- Joined
- Sep 13, 2004
- Messages
- 37,607
- Reaction score
- 16,388
You state the issues well.
For me, if we run a real 34, I would not have Collins outside of Jones as you do. I agree with you (and patchick) that issue is at DE. I agree that the "best" choices would Kelly and Easley.
The base 3-4 you mention first is simply having Ninkovich left his hand, and then call the formation a 3-4. While this is reasonable, I don't think that folks think of this when they think of the 3-4.
BOTTOM LINE
IMHO, If Belichick's intent were to move back to the 3-4, 2 gap, base defense, I don't think that he would have used a 1st round cholce on Easley, followed up with a restructure of Kelly's contract.
For me, if we run a real 34, I would not have Collins outside of Jones as you do. I agree with you (and patchick) that issue is at DE. I agree that the "best" choices would Kelly and Easley.
The base 3-4 you mention first is simply having Ninkovich left his hand, and then call the formation a 3-4. While this is reasonable, I don't think that folks think of this when they think of the 3-4.
BOTTOM LINE
IMHO, If Belichick's intent were to move back to the 3-4, 2 gap, base defense, I don't think that he would have used a 1st round cholce on Easley, followed up with a restructure of Kelly's contract.
I think if we line up in a 34, I would expect this:
LDE Kelly
NT Wilfork
RDE Jones
LOLB Nink
LILB Hightower
RILB Mayo
ROLB Collins
on some plays and
LDE Nink
NT Kelly
RDE Wilfork
LOLB Hightower
LILB Mayo
RILB Collins
ROLB Jones
On others.
What I mean is you are ending up in a 34 by starting with your 43 grouping and shifting to the strength and standing up your backside DE.
If I am forced to create a lineup that has neither Jones or Ninkovich playing DE, then I guess I would go
LDE Kelly
NT VW
RDE Easley (I personally HATE this idea but who else is there?)
LOLB Nink
LILB Mayo
RILB Collins
ROLB Jones
Last edited: