NewEra Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Just as it reads. Which alignment do you think fits better with our current personnel? I want an aggressive DC that loves to blitz. I haven't seen it in forever. I prefer to give up some big plays in order to make some plays. Be aggressive!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punch Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 It's more difficult than ever to find players that fit in an NFL ready 3-4 alignment. Having said that, defenses are much more of a hybrid than ever before, so the distinction between 3-4 and 4-3 may be fading somewhat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealth Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 (edited) Honestly I dont care what scheme we play as I feel in order to really be a good defense you have to be versatile. 3-4/4-3 all that is is a base alighnment. You can run so many different coverage schemes/blitzes then you get into your nickle/dime defenses. in a base 3-4 you can run more blitz packages, however you can also run similiar blitz schemes in a 4-3. Honestly my favorite defense is the 4-3 defense that was coached by Jim Johnson (for more modern variations Spags 07 Giants defense a Johnson disiciple Ron Rivera uses elements of it as well) when it comes down to it there where no better d coordinators over the last 20 years than Johnson and Lebeau. I like any kind of attacking defense that while you may sacrifice yards on the ground if ran right you're going to dictate play from multiple alignments and blitz schemes. It's the most fun thing to watch in football. I believe in order to be a successful defense today you have to be versatile. So much of todays game is played with defenses having to line up in the nickle and other coverage alighnments you can't throw around simplistic terms like 3-4 vs 4-3. You should have players that can adapt to both. However for the sake of your question, I'm going to say I would prefer a 4-3 base alignment. Edited January 9, 2013 by Stealth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewEra Posted January 9, 2013 Author Share Posted January 9, 2013 Honestly I dont care what scheme we play as I feel in order to really be a good defense you have to be versatile. 3-4/4-3 all that is is a base alighnment. You can run so many different coverage schemes/blitzes then you get into your nickle/dime defenses. in a base 3-4 you can run more blitz packages, however you can also run similiar blitz schemes in a 4-3. Honestly my favorite defense is the 4-3 defense that was coached by Jim Johnson (for more modern variations Spags 07 Giants defense a Johnson disiciple Ron Rivera uses elements of it as well) when it comes down to it there where no better d coordinators over the last 20 years than Johnson and Lebeau. I like any kind of attacking defense that while you may sacrifice yards on the ground if ran right you're going to dictate play from multiple alignments and blitz schemes. It's the most fun thing to watch in football. I believe in order to be a successful defense today you have to be versatile. So much of todays game is played with defenses having to line up in the nickle and other coverage alighnments you can't throw around simplistic terms like 3-4 vs 4-3. You should have players that can adapt to both. However for the sake of your question, I'm going to say I would prefer a 4-3 base alignment. Well said. I asked because it very well could dictate our 1st pick if they plan on going LB rd 1 and QB in rd 2. It looks as if there's more talent at 3-4 OLB than any other LB spot. I agree though, ideally, it would be nice to grab guys that can adapt to both. Can't wait for the draft already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simpleman Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Well said. I asked because it very well could dictate our 1st pick if they plan on going LB rd 1 and QB in rd 2. It looks as if there's more talent at 3-4 OLB than any other LB spot. I agree though, ideally, it would be nice to grab guys that can adapt to both. Can't wait for the draft already. :thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 This has become, far and away, my biggest pet peeve on the board since the hiring of Marrone. IT DOES NOT MATTER -- we need a DC who has knowledge of DEFENSES, period, and can adapt his schemes, fronts, and strategies to fit the team's personnel. /off soapbox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealth Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 This has become, far and away, my biggest pet peeve on the board since the hiring of Marrone. IT DOES NOT MATTER -- we need a DC who has knowledge of DEFENSES, period, and can adapt his schemes, fronts, and strategies to fit the team's personnel. /off soapbox I hear ya, but honestly I'd rather deal with this than the constant "OMG WE NEED A QB....OMG THERES NO QB.....OMG FITZ SUCKS..." threads that seem to dominate pretty much everything else Well said. I asked because it very well could dictate our 1st pick if they plan on going LB rd 1 and QB in rd 2. It looks as if there's more talent at 3-4 OLB than any other LB spot. I agree though, ideally, it would be nice to grab guys that can adapt to both. Can't wait for the draft already. There's quite a bit of talented players at de/olb that will go high. I've always been a big proponent of the "you don't draft lb's high unless they're pass rushers" mantra. Granted there are exceptions to the rule on occasion. Doesn't look like that's the case in this draft. The Bills could use help at all linebacker spots regardless of the scheme they ultimately end up playing although someone like Bradham I think would be a monster in a 3-4 defense as a rush backer. Can never have enough quality linebackers either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
playman Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 im in favor of a defense that actually get stops. give me a 6-1 umbrella if it works Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niagara Bill Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 The weakest position on the Bills is LB and we have no possibility of adding that many LB is one off season. Other than Bradham, there are no LB's on the roster that I would would keep. Sheppard....cannot stop the run and has not advanced Barrnet is done as a starter Moats is not a true backer, a tweener who has a place on the team but not as a starter Merriman....done Too big a change to go to a 3-4 in one year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VirginiaMike Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 I agree that whatever scheme the Bills play, they will need to adapt to various situations, but when I look at the Bill's talent, there is much more of it at the D-Tackle / D Line positions than at Linebacker. I don't think we have any players on the roster who would be good OLBs in a 3-4 scheme. We know Kelsay can't play there and I don't think it's the best fit for M. Williams. I am also not sure we have any ILBs who could play in a 3-4 scheme. In a 4-3 I think we are set at D-Tackle with Dareus, K Williams, and Carrington as the main 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max997 Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 team is better suited for the 4-3 so thats my vote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobChalmers Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 (edited) The weakest position on the Bills is LB and we have no possibility of adding that many LB is one off season. Other than Bradham, there are no LB's on the roster that I would would keep. Sheppard....cannot stop the run and has not advanced Barrnet is done as a starter Moats is not a true backer, a tweener who has a place on the team but not as a starter Merriman....done Too big a change to go to a 3-4 in one year Mario, Anderson, and Merriman all become OLB's in a 3-4, so we actually would be short FEWER LB's in that alignment. Sticking with a 4-3, we are really desperate for a stud 3-down MLB. He's not on the roster, and Manti Te'O shattered my dreams that he was that guy on Monday night (P-U he stunk!!!). It might actually be easier to come up with capable ILB's, particularly if Bradham can be one of those guys. OTOH, I don't know for a fact that Anderson CAN play OLB - he has the body and speed for it, but my understanding is he hasn't actualy done it, and he's way too small for a 3-4 DE. See Chris Kelsay from two years ago - no position at all from one of your top-paid DL's is a bad idea for a new scheme. "Too much change in one year" is kind of out the window, regardless - they only played the current base scheme for a year, and they looked pretty bad doing it, and oh, btw, Wanny was fired. Whoever they hire is going to have their own scheme(s). Edited January 9, 2013 by BobChalmers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper13 Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 They could play a 3-4, 4-3 or a 2-9 or a 0-11 for all I care, Whatever it is, they can't give up 5,800 yards and 430 points a season. Whatever scheme Pettine implements is what they will go with so we will see. Has to be better than Wanny's "Invisible D" scheme. Jets did have a very good D for the last three years, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max997 Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 (edited) Mario didnt like playing OLB when Houston switched. he is big enough though that he could prob play DE in a 3-4 IMO I do like the idea of Anderson as OLB in a 3-4...actually forgot about him that fast...Merriman is prob gone the issue is going to be NT which is the most important position in a 3-4 and good NT's are hard to find. Kyle and Dareus are not suited for standard NT but i mentioned in another post the Jets and Ravens didnt play a true 3-4 so who knows either way he is a much better DC then what Bills have had Edited January 9, 2013 by Max997 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Our personnel fits a 4-3 base. But I'm sure there's a variety of packages we could run with different fronts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewEra Posted January 9, 2013 Author Share Posted January 9, 2013 This has become, far and away, my biggest pet peeve on the board since the hiring of Marrone. IT DOES NOT MATTER -- we need a DC who has knowledge of DEFENSES, period, and can adapt his schemes, fronts, and strategies to fit the team's personnel. /off soapbox That's really your biggest pet peeve? People wondering what alignment we're going to run predominantly. With the Pettine hiring, it looks as if guys like Moore, mingo, j. Jones are in play. I'm more pumped than ever for the Draft. I really feel we go LB in round 1, unless there's a QB they really want at 8 (nassib) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 I can't answer b/c I'm on the fence. Either will leave us w/ a gaping hole somewhere & players put in less than optimal positions. The only real benefits I see of the 4-3 is not making yet another formation switch, better utilization of KW, and keeps Mario at his natural position. On the flip side, it puts Dareus & all our LBs in positions they are less effective in & doesn't fit our new coach's preferred scheme. It's a tough call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Truth Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 I'm really not sure on this one. For the longest time I was a big proponent of the 3-4 defense. However, based on interviews etc., it does seem difficult to get the personell to run that scheme. Buddy and Chan switched to the 4-3 because our personell didn't fit and then they started drafting for the 4-3. They also brought in Mario who does not fit the 3-4 (was used as an outside linebacker in Houston). These happenings would make it take much longer to establish 3-4 prsonell. I would like our base defense to be considered 4-3 at this point but like a lot of defenses it should be a hybrid. You should have some 3-4 packages that you can mix in. We don't have a dominant 340 pound Ngata/Wilfork type for the nose but when we do three down linemen, Kyle WIlliams or Dareus will have to suffice. My vote goes for the 4-3 for the most part but with a hybrid component to run some 3-4 when desired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cantankerous Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 This has become, far and away, my biggest pet peeve on the board since the hiring of Marrone. IT DOES NOT MATTER -- we need a DC who has knowledge of DEFENSES, period, and can adapt his schemes, fronts, and strategies to fit the team's personnel. /off soapbox Amen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjt328 Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Going into the 2012 season, I was convinced our personnel was a better fit for the 4-3. However in retrospect: > Mario Williams was having his best season in 2011 as a 3-4 OLB before injury. > Marcel Dareus played MUCH better as a rookie in 2011 in the 3-4. This year he digressed. > Kyle Williams had his best year in 2010 - as the nose tackle in our 3-4. As far as the linebackers, they all played TERRIBLE this season in the 4-3. On top of that, both Nick Barnett and Kelvin Sheppard are typical as 3-4 linebackers, and were really playing out of position this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts