PDA

View Full Version : Chiefs What defense do you prefer/enjoy watching more: 43 or 34?


Frankie
01-29-2009, 02:48 PM
There seems to be a near total conviction here that Pioli will switch us to 34. I think it's at best a 50/50 possibility. I want to know which D you prefer and WHY.

The "WHY" could be based on your logic or simply one you enjoy watching more.

OnTheWarpath58
01-29-2009, 02:49 PM
The one that allows the fewest points.

/lock it up.

Demonpenz
01-29-2009, 02:50 PM
I like the 3-4 Dawoo lanus mother fucker!

DaKCMan AP
01-29-2009, 02:51 PM
The one that allows the fewest points.

/lock it up.

This.

J Diddy
01-29-2009, 02:52 PM
The one that allows the fewest points.

/lock it up.


46

missinDThomas
01-29-2009, 03:21 PM
3-4 with right people, because it can become a 40 front if you have a big a$$ LB for different looks.

Tank would need shots of HGH
Dorsey and Tamba be on crank all game
and BUY a whole new LB core

missinDThomas
01-29-2009, 03:23 PM
BTW I came up with a good name for Dorsey during the draft.

Dorsey aka Catfish

it just fits man.

Tamba and Catfish would be the ends, as long as they had chemicals to speed them up.

RedThat
01-29-2009, 03:36 PM
I prefer 3-4. It's very effective if you have the right people for it. But same can be said with any formation?

I just like the design better. It emphasizes more on the linebackers to make plays while your downlineman job is to do the dirty work by controling gaps, taking up blockers and eating away at space.

You got more speed in that scheme imo. The utilization of speed is far greater in a 3-4 then it is in a 4-3. because you have to rush linebackers from both end positions rather then your DE's. And just as a preference, I'd rather take a linebackers speed over a DEs speed any day of the week.

It's not only the speed, but also the size coming from the downlineman. It nice blend of both speed, and size. I also think in most 3-4 in todays NFL focus a lot more on blitzing whereas 4-3 you have a lot of zone. I like an attacking and aggressive defense rather then a zone and conservative defense.

suds79
01-29-2009, 03:43 PM
I prefer 3-4. It's very effective if you have the right people for it. But same can be said with any formation?

I just like the design better. It emphasizes more on the linebackers to make plays while your downlineman job is to do the dirty work by controling gaps, taking up blockers and eating away at space.

You got more speed in that scheme imo. The utilization of speed is far greater in a 3-4 then it is in a 4-3. because you have to rush linebackers from both end positions rather then your DE's. And just as a preference, I'd rather take a linebackers speed over a DEs speed any day of the week.

It's not only the speed, but also the size coming from the downlineman. It nice blend of both speed, and size. I also think in most 3-4 in todays NFL focus a lot more on blitzing whereas 4-3 you have a lot of zone. I like an attacking and aggressive defense rather then a zone and conservative defense.

Can I just say ditto?... too late. Good post

Mr. Laz
01-29-2009, 04:43 PM
imo you need a better defensive coordinator for a successful 3-4

you gotta have some that knows how to teach and when to blitz and more of a feel for the game.

ie the opposite of goonther

MOhillbilly
01-29-2009, 04:45 PM
46

good luck playing that in this era.

Adept Havelock
01-29-2009, 04:50 PM
I prefer the 4-3. I can't really give a rational reason for it, I just enjoy watching it more.

penguinz
01-29-2009, 04:51 PM
I prefer a 2-2-7

kstater
01-29-2009, 04:56 PM
The one that leads to a championship.

buddha
01-29-2009, 04:59 PM
Who gives a flippin crap about what formation they line up in? It's not the x's and o's, it's the Jims and the Joes...a very old saying that is 100% true.

Kansas City has had guys on their defense over the past half dozen years who wouldn't start in NFL Europe...in fact, that's where a bunch of them came from.

You need elite level talent on an NFL defense and the Chiefs are the idiots who employed William Bartee for how many years?

Buzzsaw
01-29-2009, 05:06 PM
The one that leads to a championship.

Hope you voted for the 3-4 then :D

2001 Baltimore
2002 New England
2003 Tampa Bay
2004 New England
2005 New England
2006 Pittsburgh
2007 Indianapolis
2008 NY Giants
2009 Pittsburgh or Arizona (both use 3-4 base)

Less than a 3rd of the teams in the league run a 3-4, but the teams that do have accounted for 6 of the past 9 Superbowl Championships.

CoMoChief
01-29-2009, 05:07 PM
4-4 Safety plays centerfield. We jam WR's like no ones business

missinDThomas
01-29-2009, 05:19 PM
4-4 isn't good for NFL. QBs can exploit it way too easy. 4-4 is more of a HS or college D. It requires an Ed Reed for the safety and super studs at LB to be ran properly.

Reaper16
01-29-2009, 05:21 PM
Kansas City has had guys on their defense over the past half dozen years who wouldn't start in NFL Europe...in fact, that's where a bunch of them came from.

To be fair, Rich Scanlon destroyed NFL Europe. They just couldn't deal with his level of athleticism.

Fruit Ninja
01-29-2009, 05:42 PM
I dont care what formation is used. I just want one thats effective. lol

Mecca
01-29-2009, 05:47 PM
I don't give a shit aslong as it's good.

OctoberFart
01-30-2009, 01:56 PM
Hope you voted for the 3-4 then :D

2001 Baltimore
2002 New England
2003 Tampa Bay
2004 New England
2005 New England
2006 Pittsburgh
2007 Indianapolis
2008 NY Giants
2009 Pittsburgh or Arizona (both use 3-4 base)

Less than a 3rd of the teams in the league run a 3-4, but the teams that do have accounted for 6 of the past 9 Superbowl Championships.


01 Balt and 02 NE ran 4-3's. NE made the swap after that year.