How easy would it be for the 49ers to switch to a Tampa 2 defense?

No no no. We don't want to movr to the T2.

Originally posted by NinerSickness:
Tank would love it; Armstead would hate it. Armstead is not a 4-3 guy.

The only way I could see it making sense switching to a 4-3 is if the team trade Armstead. And that kind of thing never happens.

Lynch & Bowman could play in either scheme. They might be able to convert Tartt to OLB too in a 4-3...

The difficult part would be finding a great UT. Nkemdiche could fit that bill IMO; Billings would be a bad*ss NT in a 4-3 (Jarran Reed would too) . Kenny Clark could play either DT spot.

I dunno I think Armstead could play inside in the 4-3, yeah hes tall but one gaping is easier than a two gaping 3-4 DE.


edit: Should note I'm not necessarily on board moving to 4-3 just saying.

We'd need a great MLB that could cover the mid and sometimes deep middle zone if someone is trying to split the safeties from undernearth. With Willis retired and Bowman no longer having that kind of range I don't see it happening. We have too many other needs right now to waste a pick on that kind of LB right now. Plus with the number of teams using the spread offense with 3,4,5 WRs they can overwhelm the safeties alot better than when Tampa Bay ran it. Plus we don't havehave HOFamers like Saap and Brooks or potential HOF John Lynch on our team.

Originally posted by thl408:
Tampa 2 has little to do with being 4-3 or 3-4. It's a coverage call, not a base personnel package. 49ers called it a handful of times in weeks 1-3 last season and got burned because they had a poor pass rush. Then they called it much less throughout the rest of the season.

Exactly. We'd need a better pass rush to even considering thinking about this.

Originally posted by thl408:
Tampa 2 has little to do with being 4-3 or 3-4. It's a coverage call, not a base personnel package. 49ers called it a handful of times in weeks 1-3 last season and got burned because they had a poor pass rush. Then they called it much less throughout the rest of the season.

I think "Tampa" 2 implies a 4-3. Yes, you can have a cover 2 in a 3-4, but Tampa's old scheme had a unique kind of role the MLB played.

I never ever ever ever wanna see us run a Tampa 2.

It's a coverage basically designed to take away stuff underneath but it leaves the middle wide open. And like you said, no pass rush no bueno. And IMO - even with pass rush I think the scheme is DOA. Simply asks your players to be superhuman. The idea is that it is really helpful to play zone against the run and that it could also help create more turnovers. There is some truth to this, but at the end of the day offenses have seen the look a million different times and have it figured out for the most part.

Originally posted by thl408:
Tampa 2 has little to do with being 4-3 or 3-4. It's a coverage call, not a base personnel package. 49ers called it a handful of times in weeks 1-3 last season and got burned because they had a poor pass rush. Then they called it much less throughout the rest of the season.

Doesn't matter what we run if we don't get a pass rush

Originally posted by Antix:
I never ever ever ever wanna see us run a Tampa 2.

+1

A Tampa two cover scheme is contingent upon your defense being fast and able to tackle. It also requires a good pass rush and we were bad at both last year. Bowman would also have to be the key element in a Tampa two defense because your middle linebacker has to be very good at covering. Bowman was great at that pre injury but was a liability at times last year in coverage. Maybe that was him working the rust off maybe he can never get back to that form again. I don't know.

Point is that a Tampa two overall doesn't play to this defense's strengths. Way too many question marks and last year early in the season when we tried some Tampa 2 coverage we were getting burned badly.

I hate everything about the Tampa 2. In our division it would be one of the worst defenses to run. You need your line backers to stop the run not drifting back into mid field coverage.

I think it would be very difficult. Need to look for specific skill sets along the d-line, LBs, and DBs that we don't currently have imo.

Originally posted by Antix:

I never ever ever ever wanna see us run a Tampa 2.

Me too

Originally posted by thl408:
Tampa 2 has little to do with being 4-3 or 3-4. It's a coverage call, not a base personnel package. 49ers called it a handful of times in weeks 1-3 last season and got burned because they had a poor pass rush. Then they called it much less throughout the rest of the season.

I thought they were running spot dropping a lot? Is is the same?

He'll no to the Tampa 2. I never want to see the Niners run that scheme.