Jump to content

4-3 Or 3-4 Or Multiple?


The O.D.B
 Share

Recommended Posts

I really hate this question because each poster has a defense they like and think we should implement. So, I'm asking you to drop your bias for a moment and reflect on our current roster and most likely off-season moves.

What defensive front could bring us the most success the quickest? IE: move forward to complete the move to a 3-4 or revert back to a 4-3 base?

Me:

3-4 = Means bringing in more LBs so that our MLBs are bigger and our OLBs are actually OLBs and not converted DEs. It would seem to also mean bringing in more DLine guys to add depth. It seems the moves to make this happen would cost us a lot of experience and team scheme familiarity.

4-3 = Our lines looked pretty good with a 4 man front this year. The only changes I see are bringing back Spoon, Getting some LB depth and Pass rusher in FA or Draft. The challenge here is the top draft prospects are light and don't project well in a 4-3 (though I do think Beasley could play)

I'm thinking revert to 4-3, what say you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me just say this. To get my defensive fix, I would sometimes watch the Jets.

Glad I'm not the only one who did this... only I'd go watch Pete Carroll's defenses to get my fix.

And to the OP's question. 4-3 or 3-4 doesn't really matter in the NFL right now, because your defense is going to be made or broken in the sub packages, and that's where Rex Ryan has always excelled to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With 3 WRs being the standard, stress needs to stop being placed on 3-4/4-3, because the nickel packages you implement is going to be what makes your defense. Nolan didn't just decide to make us a "nickel defense" as people said throughout the season, we've been running that since 2008.

In the end, you have to have the talent to win the 1 vs 1s more times than not, and we don't have that right now. We don't have a single lineman than can stop the run and rush the passer, Paul Worrilow is a terrible MLB, and our secondary gets baked outside of Trufant on the regular.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glad I'm not the only one who did this... only I'd go watch Pete Carroll's defenses to get my fix.

And to the OP's question. 4-3 or 3-4 doesn't really matter in the NFL right now, because your defense is going to be made or broken in the sub packages, and that's where Rex Ryan has always excelled to me.

Seattle is easy for me to do. I actually enjoy watching them. Their defense is just crazy fun to watch. Unpredictable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3-4 man to man coverage. Its also probably the scheme we have the most personnel to run right now, maybe 4 starters away(every single linebacker spot) and then of course a bunch of guys can be upgraded.

Get Rex Ryan Jason Worilds and Brandon Spikes.

Quinn would need either a rushing LB or Greg Hardy. And maybe a shut em down safety like Landon Collins. Who by the way would be my first pick if Randy Gregory wasn't available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we're going to talk what kind of defenses we want to see, I think we should talk a little more in depth about scheme instead of alignment because -- alignment is not a defense! Who has their hand on the ground or who doesn't isn't a defense.

When we talk about what we want to see we need to talk about responsibilities, coverage, etc. Do we want a big two gap defense, or a quick, penetrating one gap scheme? Do we want to base out of a single high look or more quarters, or man to man? Do we want physical corners who can support the run, or are we just concerned about them in coverage?

What do we want the linebacking corp to look like, etc? I think this board has evolved enough for that.

Personally, I prefer a quick, penetrating defense: one gap and let's attack. I want big interior guys, but not at the expense of quickness. I like rangy linebackers who can read fast and play downhill. Once again, I'm not as concerned about size. I'll take a 6'0" 230lb Mike who can run over a 6'4" 250 lb specimen who may be a step slow. I need guys who can run because I want to focus on my underneath coverage with all the TE/H-Back hybrids wreaking havoc.

In a perfect world, I'd have a Von Miller type who I could play on or off the LOS, and as my primary edge rusher in Sub.

I like what Seattle does with their secondary. It's a stop the run at all cost and force you into long yardage. Chancellor is basically a 4th linebacker in early downs. And I've fallen in love with quarters coverage because it can handle and adjust to just about anything. And depending on your rules, it can morph into man coverage at the snap.

Now it's important to remember that every defense has its weaknesses. Press man has its weaknesses, zone has its weaknesses. One gap defenses are susceptible to misdirection stuff. O-line coaches spend copious amounts of time designing blocking schemes to throw off linebacker keys to get them out of position. That's what made Harbaugh's ground game so brilliant.

2 Gap defenses can be suseptible to zone type plays because with the natural bubbles, the OL can climb to the second level a little easier.

Edited by PeytonMannings Forehead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really hate this question because each poster has a defense they like and think we should implement. So, I'm asking you to drop your bias for a moment and reflect on our current roster and most likely off-season moves.

What defensive front could bring us the most success the quickest? IE: move forward to complete the move to a 3-4 or revert back to a 4-3 base?

Me:

3-4 = Means bringing in more LBs so that our MLBs are bigger and our OLBs are actually OLBs and not converted DEs. It would seem to also mean bringing in more DLine guys to add depth. It seems the moves to make this happen would cost us a lot of experience and team scheme familiarity.

4-3 = Our lines looked pretty good with a 4 man front this year. The only changes I see are bringing back Spoon, Getting some LB depth and Pass rusher in FA or Draft. The challenge here is the top draft prospects are light and don't project well in a 4-3 (though I do think Beasley could play)

I'm thinking revert to 4-3, what say you?

Doesn't much matter if they still can't tackle. Personally, I prefer a 4-3 though.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we're going to talk what kind of defenses we want to see, I think we should talk a little more in depth about scheme instead of alignment because -- alignment is not a defense! Who has their hand on the ground or who doesn't isn't a defense.

When we talk about what we want to see we need to talk about responsibilities, coverage, etc. Do we want a big two gap defense, or a quick, penetrating one gap scheme? Do we want to base out of a single high look or more quarters, or man to man? Do we want physical corners who can support the run, or are we just concerned about them in coverage?

What do we want the linebacking corp to look like, etc? I think this board has evolved enough for that.

Personally, I prefer a quick, penetrating defense: one gap and let's attack. I want big interior guys, but not at the expense of quickness. I like rangy linebackers who can read fast and play downhill. Once again, I'm not as concerned about size. I'll take a 6'0" 230lb Mike who can run over a 6'4" 250 lb specimen who may be a step slow. I need guys who can run because I want to focus on my underneath coverage with all the TE/H-Back hybrids wreaking havoc.

In a perfect world, I'd have a Von Miller type who I could play on or off the LOS, and as my primary edge rusher in Sub.

I like what Seattle does with their secondary. It's a stop the run at all cost and force you into long yardage. Chancellor is basically a 4th linebacker in early downs. And I've fallen in love with quarters coverage because it can handle and adjust to just about anything. And depending on your rules, it can morph into man coverage at the snap.

Now it's important to remember that every defense has its weaknesses. Press man has its weaknesses, zone has its weaknesses. One gap defenses are susceptible to misdirection stuff. O-line coaches spend copious amounts of time designing blocking schemes to throw off linebacker keys to get them out of position. That's what made Harbaugh's ground game so brilliant.

2 Gap defenses can be suseptible to zone type plays because with the natural bubbles, the OL can climb to the second level a little easier.

Hall of Fame Post

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we're going to talk what kind of defenses we want to see, I think we should talk a little more in depth about scheme instead of alignment because -- alignment is not a defense! Who has their hand on the ground or who doesn't isn't a defense.

When we talk about what we want to see we need to talk about responsibilities, coverage, etc. Do we want a big two gap defense, or a quick, penetrating one gap scheme? Do we want to base out of a single high look or more quarters, or man to man? Do we want physical corners who can support the run, or are we just concerned about them in coverage?

What do we want the linebacking corp to look like, etc? I think this board has evolved enough for that.

Personally, I prefer a quick, penetrating defense: one gap and let's attack. I want big interior guys, but not at the expense of quickness. I like rangy linebackers who can read fast and play downhill. Once again, I'm not as concerned about size. I'll take a 6'0" 230lb Mike who can run over a 6'4" 250 lb specimen who may be a step slow. I need guys who can run because I want to focus on my underneath coverage with all the TE/H-Back hybrids wreaking havoc.

In a perfect world, I'd have a Von Miller type who I could play on or off the LOS, and as my primary edge rusher in Sub.

I like what Seattle does with their secondary. It's a stop the run at all cost and force you into long yardage. Chancellor is basically a 4th linebacker in early downs. And I've fallen in love with quarters coverage because it can handle and adjust to just about anything. And depending on your rules, it can morph into man coverage at the snap.

Now it's important to remember that every defense has its weaknesses. Press man has its weaknesses, zone has its weaknesses. One gap defenses are susceptible to misdirection stuff. O-line coaches spend copious amounts of time designing blocking schemes to throw off linebacker keys to get them out of position. That's what made Harbaugh's ground game so brilliant.

2 Gap defenses can be suseptible to zone type plays because with the natural bubbles, the OL can climb to the second level a little easier.

Probably the best post I've ever seen on this board.

I want a 1 gap attacking defense with 2 big athletic interior DL who can switch between one and 2 gap principles.

Speed and size at LB. This is the main problem with our D. All our LBs are trash. I want a big, fast 3 down MLB (David Harris, Spoon) who can play downhill and shed blocks and someone who can fly at the WLB (Paul Dawson 2nd rd). Both need to be good in coverage and sound tacklers. IMO instincts are more important at LB than size, and can make up for lack of speed in some instances, so I def don't want big slow guys. I don't even want my DL slow tbh. Speed everywhere.

SLB who can rush the passer and cover (ALVIN DUPREE!!!). Two long speedy DEs who can run the arc and hold POA against the run. (No more relying on Babs to set the edge smh.) In some sub packages we can have 3 edge rushers on the field at the same time (Michael Bennett/Cliff Avril/Bruce Irvin)=(Charles Johnson/Jerry Hughes/Alvin Dupree).

Willy Mo needs to strictly play in the box and has to improve his tackling. I'd sub him for Southward on passing downs with Lowery at FS. Dropping that SS down in the box helps with pass rush too cause you can disguise the rushers/blitzers easier and dictate the pass pro match ups. And if we had a Charles Johnson type LE we could shift him to the 3 tech on some sub packages to get a 1-on-1 with a G and get an additional edge rusher at OLB since our SS will really be playing a LB responsibility. (Similar to what the Seahawks do when they shift Bennett inside.)

I like single high S/Cover 3 and press-man. (Both our starters are press corners and I'm hoping we get Marcus Peters.) I like the Darelle Revis/Trufant sized CBs. 6' 190-200 and solid tacklers who stick their noses in on the run game. I don't want a complicated coverage scheme for our DBs (re: Bears game) and we've never been good at zone coverage. Get some guys on the DL who can get the ball out early and have our DBs disrupt the timing of the routes at the LOS. I hate seeing WRs, esp. fast ones, come off the line full speed, untouched.

Edited by MoundBred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...