3-4, 4-3

GoldenTomb · 01-25-2006, 03:17 PM

I think the "right personnel" angle when referring to the 3-4 is misunderstood. Folks are quick to say that it's all about big, bulky linemen and quick agile LBs. Look at our team guys....we are already there. Our team is seriously up there when you talk about defensive players with athleticism. We have capable athletes to spare. That's never been our problem. When experts say it takes the right personnel they are speaking more in terms of a player's instincts and not size. You need LB's with significantly better play recogntion, since running the 3-4 leaves you considerably more vunerable to the run. I think it generally takes smarter and more instinctive players to make the 3-4 work, not necessarily more agile and faster players. I think a player like Courtney Watson would excel in the 3-4, whereas a blazer like Mark Fields probably wouldn't fare so well.

As far as the D-line goes we have the perfect group of guys. We have two talented DEs that need to be respected in pass rushing and run stopping. And if Sully is worth keeping like reports are saying, then that's the perfect 2-gapper that plugs the middle.

The key would be in nabbing up LBs that close in on the play quickly, not due to their athleticism, but because of their play recognition. Hawk, Greenway, or Hodge would be great pickups. Just look at the great 3-4 defenses. All of them have had smart LB's with great instincts.

BlackandBlue · 01-25-2006, 03:42 PM

Sully isn't the type of guy that takes up two or more linemen, he's more of a penetration guy, similar to Young.

FanNJ · 01-25-2006, 03:51 PM

I believe Sully was drafted because he was a tweener, and had good instinctive moves to get up field, we saw a little of that this year. It would be interesting to see a 3-4 look mixed in a little more with the 4-3 to give teams a little more to think about in game planning.

GoldenTomb · 01-25-2006, 03:52 PM

Originally Posted by BlackandBlue

Sully isn't the type of guy that takes up two or more linemen, he's more of a penetration guy, similar to Young.

I suppose, but it's not about one player. I still really think the D-line could collectively fit the bill. We have uber-talented DEs in Will Smith and Charles Grant. In any given play one of those guys will command a double team due to the O-line having to compensate for the blitizing LB. The only question is if he could hold his own in run stopping up the middle. He wouldn't have to worry about consistently fighting through double teams because O-lines have to respect our two DEs and the blitzing LB, who could come from any number of directions. With the proper play calling and LBs, it could work.

TallySaint · 01-25-2006, 03:55 PM

It would be interesting to see a 3-4 look mixed in a little more with the 4-3 to give teams a little more to think about in game planning.

Novel approach for the Saints. Let's do it.

8)

BlackandBlue · 01-25-2006, 05:48 PM

Don't get me wrong, I think Grant and Smith would be the perfect fit for a 3-4 package.

My problems are with the nosetackle position, for reasons I mentioned already, and secondly, the linebackers. While I think it would be harder to find the perfect guy for the nose position than it would to fill the needs that we have at linebacker, our crew is not very deep, especially if we lose Hodge and Allen this offseason. You have two guys in the middle that are unproven (yes, Watson has not proved that he can maintain the position) and Bockwoldt.....that's it. Slaughter and Melton will not be anything other than reserves. So we have a MINIMUM of 4 holes that would need to be filled at the linebacker position....and that's just if you want to field a 3-4, doesn't mean they'll be any good.
When you transition to the 3-4, you're taking away power from your ends, and giving it to the linebackers. So, we're going to put our best defensive players (Grant and Smith) in a position to NOT make plays? Not only would we need more linebackers, we would need some playmakers at linebacker in order to make an impact.
We have a few years. I would love to see a few packages this coming year, just to see how it would go. But until we start signing some folks, I just can't see it.

Euphoria · 01-25-2006, 06:21 PM

3-4 is far more versitle than a 4-3 I think. better for blitzing, better to hide coverages, pick up and smell out screens better...
The only problem with my theory is having the LB's who can come up run stop and drop back into coverages. hell you can even float a S into a LB position if you plan on blitzing and coverages more of a nickeal, oh wait steelers does that already.

GoldenTomb · 01-25-2006, 06:31 PM

Originally Posted by BlackandBlue

Don't get me wrong, I think Grant and Smith would be the perfect fit for a 3-4 package.

My problems are with the nosetackle position, for reasons I mentioned already, and secondly, the linebackers. While I think it would be harder to find the perfect guy for the nose position than it would to fill the needs that we have at linebacker, our crew is not very deep, especially if we lose Hodge and Allen this offseason. You have two guys in the middle that are unproven (yes, Watson has not proved that he can maintain the position) and Bockwoldt.....that's it. Slaughter and Melton will not be anything other than reserves. So we have a MINIMUM of 4 holes that would need to be filled at the linebacker position....and that's just if you want to field a 3-4, doesn't mean they'll be any good.
When you transition to the 3-4, you're taking away power from your ends, and giving it to the linebackers. So, we're going to put our best defensive players (Grant and Smith) in a position to NOT make plays? Not only would we need more linebackers, we would need some playmakers at linebacker in order to make an impact.
We have a few years. I would love to see a few packages this coming year, just to see how it would go. But until we start signing some folks, I just can't see it.

Well yeah, then i guess we are in agreement. I never said that we have the total defensive crew to make the 3-4 work, just the D-line. If you read what i said you'll see that i pretty much said the same thing about the LBs. I don't think we have the right LBs right now for the 3-4. Sure they are athletic enough but don't enough positional knowledge and savvy to be effective in the 3-4.

BlackandBlue · 01-25-2006, 07:39 PM

Originally Posted by Euphoria

3-4 is far more versitle than a 4-3 I think. better for blitzing, better to hide coverages, pick up and smell out screens better...
The only problem with my theory is having the LB's who can come up run stop and drop back into coverages. hell you can even float a S into a LB position if you plan on blitzing and coverages more of a nickeal, oh wait steelers does that already.

Yeah, too bad we don't have THAT safety

GT- I never thought we really disagreed, except on Sully. You can plug guys like him in at the NT, and he might have some success. But the teams that consistently and effectively run the 3-4 all have one thing in common, and that is a rock solid 1 tech NT(or 2-gapper, as you like to call it). In our current state, we'd be blitzing on the corners, and get killed up the middle.

gandhi1007 · 01-25-2006, 08:23 PM

We definately need more LB's also if we're gonna' play a 3-4. Watson couldn't tackle my sister if she promised to give him some. Bockwoldt, while gritty, just doesn't measure up to more than a back up. McKinnon, though slow, does seem to have a nose for the ball. Not to mention, he's not afraid to lay the wood to somebody. We may be able to fit him in somewhere. Geez, I miss the "Dome Patrol" days.

01-25-2006, 03:17 PM	#11
GoldenTomb 500th Post Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 591	I think the "right personnel" angle when referring to the 3-4 is misunderstood. Folks are quick to say that it's all about big, bulky linemen and quick agile LBs. Look at our team guys....we are already there. Our team is seriously up there when you talk about defensive players with athleticism. We have capable athletes to spare. That's never been our problem. When experts say it takes the right personnel they are speaking more in terms of a player's instincts and not size. You need LB's with significantly better play recogntion, since running the 3-4 leaves you considerably more vunerable to the run. I think it generally takes smarter and more instinctive players to make the 3-4 work, not necessarily more agile and faster players. I think a player like Courtney Watson would excel in the 3-4, whereas a blazer like Mark Fields probably wouldn't fare so well. As far as the D-line goes we have the perfect group of guys. We have two talented DEs that need to be respected in pass rushing and run stopping. And if Sully is worth keeping like reports are saying, then that's the perfect 2-gapper that plugs the middle. The key would be in nabbing up LBs that close in on the play quickly, not due to their athleticism, but because of their play recognition. Hawk, Greenway, or Hodge would be great pickups. Just look at the great 3-4 defenses. All of them have had smart LB's with great instincts.
GoldenTomb 500th Post Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 591

01-25-2006, 03:51 PM	#13
FanNJ 100th Post Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 324	I believe Sully was drafted because he was a tweener, and had good instinctive moves to get up field, we saw a little of that this year. It would be interesting to see a 3-4 look mixed in a little more with the 4-3 to give teams a little more to think about in game planning.
FanNJ 100th Post Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 324

01-25-2006, 03:52 PM	#14
GoldenTomb 500th Post Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 591	Originally Posted by BlackandBlue Sully isn't the type of guy that takes up two or more linemen, he's more of a penetration guy, similar to Young. I suppose, but it's not about one player. I still really think the D-line could collectively fit the bill. We have uber-talented DEs in Will Smith and Charles Grant. In any given play one of those guys will command a double team due to the O-line having to compensate for the blitizing LB. The only question is if he could hold his own in run stopping up the middle. He wouldn't have to worry about consistently fighting through double teams because O-lines have to respect our two DEs and the blitzing LB, who could come from any number of directions. With the proper play calling and LBs, it could work.
GoldenTomb 500th Post Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 591

01-25-2006, 05:48 PM	#16
BlackandBlue Kinder, gentler Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: dirty south Posts: 3,889	Don't get me wrong, I think Grant and Smith would be the perfect fit for a 3-4 package. My problems are with the nosetackle position, for reasons I mentioned already, and secondly, the linebackers. While I think it would be harder to find the perfect guy for the nose position than it would to fill the needs that we have at linebacker, our crew is not very deep, especially if we lose Hodge and Allen this offseason. You have two guys in the middle that are unproven (yes, Watson has not proved that he can maintain the position) and Bockwoldt.....that's it. Slaughter and Melton will not be anything other than reserves. So we have a MINIMUM of 4 holes that would need to be filled at the linebacker position....and that's just if you want to field a 3-4, doesn't mean they'll be any good. When you transition to the 3-4, you're taking away power from your ends, and giving it to the linebackers. So, we're going to put our best defensive players (Grant and Smith) in a position to NOT make plays? Not only would we need more linebackers, we would need some playmakers at linebacker in order to make an impact. We have a few years. I would love to see a few packages this coming year, just to see how it would go. But until we start signing some folks, I just can't see it.
	The waiting drove me mad.... I don't want to hear from those that know... Everything has changed, absolutely nothing's changed Eddie is a....draftnik?

01-25-2006, 06:31 PM	#18
GoldenTomb 500th Post Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 591	Originally Posted by BlackandBlue Don't get me wrong, I think Grant and Smith would be the perfect fit for a 3-4 package. My problems are with the nosetackle position, for reasons I mentioned already, and secondly, the linebackers. While I think it would be harder to find the perfect guy for the nose position than it would to fill the needs that we have at linebacker, our crew is not very deep, especially if we lose Hodge and Allen this offseason. You have two guys in the middle that are unproven (yes, Watson has not proved that he can maintain the position) and Bockwoldt.....that's it. Slaughter and Melton will not be anything other than reserves. So we have a MINIMUM of 4 holes that would need to be filled at the linebacker position....and that's just if you want to field a 3-4, doesn't mean they'll be any good. When you transition to the 3-4, you're taking away power from your ends, and giving it to the linebackers. So, we're going to put our best defensive players (Grant and Smith) in a position to NOT make plays? Not only would we need more linebackers, we would need some playmakers at linebacker in order to make an impact. We have a few years. I would love to see a few packages this coming year, just to see how it would go. But until we start signing some folks, I just can't see it. Well yeah, then i guess we are in agreement. I never said that we have the total defensive crew to make the 3-4 work, just the D-line. If you read what i said you'll see that i pretty much said the same thing about the LBs. I don't think we have the right LBs right now for the 3-4. Sure they are athletic enough but don't enough positional knowledge and savvy to be effective in the 3-4.
GoldenTomb 500th Post Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 591

Latest Blogs
2023 New Orleans Saints: Training Camp Last Blog: 08-01-2023 By: MarchingOn Puck the Fro Browl! Last Blog: 02-05-2023 By: neugey CFP: "Just Keep Doing What You're Doing" Last Blog: 12-08-2022 By: neugey

01-25-2006, 03:42 PM	#12
BlackandBlue Kinder, gentler Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: dirty south Posts: 3,889	Sully isn't the type of guy that takes up two or more linemen, he's more of a penetration guy, similar to Young.

01-25-2006, 03:55 PM	#15
TallySaint 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Tallahassee Posts: 1,367	It would be interesting to see a 3-4 look mixed in a little more with the 4-3 to give teams a little more to think about in game planning. Novel approach for the Saints. Let's do it. 8)

01-25-2006, 06:21 PM	#17
Euphoria 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Hollywood, CA Posts: 7,601 Blog Entries: 5	3-4 is far more versitle than a 4-3 I think. better for blitzing, better to hide coverages, pick up and smell out screens better... The only problem with my theory is having the LB's who can come up run stop and drop back into coverages. hell you can even float a S into a LB position if you plan on blitzing and coverages more of a nickeal, oh wait steelers does that already.

01-25-2006, 07:39 PM	#19
BlackandBlue Kinder, gentler Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: dirty south Posts: 3,889	Originally Posted by Euphoria 3-4 is far more versitle than a 4-3 I think. better for blitzing, better to hide coverages, pick up and smell out screens better... The only problem with my theory is having the LB's who can come up run stop and drop back into coverages. hell you can even float a S into a LB position if you plan on blitzing and coverages more of a nickeal, oh wait steelers does that already. Yeah, too bad we don't have THAT safety GT- I never thought we really disagreed, except on Sully. You can plug guys like him in at the NT, and he might have some success. But the teams that consistently and effectively run the 3-4 all have one thing in common, and that is a rock solid 1 tech NT(or 2-gapper, as you like to call it). In our current state, we'd be blitzing on the corners, and get killed up the middle.

01-25-2006, 08:23 PM	#20
gandhi1007 Part Time Pimp Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 1,967	We definately need more LB's also if we're gonna' play a 3-4. Watson couldn't tackle my sister if she promised to give him some. Bockwoldt, while gritty, just doesn't measure up to more than a back up. McKinnon, though slow, does seem to have a nose for the ball. Not to mention, he's not afraid to lay the wood to somebody. We may be able to fit him in somewhere. Geez, I miss the "Dome Patrol" days.