Draft Countdown Forums

Draft Countdown Forums (http://www.draftcountdown.com/forum/index.php)
-   Pro Football (http://www.draftcountdown.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=44)
-   -   4-3 vs. 3-4 (http://www.draftcountdown.com/forum/showthread.php?t=975)

Paul 11-22-2006 01:15 AM

4-3 vs. 3-4
 
If you were running a team which defense scheme would you employ. And Why?

I would choose 3-4 for the extra speed you have on the field, the unpredictably, and the versatility.

InvisiblePinkUnicorn 11-22-2006 01:21 AM

I really like the 4-3 over set up, but that's not really an every play lineup. It gives the oppurtunity to put many great pass rushers on teh field as your Sam OLB should be a great pass rusher, and with 2 premier D Ends and atleast one great D tackle to free everyone else up, this system can dominate. Then have two MLB types at MLB and WLB and you're golden.

bearsfan_51 11-22-2006 01:24 AM

4-3 because Bill Parcells has a FUP.

San Diego Chicken 11-22-2006 01:24 AM

I like the 3-4, but not every team can run it because you need the right personel (also the reason that I think it's not as successful in college).

Moses 11-22-2006 01:53 AM

Really depends on what personnel I have but probably the 3-4 if I could pick any players.

Caddy 11-22-2006 03:13 AM

Personally, 4-3

Ravens1991 11-22-2006 08:12 AM

I would like a 4-3 with 2 gigantic run stuffers in the middle and 2 good non-stop pass rushers.

Staubach12 11-22-2006 08:30 AM

I've always liked the 3-4 because it allows you to be a bit more agressive. It's easier to confuse an offensive line, and sometimes it will force a back to stay and block in passing situations. When it's a run, more LBs gives you more speed to pursue.

therock6000 11-22-2006 08:32 AM

i prefer the 3-4...but like moses said, it depends on the group of players you have..

Smooth Criminal 11-22-2006 08:52 AM

I'd definately take the 3-4. You can create an awesome pass rush with the 4 linebackers and it is alot easier to stop the run up the middle with the two backers and a NT than with the two DTs and the one MLB.

11-22-2006 09:23 AM

3-4 for sure. Just look at the success it is having now...Peyton Manning himself cannot figure it out. Also, in 34 you are more athletic, and in the current NFL, that is what is most important.

draftguru151 11-22-2006 09:36 AM

Hybrid. 8)

bigbluedefense 11-22-2006 09:52 AM

Im a 3-4 guy. Always have been. Its better against the run, and its more confusing and versatile. You have more variety of plays, more blitz packages, mroe athletecism, and more confusion.

You obviously need the right personnell of course, but if Im building a defense from scratch, I build a 3-4 defense.

If I were to build a 4-3 defense, it would be built like the 2000 Ravens/Current Jaguars. I would want 2 massive DTs who devour the run, and a quick speedy MIKE who can make tackles sideline to sideline and defend the pass up the middle. Have a solid pass rusher DE, preferabley 2 of course, and quick speedy WILL who can also rush the passer.

If I were to give an example of 4-3 personnell that would be realistic under the salary cap, it would be this

DE - Osi Umenyiora :D
NT - Albert Haynesworth
UT - Marcus Stroud
DE - Reggie Hayward

WILL - Adalius Thomas
MIKE - Mike Peterson
SAM - insert blue collar guy

That would be a realistic and affordable front 7 in a 4-3, and thats the style I would build. I would want 2 run devouring DTs, 2 DEs who can rush the passer well plus stuff the run well, a pass rushing WILL who can play in space, and a pass coverage MIKE.

draftguru151 11-22-2006 10:00 AM

BBD you sure you don't want some smaller DL and some fast LBs so you can run a cover 2?

bigbluedefense 11-22-2006 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by draftguru151
BBD you sure you don't want some smaller DL and some fast LBs so you can run a cover 2?

:lol:

bigbluedefense 11-22-2006 10:11 AM

Thanks draftguru, you just gave me the perfect setup to rip into the Cover 2.

Cover 2 S UCKS

Defenses weren't meant to be wimpy. Those small quickies could get owned by the big overpowering olinemen I would build my offense around. Speed kills. Kills your run defense that is. Ive said it before and I'll say it again, any style defense who's major weakness is against the power run, and is built to stop the pass is not a good base defense. You cannot be an elite defense in this league either if you cannot play man coverage. And the small secondaries of the Cover 2 cannot hold up in their man assignments.

Cover 2 can't defend the TE entirely well either. And its too basic of a scheme. Come December when teams look at a year of tape and analyze your weaknesses, the Cover 2 scheme has no answer. Its too basic of a scheme, and you won't confuse any qbs with it.

Cover 2 can work, I won't deny that. But its just not my cup of tea. Theres too many inherit flaws in the philosophy. I grew up playing smashmouth football, and the Cover 2's philosophies go against most of the principles I grew up playing and believing in.

doingthisinsteadofwork 11-22-2006 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense
Thanks draftguru, you just gave me the perfect setup to rip into the Cover 2.

Cover 2 S UCKS

Defenses weren't meant to be wimpy. Those small quickies could get owned by the big overpowering olinemen I would build my offense around. Speed kills. Kills your run defense that is. Ive said it before and I'll say it again, any style defense who's major weakness is against the power run, and is built to stop the pass is not a good base defense. You cannot be an elite defense in this league either if you cannot play man coverage. And the small secondaries of the Cover 2 cannot hold up in their man assignments.

Cover 2 can't defend the TE entirely well either. And its too basic of a scheme. Come December when teams look at a year of tape and analyze your weaknesses, the Cover 2 scheme has no answer. Its too basic of a scheme, and you won't confuse any qbs with it.

Cover 2 can work, I won't deny that. But its just not my cup of tea. Theres too many inherit flaws in the philosophy. I grew up playing smashmouth football, and the Cover 2's philosophies go against most of the principles I grew up playing and believing in.

yah thats what oakland though in the superbowl about Tampa. :roll:
of course i blame gruden,sims,and that idiot barrett robins.

Mr. Stiller 11-22-2006 11:42 AM

by choice?

3-4

only fault is with not many colleges running it, and the ones that do don't have great players consistantly (Maryland with Merriman, Brooks/Parham from Virginia...)

Which leads to alot of subpar players sometimes and busts (See Jackson, Alonzo)

It's hard to project who is a clear cut LB and who could pull it off the best.


Which is why the 3-4 leads to fewer busts, because it's a system 98% of colleges use.

bigbluedefense 11-22-2006 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by doingthisinsteadofwork
Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense
Thanks draftguru, you just gave me the perfect setup to rip into the Cover 2.

Cover 2 S UCKS

Defenses weren't meant to be wimpy. Those small quickies could get owned by the big overpowering olinemen I would build my offense around. Speed kills. Kills your run defense that is. Ive said it before and I'll say it again, any style defense who's major weakness is against the power run, and is built to stop the pass is not a good base defense. You cannot be an elite defense in this league either if you cannot play man coverage. And the small secondaries of the Cover 2 cannot hold up in their man assignments.

Cover 2 can't defend the TE entirely well either. And its too basic of a scheme. Come December when teams look at a year of tape and analyze your weaknesses, the Cover 2 scheme has no answer. Its too basic of a scheme, and you won't confuse any qbs with it.

Cover 2 can work, I won't deny that. But its just not my cup of tea. Theres too many inherit flaws in the philosophy. I grew up playing smashmouth football, and the Cover 2's philosophies go against most of the principles I grew up playing and believing in.

yah thats what oakland though in the superbowl about Tampa. :roll:
of course i blame gruden,sims,and that idiot barrett robins.

You guys lost that SB because Tampa knew every play you were running. Lynch even said so. That was Gruden's playbook. Gruden taught Tampa's D everything they needed to know and the Bucs knew what the play was before the hike. It was like shooting fish in a bucket, Oakland had no chance.

Vince Lombardi 11-22-2006 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ravens1991
I would like a 4-3 with 2 gigantic run stuffers in the middle and 2 good non-stop pass rushers.

Same here. I like size on the d-line so they can just manhandle people in the trenches.

Moses 11-22-2006 01:35 PM

Cover 2 can work amazingly against any style of football if you have the right personnel.

Boston 11-22-2006 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moses
Cover 2 can work amazingly against any style of football if you have the right personnel.

So can any scheme.

PalmerToCJ 11-22-2006 02:43 PM

3-4... IMO it's easier to find a playmaking LB than a second solid DT. Plus I like the additional speed and different ways of rushing the passer you can use.

It's a shame we had to promote LeBeau to HC and give him the boot after sucking :lol:

Moses 11-22-2006 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boston
Quote:

Originally Posted by Moses
Cover 2 can work amazingly against any style of football if you have the right personnel.

So can any scheme.

True, I'm just saying that Cover 2 isn't as bad as some people here seem to think.

Ravens1991 11-22-2006 03:02 PM

In a 3-4 could 3 big 340+ d-lineman work well?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:10 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.