Talk:46 defense

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 46 is not the first 8 man front ever seen in the NFL[edit]

That honor probably belongs to the 6-2 defense that evolved in the early 1930s as a response to changes in the passing rules at the time. I find this insertion insulting, as the reference given doesn't make that claim. I know, I own the reference. And almost certainly, box safeties predate the appearance of the 46.

And apart from this, this article is awful, in terms of accuracy and coherence. The problem stems from people treating the 46 as some kind of broken weak side 4-3, as opposed to a separate integral defensive system based on what John Madden called the "diamond". Dwmyers (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree; this is one of the more egregiously inaccurate wiki pages related to sports I've seen. Embarrassing and somewhat entertaining how many uninformed fans like to throw in their 2 cents about this topic. 73.208.249.197 (talk) 06:41, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

46 as 4-3 or eight in the box defense[edit]

This is something that probably won't go away, as many journalists have called the 46 a 4-3. I'll note that the NFL Encyclopedia 'Total Football II' does not call it a 4-3, instead saying the players line up in a 4-4-3, and that Rex Ryan's book on the 46 calls it a member of the 8 man front family right on page 9. The more coaching-centric the source, the more likely they identify this defense as a 8 man line, either a 6-2 or a 4-4 or the like. Problem is, some of the best resources on the 46 these days are coaching blogs and the Coach Huey forum, none of which have the reputation or authority of a trained (but relatively football illiterate) journalist. Dwmyers (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Name of the 46 defense[edit]

I DID do a Google search, and didn't see any mention of the origin of the 46 defense as it connected to Doug Plank's jersey number OTHER than the reference site that quoted an interview with DOUG PLANK. I mean, if there are other sources, fine, but just believing some dude saying his jersey number was the origin of the defense's name isn't credible to me. If anything it seems more coincidental, since the 4-6 actually refers to the positioning of the players much in the same way that the 3-4 and 4-3 refer to the numbers of down lineman and linebackers. I am not going to revert the change, yet, but please provide additional sourcing for your position, that in all honesty, seems downright ridiculous and outlandish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.106.119 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 16 February 2008

Read the sources in this article, and watch the ESPN film. Or, watch America's Game segment for 1985 Chicago Bears, where I'm pretty sure Ditka mentions Doug Plank as the origin of the defense's name. If you want other WP:RS in additions to the documentaries and other cited references:

If you think the information is still incorrect or inaccurate, please try to find a reference that overrides this claim. Thanks --ShadowJester07 ► Talk 21:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaNmQdLxGko
From a guy that knows. 73.208.249.197 (talk) 06:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

46 and Eagle Front separate defenses[edit]

The opening line about the 46 being "sometimes called the eagle front" is an incorrect statement, as the latter is a scheme, detailed on the following page, that employs only two down lineman and five linebackers, while the 46 is operated using personnel in the fashion of either its original incarnation's 4-3, or Rex and Rob Ryan's new 3-4, look. Basically, the eagle front is a system that emphasizes highly flexible linebackers in general, while the 46 is specifically a highly asymmetrical realignment of what was/is an already standard form. As such, that referral should be changed and clarified. --Chr.K. (talk) 06:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Need to be careful about the phrase "eagle" in general, because some people use the term "eagle" to mean a 3 technique defender. Hence, a double eagle is a defense with 2 3 technique linemen. That means the 5-2 Eagle is a double eagle, the 46 is a double eagle, and "eagling" the 3-4 front from a 4-0-4 to a 3-0-3 also yields a double eagle. The problem is that the phrase "eagle" is ambiguous and very poorly defined. The 5 linebacker defense of Fritz Schurmer *may* be called an Eagle defense because it sometimes has a 3-0-3 front, or it *may* be called an "eagle" because it is almost always a double eagle front. If you don't believe me, track down John T Reed's site sometime, find his football dictionary, go to the Eagle entry, and watch a Harvard educated football coach rant about vague and ambiguous language. Dwmyers (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bump-and-Run[edit]

I am adding the fact that a major key to the 46 defense, is the ability of the corner backs to play Bump-and-Run coverage effectively. I say that because it is vital in interrupting the quick decision making the quarterback needs to beat the pass rush heavy 46 scheme. Does anybody have any objections or suggestions?

--Kmoore0070 (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid original research, there should be a reference from a website or written work regarding the rationale, if possible. --Chr.K. (talk) 05:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reference given (#4, no page numbers) I own, and I see no material whatsoever in Ryan and Walker covering bump and run. Ryan and Walker is intended for high school athletes with high school coaches and it focuses on various zone coverages. Dwmyers (talk) 02:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 46 defense. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 46 defense. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:46_defense&oldid=1197047351"