Considering 4-3 vs. 3-4

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

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 played 4-3 in college and was good at it. I think he is the least of the problems at 4-3. We have lots of DTs and no DEs, IMO. Putting our OLBs in at DE would not be ideal either...

 

[miDeuce]

We would be overloaded at DT, and thin at DE if we converted to a 43.

I feel better about our 4-3 DE depth than I do our 3-4 OLB depth.

4-3 DE
Ty Warren
Wright
G. Warren
TBC
Cunningham
Maybe Burgess, Maybe Brace

3-4 OLB
TBC
Woods
Ninkovich
Cunningham

 

[Sciz]

Going to a 4-3 gives me one huge problem: Ty Warren.

Put him at DT, and we're right back where we started, with two of Nink, TBC, and Cunningham starting at the DE spots. Put him at LE, and it's basically a 3-4 without the question of who the 4th rusher is, because 90% of the time, it'll be the RE, most likely TBC. That makes our passrush even worse, and yes, that's possible.

 

[patfanken]

..... 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.

That's the key element to any talk about moving from a 3-4 to the 4-3 in the Pats system. The basic techniques for the linemen and LBs remain essentially the same. Besides both are 7 man fronts, just with a different distribution of LBs and DL.

I think as defenses evolve in this pass crazy era of the NFL, the distinction between a 3-4 and 4-3 becomes moot. Today, IMHO, its all about the "situations" and the MULTITUDE of personel packages that are now SOP in NFL. The era of standard sets and "starters" who play 90% of the snaps is pretty much gone. Now we are into rotations and different situational personel packages. With some so called starters playing only slightly more than half the snaps in a given game plan

In other words you really need at least 6 starting quality DBs, 3 starting quality OLs. Conversely ILB has become less of a need because they are often replaced with a DB (ironic since it seems we have 4 quality guys at that position now) and fewer DLmen, since some of them leave the field in passing situations. Which is almost EVERY down in this era.

(which brings to mind the rationale of paying big money to Wilfork, a guy who will be on the bench roughly 40% of the defensive snaps, even when healthy. BTW-originally I was all for his signing, but now I'm beginning to wonder if its worth it. If he plays even 80% of the snaps, its a decent deal for both sides, but less than that and you have to wonder if the Pats are getting what they paid for.)

 

[IcyPatriot]

This debate still goes on in spite of the team being built to be a 4-3 or a 3-4 from down to down or game to game. fun to discuss I guess but we are both.

 

[Ring 6]

I feel better about our 4-3 DE depth than I do our 3-4 OLB depth.

4-3 DE
Ty Warren
Wright
G. Warren
TBC
Cunningham
Maybe Burgess, Maybe Brace

3-4 OLB
TBC
Woods
Ninkovich
Cunningham

Thats not an accurate list.
Warren and Warren are DTs in the 43.
The 34 OLBs and 43 DEs are that same guys.

 

[Ring 6]

That's the key element to any talk about moving from a 3-4 to the 4-3 in the Pats system. The basic techniques for the linemen and LBs remain essentially the same. Besides both are 7 man fronts, just with a different distribution of LBs and DL.

I think as defenses evolve in this pass crazy era of the NFL, the distinction between a 3-4 and 4-3 becomes moot. Today, IMHO, its all about the "situations" and the MULTITUDE of personel packages that are now SOP in NFL. The era of standard sets and "starters" who play 90% of the snaps is pretty much gone. Now we are into rotations and different situational personel packages. With some so called starters playing only slightly more than half the snaps in a given game plan

In other words you really need at least 6 starting quality DBs, 3 starting quality OLs. Conversely ILB has become less of a need because they are often replaced with a DB (ironic since it seems we have 4 quality guys at that position now) and fewer DLmen, since some of them leave the field in passing situations. Which is almost EVERY down in this era.

(which brings to mind the rationale of paying big money to Wilfork, a guy who will be on the bench roughly 40% of the defensive snaps, even when healthy. BTW-originally I was all for his signing, but now I'm beginning to wonder if its worth it. If he plays even 80% of the snaps, its a decent deal for both sides, but less than that and you have to wonder if the Pats are getting what they paid for.)

The other side of the argument though, is that 1st and 10 is the most important down. Your base may only play 50% of the snaps, but its out there most on 1st and 10. If you succeed on 1st and 10 you put yourself into a position to better succeed on 2nd and 3rd. If you fail on 1st and 10, you scramble all day.

 

[Ring 6]

This debate still goes on in spite of the team being built to be a 4-3 or a 3-4 from down to down or game to game. fun to discuss I guess but we are both.

Sure, we can, but over the last few years we have played VERY little 43.

 

[patfanken]

The other side of the argument though, is that 1st and 10 is the most important down. Your base may only play 50% of the snaps, but its out there most on 1st and 10. If you succeed on 1st and 10 you put yourself into a position to better succeed on 2nd and 3rd. If you fail on 1st and 10, you scramble all day.

That was the old adage back in the day, Andy, but I wonder if they did the stats over the last 5 years whether that would still hold true. Teams passing games, especially the short passing games are SO efficient now that 2nd and 8 is not an overwhelming obstacle to attain. With QBs routinely completing 65% of their passes, its really hard for a defense to stop a team 3 straight plays ESPECIALLY when defenses have to defend the open field.

I think in the red zone, however, the importance of first down would again become key because the defense starts to regain the advantage because they are defending a smaller area.

It would be interesting to find out the real stats since Polian changed the game.

 

[OldNEPatsFan]

You can argue all you want, but this isn't a good 3-4 or 4-3 defense. As long as they have to keep using sub packages the oppostion will know who is going to rush the passer. In the old days you had no idea who was going to drop back and cover and who would rush. The Pats biggest problem is a lack of three down players.

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

I feel better about our 4-3 DE depth than I do our 3-4 OLB depth.

4-3 DE
Ty Warren
Wright
G. Warren
TBC
Cunningham
Maybe Burgess, Maybe Brace

3-4 OLB
TBC
Woods
Ninkovich
Cunningham

The only person on your list who might be a realistic DE is Wright and even he is a little slow.

 

[Ring 6]

You can argue all you want, but this isn't a good 3-4 or 4-3 defense. As long as they have to keep using sub packages the oppostion will know who is going to rush the passer. In the old days you had no idea who was going to drop back and cover and who would rush. The Pats biggest problem is a lack of three down players.

Huh?
Every team plays nickel and dime around 50% of the time now.

 

[IcyPatriot]

Sure, we can, but over the last few years we have played VERY little 43.

Well what we really are is a big nickel team and it looks like Belichick is creating a big dime also.

would it be safe to say we are really a 3-3 team?