Quote:
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501
Well, CrazyHorse, for several reasons. New regime that has experience building a 3-4 defense. In terms of timing, it's because right now this defense needs massive changes even if they decided to run a 4-3. The players we have are mostly not even good enough to run a 4-3. So why not make the change now?
But more importantly, the reason teams like to run 3-4s is because it's easier to build. The challenge is that most teams aren't willing to go through the pain of overhauling their defense. The reason it's easier to build is most NFL teams believe that DE is the toughest position on a team to build. These days, you need not 1, not 2, but THREE DEs to be stout on defense. And when I say good DEs, you need to find not only a good pass rusher (there are plenty of them in this league), but a DE that is also big enough to stop the run and occasionally drop back into coverage. There are only a handful in the league that can do that. And so, most 4-3 Defenses force a trade-off. When they have their pass rusher in there, they have to settle for the fact that that DE will get swallowed up against the run.
What makes the 3-4 defense much easier is that you basically build around 3 defensive tackles. Your nose tackle is critical to the importance and the two Ends next to them are important, but easy to find--these are usually DTs converted into Ends. These are the guys that take on all the blockers so the LBs and safeties don't have to. That makes it much easier for the 3-4 OLB to rush the passer. From a LB standpoint, because there are four of them, they can cover much more ground. That means that you don't necessarily need a sideline-to-sideline multi-dimensional Middle LB. You can have one coverage specialist and one run-stuffer. That's why a guy like Curry's versatility would be wasted. The 3-4 OLB is slightly different. It's much easier to find because there are tons of good pass rushers in college who don't get picked up or drafted because they are undersized to play traditional DE. But in the 3-4, these guys are held at a premium. They are primarily pass rushers, but they also have to be quick enough to take on some LB responsibilities. The first part is easier because you have a D-line that is opening up lanes for you, the second part is less critical but again, because the D-line is taking on blockers, the OLB can get to the ball carrier unblocked.
That's a long way of saying that a 3-4 defense is easier to build because you need role players than multi-dimensional players. Kendrell Bell is a perfect example. In a 3-4, he was asked to be a semi-moronic ILB whose job was to bulldoze and attack. In a 4-3, he was asked to not only do that, but also to drop into coverage, read and react, and play intelligent defense--he was miserable at all those things. But in a 3-4, he was a complete stud.
|
I hear what you're saying to an extent, and agree with you.
However, hiring a 43/34 coaching staff would say that we could go either way. It's hardly what I would call a commitment to the 34 defense. Or a staff that knows only 34 defense building.
Also, I'm not so sure I agree with your assessment on the DT/DE availability. It seems that the good pass rushers are just that. Good pass rushers. Not DEs that drop into coverage. I cant think of one 43 rush end that is good in coverage. The teams that are good at rushing the passer generally have good tackles. There are less good DTs in this league than there are good DEs. I feel like if you can find good tackles then you will have good DEs. Just like if you have good tackles, you'll have good LBs.
Yet we dont really talk much about replacing our tackles. I feel like they may be good tackles given time to develop. I feel like McBride might be a decent end. Problem is, none of them have been given enough time to see what we have. D line almost always takes 2-3 years to develop.
In the end, if everyone else switches to a 34, then it will be tough finding players to build a 34. If everyone switches to a 34, maybe it's time to consider looking for players to fit a 43. There will be more of them available. We have the coaches for either scheme.
For the record, I'm not against a 34 defense. Just looking at both sides of the coin.
I just got to thinking this morning that, in the past, the good coaches were those that could adjust the scheme to the talent. Not the other way around. My biggest concern is not the defense we run, buit the coaches we have running it.