DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum The Battle of the Defenses

It has been long debated whether or not the Browns should run the 4-3 or 3-4 defense. As the magical thing known as sleep eludes me at this late hour, I decided to approach the debate from a journalistic viewpoint and do my best to eliminate all bias (something we're not used to as Browns fans).

Let's look at all the current defensive contributors (the only thing that IMO should matter, other than scheme preference, though not the only think I'm gonna look at).

The first thing I'm gonna get rid of is the secondary. It has no barring whatsoever on the schemes. Coverages are virtually identical. We all know that Wright is a legitimate cover corner, McDonald is a weakspot, Poteat fails, and that safety is a weakspot. That's nothing earth shattering, and a weakness to be addressed regardless of scheme.

Then there's the defensive line/linebackers. This is where the debate stems from, and the entire reason for it. Rogers is a known commodity regardless of scheme. He is a Pro Bowler as a 4-3 nose, a 3-4 nose, or a 3-4 end. He can be one of the best in the NFL at either. Personally, I think he is best off as a 4-3 nose in a one gap system, or a 3-4 end in a one gap system. This would allow him to penetrate and do what he does best. However, a 4-3 tackle typically has a greater impact on the game than a 3-4 end, so as far as he goes, the 4-3 would probably be best.

Corey Williams would, IMO, be a great player if a one gap 4-3. That's what he played in while with Green Bay, and he was successful enough in it to garner the franchise tag, a 2nd round draft pick, and the monster contract he got from us. He hasn't turned out well at end for us (largely due to unwillingness to play there IMO) and is even worse at nose. He chooses gaps and kills the run defense. But in a 4-3, he would be allowed to shoot the gaps and get into the backfield. Remember, he had 7 sacks two consecutive seasons doing this in Green Bay.

Between Rogers and Williams, I'd say the Browns would have a dominant duo at tackle. The main negatives on the defensive line would be the loss of value to many solid contributors to the current defense. Robaire Smith has never been anywhere near as good in a 4-3, and he would almost certainly be cut. Kenyon Coleman isn't strong or big enough to be a 4-3 tackle, though it is possible he could have a small contribution as a left end. Rubin would be gone. His only position of value is that of a 3-4 nose tackle.

Then on to the linebackers. Matt Roth is a solid starter regardless of scheme, though he has said he prefers playing linebacker in the 3-4 over end. This is often very important to a player's success. Roth has been great for us since we picked him up from the Dolphins, and is a huge part of our pass rush and run defense.

D'Qwell is a solid starter as a 3-4 ILB, but IMO would be best suited as a 4-3 WILL. This would have him do what he does best, go in coverage and try to make plays. He could be a star there. Wimbley is a weakness in either scheme as far as I'm concerned, though he is slightly less useless in a 3-4. As a defensive end, he would get dominated every play by much stronger offensive linemen. He isn't that great of a pass rusher, and is awful against the run.

Bowens would lose any value he had. There just isn't a position for him in the 4-3. He isn't a starter in the 3-4 either, but he is at least depth. I can't even see him being that in the 4-3. His only possible position would be the SAM. Barton is probably retiring, so there is no point in dwelling on him. Trusnik is nothing more than a special teamer.

Then we get to our recent draft picks, Kaluka Maiava and David Veikune. Neither has shown much so far, but the Browns have made investments in both, and that needs to be looked at. Maiava has made strides throughout the season, but ha still struggled. He would be much better off in the 4-3, though he would play the WILL, just like D'Qwell. Veikune has shown no signs of ever being a productive player, but in the 4-3, he would certainly bust. In the 3-4, he at least has a fighting chance as he attempts to convert to an ILB.

Now I will attempt to recap if I did a bad job of explaining. Here's a quick look at how the switch to a 4-3 would, IMO, impact our players:

Rogers: Better
Williams: Much better
Rubin: Much worse
Coleman: Quite a bit worse
Robaire: Quite a bit worse
Matt Roth: Slightly better fit, but prefers 3-4
Wimbley: Worse
D'Qwell: Quite a bit better
Bowens: Much worse
Miava: Much better
Veikune: Much worse

Here's how I would project the starting front 7 with our current group in a 4-3:

LE: Matt Roth
LDT: Corey Williams
RDT: Shaun Rogers
RE: Kamerion Wimbley
WILL: D'Qwell Jackson
MIKE: Eric Barton (even though he's probably gone)
SAM: David Bowens

And for comparison's sake, here's the 3-4 lineup:

LE: Kenyon Coleman
NT: Shaun Rogers
RE: Robaire Smith
LOLB: Matt Roth
TED: David Bowens
MIKE: D'Qwell Jackson
ROLB: Kamerion Wimbley

That, as well as scheme preference, are all that should matter to a coach IMO. I had intended to look at draft prospects and FA's as well, but I changed my mind. If someone requests it, I gladly will, but for now I'm gonna let it go at that. Draw your own conclusions from my attempt at an unbiased post.

We should form something like this...The Dawgtalkers Insomniac Support Group.

I definitely agree with you on the secondary in that it seems as if we have only one solid starter there and that for the debate of the scheme, is kind of a wash. So basically we are focusing on the front seven but do see the glaring holes in the secondary. That's done with. Onto the topic...

I must say that I don't have the opportunity (use that word loosely ) to get to see all the games, so I cannot possibly observe what you all have over the year. I can only go by what is reported, what little I do get my eyes on, and some of the evaluations around here from the few posters that I trust to be honest, mostly correct, and consistent in their assessments.

That being said, I've clearly stated my opinion on the 4-3 versus the 3-4 going forward and have yet to really get any answers to the question I wish to pose in bold soon. Here is my logic regarding the situation.

First of all, I think this is virtually a consensus- albeit a captain obvious thing to say- but a base defensive scheme with more talent in it is better than a defense that has fewer resources to work with. That means even if said defensive scheme with fewer resources gives you a few more bits of strategic ammunition (like looks for the front seven to cause confusion) the more talented defense on the field is going to be better. Get where I am going with this?

The 4-3 is easier to scout for players that fit your scheme. The vast majority of colleges run the scheme, you aren't asking players to change positions (rarely it may be done, but it is definitely not the norm as it is in the 3-4), competition for these hard-to-find prospects has only increased virtually double in the past few years, etc. It is just easier to scout and acquire talent for positions of need in a 4-3 now. This is one of the most crucial factors for me. Yes I know schematically the 3-4 gives you more looks to blitz and different ways to confuse the quarterback, but why make it harder on ourselves to do something that has been so incredibly difficult for us in the past (drafting) to field a respectable unit? Why cling to the 3-4 when it will be much easier (I use the base word "easy" as if it happens overnight but obviously this is comparatively speaking) to go with a 4-3?

As far as strictly looking at the personnel, I still like going forward with a 4-3 because of the potential we would in the middle with Rogers/Williams. Roth at DE is still a quality starter, IMO. I trust the words of Rob Ryan on that. I'm not talking about now anymore as the season is virtually over so can we please just not bother talking about Wimbley and the other DE spot? There's a hole that we would need to fill. Also with less blockers in his path, DQ can be a monster (and I still like him in the middle- please tell me the logic behind him playing the WILL- as I am all ears and just trying to understand)- and is in a better position to succeed. I think with some Cover 2 looks where he gets depth similar to how Urlacher/Ruud have been used with his coverage abilities . Maiava at least can be a back-up/special teamer at the WILL. That would leave a couple OLB spots (or one OLB spot and the MLB spot) that we would need to fill.

I see more potential with our current personnel and what the scouting department would be able to accurately get a read on with a 4-3 to cling to the 3-4 as many seem to want to do. If we could manage to acquire the needed talent for the 3-4 I favor it's schematic advantages over the 4-3, but the better base defense is less difficult to attain and suits the few pieces we have better to succeed with the 4-3. To me that is why I have been dying to see the 4-3 again (for about two years as I've bored my friends to tears who don't care about the Browns rambling about it).

That being said: if Holmgren would like to keep the 3-4 then fine. It doesn't seem likely as it is nowhere in his background but as Green Bay transitioned and acquired pieces for their 3-4 in one draft (albeit with the help of a tremendous secondary already in place) then I imagine it could be done if he has guys he knows that can scout the players for the scheme. My money is on that not happening but could easily be proved wrong.

Hopefully I didn't beat a Seabiscuit senseless there about why I favor the 4-3.

Just my ten cents 'cause my two cents is free.

Thanks

Go get some sleep...

Say what u want...There are TWO bonafide STUDS that will slide right into a 3-4 or 4-3 in this draft...And I FIRMLY believe that BOTH will be there at 6...

Berry S
McClain ILB

I vote for the 4-3 switch and take Berry all day...

My approach will be,not to discuss where we are, but how we got here.I will focus on the two hard to fill 3-4 positions,tweeners and nose tackle.

When RAC became the HC in 2005 it was assumed, and correctly so, that he would install the 3-4 defense. Prior to that the 4-3 defense that Davis used was finally becoming at least competent.
Team defense ranked 10th in 2002 and 12th in 2003 before dropping to 24th in Davis's final unfinished season in 2004

Here are some 3-4 players ( NT and Tweeners ) we had in 2005, the first season in the 3-4. See if they ring a bell. Surprisingly, they were a top 1/3 defense.
Jason Fisk: NT
Kennard Lang: tweener

.Here is 2006 for the same positionsand it was a bottom 1/3 defense:
Ted Washington:NT
K. Wimbley: tweener
Willie McGinest: tweener

2007 defense,again a bottom 1/3:
Add:
Antwan Peek: tweener
Shaun Smith: NT

2008 defense about middle of the pack:
Add:
Shaun Rogers:NT
A. Rubin:NT
Alex Hall: tweener

subtract:
Fisk
Washington
Peek

2009,bottom 1/3:

add:
Viekune: tweener
subtract:
McGinest
Shaun Smith

analysis:( my opinion:)

The NTs we had for 3 years were Fisk and Washington. The bottom of the barrel was scraped to get them. If they were any good, their former team would not have let them go.Then came Shaun Rogers and Rubin. Rogers came at high cost and Rubin is a late round gem. We finally got competence after several years,but other positions had to be neglected to get them.

Tweeners: Lang, Peek, Wimbley, Hall, McGinest and Viekune.

McGinest was past his prime, Peek and Lang did not adjust and were failures of free agency. At this point it can be argued that Hall, Wimbley and Viekune are failures of the draft. Again, having to get them neglected other areas of need and we are no better off than 2005 in this area.

The tweener position has vexed this club since the installation of the 3-4.

JMO, but I don't think we are any closer to having the right personnel for a 4-3 than the 3-4. I'll call it a wash.
and this is also my opinion:

RAC set back this team years by switching to the 3-4 when we just did not have the personnel in place. He and Opie just could not catch lightning in a bottle with Wimbley, Hall or the FA's.

I'm a little curious as to WHY Alex Hall got NO opportunities this year to get on the field.

Simple actually he hasn't responded to the coaching and hasn't developed to the point where Mangini and company feel comfortable with his play... He at this point is a round peg trying to learn to be a square peg. He don't fit he don't play... Simple

I think that's about it in a nutshell..... once this defense gets a couple of legitimate OLB's, this defense will be GREATLY improved.

We're already fairly stout up the middle, but we get killed around the edges and in the secondary.


Well, bring me Berry in the draft and at least one CB and one legitimate OLB tweener and this defense will start to take off. Guaranteed.
As bad as our numbers have been, I truly believe that we are NOT that far off on the defensive side.

I was never in favor of switching to the 3-4 and even up to and including last year was in favor of switching back. But now I'm not so certain that we are not but one OLB away from making it work. I'm not counting DBs in the mix b/c as the OP stated, the 3-4 has everything to do with the configuration of the front seven.

The reason I have changed my mind about maybe being closer with the 3-4 can be stated in two words: Matt Roth

He has that rush off the edge we have needed.

Wimbley is slow as molasses in January even in September, however he is a worthy back-up.Hall will prolly be out of the league by this time next year.Viekune was never going to be that edge rusher as he is too slow.

One OLB and some DB help away from competence?

I want to keep the 3-4...you can use all the crazy exotic formations we've seen this year under Ryan...this is what I expected to see out of Romeo but never saw it.

If we can't draft Berry, I would be VERY comfortable with a starting foursome of Wimbley, Rolando McClain, DQ and Matt Roth with Benard, Bowens, Maiava and (hopefully) Veikune as the backups.

I just worry about the secondary at that point.

Nice summary Deep...thanks for that.

I am thinking more and more that a switch to the 4-3 makes the most sense given our current personnel and the past history of MH.

Our 2 best DL are playing out of position in the 3-4 in Rogers and Williams. They have both been VERY productive in a 4-3.

Our next best DL in R Smith might have trouble going back to the 4-3 (which position?) but he is no youngster. I think he could be valuable depth in a 4-3.

Coleman is probably toast in a 4-3. However, with his rep as a 3-4 run-stopper, he becomes a good trade piece.

Rubin has come on very strong of late. I do not understand why he could not transition to DT in a 4-3...however...at a minimum...he becomes a very good trade piece.

Mosley becomes a decent trade piece as he has shown some ability.

I remember reading that Roth did not like playing DE. I think we lose him if we switch to a 4-3. I hope not...just remember the read and that he seemed quite adamant about prefering OLB in the 3-4.

DQ reportedly has a chance in the 4-3 to be the stud he is pimped as being now.

Maiava stays as a backup...which is all he really is now anyway. Wimbley is bad either way. Who knows about Veikune...either way? Barton is toast either way. Trusnick is a STer either way. I think we'd miss Bowens' leadership. Did I just say that? Maybe he makes the switch?

In a 4-3 we would need two new starters at LB. The DL would be ridiculous up the middle and would likely need two new starters at DE...maybe just one...maybe just better-fit backups if Roth would stay.

The key: We would have some darn good trade pieces in Coleman, Mosley, and especially in Rubin. (I've said this before but...Kampmann and AJ Hawk would look good at DE and ILB for us and the Pack could use Rubin and Coleman...seems like a potential there to help both teams and remove good guy / good players who no longer fit the scheme.)

In the 3-4 we need 2 new starters at LB...IF you count DQ as a "good" 3-4 LB then we need 1 new guy - assuming that Bowens sticks at ILB next year. The DL is good but needs Rubin at NT and Rogers at DE. (If we would switch Rogers to DE, I think the DL is darn good in the 3-4.)

The reverse key: If we stick with the 3-4 we have no valuable trade pieces and many players who are questionable NFLers today remain the same in either scheme. (Wimbley, Maiava as a starer, DV, Hall.)

On the surface it appears that we need fewer new pieces to make the 3-4 better than we would need new pieces in a switch to the 4-3. However, in a 4-3 our two best DL and our "best" OLB would be in positions where they can really flourish...and we have some good to very good trade pieces to fill out other spots.

Then there is MH...I'll stop there.

I don't see D'Qwell as having the strength to be the MIKE. I think he would get pushed around in the run game, but at the WILL he could have a big impact.

In my original post, I put my personal preferences aside. But that was the article, and these are the comments. I want the Browns to keep with the 3-4. I think that with one good tweener, we are closer to having a very good defense there than we would be in the 4-3. In the 4-3, we need two linebackers and a defensive end. In the 3-4, we need two linebackers. That's one less player. Yes, I can do basic math.

And there's the fact that I simply think the 3-4 is the better scheme. It is my opinion, that if two teams have the best personnel that could be found, one team ran the 4-3, and the other ran the 3-4, the 3-4 would be better. Look at how much Rob Ryan has been confusing quarterbacks all year long. That doesn't happen in the 4-3. The 3-4 gives a team the versatility to drop guys back, move people around and blitz from all directions.
Also, if the Browns would decide to switch schemes, I think the depth would suffer a beating. Right now there are many good contributors like Coleman, Robaire, Rubin and Mosely who can have impacts in a 3-4. As I stated earlier, they would be virtually useless in a scheme change.

You mention the 4-3 being easier to scout for, and yes, it is. But I think that is more of an excuse than anything. These are professional scouts. They know what they are looking for, and they are paid well to do it. Good scouts can scout just as well for the 3-4 as the 4-3. I actually think the 3-4 offers an advantage as far as the draft goes. Typically, less teams run the 3-4, and this allows tweeners like DeMarcus Ware, Shawne Merriman and Clay Matthews to fall in the draft. Pass rushers like them who could play in a 4-3 as defensive ends don't fall half as far. Being able to get a pass rusher and overall great player like DeMarcus Ware at 11, just because he can't play in a 4-3, is a steal.

I don't even think you could trade Rubin and Coleman for Kampmann and Hawk in Madden let alone real life...

I'm all for giving Ryan a chance to run the defense he wants to run, if thats the 3-4, then as long as its the one HE wants that we have seen that was pretty aggressive and gave a lot of different looks I will have no gripes... However, if its that soft, bend but dont break, play not to lose instead of play to win and lose anyway type 3-4 that we've been using for years now that hasn't worked, then bring on the 4-3 please.

I do kind of like the idea of seeing Williams and Rogers playing together in a 4-3 though. Don't think it will be Willams and Williams in Minnesota dominant, but it could be VERY good.

This is basically a recap of what I've been saying for a couple years.

The only thing that I would add is that our top 3, front 7 skill players would be better served by the change.

Roth is a guy that is growing on me. But he was a castoff that we got ONLY because we were 1-11 at the time thus had first dibs.

What this tells me is that we could basically scrap most of our front 7 depth for FA and draft and not be impacted detrimentally.

The 4-3 is where we're going and I'm all for it.

To me it's not a debate..the D is set up for a 34 ,not a 43 ..it would be a teardown if it goes to a 43.
The best and simplest thing is to keep the scheme and just get better parts that fit.
Some who post actually think it's simple to convert it over but if they remember back when Rac/Phil came in 05..look what they had to do to go from the 43 to the 34 ..of course thats asking some of U to use some logic..well that works well in here..