March 24, 2019, 07:06:21 PM

Author Topic: 3-4 vs. 4-3 fits and roster structure  (Read 1165 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RT

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2823
  • Karma: +42/-9
Re: 3-4 vs. 4-3 fits and roster structure
« Reply #15 on: January 08, 2019, 06:56:37 AM »
It literally doesn't matter at this point.

Defense is played in sub packages like 80% of the time across the NFL. Nickel is your base defense in the NFL right now.

3-4 or 4-3 does not matter. It doesn't change your philosophy or scheme in today's NFL, 4-3 can actually be limiting in some ways.

The players coming out of college are seldom thought of as DEs or OLBs, just edge players. There might one or two prototype DEs in a draft class. This hurts the ability to play an actual 4-3 defense.

For most of us it comes down what stance do your edge players play out of it. Personally, I find the 2 point stance more in line with today's NFL because of all the misdirection and it helps their ability to play in space. We see a good mix of players listed as DEs and OLBs among the sack leaders, so neither really gets the edge.


That is an excellent posting claymaker. Most teams morph back and forth between the two now. Fit the weekly scheme to best handle the team faced at the moment. One week 1 DL and 7 DB's and the next week 4 DL's. Few teams are anal enough and good enough to stay in a base 3-4 or 4-3 for very long. Draft the best players available when their pick is up and put the best 11 on the field for the team faced that week and let them hunt.

Offline Gregg

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2596
  • Karma: +19/-6
Re: 3-4 vs. 4-3 fits and roster structure
« Reply #16 on: January 08, 2019, 09:15:01 AM »
The "if you commit to it" is part of the issue, of course.  A couple of possible negative outcomes with "commit":
1.  You spend two years of your high draft choices on it, but you don't draft well.  If the Jimmies and Joes don't end up being good, it's not going to work.  (See the Randall and Rollins draft as an example of committing unsuccessfully....)
2.  We've got a deteriorating offense with an aging QB and an aging o-line.  The offensive talent has been ignored in the draft for the last ten years.  If we commit to the 4-3, wouldn't that again mean ignoring the offense for another couple of years?  Perhaps the former thought wasn't so wrong that a bend-but-don't-break defense can put you in the dance every year, *IF* you've got a great offense?

I agree that is a possibility Craig.

But OTOH, if you do it correctly you have a really good defense I think.  I just have never really liked the Capers/Pettine style myself.  Capers especially.  He gave all these interviews about how there was not really much difference between the 4-3 and the 3-4 since people played nickel so much.  I got so sick and tired of hearing that, especially when he would then trot out his so called psycho defense, which looked to me like a 2-5.  I mean what the heck is that?

I have always thought that if you played a 4-3, and if its manned correctly, you have the best pass rush possibility combined with seven in coverage, plus you protect the MLB.  And recall, this year's draft is loaded with front seven players.

As per our offense, IMO, Aaron Jones is the real deal. I like those young guys we have at WR, and we only need a blazer type there.  We have about ten picks in the draft this year, plus if we cut the excess contracts we have, like Perry, we can sign a couple of FAs.