Considering 4-3 vs. 3-4

[Ring 6]

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.

 

[jah]

Re: Considering 4-3 vs 3-4

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.

 

[Headcase]

Re: Considering 4-3 vs 3-4

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.

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

 

[Ring 6]

Re: Considering 4-3 vs 3-4

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.

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.

 

[Headcase]

Re: Considering 4-3 vs 3-4

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.

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]

Re: Considering 4-3 vs 3-4

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.

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]

Re: Considering 4-3 vs 3-4

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.

Wilfork comes off the field for the most part.

 

[Ring 6]

Re: Considering 4-3 vs 3-4

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

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.

 

[Headcase]

Re: Considering 4-3 vs 3-4

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.

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

 

[Ring 6]

Re: Considering 4-3 vs 3-4

Wilfork comes off the field for the most part.

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

 

[Headcase]

Re: Considering 4-3 vs 3-4

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.

True enough, swap Warren and Prior then.

SSDD

 

[Ring 6]

Re: Considering 4-3 vs 3-4

True enough, swap Warren and Prior then.

SSDD

Thats the thing though, all of our DL are DTs.
None of them are ableto effective rush the passer from the DE spot except maybe Wright. But I dont think we will ever field a defense with 2 250-260 lb DEs.
I think it we went to a 43, we woud still play 3 300lbers, but the DE in the group would be Wright. We'd play a 34 OLB on the other side.
The biggest thing we lose is that we identify the 4th rusher.
BB has always felt it was important to not do that which is why we tend to not have 1 OLB who is always the 4th rusher and one who is mostly a cover guy. We have always liked to split the duties somewhere in the vicinity of equally.

 

[cstjohn17]

Re: Considering 4-3 vs 3-4

We would have the deepest DT position in the history of the NFL

Good one... funny stuff

 

[Ring 6]

Re: Considering 4-3 vs 3-4

Good one... funny stuff

Seriously though, our entire DLare DTs.
We would start Wifork and Warren and have GWarren, Wright, Leiws all NFL starters as backups with Brace and Pryor.
I didnt say the best, I said the deepest.

 

[PATSNUTme]

Re: Considering 4-3 vs 3-4

If we look at the draft this year and last, the signing of Lewis and Warren, it points to playing more 4-3 but not exclusively. Wilfork use played in a 4-3 in college and did well. I think would be a 3 down player (mostly) if we went to a 4-3 as a pocket pusher.

In 2001 the Patriots switched to a 4-3 and that was the beginning of the run to the championship. BB can come up with variations off the 4-3 as well as the 3-4. But if your personnel dictate that a 4-3 is a better fit, that's what you go with.

 

[Ring 6]

Re: Considering 4-3 vs 3-4

If we look at the draft this year and last, the signing of Lewis and Warren, it points to playing more 4-3 but not exclusively. Wilfork use played in a 4-3 in college and di well and I think would be a 3 down player (mostly) if we went to a 4-3.

In 2001 the Patriots switched to a 4-3 and that was the beginning of the run to the championship. BB can come up with variations off the 4-3 as well as the 3-4. But if your personnel dictate that a 4-3 is a better fit, that's what you go with.

I diagree, because we wouldn't be drafting and signing DTs when we have Wilfork, Warren and Wright there, we'd be signing guys to play DE.

I dont think our personell fit the 43 better/

 

[PATSNUTme]

Re: Considering 4-3 vs 3-4

I diagree, because we wouldn't be drafting and signing DTs when we have Wilfork, Warren and Wright there, we'd be signing guys to play DE.

I dont think our personell fit the 43 better/

But most can play DE in a 4-3, if you are looking at stopping the run first. Our division is full of run first teams as well as the AFC Central that we play this year.

But we shall see what BB comes up with. Just don't be suprised to see more 4-3 than we have in the past.

 

[Ring 6]

Re: Considering 4-3 vs 3-4

But most can play DE in a 4-3, if you are looking at stopping the run first. Our division is full of run first teams as well as the AFC Central that we play this year.

But we shall see what BB comes up with. Just don't be suprised to see more 4-3 than we have in the past.

I dont think 4 300lbers would be very effective.

 

[jmt57]

Mike Dussault of Pats Pulpit tries to make Make The case For A 4-3 base -- Dussault actually mentions this thread specifically in his column.

In the past the players on the Pats roster seemed to be better suited for the 3-4 than a 4-3, so making a switch to the 4-3 as the team's base defense didn't make sense. Dussault feels the opposite is the case now.

Now when you look at the current Patriots defensive roster you see a team that looks far more suited to play the 4-3 defense. Ty Warren, Vince Wilfork and Ron Brace remain ideal 3-4 defensive lineman, but Mike Wright, Damione Lewis, Gerard Warren and Myron Pryor all seem to fit a 4-3 scheme a lot better. Lewis and Gerard Warren both played in the 4-3 defense last year, with Lewis consistently getting pressure on the quarterback from that scheme.

The linebacking corps looks even more 4-3 friendly. In a 3-4 scheme it will be hard to get enough snaps for all four talented young inside linebackers Jerod Mayo, Brandon Spikes, Gary Guyton and Tyrone McKenzie. But in a 4-3 scheme you could use almost any combination of those talented young linebackers on the field at any given time.

 

[Ring 6]

Mike Dussault of Pats Pulpit tries to make Make The case For A 4-3 base -- Dussault actually mentions this thread specifically in his column.

In the past the players on the Pats roster seemed to be better suited for the 3-4 than a 4-3, so making a switch to the 4-3 as the team's base defense didn't make sense. Dussault feels the opposite is the case now.

The flaw in his approach is that while he is tallying which players he thinks are better suited for 43 or 34 he doesnt look at who the positions would be filled in.
We would be overloaded at DT, and thin at DE if we converted to a 43.
Also with pass rush being a question mark, I dont think we want to give away the advantage of the 34 by telegraphing who the 4th rusher is.