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!

     

Panthers moving to a 3-4??? Says McDerm


PantherBrew

Recommended Posts

I still think we should stick to a 4-3. Once we get everyone back next year the defense won't look nearly as bad.

DE- Johnson Hardy

DT- Edwards, FA/Draft

LB- Anderson, Beason, Davis/FA/Draft

CB- Gamble, Draft

S- Godfrey, Martin

Really not so bad. Edwards and another big body in the middle will make a world of difference.

I think the plan from the beginning was to move to more of a 3-4 look / hybrid type of defense. Running multiple fronts with the 4-3 and 3-4 both being common looks you see the defense use. The Draft and FA next off season will be really telling on what the team really plans on doing long term, as for this season expect to see the 3-4 look more and more often as the season goes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im saying the answer is no lol. And you know in the combine Williams ran a 4.66

Williams is a freak though, I was mainly comparing Johnson's numbers to Woodley's. Also Johnson's burst of speed will help him when coming from the 3-4 look. His numbers for his size are ridiculous from 0 to 20 yards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

an outside linebacker in a 3-4 will play plays with a hand in the ground on the line so I don't see what the big deal is about. Continue to move CJ around on the field if its a well game planned attack; he's more versatile than he probably gets credit for in this thread.

I think an exotic hybrid kind of defense was the plan all along, just been limited by the lose of talent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It'll probably be more like Arizona's defensive scheme was a couple years ago (not sure if it's still the same). Just a hybrid, run both looks about equally. CJ was playing OLB when we did the 3-4 looks yesterday. I think he, Hardy and Norwood could all equally play the OLB role. Hardy is quicker than a hiccup, especially for his size. I think he could be surprisingly good in that role. Hardy and CJ could both probably play the DE and OLB positions, rotating to throw off opposing coordinators. We have a lot of guys who might be able to play multiple positions in the 3-4. It could either be a nightmare for opponents to plan for, or it could fail spectacularly because the guys are right between ideal and horrible for the positions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what this really acknowledges is that with our current personnel, we can't blitz effectively in a 4-3 scheme, so we're moving to a 3-4 to try and generate more pressure on the QB.

It's hard to blitz effectively when Connor is the blitzing LB and he jumps the gun every single play revealing himself and getting called out by the QB.

It's hard to get guys to buy what you're selling as a coaching staff when you don't even know what your selling yourselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron Edwards would be a good 3-4 DT... Fua, if he put on weight... I don't know anymore.

Just win.

Ron edwards would be good at NT. He also played it at kansas City. Fua was a really good Run stopper at Stanford. Him and Shayne Skov was the leaders of the defense. We would have a solid backup NT with Fua.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron edwards would be good at NT. He also played it at kansas City. Fua was a really good Run stopper at Stanford. Him and Shayne Skov was the leaders of the defense. We would have a solid backup NT with Fua.

He was not considered a very good NT in KC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • He’s kind of overrated to be honest. Never really felt like a true #1 or elevated his play to become a guy the defense really has to worry about. 
    • I'm going to be real, the reason that vote ended up so lop-sided by the end was directly due to my programming. So there's nothing tongue in cheek about it. Also I left PFF after the Collinsworth acquisition (didn't want to move to Cincy) but have stayed involved in analytics via backdoor channels, but I can absolutely say that the experience was eye-opening, not because those guys are unquestionable football savants and that I became one by proxy, but because the amount of information that becomes available outside of what the typical fan has access to is revelatory and also really drives home how much context is still being missed even with all of that information. You don't discover that you know everything, you discover how much you still can't know no matter how hard you try, hence my point about the NFL not being able to figure out what makes a QB good. There's a lot of AI work going into that now and even that only seems to further confuse things vs. actually enlighten the problem. In the professional realm teams don't really talk about quarterbacks as A strictly being better than B, but how A can potentially perform better than B given a specific context of C. Of course those contexts may be wider for A than B, but there's also contexts where B can outshine A, even with lesser talent surrounding them. So what good teams strive to do is ultimately define a process of how they want their entire team to operate under schematically, find players that fit that scheme, and hopefully find a guy whose skillset will be maximized running that scheme with those players. Where bad teams fall of the wagon is constantly shifting those schemes and chasing bad fits or fads vs. sticking with a core identity and developing it.
    • there is a 100 mile long list of NFL players and coaches going to bat and defending horrible play from teammates.   
×
×
  • Create New...