Bagging the 3-4 Altogether?

[dgrid]

I dont see them scrapping the 3-4 next yr. 2011 will be Part II of the rebuild, and just because the 3-4 didnt work out too well, doesnt mean they'll stop going in that direction. They choose to go to 3-4 when they were ill-equipt for it in 2010, my $ is on them staying the course.

 

my opinion, which is meaningless, is that they shouldnt have switched in the 1st place, w/ all the other areas of need. I do see advantage to goin back to 4-3, w/ our personel and the fact it's gotta be getting easier to get 4-3 style D-linemen, w/ so many teams playin 3-4 now. But that doesnt mean the FO will.

[Typical TBD Guy]

As a 4-3 D-end Kelsay has played "good." I know your brain can't a.) grapple with anything positive and b.) has written Kelsay into irreversible corner of shame, but since they switched back, he's looked infinitely better. TROOF!

 

I love all the claims that reverting back to the 4-3 would be a mammoth step backward, that somehow it would offset ALL the time and resources we've committed to building the 3-4, all the fixtures to our defense who in any other context are scrap heap players but now suddenly represent lynch pins in the Nix/Gailey plan for the future.

 

Really, how much have truly "invested" in this 3-4 defense?

 

5 players. Maybe more. See my earlier post in this thread. Care to answer my post? Care to explain how each of our rookie front 7 draft picks plus Dwan Edwards will fit in a 4-3?

 

You really want to throw all that out for Christina? The Vikings completely abused our vaunted 4-3 last Sunday. Teams are still running for at least 150 yds each week and facing little pass rush. Seems to me that her amazing play as a 4-3 DE isn't making that big of a difference. No opposing teams are altering their game plans for this sissy.

 

Stick to the !@#$ing plan.

Edited December 9, 2010 by Internet Tough Guy

[dgrid]

No opposing teams are altering their game plans for this sissy.

hell yeah they are, they're running in her direction

[Sisyphean Bills]

As a 4-3 D-end Kelsay has played "good." I know your brain can't a.) grapple with anything positive and b.) has written Kelsay into irreversible corner of shame, but since they switched back, he's looked infinitely better. TROOF!

I'd advise against going the route of personal attacks and long-distance mind-reading of other posters with your posts. It gives you no credibility whatsoever.

 

Kelsay is a horrible OLB. He is also a below average DE. He has his moments, and if you want to call those occasions "infinitely better" then please do so. But, don't get all butt hurt if some people laugh at your assessments.

 

The Bills are the worst team in the league against the run and have played both the 3-4 and 4-3 to get there. But, yeah, the problem is the alignment.

[The Big Cat]

I'd advise against going the route of personal attacks and long-distance mind-reading of other posters with your posts. It gives you no credibility whatsoever.

 

 

OMFG, coming from you, that's the funniest **** I've heard in a long time.

 

Also, regarding your prior post, I answered that question with the OP. Seems to me the only person would be vastly out of place in a switch back to the 4-3 would be Danny Batten. I can see Moats manning one of the OLB positions in the 4-3, but (just like the rest of Bills nation who never got a chance to see the guy play) I don't know **** about Danny Batten, so who's to say? Andra Davis' skills in the middle are most certainly transferable, as are Dwan's in a DE capacity.

 

So just where were the off season resources wasted?

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

who thinks kyle williams can play end in the 3-4? glenn dorsey did it in kc and kyle is a pretty athletic guy. williams-troupe carrington could be a solid line.

 

 

I think KW would play anywhere and do well. What ever shceme gets the most out of him is the right one. Troup and Carrington, man if they turn out to be good that really shores up the line, Same with Batten and Moats regarding the LB corp.

 

Bummer about Maybin and McCargo.

[steampunk]

I think KW would play anywhere and do well. What ever shceme gets the most out of him is the right one.

 

I'm with ya on that.

 

Crazy-agile 340 pounder Ngata used to play NT for the Ravens, but with Gregg in the middle as the "try to move me, I dare ya" clogger, Ngata is free to create more havoc at DE.

 

Kyle would be successful at end. In a 3-4, it's the best place for his skills. With the superhuman effort he seems to put into every snap, I do believe he'd hold his own as a very undersized 2-gap NT in the 'clog and occupy' role. But that doesn't seem like best bang for the buck. Mister Kyledriver is SO good at shedding blockers and punching through.

 

So, Kyle at DE. On obvious passing downs, the NT waddles off the field. Williams slides midward. Another DE comes off the bench.

 

My opinion on biggest defensive needs for the Bills 3-4 is:

 

1) New coordinator

2) 3-4 NT (maybe that's Troupe and maybe it's not)

3) Three linebackers, preferably

 

A) A strongside LB that can rush and fight off a block to get to the passer or ballcarrier.

B) Another ILB. Needs to be able both tackle AND cover (imagine that), because every other AFC East team has one or more great young TEs.

C) A very smart utility LB of the type Crennel and Belichick seem to value. May not be great at any one thing, but can do a little pass rushing, a little coverage, etc. The real strength of the 3-4 is that the 4 LBs make it a versatile scheme that has a lot of options and is tough to read. Torbor (coverage) plus Ayodele (run stop) may combine two 0.5s of a linebacker into one average player, but the other side can see those substitutions and game on them.

 

Needs #2 and #3 shouldn't be a license to reach in the draft. After this past decade they need draft hits more than any single position. The NT/LBs could come through the draft, existing roster development or free agency.