Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Would this defense be better off as a 3-4? « previous next »
Page: 1 2 3

JDouble

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 29156
Offline
#30 : May 09, 2013, 05:47:37 PM

We don't have the players for the 3-4. We don't have another ILB and our DEs aren't athletic enough to play OLB (can't cover). They also aren't big enough to play DE in a 3-4. We also don't have a big physical enough DT to play nose. In our front 7...only 2 people would easily fit into a 3-4 scheme. McCoy could move to DE and Foster could play one of the MLB positions. As good as David is...he's small and undersized to rush the passer on a consistent basis. Switching to a 3-4 would take a few years and you'd have to replace some people. There's nothing wrong with the 4-3 and I'd rather add one DE and a LB to what we have than have to add 4-5 more people to do a 3-4.

Lavonte David is 6'1" 235lbs.....Larry Foote is 6'1" 239lbs and Lawence Timmons is 6'1" 234lbs. How is David too small to play ILB?

Brett Keisel is 6'5" 285lbs....Clayborn is 6'3" 285lbs and Bowers is 6'4" 280lbs. How are they too small to play DE?

David and Foster would be good as ILBs and McCoy, Bowers, and Clayborn would be good DEs. What we lack is a true NT and a couple pass rushing OLBs. The OLBs are really what makes a 3-4 successful though, so not having even one is a pretty huge road block.

McCoy might even work as a NT if it was a Wade Phillips type 3-4. He had great success with Jay Ratliff as NT and Ratliff is 6'4" 295lbs.
: May 09, 2013, 05:53:16 PM JDouble


Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 17509
Offline
#31 : May 09, 2013, 07:12:27 PM

Who would be our stand-up outside LB/ edge rusher who also has the ability to drop in coverage on some plays ?? All good 3-4's have that guy . Who would do it for us ? Dakota Watson ? We'd get boat raced worse than we did last season ...

What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.

           

yuccaneers

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 2449
Offline
#32 : May 09, 2013, 09:47:58 PM

I think many are consumed by traditionalist thoughts about a 34 defense in which a team must have a monstrous nose tackle two-gaping - occupying two blockers for the scheme to be effective. Wade Phillips has shown that the 34 defense can be just as good and effective being run using one-gap principles. Most teams OLB edge rushers are not asked to drop in coverage all the much - the scheme is designed to mask those players coverage inabilities as the ILB drop more frequently in coverage with one or both OLB rushing the passer - if not rushing the OLB drop to spots or buzz the flats.

Clarification, my part. I don't believe a 34 defense with the current rostered personnel would be better but the team does have the players to run a penetrating one-gaping 34 defensive system. Of course they only have a starting unit with no primary backup players. But it could be used as a change of pace on known passing downs depending on down an distance to generate a fierce pass rush based on the personnel I outlined witht he team varying their blitz looks and running cover 7 behind it.
: May 09, 2013, 09:53:28 PM yuccaneers


blind melon

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 15706
Offline
#33 : May 09, 2013, 09:56:49 PM

Thanks Yucc.

Who knew how good it would feel as a fan when we now know what it\'s like for our team to have a direction, an attitude, and dare I say an offense?.  

Good time to be a Bucs fan.

Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 17509
Offline
#34 : May 10, 2013, 07:18:32 AM

I think many are consumed by traditionalist thoughts about a 34 defense in which a team must have a monstrous nose tackle two-gaping - occupying two blockers for the scheme to be effective. Wade Phillips has shown that the 34 defense can be just as good and effective being run using one-gap principles. Most teams OLB edge rushers are not asked to drop in coverage all the much - the scheme is designed to mask those players coverage inabilities as the ILB drop more frequently in coverage with one or both OLB rushing the passer - if not rushing the OLB drop to spots or buzz the flats.


A 3-4  OLB still has to have that threat and ability, regardless of how often he actually drops . That's what makes the 3-4 effective , the fact that you don't ever know exactly where the rush will be coming from . If your OLB does nothing but rush on every single play , guess what ?? He's a defensive end and you are simply running a disguised 4-3.


Clayborn or Bowers don't have that ability to take their hand off the ground and play LB on some downs , they simply aren't agile enough. Lavonte  or any of our other LB's don't excel at pass rush . Therefore you are missing a key component of the personnel needed to run that scheme.

What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.

           

JDouble

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 29156
Offline
#35 : May 10, 2013, 07:55:56 AM

I don't think coverage is very important for the 3-4 OLB. If they drop into coverage every now and then, it's just zone and usually just the flat. It's basically just putting a body there to close off the underneath option or at least make it harder to complete. If it is completed, there is an OLB there to contain it. It's not like Clay Mathews and DeMarcus Ware are dropping back in man coverage. The OLBs in a 3-4 have to be able to get to the passer quickly. That is what really matters. We unfortunately don't have anyone that fits that mold. The rookie Means might be the only guy on our roster that could fit the mold. Possibly Watson, but probably not. Bennett was pretty good at standing up and moving around, but I don't think Clayborn or Bowers have ever shown the ability to do it. Besides, they are both bigger builds and would be better fits at DE, even in a 3-4.
: May 10, 2013, 07:58:01 AM JDouble


BucNY

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 7860
Offline
#36 : May 10, 2013, 08:21:35 AM

We don't have the players for the 3-4. We don't have another ILB and our DEs aren't athletic enough to play OLB (can't cover). They also aren't big enough to play DE in a 3-4. We also don't have a big physical enough DT to play nose. In our front 7...only 2 people would easily fit into a 3-4 scheme. McCoy could move to DE and Foster could play one of the MLB positions. As good as David is...he's small and undersized to rush the passer on a consistent basis. Switching to a 3-4 would take a few years and you'd have to replace some people. There's nothing wrong with the 4-3 and I'd rather add one DE and a LB to what we have than have to add 4-5 more people to do a 3-4.

Lavonte David is 6'1" 235lbs.....Larry Foote is 6'1" 239lbs and Lawence Timmons is 6'1" 234lbs. How is David too small to play ILB?

Brett Keisel is 6'5" 285lbs....Clayborn is 6'3" 285lbs and Bowers is 6'4" 280lbs. How are they too small to play DE?

David and Foster would be good as ILBs and McCoy, Bowers, and Clayborn would be good DEs. What we lack is a true NT and a couple pass rushing OLBs. The OLBs are really what makes a 3-4 successful though, so not having even one is a pretty huge road block.

McCoy might even work as a NT if it was a Wade Phillips type 3-4. He had great success with Jay Ratliff as NT and Ratliff is 6'4" 295lbs.

Lavonte is not 235lbs. And Clayborn and Bowers are not two gap DE's. We have no OLB to rush the passer and McCoy is not two typical NT in a 3-4. He'd be better suited for a DE in the 3-4.

This defense was drafted for a 4-3 and the talent fits much better.

\\\\\\\"This forum needs a poster like BucNY now more than ever\\\\\\\"
      - Everyone

JDouble

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 29156
Offline
#37 : May 10, 2013, 04:10:46 PM

So there is a conspiracy at the combine and everyone was in on it so Lavonte could be listed at 235lbs when he really isn't?


DerekPHFD

**
Rookie

Posts : 54
Offline
#38 : May 11, 2013, 01:41:40 AM

The two most important positions in the 34 front are NT and OLB. And we don't have a legit player to play either position. Casey Hampton and Joey Porter/Harrison/Woodley in Pitt, Adams/Goose/Gregg and Boulware/Suggs in Balt (Ngata lines up a DE a majority of snaps), Washington/Wilfork and Vrabel in NE, and Williams and Merriman in SD. Those defenses flourished with having very solid to elite players at those positions.
but when you look at the names of the OLBs on each of those teams, I don't think "great in converge LBs" I think of pass rushers that were asked to occasionally drop in to coverage.

that being said, we don't have the personal to run anything but a 43.

JDouble

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 29156
Offline
#39 : May 21, 2013, 04:14:26 PM

Been thinking about this. I think with McCoy in the middle, Bowers and Clayborn as DEs, David and Foster as ILBs, and Watson/Means as our OLB pass rushers.....it could be interesting. I don't know about a full time switch, but I'd certainly like to see this set up used now and then. I think it could be effective.

Wade Phillips 3-4 was great with smaller guys. In Dallas he had Jay Ratliff at NT, and he is smaller than McCoy. Now look at the Texans. All the NT on the roster are less than 305lbs and all the DEs are 275lbs to 285lbs. I think there are a lot of misconceptions about size in a 3-4.

I only bring this up again because now that we see Schiano's defensive philosophy, it's pretty clear a 3-4 would make more sense. He might be able to find success with a 4-3, but all of his base beliefs and strategies are usually associated with a 3-4 defense. 
: May 21, 2013, 04:20:32 PM JDouble

Page: 1 2 3
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Would this defense be better off as a 3-4? « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools