Jump to content


New DC. Do you prefer 3-4 or 4-3?


  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

Poll: Defense (61 member(s) have cast votes)

Do you want a DC that coaches 3-4 or 4-3!

  1. 3-4 (11 votes [18.03%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 18.03%

  2. 4-3 (50 votes [81.97%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 81.97%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 NewEra

NewEra

    I don't "know", I "think"

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,676 posts

Posted 09 January 2013 - 01:33 AM

Just as it reads.  Which alignment do you think fits better with our current personnel?  I want an aggressive DC that loves to blitz.  I haven't seen it in forever.  I prefer to give up some big plays in order to make some plays. Be aggressive!!!

#2 Punch

Punch

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,121 posts

Posted 09 January 2013 - 01:38 AM

It's more difficult than ever to find players that fit in an NFL ready 3-4 alignment. Having said that, defenses are much more of a hybrid than ever before, so the distinction between 3-4 and 4-3 may be fading somewhat.

#3 Stealth

Stealth

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 917 posts

Posted 09 January 2013 - 01:50 AM

Honestly  I dont care what scheme we play as I feel in order to really be a good defense you have to be versatile. 3-4/4-3 all that is is a base alighnment.  You can run so many different coverage schemes/blitzes then you get into your nickle/dime defenses.  in a base 3-4 you can run more blitz packages, however you can also run similiar blitz schemes in a 4-3.  Honestly  my favorite defense  is the 4-3 defense that was coached by Jim Johnson (for more modern variations Spags 07 Giants defense a Johnson disiciple  Ron Rivera uses elements of it as well) when it comes down to it there where no better d coordinators over the last 20 years than Johnson and Lebeau.  I like  any kind of attacking defense that while you may sacrifice yards on the ground if ran right you're going to dictate play from multiple alignments and  blitz schemes.  It's the most fun thing to watch in football.  I believe in order to be a successful defense today you have to be versatile. So much of todays game  is played with defenses having to line up in the nickle and other coverage alighnments  you can't throw around simplistic terms like 3-4 vs 4-3.  You should have  players that can adapt to both.   However for the sake of your question, I'm going to say I would prefer a 4-3 base alignment.

Edited by Stealth, 09 January 2013 - 01:51 AM.


#4 NewEra

NewEra

    I don't "know", I "think"

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,676 posts

Posted 09 January 2013 - 02:30 AM

View PostStealth, on 09 January 2013 - 01:50 AM, said:

Honestly  I dont care what scheme we play as I feel in order to really be a good defense you have to be versatile. 3-4/4-3 all that is is a base alighnment.  You can run so many different coverage schemes/blitzes then you get into your nickle/dime defenses.  in a base 3-4 you can run more blitz packages, however you can also run similiar blitz schemes in a 4-3.  Honestly  my favorite defense  is the 4-3 defense that was coached by Jim Johnson (for more modern variations Spags 07 Giants defense a Johnson disiciple  Ron Rivera uses elements of it as well) when it comes down to it there where no better d coordinators over the last 20 years than Johnson and Lebeau.  I like  any kind of attacking defense that while you may sacrifice yards on the ground if ran right you're going to dictate play from multiple alignments and  blitz schemes.  It's the most fun thing to watch in football.  I believe in order to be a successful defense today you have to be versatile. So much of todays game  is played with defenses having to line up in the nickle and other coverage alighnments  you can't throw around simplistic terms like 3-4 vs 4-3.  You should have  players that can adapt to both.   However for the sake of your question, I'm going to say I would prefer a 4-3 base alignment.

Well said.  I asked because it very well could dictate our 1st pick if they plan on going LB rd 1 and QB in rd 2.  It looks as if there's more talent at 3-4 OLB than any other LB spot.  I agree though, ideally, it would be nice to grab guys that can adapt to both. Can't wait for the draft already.

#5 simpleman

simpleman

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 734 posts

Posted 09 January 2013 - 06:49 AM

View PostNewEra, on 09 January 2013 - 02:30 AM, said:

Well said.  I asked because it very well could dictate our 1st pick if they plan on going LB rd 1 and QB in rd 2.  It looks as if there's more talent at 3-4 OLB than any other LB spot.  I agree though, ideally, it would be nice to grab guys that can adapt to both. Can't wait for the draft already.
:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

#6 eball

eball

    Omar Sly

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,995 posts

Posted 09 January 2013 - 06:53 AM

This has become, far and away, my biggest pet peeve on the board since the hiring of Marrone.  IT DOES NOT MATTER -- we need a DC who has knowledge of DEFENSES, period, and can adapt his schemes, fronts, and strategies to fit the team's personnel.

/off soapbox

#7 Stealth

Stealth

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 917 posts

Posted 09 January 2013 - 07:00 AM

View Posteball, on 09 January 2013 - 06:53 AM, said:

This has become, far and away, my biggest pet peeve on the board since the hiring of Marrone.  IT DOES NOT MATTER -- we need a DC who has knowledge of DEFENSES, period, and can adapt his schemes, fronts, and strategies to fit the team's personnel.

/off soapbox

I hear ya, but honestly I'd rather deal with this than the constant "OMG WE NEED A QB....OMG THERES NO QB.....OMG FITZ SUCKS..." threads that seem to dominate pretty much everything else

View PostNewEra, on 09 January 2013 - 02:30 AM, said:

Well said.  I asked because it very well could dictate our 1st pick if they plan on going LB rd 1 and QB in rd 2.  It looks as if there's more talent at 3-4 OLB than any other LB spot.  I agree though, ideally, it would be nice to grab guys that can adapt to both. Can't wait for the draft already.

There's quite a bit of talented players at de/olb  that will go high.  I've always been a big proponent of the "you don't draft lb's high unless they're pass rushers" mantra.  Granted there are exceptions to the rule on occasion.  Doesn't look like that's the case in this draft.   The Bills could use help at all linebacker spots regardless of the scheme they ultimately end up playing although someone like Bradham I think would be a monster in a 3-4 defense as a rush backer.   Can never have enough quality linebackers either way.

#8 playman

playman

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,161 posts

Posted 09 January 2013 - 08:06 AM

im in favor of a defense that actually get stops. give me a 6-1 umbrella if it works

#9 Niagara Bill

Niagara Bill

    100% Canadian

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,580 posts

Posted 09 January 2013 - 08:11 AM

The weakest position on the Bills is LB and we have no possibility of adding that many LB is one off season.
Other than Bradham, there are no LB's on the roster that I would would keep.
Sheppard....cannot stop the run and has not advanced
Barrnet is done as a starter
Moats is not a true backer, a tweener who has a place on the team but not as a starter
Merriman....done

Too big a change to go to a 3-4 in one year

#10 VirginiaMike

VirginiaMike

    Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 700 posts

Posted 09 January 2013 - 08:14 AM

I agree that whatever scheme the Bills play, they will need to adapt to various situations, but when I look at the Bill's talent, there is much more of it at the D-Tackle / D Line positions than at Linebacker.  I don't think we have any players on the roster who would be good OLBs in a 3-4 scheme. We know Kelsay can't play there and I don't think it's the best fit for M. Williams.  I am also not sure we have any ILBs who could play in a 3-4 scheme.
In a 4-3 I think we are set at D-Tackle with Dareus, K Williams, and Carrington as the main 3.

#11 Max997

Max997

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,924 posts

Posted 09 January 2013 - 08:50 AM

team is better suited for the 4-3 so thats my vote

#12 BobChalmers

BobChalmers

    UDFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,622 posts

Posted 09 January 2013 - 08:59 AM

View PostNiagara Bill, on 09 January 2013 - 08:11 AM, said:

The weakest position on the Bills is LB and we have no possibility of adding that many LB is one off season.
Other than Bradham, there are no LB's on the roster that I would would keep.
Sheppard....cannot stop the run and has not advanced
Barrnet is done as a starter
Moats is not a true backer, a tweener who has a place on the team but not as a starter
Merriman....done

Too big a change to go to a 3-4 in one year

Mario, Anderson, and Merriman all become OLB's in a 3-4, so we actually would be short FEWER LB's in that alignment.

Sticking with a 4-3, we are really desperate for a stud 3-down MLB. He's not on the roster, and Manti Te'O shattered my dreams that he was that guy on Monday night (P-U he stunk!!!).

It might actually be easier to come up with capable ILB's, particularly if Bradham can be one of those guys.


OTOH, I don't know for a fact that Anderson CAN play OLB - he has the body and speed for it, but my understanding is he hasn't actualy done it, and he's way too small for a 3-4 DE.  See Chris Kelsay from two years ago - no position at all from one of your top-paid DL's is a bad idea for a new scheme.

"Too much change in one year" is kind of out the window, regardless - they only played the current base scheme for a year, and they looked pretty bad doing it, and oh, btw, Wanny was fired. Whoever they hire is going to have their own scheme(s).

Edited by BobChalmers, 09 January 2013 - 09:00 AM.


#13 kasper13

kasper13

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,946 posts

Posted 09 January 2013 - 09:17 AM

They could play a 3-4, 4-3 or a 2-9 or a 0-11 for all I care, Whatever it is, they can't give up 5,800 yards and 430 points a season. Whatever scheme Pettine implements is what they will go with so we will see. Has to be better than Wanny's "Invisible D" scheme. Jets did have a very good D for the last three years,

#14 Max997

Max997

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,924 posts

Posted 09 January 2013 - 09:30 AM

Mario didnt like playing OLB when Houston switched. he is big enough though that he could prob play DE in a 3-4 IMO

I do like the idea of Anderson as OLB in a 3-4...actually forgot about him that fast...Merriman is prob gone

the issue is going to be NT which is the most important position in a 3-4 and good NT's are hard to find. Kyle and Dareus are not suited for standard NT but i mentioned in another post the Jets and Ravens didnt play a true 3-4 so who knows

either way he is a much better DC then what Bills have had

Edited by Max997, 09 January 2013 - 09:32 AM.


#15 Dorkington

Dorkington

    All Pro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,024 posts

Posted 09 January 2013 - 09:36 AM

Our personnel fits a 4-3 base. But I'm sure there's a variety of packages we could run with different fronts.

#16 NewEra

NewEra

    I don't "know", I "think"

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,676 posts

Posted 09 January 2013 - 02:03 PM

View Posteball, on 09 January 2013 - 06:53 AM, said:

This has become, far and away, my biggest pet peeve on the board since the hiring of Marrone.  IT DOES NOT MATTER -- we need a DC who has knowledge of DEFENSES, period, and can adapt his schemes, fronts, and strategies to fit the team's personnel.

/off soapbox

That's really your biggest pet peeve?  People wondering what alignment we're going to run predominantly.  


With the Pettine hiring, it looks as if guys like Moore, mingo, j. Jones are in play.  I'm more pumped than ever for the Draft.  I really feel we go LB in round 1, unless there's a QB they really want at 8 (nassib)

#17 Rob's House

Rob's House

    It's all good, it's all right, !@#$ all day, &#

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,208 posts

Posted 09 January 2013 - 02:14 PM

I can't answer b/c I'm on the fence. Either will leave us w/ a gaping hole somewhere & players put in less than optimal positions. The only real benefits I see of the 4-3 is not making yet another formation switch, better utilization of KW, and keeps Mario at his natural position. On the flip side, it puts Dareus & all our LBs in positions they are less effective in & doesn't fit our new coach's preferred scheme. It's a tough call.

#18 The Voice of Truth

The Voice of Truth

    Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 339 posts

Posted 09 January 2013 - 02:25 PM

I'm really not sure on this one.  For the longest time I was a big proponent of the 3-4 defense.  However, based on interviews etc., it does seem difficult to get the personell to run that scheme.  Buddy and Chan switched to the 4-3 because our personell didn't fit and then they started drafting for the 4-3.  They also brought in Mario who does not fit the 3-4 (was used as an outside linebacker in Houston).  These happenings would make it take much longer to establish 3-4 prsonell.  I would like our base defense to be considered 4-3 at this point but like a lot of defenses it should be a hybrid.  You should have some 3-4 packages that you can mix in.  We don't have a dominant 340 pound Ngata/Wilfork type for the nose but when we do three down linemen, Kyle WIlliams or Dareus will have to suffice.  My vote goes for the 4-3 for the most part but with a hybrid component to run some 3-4 when desired.

#19 cantankerous

cantankerous

    Riot Maker

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,687 posts

Posted 09 January 2013 - 02:29 PM

View Posteball, on 09 January 2013 - 06:53 AM, said:

This has become, far and away, my biggest pet peeve on the board since the hiring of Marrone.  IT DOES NOT MATTER -- we need a DC who has knowledge of DEFENSES, period, and can adapt his schemes, fronts, and strategies to fit the team's personnel.

/off soapbox

Amen.

#20 mjt328

mjt328

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 533 posts

Posted 09 January 2013 - 02:52 PM

Going into the 2012 season, I was convinced our personnel was a better fit for the 4-3.
However in retrospect:

>  Mario Williams was having his best season in 2011 as a 3-4 OLB before injury.

>  Marcel Dareus played MUCH better as a rookie in 2011 in the 3-4.  This year he digressed.

>  Kyle Williams had his best year in 2010 - as the nose tackle in our 3-4.


As far as the linebackers, they all played TERRIBLE this season in the 4-3.
On top of that, both Nick Barnett and Kelvin Sheppard are typical as 3-4 linebackers, and were really playing out of position this year.