Basic Defensive Front Alignments

Most of the attention in a football game is naturally placed on the quarterback and the offensive side of the ball.  Fans are usually familiar with most run plays, pass plays, and the different formations (e.g. I Formation, etc.) that their team uses. For whatever reason I’ve always had an equal if not greater interest however in watching the defense.  What play the offensive coordinator calls, how the team lines up, and what the quarterback actually executes is only half the story on the field.  What alignment  the defensive takes and that side of the game is not as well told by the announcers on TV or in print media.  Out of curiosity I’ve tried to learn over the years some of the details behind the different defensive alignments and what they were attempting to achieve or respond to.  Here is a very, very, basic summary of what I have picked up over the years.  The content is only correct to the extent the source material is correct or how I interpreted the passages.  Any suggestions for edits and additions are of course welcome!

 
The Late 1940’s & the 1950’s

In Homer Smith’s 1999 pamphlet entitled “A Brief History of Football Concepts” he notes that in the era after World War II college football essentially had the Single Wing, the Notre Dame Box, and the Split Tee formations on offense.  On the defensive side of things three main formations ruled the landscape – the Wide Tackle Six, the Five-Three, and for the goal line there was the Gap-Eight defense. 

 These defenses “worked” as all defenses do and were chiefly employed against stopping the run with eight defenders in the tackle box area near the line of scrimmage.  Each one gave blockers contrasting problems so they were often used as a good mix.  Some coaches were more devoted to one style than the other.  Billy Barnes of UCLA in 1958 was reported to state, “I believe in the Bible and I believe in the Wide-Tackle-Six”.  To this day you will find many defense coaches with such similar passion and attachment to their specific schemes.

The Wide Tackle Six & Five-Three

 The Wide-Tackle-Six alignment and the Five-Three each were similar in that they had a player for every gap.  In principle there were eight defenders near the line of scrimmage and eight gaps depending upon how the play was run on offense.  Here is a simple diagram of the base version of the wide tackle six alignment found in most coaching textbooks.

The name derived from the wider splits the two defensive tackles took in relation to the offensive tackles.  The defensive ends and defensive tackles were primarily one gap run stuffing players as rushing was far more prevalent than passing for most teams.  The two interior lineman would line up more directly on the guards and either engage the opponent directly or slant into one of the two gaps either side of them in conjunction with the two linebackers behind in the base defense.

The American Football Coaches Association (AFCA) publishes a bi-annual book that contains coaching presentations by members of the NCAA.  Every great coach has contributed at one time or another and by looking at the contents over the decades you can get a feel each year how the game was changing incrementally each season.  The manuals are not available to the general public however the AFCA has compiled some of the more famous articles into summary documents and sold them as coaching manuals.  One such example is Defensive Football Strategies.  In this manual a copy of University of Tennessee Coach Dick Hitt’s 1960 presentation on the Wide Tackle Six is included.  He lays out the basics of the wide tackle six as well as half a dozen variations.  The adjustments include tightening the alignment width (splits) of the defense and other subtle shifts to change the strength of the formation with respect to the alignment of the offense.  Dropping the two linebackers down in addition to tightening the splits gave birth to the eight man goal line defense that still is in existence today. Football has always been an invisible chess match of wits of offense against defense and vice versa.

 
Five-Three Defensive Alignment

 The other great defense of the era was the Five-Three employed by many teams as well with coaches equally passionate about its respective attributes and strengths.

So very early on even in college football you had competing beliefs about how to line up players and how many men to put on the line of scrimmage versus how many to play off the line as “line backers” although they were not always called by these terms.  One great difference that the 6-2 versus the 5-3 helped foster right away is the notion of an “even” versus “odd” style of defense.  Even defense employ an even number of down lineman in three point stances on the line of scrimmage and leave the center uncovered by the defense.  The Five-Three in contrast featured an odd number of defenders in three point stances and covered the center with a defender directly.

Oklahoma 5-2 Defense

The 6-2 and the 5-3 defenses worked but had subtle flaws and ways to exploit them as every scheme does.  Coach Homer Smith notes that both the 6-2 and the 5-3 eventually struggled against the split tee option attacks of the day.  Much of defensive history he notes revolves around the concept of the “unoccupied defender”.  In other words there is always one unblocked person on the defense who is the person charged with making the tackle on the running back or the running quarterback for example.  The 6-2 and the 5-3 struggled on some play types he notes to get the unoccupied defender in position to make a tackle on plays to the outside.

The answer to this dilemma was found by the Oklahoma coaching staff in the 1950’s under Bud Wilkinson.  The solution involved the creation of the more flexible 5-2 Oklahoma defense from which most schemes are derived today.  The 5-2 Oklahoma used only 7 men on the line of scrimmage and had four defensive backs.  However the defensive backs read the plays and “rotated” down in coverage to the direction of the run play.  This helped put an unoccupied defender in position to make a tackle on run plays to the  outside and also left three defensive backs in coverage for pass plays.  Option plays from the split tee were effectively stopped and the notion of rotating backfield defenders was perfected to complement the front alignment of the defense.
 

The 5-2 “Okie” as it was affectionately called was the primary defense of college teams and worked well through the mid 1970’s.  Football became a contest of smashing into the 5-2 alignment with power out of the I Formation for example or more deception based attacks out of the wishbone or the veer style of offense.  Teams of course threw the ball primarily when needed on third and long or to catch the defense off guard.   USC’s legendary coach John McKay made his contribution to the AFCA in the 1973 proceedings of the coaching manual by drawing up his bread and butter running plays out of the I Formation “The Pitch” aka student body right or left and “The Blast” against the 5-2 alignment.  Both plays became common names and represent a colorful era of USC football.

Gaps and Techniques

 As defenses began to shift around and move to different locations even with the 6-2, the 5-3, and the 5-2 there was some inevitable confusion on how to describe the alignments even amongst the coaches.  The famous Alabama coach by the name of Paul “Bear” Bryant came up with a system of describing where defenders lined up regardless of the “name” of the alignment.  The system involved using “technique” spots to designate specific alignment designations.  Just as the offensive side of the ball had “gaps” and numbers to describe the plays (e.g. 23 blast, 28 toss, etc.), defenses now had “technique” spots to designate their alignment.  All coaches today recite these locations by memory to explain where defenders line up.

As noted in the list above alignment directly over the center position by any “odd” defense was now known as a “0 Technique” or direct shade alignment heads up on the center.  Defenders that lined up on the outside shoulder of the guard in many “even” schemes became known as “3 technique” tackles.  Slowly these terms have worked their way out of the coaching community, into the press, and into the fan base.  However it has not been sufficient to stem the coming confusion about different types of defenses that began to appear at both the college and the pro level.  (Edit Note:  It appears that although Bear Bryant popularized the technique classification it was O.A. Bum Phillips that created it in the 1950's at a Texas high school.  Coach Bryant notes this on page 29 in his 1960 book, "Building A Championship Football Team")

4-3 Defenses

At first the professional and then the college level teams eventually found ways to systematically attack the 5-2 defense as well as its precedents.  At the pro level in the All American Football Conference (AAFC) offensive masterminds such as Paul Brown were finding ways to pass the ball more effectively and finding the open spots of the defense just over the line of scrimmage with quarterback Otto Graham.  Critics in the rival NFL derided it as “basketball” with too much emphasis on passing and too little rushing.  After the merger of the AAFC and the NFL in 1950 however no one was laughing when the upstart Cleveland Browns defeated the defending NFL champion Philadelphia Eagles 35 to 10 to open the season.  Defensive coaches knew immediately they needed to go to work to stop this marvelous attack.

 The birth of the 4-3 defense is highly disputed in different coaching circles.  Popular lore often gives it to Tom Landry who was defensive coordinator of the N.Y. Giants while Vince Lombardi was the offensive coordinator.  Sam Huff states that the 4-3 was devised for him to play middle linebacker in the 1950’s in a role developed by Tom Landry at the NY Giants.  Other depictions however including this article in the NFL Hall of Fame credit Chicago Bears player Bill George in 1953 with creating the change.  Regardless of the inventor the following switch in defenses slowly happened.  The nose guard on defense normally aligned on the center in the 5-2 scheme backed off and stopped automatically charging forward at the center on the snap of the ball.  Instead he took two to three steps back and began intercepting and deflecting pass plays that were being thrown over the previously unoccupied gap in the middle of the field.  If he read a run play he charged forward or laterally as needed.  With this new defender now in the middle the remaining two linebackers could also now spread out slightly wider as well to stop passes and runs in their vicinity.  The first modern day version of the 4-3 was born out of such needs and may have been created simultaneously by more than one party.

 The 4-3 is as varied a defensive scheme as there is with many subtle tweaks and variations.  Over the years there has been the basic 4-3 front with the symmetrical or even alignment that most fans can recognize instantly by shape.  This particular version uses four down lineman with the center uncovered, and three linebackers playing a few yards off the line of scrimmage.  Ingenious defensive coaches could not leave a good thing alone however and immediately set about tinkering with it.  Hank Stram of the Kansas City Chiefs came up with a version known as the Kansas City Stack where he lined up the linebackers in the 1960’s and early 1970’s behind the defensive lineman in a stacked fashion.  He also often put a man head up on the center as well regardless of whether he played a 4-3 or 3-4 defense. This type of alignment variation served to confuse the offensive lineman regarding  their blocking assignments and helped contribute to Kansas City’s success. 

Tom Landry one of the primary innovators of the 4-3 defense took the alignment with him to a head coaching position with the Dallas Cowboys in the 1960’s, 70’s and 80’s.  He perfected multiple versions of the 4-3 at Dallas that became known as the 4-3 Flex style of defense.

 The Cowboys were searching for ways to beat their rivals in the mid to late 1960’s the Green Bay Packers.  Green Bay coach Vince Lombardi espoused physical play and ran a power play off tackle with a guard (often Jerry Kramer) pulling and blocking for the running backs.  Run to daylight was the main theme and the front line of the defense was usually a step slow to react and respond.  To help his defenders get off the ball more quickly and pursue the outside run plays more effectively Landry instructed an end and a tackle position to “flex” off the line of scrimmage by a yard or so.  This enabled them to get off the ball better on lateral run plays and help defeat the sweeps.  There were strong side versions of the flex, weak side versions, and even a version where the two tackles flexed both as well.  The title became a household name even if most people did not know exactly what it was or why it existed.

Meanwhile back in college and other locations coaches were experimenting as well.  As the passing game evolved it became clear that four defenders were needed in the secondary to cope with most increasingly sophisticated passing attacks.  This left coaches with only seven men up front instead of the eight they had previously employed.  The notion of balanced attacks that could both run and throw the ball to exploit the defense became the norm as it is today.  One dimensional run attacks such as the great Texas and Oklahoma wishbone attacks were no longer viable to win the national championship.  One dimensional passing attacks were not conducive to championships either.  Balanced teams that could throw effectively when there were eight men near the line of scrimmage and run when there were six or seven men in the box became the path to victory and national championships and still is today.

In response defensive coordinators began devising ways of playing attacking one gap styles of defense with seven defenders near the line of scrimmage and four men back in coverage with the ability to flex a player down as needed.  Monte Kiffin at Nebraska under Tom Osborne devised one such scheme that eventually became known in coaching circles as the 4-3 Under defense. Bill Arnsparger and other defensive coaches in the NFL did it as well and I doubt it is clear who did what first.  Current USC head coach Pete Carroll worked under Monte Kiffin when he took this defense to Arkansas and has honed it ever since.  USC plays a derivative of it today and Pete Carroll described it in details in his contribution to the AFCA a couple of years ago at a Nike Coach of the Year Clinic (See: USC 4-3 Under Base Defense).

The 4-3 Under alignment confuses some fans as often the strong side linebacker covers the tight end on the strong side of the formation.  This makes it look like a 5-2 at first glance but the exact technique spots are different.  The Nose Tackle aligns in a gap to the strong side and not directly on the center.  The defensive tackle is in a gap on the weak side in a 3 technique alignment.  Both defensive ends play in a loose five technique spot.  Slight variations of course exist in the shade technique alignments based upon the opponent and the formation.  Pete Carroll explains most of them in great detail in his article.  Fans were confused for example in 2006 when USC played a linebacker in a stand up 5 technique spot in the 4-3 under.  Since that person Brian Cushing was a linebacker fans and the media jumped to the conclusion that USC was now playing a 3-4 defense but that was not the case.  It was merely inability to recognize a 4-3 under alignment and the basic differences we’ll cover between the two gap responsibilities of a 3-4 and the one gap scheme of a 4-3.  Anyway in a 4-3 under the strong safeties also play a pivotal role either filling down on run plays to help get eight men in the box or staying back in coverage on pass plays to play in a zone coverage or man to man as needed.  Kiffin disciples such as Tony Dungy and other coaches have spread this scheme fully in the NFL and it has been a big part of the base defense of several recent Super Bowl champions such as Tampa Bay and Indianapolis.

Life would be simple if the variations with the 4-3 would just stop here but that is not the nature of the game.  Coaches such as Jimmy Johnson at Oklahoma State who then later became the head coach at the University of Miami, and the Dallas Cowboys, as well as others at different levels tinkered with the scheme.  These coaches created what is known as the 4-3 Over style of the alignment.  The exact credit for the changes are not clear to me although it is frequently associated with Jimmy Johnson and the University of Miami style of play at the college level. Johnson also preferred speed over size at the college level and remarked he'd put DE's at the DT locations, LB's an the DE positions and safeties at the linebacker spots in order to create speed. This video details some of the specifics.

 The 4-3 Over differs slightly from the earlier versions of the 4-3 described above.  The defensive ends both align on the outside of the formation and are both speed rush type of defenders on pass plays.  The Nose Tackle is a gap penetrating force on the weak side of the alignment and the 3 technique tackle is on the strong side (both differ from the 4-3 Under).  The linebackers are in the more familiar 4-3 shell on defense several yards off the ball and fans and the media can pick out this scheme comfortably on TV.  This defense also won championships for Miami at the college level, for the Dallas Cowboys at the NFL level under Jimmy Johnson, and is a primary defense in all leagues today.  Most teams in college or the NFL in reality now switch back and forth between these two alignments (and others we’ll discuss) during any given game to present different looks and to take advantage of match ups in their favor.

 
3-4 Defenses

Already unfortunately we have gotten way ahead of ourselves in some respects as football is not a concept that has a linear developmental path from point A to B.  Remember the Oklahoma 5-2 defense?  While some coaches were dropping the middle nose guard and converting that player into a middle linebacker other coaches were creating different alterations as well.  Some coaches believed that keeping the center covered was a prerequisite for stopping run plays up the middle and collapsing the pocket against the pass.  Additionally teams also often had a shortage of talented large bodies to play the defensive line and an abundance of faster linebacker type players.  The answer was to drop the two outside lineman in the 5-2 off the line by a step or two and align only three down lineman in three point stances on the line of scrimmage.

The benefits of this alignment are many and some notable coaches stake their hat on the inherent flexibility of this defense.  The distinguishing feature of the traditional 3-4 is the direct shade alignment of the Nose Tackle and the Defensive Tackles over their opponents.  From this alignment technique they are charged with defending “two gaps” to either side of them on run plays.  The goal is to occupy two defenders at times if needed and allow the linebackers to make unobstructed tackles on the run plays.  This also allowed great lateral pursuit by linebackers on run plays to the outside in the 1970’s when teams were trying to figure out ways to stop large fast running backs such as former USC great O.J. Simpson. 

Alternatively on pass plays outside linebackers such as Lawrence Taylor made a terror of themselves charging off left end or the quarterback’s blind side.  Rushing linebackers in tandem on one side of the formation in a zone blitz also became a later technique employed by teams such as the Pittsburgh Steelers under defensive coordinator Dick LeBeau. 

Although most parties agree the 3-4 has its roots in the Oklahoma 5-2 defense there are fierce debates over who developed it and implemented it first in the NFL.  Chuck Fairbanks who coached under Bud Wilkinson at Oklahoma gets credit for having used it with New England in the early 1970’s when he became head coach of the Patriots.  Bill Parcell studied the 3-4 under Ron Erhardt at the New England as linebackers coach after Chuck Fairbanks returned briefly to college ball in 1978.  Parcells took the 3-4 to the New York Giants when he became head coach and Bill Belichick learned the defense there.  Both have won multiple NFL titles with the scheme.  Miami Dolphin fans note they played a version of it out of necessity in the 1973 season due to defensive line injuries that pressed a fourth linebacker #53 Bob Matheson onto the field.  They called it the 53 defense which no doubt caused some confusion as well.

Bum Phillips former coach of the Houston Oilers is also credited in various circles for bring the 3-4 to the NFL in the early 1970’s.  His son Wade Phillips used it with San Diego and now with the Dallas Cowboys as did Bill Parcell.  Some argue that the so called Phillips version of the 3-4 is inherently different today however as players attack into single gaps upon the snap of the ball and do not play two gaps.  Regardless both variations exist today and are mixed and matched to great confusion.  The Baltimore Ravens under Brian Billick employ one of the more complex and innovative defensive schemes in the NFL.  According to a presentation made linebackers coach Mike Pettine in 2005 for example the Ravens use 3-4 base personnel 100% of the time and yet played true 3-4 two gap alignment only 15% of the time that year.  The rest of the time they were slating into single gaps and stemming into over and under versions of the defensive front.  At times they would even play four down lineman in three point stances to further confuse the offense.  You can imagine the confusion in the fan base and media on what sort of defense the Ravens were actually playing!

 
Bear 46 Defense

There have of course been some very exotic sounding derivatives of the base defenses described above.  Each has had its brush with fame for a season or two and then receded quietly back into defensive playbooks.  The most famous example was the Chicago Bears “46 Defense” coached by defensive coordinator Buddy Ryan.  Contrary to what you might think this was not a defense that had 4 down lineman and 6 linebackers!  The name was based upon the jersey number worn by the Bear’s strong safety Doug Plank who played an instrumental role in the defense.

The defense is notable in several respects right away.  The intent of the defense is to apply pressure to the quarterback on pass plays and to provide a stout wall against run plays.  The defense was peculiar in multiple respects and bewildered opponents for the better part of two seasons in the NFL while winning one NFL Super Bowl in the process.  For starters the alignment had four down lineman in three point stances on the line of scrimmage making it “even” at first glance.  However it covered the center straight up in a “0 technique” which is more common of an “odd” alignment.  Confusing matters further the Nose Tackle, one Defensive End, and one Defensive Tackle all lined up in the middle of the field across the center and the shoulders of the two guards.  This made it virtually impossible to run the ball up the middle against the defense as the center could not scoop block or help double team any defender. 

Additionally the defense was problematic in that the weak-side linebacker and the strong-side linebacker both aligned on the line of scrimmage to the same side of the formation.  From here they could blitz in tandem, cover the tight end, or stuff the outer run gaps on plays to the strong side.  Offenses suddenly ran into a brick wall and they could not gain much ground against the defense.  This forced offenses into 3^rd and long passing situations which the defensive coordinator Buddy Ryan was hoping for all along.  

The final peculiar aspect of the alignment was that the strong side safety #46 Doug Plank lined up on the weak side of the formation and not the strong!  This peculiar alignment aspect is what gave it the distinctive name “46”.  For several seasons the defense terrorized the opposition until the chinks in the armor were eventually found and exploited.  Run plays would only work consistently against the weak side of the formation.   Some misdirection plays worked as well.  With the secondary almost exclusively in man coverage good QB’s could exploit the corners as Dan Marino famously did one Monday night in front of the nation.  West Coast style offense teams found success in throwing short quick timed routes to beat the pressure.  Today the defense is rarely used as a base defense any longer and mainly exists as a change of pace weapon a couple of plays per game by a few teams.

 
Double Eagle Defense

The last exotic derivative I'll mention that gets a fair amount of attention is the double eagle defense.  The double eagle shares much in common with the Bear’s 46 alignment.  Here is a diagram for comparison.

You’ll notice that it retains the feature of covering the center as well as having two defenders over the guards.  Runs to the middle are thus effectively negated on most plays if you have an effective nose tackle.  The Strong Side linebacker remained on the outside in a 9 technique spot while the weak-side and middle linebackers moved back to more traditional locations behind the defense.  The strong and free safety remained back in coverage as well.  At times defensive lineman were flexed a step or two off the line as well borrowing the idea from the Tom Landry style of 4-3 flex decades before.  The University of Arizona Wildcats played a version of the defense nicknamed "Desert Swarm" that was nearly impossible to run against in the Pac-10 conference for much of the mid 1990’s. Eventually coaches found ways to attack it with runs and passes and slowly it has faded back to a change of pace formation seen only a few times per year by different teams.  In general the "eagle" defense seems to be applied to any front nowadays where a guard and the center are covered up by the defense.  When both guards are covered as well as the center it often is called a "bear" alignment or double eagle.

The roots of the Bear 46 and the Double Eagle defenses trace back to the 1940’s and 1950’s and to the style of defensive line play used by Philadelphia Coach Early “Greasy” Neale according to Rex Ryan the son of Buddy Ryan, noted author of a book on the 46 defense, and an excellent coach in his own right.   Look closely at the previous diagram of the 46 defense for example and you’ll suddenly see that it is not too disimilar to to tight version of the Wide Tackle Six alignment back where we started.  Most defensive ideas and offensive schemes for that matter have their roots in the history of the game and are not formed in an empty vacuum.  Schemes are developed in response to a specific problem or an area of opportunity that presents itself on the field.  The current fad of the Urban Meyer type “spread offense” has lineage both in newer multi-receiver spread formations as well as older option football plays that ruled college football in the 1950’s through the 1970’s.  We’ll see the defenses that worked against them come and go again based upon need and shifting priorities in the game in order to defeat the opposition.   The tactical chess game of the offensive and defensive coordinator continues and is unfortunately invisible to most fans and not as well covered by the general TV media as I'd like to see.