switch to a 4-3

Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:

Originally posted by GEEK:

Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:

Originally posted by TheHYDE49er:

Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:

Originally posted by TheHYDE49er:

It's not happening lol. Maybe if we actually had a DC with 4-3 experience. Mangini has never worked on a team that ran a 4-3.

Not technically true. He was an offensive assistant early on with the Ravens when they ran their 4-3. It's also not a huge leap to go to a base 4-man front knowing you're going to be in nickel most of the time anyway, so I don't see it as a show-stopper.

Base 4-3 and nickel/backups (assuming we sign someone a veteran free agent and draft 1-2 LBs)

Brooks - Dorsey - Dockett - Aldon
Lynch - Williams - Jerod-Edie - Tank
PS: Okoye - Ramsey - other

---Wilhoite - Bowman - Free agent LB
----Moody - Skov - Lemonier
------draft pick - draft-pick

Ghost, that was about 15 years ago. And he was just starting off in the league. He's been a 3-4 guy his whole career. And what does offense have to do with defense?

Was just countering your point that he's never coached on a team that played a 4-3, but that wasn't my main point. Ask defensive coaches and they'll tell you that it's not a huge leap to shift between a 4 man front and a 3 man front. The responsibilities and techniques shift, but it's not as dramatic as most of us fans think. More importantly, the team already plays a ton of 4 man fronts as part of their nickel package so it's not that big a deal.

You also can't discount that the head coach was our DL coach and he has plenty of experience in both odd/even fronts.

In addition to the ease to transition from a 3-4 to a 4-3, we hired three key defensive coaches that ran multiple schemes (4-3, 3-4, 5-2): Jason Tarver, Clancy Pendergast, and and Tim Lewis. There's a huge knowledge base in our defensive coaching staff. Plus Mangini and Tomsula, and you got the people necessary to convert to a new scheme if needed.

Exactly. If they wanted to make the switch, it wouldn't be overly difficult.

Except for the blatantly obvious fact that 2 of our 3 starting caliber LBs (that are suited to play in a 4-3) just retired. If anything I would think that it's obvious to everyone that we need to stay in a 3-4, because we only need one more starter inside opposed to 2.

Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:

Originally posted by JustinNiner:

why would we run a 4-3 defense now when we are low on ILBs? we would damn ourselves even more.

Because you require less ILBs in a 4-3...kinda thought that was obvious.

I really hope you're being sarcastic.

Originally posted by KID9R:

Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:

Originally posted by GEEK:

Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:

Originally posted by TheHYDE49er:

Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:

Originally posted by TheHYDE49er:
It's not happening lol. Maybe if we actually had a DC with 4-3 experience. Mangini has never worked on a team that ran a 4-3.

Not technically true. He was an offensive assistant early on with the Ravens when they ran their 4-3. It's also not a huge leap to go to a base 4-man front knowing you're going to be in nickel most of the time anyway, so I don't see it as a show-stopper.

Base 4-3 and nickel/backups (assuming we sign someone a veteran free agent and draft 1-2 LBs)

Brooks - Dorsey - Dockett - Aldon
Lynch - Williams - Jerod-Edie - Tank
PS: Okoye - Ramsey - other

---Wilhoite - Bowman - Free agent LB
----Moody - Skov - Lemonier
------draft pick - draft-pick

Ghost, that was about 15 years ago. And he was just starting off in the league. He's been a 3-4 guy his whole career. And what does offense have to do with defense?

Was just countering your point that he's never coached on a team that played a 4-3, but that wasn't my main point. Ask defensive coaches and they'll tell you that it's not a huge leap to shift between a 4 man front and a 3 man front. The responsibilities and techniques shift, but it's not as dramatic as most of us fans think. More importantly, the team already plays a ton of 4 man fronts as part of their nickel package so it's not that big a deal.

You also can't discount that the head coach was our DL coach and he has plenty of experience in both odd/even fronts.

In addition to the ease to transition from a 3-4 to a 4-3, we hired three key defensive coaches that ran multiple schemes (4-3, 3-4, 5-2): Jason Tarver, Clancy Pendergast, and and Tim Lewis. There's a huge knowledge base in our defensive coaching staff. Plus Mangini and Tomsula, and you got the people necessary to convert to a new scheme if needed.

Exactly. If they wanted to make the switch, it wouldn't be overly difficult.

Except for the blatantly obvious fact that 2 of our 3 starting caliber LBs (that are suited to play in a 4-3) just retired. If anything I would think that it's obvious to everyone that we need to stay in a 3-4, because we only need one more starter inside opposed to 2.

If you run a pure 4-3, you start Bowman at the SAM (great cover skills, if healthy), Wilhoite at the Mike and sign a veteran free agent to play the WILL (e.g., Wheeler, Briggs, Hayes, etc.). All you'd then need is ONE rookie MIKE to backup Wilhoite initially and eventually take over as the starter.

We already have Moody who could play backup MIKE or possibly WILL, Skov who could back up at the MIKE and possibly Lemonier as a backup WILL/chase/rush linebacker candidate (how Irvin is used in Seattle). Not trying to be rude or sarcastic nor do I have a preference as to the scheme they run, I'm just not sure why this is confusing to anyone. If you run a base 3-4 defense, you'll need at least 3 to 4 ILBs (ideally 4) on the roster. If you run a base 4-3, you need 2 MLBs. Pretty straightforward.

Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:

Originally posted by KID9R:

Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:

Originally posted by GEEK:

Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:

Originally posted by TheHYDE49er:

Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:

Originally posted by TheHYDE49er:
It's not happening lol. Maybe if we actually had a DC with 4-3 experience. Mangini has never worked on a team that ran a 4-3.

Not technically true. He was an offensive assistant early on with the Ravens when they ran their 4-3. It's also not a huge leap to go to a base 4-man front knowing you're going to be in nickel most of the time anyway, so I don't see it as a show-stopper.

Base 4-3 and nickel/backups (assuming we sign someone a veteran free agent and draft 1-2 LBs)

Brooks - Dorsey - Dockett - Aldon
Lynch - Williams - Jerod-Edie - Tank
PS: Okoye - Ramsey - other

---Wilhoite - Bowman - Free agent LB
----Moody - Skov - Lemonier
------draft pick - draft-pick

Ghost, that was about 15 years ago. And he was just starting off in the league. He's been a 3-4 guy his whole career. And what does offense have to do with defense?

Was just countering your point that he's never coached on a team that played a 4-3, but that wasn't my main point. Ask defensive coaches and they'll tell you that it's not a huge leap to shift between a 4 man front and a 3 man front. The responsibilities and techniques shift, but it's not as dramatic as most of us fans think. More importantly, the team already plays a ton of 4 man fronts as part of their nickel package so it's not that big a deal.

You also can't discount that the head coach was our DL coach and he has plenty of experience in both odd/even fronts.

In addition to the ease to transition from a 3-4 to a 4-3, we hired three key defensive coaches that ran multiple schemes (4-3, 3-4, 5-2): Jason Tarver, Clancy Pendergast, and and Tim Lewis. There's a huge knowledge base in our defensive coaching staff. Plus Mangini and Tomsula, and you got the people necessary to convert to a new scheme if needed.

Exactly. If they wanted to make the switch, it wouldn't be overly difficult.

Except for the blatantly obvious fact that 2 of our 3 starting caliber LBs (that are suited to play in a 4-3) just retired. If anything I would think that it's obvious to everyone that we need to stay in a 3-4, because we only need one more starter inside opposed to 2.

If you run a pure 4-3, you start Bowman at the SAM (great cover skills, if healthy), Wilhoite at the Mike and sign a veteran free agent to play the WILL (e.g., Wheeler, Briggs, Hayes, etc.). All you'd then need is ONE rookie MIKE to backup Wilhoite initially and eventually take over as the starter.

We already have Moody who could play backup MIKE or possibly WILL, Skov who could back up at the MIKE and possibly Lemonier as a backup WILL/chase/rush linebacker candidate (how Irvin is used in Seattle). Not trying to be rude or sarcastic nor do I have a preference as to the scheme they run, I'm just not sure why this is confusing to anyone. If you run a base 3-4 defense, you'll need at least 3 to 4 ILBs (ideally 4) on the roster. If you run a base 4-3, you need 2 MLBs. Pretty straightforward.

Pretty straightforward would be: Draft or sign 1 Starting caliber ILB to replace Wilhoite who's penciled in as the starter.
Not to sign 2 ILBs, a Will and Mike to replace Wilhoite. You're still trying to find 2 starters. It doesn't make any sense to make the switch when we never been weaker at 4-3/ 3-4 ILB's
Corey and Bruce aren't even close to being the same kind of athlete, Bruce is in coverage a lot. Corey wasn't even able to get on the field in his natural position. And Skov didn't make the team for a reason.
"If you run a base 4-3, you need 2 MLBs." Yes, on the depth chart it may say we have 2 MIB's if we run a 4-3. But the type of OLBs we'll need are more like our current 3-4 ILBs which are depleted. So we technically we 6 6'2" ish 245 lbs ish athletic LB's

aldon and lynch would be more productive as hand-on-ground ends.

I know the Niners have already came out and said that they are not planning on switching to a 4-3, but after not taking and ILB in the draft they really have me scratching my head. Hopefully they have not shut the door on this scheme switch completely. If the cowboy does come back, I could not imagine Dockett, Armstead, Cowboy, and Aldon on the line with Harold, Bow, and Lynch behind them. Since Aldon is better in coverage maybe he plays back and lynch up front.

Idk I'm sure I'm just blowing smoke, but I'm just trying for the life of me to be ok with us not drafting an ILB when no one knows how Bow will be.

To me, I just don't see the advantage of a 4-3 over a 3-4. Lynch and Aldon aren't the type of LB's you want for your OLB's in a 4-3 scheme. The closest thing I could see us using is a 4-3 under scheme. But, even then, it limits how many different fronts you can use effectively.

We just drafted at 17 a guy 100% suited for a 3/4. If anything this draft only solitifies our future commitment to the 3/4.

I can envision Docket Smith and Armstead on the line with Lynch and Smith also in there, pull out Wilhoite for Tartt. with Bowman remaining in.

Originally posted by natrone06:
We just drafted at 17 a guy 100% suited for a 3/4. If anything this draft only solitifies our future commitment to the 3/4.

Ya I just assumed since they really like to use the word "raw" with Armstead anything would be possible. I'm sure we will still stick with the 3-4 just some scary ass food for thought if Bowmans knee has any issues at all.

I'd settle for sticking with the 3-4 and on dime packages to see the 4 I mentioned above on the line, with Tartt playing LB. That has the possibilities of us getting pressure with those 4 rushing and maybe not giving up a first down on 3rd and 17s like we have all witnessed to many damn times in the past under Fangio's scheme.

Ah, thank God. I thought we might have to get by without the annual "switching to the 4-3" thread.

Ming you, eventually I suppose. ....

Originally posted by English:
Ah, thank God. I thought we might have to get by without the annual "switching to the 4-3" thread.

Ming you, eventually I suppose. ....

I think we have a thread set up just for that. Just don't think it's been bumped to the front [age this off season.

Merge!

I wish the zone would by default lock all threads that are titled switching from a 3-4 to a 4-3 right after they are started. IMO