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 9ersLiferInChicago:

I didn't say that you said he's a bust. I said that if Armstead, a highly touted round 1st round pick, is relegated to rotational duties, that would make him a bust. I'm sorry, I just don't see how it could be viewed otherwise. And I didn't mention weak or strong side. In that regard I was stating that he's a starter (be it strong or weak DE, or an interior DT), was drafted to be a starter, has flashed starter play when healthy (though he does need to get better in the run), but has been dealing with injury that has stunted his progression and production. In any event, it's simply too early to be even thinking of him anywhere near as a rotational player status, much less a bust.

I'd rather see him spell Buckner (and potentially some other positions along the line in a limited capacity) in our base package and potentially play him with Buckner in passing situations. Trying to fit a square peg into a circular hole on principle isn't how you run a football team.

See, this is why I keep coming back at this. I suspected that that's how you felt from the very beginning, and that's why I keep using the "bust" word. Not that that's what you actually said, but that if a 1st rounder of his caliber is relegated to the role that you envision (in year three no less), a role that you yourself stated that you'd rather see, it could mean nothing else but that the coaching staff don't think that he's starter material (for whatever reason) but serviceable enough to keep on the roster. There's a word for 1st round players like that - BUST!

I repeat: I don't think Armstead is a bust. It's just too early for that label. Again, you don't draft any player in the first round, especially mid and high in the first, with the vision of him being a rotational player. If that's how he turns out to be then he's a bust. You didn't say that but that's what your vision is describing.

The word "bust" implies the quality of your play does not reflect your draft status. If circumstances reduce his role, it doesn't make him a bust. That's why I mentioned Tevin Coleman before. He wasn't a 1st rd pick but the fact that he loses touches to a superior player doesn't reflect poorly on him and his quality of play. It just means Freeman is an excellent player. He would start on many teams, just not the Falcons.

And if Armstead doesn't start in our base package, that doesn't mean we can't find ways to get him on the field. Your base defense only plays 25-40% of snaps. Aldon Smith didn't start as a rookie but still played enough to register 13 sacks (I think). This notion that if he isn't one of the four starters in our base package, he's a bust just doesn't fly.

I'm not even saying he won't start. There was a quote that came out today from Lynch that seemed to imply he would. My whole premise is that IF our scheme only calls for one player with Armstead and Buckner's skill set, we shouldn't make him play out of position because he's a first rd pick.

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.

Originally posted by Draftology:

The word "bust" implies the quality of your play does not reflect your draft status. If circumstances reduce his role, it doesn't make him a bust. That's why I mentioned Tevin Coleman before. He wasn't a 1st rd pick but the fact that he loses touches to a superior player doesn't reflect poorly on him and his quality of play. It just means Freeman is an excellent player. He would start on many teams, just not the Falcons.

And if Armstead doesn't start in our base package, that doesn't mean we can't find ways to get him on the field. Your base defense only plays 25-40% of snaps. Aldon Smith didn't start as a rookie but still played enough to register 13 sacks (I think). This notion that if he isn't one of the four starters in our base package, he's a bust just doesn't fly.

I'm not even saying he won't start. There was a quote that came out today from Lynch that seemed to imply he would. My whole premise is that IF our scheme only calls for one player with Armstead and Buckner's skill set, we shouldn't make him play out of position because he's a first rd pick.

OTAs can't come soon enough. The base 4-3 line talk is getting exhausting lol. I think AA starts at LDE(strongside), I could easily be wrong doe.

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 Phoenix49ers:

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.

I will say this, Jacksonville played with two 6'7 DT's on their DL in a 4-3 back in the early 00's and both guys wound up in the Pro Bowl during various years. I don't think there's really any reason that Armstead and Buckner can't work, especially Buckner who has the potential to be a truly special player in the NFL.

Agreed. Especially on passing downs if Armsted and Buckner are not rushing from the two DT positions, I would be concerned about their true ability.

They all fit........LIKE A GLOVAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Originally posted by toppdogg32:

Originally posted by NeeJ49er:
I'm hoping Ward plays some safety in the more aggressive 4-3 schemes ..Ronald Blair should also benefit from the switch and make a lot of plays

I like Ward, just worried about his durability. Earl Thomas didn't have hardly any major issues until this past year. IDK Ward has made it 16 games yet, and that's as a CB/NB.. I say lave him at CB and be a rotational/dime back for both safety spots..

I'm hoping we can grab an intimidating safety for our 4-3, Tartt has the potential to be our "Thumper" , I wonder if the Williams signing means the end for Brock?? , it appears Robinson and Ward will be our starters ,and there will be plenty of competition for the 3rd and 4th CB spots , it should be a fun pre-season with Redmond back healthy, and I'm sure Lynch will draft a couple of CB's and another safety for camp competition , Johnson, Cromartie and Reaser have a fight on their hands to stay on the roster

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.

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.)

Originally posted by SmokeCrabtrees:
OTAs can't come soon enough. The base 4-3 line talk is getting exhausting lol. I think AA starts at LDE(strongside), I could easily be wrong doe.

Think this is a pretty overblown conversation as well. We're getting all riled up over 25-40% of our defensive snaps.

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.

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.

Thanks! I just know he's a disrupter and a force against the run.

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.

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.

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.

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 wish I could answer that. I'm guessing he's still struggling. All his season stats seemed to come in late season games against the Browns and Bears.