Go Back   New Orleans Saints - blackandgold.com > Main > Saints
Shop Horizontal

3-4 or 4-3?

this is a discussion within the Saints Community Forum; Me too Pak. I wonder Payton's take about sticking with the 4-3 is a big smokescreen?...

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-18-2006, 10:33 AM   #11
1000 Posts +
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,762
Me too Pak. I wonder Payton's take about sticking with the 4-3 is a big smokescreen?
BrooksMustGo is offline  
Old 03-18-2006, 11:57 AM   #12
Registered
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Streetport,LA
Posts: 83
We need to be a 4-3 no way in hell should we play 3-4 we don't have any backers.......nor a nose
fatz6179 is offline  
Old 03-18-2006, 12:18 PM   #13
500th Post
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 594
I say stay away from the 3-4. I just don't see why go to it?? I heard Ray Lewis talk about it at length on the NFL network and he made so much sense. It's a very unnatural scheme for LBs. Instead of OL against DL, you have OL against LBs, which isxn't what LBs are supposed to do. The only way it can sometimes work is if teams have EXTRAORDINARY players at LB, which we don't have. We should juxt leave it alone.

Why go to something else...the 4-3 has been proven to be the best and most consistent scheme to base your defense off of. 3-4 looks as a change-of-pace would be cool, but that's it.
GoldRush26 is offline  
Old 03-18-2006, 12:27 PM   #14
1000 Posts +
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: CRYSTAL BEACH TEXAS
Posts: 4,100
Here's what I think. We are a long way from having the personnel to go to the 3-4. We NEED a dominate run stuffing defensive tackle and 42 big strong smart inside linebackers and 2 fast smart outside linebackers. We do have a start if the new guys can stay healthy. If they don't we're sunk. I think stay with the 4-3 till we satisfy those needs.
JOESAM2002 is offline  
Old 03-18-2006, 12:36 PM   #15
Registered
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Streetport,LA
Posts: 83
Amen on that one cuz the Ravens were at their peak with the 4-3 becuz goose and addams took on the lineman and ray and others were free to roam their assignments. Then they lost both addams and goose then they had to take on blocks and their assignments
fatz6179 is offline  
Old 03-18-2006, 08:21 PM   #16
1000 Posts +
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 2,417
If we switch to a 3-4, we need two down linemen and two linebackers.

If we stick with the 4-3, we need one down lineman (a DT) and two linebackers.

In deference to the BMG plan, I'm going to have to say even if we sign Arrington, I'm not seeing the point in switching. We have to very good ends in Grant and Smith, why convert one to a position he only barely knows (just when he is about to kick it into high gear at end)? Why would we take chances on our weak LB corps (platooning is barely keeping that squad acceptable)? I think Fujita is a fine WLB, but I'm not convinced of his ability on the inside (maybe I'm wrong here, I haven't seen him play in awhile). So, we'd need Fincher, Watson, or Buckwoldt to step up to a WIL position, Fujita at the MACK, leaving Arrington (were we to sign him) for the WES position, and I guess we'd move Smith to Rush End?

Too many question marks.

I like the 4-3. Let's change the offense. Keep the D the way it is; with better coaching and upgrades in personel and developing players (Fincher, Watson, Smith, Bullocks, annon) we'll be getting better on D without a change in scheme.

"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks :cool:
JKool is offline  
Old 03-18-2006, 08:26 PM   #17
500th Post
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 594
No reason to switch defensive schemes, especially with a first year D-coordinator.
GoldRush26 is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:27 PM.


Copyright 1997 - 2013 - BlackandGold.com
no new posts