18 replies to this topic

[Buffalo Barbarian]

Just for fun I was thinking about what if you combined the pashrush concepts of the 34 and the 43 where everyone on the front 7 can be a pashrusher? It would have to be a zone blitz style D as you can't have every one Blitz all the time but but you have rush LBs with rushing D-line and a MLB that can cover.

so for more fun I have constructed a dream team front 7:

DE Aldon Smith 6'4" 260
DT Geno Atkins 6'1" 300
DT JJ Watt 6'5" 295
DE Charles Johnson 6'2" 285

OLB Clay Mathews 6'3" 255
MLB Luke Kuechly 6'3" 235
OLB Von Miller 6'3" 237

Thoughts?

[Max997]

My thought is I'd run it right down their throat

Teams do blitz out of the 4-3 Wanny just prefers not to which is dumb.

[Buffalo Barbarian]

Max997, on 22 November 2012 - 11:21 PM, said:

My thought is I'd run it right down their throat

Teams do blitz out of the 4-3 Wanny just prefers not to which is dumb.

Yes but the OLBs in a 43 aren't rushers and and with good size DL and bigger LBs it would be hard to run against. I should have specified that they wouldn't rushing every play just that could blitz effectively.

[mrags]

I don't know if that would work for the thought that OLmen would destroy a group of 4LBs as DLmen. Would easily get to the second level. Where you might not get 10+ yard runs a lot because of the premium LB tackling ability, you would surely get anywhere from 5-10 every rush because the push your OL would get with such small guys.

[Max997]

Buffalo Barbarian, on 22 November 2012 - 11:31 PM, said:

Yes but the OLBs in a 43 aren't rushers and and with good size DL and bigger LBs it would be hard to run against. I should have specified that they wouldn't rushing every play just that could blitz effectively.

That's a small DL and front 7 in general which was my thinking

There hv been plenty of 4-3 LBs that could blitz they just don't rush the passer as much as 3-4 LBs. I am also a big fan of the corner blitz but again Wanny doesn't like that either

[Dadonkadonk]

Isn't that already called the wide 9?  Bascially 7 defenders in the box and close to the line of scrimmage along with the two CB's in press coverage with a two deep safety look.  Ask Philadelphia how that is working for them?
I'm pretty sure there is no rule against sending a safety or a DB or a LB on a blitz from the 4-3 alignment.  That is the defense that Greg Williams ran in Tennessee.  It works great until you don't get to the QB.  Most teams would rather play it safe and let the other team's offense make a mistake.  Say what you want about Jauron but his defenses kept us in games.
I prefer an attacking style of defense that causes turnovers even if it gives up chunks of yards.  No matter what defense or offense is played it is easier for the offense to move between then 20's and easier to defend the red-zone.  If you get turnovers, score points off of them, have good special teams, give up FG's instead of TD's, then who cares how many yards the defense gives up....

Edited by Dadonkadonk, 23 November 2012 - 01:27 AM.

[Buffalo Barbarian]

mrags, on 23 November 2012 - 01:02 AM, said:

I don't know if that would work for the thought that OLmen would destroy a group of 4LBs as DLmen. Would easily get to the second level. Where you might not get 10+ yard runs a lot because of the premium LB tackling ability, you would surely get anywhere from 5-10 every rush because the push your OL would get with such small guys.

Watt, Atkins and Johnson are not small

Dadonkadonk, on 23 November 2012 - 01:24 AM, said:

Isn't that already called the wide 9?  Bascially 7 defenders in the box and close to the line of scrimmage along with the two CB's in press coverage with a two deep safety look.  Ask Philadelphia how that is working for them?
I'm pretty sure there is no rule against sending a safety or a DB or a LB on a blitz from the 4-3 alignment.  That is the defense that Greg Williams ran in Tennessee.  It works great until you don't get to the QB.  Most teams would rather play it safe and let the other team's offense make a mistake.  Say what you want about Jauron but his defenses kept us in games.
I prefer an attacking style of defense that causes turnovers even if it gives up chunks of yards.  No matter what defense or offense is played it is easier for the offense to move between then 20's and easier to defend the red-zone.  If you get turnovers, score points off of them, have good special teams, give up FG's instead of TD's, then who cares how many yards the defense gives up....

Wide 9 doesn't have rushing LBs.

My D would have a normal 43 alignment with the OLBs up on the line outside of the DEs and they would rush or drop back depending on play calling.

Max997, on 23 November 2012 - 01:08 AM, said:

That's a small DL and front 7 in general which was my thinking

There hv been plenty of 4-3 LBs that could blitz they just don't rush the passer as much as 3-4 LBs. I am also a big fan of the corner blitz but again Wanny doesn't like that either

It seems like the last two games Wanny has been more creative, maybe the avalanche of criticism has finally gotten to him.

[peterpan]

My thought is I would want P Willis at MLB.

But this D would do fine agaisnt the run, all those players are studs!

[Buffalo Barbarian]

peterpan, on 23 November 2012 - 01:08 PM, said:

My thought is I would want P Willis at MLB.

But this D would do fine agaisnt the run, all those players are studs!

Had Willis in but I wanted a LB that was great in pass coverage, so went with Kuechly instead.

[mrags]

I know they are not small. But it's highly unlikely that we are able to have 4 pro bowl type monsters in there alone. Let alone the other positions. This isn't madden. If it were, it would be possible. But it's not.

[gomper]

Maybe the closest to what you have in mind is some kind of hybrid 46

[Buffalo Barbarian]

mrags, on 23 November 2012 - 04:04 PM, said:

I know they are not small. But it's highly unlikely that we are able to have 4 pro bowl type monsters in there alone. Let alone the other positions. This isn't madden. If it were, it would be possible. But it's not.

remember it's for fun.

Not that we have a great line but take the Giants and put two more passrushers out there and that would be a lot of fun.

gomper, on 23 November 2012 - 05:34 PM, said:

Maybe the closest to what you have in mind is some kind of hybrid 46

[Dr. Trooth]

Enough of this 3-4, 4-3 bulls#it.  How bout a defense that puts 11 passionate, fast, physical players on the field that lay the wood to the opposing team, play in and play out.  Win or lose, I'd have a lot more respect and interest in watching that type of defense play rather than the current bunch of pussies.

[frogger]

I'd screen that team to death.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

frogger, on 24 November 2012 - 10:46 AM, said:

I'd screen that team to death.

With that much athleticism and football smarts?

I agree with those who say smashmouth is the only option.

Any approach would be futile though.

[NoSaint]

San Jose Bills Fan, on 24 November 2012 - 11:02 AM, said:

With that much athleticism and football smarts?

I agree with those who say smashmouth is the only option.

Any approach would be futile though.

So all you need is 7 all pros and your set.

[Cash]

San Jose Bills Fan, on 24 November 2012 - 11:02 AM, said:

With that much athleticism and football smarts?

I agree with those who say smashmouth is the only option.

Any approach would be futile though.

NoSaint, on 24 November 2012 - 12:45 PM, said:

So all you need is 7 all pros and your set.

Not just 7 All-Pros, 7 All-Pros whose skillsets mesh together very well.  Good job by Barbarian, I think he's built a front 7 that can't be beat.  But how is he gonna fit them all under the cap?

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Yeah they'd have to be willing to work together for the good of the team.

[Joe Miner]

Not every thought of a 15 year old kid needs to be typed up on an internet forum.