4-3 or 3-4?

[Parcells4Life]

Do you prefer the 4-3 or 3-4?

I prefer the 4-3 for 3 reasons:

1) Look at the dominant defenses the last few years, Seattle and Carolina along with Baltimore which has been a hybrid of 4-3 and 3-4. My favrorite defense the last 10 years was the Carolina team that went to the Super Bowl that had the line of Buckner, Peppers, Jenkins and Rucker. Also don't forget the NASCAR line that the Giants had to beat the Patriots the last 5 years.

2) 4-3 collapses the pocked easier and really helps against the run. The 3-4 relies on edge pressure.

3) A lot of colleges, except for Saban at Alabama run 4-3 so it's easier to know how the college guys will translate to the pros. Same scheme in front 7 allows them to react more instead of thinking about coverage responsibilities.

 

[CyberB0b]

4-3, but we need someone just a shade younger than 70 this time.

 

[JBS]

4 new defensive starters or 3 new defensive starters? That's a better question. I'll go w 4

 

[NickZepp]

Just a better defense overall. Formation doesn't matter to me. Our talent isn't fit for the 4-3 right now. We don't have the line for the 4-3 right now. If we get better players for the 4-3 it's not a problem. If we keep the same type players we should go with the 3-4.

 

[Risen Star]

3-4.

When I think of the best defenses of the last 20 years, most of them have been in a 3-4. Last I looked, 7 of the top 10 ranked defenses in the league this year were 3-4 defenses. It's a superior scheme. It gives you more flexibility, more looks. It's easier to find a rush LB than it is a down DE who can consistently get to the QB.

I hated the switch. It made absolutely no sense and I'm not surprised at all that it's been an epic flop.

 

[NickZepp]

3-4.

When I think of the best defenses of the last 20 years, most of them have been in a 3-4. Last I looked, 7 of the top 10 ranked defenses in the league this year were 3-4 defenses. It's a superior scheme. It gives you more flexibility, more looks. It's easier to find a rush LB than it is a down DE who can consistently get to the QB.

I hated the switch. It made absolutely no sense and I'm not surprised at all that it's been an epic flop.

We didn't have the personal to make the switch. Tackles weren't good enough and Ware isn't a 4-3 DE.

 

[CyberB0b]

3-4.

When I think of the best defenses of the last 20 years, most of them have been in a 3-4. Last I looked, 7 of the top 10 ranked defenses in the league this year were 3-4 defenses. It's a superior scheme. It gives you more flexibility, more looks. It's easier to find a rush LB than it is a down DE who can consistently get to the QB.

I hated the switch. It made absolutely no sense and I'm not surprised at all that it's been an epic flop.

We ran nearly every variation of the 3-4 and were never successful at it, even with a guy like Wade Phillips, who is considered a 3-4 guru.

 

[Risen Star]

We didn't have the personal to make the switch. Tackles weren't good enough and Ware isn't a 4-3 DE.

So you're challenging the GM when he said the DL was a real strength of this team?

 

[Risen Star]

We ran nearly every variation of the 3-4 and were never successful at it, even with a guy like Wade Phillips, who is considered a 3-4 guru.

We weren't great at it because we never had a legitimate NT. Which is so ridiculously stupid it only occurs in Dallas under the Jones twins. It's akin to running the run-n-shoot with no receivers.

 

[xwalker]

Do you prefer the 4-3 or 3-4?

I prefer the 4-3 for 3 reasons:

1) Look at the dominant defenses the last few years, Seattle and Carolina along with Baltimore which has been a hybrid of 4-3 and 3-4. My favrorite defense the last 10 years was the Carolina team that went to the Super Bowl that had the line of Buckner, Peppers, Jenkins and Rucker. Also don't forget the NASCAR line that the Giants had to beat the Patriots the last 5 years.

2) 4-3 collapses the pocked easier and really helps against the run. The 3-4 relies on edge pressure.

3) A lot of colleges, except for Saban at Alabama run 4-3 so it's easier to know how the college guys will translate to the pros. Same scheme in front 7 allows them to react more instead of thinking about coverage responsibilities.

Both of these teams run a base 4-3 defense. Seattle does use some hybrid looks.
Seattle #1 in Yards Allowed
Carolina #1 in Points Allowed

 

[NickZepp]

We ran nearly every variation of the 3-4 and were never successful at it, even with a guy like Wade Phillips, who is considered a 3-4 guru.

Never is a strong word. We weren't bad some years. Certainly not that bad. Last year looks like a great year on defense compared to this year.

 

[NickZepp]

So you're challenging the GM when he said the DL was a real strength of this team?

We have one good Lineman. The rest are guys off the street or converted LBs.

 

[NickZepp]

It's all about the players. We need better linemen, better Safeties and probably better corners.

 

[Risen Star]

It's all about the players. We need better linemen, better Safeties and probably better corners.

Are you suggesting more cornerbacks?

Get down with the sickness, bro.

 

[tm1119]

Run a hybrid front 7 with man to man coverage behind it. Along the lines of a Seattle/Cinci type D. Big 280+ lb strongside DE with a pass rushing/attacking OLB. Get after the QB and hope that Carr, Scandrick, and Mo can play man D for 3-4 seconds. Makes the most sense to me.

 

[Picksix]

4-3 vs. 3-4 really doesn't matter unless you have the personnel to run either. Seattle's 4-3 works because they have a really good rotation of DL up front, with a good mix if beef and speed, fast, tough LB's, physical DB's and a great FS in Thomas. SF's 3-4 works because they also have great LB's, a stout NT, and a great 5 technique that can consistently stop the run AND get pressure on the QB. In other words, they both have the personnel to make their respective schemes work. I agree with Risen, in that we never had a proper NT for the 3-4, but I'd also like to add that we never had the 5-techniques to make it work either. We also haven't had the safeties to really make anything work. As for Ware, it's easy to look at this year and say he's not a good 4-3 DE, but with him being nicked up most of the year, he wouldn't have made a good anything. Once he was banged up last year, he wasn't a good OLB either.

 

[NickZepp]

Are you suggesting more cornerbacks?

Get down with the sickness, bro.

No better cornerbacks not more of them.

 

[TrailBlazer]

Our personnel is a better fit for the 3-4 right now. 3-4 4-4 3-3-5 whatever they will all be effective if you have the personnel to execute. 3-4 makes the most sense with our current personnel. My preference would be 4-3 like Seattle. But it would take time to get the right personnel to run it effectively.

 

[CyberB0b]

We weren't great at it because we never had a legitimate NT. Which is so ridiculously stupid it only occurs in Dallas under the Jones twins. It's akin to running the run-n-shoot with no receivers.

Well, I think a majority of those years, we didn't need a prototype NT, because we ran Wade's 1 gap "attacking" defense. We had Parcell's vanilla 2 gap with Jason Ferguson for a couple of years. Then, we had Rob Ryan's 2 gap base. I would argue the only time we didn't have a "legit" NT was during Rob Ryan's stay. During that whole run of 3-4 defenses, we only fielded 1 top 10 defense.

Our personnel is a better fit for the 3-4 right now.

I don't think so. It will compound our issues. We have no NT and only 1 true 3-4 DE. Ware will simply not be effective in any scheme anymore, he is done. We have 1 ILB in Lee, and a bunch of scrubs.

I agree, it doesn't matter what defense we run, we need more talent.

 

[xwalker]

Our personnel is a better fit for the 3-4 right now. 3-4 4-4 3-3-5 whatever they will all be effective if you have the personnel to execute. 3-4 makes the most sense with our current personnel. My preference would be 4-3 like Seattle. But it would take time to get the right personnel to run it effectively.

People that say this never give details.