|
|
|
|
lazoran

      Hall of Famer
Posts : 2822
|
 |
« #17 : November 07, 2011, 12:17:57 PM »
|
|
Teams have done it and had success. Green Bay for one.
Yeah for got about the Packers just another successful 3-4 team as well as the Pats..
Yep, Packers just switched two years ago. Worked out pretty well I'd say. [/quote
For one the packers had the linebackers to do it and so did Houston. Once again LINEBACKERS are the most important thing to a 3-4 and a very good NT. We have neither of those.. For the record right now the Packers and Patriots are ranked worse then the Bucs defense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
acacius

      Hall of Famer
Posts : 3928
|
 |
« #22 : November 07, 2011, 12:23:32 PM »
|
|
Why not the 4-3 isnt working. Look at Jets-Steelers-Ravens all dominant in the 3-4.. change with the times and the 4-3 or Tampa 2 is not the main defense anymore like it was in the late 90's and early 2000's.....
Meh, there's nothing inherent in the 3-4 that make sit superior. There's certainly some piss-poor 3-4 defenses out there. The problem with the team's defense isn't that it's dated, just that it isn't very good. That said ... it's not very good. If the team decided to switch things up on the coaching staff, I'm not sure that I'd want a potential coach being a 3-4 guy to be a reason to disqualify him. No matter what way you look at it, the team's defense needs work. As far as it would go if we did go down that route, the biggest question in my mind would be whether or not Clayborn could hack it at OLB and what the heck we'd do with Price. Bowers-Okam-McCoy would seem like a logical starting point for the defensive line (assuming McCoy could ever stay on the field). Clayborn would have to put weight back on to play DE in a 3-4, and he seems to play much better at a lower weight. And Price doesn't look like a 3-4 end to me at all. Maybe he could manage things at NT? It'd seem like kind of a waste.
|
|
|
|
« : November 07, 2011, 12:27:41 PM acacius »
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|