Going to a 4-3 will NOT solve our defense's problems

[ikestops85]

Re: Going to a 4-3 will NOT solve our defense's problems

In a 4-3, most of your pressure comes from the DE's, while in a 3-4 most of your pressure comes from the OLB's. I think Woodley could be successful in either role, because he has shown what he can doing rushing the passer with his hand down in college and standing up in the pros. However, I wouldn't want to take away the weapon that you have in James Harrison, hoping that you would get similar sack production out of Brett Keisel. A switch to the 4-3 would neuter Harrison and expect a lot out of Keisel.

Again reference the Eagles game last year. You can generate just as much rush pressure form a LB in the 4-3 as the 3-4. In the 4-3 it may actually be easier to disguise because everyone knows Harrison is rushing out of our 3-4. Its all about how you scheme out of the 4-3 and the call you have on for that specific play.

Ask Kurt Warner how that worked out for him thinking Harrison was rushing the QB

[stlrz d]

Re: Going to a 4-3 will NOT solve our defense's problems

"A lot of great defenses are 4-3."
Well, guess what, so are a lot of 3-4 defenses. In fact, want to know how many of the top-five ranked defenses are 3-4 in the NFL right now? Four.

Yea we are ranked #5. How you liking that 6-6 record and 6 blown 4th quarter leads given to our opponents courtesy of our defense. Here are more details on overall defensive rankings:

#1 Green Bay, 3-4 defense, Record: 8-4
#2 New York Jets, 3-4 defense, Record: 6-6
#3 Denver Broncos, 3-4 defense, Record 8-4
#4 Bumgals, 4-3 defense, Record 9-3

BTW the UNDEFEATED Colts and Saints, both of whom play a 4-3 IIRC, are ranked #17 and #18 respectively. So much for defensive ranking. I'd trade records with either. teams with the best records seem to be playing 4-3 (Add Vikings 10-2). Coincidence? Maybe or maybe not? I think not.

Don't you just hate stats now?

Offensive rankings YPG:

Saints #1
Colts #4
Vikings #5

Offensive rankings total points scored:

Saints #1
Vikings #2
Colts #4

Offensive rankings PPG:

Saints #1
Vikings #2
Colts #4

Offensive friendly NFL rules...hmmmmmm....

[Oviedo]

Re: Going to a 4-3 will NOT solve our defense's problems

How's that 3-4 defense and all the flexibility it brings working for us

[Oviedo]

Re: Going to a 4-3 will NOT solve our defense's problems

Some thoughts on case for the 4-3:

1. Easier to restock talent. The 3-4 is difficult to staff on the DL because NTs are tough to find and DTs must become DEs. Plus the 3-4 forces us to ignore about half the yearly DL talent pool because speed 4-3 DEs in the range of 6'5" and 250-270lbs have to be excluded from consideration because they can't play 3-4 DE because of size and can't be converted to OLB because of speed. Is it really smart to ignore 40-50% of a talent pool? Additionally, top colleges are almost all going to a spread offense and the defensive reaction, particularly, on the DL is to go with DL more suited to the 4-3 than 3-4, e.g. speed pass rushers. Also, college LBs at the top schools play in a 4-3 predominantly. The transition for them would be quicker just like for the DL.

Colleges tend to imitate the pros when it comes to schemes. Since many pro teams are transitioning to the 3-4 I think you will see the same in the college ranks. Besides, the 3-4 is a quicker defense than the 4-3 and that will be used to advantage in stopping the spread offenses. As far as the talent pool goes most college DEs are too small to be playing DE in the pros. They are better suited as outside LBs. Many of the DTs are also too small to play that in the pros so they transition to DEs. So my point is that no matter what you are ignoring 40-50% of the talent pool. When push comes to shove either the guy has pro talent or he doesn't. If he does they will find a place for him. No matter what they will have a big learning curve.

2. The "redshirt effect". The 3-4 forces you to convert DTs to DEs and DEs to OLBs. Essentially this learning process means you lose a player for his rookie year or longer as he learns a new position. Not smart in a salary cap driven league where you need younger players able to contribute early to off set the high cap numbers against a core group of players. Also not a smart approach when injuries hit and you need young players to contribute now.

The steelers tend to lose a year for the rookies because they have talent on their starting lineup. Most teams you see that have rookies crack the starting lineup and make an impact do so because their defense isn't very good. The *'s drafted Mayo a couple of years ago and he did well for them his rookie year. Don't they play the 3-4? It's not the 3-4 that prevents rookies from starting on our defense ... it's the talent level we have on the team.

3. The "LeBeau effect." LeBeau is genius and the defense he runs is unique. What happens when he leaves? Will his replacement be able to "out genius" the other side like LeBeau? If the replacement can, is LeBeau really a genius? There is a concern that if LeBeau is a genius that any replacement will not be able to out Lebeau LeBeau.

LeBeau is not the ONLY genius in the NFL. He is a great D-Coordinator but their are others. If you look at the history of our defense I think you will see Dom Capers was the architect of the 3-4 in Pittsburgh. He brought back the Steel Curtain moniker that we had lost in the 80s. Now LeBeau has certainly put his stamp on the schemes he runs out of the 3-4 but Capers was damn good at it also.

We do have a LeBeau disciple waiting in the wings in Butler. Will he be as good as DL? Who knows but that would be the case whether we use the 3-4 or 4-3.

4. Will a 4-3 keep Troy healthier? As we have seen this year, no Troy equal no joy! The 3-4 and the scheme we run calls for Troy to really play what is a hybrid LB/DB position. That IMO punishes him physically. The 4-3 could potentially keep him in the line up more and have him do what we need him to do most...intercept passes because no one else can. Please don't come back with the argument that this would take away from Troy being "special." John Lynch playing out of the 4-3 Cover 2 SS position in Tampa was one of the very best players in the league and still was a force blitzing and intercepting passes.

I'm not sure why you think how we use Troy depends on the 3-4 or 4-3. Lynch at Tampa and Dawkins at Philly both played in a 4-3 and often were used as an extra linebacker ... both run blitzing and pass blitzing just like we use Troy. If you notice last year we got more pressure on the QB so we didn't use Troy as much as a pass rusher and he made all those interceptions. We were doing that with Troy this year also but he got hurt. Troy will play like Troy no matter what system we use and his style of play makes him injury prone. By the way, playing the 3-4 or 4-3 has nothing to do with playing a cover 2 defense. You can play the cover 2 out of the 3-4 (and we do at times) with no problem.

5. We will lose flexibility. No way. Remember the Eagles game last year. They played a 4-3 defense and had LBs coming from all directions and DL dropping into coverage. It's about the calls on defense not the base scheme.

I think many believe a Linebacker is more versatile than a defensive lineman. That is why they feel the 3-4 is more flexibile than the 4-3. I agree that you can blitz any position from either scheme

6. Personnel suitability. We have 4-3 personnel now. Woodley is a natural 4-3 DE whose strength is rushing the passer not covering RBs and TEs. Timmons is a natural 4-3 OLB not a 3-4 ILB run stuffer. Kiesel would excel as a 4-3 DE. Not enough space here to even begin discussing whether our DBs would be more successful in a Cover 2 as a routine versus as a variation.

I agree that Woodley's strength is rushing the passer. His weakness is also stopping the run. Having him play a DE position would make us more vulnerable to him being run over. He can use his quickness better stopping the run from an upright position where it's harder for the tackle to get his hands on him and ride him out of the play.

I can't say whether Timmons would be better on the outside since we haven't seen him work from there. I will say it's nice having his quickness on the inside where he can move sideline to sideline.

I do think Keisel would be a good 4-3 DE just as he is a good 3-4 DE. The problem is if you make him a 4-3 DE you neuter James Harrison. I don't ever want to put a leash on Jimmy Hate!!

I still don't see the coorelation between playing a 3-4 or 4-3 and a cover 2. Once again you CAN play the Cover 2 out of the 3-4.

Don't fear something different. The 3-4 was different at one time too.

My primary support of the 4-3 is primarily based on the talent restocking argument which is difficult for anyone to logically argue against (biut you guys will try) but you can twist this to whatever your preference is. IMO success is all about talent acquisition and the the ability to maintain a stream of talent flowing into this team at the entry level. I just think the 4-3 gives you advanatages in that area on multiple fronts.

I think we all agree the key to defensive success is talent. I just think we can still get great talent for the 3-4 system AND the 4-3 system. The reason I don't think we need to change is our strength is still in our linebacking corp. One of our weaknesses is the depth and age of our defensive line. Since the 3-4 puts more linebackers on the field at one time then go with your strength. If the defensive line becomes the strength of the team then switch to the 4-3. JMHO

Either way let's kick some Brownie arse tonight!!

All great points for your side of mthe argument, but the reason that our LBs are a strength is because we acquired LB talent to play the 3-4. You have to make the decision to shift to the 4-3 to give you the impetus to acquire the DL talent.

BTW--can you honestly believe that our LBs are a strength? Harrison, Woodley and Timmons are IMO top notch. Farrior is in RAPID decline. Other than Key Fox who do we have who will ever start an NFL game except in an extreme emergency? No one. We have three premier LBs but not really that much beyond that.

[SteelTorch]

Re: Going to a 4-3 will NOT solve our defense's problems

How's that 3-4 defense and all the flexibility it brings working for us

The defense wasn't really the problem last night...

By the way, you know the Browns run a 3-4? Seemed to work against us, didn't it?