2+2=4 - Page 4 - New England Patriots Forums

PatsFanInVa · 05-07-2006, 02:28 PM

Okay, Patriots 80, now my delusional world in which M. Hill gets thrown in as a run-stuffer is picking up too much steam. Oh man would I love to throw him into the middle with Tedi on run-stuffing situations - if only you could stuff the run with measurables instead of playing style.

Who knows if he could do it... but if he could, MAN would that be fun to watch.

PFnV

RayClay · 05-07-2006, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tunescribe

I've never been a huge fan of the 3-4 alignment myself -- what's the big advantage BB sees in it? With a guy like Jarvis Green on the roster, who is an athletic and active pass-rusher, it would seem we could do well in a 4-3. (But I guess that might alter the effectiveness of Wilfork, who is a prototypical nose tackle ... Could Wilfork be effective in a 4-3 alignment?)

Wilfork is actually a 4-3 tackle trying to learn the nose.

All linemen would prefer to be in a 4-3. The problem is we don't have the type of LBs necessary.

Edit: I should have read the posts first. I can see this is redundant.

the taildragger · 05-07-2006, 04:03 PM

all things equal, a 34 defense is:
- stronger against the run (outside and inside).
- increases flexbility of coverages.
- allows for a larger blitz package.
- it's much better against TEs.
- it's better against checking QBs like Manning.

IMO, the 43 is just an inferior outdated scheme (sorry Mr. Landry)...but most coaches still like it because it's the only thing they know.

Are we short a LB?...sure...this bothers me too.

but is there another team that wouldn't trade for our LB core?...I can't think of a better one.

it's something we'll try to address, but we're not going to have 11 pro bowlers on defense (only the colts can send all of their players to Hawaii)...no team is without a weak link here or there.

RayClay · 05-07-2006, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

I am basing my opinion on Claridge this year a comment reported last month from Rodney where he stated that Claridge was working hard and would be a force this year. A statement like that from Rodney carries weight with me.

I'll reserve judgement until the guy actually plays in a game.

arrellbee · 05-08-2006, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the taildragger

all things equal, a 34 defense is:
- stronger against the run (outside and inside).
- increases flexbility of coverages.
- allows for a larger blitz package.
- it's much better against TEs.
- it's better against checking QBs like Manning.

IMO, the 43 is just an inferior outdated scheme (sorry Mr. Landry)...but most coaches still like it because it's the only thing they know.

Are we short a LB?...sure...this bothers me too.

but is there another team that wouldn't trade for our LB core?...I can't think of a better one.

it's something we'll try to address, but we're not going to have 11 pro bowlers on defense (only the colts can send all of their players to Hawaii)...no team is without a weak link here or there.

Very good perspective. Your points on the 3-4 are very good. I think especially signicant is the word you used "flexibility". It just appears to be a more effective defensive set against a wide range of offensive plays and harder for offensive schemes to take advantage of. I'll add a couple item to your list, if I might.
- provides better opportunity to disguise the defensive scheme
- allows more freedom to shift the defensive scheme at the last second
- allows more flexibility to adapt to the final offensive set at the last second