PDA

View Full Version : Should the Chiefs think about playing a 3-4 Defense?


Herzig
08-08-2005, 05:40 PM
Should the Chiefs think about playing a 3-4 Defense? With our additions at LB (DJ and Kendrell Bell), Scanlon and K. Mitchell improving, Barber, Grigsby, Fujita, Stills, and Maz..it seems like a 3-4 could be a possibility. A 3-4 defense might be better suited to our personel and take pressure off of our D Line. I think mixing it up and throwing a 3-4 look in a game at times would add a nice "wrinkle" to our defense.

What do you guys think?

Dave Lane
08-08-2005, 05:42 PM
They are going to play both according to Gun.

Dave

Herzig
08-08-2005, 05:44 PM
They are going to play both according to Gun.

Dave

Thanks for enlightening me. Obviously, I hadn't heard that.

beer bacon
08-08-2005, 05:46 PM
Thanks for enlightening me. Obviously, I hadn't heard that.

Gunther basically said that they would play the 3-4 sometimes in obvious passing situations to get all their speedy LBs on the field.

Woodrow Call
08-08-2005, 05:47 PM
I think the Chiefs have the LBs for it for sure. The line would be a mess though.

OLB-Fox
ILB-Bell
ILB-Mitchell
OLB-Johnson

DE-Browning
NT-Dalton
DE-Hicks(Allen in on passing downs)

Great speed at LB but it takes away the Chiefs best DL man in Allen. If Gun uses it some like he has stated, the LBs would give offenses fits if not overused.

Mecca
08-08-2005, 06:03 PM
If its just in obvious pass situations it's fine with me. However we would get killed if a team ran the ball on us in that formation. We don't have the line or the specialy LB's to defend out of that set very often.

ROYC75
08-08-2005, 06:04 PM
Part time OK... Dalton is going to have to be a MONSTER to anchor a 3-4.

IMHO, I just don't see it very much .

tk13
08-08-2005, 06:07 PM
I think our DE's and DT's aren't really suited for that, except for Dalton, and Hicks I guess. I'd rather see us tinker with going to a 4-4 situation in red zone situations. That'd be a lot easier to do when Warfield comes back, though.

Logical
08-08-2005, 06:14 PM
We don't have anyone capable of playing NT in a 3-4. Junior does not have the lower body strength to handle it and no one else is physically big enough.

Jamie
08-08-2005, 06:29 PM
I don't think the Chiefs don't really have the size at DT and OLB to play a base 3-4. You'd have to move all of the linebackers inside and put Allen and Hall at OLB, which really doesn't help at all.

BIG_DADDY
08-08-2005, 06:32 PM
Hell no

|Zach|
08-08-2005, 06:34 PM
I was going to say it but its been said many uh time.

We need a stud DT for that. We are studless at DT.

Gaz
08-09-2005, 06:48 AM
The fallacy has been pointed out time and time again, but here it is again:

As far as the 3-4 is concerned, it does not really matter if we have lots of speed at LB. The Nose Tackle in a 3-4 has to be a monster, or the entire scheme falls apart. We lack a monster NT, therefore we cannot play the 3-4.

xoxo~
Gaz
Hates to admit that neither Sims nor Dalton nor Siavii qualifies as a monster.

the Talking Can
08-09-2005, 07:09 AM
we don't have the DT's for a 3-4

Coogs
08-09-2005, 07:15 AM
In last nights River Falls Site Camp Update Thread, there is a piece that mentions the Chiefs are practicing a 3-3-5 nickel package. I had read earlier last week where Mitchell was staying on the field in those situations, and was wondering if we might be toying with the 3-3-5. They didn't say who the 3 D-linemen were though. Wish they would have.

Nightfyre
08-09-2005, 07:32 AM
I definitely think we should get more LBs on the field, but we need a completely different line to run the 3-4. Im all about the 4-6 in obvious running situations though :drool:

htismaqe
08-09-2005, 08:58 AM
I have no problem mixing in some 3-4 looks, but we should stay away from doing too much of it.

Crush
08-09-2005, 09:22 AM
No monster NT = No 3-4

Saulbadguy
08-09-2005, 09:23 AM
46.

Crush
08-09-2005, 09:38 AM
Red Swarm Defense

Wallcrawler
08-09-2005, 10:07 AM
I said Hell No based on two things.

1. As has been mentioned, we dont have anyone capable of playing the Nosetackle spot, and we would get ripped up for at least 4 yards on every running play attempted.

2. This isnt Video Football here. You cant just up and switch schemes however you please. These guys will do well to absorb and execute Gunther's 4-3 attack scheme that was implemented last season. I think trying to learn a new scheme in less than a month is a tall order for a defense that is trying to claw its way out of the cellar.


If the guys on defense can learn a few good 3-4 plays to use in specific situations, it might be all right. But I dont have any idea who they would put in there at the nosetackle spot.

We have the linebackers for it, but not the dts.

Amnorix
08-09-2005, 10:33 AM
The fallacy has been pointed out time and time again, but here it is again:

As far as the 3-4 is concerned, it does not really matter if we have lots of speed at LB. The Nose Tackle in a 3-4 has to be a monster, or the entire scheme falls apart. We lack a monster NT, therefore we cannot play the 3-4.

xoxo~
Gaz
Hates to admit that neither Sims nor Dalton nor Siavii qualifies as a monster.


Following up on this, the Patriots primary weakness in 2002 (the year they didn't win the SB, and coincidentally the year your boys ran up 38 points on my boys) was no serviceable NG. After that year, we got rid of our worthless NG (who then became the worthless NG for the hapless Houston defense in a 3-4 the next year), got Ted Washington in a training camp trade after we saw we had nobody that was serviceable, and won the SB with him in the middle.

The NG is, fundamentally, the crux on which the 3-4 rests. If your NG can't anchor in the middle, frequently against double teams, then you're whole scheme is going to fall apart.

You need BIG BOYS to play the 3-4 on any kind of consistent basis, and at least one serviceable NG to play the 3-4 at all.

Chiefnj
08-09-2005, 10:39 AM
I hope KC goes to a 3-4 in the first preaseason game, proceeds to get their but kicked and puts an end to all the 3-4 talk for at least another 6 months.

RedThat
08-09-2005, 10:40 AM
Following up on this, the Patriots primary weakness in 2002 (the year they didn't win the SB, and coincidentally the year your boys ran up 38 points on my boys) was no serviceable NG. After that year, we got rid of our worthless NG (who then became the worthless NG for the hapless Houston defense in a 3-4 the next year), got Ted Washington in a training camp trade after we saw we had nobody that was serviceable, and won the SB with him in the middle.

The NG is, fundamentally, the crux on which the 3-4 rests. If your NG can't anchor in the middle, frequently against double teams, then you're whole scheme is going to fall apart.

You need BIG BOYS to play the 3-4 on any kind of consistent basis, and at least one serviceable NG to play the 3-4 at all.

Absolutely. Another example is Pittsburgh. Casey Hampton. One of the better NGs in the league imo.

Amnorix
08-09-2005, 10:56 AM
Absolutely. Another example is Pittsburgh. Casey Hampton. One of the better NGs in the league imo.

Yes, Hampton is quite good.

Big Ted Washington, though. Let me tell ya, that guy is ridiculous. His only drawback is no real push on pass plays. But against the run -- ye Gods that guy is awesome.

Sad to see him go after only one year, though from what I heard, he more or less stunk with the Raiders.

RedThat
08-09-2005, 11:51 AM
Yes, Hampton is quite good.

Big Ted Washington, though. Let me tell ya, that guy is ridiculous. His only drawback is no real push on pass plays. But against the run -- ye Gods that guy is awesome.

Sad to see him go after only one year, though from what I heard, he more or less stunk with the Raiders.

I agree Ted Washington is great against the run. Plus he can move for big guy, the guy is a good athlete. He easily takes up two blockers, sometimes even three. Easily frees up the linebackers around him to make plays. Thats the difference right there. Don't get me wrong, first and foremost, I credit Ted Washington in helping out your run defense, I also credit the linebackers as well. Any defense could use one of those big massive defensive tackles, it all starts with them. When you have a defensive tackle that big, it easily makes your linebackers a lot better.

I really don't know what happened to him this year though. Perhaps it was age, injuries that caught up to him? The guy is 37. It seems like the Pats let him go at the right time. They did draft Wilfork though, the guy is young, came from a good school, and has lots of potential. so that's pretty smart on their part.

Amnorix
08-09-2005, 11:58 AM
I really don't know what happened to him this year though. Perhaps it was age, injuries that caught up to him? The guy is 37. It seems like the Pats let him go at the right time. They did draft Wilfork though, the guy is young, came from a good school, and has lots of potential. so that's pretty smart on their part.

Yeah, no clue. Sounds like he might have just been uninspired after winning his first ring. I dunno. He sure didn't look tired and washed up the year we had him though.

Pats got lucky with Wilfork falling to us. I remember drooling and praying we'd get him, but thinking we had no shot, back when he was a junior. Then he stayed the extra year and actually slid down the draft board into our jubiliant hands. No clue why -- the guy looks VERY promising. Alot better than most 1st round DTs that have come into the league over the last 3-4 years.

RedThat
08-09-2005, 12:30 PM
Yeah, no clue. Sounds like he might have just been uninspired after winning his first ring. I dunno. He sure didn't look tired and washed up the year we had him though.

Pats got lucky with Wilfork falling to us. I remember drooling and praying we'd get him, but thinking we had no shot, back when he was a junior. Then he stayed the extra year and actually slid down the draft board into our jubiliant hands. No clue why -- the guy looks VERY promising. Alot better than most 1st round DTs that have come into the league over the last 3-4 years.

The guy is gonna be a good player, no doubt. Did you guys ever get lucky?! I didnt think he would fall to you guys either. Wilfork was receiving lots of praise from scouts, and coaches before he was drafted. I thought he would go in the top 5, or 10? With Seymour, Wilfork, and Warren, I'd say your defensive line looks quite promising, and good I'll add. Spare us one of those guys, please! lol I'll take Seymour anyday of the week.

On a side note, I didn't think the Chiefs would get Derrick Johnson in the draft. Was quite suprised he fell to us at #15. You never know sometimes, strange things can always happen.

Valiant
08-09-2005, 12:32 PM
Should the Chiefs think about playing a 3-4 Defense? With our additions at LB (DJ and Kendrell Bell), Scanlon and K. Mitchell improving, Barber, Grigsby, Fujita, Stills, and Maz..it seems like a 3-4 could be a possibility. A 3-4 defense might be better suited to our personel and take pressure off of our D Line. I think mixing it up and throwing a 3-4 look in a game at times would add a nice "wrinkle" to our defense.

What do you guys think?


IMO hell no... Our Dline is not good enough to run a 3-4, They will get blown off the ball and the opposing teams Lineman will get free to block or linebackers 3-5 yards deep...Our speed at LB will not work to well with a 300+ lb lineman eating them up... I hope I am wrong, but we cannot run a 3-4 with HIcks and Sims, Maybe if we would have brought in a worthwhile DT we could have pulled it off.. But Sims and HIcks cannot even do average with one 0n one blocking... Hell if I were playing us I would just have a TE on HIcks and pull his way with lineman, should be good for 8-10 yards every time...

I hope I am wrong, but....

ROYC75
08-09-2005, 01:24 PM
In order for us to play a 3-4, we have to suit Jason Whitlock up as a DT, spread some Gates BBQ sauce on the opponets jersey's and tell him it's a buffet line.......

LiL stumppy
08-09-2005, 02:18 PM
I think the Chiefs have the LBs for it for sure. The line would be a mess though.

OLB-Fox
ILB-Bell
ILB-Mitchell
OLB-Johnson

DE-Browning
NT-Dalton
DE-Hicks(Allen in on passing downs)

Great speed at LB but it takes away the Chiefs best DL man in Allen. If Gun uses it some like he has stated, the LBs would give offenses fits if not overused.


Are you guys forgitting about Scott Fujita,who led this team in tackles the past two years?Theres no way Keyaron Fox will go on the field over Fujita if they do play a 3-4 for a play or what ever.And Fujita is faster than Fox.

whoman69
08-09-2005, 02:26 PM
Will there be a year when this doesn't come up. Before we didn't have the linebacker corps to make it work. Now we don't have the line to do it. None of our lineman can tie up two blockers to keep them from getting to our linebackers.

Dartgod
08-09-2005, 02:59 PM
I don't think this has been pointed out yet, but we don't have a monster NT as needed in the 3-4.

Just saying...

Saulbadguy
08-09-2005, 03:10 PM
And Fujita is faster than Fox.
He is?

Valiant
08-09-2005, 05:18 PM
Are you guys forgitting about Scott Fujita,who led this team in tackles the past two years?Theres no way Keyaron Fox will go on the field over Fujita if they do play a 3-4 for a play or what ever.And Fujita is faster than Fox.


Isnt Fujita hurt???

NaptownChief
08-09-2005, 05:38 PM
I don't think this has been pointed out yet, but we don't have a monster NT as needed in the 3-4.

Just saying...

Dalton would be adequate assuming he still has the fire he had last year after nearly half assing his way out of the league. But we also don't come close to having 2 good starting DT's or any depth worth a shit behind them. After blowing our perverbial foot off with high picks on Sims, Freeman, Downing and Siavii we don't have the DT's to run any D the way you would like but since LB'er is looking very good and very deep I would rather have four of them on the field than 4 of our D lineman.