I understand the concerns about Sullivan, but the potential is absolutely there. I remember the draft people saying he was better than Seymour. I know he has been a bust, but there is absolutely the chance he can reach his potential here. The depth we now have on the DL is scary. Seymour-Wilfork-Warren. Best starting unit in the NFL Green-Sullivan-Hill-Wright/Klecko/whoever/no one. Great depth. If we were to go to a 4-3, I would expect this: DT- Wilfork and Warren start backed up by Sullivan DE- Seymour and Green start backed up by Hill. the 7th DL will be able to play both spot. Vrabel and Colvin still can play DE on 3rd down. I have been one of those saying we are a 3-4 base team, BUT.............. Look at the guys we have: The DL can play 3-4 or 4-3 equally. We would be big at DE, but who cares, we will be very good too. I think Wilfork, Hill, Green and Klecko if he stays are better suited for the 43. Everyone else is equal either way, depending on which 34 DE stays a 43 DE. Vrabel is equally good in either set. His ILB play last year is closer to a 43 OLB than a 34 OLB. Bruschi is equally effective in either set. Colvin is really the only guy who is 'built for the 34' but I saw a difference in his game last year where he became much more stout vs the run, playing stronger and relying less on only speed and quickness. He can still get his pass rush chances on 3rd down, and there is no reason we cannot rush 5 out of the 43 as easily as the 34. Beisel probably fits the 43 better than the 34. He started almost a full year at MLB in the KC 43. No one not listed above would have any impact on that decision, they would fit into it. Lets not forget that we won a SB in 2001 playing the 43. We stayed in it in 2002, then shifted to the 34 in 2003. It can be argued that it was personnell and not scheme driving that. I'm not saying Sullivan is a reason to switch schemes, but I can see his trade being a RESULT of a plan to switch schemes. When we switched to the 3-4, we had players like Hamilton, Ted Johnson, McGinest and Phifer. We wanted to get Seymour outside, and couldnt have in a 43, because we lacked DTs. The players on the 2002-2003 offseaosn roster WERE better suited to a 34, the players here are arguably as or more suited to a 43. One of the reasons BB switched, no doubt, was that it was a game planning advantage because few teams played it. Now, more teams play it. How many teams play 2gap 43? I cannot think of any. Wouldnt BB be reversing the tables out of the 3-4 as many teams now play it, and now offenses will figure it out, and be better prepared for it? Another aspect would be breaking the tendancies teams are prepared for by mixing in one gap schemes. That can be done much better in a 43. I think you can make a very strong case that there is a decent possibility that we may change our base to a 43. Those who will take the 'we are a 34 team' approach, please address: -Which players are better suited for 34 vs 43 (I think many are equally suited? -Why would BB have switched to a 43 in 2001? At the most basic level, our front 7 is designed to stop the run. Playing 2gap clearly says pass rush out of the base is a lesser concern. Given our roster, I think we would play the run better from a 4-3, and given that offenses must prepare equally to beat a 3-4, that advantage is going away.