DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum 3-4 or 4-3 Sorry...gotta do this

Time for another 3-4 or 4-3 thread:

So...let me see if I can get some common ground on this...

We have a LB who would be pretty good in a 4-3 and is just ok in a 3-4...although he leads the league in tackles. All the other LBs won't be good in anything other than an x-0. Get it?

We have two DL who used to be DTs in a 4-3 who are making the transition...still. They were good DTs...one is a beast and could do well in a lot of places...but could he play DE?

We have another DL who was a DT in Cincy and now has a bad calf to go along with a hand issue. He seems to me to be described as a better fit in the 4-3...inside or out.

We have another DL who came from a 4-3 scheme and is out for the year.

We got a guy off the NE practice squad who - I cannot imagine - would be any better than a guy on our own PS and a rookie who doesn't strike me as a 3-4 guy anymore than he strikes me as a 4-3 guy. Who knows?

We have a tweener LB for whom it appears that LB isn't it for him...but some think he could be a pass rusher in a 4-3 at end. Meh.

So...I have two questions that I hope get addressed in this thread.

What position(s) are our DL and LBs most fit to play? ...and...

Why the angst over any possible switch from the 3-4 to the 4-3?

It's not like we are good at the 3-4 now...or loaded with 3-4 type of guys. I'm thinking that at the end of this thread...we will see that we need just as many players to make the 3-4 work as we would to switch to the 4-3.

Disclaimer: I couldn't run a 3-4, a 4-3, or a circular saw. But the hand-wringing over a possible switch to the 4-3 seems silly to me.

I will say this though...if a switch to the 4-3 is in doubt because we don't have any pass rushers to put at DE...I will say that staying with the 3-4 is in doubt because we don't have any pass rushers at LB. Circular...hehe.

What do you think?

I guess it all really depends in the current regime is here next season...if they are...no doubt we stay 3-4 and try and find a ILB and 2 OLB's.
Some think Willie will stay and play ILB..another bandaid...no significant upgrade there.

Quote:

---

We have a tweener LB for whom it appears that LB isn't it for him...but some think he could be a pass rusher in a 4-3 at end. Meh.

So...I have two questions that I hope get addressed in this thread.

What position(s) are our DL and LBs most fit to play? ...and...

Why the angst over any possible switch from the 3-4 to the 4-3?

It's not like we are good at the 3-4 now...or loaded with 3-4 type of guys. I'm thinking that at the end of this thread...we will see that we need just as many players to make the 3-4 work as we would to switch to the 4-3.

---

I think the only guys who would stay if we switch over are DQ....and the DL. We'd have a nice rotation at DT. Right now Wimbley is worthless..in either defense...he needs to be cut. Alex Hall could be kept if he improves...hes definantly here in we stay 34.

The issue IMO...where are we gonna find 2 OLB's that can get the QB?...if we cant ifnd those...our 34 will suck AGAIN. We have nobody that can go get the QB, which has allowed teams to come back on us at will this year and last. We need a pass rush to close out games...where is that going to come from?

Would it be easy to get 2, 4-3 ends and a MLB?

Or...2 tweeners and a MLB?

Whichever way we can get pressure on the QB...that how we should go...that is our biggest problem right now.

The 34 is supposed to work because you dont know where the 4th rusher is coming from right? Its SUPPOSED to mess with the blocking assignments right?

Our blitzs are so manilla and poorly drawn up...whats the point? We go to the 4 down lineman nickel look on passing situations anyway!

Just get a pass rush..3-4 or 4-3...we need players either way, and either way we need serious adjustments to scheme, whether that be a movement to the 4-3 or if we stick with the 34.

Right now we have the personnel to play either, but neither very well.

Whatever scheme we end up with next year will require an upgrade at LB, possibly safety.

3-4 all the way!!!!!

Quote:

---

Why the angst over any possible switch from the 3-4 to the 4-3?

---

For me there's really no angst but a deep curiosity as to why so many fans who know so little about either defense would favor a change rather than accepting what the head coach wants to run and allowing him time to make it work.

I guess it might be that people who know only enough to be dangerous like solutions to be singular and easy so they choose things like, change the coach, change the GM, change the QB, change the RB, change the Scheme. Since their in-depth knowledge is limited, they need to find this one thing, this one, singular thing they can put their finger on which will work like magic and fix the problem.

The popular one right now is that since the defense struggles, and being uninformed they don't understand the details and intricacies of a defense, the singular and easy solution would be to change the scheme. Change the scheme, the players will automatically do better because...


The truth is that in order to succeed they have to execute whichever scheme they are asked to play. To me it looks like we're a couple of quality LB'ers and a healthy DL away from being alright. But, injuries be damned, and, "we should have the talent by now", drives a lot of the thinking on the subject.

In addition, the defense already does run 4-3 at times. They also run other defenses at specific down and distances. It's not like they are eternally stuck in a 3-4 alignment and never get out of it.

A lot of fans felt that one reason we beat the Bills was that Trent Edwards sucked. A big part of the reason he sucked was because of our defense. I don't think we blitzed him even once in the whole first half, yet, we got three picks out of him. We dropped our guys into coverage and blanketed the middle of the field and Trent Edwards was highly confused. In addition to that, their leading receiver, Lee Evans, was not even thrown to the entire game. Not that he didn't get a catch or that Wright defended him so well, he wasn't thrown to at all. Why?

Our defense. Now it would have helped greatly if our players would have remembered that they had to tackle as well as cover, but someone tell me how going to a 4-3 is going to fix that.



I don't think we are more than a healthy DL and a few players away from making this defense work. Meanwhile, the easy solutionists , are putting their finger on this and on that and right now one of them is on the defense and how we should run a 4-3 instead of RAC's 3-4. "It couldn't be any worse", I suppose drives a lot of that thinking.

What the heck, after the weight of a finger has already been used to try and eliminate RAC, Savage, DA, BE and several others. Why not the defensive scheme? If we eliminate enough of the problems as the easy solutionists see it there will be nothing left and we can start over with new hope.

I think that's really all most of them are after anyway; some new hope. The trouble with that is all you need for "new hope" is to change the regime every 3-5 years and they're in a perpetual state of new hope.

I vote for letting those who are there now complete the job they started and if that means staying in the 3-4 until it works then I'm all for it.

For the 5,000th time we don't run a 4-3! We run a Nickel 2-4-5 and a 3-4 over which have 4 man fronts, but are not "I REPEAT" are not a 4-3 defense! Some of you need to realize what the difference is!

So when we have our base defense on the field and Wimbley has his hand on the ground with 3 linebackers standing behind the d-line that doesn't constitute a 4-3 alignment?

You are right we run a 2-4-5 nickel package but we also run a variation of a 4-3 and a 3-4. Watch and tell me how many times you see this on Sunday.

Stick with the 3-4. Rogers is a beast and Williams will be as well once he's healthy. D'Qwell is slightly above average at ILB and can stay. I think Hall has a bright future as a 3-4 OLB. I think we need one STARTING CALIBRE OLB and one STARTING CALBRE ILB. Another ILB would be nice, but it is not necessary.

I would like another D-Lineman either way so that doesn't play a role in this discussion.

If we would decide to switch to a 4-3, here's what we would have to do: Wimbley would have to go for sure. There is no place for him in a 4-3. We would need someone to replace him at OLB. Hall could stay and be productive as a 4-3 OLB, but I think he'd be better in the 3-4. DQ would be just as good, if not a little better. I think Williams is better suited to be a 3-4 end, and Rogers is better suited as a 4-3 tackle, but is a complete stud either way.

I don't think we have anyone on our roster who could play end in the 4-3. So we would need to get two defensive ends as well.

So this puts us at needing three to four players for the 3-4 (one or two inside linebackers, one outside linebacker, and one big D-Lineman) and four players for the 4-3(one outside linebacker, one big interior lineman, and two defensive ends).

Also, if we would switch to the 4-3, we would be cutting a player who I feel can be productive in Wimbley, and IMO be losing some value among guys who would still be starting, mainly Hall and Williams. Though, I do think DQ would be better, but IMO this doesn't come close to matching what we'd lose in Hall and Williams. I think we would need more players for a 4-3 than we would for a 3-4.

And as ddubia mentioned, why would we go away from the system that our Head Coach favors? Romeo was a GREAT DC running the 3-4. It would make little to no sense to go away from his scheme. Phil also favors the 3-4, and I think that should be taken into consideration as well.

So...what do you think are the attributes of our existing players in regards to playing a 3-4 or a 4-3?

Look...I am not trying to make this a "change the scheme" or "fire RAC" thread. This is a chance to talk Pure Football as it relates to the 3-4 versus the 4-3.

Frankly, I was looking forward to your response on this topic because I appreciate your football comments. I am disappointed that you took the question as an implication to "not listen to the guys we already have making the decisions".

Here is a hypothetical:

We get a LB in FA who can play either alignment...our draft slot comes up and a pass rushing DE is available and even BPA. What do you do?

or...

A pass rushing DE becomes available in FA and we believe that in our draft slot(s) we will have the opportunity to draft one of a couple of LBs who could really play in either alignment. What do you do?

Maybe you were making a preemptive strike on those who would post about how the change MUST be made or that RAC must go...I can understand why you'd be leary of that.

But let's just ignore those types of comments and get you football guys all lathered up about the attributes of our existing guys (like DQ playing where in a 4-3) and what happens if FA and the draft present the opportunity to change...or improve the same.

I favor the 3-4 over the 4-3, but I don't like how we run it. I love Pittsburgh's 3-4, I love it because you don't know who is rushing and who isn't. Not even the 3 down linemen are a given, they can drop back into coverage in some of their zone blitzes. out of the front 7 there will almost always be 3 to 5 of them coming, but they disguise the blitzers so well that you might get a read on a few of them on some plays, but overall its very difficult to gauge who is coming from where and that can cause offenses problems.

The way we run the 3-4 it seems we just rush the 3 linemen and Wimbley and they just get blocked, or we telegraph our extra rusher a few seconds before the snap, the QB stops (at times the center will as well), points to him, and someone blocks him. I've noticed when we show blitz, we usually do - not often does the player showing blitz drop back into coverage to try and confuse the offense. Why? I don't understand why we don't seem to ever do that.

We do seem to have some success when we use DB's to rush the passer though, we've had a few nice corner and safety blitzes this year. What I wonder though is if the reason we suck so horribly at pressuring the QB the majority of the time is because our LB's are just not very good, or if it is because they aren't put in a position to succeed because of our scheme?

Personally, I think its a bit of both. I played LB for 4 years back in school and we were not much of a blitzing team, we ran a base 4-3, but when we did get our number called we didn't run straight into a blocker, we found some space. I find it hard to believe a player who has made it to the NFL doesn't have the kind of sense that tells you not to run right into a blocker, so what makes them do it over and over again? Are they coached to run to the gap no matter how clogged up it is, or are they not quick enough to recognize they are about to run into a wall? I can't imagine NFL players are having a hard time grasping that concept. I would say it must be something else. But what?

Do you think Wimbley could gain some weight and be our version of Kearse in a 4-3? (I don't BTW.)

Would not Rogers, Williams, and Smith be enough DT rotation in a 4-3?

Could R Smith be a DE...assuming he ever makes it back? Could he go in the DT rotation and Rogers moves outside? (Goofy as that may seem on the surface.)

DQ stays...but where? Not getting in the Toad vs Tabber argument here.

You think Hall could stick? Why?

What happens to Rubin, Leon, and others?

Does Purcell get back in the mix from the PS?

Ok...but what about the players we have now? What would they individually look like in a 4-3?

Quote:

---

Do you think Wimbley could gain some weight and be our version of Kearse in a 4-3? (I don't BTW.)

---

Nope. I don't think he has the strength or the run stuffing ability to do that. The only place I see him is as a situation pass rusher.

Quote:

---

Would not Rogers, Williams, and Smith be enough DT rotation in a 4-3?

---

Possibly, but I'd like to see another legit DT added either way. (I think we'd have to cut Rubin if we would switch and I think he has promise at nose.)

Quote:

---

Could R Smith be a DE...assuming he ever makes it back? Could he go in the DT rotation and Rogers moves outside? (Goofy as that may seem on the surface.)

---

I think Robaire COULD be a DE in the 4-3, but I think he would be below average at it. He'd be good against the run, but would provide no pass rush. I think Robaire could be part of the DT rotation, but I don't think Rogers could go outside, and even if he could, it would make no sense to make such a move. I think that there would be very little place for Robiare in a 4-3. His salary wouldn't be justified for what he would contribute.

Quote:

---

DQ stays...but where? Not getting in the Toad vs Tabber argument here.

---

I see DQ staying inside. What hinders him is his speed and size combo. The 4-3 would make his size, or lack thereof, less of an issue, since he would be confronted less by O-Linemen with the four man front. But his speed is more of an issue with him having to cover more ground because of there being one less man by him. Overall, I think he gains something in the switch, but not a whole lot.

Quote:

---

You think Hall could stick? Why?

---

I think Hall could stick and contribute because of his great athleticism and the ability he has shown in pass coverage and stopping the run. He has shown the ability to stay with receivers and cover his zone well; much better than Wimbley has. He has shown decent containment against the run, though his duties would change in a 4-3. One of Hall's biggest weaknesses right now is his lack of a pass rush move. This wouldn't be nearly as big of a deal in a 4-3 with him going up against a tackle one on one much less often. I still think that much of his natural ability and pass rushing potential would be lost in a 4-3.

Quote:

---

What happens to Rubin, Leon, and others?

---

Rubin's gone and Leon sticks around as a backup. I actually think Leon would be much better in a 4-3 which would put him at mediocre. Leonard would be gone along with Purcell, (who you mentioned later but I didn't feel like quoting) Andra is gone either way, Willlie's retiring, and I can't think of any "others" you might be talking about.

I think we would be fine personnel-wise to run a base 4-3 defense. Wimbley played his entire life before he came to cleveland as an end in a 4-3, but now all of a sudden he isn't capable of playing that position? I don't buy that at all. He is a little bit small, but there have been plenty of other ends who have had success and not been much bigger than your average linebacker.

I think a line of Wimbley, Williams, Rogers and Robaire once he comes back (if?) would be a pretty darn good front 4. I would try to draft or sign an end to start over Robaire (maybe not in his first season but soon) and use Shaun Smith as a 3rd tackle. We could rotate S.Smith, Rogers and Williams at tackle and Wimbley, Robaire Smith and whoever we drafted or signed at end. Or, Willie can probably still be a stop gap player at end if need be, he did play there a number of years before being converted to a 3-4 OLB. I think we're pretty good on the line, could be better, but pretty good for the 4-3. We have alot of possibilities there. Alex Hall may even be an option to rotate in at end on passing downs, did he play LB or DE in college? I have no idea.

Our linebackers I'm not even close to as optimistic about. I think DQ could play the weak side just fine, but we don't really have any other players at that position. Willie is getting slow and he may not even be playing after this year, and Andra Davis seems like a decent backup but not much else at this point in his career. Hall is still a huge ?? and Orr and Griffin are special teamers. Bell might be able to play, but we don't know yet. We really, really need help at LB if we switch to a 4-3 (we need help either way though I think)

For those saying Wimbley is too small to play DE in a 4-3, I looked up some DE's in 4-3 scheme's that were fairly close to him in size.

John Abraham - 6'4 263
Darren Howard - 6'3 260
Aaron Kampman - 6'4 265
Mathias Kiwanuka - 6'5 265
Kalimba Edwards - 6'6 265
Robert Mathis - 6'4 245
Terrell Suggs - 6'3 260 (plays/has played DE and OLB)
Leonard Little - 6'3 263
Kamerion Wimbley - 6'3 255

So maybe he needs to gain 5 to 10 pounds, but those are some quality players he's grouped with based on size. He definitely doesn't have the size (or skill set) to play end in a 3-4, but based on his size and his playing experience before coming to the NFL, I don't really think he'd have too hard of a time at end in a 4-3.

Now that's what I'm talking about.

"Others" were Leonard - who I forgot about - Orr, Santonio Whateverhislastnameis, the guy from Dusseldorf.

Don't know if the safeties matter either way.

Isn't Kearse just a pass rusher nowadays?

DQ covers alot of ground now in the 3-4 because no one is next to him now either.

Individually, I think we flat out suck at LB for a 4-3. Upgrades all around. DQ I would hold out hope for playing outside, but outside of that we need a BUNCH of new linebackers. But is that not true with our 3-4 right now? I think so. I think by switching to a 4-3 we upgrade the DL and downgrade the LB's based on the players we currently have. I personally believe overall it would be an upgrade to run a 4-3 with the players we have, but I would rather we stuck to the 3-4 and just use it better. But that isn't what the thread is about.

I didn't get into the LB's individually like you asked because i just think they all individually suck with the one exception in DQ. But I will give you my reasons, individually, why I think we would have a pretty darn good DL in a 4-3.

#1 is Shaun Rogers. This guy, as we have been seeing all season, might just be the best DT in the NFL. And he's better when he is supposed to be penetrating rather than soaking up blockers and stuffing the run as is his job description as a NT. I think just moving him back to that position makes him better, and he's already an elite player.

#2 is that Corey Williams is supposed to be a very good penetrating tackle as well. Not on the same level as Shaun Rogers, but very good. We haven't seen him do a whole lot this year, but he is playing 3-4 end for the first time and he has been battling an injured shoulder all year. Phil Savage gave up a 2nd rounder for him - and GB franchise tagged him - so I believe if we move him back to his natural position we have a very, very good situation at starting defensive tackle.

#3 is depth at DT. Shaun Smith, who is also accustomed to playing tackle in a 4-3, is pretty good depth. I also think Robaire Smith would be a solid part of a rotation at DT as well. Past that, Don't think we really have anything else. But Id be alright with that.

I think we would have a tandem in the middle of the DL on the level of the Williams' in MN and what Big John Henderson and Stroud were in Jax. I don't think Williams is quite as good as those players, but I think Rogers is better. I think it would be scary - and not like DA dropping back to pass scary.

At DE I think Wimbley could be a pretty solid player rushing the passer from the blind side. Not a hall of famer, but solid. That was his natural position before being converted to a 3-4 OLB, and hopefully going back to it will help him. He isn't as strong in run support or coverage, but at end coverage would not be much of a concern. I think his pass rush would improve just based on the fact that now we would be turning Rogers loose and you almost have to put 2 or 3 guys on him to keep your QB alive. Right now in our scheme he is taking up several blockers, but we aren't turning him loose every play because that isn't a NT's job.

I think we need another end on the left side, but we might be able to plug McGinest in that spot for a year while we look for it. That was the position he played before he switched to OLB, and he is very good at playing the run. He's big enough and while his loss of speed is always an issue, its less of one at end than at OLB.

As far as depth goes, we'd be a little lacking at DE. Robaire might be alright rotating in, but he may not even be back, we don't know. Hall might be someone you put in on passing downs and let him rush. Wimbley-Rogers-Williams-Hall on obvious passing downs? I like that idea. Can he play DE though? Not sure. Don't know if he did in high school and college, but I think it would be worth giving it a show. We'd need to more than likely sign or draft an end though for depth if we switched to a 4-3.

Thats my take on it. Short version - 4-3 DL good, LB bad.

In the 43 I think our DT's would be superior (compared to other 43 teams). Rogers is a stud either way. I disagree with Deepthreat in that I really believe Corey Williams is a better fit as a 43 DT rather than a 34 DE (Deep - I agree with most of the rest of your post).

Not sure about Wimbley and Hall. I don't know if either could be a 43 DE. If not then we have no 43 DE's on the roster. Then the question is can wimbley and Hall be OLB's in the 43? I don"t know. If they can then DQ stays inside, if not we draft an ILB and DQ moves outside. Leon Williams, all I can say is that I thought he showed promise as a rookie but I have been highly disappointed in his performance since. He is definitely not a 43 MLB. Could he play OLB? I don't know. Speaking of that I always thought he would be a beter 34 OLB than 34 ILB. Apparently the coaching staff disagrees with me. Or maybe he isn't smart enough to learn both the inside and the outside positional responsibilities and hey feel they need him inside. Beau Bell - haven't seen enough of him to comment.

Just one note regarding the DL in a 4-3...I do think we would have DT pretty well taken care of with Robaire, Shaun Smith, Rogers and Corey....Sorry Leonard you would have to go.


The problem is that WE HAVE NO 4-3 DEs and to make the 4-3 work you got to have STUDS there...not Joe Average guys.

And with the Giants success and still the majority of the Defenses running a 4-3. Stud DE's will have to go in the TOP 10. And Ideally they should be between 270-290...Maybe Robaire can shed about 10-15 pounds and foot the bill for the strongside...but he's no young chicken.

And I'm telling you without the Stud DE's you are NOTHING in the 4-3.

We tried that before - CB, Lang, Actually the best we could do I think was the guy we had along side Jamir Miller in 01...forgot his name and I think he was only good cause we put Miller on his shoulder and rushed both!

We got more of a chance to get a Tweener for our OLB position. We just have had too many things for Savage to fix...as we get more n more settled with personnel Savage can add a Tweener rounds 1-5 (even though in round 7 we did pretty good in getting HALL ) at least one from every draft. This is where we should also look for ILB sources too as College football with all the spread Offenses have gone to 220 lb ILBs more n more...anyone 240 or more seems to be playing DE now!

JMHO - To dominate in a 3-4 you need a NT and Dominate LBs especially OLBs!
To dominate in a 4-3 you need ALL 4 DLmen to be studs! the hardest to get...DEs and we would have to start from SCRATCH!

i agree with everything you said except one thing.

i think we have a guy in wimbley who can play DE at a high enough level to be effective in a 4-3. i dont see why wimbley would not be able to add a few pounds of muscle in the offseason. that seems to be the consensus reason he can't play that position, and i just don't agree with that line of thinking. a much bigger concern for me is can he improve on his run defense?

he hasn't been playing that well this year, but i haven't written him off as a bust like everyone else has. i think he would be fine with his hand on the ground. he did it his whole career pre-cleveland. he wouldn't have to learn an entirely new position. he's a young guy with room to grow. he's made some improvements this year in the running game that are clear as day to me, but most people don't seem to see - so there is reason to believe, for me at least, he hasn't hit his ceiling yet

take my opinion for what its worth, im no NFL scout or coach or anything. just a guy who played LB for 4 years in high school and has coached it for 3 at the 8th grade level. i'm not even a high school coach. i'm in no position to make these types of decisions, but i -THINK- wimbley would be a pretty decent RE in a 4-3.

now for LE, i think we definitely don't have that on our roster right now. I think willie is our best option, and thats not good at all...

And YOU need to take a hike. Four down linemen and three linebackers equates to a 4-3. You see the 4 represents how man down linemen you have and the 3 represents how many up right linebackers you have.

We play neither a 3-4 or a 4-3... we play a 3-6, as in: the opponent is gonna score at least 3 on this drive, but probably 6.

sad but true

Is Julius Peppers a FA this off-season, anybody know? Interesting guy...could help us in either defense...especially under the 4-3.

Yes he is, according to this. However it's pretty likely that the Panthers will use the Franchise tag on him.

I think we have the personel to run either, though we'd struggle at OLB in a 4-3. Wimbley and Hall are tweeners. I'm not sure if either could add the bulk necessary for become DE's at the pro-level.

It relies more on schemes and making the tackles, not missing assignments. Something that this team fails to execute on so often.

i'd settle for throwing some blitzes withthe D we got

I'd not be willing to bet you $200 even if I did have the money. And I don't have the money because I'm a Freshman in High School.

Of course the Browns run a base 3-4, but If you have four down linemen and three linebackers, you are running a 4-3 on THAT PLAY.

The gap assignments may be difference and that makes our defense different than a base 4-3, but it is a 4-3 formation, none the less.

Maybe you don't know as much as you think you do Coach Cleats..we don't run that little exotic 2 -4- 5 a lot.. ..and when we have I've seen Willie as the down linemen.
We also have run a base 43 out of our set..and yes when Wimbley's hand is down it is essentially a 43 ..NOT A TRUE 43 but there are 4 down linemen.
When you're rushing the passer it doesn't matter if it is a over or under..you're rushing 4 men..
In the 34 it all depends on the tech/gap you want your nose and ends to play..

here's a 43 over

I love the superior attitude of some people. I guess you are one of those that have never been wrong. Like I said before pay attention on Sundays.

Its pointless talking to some people who know nothing about football. But thats fine keep living in a reality world where a 4-3 is a 3-4 and vice versa. LOL!