PDA

View Full Version : Which Defense Should We Run


jerek
03-13-2006, 02:52 PM
Assume that we have a DC/staff that is capable of running the D as you believe it should be run, e.g. do not disqualify the 3-4 simply because Fangio was horrible at running it, and do not say 4-3 because "that is what Smith is running."

What would you run, if you were Kubiak and could hire anyone you wanted to run it?

jerek
03-13-2006, 02:53 PM
I like the 3-4 ... believe it creates a better pass rush, as well as we have the better LBs/DL for it.

Texas
03-13-2006, 02:55 PM
We are already running the 4-3. This discussion was ended a while back however. I will definetly go with the 4-3. We do NOT have 3-4 line backers nor cornerbacks. Also our DT's we have 3 solid ones. We need to get at least two on the field. To improve our weak blitz package that we have had in the past 4-3 is needed!

whiskeyrbl
03-13-2006, 02:56 PM
I say the 4-3 because it is a more basic defense that will not call for alot of disguied coverages and thought process for our LB's and Dline.Its a Here we are come and get us type D.Lot less thought process and more do what your paid to do.

texan279
03-13-2006, 02:57 PM
4-3

HardKnockTexan
03-13-2006, 02:57 PM
I voted other. I believe a good mix of the 4-3 and 3-4 could be very tough for offenses to handle. If you have the personell to run both, why not do it? Limiting a defense just for the sake of putting a lable on it seems like a mistake. With the D-Linemen and Linebackers that are still on our roster it seems like a good idea to constantly give offenses different looks.

thunderkyss
03-13-2006, 03:36 PM
I'm saying 3-4..... I think it's easier to find smarter players to fit the 3-4, than it is to find the superstar monsters you need for the 4-3.

The trick, is getting everybody on the same page.

Corrosion
03-13-2006, 04:12 PM
I voted other. I believe a good mix of the 4-3 and 3-4 could be very tough for offenses to handle. If you have the personell to run both, why not do it? Limiting a defense just for the sake of putting a lable on it seems like a mistake. With the D-Linemen and Linebackers that are still on our roster it seems like a good idea to constantly give offenses different looks.



My sentiments exactly ..... If you limit yourself to one set or another you become predictable and easier to gameplan against ..... When teams dont know what you are going to do you have an advantage.....

Look at NE .... their D is difficult to plan for because they use multiple defensive sets .... Teams Never know where the blitz is going to come from ... and this is why so many people think Bill Belichick is such a genuis .

TexanFan881
03-13-2006, 04:16 PM
I think our personel is better for the 4-3, and I am excited to see us run it next year.

Corrosion
03-13-2006, 04:23 PM
I think our personel is better for the 4-3, and I am excited to see us run it next year.


NO MLB , One guy (just signed) to play the strong side DE , two OLB's looking to play weakside DE .... a room full of DT's .... What makes them better suited to play a pure 4-3 ?

TexHorns
03-13-2006, 09:36 PM
I say the 4-3 because it is a here we are come and get us type D.Lot less thought process and more do what your paid to do.

Manning will eat that up twice a year.

awtysst
03-13-2006, 09:41 PM
Manning will eat that up twice a year.

Manning has already eaten up our 3-4 twice a year. how about a 1-10!

outofhnd
03-13-2006, 10:03 PM
4-3

I hate the 3-4 just because a couple of teams seem to do well with it, Other teams quickly follow suit. Its only different when the majority of the NFL goes back to the 4-3.

4-3 is simple and straightforward. Im sending these 4 guys stop em if you can. Usually its a lil more effective because in a 3-4 bringing the rush from diffeent places isnt the wear and tear on a O line that 4 guys coming in on every play. Plus it requires precision, To me its more suited for a vetaran defense more than a young defense because of the assignments.

Im all for the 4-3 and I am excited that we are using it here