PDA

View Full Version : Pete talking a move to a 3-4


Babylon
01-22-2010, 04:14 PM
Adjust your mocks accordingly. He seems to be saying the strength of the defense is the LB corps (especially with Lofa coming back). My guess is Lawrence Jackson would fit nicely at DE and they would probably use Aaron Curry as a rush linebacker. Wonder if Darryl Tapp could man the other OLB spot?

TitanHope
01-22-2010, 04:24 PM
Aaron Curry at 3-4 OLB? I don't remember him being a highly touted pass-rusher, although I remember him doing everything well. I'd figure Leroy Hill would be a better rush-backer.

Haven't kept up on Tapp, but I'd think he could.


What does this mean for the Seahawks Draft needs?

Babylon
01-22-2010, 04:49 PM
Aaron Curry at 3-4 OLB? I don't remember him being a highly touted pass-rusher, although I remember him doing everything well. I'd figure Leroy Hill would be a better rush-backer.

Haven't kept up on Tapp, but I'd think he could.


What does this mean for the Seahawks Draft needs?

Curry showed some good pressure on the QB this year, unfortunately not a lot else.

Not sure if they can afford to address the D with their 2 number ones, there seem to be more pressing needs like OT/S/RB. If a Jerry Hughes or an Everson Griffin are there at #38 they probably would be interested.

Splat
01-22-2010, 04:55 PM
I think their LB's could do it but I'm not sure about their DL that said I would lieing if I said I new alot about Seattle.

TitanHope
01-22-2010, 08:04 PM
I think their LB's could do it but I'm not sure about their DL that said I would lieing if I said I new alot about Seattle.

DL is fine, especially at 3-4 DE. Cory Redding, Patrick Kerney, and Lawrence Jackson can all play 5-tech. Red Bryant at NT could do the trick too.

Is that an elite group though? :/

RealityCheck
01-22-2010, 08:06 PM
I could see the Hawks taking Cody in the 2nd with this.

Unbiased
01-22-2010, 08:10 PM
DL is fine, especially at 3-4 DE. Cory Redding, Patrick Kerney, and Lawrence Jackson can all play 5-tech. Red Bryant at NT could do the trick too.

Is that an elite group though? :/

I would think Colin Cole would be the nose tackle. I could see Redding at end but not Kerney or Jackson. Although, Kerney's probably out the door anyway because of his age.

Babylon
01-23-2010, 11:59 AM
I would think Colin Cole would be the nose tackle. I could see Redding at end but not Kerney or Jackson. Although, Kerney's probably out the door anyway because of his age.

I think your right about Cole, Mebane can play there too. I happen to like Lawrence Jackson at the 3-4 DE and i know Pete likes him. To me the LBs are the key to a successful 3-4 and they should be good there. The D was terrible this year so it shouldnt take much to improve.

As to the question of Mt Cody in the 2nd i still think they have too many other needs.

clay_allison
01-23-2010, 12:40 PM
I would think Colin Cole would be the nose tackle. I could see Redding at end but not Kerney or Jackson. Although, Kerney's probably out the door anyway because of his age.
Either that or he's a 3rd down pass rush specialist. I don't see Kerney at 5-Tech at his age. He's a true 4-3 DE and he always has been.

On another note, everybody wants to play a 3-4, why not a multiple 46 defense. Show 'em a bunch of looks, a lot of pre-snap movement, rush at least 5 with a lot of Fire Zone blitzes. I admit that zone blitzing is a Lebeau thing, not a Ryan thing, but it's probably necessary to making the 46 work in today's NFL.

Babylon
01-23-2010, 01:16 PM
Either that or he's a 3rd down pass rush specialist. I don't see Kerney at 5-Tech at his age. He's a true 4-3 DE and he always has been.

On another note, everybody wants to play a 3-4, why not a multiple 46 defense. Show 'em a bunch of looks, a lot of pre-snap movement, rush at least 5 with a lot of Fire Zone blitzes. I admit that zone blitzing is a Lebeau thing, not a Ryan thing, but it's probably necessary to making the 46 work in today's NFL.

If you're talking a Buddy Ryan 46 defense then i would think you need better D-lineman. I'm all for more pressure from all directions. Pete's specialty is defense so it should be interesting.

Cicero
01-23-2010, 04:14 PM
I didn't get the impression that he was saying we were going to be switching to the 3-4, and neither did Eric from TNT.

Babylon
01-23-2010, 04:31 PM
I didn't get the impression that he was saying we were going to be switching to the 3-4, and neither did Eric from TNT.

He said as much on KOMO sports the other night. Said he thought the LBs were the strength of the D and wanted to get more of them on the field. Cant be any worse than what they have now.

Cicero
01-23-2010, 04:52 PM
The strength of our D is the linebackers.....in the 4-3. I'm not sure they'll look as good in the 3-4 and our d-line will look even worse. Also, if we were moving to the 3-4 why would we have kept Bradley, who has no experience with the 3-4?

gpngc
01-23-2010, 05:02 PM
I really hope they don't move to a 3-4. The best player on the defense is Mebane and he's so much better at UT than NT. I don't want to see him moved to 5-tech or NT in a 3-4 at all.

Plus they don't really have any pass rushers.

Babylon
01-23-2010, 05:09 PM
The strength of our D is the linebackers.....in the 4-3. I'm not sure they'll look as good in the 3-4 and our d-line will look even worse. Also, if we were moving to the 3-4 why would we have kept Bradley, who has no experience with the 3-4?

Pete's response had to do with maximising Aaron Curry and he seemed to think that was the way to go, as a pass rusher i assume. Personally i dont care as long as they get er done.

Cicero
01-23-2010, 05:13 PM
Pete's response had to do with maximising Aaron Curry and he seemed to think that was the way to go, as a pass rusher i assume. Personally i dont care as long as they get er done.

Well the elephant guy does a lot of rushing the passer in the 4-3 under and I'm assuming that he's going to want Curry to be that guy.

clay_allison
01-24-2010, 12:41 AM
Maybe a multiple 4-3 using 3-4 sets like Monte Kiffin did in Tampa during his last year there.

summond822
01-24-2010, 02:59 AM
I think the best comparison would be Arizona. Although they are called a 3-4, you'll see them in just as many 4-3 situations with their linebackers & safeties moving all over the field before the snap. It's an organized chaos for the defense that throws off the blocking assignments. This could create gaps for the linebackers to blow up, thus increasing their effectiveness.

Also, I do expect to see some 3-4 this season. I don't expect it is going to be the primary defense because Leroy Hill is not a 3-4 OLB, and if they do convert I expect to see him traded and a 3-4 OLB drafted early on. Also, Mebane is not a NT and it would be completely counterproductive to put him there in a 3-4. It completely neutralizes his abilities. He's not a guy you stick in the middle and expect to stop the run, he's attacks the line and applies interior pressure. He's a 3-4 DE if they do switch. Tapp & Kerney aren't 3-4 DE or OLB, so switching over completely neutralizes your two of your better pass rushers (Tapp & Curry are the best on the team).

That alone is why I expect it to only be a situational package used to create confusion.

P.S. It's one in the morning so if my arguments don't make sense I'm sorry and i'll try to edit anything that needs it when i'm thinking clearly.

TACKLE
01-24-2010, 03:05 AM
Have Tapp and Curry as the OLB. Possibly Kerney at OLB too but I'm not sure they have the D-Line depth. If Kerney is to play DE, it will be him and Redding as the DE and probably Mebane at NT. Mebane isn't that big but he is very stout at the point of attack and I think he could do a good job as a Nose. Or they could put Red at NT, Mebane to DE and Kerney to OLB. It should be interesting watch. I wonder how it will effect the direction they go in the draft. Not necessarily round 1 but everything after it.

tjsunstein
02-01-2010, 11:07 PM
What's the consensus here? I have the Seahawks in the 7 round mock draft going on right now. Should I draft assuming the switch or stick with 4-3 fits?

Cicero
02-02-2010, 01:01 AM
What's the consensus here? I have the Seahawks in the 7 round mock draft going on right now. Should I draft assuming the switch or stick with 4-3 fits?

I would say stick with the 4-3. Pete ran the 4-3 under at USC, he kept Bradley who runs a 4-3, and there has been no more mentions of scheme changes anywhere from Seahawks land.

Babylon
02-02-2010, 05:28 PM
What's the consensus here? I have the Seahawks in the 7 round mock draft going on right now. Should I draft assuming the switch or stick with 4-3 fits?

Seeing as their 1st three picks (6,14 and 38) should probably be OT/S/RB i dont think it matters what defense they're running as far as your mock goes.

tjsunstein
02-02-2010, 05:31 PM
Seeing as their 1st three picks (6,14 and 38) should probably be OT/S/RB i dont think it matters what defense they're running as far as your mock goes.

Went with Clausen with the first one.

Babylon
02-02-2010, 05:32 PM
Went with Clausen with the first one.

I'm going to keep my Jake Locker to Seattle in 2011 campaign going till the polls close.

tjsunstein
02-02-2010, 05:37 PM
I'm going to keep my Jake Locker to Seattle in 2011 campaign going till the polls close.

Very well. I promise I won't dissapoint you guys haha.

gpngc
02-03-2010, 12:27 AM
Very well. I promise I won't dissapoint you guys haha.

If Clausen's there you have to look at him. Was Berry/Okung there? They need a young QB desperately.

At 14 I think Spiller is a no-brainer. If he's not there you can go best safety or OT (Davis, Bulaga, Earl Thomas).

tjsunstein
02-03-2010, 01:25 AM
If Clausen's there you have to look at him. Was Berry/Okung there? They need a young QB desperately.

At 14 I think Spiller is a no-brainer. If he's not there you can go best safety or OT (Davis, Bulaga, Earl Thomas).

So far, we have Clausen and Spiller, predictably so. I might make a move to get into the bottom half of the 1st if Bulaga continues to fall.

Berry and Okung were both gone as was Davis and Earl Thomas when pick 2 came around.

summond822
02-03-2010, 09:42 AM
I'm going to keep my Jake Locker to Seattle in 2011 campaign going till the polls close.

Whole-heartedly agree. I refuse to give up on Locker, plus I just really don't like any of the QB's in this class except for (and this may sound sacrilegious) Tim Tebow, but I wouldn't take him until the third or fourth round, so thats where I think the value of this class lies.

Tebow is the only one I see developing into anything and that's not because of where he is at right now, but what I see from him off the field in his work ethic & his willingness to take coaching to get better. That combined with the "it" factor that he clearly has more of than most QB's in football right now, is why I like him down the road as a QB.

tjsunstein
02-04-2010, 10:55 PM
RD 1 - Jimmy Clausen QB, Notre Dame
RD 1 - CJ Spiller RB, Clemson
RD 2 - Charles Brown OT, USC

That's how we're looking so far. Not too bad if I say so myself.

Babylon
02-05-2010, 06:37 PM
RD 1 - Jimmy Clausen QB, Notre Dame
RD 1 - CJ Spiller RB, Clemson
RD 2 - Charles Brown OT, USC

That's how we're looking so far. Not too bad if I say so myself.


I'd give that about a C+ to be honest. this is better:

Davis/Bulaga
Mays
Gerhart

Cicero
02-05-2010, 07:52 PM
RD 1 - Jimmy Clausen QB, Notre Dame
RD 1 - CJ Spiller RB, Clemson
RD 2 - Charles Brown OT, USC

That's how we're looking so far. Not too bad if I say so myself.

Nope, looks pretty good.

LonghornsLegend
02-05-2010, 08:02 PM
I'd give that about a C+ to be honest. this is better:

Davis/Bulaga
Mays
Gerhart

Just a C+ ? I know you want Locker but that 1st round alone would make Seattle 10x better then they are right now and make the future look pretty bright honestly. Even if it's not who you prefer that's a pretty nice haul for the top 3 picks.

summond822
02-06-2010, 03:37 AM
Just a C+ ? I know you want Locker but that 1st round alone would make Seattle 10x better then they are right now and make the future look pretty bright honestly. Even if it's not who you prefer that's a pretty nice haul for the top 3 picks.

Spiller might make the seahawks a lot better than they are now, but Clausen will not play next year if they take him unless Hasselbeck gets hurt again. Not taking into account my personal preference, I just don't see Clausen being drafted by the Hawks AT 6. Now if he or Bradford is there at 14 (incredibly likely that at least one of them will be), it'd be hard to justify passing on him. However, this is not a case of Clausen being undervalued like Matt Ryan a couple of years ago. This is a case of a guy being overvalued to the point of being a top 10 pick in a draft that is weak at the QB position, with little to seperate the 2nd rounders from the 5th rounders.

Personally, I don't think Bradford or Clausen are top 10 picks, but one of them will go in the top 10 because a team will fall in love with their intangibles (likely Bradford). Hopefully that team isn't Seattle and they take a player who will make an immediate impact like an Okung or even a Berry.

Babylon
02-06-2010, 11:41 AM
Just a C+ ? I know you want Locker but that 1st round alone would make Seattle 10x better then they are right now and make the future look pretty bright honestly. Even if it's not who you prefer that's a pretty nice haul for the top 3 picks.

I dont think Charles Brown is the answer at tackle no matter where he is taken. Maybe a little harsh with the C+ so if we grade it on a curve how does B sound?

clay_allison
02-06-2010, 12:37 PM
I dont think Charles Brown is the answer at tackle no matter where he is taken. Maybe a little harsh with the C+ so if we grade it on a curve how does B sound?
Charles Brown reminds me of Jacob Rogers and Winston Justice, too light in the butt.

Cicero
02-06-2010, 04:07 PM
Charles Brown reminds me of Jacob Rogers and Winston Justice, too light in the butt.

His weigh in will probably be more important than anyone else's at the combine.