AndyJohnson

While I believe we are built to be a 34 team, there is always talk of whether we would switch to a 43, so here is a look at how we would look.

DL
We would have the deepest DT position in the history of the NFL
Wifork
Warren
Wright
G Warren
Lewis
Brace
Pryor

I actually think in a 43 we would have Wright at DE along with
Cunningham
TBC (could also be OLB)
Burgess if he shows

LB
Mayo at MLB backed by Spikes
with
Ninkovch
Spikes
Woods
Guyton
McKenzie
all potential OLBs.

I think we are still better suited to a 34, although 2gap is 2gap and the differences are minor.
The above, however, also lines up our sub packages (nickel/dime) which we are in over half the time.

Elijah

I don't know much about the 4-3, what would Wilfork do in it? Aren't 4-3 DTs supposed to be smaller and faster? It would simply be a waste of talent if Wilfork didn't fit the system. Otherwise, I like the idea of actually having a decent defensive line. The linebackers might be good, too.

SEPatsFan

Like the 3-4, the 4-3 can be run a variety of ways. For example both the Ravens and the Vikings have, in the past, run 4-3s with two huge DTs allowing the LBs to run clean to the ball. Wilfork is also not a slouch as far as his mobility goes, he came out of Miami as a penetrating DT, and has show impressive agility and speed by chasing players down away from the center of the field.

SSDD

AndyJohnson

We would still play a 2gap system, so Wilfork would do the exact same thing over the G instead of over the C. However, many 43 teams align a DT over the C often anyway shifting to the strength of the formation.

Essentially if you look at the alignment of our 34 compared to 43, you are flipflopping the DT/NTs and the ILBs. Obviously the players change, but if you took our 34 stood Wilfork up and moved him back 5 yards or so, and put the ILBs down on the line head up on Gs, you have our 43.
The 43, though employs more shifting toward the strength in the formation.

SEPatsFan

There is a lot of versatility in the front 7, it is what allows the sub packages (around 50% of the snaps last year) to work.

There are a bunch of ways to do the D-line, VW would be a tackle, a bunch of people could play the other spot (Prior for example, I think would be at his best as a penetrating 4-3 DT). The DEs would be interesting, Cunningham/TBC would be obvious on the weak/QB Blind side, the strong side could be Warren (I think is is athletic enough) or someone like Wright.

I'm less sure about how the LBs would shake out. I think Spikes would actually be the best choice in the middle, allowing him to read/react and negating his, relative, speed disadvantage. Mayo should be great on the weak side, keeping him away from the TEs, and running to the ball. The strong side LB? I'm not so sure about. Guyton/McKenzie would make sense from a talent perspective. Guyton is terrible at OLB in the 3/4 because he gets eaten up by OTs, but I think he would fair much better against TEs; both in blocking/rushing and in coverage.)

So something like

Warren--Prior--Wilfork--TBC
Guyton--Spikes--Mayo

????


SSDD

Patspsycho

The 4-3 lineup I saw yesterday had Pryor and Lewis in the middle with Wright and Warren on the outside, with Cunningham in elephant and Spikes and Nink as LB. It seemed to be an effective front.

Patspsycho

Wilfork comes off the field for the most part.

AndyJohnson

We wouldnt really have a 'penetrating DT' though because it would be 2 gap.
I wouldn't take Mayo out of the middle, he would be better at 43 MLB than any other spot in any alignment. Spikes actually ought to be a good SOLB in the 43, and I think Ninkovich would fit well there too. Most think WOLB is Guytons best spot.

SEPatsFan

You saw it, not me, but that sounds like a pass defense sub package. If they made a switch to the 4-3 on normal downs, I would expect it to look pretty different. Never mind, not that any of us would ever forget, it is preseason and people will be tried out all over the place.

SSDD

AndyJohnson

The idea was if we changed from 34 to 43 full time.