3-4 thoughts

by queler on Jan 21, 2009 5:13 PM EST Comment 12 comments

There's been some suggestions that switch to a 3-4 would be good. I think there are some big problems with that, but I'm an armchair football player, so I thought I'd put it in a FanPost for discussion. Obviously the biggest problem is the personnel. As I see it, the biggest need for a successful 3-4 is what Gregg Easterbrook calls a Ticonderoga-class Nose Tackle. Guys like Ted Washington, who eat up two offensive lineman on every play. There are so few guys like that in the league, I think that's one of the reasons not a lot of teams play it.

I'm not sure what I would call this scale (size or quickness) but I would order these positions like this: 3-4 OLB, 4-3 DE, 3-4 DE, 4-3 DT. The positions just don't line up. Kiwi is probably the one guy who could be a 3-4 OLB, and maybe Tuck could be a 3-4 DE, based on his play inside last year. A DE in a 3-4 plays more like a tackle and eats up lineman so the LBs can make the plays. The biggest reasons the giants have gone away from the 3-4 in the last decade is because MIchael Strahan was at least one of the three best 4-3 Defensive Ends of All-Time.

At LB, we can barely field 3 LB's right now, so I don't see how we could field 4. I think I saw an interview with Accorsi (maybe), where he said one of the biggest reasons for not implementing the 3-4 is the cap. LB's cost more then lineman. That's why the Steelers have to turnover their LBs so frequently. With the money we're going to tie up in Eli and Jacobs, I can't imagine being able to afford a 3-4 for more then a couple of years.

Thoughts?

FanPosts are written by community members. This is simply a way for community members to express opinions too long to be contained in a comment.

1 recs | Comment 12 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

The biggest way to succede in a 3-4 is having D-linemen that eat up blockers. It is vital for a 3-4 to have linemen who can be double teamed which makes it so much easier for the linebackers to make plays. 4-3 DE and 3-4 DE are very different positions and is not an easy thing to translate to. Based on the early season success of the front four what the team needs is another body or two to give a good end/tackle rotation.

by archon095 on Jan 21, 2009 5:19 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Very astute analysis

by blue gonz on Jan 21, 2009 5:27 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

This is why

I love the folks at BBV. Very intelligent, thoughtful stuff.

by Ed Valentine on Jan 21, 2009 5:54 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I really think 3-4 is a great system

but it doesn’t make the best use of the personnel we have now. My hope is we draft some LB’s this year and next, and (hopefully) end up with a crop of dynamic young linebackers, maybe allowing for a turnover to 3-4 in the future.

"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw

by squid92 on Jan 21, 2009 6:05 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

The Cowboys run a 3-4 with an undersized NT in Jay Ratliff

But he’s the exception rather than the rule. It also depends on if you’re going to run a 2 gap or a 1 gap alignment. One thing that I’ve learned is that going to a different scheme just for the sake of doing it is crazy. Put the best 11 players that you’ve got on the field at the same time and call it whatever you want.

by kameleon_o on Jan 21, 2009 6:47 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

And the cowboys have had problems stopping the run

by archon095 on Jan 21, 2009 9:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

They have but I don't know if it was Ratliff's fault or not

Their DE’s are prototypical 3-4 DE’s but that doesn’t mean they’re very good. Canty was in a contract year and played horribly. Ratliff and the single gap 3-4 provides more pass rush than the 2 gap but your LB’s have to play their assignments behind them or your in trouble.

by kameleon_o on Jan 21, 2009 9:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It could work

I don’t advocate switching to a 3-4, but I think it could be done. I think Cofield and Robbins could do a credible job splitting time at the nose (with Robbins being in on passing downs). Osi and Tuck would play the ends. Kiwi could play one OLB, and as long as you keep him out of coverage as much as possible, I think he’d benefit by rushing from behind the line. He’s a speed guy and rushing from the LB spot would utilize his speed better. But after that, we’d have to pick a really good, proven free agent backer to play the other outside position, and hope that we get somebody good in the draft or that one of the existing young backers develops. So, I think it could be done, but with an established team like this that has most of its talent at D-line, the risks that come with transition seem too great to take.

by Tucker Fredrickson on Jan 21, 2009 8:13 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Osi

Tuck could be marginal at 3-4 End, but both of them would be wasted. That was kinda my comment on Strahan. 3-4 Ends are not pass rushers. Osi and Tuck are both prototypical 4-3 DEs. Pass rush generally comes from the LBs in a 3-4.

Jay Alford is probably an End in a 3-4, to give you some idea. I can’t see any reason to think Cofield would succeed as NT

by queler on Jan 21, 2009 10:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

who needs it!!!!

i say forget a 3-4 defense and stick with whats working now. what were we 5th or 6th in the league in defense. GET BETTER PLAYERS AT THE LINEBACKER POSITION! thats what it all it boils down to. when was the last time we spent money on a big time defensive player?? or two!

by rumble27 on Jan 25, 2009 9:24 AM EST reply actions 0 recs