POLL: Transitioning to a 4-3 - Likelihood and Specifics

I just this minute read about LeBeau. I haven't even had time to process my thoughts. But in the other thread I was only on the first page before I saw a lot of, "Well now they'll be going to a 4-3, because that's what Tomlin has wanted all along."

Is it? I know that was the speculation when Tomlin was hired in 2007, because he came from a 4-3 defense when he was a DC for one year. But let's be real. Tomlin's 4-3 success was as a position coach in Tampa Bay, and then as a DC in Minnesota, again, for one year. His success with the 3-4 is as a head coach, and includes 2 AFC Championships and 1 Super Bowl win, with one of the greatest defenses in NFL history, statistically and otherwise. The first 5 years he ran a 3-4 his defense was statistically exceptional. Even after hitting the lowest depths the last two years, it's been mediocre. Yes, that's not good enough, but my point is that what seems catastrophic is really just a taste of what the rest of the league lives with all the time. The 3-4 has been very, very good to him. Much better than the 4-3, in my opinion.

That said, something obviously has to change. A huge argument can be made the answer to that is "the players," because we just haven't had the talent we used to. I personally thought LeBeau did a pretty good job this year - you try coordinating a defense in this league that has a bunch of scrubs at CB and FS, and can't generate a pass rush. I'm not taking a stance on ditching LeBeau yet, but I do think it's a valid argument to keep the 3-4 - you could say it wasn't the system, and that the system actually bailed us out a little. (I certainly didn't expect the likes of Gay, Blake, and McCain to hold together as well as they did. We blame coaches when players underachieve, so why not credit coaches when players overachieve?)

To me, it seems almost certain that Keith Butler will be named the new DC very soon. We didn't ditch LeBeau because he's not good enough; we ditched him because we've been straining to keep Butler around for ages, and if LeBeau isn't turning in exceptional results, then we need to make that switch, or we'll lose him.

So if that does indeed happen, the heir and inside man takes the reigns, what makes you think he'd overturn the whole system? Doesn't this seem like the kind of transition that results in minor changes?

So I'm thinking we'll keep the 3-4. Unless, of course, Tomlin really has been salivating all this time for a 4-3, despite being a first hand witness to an extremely impressive run of 3-4 dominance.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now, if we do make the switch this year, who plays where? What are your ideas? Here are my first thoughts:

(LDE) Heyward (DT) Tuitt (DT) McLendon (RDE) ???

(SLB) Jones (MLB) Timmons (WLB) Shazier

Williams backs up Jones, Spence backs up Timmons/Shazier.

*I'm assuming Worilds is gone. Even if he stuck around, I'm not sure he could handle being a DE. He's not Woodley.

Pros:

• Perhaps a better home for Jarvis Jones? Playing in a 4-3 might help him play to his strengths - instincts, tackling, not being locked up with OTs all the time, blitzing from random and more creative places rather than edge rushing.
• Shazier could thrive more than anyone. It's easier to see him blowing up the league in a 4-3.
• Should be a relatively easy transition for Timmons, and the LBs in general.
• Tuitt could probably make the transition.
• McLendon seems like he'd work as a DT.

Cons:

• Even though I said some things like "Should be a relatively easy transition" and "Seems like that should work" above, the fact is everyone has to change positions. Even Timmons, who remains an inside linebacker, would have to learn to lead a whole new defense. That's a huge deal. Even with Pro Bowlers at every turn (which we don't have), our team would suffer an enormous blow the first year - at least.
• We'd suffer the blow even if it ultimately works. But worse, with all those changes, there's a good chance some of them won't work, and guys will fall on their face. Then we'd be really screwed.
• Even though the 4-3 might benefit some of our younger guys like Shazier and Jarvis, the switch could also slow their development even further.
• That is one massive hole at DE. No one on the roster, no one on the horizon. No depth. The one guy that I have there (Heyward) would be making the most substantial position change of everyone. I'm not even sure he's a fit.

It's also worth noting that whichever scheme we play this year, we need to address the edge rush position. So yeah, we'd be completely desperate for a DE if we go 4-3, but if we stay 3-4 we'd be almost as desperate for an OLB. I say "almost" because we could re-sign Moats, and he's at least a body. So we're in trouble and need to land a stud either way, but it'd be worse with a 4-3.

 

I voted probably not. But it's not inconceivable.

 

I voted I don't know. But because of the muddle huddle and having to use nickel so much, I think it is very possible. You want to put your best front 7 out there. Is that
mcCullers Heyward Tuitt McClendon Timmons Shazier Moats
or McClendon Heyward Tuitt Timmons Shazier J.Jones and Moats?

 

We would be trying to put a round peck in a square hole by switching to a 4-3. Hayward is not a 4-3 defensive end. We need a freeney/Mathias combination upfront. Any one of our dends could play DT.

If if we made the switch we need one free agent rush defensive end and draft another.

 

anyway we need passs rushers .. either de or olb ...

 

I want a 4-3. The 3-4 needs way too many versitile players. You need a big NT that can eat up blockers, olb's who should be rushing the passer tend to drop back into coverage. If you look at the teams that compete with manning and Brady they are almost always 4-3 teams who can get pressure with the down lineman. It just seems like a more simple defense in today's NFL. All that said, we don't have any DE's that can transition to a 4-3. Not enough speed.

 

I would prefer it, but I don't see it happening. This organization doesn't like a lot of change all at once.

 

again, base defenses are a thing of the past. its all about sub packages. get athletes and put them in positions to make plays. the days of lining up in the traditional 3-4 or 4-3 are gone until the rules change. I don't see that happening.

its all about personnel. we need to put the best 11 on the field at any given situation. it don't matter what it looks like

 

4-3 personnel works better with the sub packages too.

 

not sure.

lets say we forget how these guys played in the 3-4 or how they would fit but lets look at some of the guys we have brought in lately. this is interesting.

Clifton geathers 6-8 325
cam heyward 6-5 288
dan McCullers 6-7 352
steve mclendon 6-4 320
cam Thomas 6-4 330
stephon tuitt 6-5 303
brett keisel 6-5 285
matt conrath 6-7 306
ethan hemmer 6-6 282
joe kruger 6-6 287
Roosevelt nix 5-11 260 listed as an OLB, but played DL at kent state. very similar game to the kid from pitt that was too small for us last year and would get swallowed up in the pros. remember him? I believe he had a pretty good year with the rams in the pros as a rookie.

zumwalt 6-4 235 can run
spence 5-11 235 can run
Williams 6-0 240
Timmons 6-1 240 ish
shazier 6-0 230 ish
h.jones 6-4 235
j.jones 6-2 245
garvin 6-2 230ish

I think I've covered them all so far. not quite as far off a 4-3 as some might think. also not as far off of a 3-4 as some might think. there is quite an interesting mix in here right now and that's just defense.


note I just saw we added l'damian Washington a 6-4 WR from mizzou that has some wheels to go with that size. we also have the tall kid from the PS at WR too, that I believe has some wheels. also added was a fairly fast TE in egnew with some size and speed. a couple of safeties in fogg and darby. interesting stuff here I think. some guys that hadn't made big splashes yet in the pros but were fairly talented in college. maybe they just weren't in the right setting. is this the re-build?

 

Actually, Heyward was a very good 4-3 DE at Ohio State. Shazier was also a 4-3 WLB at OSU. Tuitt played DT and DE in his 4-3 at ND and Timmons was actually an OLB in a 4-3 at FSU. It's not as round peg, square hole as you think. With that being said... If probably prefer that we stay in the 3-4. We're just now starting to piece our front 7 together, lets keep it going

 

I can't accurately respond to this until the DC is hired

 

heyward played some DT in that 4-3 at OSU also from time to time. very interesting additions going on too SG. Hmmmmmm. LOL OH IO and go bucks. this is a no duck fly zone. there will be no duck dynasty going on Monday night.

 

Neither Tuitt or Heyward was not known for their pass rush ability in college. We need pass rushers first and foremost

 

I think Timmons could do it, but it would mean learning a whole new everything... Might struggle for a year calling the shots, but I think he could do it just fine.

I actually don't worry so much about our LBs in a 4-3. I think Timmons would ultimately be good, and I think the outer guys could actually improve. It's the DL, specifically the DEs, that suffer. We have no one for one side, and maybe Heyward for the other... or maybe he's better suited as a DT, which means we're already overflowing inside with no one at all outside. We just don't have the personnel and would have to have one hell of a draft to get there this year.

 

I tried to respond to this thread last night and it wouldn't let me and then it was taken down. Just curious if that's a problem on my end?

 

Oh ok.

 

Yeah, I was having issues with the poll part, so I deleted the whole thing until I fixed it.

 

Probably not, but I think we have the personnel to do it without too much of a headache.

I'd base our version of the 4-3 on the GB Packer model during the early-mid 90's, when they simply overpowered the OL with the likes of Reggie White-Santana Dotson-Gilbert Brown-Sean Jones. We'd still need to find our Santana Dotson, but if we stay 3-4 we need to find an edge rusher anyway, so either scheme we still need at least one new piece.

I'd have a DL of Tuitt-new-McClendon-Heyward. Cam Heyward had 7.5 sacks as a 3-4 DE, and it's not out of the question for to that rise to double-digits in a 4-3. And with our LB coming on the occasional blitz, I think this would work.

As for our LB's, I think the 4-3 is clearly the best scheme for them. However, the wildcard is how quickly our established vets can pick up something new. To me, that's the only downside to a switch as I think our personnel match up well to a 4-3.

And come to think of it, as it stands we need a 3-4 OLB. If we switch, we'd need a 4-3 edge rusher or 4-3 DT penetrator, depending on where Tuitt would play. Going 4-3 would give us more options to pick a quality guy without reaching for need in the draft (for a 3-4 rusher). Having two options is better than being locked in to one.

I'd totally support a move to the 4-3 but think we'll stay with the 3-4.

 

I'm sorry, you lost me at "Success" and "Tampa" in the same sentence.