4-3 vs. 3-4

[Paul]

If you were running a team which defense scheme would you employ. And Why?

I would choose 3-4 for the extra speed you have on the field, the unpredictably, and the versatility.

I really like the 4-3 over set up, but that's not really an every play lineup. It gives the oppurtunity to put many great pass rushers on teh field as your Sam OLB should be a great pass rusher, and with 2 premier D Ends and atleast one great D tackle to free everyone else up, this system can dominate. Then have two MLB types at MLB and WLB and you're golden.

[bearsfan_51]

4-3 because Bill Parcells has a FUP.

[San Diego Chicken]

I like the 3-4, but not every team can run it because you need the right personel (also the reason that I think it's not as successful in college).

[Moses]

Really depends on what personnel I have but probably the 3-4 if I could pick any players.

[Caddy]

Personally, 4-3

[Ravens1991]

I would like a 4-3 with 2 gigantic run stuffers in the middle and 2 good non-stop pass rushers.

[Staubach12]

I've always liked the 3-4 because it allows you to be a bit more agressive. It's easier to confuse an offensive line, and sometimes it will force a back to stay and block in passing situations. When it's a run, more LBs gives you more speed to pursue.

[therock6000]

i prefer the 3-4...but like moses said, it depends on the group of players you have..

[Smooth Criminal]

I'd definately take the 3-4. You can create an awesome pass rush with the 4 linebackers and it is alot easier to stop the run up the middle with the two backers and a NT than with the two DTs and the one MLB.

3-4 for sure. Just look at the success it is having now...Peyton Manning himself cannot figure it out. Also, in 34 you are more athletic, and in the current NFL, that is what is most important.

[draftguru151]

Hybrid. 8)

[bigbluedefense]

Im a 3-4 guy. Always have been. Its better against the run, and its more confusing and versatile. You have more variety of plays, more blitz packages, mroe athletecism, and more confusion.

You obviously need the right personnell of course, but if Im building a defense from scratch, I build a 3-4 defense.

If I were to build a 4-3 defense, it would be built like the 2000 Ravens/Current Jaguars. I would want 2 massive DTs who devour the run, and a quick speedy MIKE who can make tackles sideline to sideline and defend the pass up the middle. Have a solid pass rusher DE, preferabley 2 of course, and quick speedy WILL who can also rush the passer.

If I were to give an example of 4-3 personnell that would be realistic under the salary cap, it would be this

DE - Osi Umenyiora :D
NT - Albert Haynesworth
UT - Marcus Stroud
DE - Reggie Hayward

WILL - Adalius Thomas
MIKE - Mike Peterson
SAM - insert blue collar guy

That would be a realistic and affordable front 7 in a 4-3, and thats the style I would build. I would want 2 run devouring DTs, 2 DEs who can rush the passer well plus stuff the run well, a pass rushing WILL who can play in space, and a pass coverage MIKE.

[draftguru151]

BBD you sure you don't want some smaller DL and some fast LBs so you can run a cover 2?

[bigbluedefense]

Originally Posted by draftguru151

BBD you sure you don't want some smaller DL and some fast LBs so you can run a cover 2?

[bigbluedefense]

Thanks draftguru, you just gave me the perfect setup to rip into the Cover 2.

Cover 2 S UCKS

Defenses weren't meant to be wimpy. Those small quickies could get owned by the big overpowering olinemen I would build my offense around. Speed kills. Kills your run defense that is. Ive said it before and I'll say it again, any style defense who's major weakness is against the power run, and is built to stop the pass is not a good base defense. You cannot be an elite defense in this league either if you cannot play man coverage. And the small secondaries of the Cover 2 cannot hold up in their man assignments.

Cover 2 can't defend the TE entirely well either. And its too basic of a scheme. Come December when teams look at a year of tape and analyze your weaknesses, the Cover 2 scheme has no answer. Its too basic of a scheme, and you won't confuse any qbs with it.

Cover 2 can work, I won't deny that. But its just not my cup of tea. Theres too many inherit flaws in the philosophy. I grew up playing smashmouth football, and the Cover 2's philosophies go against most of the principles I grew up playing and believing in.

[doingthisinsteadofwork]

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

Thanks draftguru, you just gave me the perfect setup to rip into the Cover 2.

Cover 2 S UCKS

Defenses weren't meant to be wimpy. Those small quickies could get owned by the big overpowering olinemen I would build my offense around. Speed kills. Kills your run defense that is. Ive said it before and I'll say it again, any style defense who's major weakness is against the power run, and is built to stop the pass is not a good base defense. You cannot be an elite defense in this league either if you cannot play man coverage. And the small secondaries of the Cover 2 cannot hold up in their man assignments.

Cover 2 can't defend the TE entirely well either. And its too basic of a scheme. Come December when teams look at a year of tape and analyze your weaknesses, the Cover 2 scheme has no answer. Its too basic of a scheme, and you won't confuse any qbs with it.

Cover 2 can work, I won't deny that. But its just not my cup of tea. Theres too many inherit flaws in the philosophy. I grew up playing smashmouth football, and the Cover 2's philosophies go against most of the principles I grew up playing and believing in.

yah thats what oakland though in the superbowl about Tampa. :roll:
of course i blame gruden,sims,and that idiot barrett robins.

[Mr. Stiller]

by choice?

3-4

only fault is with not many colleges running it, and the ones that do don't have great players consistantly (Maryland with Merriman, Brooks/Parham from Virginia...)

Which leads to alot of subpar players sometimes and busts (See Jackson, Alonzo)

It's hard to project who is a clear cut LB and who could pull it off the best.


Which is why the 3-4 leads to fewer busts, because it's a system 98% of colleges use.

[bigbluedefense]

Originally Posted by doingthisinsteadofwork

yah thats what oakland though in the superbowl about Tampa. :roll:
of course i blame gruden,sims,and that idiot barrett robins.

You guys lost that SB because Tampa knew every play you were running. Lynch even said so. That was Gruden's playbook. Gruden taught Tampa's D everything they needed to know and the Bucs knew what the play was before the hike. It was like shooting fish in a bucket, Oakland had no chance.

[Vince Lombardi]

Originally Posted by Ravens1991

I would like a 4-3 with 2 gigantic run stuffers in the middle and 2 good non-stop pass rushers.

Same here. I like size on the d-line so they can just manhandle people in the trenches.

[Moses]

Cover 2 can work amazingly against any style of football if you have the right personnel.

[Boston]

Originally Posted by Moses

Cover 2 can work amazingly against any style of football if you have the right personnel.

So can any scheme.

[PalmerToCJ]

3-4... IMO it's easier to find a playmaking LB than a second solid DT. Plus I like the additional speed and different ways of rushing the passer you can use.

It's a shame we had to promote LeBeau to HC and give him the boot after sucking

[Moses]

Originally Posted by Boston

So can any scheme.

True, I'm just saying that Cover 2 isn't as bad as some people here seem to think.

[Ravens1991]

In a 3-4 could 3 big 340+ d-lineman work well?