Pats going to 4-3, 49ers take note

lol, thats a pretty lofty expectation. those radio guys act like just because you have a dominate 4-3 you can stop the wco. to bad the pats dont have these dominate type players and de`s. they had the nfls 30th ranked pass defense last year. i doubt this switch will help them much!

It's Not about the front but the scheme.

Originally posted by dj43:

The strength of the 4-3 should be to have two strong DTs getting a quick push up into the QB's face to take away his vision on the quick slant routes that are bread-and-butter stuff in WCO. BB, having spent a lifetime looking at this stuff, should know better than just about anyone in the league how to combat it. Of course, all this requires the right personnel, and that brings us to the 49ers, who I believe are pretty much stuck in no-mans land right now. They are lacking not only a dominant NT to play 3-4, they also lack the solid pass rushing OLB (all stuff we have thoroughly discussed). In a 4-3, they don't have the requisite pass rushing DEs necessary and although they do have the prototype MLB, the OLBs are question marks. This will be a good test of how good the coaching staff is at matching player talent and scheme. Either scheme can work but you must have the right personnel. Since they don't have those players as of now, it will be worth watching to see how well they do with what they have.

I agree, the niners don't have a good enough NT, the DT's they have are better suited for a 4-3 defense and they also have a 4-3 MLB(the best in the leauge p willy). Even though willis could play in any defense, the 4-3 would be better for him.

Originally posted by Marvin49:

Don't agree at all. Of COURSE the 4-3 is more effective if you can get to the QB with 4. Of COURSE it is. DUH!! How many teams tho can actually do that? Very few. Why did the Giants beat the Pats in the Super Bowl a few years ago? They were just about the ONLY team in the NFL that could get to Brady with 4. The entire PURPOSE of the 3-4 is to generate pressure by creating confusion. The O never knows who the 4th or 5th rusher is going to be. As for the WCO.....The 49ers in the 90's had the most trouble with 3-4 Zone Blitzing teams. They would see a guy blitz, go to the hot read, and then find a DT standing in the zone. Thats why Carolina had so much success early vs the Niners. Who was the HC in Carolina? Dom Capers. Who is the current DC in Green Bay? Dom Capers. Who was Dom Capers DC in Carolina? Vic Fangio. Who is the 49ers current DC? Vic Fangio. To me, thats case closed.

Problem is the niners don't have the personnel to play a great 3-4 defense.

Originally posted by rob28:

Originally posted by Marvin49:
Don't agree at all. Of COURSE the 4-3 is more effective if you can get to the QB with 4. Of COURSE it is. DUH!! How many teams tho can actually do that? Very few. Why did the Giants beat the Pats in the Super Bowl a few years ago? They were just about the ONLY team in the NFL that could get to Brady with 4. The entire PURPOSE of the 3-4 is to generate pressure by creating confusion. The O never knows who the 4th or 5th rusher is going to be. As for the WCO.....The 49ers in the 90's had the most trouble with 3-4 Zone Blitzing teams. They would see a guy blitz, go to the hot read, and then find a DT standing in the zone. Thats why Carolina had so much success early vs the Niners. Who was the HC in Carolina? Dom Capers. Who is the current DC in Green Bay? Dom Capers. Who was Dom Capers DC in Carolina? Vic Fangio. Who is the 49ers current DC? Vic Fangio. To me, thats case closed.

Problem is the niners don't have the personnel to play a great 3-4 defense.

?!? But the DO have the personal for a great 4-3?

You realize that one of the reason people move to a 3-4 is thats its ALOT easier to find a pass-rushing OLB in the draft than a truly dominant 4-3 end?

The 2 things you need for a 3-4 (usually). A Jupiter size D-Tackle and pass-rushing OLBs. Fangios scheme tho doesn't need the D-Tackle because they don't two-gap.

This team right now is built MUCH more for a 3-4 than a 4-3.

Originally posted by rob28:
Problem is the niners don't have the personnel to play a great 3-4 defense.

For Fangio's scheme, we simply do not know that... no more than we know we have the personnel for the 4-3... though we might. What we have is a bunch of unproven or poorly developed/utilized players surrounding 1 stud LB.

Wilfork can do everything, Haynesworth wants to penetrate, and the ends will have pressure taken off of them with two probowl DT's on the inside, makes sense. I doubt it's their base just another option since they have the personnel for both.

Originally posted by adacosta24:
couldnt agree more! Its tough being the only 49er fan in New England.

Youre certainly not alone dude

Are you aware the Packers beat 3 4-3 teams to make it to the Super Bowl?

Exactly! They employed what we will do now; be VERY physical up at the LOS to disrupt timing routes, hit hard in the box, play down hill, take away the RB and screens and bring a ton of pressure from all over the place and exploit weaknesses; just like what Walsh did while running the 3-4. The TE was the one weapon that seemed to have th biggest effect on 3-4 defenses an if you could establish any kinds of runs inside.

Article is bs, Pats run a hybrid 3-4/4-3 (not just one individually); any smart person who's watched the Pats long enough should know this (and it's why Bill Belichick owns everybody like the dick in which he is).

Why is this in 9ers talk?

Where is the part about the 9ers taking note like the thread title says?

If I had Haynesworth and Wilfork, I'd probably run a 4-3 as well. Same reason why the Lions with Suh and Fairley (when he gets healthy) are going to run a 4-3, or why the Bucs run that 4-3 base with their two monster DTs.

Originally posted by Marvin49:
Don't agree at all.

Of COURSE the 4-3 is more effective if you can get to the QB with 4. Of COURSE it is. DUH!!

How many teams tho can actually do that? Very few. Why did the Giants beat the Pats in the Super Bowl a few years ago? They were just about the ONLY team in the NFL that could get to Brady with 4.

The entire PURPOSE of the 3-4 is to generate pressure by creating confusion. The O never knows who the 4th or 5th rusher is going to be.

As for the WCO.....The 49ers in the 90's had the most trouble with 3-4 Zone Blitzing teams. They would see a guy blitz, go to the hot read, and then find a DT standing in the zone. Thats why Carolina had so much success early vs the Niners.

Who was the HC in Carolina? Dom Capers. Who is the current DC in Green Bay? Dom Capers. Who was Dom Capers DC in Carolina? Vic Fangio. Who is the 49ers current DC? Vic Fangio.

To me, thats case closed.

I used to hate it when we would lose to carolina..

Originally posted by 12b6demurrer:
If I had Haynesworth and Wilfork, I'd probably run a 4-3 as well. Same reason why the Lions with Suh and Fairley (when he gets healthy) are going to run a 4-3, or why the Bucs run that 4-3 base with their two monster DTs.

Exactly, if you have a 4-3 and two of those front guys practically require double teams, somebody's getting to the quarterback.

It's all about using what you've got, we have justin smith and that's about it as far as front guys with explosiveness. But we have several olbs that show promise as blitzers. Manusky was pretty conservative especially with singletary breathing down his neck, so a 5 sack brooks for example could end up being more than that.

We won't even see them fully utilized until the real games start since we haven't seen what will happen when we blitz willis, aldon, brooks, bowman along with a hard hitting safety like whitner or goldson(like the saints did to us with harper). Having that many options on the backend will create chances. We also never know if we'll try something new like having willis on the outside to throw off defenses. If they don't know where willis is coming from we can cause some major confusion to their o-lines.

and then of course because they'll have to account for our linebackers on every play, I expect justin smith's numbers to rise as well. If they aren't accounting for him they're in for some trouble.