3-4 or 4-3, Which do you prefer?

[Bizwah]

I prefer the 4-3.

I think the 4-3 is better at stopping the run. I know some 3-4 teams are very good at stopping the run, but if you don't have a stout NT, then you will get gashed up the middle.....this happened to us a lot last year.

But, I like what our team has with the 3-4 this year, so I can't complain. Ideally, we'd be able to run both.

Another thing to note about the 3-4. BP will leave soon...we all know this. The list of candidates that are versed in the 3-4 are very limited. I would hate to see Jerry "force" a 3-4 system on a new coach. That reeks of the pre-Bill era.

I guess that's my biggest worry right now. I'd hate to see us have to take a lesser coach just because he knows how to run a 3-4....but, I'd also hate to see us go through yet another scheme change.

 

[Stautner]

Aside from what you mentioned as part of the discrepancy -- that there are fewer 3-4 defenses -- another factor is that 4-3 DEs rush the passer on almost every passing down. It is much more common to see 3-4 OLBs drop into coverage.

Also, the OLBs who you say could easily convert to 4-3 DEs probably wouldn't be as effective. They're smaller and generally quicker, meaning they do better in space. As a 3-4 OLB, the odds are greater that a back will be stuck doing the blocking, especially if the Offense doesn't know from where the rush is coming. The 4-3 DE is basically stuck duking it out with an OT all day. Which brings you full circle. The versatility of the 3-4 if you can get the players who can rush from either OLB spot creates mismatches and gives you the advantage.

4-3 DE's don't rush the QB unrestrained every down. They have to play the run as well, and particularly on 1st downs or short yardage, playing the run is the priority.

But your point about 3-4 OLB's is well taken - and it fits with my original post about the 3-4 postions not really being that much easier to fill than the 4-3. OLB's with both the speed and strength to rush the QB effectively AND the athleticism to drop back in coverage aren't all that easy to find either.

As for the 3-4 OLB's that i mentioned - as I said, they are 270+, which is bigger than many of the DE's listed in the top 20, so it stands to reason that they could be successful as DE's as well. These smaller DE's have an advanage over 315 pound OT's who move much slower than they, just as the 3-4 OLB's have an advantage in size and strength over RB's that try to block them.

It seems that for every argument for the 3-4, there is an equal one regarding the 4-3.

The one (maybe only) argument that really makes sense to me favoring the 3-4 is that more blitz options are available - which is really just a function of having one less player on the line, and one more playing behind it.