Why the 3-4 over the 4-3?

[CrazyHorse]

Given that we have been drafting personnel for the 4-3 for the rebuild over the last few years, what's the benefit of going to a 3-4 defense now?

I have heard for years how a good coach doesn't try to take players and make them fit his scheme, but takes his scheme and makes it fit the players. That a good coach can take advantage of the talent he has.

I realize some on here may say we have no talent, but the fact is we dont know what we have yet. We drafted Dorsey last year and I feel he was misused. Plus it was his 1st season. I feel guys like Tank Tyler and Turk McBride were showing improvement in thier second season. We have an opportunity to draft the best player over all in Curry, yet people dont want to because they feel he wont fit the scheme. So instead we should reach for a lesser talent to fit a defense we are not equipped to run. Or does the caoching staff feel we are better equipped right now to run a 3-4?

In hiring the coaching staff, didn't we hire a 4-3 coordinator and a 3-4 coordinator? Forcing the 3-4 issue seems foolish to me. I understand it's popular right now. But in the 3 to 4 years it will take to build it, most teams will be running it.

It's not like a 4-3 defense cant win games.

[kcxiv]

None of that matters anymore with the new regime in town. They are going to craft it the way they want too. It doesnt matter if we been building a certain way. That way got us 6 wins in 2 years and 1 play off win in the last 20 years.

I dont care what system they run. They will try to do whats best for this team. IF they want to go 3-4 then fine, if they want to stay 4-3 then fine.

Its time to let them do their thing.

[CrazyHorse]

Originally Posted by kcxiv

None of that matters anymore with the new regime in town. They are going to craft it the way they want too. It doesnt matter if we been building a certain way. That way got us 6 wins in 2 years and 1 play off win in the last 20 years.

I dont care what system they run. They will try to do whats best for this team. IF they want to go 3-4 then fine, if they want to stay 4-3 then fine.

Its time to let them do their thing.

1st thing I feel I should say, we haven't run the same defense for the last 20 years.

Doing the best thing for this team is to add the best players.

My point is, they hired a coaching staff to run either one. Then decide to run the defense that we are not equipped to run. Why show the flexability of hiring 4-3 coaches then scrap your 4-3 personnel?

Also, why bring in guys like Zack Thomas? He's a 4-3 guy. I know he's a leadership influence. But so is Vrabel. If we are going to a 3-4 then Thomas is no more than a cheerleader.

[SenselessChiefsFan]

Originally Posted by CrazyHorse

Given that we have been drafting personnel for the 4-3 for the rebuild over the last few years, what's the benefit of going to a 3-4 defense now?

I have heard for years how a good coach doesn't try to take players and make them fit his scheme, but takes his scheme and makes it fit the players. That a good coach can take advantage of the talent he has.

I realize some on here may say we have no talent, but the fact is we dont know what we have yet. We drafted Dorsey last year and I feel he was misused. Plus it was his 1st season. I feel guys like Tank Tyler and Turk McBride were showing improvement in thier second season. We have an opportunity to draft the best player over all in Curry, yet people dont want to because they feel he wont fit the scheme. So instead we should reach for a lesser talent to fit a defense we are not equipped to run. Or does the caoching staff feel we are better equipped right now to run a 3-4?

In hiring the coaching staff, didn't we hire a 4-3 coordinator and a 3-4 coordinator? Forcing the 3-4 issue seems foolish to me. I understand it's popular right now. But in the 3 to 4 years it will take to build it, most teams will be running it.

It's not like a 4-3 defense cant win games.

For what it's worth, Herm was shifting to a 3-4 as well this year if he had stayed and Dorsey was going to play nose.

The fact that fans on a message board don't see how our talent fits doesn't mean that true NFL coaches don't.

Remember, it also isn't just about this year, it is about building a long term successful team. And, as nearly every GM will tell you, finding good linebackers is easier than finding good defensive lineman.

Add in the change ups in the rush schemes, and coverages, and the 3-4 has a great deal to offer.

[CrazyHorse]

Originally Posted by SensibleChiefsfan

For what it's worth, Herm was shifting to a 3-4 as well this year if he had stayed and Dorsey was going to play nose.

The fact that fans on a message board don't see how our talent fits doesn't mean that true NFL coaches don't.

Remember, it also isn't just about this year, it is about building a long term successful team. And, as nearly every GM will tell you, finding good linebackers is easier than finding good defensive lineman.

Add in the change ups in the rush schemes, and coverages, and the 3-4 has a great deal to offer.

I didn't know Edwards was switching to a 3-4.

As for finding LBs being easier. Many here say that your OLBs have to be DEs.

With may teams making te switch to the 3-4 nowadays, it seems that 4-3 DEs may become easier to find. Just a thought.

[SenselessChiefsFan]

Originally Posted by CrazyHorse

I didn't know Edwards was switching to a 3-4.

As for finding LBs being easier. Many here say that your OLBs have to be DEs.

With may teams making te switch to the 3-4 nowadays, it seems that 4-3 DEs may become easier to find. Just a thought.

I didn't know Edwards was switching to a 3-4 until yesteday. Soren Petro had a guest on that was talking about how Edwards was going to switch to the 3-4 too and Dorsey would be playing nose.

I think that talent to play any scheme is a challenge to find. The key is Pioli and Haley finding the guys to play whatever they need to.

I think the 3-4 actually fits the players the Chiefs have a little better than most think. I was glad that Herm agreed. I was glad that Herm left, but I still had respect for him and knew that he knows a lot more than I do.

And, when I look at the talent on the Chiefs team, especially the way Dorsey held up last year playing on the nose of the center so many times.... I just thought that the 3-4 made too much sense.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by SensibleChiefsfan

The fact that fans on a message board don't see how our talent fits doesn't mean that true NFL coaches don't.

This.

[LTL]

Originally Posted by CrazyHorse

1st thing I feel I should say, we haven't run the same defense for the last 20 years.

Doing the best thing for this team is to add the best players.

My point is, they hired a coaching staff to run either one. Then decide to run the defense that we are not equipped to run. Why show the flexability of hiring 4-3 coaches then scrap your 4-3 personnel?

Also, why bring in guys like Zack Thomas? He's a 4-3 guy. I know he's a leadership influence. But so is Vrabel. If we are going to a 3-4 then Thomas is no more than a cheerleader.

Majority of Thomas experience is in the 4-3, but he played in the 3-4 last year and did quite well. Good solid player which we can use no matter the scheme.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by LTL

Majority of Thomas experience is in the 4-3, but he played in the 3-4 last year and did quite well. Good solid player which we can use no matter the scheme.

He's said publicly he didn't like playing in Dallas' 3-4, though.

However, it is true that Dallas' 3-4 isn't the same as New England's. There's a pretty detailed explanation around here somewhere - it was posted by TheGuardian.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by CrazyHorse

Given that we have been drafting personnel for the 4-3 for the rebuild over the last few years, what's the benefit of going to a 3-4 defense now?

I have heard for years how a good coach doesn't try to take players and make them fit his scheme, but takes his scheme and makes it fit the players. That a good coach can take advantage of the talent he has.

I realize some on here may say we have no talent, but the fact is we dont know what we have yet. We drafted Dorsey last year and I feel he was misused. Plus it was his 1st season. I feel guys like Tank Tyler and Turk McBride were showing improvement in thier second season. We have an opportunity to draft the best player over all in Curry, yet people dont want to because they feel he wont fit the scheme. So instead we should reach for a lesser talent to fit a defense we are not equipped to run. Or does the caoching staff feel we are better equipped right now to run a 3-4?

In hiring the coaching staff, didn't we hire a 4-3 coordinator and a 3-4 coordinator? Forcing the 3-4 issue seems foolish to me. I understand it's popular right now. But in the 3 to 4 years it will take to build it, most teams will be running it.

It's not like a 4-3 defense cant win games.

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.

[CrazyHorse]

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.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by CrazyHorse

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.

Sorry, to clarify on the rush end, you're absolutely right--the pass coverage thing is more a luxury than anything. Jason Taylor and Julius Peppers are two guys who do it well, but you're absolutely right, it's not even close to a top priority for a DE.

As for the 3-4, I still can't help but think that our current coaching staff is just a stopgap because the process started so late. I have a hard time believing that this time next year, Pendergast is still the coordinator. I hope I'm right on that, because I think Pendergast would be an outstanding assistant, but doesn't inspire a lot of confidence for me.

To your last point, you're right about switching to a 3-4. But the defense has been around forever and yet only a quarter of the teams run it. Why? I think you point out a lot of reasons why teams don't run it--it requires a massive commitment to build it. You're absolutely right that getting good Ends will be a transition and will probably create growing pains as well as put a few guys out of place. The defense is not going to be good in 2009. It's probably not going to be that good in 2010. But it looks good if you want to build beyond that. It sucks as Chiefs fans that we have to go through another 2 years of this shit, but I think we'll be real happy in the long-run. Y'see, most teams have a 2-3 year orientation and coaches know this. GMs don't want to put up with bitching fans who hate watching their transitioning defense struggle. Coaches don't want to run a 3-4 because they don't want to get fired because the defense struggles the first two seasons.

[TheGuardian]

We are not moving to a true 3-4. I've only posted this a thousand times now. What part about that do some of you not get?

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by TheGuardian

We are not moving to a true 3-4. I've only posted this a thousand times now. What part about that do some of you not get?

Surely you don't believe that we're going to be running this hybrid 4-3/3-4 forever. In 2-3 years, I guarantee this team is a true 3-4.

[CrazyHorse]

Originally Posted by TheGuardian

We are not moving to a true 3-4. I've only posted this a thousand times now. What part about that do some of you not get?

But you only have 103 posts.

This is the 1st I've seen it. Now that I have........

my question is the same.