I hope we ae done with the 3-4 expieriment!

Originally posted by oldman9er:

Originally posted by backontop:
I hope we switch back to the 4-3 but isn't Harbaugh a 3-4 guy?

In here and in other articles, JH would run whatever scheme the personnel dictates he should.

http://espn.go.com/blog/pac10/post/_/id/8331/pac-10-qa-stanford-coach-jim-harbaugh-part-i

Quote:
JH: It's base out of a 3-4 but that could still have some principles out of a 4-3. The evaluation of our personnel has never been more important than it is this spring, with new coaches and a new scheme. Even if that's the base, we'll do whatever is best to stop people. Vic's got experience in both of them -- in just about any defense that's ever been run.

thanks, I actually remember already reading that. Guess somehow I just forgot all about it.

Originally posted by oldman9er:

Originally posted by TheG0RE49er:
Our defense is not the Steelers, or the Ravens D, but it's still a damn good D. This year and last year, was the best defense that we've had in a long time. People obviously forgot how atrocious our defense was before we installed the 3-4.

We have very little personnel for a 4-3. Who are our great edge rushers? Lawson??? Haralson??? LaBoy?!?!?...Sopoaga is NOT a 4-3 tackle, 4-3 DT's are supposed to get some penetration and disrupt plays in the backfield, does that sound like Sopoaga? or Franklin?...JSmith has never played full time 4-3 DT, and I doubt at this point in his career he's going to want to learn a new system. Besides Spencer, we don't have ONE good cover DB, and you need good cover DB's in a 4-3.

4-3 defense is old fashioned. The only 4-3 D worth a s**t in this league, is the Vikings, however, we don't have two true DT studs like they do, or a great DE. Jets, Steelers, Ravens, Chargers, this is what you think of when you talk about great defenses, and soon we can start throwing the Pats, Packers, and Chiefs into that mix...3-4 > 4-3.

Everything about this post is... just wrong. I'm just so horrified at the time it would take to deal with this one. You presume a great deal about what we do and don't have. We know we have subpar key personnel for the 3-4 For this personnel... that being rush LBs and a NT (with Franklin's slightly above average arse heading to FA). That much, we know. For you to say we don't have the DTs and DEs.... it's remarkable presumptuous. I'd rather go with the scheme that may be a question mark... over a scheme that is a proven failure. For this teams' personnel? 4-3 > 3-4

Well I won't go as far as saying it is a proven failure. We were ranked 13th I believe in total defense which is not bad. We MUST upgrade our OLB spot that Haralson occupies. Our D-line in our 3-4 is VERY good and of course of MLB's are two of the best in a 3-4. If we get a DOMINANT pass rusher at OLB, we will be good because that will help PUT teams in 3rd and long with a couple 1st and 2nd down sacks. Once we get into 3rd and long, we go to a nickel/dime package ANYWAYS so the 3-4 is more geared towards 1st and 2nd down in which we have thrived on. Getting OFF the field on 3rd down has been a problem (4 down lineman in our nickel/dime package)

With that said, the previous post which states the Vikings are the only 4-3 "worth a s**t"...uhhhhh, I think the Giants, Raiders, Saints, Falcons, Eagles, and even Bears and Bucs (although they run a cover 2, its still a 4-3 base) all run the 4-3 and are successful out of it

[ Edited by Sims84 on Jan 4, 2011 at 03:38:54 ]

Originally posted by Sims84:

Well I won't go as far as saying it is a proven failure. We were ranked 13th I believe in total defense which is not bad. We MUST upgrade our OLB spot that Haralson occupies. Our D-line in our 3-4 is VERY good and of course of MLB's are two of the best in a 3-4. If we get a DOMINANT pass rusher at OLB, we will be good because that will help PUT teams in 3rd and long with a couple 1st and 2nd down sacks. Once we get into 3rd and long, we go to a nickel/dime package ANYWAYS so the 3-4 is more geared towards 1st and 2nd down in which we have thrived on. Getting OFF the field on 3rd down has been a problem (4 down lineman in our nickel/dime package)

With that said, the previous post which states the Vikings are the only 4-3 "worth a s**t"...uhhhhh, I think the Giants, Raiders, Saints, Falcons, Eagles, and even Bears and Bucs (although they run a cover 2, its still a 4-3 base) all run the 4-3 and are successful out of it

3 things...

1. Yes, there are times when our 3-4 can play pretty damn well. The rankings are a bit misleading. While we are not a horrible 3-4 team personnel-wise at THIS time, I think Manusky's schemes and ability to adjust in-game are the larger issue.

2. Now that said, Franklin is an above average NT when he puts forth the effort. 7+ mil a year worth it? No. So we let him walk. Then what? Then we have two huge holes in this 3-4... dominant rush LB and NT... the two most key positions of a 3-4.

3. I think we can survive off of a 3-4 by trying to upgrade the NT, rush LB, and DC positions. But I DO think we can get far better production from this bunch if we upgrade RDE and DC for the 4-3. 2 upgrades needed VS three.

Originally posted by oldman9er:

Originally posted by Sims84:

Well I won't go as far as saying it is a proven failure. We were ranked 13th I believe in total defense which is not bad. We MUST upgrade our OLB spot that Haralson occupies. Our D-line in our 3-4 is VERY good and of course of MLB's are two of the best in a 3-4. If we get a DOMINANT pass rusher at OLB, we will be good because that will help PUT teams in 3rd and long with a couple 1st and 2nd down sacks. Once we get into 3rd and long, we go to a nickel/dime package ANYWAYS so the 3-4 is more geared towards 1st and 2nd down in which we have thrived on. Getting OFF the field on 3rd down has been a problem (4 down lineman in our nickel/dime package)

With that said, the previous post which states the Vikings are the only 4-3 "worth a s**t"...uhhhhh, I think the Giants, Raiders, Saints, Falcons, Eagles, and even Bears and Bucs (although they run a cover 2, its still a 4-3 base) all run the 4-3 and are successful out of it

3 things...

1. Yes, there are times when our 3-4 can play pretty damn well. The rankings are a bit misleading. While we are not a horrible 3-4 team personnel-wise at THIS time, I think Manusky's schemes and ability to adjust in-game are the larger issue.

2. Now that said, Franklin is an above average NT when he puts forth the effort. 7+ mil a year worth it? No. So we let him walk. Then what? Then we have two huge holes in this 3-4... dominant rush LB and NT... the two most key positions of a 3-4.

3. I think we can survive off of a 3-4 by trying to upgrade the NT, rush LB, and DC positions. But I DO think we can get far better production from this bunch if we upgrade RDE and DC for the 4-3. 2 upgrades needed VS three.

Dominant NTs aren't hard to find especially if you find one to work with your scheme. Look and That fat sucka from the Chargers. Dude wasn't even in the league and now he is starting for one of the best defenses in the NFL.

Originally posted by oldman9er:

Originally posted by Sims84:

Well I won't go as far as saying it is a proven failure. We were ranked 13th I believe in total defense which is not bad. We MUST upgrade our OLB spot that Haralson occupies. Our D-line in our 3-4 is VERY good and of course of MLB's are two of the best in a 3-4. If we get a DOMINANT pass rusher at OLB, we will be good because that will help PUT teams in 3rd and long with a couple 1st and 2nd down sacks. Once we get into 3rd and long, we go to a nickel/dime package ANYWAYS so the 3-4 is more geared towards 1st and 2nd down in which we have thrived on. Getting OFF the field on 3rd down has been a problem (4 down lineman in our nickel/dime package)

With that said, the previous post which states the Vikings are the only 4-3 "worth a s**t"...uhhhhh, I think the Giants, Raiders, Saints, Falcons, Eagles, and even Bears and Bucs (although they run a cover 2, its still a 4-3 base) all run the 4-3 and are successful out of it

3 things...

1. Yes, there are times when our 3-4 can play pretty damn well. The rankings are a bit misleading. While we are not a horrible 3-4 team personnel-wise at THIS time, I think Manusky's schemes and ability to adjust in-game are the larger issue. I think we are very good against he run and we need help in our secondary on 3rd downs (not really a 3-4 problem)

2. Now that said, Franklin is an above average NT when he puts forth the effort. 7+ mil a year worth it? No. So we let him walk. Then what? Then we have two huge holes in this 3-4... dominant rush LB and NT... the two most key positions of a 3-4. I agree about needing to upgrade the NT spot but I think RJF will be able to hold it down while we draft another 3-4 NT later in the draft just to give him a breather every now and then and learn from him We just need to be more creative and aggressive out of the 3-4

3. I think we can survive off of a 3-4 by trying to upgrade the NT, rush LB, and DC positions. But I DO think we can get far better production from this bunch if we upgrade RDE and DC for the 4-3. 2 upgrades needed VS three.

Well in a 4-3, we would need to upgrade the secondary with a "cover-corner" because as you can see from each of those 4-3 teams, they all have some pretty good cover-corners because their Blitzes are not as disguised in a 4-3 like they are in a 3-4. Therefore you can get away with a poor secondary (Steelers minus Troy, Baltimore minus Ed Reed) when you can disguise your blitzes and confuse the QB which is exactly what a 3-4 is made for. A 4-3 is more man on man, individual battles and your secondary MUST hold up on the back end. So we would have to upgrade 3 things in a 4-3 as well. Just my 2 cents though

comments in bold

sorry for the separation like that ^^^^

The 3-4 is fine it's just we critically lack in the pass rushing specialist part and it seems most of our sacks and QB pressure come from scheme rather than talent.

And since we have to scheme to get pressure that softens up the secondary because instead of dropping a linebacker into coverage and still getting pressure we have to send that linebacker to put the pressure on.

It's not a good sign when Willis your middle linebacker is leading in sacks among your linebacking corp.

If we could an OLB that's actually has pass rushing talent and marry that with scheme I doubt people will be complaining about the 3-4 as much.

Alright... first, let's just look at the differences. We're not talking about huge differences between a 4-3 and our current 1-gapping 3-4. They are very much close brothers.

( *** Not saying any of this to be a lecturer or strut around, okay? Just had time on my hands with my a.m. coffee ***)

The 3-4 was designed to confuse, yes. We have been as predictable on defensive pre-snap looks as we have been on offense. Not fooling anyone much there.

The 3-4 was originally designed as a 2-gap system. The NT was to play the 0 technique and control both A gaps while your DEs were favorably aligned at the 5 tech spots. Teams get forced into playing a 1-gap scheme when they recognize that they do not have a true NT to trot out on the field. Why am I mentioning this? Because even though Franklin had stepped up his game as a 1 gapper... more so last season than this one... he is still not a good enough NT to 2-gap and allow his DEs to spread out wider to the 5 tech spots. What this then does is put an enormous burden on your rush LBs... as your DEs are not able to go head-to-head on the OTs and have a better shot at getting your rush LBs free.

Exhibit A - what we should want to accomplish.



Exhibit B - is what we have been stuck with.



We're just not causing confusion... not getting favorable match-ups... not soaking up blocks with our NT to allow our ILBs to roam free. Willis and TKO are constantly having to contend with penetrating blockers coming out. They just happen to be so good that they quickly disengage and can still often make the plays to minimize damage. Imagine what they can do if left free to roam.

Again... there's not a whole hell of a lot of difference in a 1 gap 3-4 and a 4-3. The difference comes from not having to stress about lacking a true NT... and having your rushers put their hand in the dirt. Something that all of our boys get better rush doing. If we can re-sign Manny to be our 4-3 SLB, he will be perfect for a 4-3 Under defense.

Originally posted by oldman9er:
Alright... first, let's just look at the differences. We're not talking about huge differences between a 4-3 and our current 1-gapping 3-4. They are very much close brothers.

( *** Not saying any of this to be a lecturer or strut around, okay? Just had time on my hands with my a.m. coffee ***)

The 3-4 was designed to confuse, yes. We have been as predictable on defensive pre-snap looks as we have been on offense. Not fooling anyone much there.

The 3-4 was originally designed as a 2-gap system. The NT was to play the 0 technique and control both A gaps while your DEs were favorably aligned at the 5 tech spots. Teams get forced into playing a 1-gap scheme when they recognize that they do not have a true NT to trot out on the field. Why am I mentioning this? Because even though Franklin had stepped up his game as a 1 gapper... more so last season than this one... he is still not a good enough NT to 2-gap and allow his DEs to spread out wider to the 5 tech spots. What this then does is put an enormous burden on your rush LBs... as your DEs are not able to go head-to-head on the OTs and have a better shot at getting your rush LBs free.

Exhibit A - what we should want to accomplish.



Exhibit B - is what we have been stuck with.



We're just not causing confusion... not getting favorable match-ups... not soaking up blocks with our NT to allow our ILBs to roam free. Willis and TKO are constantly having to contend with penetrating blockers coming out. They just happen to be so good that they quickly disengage and can still often make the plays to minimize damage. Imagine what they can do if left free to roam.

Again... there's not a whole hell of a lot of difference in a 1 gap 3-4 and a 4-3. The difference comes from not having to stress about lacking a true NT... and having your rushers put their hand in the dirt. Something that all of our boys get better rush doing. If we can re-sign Manny to be our 4-3 SLB, he will be perfect for a 4-3 Under defense.

I think we'll be fine either way we go AS LONG AS WE ARE AGGRESSIVE

Wow, redman, your statement "Good NTs aren't hard to find" sure seems at odds with what we have seen here for last 8 yrs. Good NTs? immediately i think of wilfork who makes the 3-4 run to perfection. How many dominant NTs are there out there, and how many dominant NTs show up on draft day? Answer: darn few, so i would say dominant NTs are hard to find, we found one for one yr,(his contract yr) and aside from that, have been running a 3-4 without the dominant NT, dominant DE and dominant OLB. That's a trifecta on why we should return to, as Harbaugh has been quoted, " what we have the personnel for". Some yrs, maybe one NT appears in the draft, but most yrs, there are none...NTs, sure, but dominant? No way.

If as has been reported, Harbaugh plays the D he has personnel for, well that is my man. I said the same thing when lilmikeynoln was here and still say the same thing. Trying to play 3-4 or 4-3 or 2-5 or whatever, is goofy if you don't have the personnel. Without knowing a lot about Harbaugh, he just said exactly what we ,and everyone else ought to be doing. Play with what you have. The same type of mentality that said "we're gonna play the 3-4 " is the same as BM(bigmike) saying "we're gonna run it down their throats", except for an OL that can't block and a RB(frank) that can't run against an 8 man or sometimes 9, 10 or 11 man line.

Bring on Harbaugh, who wants to play the D best suited to our talent...and we don't have, nor have we had in 8 yrs, 3-4 talent. And manusk? I can't imagine him staying around, unless he has already been let go.

Hey Paso, only 24 more weeks of medicine then I start Derm. Man I can't wait. I totally agree about NTs. Not to mention how hard getting a pass rusher for the OLB spot. Our scheme doesn't work well because our secondary can't cover me in addition to the inability to generate pressure from 4 men fronts. We do convert to the 4-3 quickly. In fact, doing so makes complete sense especially if we get a shot Dareus or Quinn. The only bummer is that we gave up on Balmer who has played well for Seattle. We can't have our middle linebacker lead The team in sacks again this year.

It depends on who the next head coach is...and what he thinks is the right defense, based on players he has. IMHO, we either have to acquire a dominant NT and a stud LDE to compliment Justin Smith, or we go back to the 4-3. Also have to understand we have LB numbers for the 3-4...which presents a dilemma...if you revert to 4-3, what do you do with your "excess" LB's? I'd say the best option is to upgrade the DL...and secondary, which will need to be upgraded no matter what defense the new coach employs.

Originally posted by Sims84:

Originally posted by oldman9er:

Originally posted by TheG0RE49er:
Our defense is not the Steelers, or the Ravens D, but it's still a damn good D. This year and last year, was the best defense that we've had in a long time. People obviously forgot how atrocious our defense was before we installed the 3-4.

We have very little personnel for a 4-3. Who are our great edge rushers? Lawson??? Haralson??? LaBoy?!?!?...Sopoaga is NOT a 4-3 tackle, 4-3 DT's are supposed to get some penetration and disrupt plays in the backfield, does that sound like Sopoaga? or Franklin?...JSmith has never played full time 4-3 DT, and I doubt at this point in his career he's going to want to learn a new system. Besides Spencer, we don't have ONE good cover DB, and you need good cover DB's in a 4-3.

4-3 defense is old fashioned. The only 4-3 D worth a s**t in this league, is the Vikings, however, we don't have two true DT studs like they do, or a great DE. Jets, Steelers, Ravens, Chargers, this is what you think of when you talk about great defenses, and soon we can start throwing the Pats, Packers, and Chiefs into that mix...3-4 > 4-3.

Everything about this post is... just wrong. I'm just so horrified at the time it would take to deal with this one. You presume a great deal about what we do and don't have. We know we have subpar key personnel for the 3-4 For this personnel... that being rush LBs and a NT (with Franklin's slightly above average arse heading to FA). That much, we know. For you to say we don't have the DTs and DEs.... it's remarkable presumptuous. I'd rather go with the scheme that may be a question mark... over a scheme that is a proven failure. For this teams' personnel? 4-3 > 3-4

Well I won't go as far as saying it is a proven failure. We were ranked 13th I believe in total defense which is not bad. We MUST upgrade our OLB spot that Haralson occupies. Our D-line in our 3-4 is VERY good and of course of MLB's are two of the best in a 3-4. If we get a DOMINANT pass rusher at OLB, we will be good because that will help PUT teams in 3rd and long with a couple 1st and 2nd down sacks. Once we get into 3rd and long, we go to a nickel/dime package ANYWAYS so the 3-4 is more geared towards 1st and 2nd down in which we have thrived on. Getting OFF the field on 3rd down has been a problem (4 down lineman in our nickel/dime package)

With that said, the previous post which states the Vikings are the only 4-3 "worth a s**t"...uhhhhh, I think the Giants, Raiders, Saints, Falcons, Eagles, and even Bears and Bucs (although they run a cover 2, its still a 4-3 base) all run the 4-3 and are successful out of it

lol...just because they show up every 2-3 games, doesn't make them a great defense, i wouldn't even call them good. All of those teams bolded have given up 30+ points this season on numerous occasions.

Originally posted by CorvaNinerFan:
It depends on who the next head coach is...and what he thinks is the right defense, based on players he has. IMHO, we either have to acquire a dominant NT and a stud LDE to compliment Justin Smith, or we go back to the 4-3. Also have to understand we have LB numbers for the 3-4...which presents a dilemma...if you revert to 4-3, what do you do with your "excess" LB's? I'd say the best option is to upgrade the DL...and secondary, which will need to be upgraded no matter what defense the new coach employs.

Name those LBs under contract, please.

Manny is a FA who we'd presumably re-sign as a stud 4-3 SLB... LaBoy and TKO are FAs... Haralson and Brooks would and should be 4-3 RE options for at least depth. Gibson an Kristick are backups that favor a 4-3 scheme. McKillop has done nothing, but could be depth. These 3-4 LBs are either gone, better 4-3 DEs, or are just depth.

Originally posted by oldman9er:

Originally posted by TheG0RE49er:
Our defense is not the Steelers, or the Ravens D, but it's still a damn good D. This year and last year, was the best defense that we've had in a long time. People obviously forgot how atrocious our defense was before we installed the 3-4.

We have very little personnel for a 4-3. Who are our great edge rushers? Lawson??? Haralson??? LaBoy?!?!?...Sopoaga is NOT a 4-3 tackle, 4-3 DT's are supposed to get some penetration and disrupt plays in the backfield, does that sound like Sopoaga? or Franklin?...JSmith has never played full time 4-3 DT, and I doubt at this point in his career he's going to want to learn a new system. Besides Spencer, we don't have ONE good cover DB, and you need good cover DB's in a 4-3.

4-3 defense is old fashioned. The only 4-3 D worth a s**t in this league, is the Vikings, however, we don't have two true DT studs like they do, or a great DE. Jets, Steelers, Ravens, Chargers, this is what you think of when you talk about great defenses, and soon we can start throwing the Pats, Packers, and Chiefs into that mix...3-4 > 4-3.

Everything about this post is... just wrong. I'm just so horrified at the time it would take to deal with this one. You presume a great deal about what we do and don't have. We know we have subpar key personnel for the 3-4 For this personnel... that being rush LBs and a NT (with Franklin's slightly above average arse heading to FA). That much, we know. For you to say we don't have the DTs and DEs.... it's remarkable presumptuous. I'd rather go with the scheme that may be a question mark... over a scheme that is a proven failure. For this teams' personnel? 4-3 > 3-4

lol.....we have much worse personnel for the 4-3. No 4-3 DT's, and no edge rushers. You assume (from your other post) that Manny will be a stud in the 4-3. Please show me how many converted 4-3 DE's have become studs as an OLB in a 4-3, you have it the other way around, 4-3 DE's become studs in a 3-4...Aubrayo Franklin is one of the best NTs against the run, and that's basically what you want out of your NT.

What DTs/DEs do we have that will make an impact in a 4-3?? Like I stated in my previous post, Sopoaga is a not a good fit in the 4-3 (he has already proven that). JSmith is at the end of his career, he's not a DE anymore in a 4-3, and has seldom been used as a DT. And we obviously have 0 LBs that can create pressure as DEs.

Also, exactly how is the 3-4 a proven failure??? We were one of the best defenses last year, top 5 in sacks, top 5 in rushing yards, 4th in PA...ya, what a fail of a defense. This year we are not that great, but horrible, or a failure? that's a huge exaggeration. Most of it can be accredited to the lack of new schemes, and players just not wanting to play for Singletary anymore (see VD comments).



[ Edited by TheG0RE49er on Jan 4, 2011 at 11:22:34 ]