IF we went to a 3-4

[EndZone]

Now before I get blasted for even mentioning it (not going to mention names ) I did say IF meaning this is a hypothetical question.

If we went to a 3-4 Defense, which of our LB's would really bennifit from it, does that make Fisher and Thompson better?

Also do we have any DL that could move to a LB pos?

 

[40yearfan]

What about Johnson or Moore?

 

[Krangodnzr]

Originally posted by EndZone
Now before I get blasted for even mentioning it (not going to mention names ) I did say IF meaning this is a hypothetical question.

If we went to a 3-4 Defense, which of our LB's would really bennifit from it, does that make Fisher and Thompson better?

Also do we have any DL that could move to a LB pos?

Neither are well suited for a 3-4.....If we were moving to a 3-4 we would've drafted T-Sizzle.

 

[bratwurst]

Who on our roster can play nose tackle effectively? I don't see it.

 

[EndZone]

Originally posted by bratwurst
Who on our roster can play nose tackle effectively? I don't see it.

Isn't Dwyer a NT?

 

[spanky]

What about VandenBosch as an OLB in a 3-4

 

[LVCARDFREAK]

Originally posted by spanky
What about VandenBosch as an OLB in a 3-4

Not a chance...too slow.

 

[Ed B]

Originally posted by EndZone
Isn't Dwyer a NT?

Dwyer didn't even make the team last year. He's pretty useless.

Our personnel is entirely unsuited to a 3-4 with the exception of Russell Davis, who is a prototypical 3-4 end. Wendell Bryant might also make a good 3-4 end but what a waste of his talents that would be.

VandenBosch couldn't play LB to save his soul. You have to be joking. He's barely fast enough to get by at DE.

 

[Krangodnzr]

Originally posted by LVCARDFREAK
Not a chance...too slow.

Exactly. We have none of the required personell to run a 3-4 effectively.

(Note: I am exaggerating. We don't have the linebackers, or enough of the right type of lineman to run the 3-4. 3-4 LBs are bigger than the linebackers we have.)

 

[spanky]

What's the scoop on this King DE we drafted. Some think he was a late round steal. Would he fit a 3-4?

 

[Krangodnzr]

Originally posted by spanky
What's the scoop on this King DE we drafted. Some think he was a late round steal. Would he fit a 3-4?

Yeah, sort of....but our linebackers, which are the core of a 3-4 defense, are not even close to fitting the bill.

 

[spanky]

BRAINSTORM.......what about trading Calvin Pace to Baltimore for Suggs......he'd fit a 3-4 wouldn't he????OK.....OK.....OK....OK......I know..... enough.

 

[rtjim]

First I must say that my football knowledge is not even close to the level of some on this board, but what is all the talk about switching to a 3-4 system vs a 4-3? I know that our D needs lots of help but is a 3-4 that much better? Or is it just passing time untill something better to talk about comes along? If someone could give an abridged vesion of both as I am not really sure of the difference or how a switch might help.

Thnx

 

[Krangodnzr]

Originally posted by rtjim
First I must say that my football knowledge is not even close to the level of some on this board, but what is all the talk about switching to a 3-4 system vs a 4-3? I know that our D needs lots of help but is a 3-4 that much better? Or is it just passing time untill something better to talk about comes along? If someone could give an abridged vesion of both as I am not really sure of the difference or how a switch might help.

Thnx

Some people think that because we added a few linebackers....we aren't switching to a 3-4.

 

[Krangodnzr]

Originally posted by rtjim
First I must say that my football knowledge is not even close to the level of some on this board, but what is all the talk about switching to a 3-4 system vs a 4-3? I know that our D needs lots of help but is a 3-4 that much better? Or is it just passing time untill something better to talk about comes along? If someone could give an abridged vesion of both as I am not really sure of the difference or how a switch might help.

Thnx

A 4-3 is much stouter against the run, but not as quick as a 3-4.

A 3-4 gives you the possibility of blitzing 4 linebackers or a db, but can't stop the run like a 4-3.

It really is only preferrence, and I prefer a 4-3. A 4-3 gives you more bulk at the point of attack....it was actually designed by Tom Landry to stop Jim Brown when Landry was a defensive coach for the Giants. 3-4 is what teams used to run many years ago, and a few teams still do (Pitt., Hou., Atlanta, and possibly N.E.)

 

[rtjim]

Thanks for the info

 

[Stout]

Actually I have to disagree-we might not have ALL the personnel to play the 3-4, but we are much better suited to it than some here think.

What we need is a true run-stuffer to play inside on the strong side. We likely took him in Hayes. He may not be good in coverage but he doesn't have to be. Move McKinnon to weak side ILB. That leaves Fisher and Thompson on the outside and, guess what? They're prototypical 3-4 OLBs.

We have several guys who would look great as 3-4 DEs. Bryant, if he's any good, is one. KVB is another. Davis and even Wakefield would play this spot well. KVB is actually a prototypical 3-4 end, and Wakefield is in the same mold, yet not as good. This end must be stout against the run, have some pass rush skill but basically be a force. Speed is not the main attribute necessary. Attitude has a lot to do with it. See Kimo von Oelhoffen of the Steelers.

The problem lies in NT. Hand would have been excellent there. Tanner may, MAY plug the hole. Bell would serve but our LBs would suffer. I wouldn't mind a move to the 3-4, but we'll still be weak. The problem is, we'll still be weak in the 4-3, so why not do what we can to utilize our talent (which is now more suited to the 3-4) than try to shove all these players into different roles and continue with the 4-3.

 

[JeffGollin]

I think we now have the personnel to play either the 3-4 or 4-3.

Rather than commit to either one as our base defense - what I'd really like to see is an assortment of real and false looks and personnel packages that can be put on the field at any time and which will keep the offense guessing.

In other words, the QB comes up to under center, but before he and the center make the calls, they have to figure out what freakin' defense the Cards are in this time and who's likely to blitz or drop into coverage.

And then - after the QB and C (possibly) figure it out what's going on - have the Cards jump out of the 3-4 and into a 4 -3 (or vice versa) just before the snap.

It would be one way to seize the initiative from the offense.

 

[AZCB34]

Originally posted by JeffGollin
I think we now have the personnel to play either the 3-4 or 4-3.

Rather than commit to either one as our base defense - what I'd really like to see is an assortment of real and false looks and personnel packages that can be put on the field at any time and which will keep the offense guessing.

In other words, the QB comes up to under center, but before he and the center make the calls, they have to figure out what freakin' defense the Cards are in this time and who's likely to blitz or drop into coverage.

And then - after the QB and C (possibly) figure it out what's going on - have the Cards jump out of the 3-4 and into a 4 -3 (or vice versa) just before the snap.

It would be one way to seize the initiative from the offense.

This was always one of my main arguments as to why the cards should sign Colvin (we know how it turned out of course). He added a dimension as a LB which would allow a creative DC the opportunity to throw a whole bunch of looks and fronts at an offense.

I always contended that 4-3 (Mac has always run a 4-3) would be the base but with the flexibility we could have had (and maybe still do) the D coaches should incorporate alot of different fronts. I even said I would like to see 4-2-5 and 3-3-5 occasionally just to throw a wrench in there.

Problem of course is the bend don't break style used seems to be very short on creativity.

 

[Krangodnzr]

Originally posted by AZCB34
This was always one of my main arguments as to why the cards should sign Colvin (we know how it turned out of course). He added a dimension as a LB which would allow a creative DC the opportunity to throw a whole bunch of looks and fronts at an offense.

I always contended that 4-3 (Mac has always run a 4-3) would be the base but with the flexibility we could have had (and maybe still do) the D coaches should incorporate alot of different fronts. I even said I would like to see 4-2-5 and 3-3-5 occasionally just to throw a wrench in there.

Problem of course is the bend don't break style used seems to be very short on creativity.

We actually ran the 3-3-5 a few times last year when Lucas came in and we took a linebacker off the field.


And I still disagree. Our OLBs are not 3-4 OLBs....look at Pittsburgh, and their OLBs are quick small defensive ends. Our OLbs are like 6'1 230, not the 6'4 250 like Pittsburgh.

 

[AZCB34]

Originally posted by Krangthebrain
We actually ran the 3-3-5 a few times last year when Lucas came in and we took a linebacker off the field.


And I still disagree. Our OLBs are not 3-4 OLBs....look at Pittsburgh, and their OLBs are quick small defensive ends. Our OLbs are like 6'1 230, not the 6'4 250 like Pittsburgh.

I don't think our LBs are EVERY down 3-4 LBs personally but we have a talented enough LB corp right now to employ some 3-4 looks. Hell, if I am DC, I am going to show a look on thrid and long from time to time where every LB on the roster is on the field playing OL and LB...just to give the opposing offense something to think about. Have some fun scheming here and be creative. Keep the O off balance and it plays into your hands.

 

[Krangodnzr]

Originally posted by AZCB34
I don't think our LBs are EVERY down 3-4 LBs personally but we have a talented enough LB corp right now to employ some 3-4 looks. Hell, if I am DC, I am going to show a look on thrid and long from time to time where every LB on the roster is on the field playing OL and LB...just to give the opposing offense something to think about. Have some fun scheming here and be creative. Keep the O off balance and it plays into your hands.

I can agree to this, definitely, but if we tried to run as an every down package, our defense would set records for most yards ever (not really, but it wouldn't be pretty).

 

[Tangodnzr]

Originally posted by AZCB34
I don't think our LBs are EVERY down 3-4 LBs personally but we have a talented enough LB corp right now to employ some 3-4 looks. Hell, if I am DC, I am going to show a look on thrid and long from time to time where every LB on the roster is on the field playing OL and LB...just to give the opposing offense something to think about. Have some fun scheming here and be creative. Keep the O off balance and it plays into your hands.

I would tend to agree with Krang, Cubby, and Jeff here. I just have a sneaking suspiciion that "multiple look" defensive sets may indeed be on the horizon. If you look at some of Marmie's comments in regard to drafting Pace and King, and what some of their plans are.
I bumped that post yesterday.
My expectation is the Cards are indeed going to shuttle a lot of players on and off the field, and hopefully in the meantime, create the varied look you guys mentioned.

 

[Stout]

Originally posted by Krangthebrain
We actually ran the 3-3-5 a few times last year when Lucas came in and we took a linebacker off the field.


And I still disagree. Our OLBs are not 3-4 OLBs....look at Pittsburgh, and their OLBs are quick small defensive ends. Our OLbs are like 6'1 230, not the 6'4 250 like Pittsburgh.

Sorry, Krang, but you're wrong about Pittsburgh's OLBs. I don't have the weights, but they are not the big, rough OLBs. They certainly are NOT quick, small defensive ends. They're lean, lightning-fast OLBs. Just what we (hopefully) have. It's the two ILBs that are the big, burly LBs.

 

[Krangodnzr]

Originally posted by Stout
Sorry, Krang, but you're wrong about Pittsburgh's OLBs. I don't have the weights, but they are not the big, rough OLBs. They certainly are NOT quick, small defensive ends. They're lean, lightning-fast OLBs. Just what we (hopefully) have. It's the two ILBs that are the big, burly LBs.

Per Steelers team site:

92 Gildon, Jason LB 6-4 250
55 Porter, Joey LB 6-3 248

Now our OLBs:

52 Fisher, Levar LB 6-1 233
55 Thompson, Ray LB 6-2 217
56 Woods, LeVar LB 6-2 241
59 Jones, Greg LB 6-4 248

The only linebacker on the roster that fits the typical 3-4 OLB mold is Greg Jones, and he isn't starting material.

And the Steelers ILB are about the same size as the OLBs....basically every linebacker that the Steelers have are around 250 or so.