Beans90 Posted October 3, 2010 Share Posted October 3, 2010 The defense looks terrible and the secondary doesnt even look good. Im starting to think that the 4-3 was why our secondary was really good. what do you guys think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b stein 22 Posted October 3, 2010 Share Posted October 3, 2010 (edited) The defense looks terrible and the secondary doesnt even look good. Im starting to think that the 4-3 was why our secondary was really good. what do you guys think? +1. We dont have the players to play a 3-4 and most of our starters are used to playing 4-3. The defense will be improved just by changing to the 4-3. Fire George Edwards. Edited October 3, 2010 by b stein 22 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabe Northern Posted October 3, 2010 Share Posted October 3, 2010 The defense looks terrible and the secondary doesnt even look good. Im starting to think that the 4-3 was why our secondary was really good. what do you guys think? Right. The Cover 2 scheme is what allowed our defense to keep explosive passing offenses under wraps. The problem was defending the run. Now we have 3 DL on the field instead of 4 and play more man. So we're every bit as bad against the run but now also such against the deep passing game as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beans90 Posted October 3, 2010 Author Share Posted October 3, 2010 we never should have gotten rid of perry fewell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted October 3, 2010 Share Posted October 3, 2010 So if we go back to the 4-3, does that mean we can move all our horrible linebackers back to being horrible DEs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ganesh Posted October 3, 2010 Share Posted October 3, 2010 The defense looks terrible and the secondary doesnt even look good. Im starting to think that the 4-3 was why our secondary was really good. what do you guys think? The 3-4, in order to be successful must stop the run with its LBs. Unfortunately, we have not been able to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b stein 22 Posted October 3, 2010 Share Posted October 3, 2010 So if we go back to the 4-3, does that mean we can move all our horrible linebackers back to being horrible DEs? What are you talking about the only De that moved to line backer was retard Chris Kelsey. We would be much better off in the 4-3 right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted October 3, 2010 Share Posted October 3, 2010 What are you talking about the only De that moved to line backer was retard Chris Kelsey. Are Moats, Ellis, and Maybin not on the team anymor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b stein 22 Posted October 3, 2010 Share Posted October 3, 2010 Are Moats, Ellis, and Maybin not on the team anymor? My bad was not thinking straight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted October 3, 2010 Share Posted October 3, 2010 What?! And throw away the bulk of our draft class and most of the free agent money spent this off-season? It's easier to cut Fitzpatrick! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted October 3, 2010 Share Posted October 3, 2010 The defense looks terrible and the secondary doesnt even look good. Im starting to think that the 4-3 was why our secondary was really good. what do you guys think? You may see some improvement, and it may be the better choice THIS year, but for the future, the 3-4 is the better choice. Why? It is more versatile, yes but even more it is easier to stockpile players for the scheme. In theory, a 6-3 guy around 250 pounds that can run is easier to find than a 6'6" guy that weighs 295 and can run. Great DL's are hard to find, even if you draft well. If our FO had a clue we could have right now: DL Haloti Ngata , LB Clay Matthews, LB David Harris, NT Vince Wilfork. We are not good right now anywhere in the front 7. The only element of a 3-4 we have is our secondary. Not a great game today, but you need to generate pressure for the 3-4 to work. But a scheme that requires more LB's is in theory an easier physical type to find than DL's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fixxxer Posted October 3, 2010 Share Posted October 3, 2010 No at all. What they need to do is what they promised. Being more aggressive, this defense is conservative but it breaks too often. When Edwards came on board he said he was going to be aggressive and so far he has his unit playing scared. Hopefully he falls in the evaluation category because if more of this **** is served he is not the right man for the job. If you can't get to the passer or you can't stop the other team from running the ball, be creative, find ways to get to the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsZubaz Posted October 3, 2010 Share Posted October 3, 2010 Apparently no one else has noticed the the past 2 weeks we have been playing predominately a 4-3 alignment.... We are not running a true 3-4 yet (although this is the base) and have been transitioning back and forth regularly. There is no need to scrap the scheme, we just need time to gather the right players to run it. This is what happens when you have players learning 1st year new scheme that they are not necessarily fit for. That being said. We are pretty darn bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in STL Posted October 3, 2010 Share Posted October 3, 2010 (edited) The defense looks terrible and the secondary doesnt even look good. Im starting to think that the 4-3 was why our secondary was really good. what do you guys think? The defense is horrible and does not have the right talent to run a 3-4. When Nix and Gailey decided to make the switch they more than doubled the workload on this rebuild. Should we go back? I say no. Why start over again when this season is lost. Keep playing the 3-4 and maybe a few of the young guys will start to develop. We need to draft better players on the front 7. It will take years for this defense to come together. Sorry, but unless they are going to spend money bringing in talented veterans there is no fast solution. Even spending big money on free agents is no gaurantee. Edited October 3, 2010 by Bob in STL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted October 3, 2010 Share Posted October 3, 2010 The thing is, you have to have a DC who has brains. That's what makes a guy like Belichick a great defensive mind...he's always been able to get the most out of his players because he's an innovator in terms of scheming. Perry Fewell exhibited some talent and game planning and putting our players in position to play well, even given our lack of talent. So far, George Edwards doesn't seem to have that same ability. I don't expect us to be the '85 Bears, but for cripes sake we have been like a damn sieve!!! No NFL team should be giving up chunks and chunks of yards on the ground like we did today. That was just embarrassing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted October 3, 2010 Share Posted October 3, 2010 They always talk about good coaches adapting to the personnel. So, twice in this decade we have coaches who come in and do the opposite. Gregg comes in and goes 4-3 and gets rid of Ted W. at the same time.......Now, this fiasco. We're changing to 3-4 because everybody else is doing it (even though we don't have the players) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts