R. Rich Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 Which one suits the Bills better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navy Chief Navy Pride Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 4-3 Finally some Bills talk around here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renfruzetz Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 Stick with the 4-3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mead107 Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 i like it when the play to win . 4-3 ok Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
envirojeff Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 I think we play better in the 4-3 Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CajunBillsBacker Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 Right now i'd say the 4-3 because I believe we have deeper depth at DT than LB, and I don't think Schobel and Kelsay are big and strong enough to hold their ground in a 3-4 defense. I love the 3-4 defense better than a 4-3, but I feel you need DE's with DT size, and a guy like Sam Adams in the middle to make it work where the LB's can use their speed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Fong Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 I really don't get why some people are keen for the Bills to switch to a 3-4. I don't think they have the personnel to run a 3-4. They were built to be a 4-3 and have had great success. Why tinker with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeF Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 I think we should play 11 on defense not just 7.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JinVA Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 Well since the 4-1-6 isn't an option I'll stick with the 4-3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark VI Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 I like the 6-1 defense with Spikes playing like Superman just behind the front 6. I think Denney would shine in this formation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poeticlaw Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 Well since the 4-1-6 isn't an option I'll stick with the 4-3. 268346[/snapback] Well i would have hoped to see some of the boards brilliant minds at work with the great question of the 4-3 3-4 defense. Heres the think with a 4-3 defense we are currently running we are not getting any true pressure on the qb most of the time the pressur is coming from th lbs/cbs or safety blitzes. Personally I think we are better suited for the 3-4 we have outstanding lbs ( plus id like to see more of crowell) and could use them more in blitz packages and it would be better for our defense against the run. The 3-4 also takes away the huge gains on screen passes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 Well i would have hoped to see some of the boards brilliant minds at work with the great question of the 4-3 3-4 defense. Heres the think with a 4-3 defense we are currently running we are not getting any true pressure on the qb most of the time the pressur is coming from th lbs/cbs or safety blitzes. Personally I think we are better suited for the 3-4 we have outstanding lbs ( plus id like to see more of crowell) and could use them more in blitz packages and it would be better for our defense against the run. The 3-4 also takes away the huge gains on screen passes. 268397[/snapback] Problem is our defensive ends would get eaten up and wouldn't get any pressure on the QB, not to mention the extra blitzer would be easily picked up by the offensive line. Oh and by the way, in a 3-4 the pressure would STILL come from lb/cb/s blitzes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Britbillsfan Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 4-3 For two years we have had a very good D, and we do not have the LB depth to make a switch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 Don't mess with success. Stick with the 4-3. In many ways the designation of 4-3 or 3-4 is an illusion for the Bills who are going with their variation of the run/blitz package developed by LeBeau and now run extremely wel by Gray. Due to Schobel's motor and athleticism, Kelsay's motor and the fact he has operated within it for his two pro years and Denney's wingspan and athleticism, our DEs can cover well in the short zone and operate as much like LBs as they act like pure DEs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typical TBD Guy Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 Why not try the 10-0-1 with Wire as the DB? That'll make up for the run-stopping prowess PW provided. Dy-no-mite!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsNYC Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 I think they should play a 3-4-5 with Chuck Lester playing NT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BackInDaDay Posted March 10, 2005 Share Posted March 10, 2005 Pros : Additional, athletic LBs on roster double as personnel for STs. Something NFL DTs normally aren't asked to do. More bodies / options in D pass coverage schemes in new 'clutch' rule era. Adams is now our only highly paid DT. Strong and surprisingly quick, he could play over the C. We have LBs on the roster who could make it work. Posey is an OLB, Fletcher is an ILB. Spikes can play either, so I'd keep his 'nose for the ball' inside. Stamer and Crowell can play outside. Haggans is probably better suited for the inside. I don't remember seeing Towns. Lots of options, already. Good run support from DBs. Clements doesn't shy away from pulling OGs and Milloy and Vincent come up hard. So does Wire. Cons : Schobel, Kelsay, and Denny are too light to play 2-gap technique, fending off 330lb OTs each snap, and stay healthy, let alone be effective. Inability of DEs to force double-teams allows OGs and FB to get after our LBs. This means more wear and tear on our LBs. Same with our SS and FS. Starters will have to be more active in run support, and they're not getting any younger. Roster favors 4-3. We would probably cut 2 of our 5 DTs for 2 additional LBs, and we may want to carry another DB. I prefer the 4-3 as our base D. Our lighter, quicker DEs work well with our large, quick DTs drawing the attention of the interior OL. I think Edwards/Anderson/Bannan will continue where PW left off. We have great talent and depth at the LB spots, and our big DTs allow them to make tackles, rather than taking out interference. Our aging safeties can play 'mop up' run support, and be fresh enough for some funky blitz packages. JG still has to invent ways to get to the QB, but he'll manage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts