spidey Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 is a shift back to the 3 - 4 defense. I think the 3 - 4 gives more options plus creates some interesting matchups. At the Nose position Pat and Sam can rotate and if Pat can not be resigned Edwards still can fill this spot. We have a solid backer core and can actually use Posey in a OLB role that might provide better mismatches for him. Takeo can assume the Talley type of role or can provide a solid ILB of this alignment. The 3 -4 actually spreads the o line blocking schemes more that the 4- 3 does and allows for some matchups of fast backers against tackles on the outside. If you look at NE and Pitt they provide more QB pressure in the 3 -4 than teams in the 4 - 3 do. Since it seems easier for the OL to block down on the 4 lineman versus the three. Plus keeping lots of fast athletic backers on the roster provided depth on special teams as well. NE wins because of the 4 guys they have playing linebacker and the options these guys provide on clogging middle passing routes etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimBob2232 Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 I like your idea because its the defensive side of the ball that is broken and needs fixing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renfruzetz Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 I like it because it gets that fat Sam Adams off the field so we can see what Stamer or Crowell can do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillnutinHouston Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 I like it because it gets that fat Sam Adams off the field so we can see what Stamer or Crowell can do. 239177[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrobot Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 Had we picked up Trotter when we had the chance, this would have been a better idea. The one move I'd like to see would be to get just compensation for Travis Henry. TD is asking for a 2nd or a 3rd plus a player. I'd be happy with the 3rd plus a #3 WR or a #3 DB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spidey Posted February 14, 2005 Author Share Posted February 14, 2005 I like your idea because its the defensive side of the ball that is broken and needs fixing. 239173[/snapback] Did I say we were broken? No I suggested that the 3 - 4 may be a superior defense and allows for more creative use of athletic linebackers. But hey what do the 3 time world champions( Man that took alot to even type that) know about creating championship defenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JP-era Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 Did I say we were broken? No I suggested that the 3 - 4 may be a superior defense and allows for more creative use of athletic linebackers. But hey what do the 3 time world champions( Man that took alot to even type that) know about creating championship defenses. 239186[/snapback] I gotta disagree, but it can be done without all the obnoxious sarcasm. The 3-4 is really great for passing O's, lacks quite a bit in the pass rush department and tends to give up a few more short yards against the run. I prefer the 4-3 to stack the line more and give a better chance for a mismatch on the line and lessen the chance for a double team. I think that the 4-3 is especially successfull when you have a middle LB that can cover alot of ground like Fletcher. For us, I think the 4-3 is the better fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts