+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16

Thread: the 3-4

  1. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,631
    Quote Originally Posted by Ntegrase96 View Post
    Well yeah. I said, no real 3-4 ILB types except for Beason. Beason would still probably need to put on a few pounds, but overall he's a not much different in size than Bowman and Willis type guys with a similar skill set.

    Williams is your other good pass defender, but far, far too small.
    3 pounds or should he be bigger than willis?

  2. #12
    Veteran Ntegrase96's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    3,615
    Quote Originally Posted by DSP View Post
    3 pounds or should he be bigger than willis?
    Don't get me wrong. He's not far off from Bowman/Willis. He'd be about the same as Willis with 3 extra ounds, yeah.

    But Willis has a much bigger edge in quickness. Beason is a slow dude and would probably need a bit more strength to take on and shed guards mauling upfield that slip past the 0 and 5s.

    It's just a recomendation based on my opinion by watching him, though.

  3. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by DSP View Post
    Now im not suggesting this should be done or is even possible any time soon.

    Im just wondering if you had to switch the D to a 3-4 within the next 2-3 years how would you do it?

    What players now could be effective in it? Who would have to leave? What prospects or trades would you target?
    3-4 is an anti run defense. not good for pass protection
    Formerly Brandon Jacobs

  4. #14
    The 3-4 puts a premium on linebackers. We have one who is worth anything.

  5. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by giant-4-life View Post
    3-4 is an anti run defense. not good for pass protection
    I don't agree. With the right 4 LBs, where some are effective blitzers, you can put as much pressure on the QB (ala Lawrence Taylor), and you can have 1 or 2 who are effective covering a TE or back. With an anti-run defense they put more men in the box. I think a 4-3 is better against the run than the 3-4.

  6. #16
    All-Pro jomo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    20,355
    Quote Originally Posted by zimonami View Post
    I can't help but think of LT, Carson, Reasons and Banks. One of the greatest LB corps of all time. It's not entirely fair to compare the guys we have now... but, they do come up woefully short. Regardless, we had a below average group before Beason came around, and only 3 playing at a time. To go to a 3-4 with this crew isn't a good idea. We have more depth on the DL, so we need to stay with a 4-3. Besides, I like heavier LB's inside in the 3-4, to fill the middle gaps. Beason @ 235, to me, fits more at OLB in the 3-4. Herzlich is the only heavier LB. Actually, Herzlich might do better in a 3-4. You'd have to keep Beason inside, too.
    I always liked the 3-4 but we can't really look at our personnel and figure out who would be adequate in a new scheme. We need dominant players whatever the scheme and we just don't have them at LB right now. An example is Herzlich. Maybe he would be somewhat more productive in a 3-4 but you can't compare him to Reasons or HOF Harry Carson. I think Beason would be our 3rd ILB on that '86 team and Jaquan Williams would be pretty much equal to Andy Headen.

    I think the key to any scheme is talent where we are thin at LB. I'm not sure that any of our guys go from good to great in a change of scheme.
    Our DL is less complicated but we lack a sure bet at NT which is so critical in the 3-4.

    To get from 4-3 to a 3-4 and be really good when we arrive would probably take 3-4 years of major overhaul.

    Go Blue!!
    No one remembers who came in second.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts