat out of the backfield.

 

If this is effective we're going to find out quickly and in a big way because after Green Bay we play Pittsburgh.

 

There is actually less limitations and more flexibility in the pass defences in the 34. In the 34 you replace a usually unathletic lineman with an athletic linebacker. The linebackers in this scheme are usually more athletic than the typical "mike" linebacker in the 43. This not only gives the option of pass rushing from multiple position but also multiple options in the pass defense.

 

[Wesson44]

There is actually less limitations and more flexibility in the pass defences in the 34. In the 34 you replace a usually unathletic lineman with an athletic linebacker. The linebackers in this scheme are usually more athletic than the typical "mike" linebacker in the 43. This not only gives the option of pass rushing from multiple position but also multiple options in the pass defense.

If you can get the blocking scheme right the 3-4 is easy to run against since you have a lighter LB on the outside instead of a DT/DE to block. Once you get pass the three down linemen holds should be bigger because of where they have to line up and who the have to cover,