A possible return to the 3-4?

captain stone · May 1, 2013

patchick said:
I'd rather ask "what roles maximize what each player does best" rather than what CAN they play. And while this roster could certainly line up a classic 2-gap 3-4 if required, I don't think it gets the best out of them as a group.

Looking from an optimal rather than possible perspective, I have:

* Chandler Jones - 4-3 DE
* Rob Ninkovich - 3-4 OLB, 4-3 DE
* Jerod Mayo - any 4-3 LB, 3-4 ILB
* Brandon Spikes - 3-4 ILB, 4-3 MLB
* Dont'a Hightower - 4-3 MLB
* Jamie Collins - 3-4 OLB, 4-3 OLB
* Vince Wilfork - 4-3 DT, 3-4 NT
* Kyle Love - 4-3 DT, 3-4 NT
* Armond Armstead, 4-3 DT, 3-4 DE
* Tommy Kelly - 4-3 DT, 3-4 DE
* Brandon Deaderick - 3-4 DE
* Jake Bequette - 4-3 DE
* Michael Buchanan - 4-3 DE, 3-4 OLB
* Jermaine Cunningham - 4-3 DE
* Steve Beauharnais - 4-3 MLB
* Dane Fletcher - 3-4 ILB, 4-3 MLB (maybe 4-3 OLB?)

If I have to pick 7 players from that group for my theoretical midseason base (though we all know that nickel is the real base, right?), assuming all progress reasonably well, I like:

Mayo - Hightower - Collins
Jones - Wilfork - Armstead/Love - Ninkovich

Edit: forgot Deaderick

I agree with all of the player/position entries, only adding that maybe Hightower could be tried as a nickel DE;
Deaderick could also play 4-3 DT; and I see Fletcher as more nickel OLB than MLB.

As for the front 7, I think that Bill is hoping for these guys:

Base
Mayo - Spikes - Hightower
Jones - Love/Deaderick - Wilfork - Armstead/Ninkovich

Sub
Fletcher - Mayo - Collins
Jones - Armstead/Forston - Kelly - one of Cunningham/Bequette/Francis/Buchanan

BradyFTW! · May 1, 2013

patchick said:
I'd rather ask "what roles maximize what each player does best" rather than what CAN they play. And while this roster could certainly line up a classic 2-gap 3-4 if required, I don't think it gets the best out of them as a group.

Looking from an optimal rather than possible perspective, I have:

* Chandler Jones - 4-3 DE
* Rob Ninkovich - 3-4 OLB, 4-3 DE
* Jerod Mayo - any 4-3 LB, 3-4 ILB
* Brandon Spikes - 3-4 ILB, 4-3 MLB
* Dont'a Hightower - 4-3 MLB
* Jamie Collins - 3-4 OLB, 4-3 OLB
* Vince Wilfork - 4-3 DT, 3-4 NT
* Kyle Love - 4-3 DT, 3-4 NT
* Armond Armstead, 4-3 DT, 3-4 DE
* Tommy Kelly - 4-3 DT, 3-4 DE
* Brandon Deaderick - 3-4 DE
* Jake Bequette - 4-3 DE
* Michael Buchanan - 4-3 DE, 3-4 OLB
* Jermaine Cunningham - 4-3 DE
* Steve Beauharnais - 4-3 MLB
* Dane Fletcher - 3-4 ILB, 4-3 MLB (maybe 4-3 OLB?)

If I have to pick 7 players from that group for my theoretical midseason base (though we all know that nickel is the real base, right?), assuming all progress reasonably well, I like:

Mayo - Hightower - Collins
Jones - Wilfork - Armstead/Love - Ninkovich

Edit: forgot Deaderick

I'd say:

Chandler Jones: 4-3 DE. He may be able to play OLB in a 3-4, but definitely not an optimal fit.

Rob Ninkovich: 3-4 OLB. He can play 4-3 DE, but not an optimal fit.

Mayo: super versatile, fits anywhere (3-4 ILB, 4-3 OLB)

Spikes: 3-4 ILB. Can play 4-3 MLB, but it exposes his lack of speed pretty severely.

Dont'a Hightower: super versatile, fits anywhere (3-4 ILB, 3-4 OLB, 4-3 MLB)

Jamie Collins: 4-3 OLB. Can probably be a 3-4 OLB, but I doubt it's optimal.

Vince Wilfork: optimally a 3-4 NT, but is a fantastic 4-3 DT and 3-4 DE as well.

Kyle Love: optimally a 4-3 DT, but can play in a 3-4

Armond Armstead: sounds to me like an intriguing 3-4 DE. Can play 4-3 DT.

Tommy Kelly: 4-3 DT. Has he been a 3-4 DE before?

Brandon Deaderick: 3-4 DE

Jake Bequette: probably 4-3 DE, not even sure if he's that.

Michael Buchanan: 4-3 DE

Jermaine Cunningham: 3-4 OLB

In general, I only disagree on some small stuff. I don't see quite as much versatility in Jones, Ninkovich, Spikes, Collins, and Kelly as you seem to.

belichick010405 · May 1, 2013

A possible return to a 3-4? The answer is no.

PP2 · May 1, 2013

Why does the myth of the base defense persist? We don't really have one anymore. It changes up week to week, half to half, snap to snap. We'll play a handful of 4-3, the occasional 3-4, and once in a while, a bizarre concoction. We almost always go into sub immediately, anyway, after we decipher the offense gameplan.

Shockt327 · May 1, 2013

Fencer said:
I stopped reading when you suggest Ninko at 3-4 DE. That position requires a lot more sandypants, specialized packages or gameplans OCCASIONALLY excepted.

Analogy: I recall one game in which Mike Vrabel played NT. I do not recall a second one.

Huh? When did Vrabel play NT.

I mean, there may have been one individual play where he lined up at DT on a passing down and then dropped into coverage, but Vrabel never actually played NT for a game.

supafly · May 2, 2013

PP2 said:
Why does the myth of the base defense persist? We don't really have one anymore. It changes up week to week, half to half, snap to snap. We'll play a handful of 4-3, the occasional 3-4, and once in a while, a bizarre concoction. We almost always go into sub immediately, anyway, after we decipher the offense gameplan.

Ummm, this.......

supafly · May 2, 2013

belicheck010405 said:
A possible return to a 3-4? The answer is no.

The popular thought has and will continue to be that all of our LBs are much better fits in a 30 front, so this debate will go on and on forever. At the moment ALL of our LB's (Spikes, Mayo, Hightower, Collins) and players that have played the "end of line" position as Belichick refers to it (Ninkovich) are all better equipped to play in a 3-4 alignment.

But as Patspsycho (PP2) stated, it hardly matters due to the flexibility that the team employs anyway. Different players are playing different responsibilities of both fronts and using both one/two gaps-- depending upon the look that's being used for the majority of that week's gameplan. There's actually a ton of 3-4 being used on many plays as it is right now. If anyone had any stats or numbers for specific looks, I'd be interested in seeing them.

ay-yo · May 2, 2013

My thoughts on the front 7:

- Agree with everyone who says 3-4 is a bad idea b/c we don't have enough BIG DL.

- If the (4-3) DEs are Jones and Nink it's not really a 4-3. It's a 2-5.

- I like the idea of Armstead at LDE in a 4-3. Theoretically he should be better against the run than Nink without that much of a drop off in pass rush. In sub packages I want Armond as a DT.

- The depth at DE and LB is better than it has been in a long time.

- Agree with Supa and PP2 that the "base" depends on the match up. For instance against the Ravens I want a run heavy front (Amstead, Wilfork, Love, Jones, Mayo, Spikes, Hightower) but against the Broncos I want Love and Spikes replaced with Nink and Collins.

Stilla · May 4, 2013

I don't see any depth at the line for a 3-4.

We are best suited for a 4-3 or a 3-3 5

Coach42 · May 4, 2013

Base be damned when was the last time we had this kind of depth in the front 7?! Remember the Gary Guyton days? I think the most important thing here is that in any given game we can throw ANY front out for a couple of plays to keep the offense off balance. So who really cares what you call it. I can't wait to see some 1-6's and 2-5's or an oversized 5-2? Should be fun.

NEPettyOfficer72 · May 5, 2013

This is by far the most talent we've had at linebacker since 2007 so I would say yes, we should and could go back to a 3-4. The size and speed is now there with the addition of the explosive Jamie Collins. Not to mention Ninkovich would make a great 3-4 OLB because he has tremendous skill sets both as pass rush and coverage and he has the size as well, and 3-point stands versatility.

Jerod Mayo, Brandon Spikes, Don'ta Hightower, Rob Ninkovich, Jamie Collins, Jermaine Cunningham are all options at the rotation..

Ring 6 · May 5, 2013

Stilla said:
I don't see any depth at the line for a 3-4.

We are best suited for a 4-3 or a 3-3 5

There is plenty of depth for a 34 DL.

NT: Wilfork, Love
DE: Armstead, Kelly, Deaderick, Bequette, Francis

The question is not depth at DL its whether there is any prayer of generating a pass rush from the 34.

NEPettyOfficer72 · May 5, 2013

AndyJohnson said:
There is plenty of depth for a 34 DL.

NT: Wilfork, Love
DE: Armstead, Kelly, Deaderick, Bequette, Francis

The question is not depth at DL its whether there is any prayer of generating a pass rush from the 34.

Not only that but

NT: Wilfork, Love, Kelly, Armstead, Deaderick
DE: Wilfork, Armstead, Love, Kelly, Deaderick, Bequette, and Francis

Also look out for Tommy Kelly and Justin Francis.. I believe Kelly could be dynamite in the right system as Oakland paid him to be in the past, but wasn't used correctly. I also feel a surge coming on from Justin Francis at the other DE position alongside rising probowler DE Chandler Jones.

jah · May 5, 2013

I'm guessing that for a 4-3, the lineup would look like this:

LB: Mayo, Spikes, Hightower
DL: Jones, Wilfork, Kelly, Ninkovich

The only spot I see being contested is the other DT spot next to Wilfork. It could be anyone, really. Kelly (proven vet), Armstead (CFL star), Love (starter for most of 2011 and 2012), or Deaderick (starter toward the end of 2012).

Alternatively, my guess at a 3-4:

LB: Jones, Mayo, Spikes, Ninkovich
DL: Kelly, Wilfork, Deaderick

Who gets what spot in the 3-4 is a lot harder to predict. Do you take Spikes or Hightower next to Mayo (note that Hightower was an ILB at Alabama playing the 3-4). Do you put Wilfork at NT with 2 of Armstead/Kelly/Deaderick at DE or do you put Wilfork at DE with Love at NT and Armstead/Kelly on the other side?

No matter what, it looks like the 4-3 puts the best players on the field. I'd rather have Mayo, Spikes, and Hightower on at the same time rather than replacing one of them with a JAG defensive tackle.

DocHoliday · May 5, 2013

I just don't see it. A 3-4 would neutralize Chandler Jones.

Do Collins/Ninkovich bring more to the front 7 than Chander Jones? I don't think so.

Ring 6 · May 5, 2013

DocHoliday said:
I just don't see it. A 3-4 would neutralize Chandler Jones.

Do Collins/Ninkovich bring more to the front 7 than Chander Jones? I don't think so.

Jones would be an OLB rushing 99% of the time. I think 34 or 43 makes no difference to Jones role.

Ring 6 · May 5, 2013

NEPettyOfficer72 said:
Not only that but

NT: Wilfork, Love, Kelly, Armstead, Deaderick
DE: Wilfork, Armstead, Love, Kelly, Deaderick, Bequette, and Francis

Also look out for Tommy Kelly and Justin Francis.. I believe Kelly could be dynamite in the right system as Oakland paid him to be in the past, but wasn't used correctly. I also feel a surge coming on from Justin Francis at the other DE position alongside rising probowler DE Chandler Jones.

Francis is a jag. I hope better players emerge to keep him off the field.

tonyto3690 · May 5, 2013

AndyJohnson said:
There is plenty of depth for a 34 DL.

NT: Wilfork, Love
DE: Armstead, Kelly, Deaderick, Bequette, Francis

The question is not depth at DL its whether there is any prayer of generating a pass rush from the 34.

Armstead has only played minimal 34 in Canada. Given how he was used, pretty safe to bet the system was closer to the Bum Phillips system than the 2 gap system Belichick uses.

Kelly has played a few snaps as a rookie as a 34 DE but hasn't done anything since then to show he is anything but a prototypical 3 tech DT.

Deaderick is a mediocre LDE

Bequette is way way way too small to play DE in a 34 scheme

Francis is way way way too small to play DE in a 34 scheme

No one is capable or shown they are capable, let alone good as a 34 DE besides Wilfork who we would need to play NT.

EDIT:
And on top of that, Chandler has shown only small ability to play in space and is better rushing the passer with his hand on the dirt than standing up and you'd be minimizing his potential.

Though I will say it would improve the effectiveness of Spikes and Hightower.

But without a real 5 tech DE it's a pipe dream. Belichicks 43 Over alignment is a pseudo 34 defense anyways.

RayClay · May 5, 2013

tonyto3690 said:
Every 34 de listed would be hilariously bad. We just don't have the personnel to run the 34 and listing guys like bequette and nine as 34 des when they are at least 60 pounds underweight and five inches too short is just flat out wrong. I mean for cripes sake nink is a liability and undersized as a 43 de. As a 34 de he'd be eaten alive.

Agreed. We can shift here and there, but we simply haven't recruited 3-4 ends since Seymour and Warren. Only Wilfork's talent and stoutness allows us to mix it up there.

DocHoliday · May 5, 2013

AndyJohnson said:
Jones would be an OLB rushing 99% of the time. I think 34 or 43 makes no difference to Jones role.

That's true, but if you're going to switch to a 3-4, why put an OLB on the field that can't play well in space?

Might as well just stick to the 4-3.

A possible return to the 3-4?

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

Goodell sucks

Closed Acccount

Hall of Fame Poster

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

Eff you, Shula

Eff you, Shula

Third String But Playing on Special Teams

On the Game Day Roster

Third String But Playing on Special Teams

On the Game Day Roster

PatsFans.com Supporter

On the Game Day Roster

Degeneracy Expert

In the Starting Line-Up

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

Banned

Hall of Fame Poster

In the Starting Line-Up

Similar threads