Houston2Taylor2Landry Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 Not saying we should but just proposing a question... Given the Defensive roster as it stands, how well would this D be playing if we had a 4-3 D? Let's Go!:helmet: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinzfever2010 Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 I asked this same question and got killed for it man. I hate the way I'm marginalized here only to be proven right by the results on the field. I think they should contemplate playing some sort of hybrid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kubstix Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 IMO, the problem with the 3-4 is stopping the run. I feel a 4-3 is better on the run and a 3-4 is better pass rush thus better corner play as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor 36 Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 Seriously? Why would you **** with what we have been working towards for the past two years? Haslett brought in a system that he put in place early, so early that we didn't have all the right personnel to run it. But, it wasn't all about winning, it was about LEARNING and BUILDING. We are building up this defense. The players are learning the scheme. The D has jump light years ahead of where they were last year. Why, you ask. Because it is working. Things are moving in the right direction. Another season learning this scheme and another off season getting a couple of more key players and this defense will be great. It is the best unit we have right now, even with one of our best defensive players on IR before the season started. So, again, I ask why the **** you would want to mess with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinzfever2010 Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 IMO, the problem with the 3-4 is stopping the run. I feel a 4-3 is better on the run and a 3-4 is better pass rush thus better corner play as well. I think our secondaries were better in our 4-3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KCClybun Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 I asked this same question and got killed for it man. I hate the way I'm marginalized here only to be proven right by the results on the field. I think they should contemplate playing some sort of hybrid. They do run a hybrid. There have been plays this where both Brian Orakpo and Ryan Kerrigan rush the passer from either a three point or four point stand. As for the 3-4 having a problem stopping the run, the top three teams in rushing defense right now all run a 3-4 defense. 3 of the bottom 4 teams in rushing D run a 4-3. It's not the scheme. It's the execution. Literally nothing different would be accomplished by moving back to a 4-3, and honestly, it's kind of tiring that people won't let the 4-3 thing go. We've been in the 3-4 defense for a season and a half and have begun drafting pieces to compliment that defense. We're not going back to the 4-3. Fact is, we're a pressure defense. When we can generate pressure, we kick teams asses. When we can't, because a team has a mobile quarterback or begins to use 3-5 step quick passes to negate that pressure, we struggle. Fact is, if we went back to the 4-3 Sunday, we'd have the same problem, because that was the problem with our 4-3 defense before. We were great at generating pressure, but when teams dealt with our pressure, we got exposed. Theoretically, nothing would change. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston2Taylor2Landry Posted October 26, 2011 Author Share Posted October 26, 2011 I asked this same question and got killed for it man. I hate the way I'm marginalized here only to be proven right by the results on the field. I think they should contemplate playing some sort of hybrid. I don't have a "Problem" with the 3-4 per say, I'm just posing the question: With our defensive roster, how well could this D perform in a 4-3. And if you ask me, I'm gonna say beautifully. We have a 4-3 DT playing nose tackle (He's played well) and he was a very good 4-3 DT by the way. Our 2 OLB's are AMAZING 4-3 D ends I believe. London is a beastly MLB. Rocky is an average ROLB in the 4-3. We could have Rob Jackson start at LOLB. I do however feel a little reserved about how Landry could perform in a 4-3. I know he was pretty good in 2007 playing a 4-3, but I'm not sure if a 4-3 gives a superstar SS(Yes, he is a SUPER STAR SS, If you're asking "Where has he been this year" you must be blind) a chance to make the plays he could in a 3-4. But other than that...We seem to fit a 4-3 pretty beautifully. PS. Again, Not saying we SHOULD go back to a 4-3, just asking how we WOULD do in a 4-3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitman21ST Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 To answer the question, Our line would be pretty damn good (Orakpo, Bowen, Cofield, Kerrigan) Our linebackers would be a little above average (McIntosh, Fletcher, Fox?) Our defensive backs would be the same Overall though, I think we would be in the same spot, but with less upside for the future. IIRC though, when the 3-4 was first introduced to the NFL, it was brought in to stop the run. I could be mistaken though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kubstix Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 I think our secondaries were better in our 4-3. Yeah but our secondary in the 4-3 was lots talented compared to what we have now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flexxskins Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 Seriously? Why would you **** with what we have been working towards for the past two years? Haslett brought in a system that he put in place early, so early that we didn't have all the right personnel to run it. But, it wasn't all about winning, it was about LEARNING and BUILDING. We are building up this defense. The players are learning the scheme. The D has jump light years ahead of where they were last year. Why, you ask. Because it is working. Things are moving in the right direction. Another season learning this scheme and another off season getting a couple of more key players and this defense will be great. It is the best unit we have right now, even with one of our best defensive players on IR before the season started. So, again, I ask why the **** you would want to mess with that?Wow, although I agree with what you said, you responded like the OP asked the question a million times. Read his first sentence again. Damn.Anyway, just adding a little to what 36 said, I also believe that our defense will be much better once our offense gets better and gives them a breather. Our D is exhusted. Also, keep in mind OP that our D is #1 in the league on 3rd down converversions. IMO that's saying something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aarobinson Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 3-4 vs 4-3 has nothing to do with the secondary whatsoever. to answer the OP's question, I assume you'd want Orakpo and Kerrigan at DE... we'd have two undersized DE's one serviceable but totally average OLB in Rocky and nobody to play on the other side. We'd get run over. Or we could keep Orakpo at OLB and line up Kerrigan at DE. You'd get to see Orakpo in coverage a lot more than you do now. I don't think that's what you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor 36 Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 Wow, although I agree with what you said, you responded like the OP asked the question a million times. Read his first sentence again. Damn.Anyway, just adding a little to what 36 said, I also believe that our defense will be much better once our offense gets better and gives them a breather. Our D is exhusted. Also, keep in mind OP that our D is #1 in the league on 3rd down converversions. IMO that's saying. It wasn't meant to be harsh to the OP, it was more of an answer to him while answering/commenting the second post in the thread at the same time. Maybe I should have quoted them both. It is tiring how some people won't let go of the 4-3. We are moving forward. Sure, there are always going to be some bumps in the road, but we have committed to the direction; it doesn't make any snse to change course now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRAVEONAWARPATH Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 I actually like our personnel better for the 4-3. My lineup: Brian Orakpo RDE Barry Cofield RDT Stephen Bowen LDT Adam Carriker LDE Rocky McIntosh ROLB London Fletcher MLB Ryan Kerrigan LOLB Deangelo Hall CB Josh Wilson CB Laron Landry SS O.J. Atogwe FS Edit: Barry Coefield much like Albert Haynesworth, isn't a NT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston2Taylor2Landry Posted October 26, 2011 Author Share Posted October 26, 2011 Wow, although I agree with what you said, you responded like the OP asked the question a million times. Read his first sentence again. Damn.Anyway, just adding a little to what 36 said, I also believe that our defense will be much better once our offense gets better and gives them a breather. Our D is exhusted. Also, keep in mind OP that our D is #1 in the league on 3rd down converversions. IMO that's saying. Oh, I LOVE where this Defense is headed, and I'm don't have a single problem with running it. I was just thinking, that with the players we have NOW, how would this Defense do in a 4-3. I'm thinking of some questions... Would lining Kerrigan and Orakpo up as D ends and Rob Jackson as an OLB cause more pressure? How would the LB core do? Secondary? Could Landry continue to be a playmaker? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aarobinson Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 I actually like our personnel better for the 4-3.My lineup: Brian Orakpo RDE Brandon Cofield RDT Stephen Bowen LDT Adam Carriker LDE Rocky McIntosh ROLB London Fletcher MLB Ryan Kerrigan LOLB Deangelo Hall CB Josh Wilson CB Laron Landry SS O.J. Atogwe FS There's really no necessary schematic difference between this and what we run now, except that Orakpo has his hand down rather than up. and Bowen and Cofield should be flip flopped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRAVEONAWARPATH Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 There's really no necessary schematic difference between this and what we run now, except that Orakpo has his hand down rather than up. and Bowen and Cofield should be flip flopped. There's a big difference imo. Orakpo wouldn't have to play in space and Coefield would be playing his natural position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KCClybun Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 Edit: Brandon Coefield much like Albert Haynesworth, isn't a NT. Brandon Coefield isn't a player on this football team... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enter Apotheosis Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 Not saying we should but just proposing a question...Given the Defensive roster as it stands, how well would this D be playing if we had a 4-3 D? We'd be no better off. The 4-3 would not magically fix this team's tendency to over-pursue or miss tackles nor would it magically lead to more sacks, fumbles, or interceptions. If anything, it would put less talent on the field in base packages because we'd have to swap out a starting defensive lineman for a backup ILB. I actually like our personnel better for the 4-3.My lineup: Your lineup presents no advantage over a 3-4 lineup. In fact, you'd probably end up playing a 4-3 front that looks almost exactly the same as our current 3-4 front if you wanted to take advantage of Kerrigan's pass-rushing talents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrypticVillain Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 I like the 4-3 better than the 3-4, but that is just me. I liked the way our defense have played this year. Like others have said, the problem with our secondary would still exist even with the switch back to 4-3. It would probably be worst given the fact that the 3-4 does cost a little bit more pressure to the QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrJL Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 I actually like our personnel better for the 4-3.My lineup: Adam Carriker LDE . Sadly Carriker has never materaliezed as 4-3 end or tackle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRAVEONAWARPATH Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 Brandon Coefield isn't a player on this football team... Apologies. ---------- Post added October-26th-2011 at 11:21 PM ---------- Sadly Carriker has never materaliezed as 4-3 end or tackle. I know.....though he does have 4.5 sacks this season....fwiw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JesseNeckred Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 we already do sort of run a hybrid, with our nickel packages and all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enter Apotheosis Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 we already do sort of run a hybrid, with our nickel packages and all... Not very many people realize that the difference between a 3-4 and 4-3 or a 4-2 and a 2-4 is actually pretty negligible in the grand scheme of things. Scheme and playcalling, not alignment, is what makes defenses truly different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 3-4 is a better natural run defense while a 4-3 is naturally better versus the pass. In any case, I'd think we'd probably be better at stopping yards but suck hard in terms of points and turnovers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 The alignment of our front 7 has nothing to do with the secondary play. That remains pretty much the same regardless. We run TONS of hybrid. Count how many times a game we are in a 4-3. No team in the NFL sticks with one alignment on 100 percent of the snaps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.