Which current 49ers fit in a 4-3 defense, which don't, and what will it look like

Originally posted by Draftology:

Originally posted by PhillyNiner:
The general consensus seems to be that is in fact athletic enough to play the end in that Bennett role though...What I have been seeing most often is Lynch/Brooks, Armstead, Dial, Buckner assuming no replacements. Granted that is a bit beefier than how Seattle is running but who says we are going to be exactly the same and if say Ray Ray is your OLB on Buckner's end that guy could be more power and less lateral speed and still fill the holes. Granted in this config I would really like to see some upgrades at both OLB's and you are really praying for Bow to make a strong comeback and stay healthy...but it is far from unreasonable to see this being something close to our opening day configuration...and was definitely heavily rumor by press and even Lynch seemed to indicate he though the current front could be repurposed to a four man base with the talent we have.

In my post before this, I acknowledged that Armstead would probably find his way into the starting lineup. He very well may be able to pull it off. However, I guarantee that in a world where every team ran a 4-3, Armstead would not have been picked as high as he was. A 5-technique in a 3-4 requires a unique skillset, which he has. His skillset doesn't translate perfectly here, but that's not to say he still can't be successful.

Sure...I mean the whole reason we went 3-4 was at the time the players were much easier to get. Since then the league has shifted that direction and in theory we should be able to draft for a 4-3 easier. Armstead has a lot more value in that system and it inflated his draft stock. I think if he wasn't hurt last year and didn't get to show his stuff to his max ability he actually would have been a good trade piece this year. As it stands I think he will be good in this D, maybe even great in this specific role but be he isn't as versatile as Buckner and Buckner might also have a slight edge in the same role as Armstead will ultimately play.

Originally posted by PhillyNiner:

Originally posted by Draftology:

Originally posted by 9ersLiferInChicago:
You're still missing me

Let me ask you these questions:

• Why would our scheme (or any scheme) call for the skill set of ONLY either Armstead or Buckner, but not both?
• Do you think Armstead and Buckner are so interchangeable that they are not worth putting both on the field at the same time? (And if so what scheme do you think will call for that?)
• Do you feel that Armstead isn't a good fit in a 4-3?

• Earlier you stated "I'd rather see him spell Buckner . . . . . in our base package. . . ." Why is that?
• Do you think that Armstead is among our best 4 D-lineman on the roster?
• Finally, if he's not in our base who do you see in our base set (that is, what 4 D-lineman do you see starting in our base set over Armstead)?

I sincerely have to this.

I don't really understand why you're confused. I clearly stated that I wasn't saying our defense would definitively only call for one of them in our base package. I do think it's a possibility though. So to make sure we're on the same page here, I'll answer your questions directly:

• Why would our scheme (or any scheme) call for the skill set of ONLY either Armstead or Buckner, but not both? Well, according to Barrows the LDE in Seattle's defense is your typical edge rusher - a Chris Clemons/Cliff Avril type. I think we can both agree that's not Armstead. Then there is a 3-technique DT who would be our primary interior rusher. This is a great spot for either Buckner or Armstead, but Buckner is better so this is where he plays. The other DT spot is similar to a traditional two-gap 3-4 nose tackle - definitely not Armstead. The last spot, RDE, is the only place you could really argue he fits in the starting lineup. This would be our Michael Bennett. Personally, I don't think Armstead has the quickness/agility to play in space on the edge but I could be wrong. And that's not an indictment on Armstead. He wasn't drafted to do that, so it's reasonable for him not to possess those traits. But if I'm right, this is exactly how only either Armstead OR Buckner would be on the field in our base package.
• Do you think Armstead and Buckner are so interchangeable that they are not worth putting both on the field at the same time? (And if so what scheme do you think will call for that?) See answer to previous question. On passing downs, when our NT-type player comes off the field, I think Armstead will play along side Buckner at the other DT spot when our interior run defense is less of a concern. To answer your second question, I think they would obviously both play in a base 3-4, like they were drafted to play. Playing a 5-technique requires more power and less agility relative to playing on the edge in a 4-3.
• Do you feel that Armstead isn't a good fit in a 4-3? Again, see answer to first question. I do think he fits into a 4-3, just not in the position we'd have to play him if he were to start.
• Earlier you stated "I'd rather see him spell Buckner . . . . . in our base package. . . ." Why is that? Because I want the guy to succeed and, therefore, would prefer not to play him out of position. Not all good football players are position versatile. Even if he was spelling Buckner and playing every obvious passing down in sub-packages, he'd still be on the field 60-75% of the time.
• Do you think that Armstead is among our best 4 D-lineman on the roster? Probably. Can't say for sure yet - not a large enough sample size.
• Finally, if he's not in our base who do you see in our base set (that is, what 4 D-lineman do you see starting in our base set over Armstead)? LDE - Lynch, DT - Buckner, NT - Dial/Wiliams, RDE - Brooks/Carradine/Blair/FA

I think that makes my position pretty clear. I'm not one of those people that have given up on Armstead. I actually want to put him in the absolute best position to succeed. I'm not an expert on any of this and could very well be wrong, but I see playing him on the outside as a mistake. As you can see, I'm not 100% sure who plays that RDE position - we don't have a perfect fit on the roster. But again, let's protect our assets and set them up for success by playing them at their natural positions.

The general consensus seems to be that is in fact athletic enough to play the end in that Bennett role though...What I have been seeing most often is Lynch/Brooks, Armstead, Dial, Buckner assuming no replacements. Granted that is a bit beefier than how Seattle is running but who says we are going to be exactly the same and if say Ray Ray is your OLB on Buckner's end that guy could be more power and less lateral speed and still fill the holes. Granted in this config I would really like to see some upgrades at both OLB's and you are really praying for Bow to make a strong comeback and stay healthy...but it is far from unreasonable to see this being something close to our opening day configuration...and was definitely heavily rumor by press and even Lynch seemed to indicate he though the current front could be repurposed to a four man base with the talent we have.

Before Bennett, it was Red Bryant's job, right? This DE spot requires a player who is versatile enough to beat his man, shoot a gap, or account for 2 gaps depending on the play call. It seems like Buckner would fit best there and AA would slide to the disruptive DT position. There is definitely room for both.

Originally posted by PhillyNiner:

Originally posted by Draftology:

Originally posted by RTFirefly:
I don't know jack squat about D-lines but I try to learn from you guys. Serious question here: I've been a JPP fan since I wanted the Niners to draft him. He's a FA now. I fully expect him to spend his career with the Giants, but if we could get him? How would he fit in, technically? (Having 3 D linemen that height would have to be a record.)

He would be a perfect fit at LDE and would probably push Lynch to being a situational pass rusher as opposed to an every down player, which is probably a better fit for him.

How did he play last year...I didn't really get a chance to check, I know the first year with the diminished hand was a real struggle.

I don't think he played exceptionally well (I honestly didn't watch too many of his games). He only had 7 sacks in 12 starts which is about 9 over the course of 16 games.

Pro Football Focus actually gives him a pretty good grade for last year (86.2). I believe that would have made him our best defensive player if we only went of the PFF scores.

Originally posted by Draftology:

Originally posted by PhillyNiner:

Originally posted by Draftology:

Originally posted by RTFirefly:
I don't know jack squat about D-lines but I try to learn from you guys. Serious question here: I've been a JPP fan since I wanted the Niners to draft him. He's a FA now. I fully expect him to spend his career with the Giants, but if we could get him? How would he fit in, technically? (Having 3 D linemen that height would have to be a record.)

He would be a perfect fit at LDE and would probably push Lynch to being a situational pass rusher as opposed to an every down player, which is probably a better fit for him.

How did he play last year...I didn't really get a chance to check, I know the first year with the diminished hand was a real struggle.

I don't think he played exceptionally well (I honestly didn't watch too many of his games). He only had 7 sacks in 12 starts which is about 9 over the course of 16 games.

Pro Football Focus actually gives him a pretty good grade for last year (86.2). I believe that would have made him our best defensive player if we only went of the PFF scores.

Most of those sacks were from just the two games. I always looked at him as a run stopper anyway. Well, I was just curious how he might fit in. I sure would've liked to have had him how he was pre-fireworks.

Armstead doesn't fit this D..unless he is going to be a backup to DeForest at DT. Neither guy can bend the edge to play DE in our new scheme..we have room for one 1 gap DT. And that will be Deforest.

Trade him to Washington along with the #2 for Cousins and the 17th. Done.

Originally posted by SteveYoung:
Armstead doesn't fit this D..unless he is going to be a backup to DeForest at DT. Neither guy can bend the edge to play DE in our new scheme..we have room for one 1 gap DT. And that will be Deforest.

Trade him to Washington along with the #2 for Cousins and the 17th. Done.

I think Armstead is pretty bad, but that trade is horrible for us. We should only be giving up the #2 for Cousins + #17. Any more than that, and we are overpaying for no reason.

Keep in mind, we still need to pay Cousins after 1 year

Originally posted by Ensatsu:

I think Armstead is pretty bad, but that trade is horrible for us. We should only be giving up the #2 for Cousins + #17. Any more than that, and we are overpaying for no reason.

Keep in mind, we still need to pay Cousins after 1 year

There is no way the #2 will get Cousins and #17. You choose: our 2nd rounder or Armstead.

Baalke should have never picked Armstead in the first place. God, the more I think of it the more he singlehandedly set this franchise back. What a joke of a GM he was.

Originally posted by SteveYoung:

Originally posted by Ensatsu:
I think Armstead is pretty bad, but that trade is horrible for us. We should only be giving up the #2 for Cousins + #17. Any more than that, and we are overpaying for no reason.

Keep in mind, we still need to pay Cousins after 1 year

There is no way the #2 will get Cousins and #17. You choose: our 2nd rounder or Armstead.

Baalke should have never picked Armstead in the first place. God, the more I think of it the more he singlehandedly set this franchise back. What a joke of a GM he was.

This is completely irrational. Second year player with an injury = throw him away for nothing? It truly is a in instant gratification world now isn't it?

Originally posted by Karma:

Originally posted by PhillyNiner:

Originally posted by Draftology:

Originally posted by 9ersLiferInChicago:

You're still missing me

Let me ask you these questions:

• Why would our scheme (or any scheme) call for the skill set of ONLY either Armstead or Buckner, but not both?
• Do you think Armstead and Buckner are so interchangeable that they are not worth putting both on the field at the same time? (And if so what scheme do you think will call for that?)
• Do you feel that Armstead isn't a good fit in a 4-3?

• Earlier you stated "I'd rather see him spell Buckner . . . . . in our base package. . . ." Why is that?
• Do you think that Armstead is among our best 4 D-lineman on the roster?
• Finally, if he's not in our base who do you see in our base set (that is, what 4 D-lineman do you see starting in our base set over Armstead)?

I sincerely have to this.

I don't really understand why you're confused. I clearly stated that I wasn't saying our defense would definitively only call for one of them in our base package. I do think it's a possibility though. So to make sure we're on the same page here, I'll answer your questions directly:

• Why would our scheme (or any scheme) call for the skill set of ONLY either Armstead or Buckner, but not both? Well, according to Barrows the LDE in Seattle's defense is your typical edge rusher - a Chris Clemons/Cliff Avril type. I think we can both agree that's not Armstead. Then there is a 3-technique DT who would be our primary interior rusher. This is a great spot for either Buckner or Armstead, but Buckner is better so this is where he plays. The other DT spot is similar to a traditional two-gap 3-4 nose tackle - definitely not Armstead. The last spot, RDE, is the only place you could really argue he fits in the starting lineup. This would be our Michael Bennett. Personally, I don't think Armstead has the quickness/agility to play in space on the edge but I could be wrong. And that's not an indictment on Armstead. He wasn't drafted to do that, so it's reasonable for him not to possess those traits. But if I'm right, this is exactly how only either Armstead OR Buckner would be on the field in our base package.
• Do you think Armstead and Buckner are so interchangeable that they are not worth putting both on the field at the same time? (And if so what scheme do you think will call for that?) See answer to previous question. On passing downs, when our NT-type player comes off the field, I think Armstead will play along side Buckner at the other DT spot when our interior run defense is less of a concern. To answer your second question, I think they would obviously both play in a base 3-4, like they were drafted to play. Playing a 5-technique requires more power and less agility relative to playing on the edge in a 4-3.
• Do you feel that Armstead isn't a good fit in a 4-3? Again, see answer to first question. I do think he fits into a 4-3, just not in the position we'd have to play him if he were to start.
• Earlier you stated "I'd rather see him spell Buckner . . . . . in our base package. . . ." Why is that? Because I want the guy to succeed and, therefore, would prefer not to play him out of position. Not all good football players are position versatile. Even if he was spelling Buckner and playing every obvious passing down in sub-packages, he'd still be on the field 60-75% of the time.
• Do you think that Armstead is among our best 4 D-lineman on the roster? Probably. Can't say for sure yet - not a large enough sample size.
• Finally, if he's not in our base who do you see in our base set (that is, what 4 D-lineman do you see starting in our base set over Armstead)? LDE - Lynch, DT - Buckner, NT - Dial/Wiliams, RDE - Brooks/Carradine/Blair/FA

I think that makes my position pretty clear. I'm not one of those people that have given up on Armstead. I actually want to put him in the absolute best position to succeed. I'm not an expert on any of this and could very well be wrong, but I see playing him on the outside as a mistake. As you can see, I'm not 100% sure who plays that RDE position - we don't have a perfect fit on the roster. But again, let's protect our assets and set them up for success by playing them at their natural positions.

The general consensus seems to be that is in fact athletic enough to play the end in that Bennett role though...What I have been seeing most often is Lynch/Brooks, Armstead, Dial, Buckner assuming no replacements. Granted that is a bit beefier than how Seattle is running but who says we are going to be exactly the same and if say Ray Ray is your OLB on Buckner's end that guy could be more power and less lateral speed and still fill the holes. Granted in this config I would really like to see some upgrades at both OLB's and you are really praying for Bow to make a strong comeback and stay healthy...but it is far from unreasonable to see this being something close to our opening day configuration...and was definitely heavily rumor by press and even Lynch seemed to indicate he though the current front could be repurposed to a four man base with the talent we have.

Before Bennett, it was Red Bryant's job, right? This DE spot requires a player who is versatile enough to beat his man, shoot a gap, or account for 2 gaps depending on the play call. It seems like Buckner would fit best there and AA would slide to the disruptive DT position. There is definitely room for both.

Right now, speculation is that the best fits across the line until we add a fierce, highly athletic and talented RDE, is this:

LDE: Buckner/Dial

LDT: FA/ROOKIE

RDT: Armstead

RDE: Lynch


However... I wouldn't be surprised at all to see the team let Buckner try RDE in some cases, even despite his size. If they know he can beat a guy that others can't, I see them putting him in that spot.

Originally posted by PhillyNiner:

Originally posted by SteveYoung:

Originally posted by Ensatsu:

I think Armstead is pretty bad, but that trade is horrible for us. We should only be giving up the #2 for Cousins + #17. Any more than that, and we are overpaying for no reason.

Keep in mind, we still need to pay Cousins after 1 year

There is no way the #2 will get Cousins and #17. You choose: our 2nd rounder or Armstead.

Baalke should have never picked Armstead in the first place. God, the more I think of it the more he singlehandedly set this franchise back. What a joke of a GM he was.

This is completely irrational. Second year player with an injury = throw him away for nothing? It truly is a in instant gratification world now isn't it?

Originally posted by PhillyNiner:

This is completely irrational. Second year player with an injury = throw him away for nothing? It truly is a in instant gratification world now isn't it?

We have to give to get.

We're aren't getting Cousins for nothing.

I'd give the #2 pick, and maybe a 5th rounder. Anything more than that, the deal is off.

Rather draft a rookie QB that will probably bust. Lol

Originally posted by Draftology:

Originally posted by 9ersLiferInChicago:
You're still missing me

Let me ask you these questions:

• Why would our scheme (or any scheme) call for the skill set of ONLY either Armstead or Buckner, but not both?
• Do you think Armstead and Buckner are so interchangeable that they are not worth putting both on the field at the same time? (And if so what scheme do you think will call for that?)
• Do you feel that Armstead isn't a good fit in a 4-3?

• Earlier you stated "I'd rather see him spell Buckner . . . . . in our base package. . . ." Why is that?
• Do you think that Armstead is among our best 4 D-lineman on the roster?
• Finally, if he's not in our base who do you see in our base set (that is, what 4 D-lineman do you see starting in our base set over Armstead)?

I sincerely have to this.

I don't really understand why you're confused. I clearly stated that I wasn't saying our defense would definitively only call for one of them in our base package. I do think it's a possibility though. So to make sure we're on the same page here, I'll answer your questions directly:

• Why would our scheme (or any scheme) call for the skill set of ONLY either Armstead or Buckner, but not both? Well, according to Barrows the LDE in Seattle's defense is your typical edge rusher - a Chris Clemons/Cliff Avril type. I think we can both agree that's not Armstead. Then there is a 3-technique DT who would be our primary interior rusher. This is a great spot for either Buckner or Armstead, but Buckner is better so this is where he plays. The other DT spot is similar to a traditional two-gap 3-4 nose tackle - definitely not Armstead. The last spot, RDE, is the only place you could really argue he fits in the starting lineup. This would be our Michael Bennett. Personally, I don't think Armstead has the quickness/agility to play in space on the edge but I could be wrong. And that's not an indictment on Armstead. He wasn't drafted to do that, so it's reasonable for him not to possess those traits. But if I'm right, this is exactly how only either Armstead OR Buckner would be on the field in our base package.
• Do you think Armstead and Buckner are so interchangeable that they are not worth putting both on the field at the same time? (And if so what scheme do you think will call for that?) See answer to previous question. On passing downs, when our NT-type player comes off the field, I think Armstead will play along side Buckner at the other DT spot when our interior run defense is less of a concern. To answer your second question, I think they would obviously both play in a base 3-4, like they were drafted to play. Playing a 5-technique requires more power and less agility relative to playing on the edge in a 4-3.
• Do you feel that Armstead isn't a good fit in a 4-3? Again, see answer to first question. I do think he fits into a 4-3, just not in the position we'd have to play him if he were to start.
• Earlier you stated "I'd rather see him spell Buckner . . . . . in our base package. . . ." Why is that? Because I want the guy to succeed and, therefore, would prefer not to play him out of position. Not all good football players are position versatile. Even if he was spelling Buckner and playing every obvious passing down in sub-packages, he'd still be on the field 60-75% of the time.
• Do you think that Armstead is among our best 4 D-lineman on the roster? Probably. Can't say for sure yet - not a large enough sample size.
• Finally, if he's not in our base who do you see in our base set (that is, what 4 D-lineman do you see starting in our base set over Armstead)? LDE - Lynch, DT - Buckner, NT - Dial/Wiliams, RDE - Brooks/Carradine/Blair/FA

I think that makes my position pretty clear. I'm not one of those people that have given up on Armstead. I actually want to put him in the absolute best position to succeed. I'm not an expert on any of this and could very well be wrong, but I see playing him on the outside as a mistake. As you can see, I'm not 100% sure who plays that RDE position - we don't have a perfect fit on the roster. But again, let's protect our assets and set them up for success by playing them at their natural positions.

Agree to disagree.

I've been around football my whole life. And the one thing that I've learned is that the best 11 should always be on the field. That's where coaching comes into play. Your football reasons are sound. I was never disputing that. But I'm sorry, there's no way that AA should be coming off the bench, in any scheme. He might not be a 4-3 DE, but he defiantly can play 4-3 DT. He's just too powerful and too talented to be spelling anyone. He will demand a double-team when playing with the proper technique. I concede that he's more of a 3-4 end than 4-3 end. But that don't mean that he couldn't make the transition. And I cannot stress enough how much his injury has stunted his progress and production. IMHO fans are much too willing to give up on the guy, or, like yourself, too quick to relegate him to backup status without a real chance to show his stuff in the system.

Originally posted by OnTheClock:

Right now, speculation is that the best fits across the line until we add a fierce, highly athletic and talented RDE, is this:

LDE: Buckner/Dial

LDT: FA/ROOKIE

RDT: Armstead

RDE: Lynch


However... I wouldn't be surprised at all to see the team let Buckner try RDE in some cases, even despite his size. If they know he can beat a guy that others can't, I see them putting him in that spot.

That better be a one gap scheme because Armstead would get eaten alive if he has to read and react and pick a gap. Any guard with a low power base will just leverage AA out of the play. And Lynch will not be the RDE. No chance. I'm not banking on him to do much of anything after he checked out last year and got fat and lazy.

LDE- Lynch / Pass rushing rookie
NT- Rookie / Free agent
RDT- Buckner
RDE- Nick Perry

Originally posted by bigwads:

Originally posted by jcs:

Originally posted by bigwads:
Arik Armsted

I need to chyme in about this player. I think there is some serious shade being thrown at him, which is totally off base. There are a number of posters discounting his ability in the run game. First, Arik is not one to anchor against double teams, but he cannot be blocked by one OL. If you disagree look at his rookie tape.

Second, and probably more importantly, the injury (labrum in shoulder) cannot be overstated. Anecdotally, I personally can attest to this issue and for a down lineman I have no idea how he stayed on the active roster for as long as he did. For those who are trashing him, please consider what the injury is exactly. The injury compels dislocations. That's what it does. You cannot push...literally...if the humerus is pressuring the tear...the shoulder literally dislocates. How many times did you see Armsted on the sideline letting his arm hang down? I was feeling for him, because I have experienced the same thing. This injury is a big deal...when I heard about it I was very skeptical because they wouldn't say what the injury was until after he went on IR. HE SHOULD HAVE IMMEDIATELY HAD SURGERY AFTER GETTING THE INJURY. I believe it was a terminable offense to keep him playing as a two gapper with that injury.

To the critics point, he was never a great run player. True, but he played much better against the run as a rookie and he lead the entire league in pass rush efficiency as freaking rookie. So pump the breaks on trashing him.

Going forward, if Armsted's injury is fixed I would not doubt that he will end up being the better player between him and Buckner. I have a hard time figuring out what Buckner even does well. Armsted, on the other hand, is unblockable when moving and rushing the passer.

I love the switch to the new scheme and if he and Buckner are used properly (not as two gappers) they are going to be awesome. They are the edge defenders though on the DL (not OLB). They cannot be the two interior DL-they will get destroyed on double teams. They are too tall and too light. However, they are pretty good and controlling one on one. If they are moving though, they will be a nightmare.

I would much rather have a Brandon Williams type as the nose and someone like Dorsey as the strong side base DT. If you look at those systems, that strong side base DT is a huge two-gapper. If you want to stick Buckner there you are a moron and the same goes for Armsted.

I would stick Armsted as the base LDE and have Buckner play Bennett's role as the RDE...or flip them. They need to be moving players though, not stationary.

You lost me when you said he's better than Buckner who's already exceeded AA's Career stats in one season.

Um no one said that

?

Originally posted by 9ersLiferInChicago:
Agree to disagree.

I've been around football my whole life. And the one thing that I've learned is that the best 11 should always be on the field. That's where coaching comes into play. Your football reasons are sound. I was never disputing that. But I'm sorry, there's no way that AA should be coming off the bench, in any scheme. He might not be a 4-3 DE, but he defiantly can play 4-3 DT. He's just too powerful and too talented to be spelling anyone. He will demand a double-team when playing with the proper technique. I concede that he's more of a 3-4 end than 4-3 end. But that don't mean that he couldn't make the transition. And I cannot stress enough how much his injury has stunted his progress and production. IMHO fans are much too willing to give up on the guy, or, like yourself, too quick to relegate him to backup status without a real chance to show his stuff in the system.

This is a big point. He rarely uses proper technique. He doesn't maintain his gap control and he doesn't set the edge very well. He doesn't locate the ball well and he tends to give up on plays. He's also not very productive. This is 49er Arik...ironically it is also Predraft Arik coming out of Oregon.