Quote:
Originally Posted by Amnorix
What about last year's defense suggests that sticking to the 4-3 is a good idea. Far as I can tell, based on your current personnel, you suck at 4-3.
So why not switch to 3-4. For a while you'll no doubt suck at both as you transition, but in 2-3 years, which is the real timeline you're looking at anyway, you'll finally get good at something, presumably.
Also, I don't understand why Dorsey can't hope to succeed in the 3-4. Maybe he won't be ideal, but he should work in some form or fashion.
|
For one, our talent at 4-3 isn't wholly non-existent.
We ran a Cover 2 because Herm was hopelessly tied to it. A Cover 2 without a pass rush is basically a prevent defense.
We have a top 5 pick who is a Warren Sapp-like one gap penetrator, a LDE who put up 8 sacks in each of his first two years, and a SLB who, for all of his inconsistency, shows flashes of brilliance.
This team has the talent to be a good 4-3 attacking defense. Yes, we need upgrades at 2/3 LB spots and we need a right end. In the 3-4, we need upgrades everywhere.
And I've still yet to see a convincing argument that the 3-4 is an inherently better scheme than a 4-3.
But the main reason goes back to Dorsey.
If we had drafted Earl Campbell, how would people feel about splitting him out like the Rams did Marshall Faulk? A 3-4 is a complete waste of his abilities. He's not a space eater, he's a pocket collapser. He's not as tall as a guy like Richard Seymour, he's not suited to play a 3-4 end.