Quote:
Originally Posted by Detoxing
Check it out Chris Meck: In a 43...playing in Nickel....you still have the same D-line you'd have while playing "base" 43. That's NOT the case in a 34.
That's the whole point. You are utilizing guys to play all 3 downs instead of "run down guys" (your 5-techs) and "pass down guys". I understand that everyone spends more time in passing formations than not. Clearly. That's the whole reason for the argument to switch to a 43.
What happens when a 34 base defense switches to nickel? The NT comes out, right? And now you're pass rushing with two larger OLB/DE types, and two guys who are generally lane cloggers. And your LB's, what are they in a base 34? Bigger guys right? So now you have LB's in coverage who aren't generally great in coverage. Your Reggie Ragland types.
Just because you can run multiple fronts does not mean you're putting the BEST guys out there to run said fronts.
Scheme dictates personnel. In a base 43 we rid ourselves of a NT. We rid ourselves of guys that are specifically run stuffers. You roll with your "base" dline even on passing downs, whether it's base or nickel. You get your $$$ out of said D-line instead of having guys come off the field on 3rd down.
You also have LB's who can run now, which is more optimum for Today's NFL. Who do you want in coverage, DoD or Tamba Hali?
Scheme dictates personnel. Personnel will dictate matchups, right?
Switching to a 43 means we no longer have to invest in 5-techs and NT's (big body guys with limited rush ability).
Your theory on today's NFL defense is NOT wrong. But the fundamental, core part of Today's NFL defense requires a switch to the 43 so that you can maximize your theory with players who are best able to carry it out.
Wanna run a 43 with 34 personnel? Sure. But it's not OPTIMAL. They are NOT interchangeable, because the personnel required to run them is different.
We're lucky to have a guy like Chris Jones or Allen Bailey who can in fact do both. Which makes a scheme switch even easier for a team like the Chiefs.
|
I understand. I'm really not even arguing with you- I'm not anti-4-3. Our base defense is more a 4-2-5 than anything, just like everyone else in the league. I just view it as a different personnel grouping, one of many, and one that will be used less than others. But we're in agreement about the type of interior lineman that we should be looking at in the draft and FA. So, yes, the four man line should be the main idea that we should be building towards with all four being pass rush threats.
to other posters-no, I don't want to keep both fatties and passrushers. I want to move away from the fatties for the most part and draft and sign active pass rush players to play inside, at defensive tackle positions. A nickel set is more the base defense than anything else these days, but yes, a four man line helps cover for smaller, faster linebackers. I also think that edge rushers should no longer be considered the premium defensive position, and interior rushers instead should be. An Aaron Donald has a bigger impact on the game than a Dee Ford or a Justin Houston. Good players, nice to have, but not the same.