There are 109 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

The annual "Should we switch to a 4-3 Base D?" Question

Originally posted by FlayvaMeister:
You could tune-in to NFL Network as I did, thinking I'd find something worth watching ...
Unfortunately for Niner Fans, it's replay (SB) Sunday. When I tuned-in, our loss to the
Ravens was on ... up next, SBVIII. No Thanx I'll pass ... listening to Spotify, as I work
on a World Cup 2014 celebration/party proposal.

LOL...been there, done that! Gave up. Time to pay bills and take stuff to Hospice!
  • buck
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 10,056
The 49er defense was:

3rd in scoring defense
4th in total defense
4th in opponents passing rating
5th in rushing defense
5th in yards per pass attempt
7th in rushing yards per attempt
7th in passing defense
10th in interceptions

We should switch to a 4-3?
Time to table this debate till next year...again. No.
we play so much nickle package that we are alot of the time in a 4 man front. But i would like to switch fulltime to a 4-3.
Is there something wrong with our defense the way it is?
  • SaksV
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 889
If it ain't broke don't break it....
If you want to stop Marshawn from going beast mode, and raining skittles on us, better switch to a 4-3. Seahawks are Dallas Cowboys 2.0. There was no stopping Emmitt Smith until the Niners went 4-3 with Bryant Young and Stubblefield in the middle. Coincidentally, if you notice former Def. Co. Pete Carroll ran a defense similar to what he's running now.
Originally posted by SaksV:
If it ain't broke don't break it....

Lazy, lazy, lazy! I prefer--"If it ain't broke, break and reset it...hope for the best!"
We basically do already
It comes down to a simple question. Why is it every time the niners play a team just as physical(Giants, Ravens, Seahawks), they get punched in the mouth, and wilt. Both times this defense played the Ravens, they got punked. Same with the Giants. And the Seahawks is self evident. To put it in Bill Walsh terms, the defense is good enough to lose the big game.
Originally posted by buck:
The 49er defense was:

3rd in scoring defense
4th in total defense
4th in opponents passing rating
5th in rushing defense
5th in yards per pass attempt
7th in rushing yards per attempt
7th in passing defense
10th in interceptions

We should switch to a 4-3?

Chill bro...I'm a huge 3-4 but the reality is we're most effective when we have 4 all-pro LB's dominating. Now we'll only have 3 BUT a truck load of talent on the DL (many from a 4-3). So to answer the overall question, no, we do not need to switch to a 4-3 per se but we may end up (or should) with more fronts/alignments that focus on edge and inside pass rushing and stuffing the run (strong rotation) while also relieving Willis some and allowing him to roam more and play downhill until Bowman comes back 100% (where the focus will go back to extra focus on underneath pass coverage and tackles). We could try to ask someone like Wilhoite to hold the fort down as well until Bowman is 100% (and not change anything) but why not play to our strengths and depth in the interim? It's a fair question to ask NOW...
  • MarkD
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 939
Lord in heaven. I have heard every dip s**t thing I can take...Please kill me now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
  • buck
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 10,056
Originally posted by NCommand:
Originally posted by buck:
The 49er defense was:

3rd in scoring defense
4th in total defense
4th in opponents passing rating
5th in rushing defense
5th in yards per pass attempt
7th in rushing yards per attempt
7th in passing defense
10th in interceptions

We should switch to a 4-3?

Chill bro...I'm a huge 3-4 but the reality is we're most effective when we have 4 all-pro LB's dominating. Now we'll only have 3 BUT a truck load of talent on the DL (many from a 4-3). So to answer the overall question, no, we do not need to switch to a 4-3 per se but we may end up (or should) with more fronts/alignments that focus on edge and inside pass rushing and stuffing the run (strong rotation) while also relieving Willis some and allowing him to roam more and play downhill until Bowman comes back 100% (where the focus will go back to extra focus on underneath pass coverage and tackles). We could try to ask someone like Wilhoite to hold the fort down as well until Bowman is 100% (and not change anything) but why not play to our strengths and depth in the interim? It's a fair question to ask NOW...


My answer was a fair response to the question asked.

We do not know how many games Bowman will miss or if he will miss any. But, if he does miss some games, it will not be the first time one of our linebackers has missed playing time.

When Willis was out the coaching staff stayed in the 3-4. When Aldon Smith was out the staff did not switch to a 4-3.

They put in Wilhoite--and he did a good job. Before that Larry Grant did a good job as the next man up. Skuta and Lemonier stepped up for Aldon Smith. Skuta actually has experience playing inside linebacker.

It seems, in my estimation, that the team has done a good job of having sufficient depth at linebacker--sufficient enough that the team does not have to switch defenses because of an injury to one of the linebackers.

The defensive coaching staff has proven that it is capable of understanding the team's strengths and the team's depth. They have proven that they can to put a good defense on the field even though they do not employ a "true" nose tackle.

[ Edited by buck on Feb 9, 2014 at 2:34 PM ]
I'd rather re-sign playoff jinx Takeo Spikes than go back to a 4-3
  • MarkD
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 939
Originally posted by JerryRice1848:
I'd rather re-sign playoff jinx Takeo Spikes than go back to a 4-3

Who? Was that the guy with the neck wider than his ears?