33 replies to this topic

[ItsPantone278]

Talked about the 3-4 and how 50% of snaps last season were from the 3-4 alignment. Covered a few other things about the defense and so fourth.

Not to nitpick, but I must have missed this portion of the interview. Though I did hear Beason say they lined up over 50% of the time in an "Under" formation, which is 4-3 in principle(basically a five man front out of the base 4-3 package in which the Sam backer lines up LOS).

I interpreted his very rudimentary explanation of the base defense as having the personal to be very multiple while playing within the formations in which our players are best suited. He spent a significant amount of times explaining how our team is just built differently than a team that can base in a 3-4 alignment(not to be confused with the common 5 man front we played in for a majority of the pervious season from our base 4-3 package).

[carpanfan96]

4-3 under puts one de outside the edge and lines up a lb on the los. It's basically a 3-4 look with 4 dl. It's why coaches laugh about fronts. Move the dl over in a 4-3 to place de on the outside with ut lining up outside the guard with the nt on the center. Now with that front, you've created a 3-4 look from a 4-3. Blitz the olb and de from the 4-3 under and you have the most basic of the 3-4 blitz's. It's not just about size, it's about skill set when talking 3-4 olb's.


But yes Beason mentions the fact that they ran the 3-4 front/ 4-3 under front 50% of the time and he mentions it as a 3-4 alignment with 3-4 princibles. Which is what you see hybrid teams "Cardinals and seahaws run for example."

[ItsPantone278]

4-3 under puts one de outside the edge and lines up a lb on the los. It's basically a 3-4 look with 4 dl. It's why coaches laugh about fronts. Move the dl over in a 4-3 to place de on the outside with ut lining up outside the guard with the nt on the center. Now with that front, you've created a 3-4 look from a 4-3. Blitz the olb and de from the 4-3 under and you have the most basic of the 3-4 blitz's. It's not just about size, it's about skill set when talking 3-4 olb's.


But yes Beason mentions the fact that they ran the 3-4 front/ 4-3 under front 50% of the time and he mentions it as a 3-4 alignment with 3-4 princibles. Which is what you see hybrid teams "Cardinals and seahaws run for example."

Listened to it again and he definitely said "alignment" and not "principle"

We have lined up with what could be considered a "3-4 look" but we have a personnel that isn't suitable for that base defense nor did we line up in a defense that is 3-4 in principle 50% of the time last year. Definitely not what Beas meant.

The 3-4 verses the 4-3 has a lot to do with size and style of play. Thats basically what Beason used as his main arguing point. Said that the best 3-4 OLBs are 6-3 280+ and were predominately pass rushers in college.

The responsibilities of the players in the front seven are drastically different in a 4-3 Under than they are in pretty much any 3-4 defense. Though it may have the look of a 3-4 based on the alignment, it is still 4-3 in principle.

[top dawg]

No he did not. He's not going to talk about that in the panthers pulse.



@Zod. So a little interview restored your faith in him? I like his passion but his ambition concerns me. Some of the things he said were the kind of thing a 'me' guy would say.

I love beason but his outside lb play isn't his strong suit. He's a MIKE LB and we already have a MIKE LB in Kuechly, who's a lot younger and playing for less money.

He hasn't played in several years and when he did come back he wasn't the same, he was hesitant. Not saying he wouldn't be a great OLB but his forte is in the middle.


I'm not against shopping him around.

We could do much worse than Beason on the outside. Sure he's a natural inside, but when he was outside he wasn't chopped liver. To say he was is closer to a myth than reality. I would rather give him the opportunity to restructure than to immediately ship him out via trade, but if we do shop him I hope to get something of value in return because I don't believe that he is done. His leadership belies a wealth of intangibles that are immeasurable.