|
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?...
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
03-18-2006, 11:33 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?
|
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 |
03-18-2006, 12:57 PM | #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
|
03-18-2006, 01:18 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. |
03-18-2006, 01:27 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.
|
03-18-2006, 01:36 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
|
03-18-2006, 09:21 PM | #16 |
1000 Posts +
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 2,423
|
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
|
|
03-18-2006, 09:26 PM | #17 |
500th Post
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 594
|
No reason to switch defensive schemes, especially with a first year D-coordinator.
|