Is it time to switch from a 3-4 to a 4-3?

Is it time to move to a 4-3 scheme?

I haven't put a lot of thought into this but as I ponder our scheme vs roster this question arose and I figured I'd put it out there for other to dwell on as I consider the validity of making such a switch.

Points to consider:

In a 3-4 you need a dominate 2-gap NT and 2 effective edge rushing OLBers.

In a 4-3 you need 4 DL who can alone collapse a pocket and pressure the QB and a "mike" MLB who can diagnose a play and be a run stopper. The OLBers must be able to play in space and cover TE's and RB's out of the backfield.

This is a critical offseason for our defense and we must iomprove.

Cajun-

 

We don't have the personnel to switch.

 

We would need to draft a stud DE. Where do you move our first pick JJ to. DE? Keep at OLB in 4-3, a position he has not played. Worrilds, if signed, to DE? Or OLB?
Who is our DTs? McClendon and heyward? The move may stunt both their growth.

We have been drafting for a 3-4 and it's gonna stay.

I do think shamarko and Timmons would benefit. Cortez would be fine either way.

 

You could have skipped the last two words.

 

Just Say No

 

I'm not sure we have the personnel to remain and field an effective 3-4.

A serious evaluation of our roster and potential roster is required in order to determine the best course to pursue.

Signing worilds is a must at this point. Even then he is good for only about 10-12 games. Woodley for 8-10 games. Carter just needs to go. JJ has skill as a defender but he's just over-matched as a full time 3-4 edge rushing OLBer. We have no-one else in the pipe line so now a OLB draft choice in the top three rds is a must. so is CB, WR and OT.

We have no solid NT. McClendon played well but his athletic ability may better be served as a 4-3 DT. Just a thought.

Cajun-

 

Coach LeBeau will never change back to a 4-3 based defense.

For an even further analysis, what % of the snaps on defense did we settle with a "base" defense?

I mean, from what I've been looking, teams are using more and more Nickel packages as their standard defense (mostly 2nd & 3rd downs, but also seen Nickel during 1st downs -when opposing offense uses a 3 or 4 wr set, which is more common now).
So, do you rebuild in order to have a strong base defense, or thinking about your new standard?

 

First, you can't say LeBeau will never play a 4-3 defense.

You bring up really good discussion points about the nickel. When we go into a nickel in our 3-4 set we lose the NT and bring in another corner or safety ( big nickel ) . Our D-Line then looks like a 4-3 with 2 DL and 2 OLB.

To go nickel in the 4-3 we'd keep the D-Line and lose a LB, which one depends on down and distance, Big nickel vs nickel and the type of offense set the opposing team fields. 1 TE 3 WR or 2 TE 2-3 WR.

No matter what LeBeau can run any scheme, depends on the personnel he has available.

Cajun-

 

JJ wasn't strong enough this year to play effectively at OLB. He'd get eaten alive as a three point DE.

I'd prefer to continue running the 3-4 but IMO, we need to draft a true NT and McClendon is not the space eater needed to play the position effectively. I really see him as more of a DE in a 4-3 alignment.

 

It's been his signature product...
I'm pretty sure it's more probable to see Macintosh stopping the production of iPod than LeBeau leaving the 3-4 for 4-3.

 

I say no stick with the 3/4 it needs some tweaks though.

 

Who's your front 7?

 

We need another ILB that can stay on the field during passing downs. The "Troy experiment" didn't work. I think that's why we got gashed on runs because of it. And our run defense fell off.

We have to be better against the run in our nickel package. That's why I don't think we need to draft a NT high. A space eater as some people call him. He would not see the field but for two plays if that. We need the Heyward and McClendon to play better as DT in our nickel and with a true ILB in the same formation, we would be better against the run.

 

IF Garvin keeps progressing the way he did during the season I think our nickel defense will be nasty.
I'm and Timmons can cover a lot of field. I actually think he may push for full time starter next year.

 

In short I don't know.

I started this thread in order to a good debate on the pros and cons of staying in the 3-4 and the pros & cons of switching to a 4-3 using the roster we have/potentially have via draft. How it could be switched and the benefits vs staying put and fixing what's broke.


What I've gotten is more in line with answering a poll question.

To answer your question requires roster evaluation vs scheme. If we stay in a 3-4 we really need a better 2-gap line clogging NT AND OLBers. As stated Worilds is a UFA and if re-signed how long will he play, he struggles to stay healthy. Same with Woodley, he can't stay on the field. Carter is a failure and JJ, well he needs more developing physically and technique wise. There is no one else left to play OLBer (3-4). If we move to a 4-3 we really have all DTs and no true 4-3 DE and no real MLB (mike).

(LDE) Worilds (DT) Hood/Woods (NT:1-tech) McLendon (RDE) Heyward

(SAM) Timmons (MLB:mike) Spence/Foote/Vince/Garvin-??? (WIL) Jarvis Jones

DL- Back-ups are wood/Hebron/Keisel. Also either Nick Williams or Brain Arnfelt. If Hood isn't resigned insert woods there.

LBER backups. Woodley is gone, just too much money vs production. Also Foote may not be resigned and Spence may never return.

I really don't think we're properly tooled to run either scheme ideally. Can we get K. Mack in rd 1? Has the league solved LeBeaus complex defense and would his genius coupled with a shift to a 4-3 with new blitz schemes confound opposing OCs?

Just things going thru my head needing others opinions to help sort thru.

Cajun-

 

I think it's better to stick with what everyone knows and don't have the personnel for the scheme then to switch the scheme to something no one knows and don't have the personnel for.

So in essence, we have 3-4 personnel but not good enough or switch to 4-3, teach everyone a new scheme and don't have the personnel for it.

 

We need another huge body NT and our D, I think, would shore up around it and come together. BAM!

We need a Big Snack.

 

Agreed.

 

I agree and disagree with this. I agree that we need one but I would not waste a high price free agent or draft one high. I disagree with this because if you do get one he will not see the field but for 1st and 2nd down. If that. Most teams don't line up in the traditional formation anymore and going more to the spread offense.

We need someone to be able to push the pocket and play the run in our nickel package because we are in that more than we are in our base defense.

 

I so agree that the 3-4/4-3 debate is not what it used to be. I also think a true switch would not be as difficult as other think schematically wise since our "D" guys run so many different assignments in LeBeau's various alignments.

It seems we differ a bit on a proposed player designation/position. We agree with MClendon & Hood/woods. I have worilds as LDE because since he isn't a true 4-3 DE ( size/speed ) and since he plays better on the left side he'll also be going up against the RT.

I have Timmons on the strong side because he can cover the TE and should be able to shed his block on run plays and not sure he can be the mike, this year they had a rookie calling the plays over him.......

You mention the draft. I think this draft is critical. It must be defense heavy and CB may be the 1st best option. If K. Mack falls to us and Worilds is resigned we'll probably stay 3-4 based which wouldn't be a bad thing. If he doesn't make it to us what 4-3 guys or position do you think would best suit us. I'm thinking DE.

Cajun-