Are we better suited for a 3-4 Defense?

The 3-4 defense is the answer to all problems in life.

Theyre still missing outside rushers.

Originally posted by Heroism:

The 3-4 defense is the answer to all problems in life.

Yup, take 3-4 of these and call me in the morning.

Originally posted by TheGoldStandard:

Straightforward question, is our front 7 best suited to play in a 3-4?

Buck and Arik at end, Mitchell at nose, Solomon standing up, Warner and foster inside backers, and Malcolm Smith at SAM.

Would that alignment help alleviate some of the issues we are having or can we not make the current personnel we have fit together?

Good suggestion

Finally, an original thread...

Originally posted by TheGoldStandard:
Straightforward question, is our front 7 best suited to play in a 3-4?

Buck and Arik at end, Mitchell at nose, Solomon standing up, Warner and foster inside backers, and Malcolm Smith at SAM.

Would that alignment help alleviate some of the issues we are having or can we not make the current personnel we have fit together?

No.

The key to a 3-4 is a short, wide chap on the nose of the center. Think Vince Wilfork-type.

We might make some of the other pieces fit but we would still lack a Von Miller.

No configuration of the front 7 can survive long without a balance across the front of run stuffers and pass rushers. Doesn't matter how you line them up, you must have those components.

I don't think so honestly. The 4-3 under is supposed to be very similar in base to a one-gapping 3-4 - the only major difference is Solomon with his hands down vs standing up.

I disagree with Whitner's suggestion that Solomon would be better standing. I think he's best at inside with his hands down at inside DT. Unfortunately we have 2 guys playing better than him there, possibly 3 with Sheldon Day. I think he's solid in base on the outside - just not the stud we hoped he'd become.

Originally posted by Wewillwin:

I don't think so honestly. The 4-3 under is supposed to be very similar in base to a one-gapping 3-4 - the only major difference is Solomon with his hands down vs standing up.

I disagree with Whitner's suggestion that Solomon would be better standing. I think he's best at inside with his hands down at inside DT. Unfortunately we have 2 guys playing better than him there, possibly 3 with Sheldon Day. I think he's solid in base on the outside - just not the stud we hoped he'd become.

No way Thomas should be standing. He's about as stiff as a woody in a strip club..

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:

Finally, an original thread...

Actually it is original because the typical annual thread was "should we switch to a 4-3".

That time has come and gone for this discussion.

I remember when we ran the 3-4 and we would get the bi-annual "Should we go back to being a 4-3 defense" thread.

Now it is the opposite.

teams play their base defense about 20% of the game. almost every team plays from a nickel or dime defense, so it doesn't matter if we played 3-4, 4-3, 4-6...

Well, here's the deal..

Our DLs are a bunch of DTs, meaning they are more suited to play the 3-4 scheme... we currently do not have an actual DE to line up as a down end under the 4-3 and that's why SOLO is having a hard time playing it.

The LBs however, are suited to play the 4-3... we have no TRUE standing up OLB that can/would rush the passer..

so, to make a long story short, we are not running the correct scheme because we don't have the players..

that is also why it was a head scratcher in regards to LYNCH drafting more DTs from the last Draft.

then we don't signe a real DE.. as I was saying, we could have lure Mario Williams to come down to City by the Bay..

I just like the 3-4 better for any defense, especially if we have a good NT