Time to move to a 4-3?

[Thrillsseeker]

Instead of moving to a 4-3 or a penetrating 3-4... how about we move to a defense of any kind.

+1

[Steelperch]

I've never bought into the 4-3 switch. However with the dire straights this defense is in I think it's a lot easier to find a couple 43 DEs right now than 34 OLBs.

Hayward would be my LDE. Tuitt and McClendon on the inside. Find a RDE in fa and another early in the draft. Jerrvis to SLB. Timmons to MLB. Shazier to WLB. Williams, Spence, Garvin, and Zumwalt is plenty of depth. No need to resign Harrison or Moats. Spend all that cap room on edge rushers.

[bradshaw2ben]

I mean, the way you switch fronts isn;t to just one day say "hey, we're a 4-3 now." The way you do it is to become multiple-- some plays you line up 3-4 and some plays you go 4-3... in effect, a transition year or two. The Patriots, for instance, did it that way and it actually was a strength for them.

[Thrillsseeker]

I've never bought into the 4-3 switch. However with the dire straights this defense is in I think it's a lot easier to find a couple 43 DEs right now than 34 OLBs.

Hayward would be my LDE. Tuitt and McClendon on the inside. Find a RDE in fa and another early in the draft. Jerrvis to SLB. Timmons to MLB. Shazier to WLB. Williams, Spence, Garvin, and Zumwalt is plenty of depth. No need to resign Harrison or Moats. Spend all that cap room on edge rushers.

I like it and like you think, we are not that far off.

I mean, the way you switch fronts isn;t to just one day say "hey, we're a 4-3 now." The way you do it is to become multiple-- some plays you line up 3-4 and some plays you go 4-3... in effect, a transition year or two. The Patriots, for instance, did it that way and it actually was a strength for them.

Right on!

[Steelperch]

I mean, the way you switch fronts isn;t to just one day say "hey, we're a 4-3 now." The way you do it is to become multiple-- some plays you line up 3-4 and some plays you go 4-3... in effect, a transition year or two. The Patriots, for instance, did it that way and it actually was a strength for them.

To me it's a big personnel issue. We all know sub package football is now base d for all intents and purposes. I think 43 teams have an advantage in that they have a roster full of guys that can come off the edge and rush the interior whereas a 34 team has to decide to put an undersized lb on the line or a slower 34 De to get pressure.

[drmalba]

It's pretty much a moot point until they figure out what they are going to do at DC. If it's Butler ... expect more of the same, with minor tweaks.

I'll sort of concur with the others who have posted Wade Phillips is an interesting choice, and if he's actually available, an obvious one since he's run that base 3-4 D in many other places. But i've seen his defenses fall apart at key moments many, many times. It makes me think he would be more of a lateral upgrade. If you go outside the org, find an up and comer.

[955876]

I mean, the way you switch fronts isn;t to just one day say "hey, we're a 4-3 now." The way you do it is to become multiple-- some plays you line up 3-4 and some plays you go 4-3... in effect, a transition year or two. The Patriots, for instance, did it that way and it actually was a strength for them.

To me it's a big personnel issue. We all know sub package football is now base d for all intents and purposes. I think 43 teams have an advantage in that they have a roster full of guys that can come off the edge and rush the interior whereas a 34 team has to decide to put an undersized lb on the line or a slower 34 De to get pressure.

Exactly.

[Legacy User]

Id be all for converting to a hybrid type defense. Butler though not only has coached the 3-4 for many seasons he also played in a 3-4. 3-4 aint going anywhere.

[86n96]

Id be all for converting to a hybrid type defense. Butler though not only has coached the 3-4 for many seasons he also played in a 3-4. 3-4 aint going anywhere.

seattle played a 3-4?

[Legacy User]

Id be all for converting to a hybrid type defense. Butler though not only has coached the 3-4 for many seasons he also played in a 3-4. 3-4 aint going anywhere.

seattle played a 3-4?

ill try to find the link. I read it somewhere.

[Legacy User]

I would rather stick with the 3-4.

I don't like Heyward, Timmons, Mcclendon or Woirlds as much as 4-3 pieces. I think the sack leaders were 11 to 9 from 3-4 teams.

It's a small 2 year window on this team, I would rather just take care of CB and FS.

[Havoc]

I would prefer to go back to a 4-3. The shortest path to the qb is up the middle. Let the DL blow up and disrupt passing offenses.

Our D is poor anyway, might as well do it now.

[Legacy User]

The defense will evolve and be revised is it always has but it won't be blown up. I think continuity is the order of the day. I'm guessing but I think EMR knows KB will maintain continuity but is expected to run the defense more in line with EMRs wishes. Rookies on the field and better run defense including running QBs and constant pressure on the QB.

I'm also guessing that last sentence in some way will be part of EMRs annual PR cryptic utterances.