New Orleans Saints Forums - blackandgold.com

New Orleans Saints Forums - blackandgold.com (https://blackandgold.com/community/)
-   Saints (https://blackandgold.com/saints/)
-   -   3-4 or 4-3? (https://blackandgold.com/saints/11867-3-4-4-3-a.html)

BrooksMustGo 03-18-2006 10:33 AM

Me too Pak. I wonder Payton's take about sticking with the 4-3 is a big smokescreen?

fatz6179 03-18-2006 11:57 AM

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

GoldRush26 03-18-2006 12:18 PM

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.

JOESAM2002 03-18-2006 12:27 PM

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.

fatz6179 03-18-2006 12:36 PM

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

JKool 03-18-2006 08:21 PM

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.

GoldRush26 03-18-2006 08:26 PM

No reason to switch defensive schemes, especially with a first year D-coordinator.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:04 PM.


Copyright 1997 - 2020 - BlackandGold.com