Allstarjim Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 The NFL is changing, it's a lot more pass happy. The 4-3 defense in theory helps you stop the run... which yes, is still a priority to win. But what do you guys think about switching to 3-4. I kind of wish we could do it. Or, even more out of the box, having a situational defense where you might switch to a 3-4 in certain situations? I believe this is what the Packers do, although I believe most of the time they are 3-4. Anyhow, 3 of the final 4 teams play a 3-4 defense. Some big time QB's seem to struggle against a 3-4 more than a 4-3, say Peyton Manning for example. Thoughts about this? What would a Giants 3-4 defensive alignment look like if we only used the personnel currently on the roster? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hlb37 Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 Thoughts about this? What would a Giants 3-4 defensive alignment look like if we only used the personnel currently on the roster? not pretty. We would probably have to hope Lindval Joseph could play Nose, then have Tuck at one end, Cofield at the other end and Kiwinuka ( assuming he is on the roster ) alternating between OLB and down lineman depending on down and distance. It would be a poor use of our roster as it would cut reps for both Osi and Tuck and put a heavier reliance on our linebackers ( real weakness of D ) Remember we played a lot of base 4 - 2 - 5 this year to mask our weakness at LB with Grant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allstarjim Posted January 19, 2011 Author Share Posted January 19, 2011 not pretty. We would probably have to hope Lindval Joseph could play Nose, then have Tuck at one end, Cofield at the other end and Kiwinuka ( assuming he is on the roster ) alternating between OLB and down lineman depending on down and distance. It would be a poor use of our roster as it would cut reps for both Osi and Tuck and put a heavier reliance on our linebackers ( real weakness of D ) Remember we played a lot of base 4 - 2 - 5 this year to mask our weakness at LB with Grant. Agreed. I think we would have to put Kiwi at one OLB spot, Boley at the other, with Bulluck and Goff in the middle. Or, Sintim and Kiwi on the outside, Boley and Goff in the middle... now that is a little crazy! We'd have to keep Osi at DE, though. Really, it's interesting to imagine how it would work with the guys we have... which it really wouldn't work well because our linebackers aren't good enough as you said. But who knows who will be on the roster in 8 months? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. P Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 putting our current team in a 3-4 would be disastrous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allstarjim Posted January 19, 2011 Author Share Posted January 19, 2011 Putting aside our personnel, conceptually, how do you guys feel about a switch? Consider the playoff teams that employ it, and it's strengths in giving opposing QB's possibly a more unpredictable look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TaylorBanksCarsonVanPelt Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 Putting aside our personnel, conceptually, how do you guys feel about a switch? Consider the playoff teams that employ it, and it's strengths in giving opposing QB's possibly a more unpredictable look. I like it...but you need a guy willing to absorb constant double and triple teams at nose tackle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandolphScott Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 The core of a 3-4 defense is the linebackers. We don't have any in 4-3 defense....imagine how bad we'd be in a 3-4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hlb37 Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 ! We'd have to keep Osi at DE, though. Really, it's interesting to imagine how it would work with the guys we have... which it really wouldn't work well because our linebackers aren't good enough as you said. But who knows who will be on the roster in 8 months? Yea that is why I think it would cost Osi and Tuck reps. No way Osi can line up on 1st down on the defensive right side in a 3-4. They would run right at him. He would have to take some of Tucks snaps and come in situationally the rest of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TaylorBanksCarsonVanPelt Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 H is right....the only way Osi would be able to tackle on first down is by grabbing the guys ankles as that train rolls over him... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fringe Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 Putting aside our personnel, conceptually, how do you guys feel about a switch? Consider the playoff teams that employ it, and it's strengths in giving opposing QB's possibly a more unpredictable look. i think you could run the amoeba defense in a 4-3 as well. it's all about movement before the snap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allstarjim Posted January 19, 2011 Author Share Posted January 19, 2011 i think you could run the amoeba defense in a 4-3 as well. it's all about movement before the snap. GREAT point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NightFire Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 Well the Giants on the SB against the best team ever using a 4-3 so I think it's fine. As posted obviously the Giants could never go 3-4 but any defensive scheme is great if executed properly. Also I don't believe you can win a SB without a run game so I don't buy the hype about a passing league. The Saints finally won with a good run game and the Colts struggled with no run game; same with Packers. If anything I think stopping the run and pressuring the QB is far more important. I think 4-3 can be better then 3-4 but you need at least some decent talent in the 3 part. The Giants have been loading up far too much on the line. You can have too many pass rushers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treehugger Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 I actually think the 4-2-5 has a lot of potential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nas Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 Putting aside our personnel, conceptually, how do you guys feel about a switch? Consider the playoff teams that employ it, and it's strengths in giving opposing QB's possibly a more unpredictable look. Given our current personnel, I'd say it's impossible. The switch would take place only during a rebuilding phase. However I'm in favor of having 3-4 packages out there that would employ the 3-4 while our identity would remain as 4-3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allstarjim Posted January 19, 2011 Author Share Posted January 19, 2011 Well the Giants on the SB against the best team ever using a 4-3 so I think it's fine. As posted obviously the Giants could never go 3-4 but any defensive scheme is great if executed properly. Also I don't believe you can win a SB without a run game so I don't buy the hype about a passing league. The Saints finally won with a good run game and the Colts struggled with no run game; same with Packers. If anything I think stopping the run and pressuring the QB is far more important. I think 4-3 can be better then 3-4 but you need at least some decent talent in the 3 part. The Giants have been loading up far too much on the line. You can have too many pass rushers. QBs from the 2000 - present have passed for over 4000 yards in a single season 46 times. Compare that to 1990-1999... 22 times. In the 80's, 14 times. LINK This is what I meant by we are in a pass-heavy league. You will get no argument from me that you need to be able to run the ball effectively in the NFL to be a consistent winner, though. But the Steelers defend the run and the pass well in their 3-4 defense (for example)... they especially defend the run extremely well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrazedDogs Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 I think you guys are way underestimating how frequently the Giants have used 3-4 concepts over the last several years. Switch to 3-4? Like they aren't running it half the time anyway? First off, watch Osi before the snap... dude is usually in a 3 pt stance, but he's set WIDE, like a 3-4 OLB. And he gets dropped in coverage about as often as a 3-4 OLB too. Who's going to play nose tackle? Barry Cofield ALREADY plays nose tackle, and Linval Joseph looks like a fit for the position too. Chris Canty and Justin Tuck are prototype 3-4 DEs (Tuck is a prototype for a whole lot of shit...except dropping in coverage). And tell me Kiwanuka wasn't born to play OLB in a 3-4. A lot of the pieces are there. Its not that far fetched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NightFire Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 QBs from the 2000 - present have passed for over 4000 yards in a single season 46 times. Compare that to 1990-1999... 22 times. In the 80's, 14 times. LINK This is what I meant by we are in a pass-heavy league. You will get no argument from me that you need to be able to run the ball effectively in the NFL to be a consistent winner, though. But the Steelers defend the run and the pass well in their 3-4 defense (for example)... they especially defend the run extremely well. I will admit that there is better stats but I think that's more because of how the league's rules have changed and running the score on terrible teams. Interestingly, and this is a little bit of cherry picking, in 2010 of the 5 QBs only 2 teams made the playoffs and were one and done. I think it's much more imperative to stop the run then to stop the pass. A great running team will kill you more than a passing team in my opinion and yes having the Steelers LBs would be impressive. I am sure 3-4 would be great also if the Giants got some more D personnel and schemed it. IMHO I think any D scheme is fine if you have the proper players and game plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempest Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Why switch from a 4-3 to a 3-4 when our front four are currently not the problem with our 4-3? Just don't see the defense getting better by switching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TaylorBanksCarsonVanPelt Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 We ran a 3-4 until LT's retirement and Strahans/Keith Hamiltons/and insert any Strahan assisted end (re: Chad Bratzke) became the strength of the defense. We stopped the run back during the Mendenhall days....then the Crunch Bunch/Big Blue Wrecking Crew through LT and friends switched to a 3-4....then the Strahan era went back to a 4-3. Both can be effective dependent upon the personnel and the coaches schemes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now