How many of you think it would be beneficial to move back to the 4-3 Defense?

O'Neil is gone after this year if not before but no matter who we get as a new DC who thinks we should move back to the 4-3 vs staying a 3-4 defense?
Just curious.

I am sorry I thought I was in NINER TALK. Please move if you can.

fk it

i think we should. Let the QBs beat us. better than being ran all over

Buck/Blair- Dial- Dorsey AA/Tank

I think it would be most beneficial to find a defensive coordinator whose scheme works in real game situations and not just something largely theoretical on a whiteboard.

I don't think we have the linebackers for it and really Armstead and Buckner aren't great fits at 4-3 DT. Sure they can get a push in the pass rush but you really need your DL to stop the run and their size without proper leverage makes it tough for them to make stops in the run game.

Considering we were a 3-4 team in 2011 and did as well as we did vs the run means it's not the system but the players.

Originally posted by genus49:
I don't think we have the linebackers for it and really Armstead and Buckner aren't great fits at 4-3 DT. Sure they can get a push in the pass rush but you really need your DL to stop the run and their size without proper leverage makes it tough for them to make stops in the run game.

Considering we were a 3-4 team in 2011 and did as well as we did vs the run means it's not the system but the players.

Oh it definitely is the system, at least in part. The 3-4 that they are running now is quite a bit different from the 3-4 that Fangio ran. Fangio's was a fundamentally sound, very well organized scheme that forced defenses to basically dink and dunk down the field to score. McNeil's scheme has far more more moving parts and requires experienced players to guess and be in sync with one another to correctly fill the right gap....etc. Its a nightmare of a scheme to run with young players.

Make it rain for poe sign Ian to a 1-2 year low risk deal.

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:
Oh it definitely is the system, at least in part. The 3-4 that they are running now is quite a bit different from the 3-4 that Fangio ran. Fangio's was a fundamentally sound, very well organized scheme that forced defenses to basically dink and dunk down the field to score. McNeil's scheme has far more more moving parts and requires experienced players to guess and be in sync with one another to correctly fill the right gap....etc. Its a nightmare of a scheme to run with young players.

Correct, i meant 3-4 isn't the problem just because we can't stop the run.

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:

Oh it definitely is the system, at least in part. The 3-4 that they are running now is quite a bit different from the 3-4 that Fangio ran. Fangio's was a fundamentally sound, very well organized scheme that forced defenses to basically dink and dunk down the field to score. McNeil's scheme has far more more moving parts and requires experienced players to guess and be in sync with one another to correctly fill the right gap....etc. Its a nightmare of a scheme to run with young players.

This just because they ran a 3-4 in 2011 doesn't mean anything...Vic's scheme was pretty simplistic and they played with the ball in front of them, it was a read and react system.. like you said they'd let you get 4 yards but not give up the big play.

Tackling was huge for us in those yrs...they weren't missing tackles and if you made a catch we were all over them no YAC. SF was just a better coached team and had more vets.

Making a move back to the 4-3 would require a huge roster change to the defense and would be an expensive one. DT's and DE's cost much more than LB's.

how about we use our 3-4 personnel to run a real 3-4, and not this convoluted, guessing crap jim o'neil runs. i am so sick of seeing that stupid front with the 2t and 0t, where part of the line is asked to get up field and the other part 2 gaps. lol wtf is o'neil doing.

Originally posted by Kolohe:
Making a move back to the 4-3 would require a huge roster change to the defense and would be an expensive one. DT's and DE's cost much more than LB's.

Agree

They don't have the talent to play any defense.

With no DC in place and a new coaching staff, it's time (again) to entertain this idea. I want whatever works, although my personal preference is to watch a 3-4 defense because it's more flexible in its variety of fronts and blitz packages. Nickel/Dime subpackages are played a lot nowadays, but a team's base defense still determines how a defensive roster is built and what characteristics are desired at the DE/ILB/OLB positions.

The team committed two 1st rounders to 3-4DEs and I'd like to see if those two can develop into what they were drafted for. If they live up to their potential, that's a great foundation for a good 3-4 front.

I wonder if they'll say today, if they're sticking with the 3-4 or moving to a 4-3?