Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

switching to 3-4?


Yaboychris28

Recommended Posts

I wouldn't mind it but do we have the right players to fit the scheme? we will need a NT for sure, I think Brown could workout to be a pass rushing LB, Norwood could also be that guy. We have a great linebackers but I don't know how they will work in a 3-4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since we hired Ron Rivera as the head coach

Not set in stone at this point, but yeah, it's going to happen.

...and he has ran 3-4 D in the past. Do you think we will switch

Absolutely not. Our Back 7 is well suited for Cover 2/Zone Under (or Tampa 2, or whatever the heck we call a "base" D these days), especially if we can improve at CB and SLB. D-line is lacking in many ways, but that's an issue of improving from a personnel standpoint.

And if so, do we have the personnel?

No. We would need a 3-4 NT, which is basically the point of the 3-4. The 3-4, as a defense, is more about taking advantage of a player (namely the NT), who is so disruptive, that the defense can cover an extra gap with one less player. The type of guy who makes this very successful is slightly more common than a proverbial Hall of Fame/"Franchise"/"Elite" QB.

It's also a philosophical change in how the D-line plays, as they become "less attacking" and more "gap responsibility/O-line occupation". It minimizes the effectiveness of smaller/faster MLB's (which would now be known as ILB's), because they will be expected to take head-on blocks of O-Guards, defeat them, and make the same plays as before. This would destroy the strong points of guys like Thomas Davis and Jon Beason (probably our best). LB's need to be about 15-20 lbs. heavier in this scheme (if not more).

Additionally, the DE's in a 3-4 are expected to 2-gap as well, and they have more responsibility, and are typically bigger than a 4-3 DE. Our DE's are not considered big as it is, and now we are talking even more personnel issues in switching.

This is not a realistic option in my opinion. Most teams would take at least two years to make a successful change from one to the other. Our defense, as the roster currently is, would take around 5-6 starter changes, and set the defense back for 3 years in order to transition to a 3-4 that was as effective as the D is now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unlikely he will change to a 3-4 as he has been succesful with the 4-3.

However the switch is not something to be feared.

Check out Green Bay and their success moving to the 3-4. Watching the Packers line backers create havoc is a thing of beauty to watch.

Interesting too, of the defenses still in the Playoffs right now, how many are 3-4?????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Absolutely. Despite the turnovers and the terrible slips we only gave up 17. If the offense could have mustered a single productive drive after the start of the game ...
    • I think Tepper (and owners in general) have  more influence on team personnel than most of us realize. Remember how Brenton "Sunshine" Berson was a roster lock when JR owned the team?  Frank Reich didn't want to draft Bryce, Tepper did. I remember him saying in an off-season meeting that the team wouldn't have to break the bank on WR's because of BY's processing ability and his ability to distribute the a ball to like a point guard to the skill position guys. Frank quickly realized it was almost hopeless situation. And, why are we running a 3-4 defense? We ran a 4-3 for almost two decades. One year after Tepper takes over, we went to a 3-4 and continue to do so despite never drafting the appropriate personnel to run it after Rivera was fired. Owners have a lot of say on what happens on that field. Look how Al Davis tried to ruin Marcus Allen's career essentially benching him during his prime years. Canales got this job because Tepper wanted someone who could "fix" Bryce; and Canales was overly eager to get his first coaching job and felt up to the task. No top coaching prospect was going to want to come to Carolina with our track record since Tepper bought the team and having their destiny tied to Bryce as his QB. A top GM candidate from outside the organization would feel the same way. In theory, it was too early to cut bait with him after only one season Dan and Dave knew one another and both wanted to be "the guy" in charge as coach and GM. Carolina provided the ideal opportunity. On the surface this hire, if successful, could validate Tepper's decision to give a fool's ransom for Bryce and he could fill the GM spot with a body but still have someone in power that he was familiar with. In all honesty, it we had a good QB and a capable back-up on the roster I doubt we'd be having this conversation because we'd probably be one of the top teams in the NFC.
    • Just reeks of bullshit. Good college QB but when you were watching him as an NFL prospect the physical limitations and playing style concerns were very obvious. Teams across the league almost certainly evaluated him as a backup QB prospect and the last thing you want out of a backup QB is a distraction. Strip away the media hype job, add in all the reports that Shedeur essentially completely blew off the pre-draft process and turned teams off essentially cementing what many already thought and nothing about his draft plummet was surprising. Watch the Browns draft room as the pick was announced. It's very obvious that wasn't their pick. The owner stepped on and said get me that press attention. Why would that have happened if there was a directive from the league not to draft him? It just doesn't pass the bullshit litmus test. 
×
×
  • Create New...