Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by NEPettyOfficer72, Nov 8, 2011.
With the new release of Albert Haynesworth, do the Patriots go back to the 3-4 defense?
if you do, andre carter will become expendable.......but mark anderson has looked pretty good in that regard.....
if this team is going to stop anyone, I think they have to
3-4 with Carter in the "elephant"?
Or play a more attacking 3-4 where Carter & the other OLB rushes the passer on the majority of snaps?
I don't think that they went to the 4-3 because of Haynesworth in the first place, so no.
I believe the personnel, as currently comprised, are better suited for a 4-3. So another "no" vote.
Team can't cover the short to intermediate routes well. Usually 34 teams are better at this.
However, I think the team's personnel is more suited towards 43.
I never felt like the Pats totally committed to the 4/3 in the first place.
I don't see many Pat games, yet it still seemed like more of a hybrid D, a lot of 4/3, some 3/4, some of what I not sure what to call it.
You cannot turn a defence over in 1 season. I think this 4-3 has shown that ninko has been a good sam which is what you need your weekside OLB to do.
cover RB , jam TE etc. He also can rush.
I would put carter as the every down rushend and i always bring up move him around behind the DL and Ninko to let him pick the side he wants to rush.Isolate him on a RB or TE. I know we do not play the scheme to open a guy to make plays but i think its time to do it.
cunnigam and anderson become your nickel rush ends coming in .....
The only way I see this defense getting any better is entirely getting rid of BB's influence on the defensive side of the ball. He's clearly not capable of being the head coach/GM/defensive coordinator all at the same time and his arrogance and unchecked ego is really hurting the team.
Might as well give it a try. Can't be any worse than what we're putting out there now.
Only my opinion, but I don't think we have the linebackers to do it. We have a lot of DL, so at this point I don't think the loss of one guy, particularly one who was ineffective, should cause us to change. I think the return of Deadrick, Brace, etc. was part of the (not the entire) reason AH went bye-bye.
THIS! I've felt this way for the past couple seasons now and we have enough of a sample size to see that personnel decisions and defense building have been terrible.
The defense is not going to get better.
The only way they the pats d could improve is through a great draft year...and unfortunately the patriots haven't had one in nearly decade.
This would require us to have 4 healthy LBs. Do we even have 3?
Bring back Eric Moore!
I have hardly seen Cunningham in there....has he played that much....?
They should play exclusively from the 4-2 and the 2-5.
I think the LB coverage would improve with going back to the 3-4.....these guys are just too slow to cover in the 4-3
Well, that's pretty clear based on that BB appearance on the Sirius NFL channel. BB pretty much said that the main reason for the 4-3 was the lockout-caused lack of a full offseason. With the clear implication that if there had been a normal off-season he would have stayed with the 3-4.
The 2010 draft says hi.....
3-4 vs 4-3 is irrelevant, but I see a lot more two gapping in their future now.
I heard it and I don't buy that as the reason. This team has been a base 3-4 team for nearly the entire time he has been here. How many returning players from last year wouldn't understand the 3-4 scheme? How is changing to a new base easier to teach in less time, as opposed to going with a familar scheme?
I believe the 4-3 base was personnel driven. IMO, if that was dictated by the current roster or the available talent, or the fact that it is becoming harder to find 3-4 guys that fit BB's scheme etc.... is up for debate.
No, it's not.
Except when they say 3-4 they're not just talking about the front 7. They're talking about the WHOLE defense
Separate names with a comma.