OK, I'm not here to play expert, because I'm still learning. But I DO hope this thread will draw some of our X&O guys in. There's a mound of argument between 4-3 and 3-4. Probably until the Seymour trade, it seemed like 4-3 was destiny. What I want to know is what line-up's make a solid 4-3, which make a solid 3-4 and which grouping can best morph when facing a hurry up offense. BTW, I'm looking for thoughtful conversation, not a bar-brawl. DL - Brace, Wright, Pryor, Green, Warren, Wilfork (these guys are DL in either formation, correct?) DE/LB - Burgess, Banta-Cain, AD (the last being spec, but he could drop to end in a 4-3, I think) LB - Guyton, Mayo, Ninkovich, Thomas, Woods, Alexander I think my questions are: 1) Can TBC or Burgess play OLB in a 3-4 since that won't hide anything from the offense? 2) Have my eyes and ear deceived me, or is Alexander actually a serviceable LB, unlike former LB/ST ace Izzo? 3) How do you assign the DL group? Older projections had Wright as a backup NT and Brace coming in to Back up NT. Obviously those guys can move around - where to? 4) Is the 1-2 down 3-4 now a line of Brace/Wilfork/Warren? 5) In the 4-3, are we less likely to have 2-down players or is that unchanged by the formation? I feel like the 4-3 is risky, improved DB's or not. With so many teams switching to 3-4, is there a reason we are showing a lot of 4-3 beyond personnel? After all, it's not like BB and co. don't choose the team they field.