Your post does not explain why making the switch is not going to improve the D....so perhaps these threads you hate so much are actually worthwhile.
Right now we have bigger, more physical corners more suited to zone coverage. Vilma aside, our linebackers are not athletic enough to be in coverage all day. We do not have any pass rushing DEs for the 4-3. The whole point of the 4-3 is that you can get pressure through your front four on every play, freeing up your linebackers to cover and make plays on the ball carriers. The fact that the offense can read your defense is made moot by the fact that you can overpower the offensive line quickly and repeatedly. We do not have an athletic enough back seven to do it and do not have the required options for the defensive line. Enough now?
there is nothing to explain and i dont have to explain anything.... All you have to know is this 1. Eric Mangini runs a 3-4 defense. 2. Eric Mangini is the coach of the New York Jets. 3. The New York Jets will run a 3-4 defense because Eric Mangini is our coach. Any questions?
For a 3-4 to work properly, you have to have really good linebacker play. The advantage of the 3-4 is that you can attack more on defense since the offense doesn't know who's coming. I agree with the poster above that it lends itself more to scheming, and you certainly saw that after the bye week. The scheme requires linebackers that can really rush the passer and d-linemen that can plug the line. Fact is, even if we were in the 4-3 this season, we would have been, at best, a win or two better. The big problem with us this season wasn't the defense most of the time, it was the offense. That said, there are many pieces missing in our defense right now: 1. Stout NT in the middle. Maybe Pouha is the guy and maybe he'll improve, but this is clearly our biggest weakness. D-Rob should be playing end and we're really wasting him on the inside. He actually does pretty well matched up one-on-one, especially against guards. 2. Pass-rushing outside linebacker. I actually think Ellis should be doing this role so that we can be bigger and that we should rotate in Thomas. 3. A big inside linebacker. 3-4 linebackers have to be bigger at the point of attack and unless Vilma improves strength-wise, he's just going to get pounded on every play. A player like Harris, but a little faster is exactly the type that you need in this scheme. Actually, this list could go on and on. It's probably easier to identify the players that are good for this scheme... Rhodes, Revis, Harris, possibly Ellis and Robertson if they change positions. The rest of the defense could use an upgrade.
The future is unclear at the moment. first theres speculation the If ryan comes in he might go back to the 4-3 alignment that he is using in Oakland. But we seem to be employing with more regularity a stand up and mingle pressure defense. Personally I like the Pat's Defensive flucuations. The patriots switch back and forth and with good results. Question? Does anyone know wether any other team has used this type of peekaboo you cant see how we're lined up to protect defense before? Or is this a Magini design . Icant remember any other team lining up like that .
We had that DE with Abraham.....Ellis was fine in a 4-3 as a strong side DE who was solid against the run. Out LBs are suited for the 4-3...and I hope you're not saying that 4-3 LBs are supposed to be good in coverage. Look at DeWayne Robertson....he is a pretty big guy with good feet that you don't want an O-lineman 1 on 1 against. You put him in a 4-3 with a big D-tackle beside him and let him go to work. 4-3 LBs don't cover receivers, they will cover TEs or RBs.....no different than in a 3-4. I don't know how you're saying we need more athletic players to run a 4-3 than we do for a 3-4.....that's totally backwards.
That girl That girl in that guy's avatar that everyone wants to know the identity of is Jaime Koeppe YOUR WELCOME!!!!! :grin:
But we SHOULD switch to the 4-3 if it better matches our personnel. Vince Lombardi's main rule was plan your schemes to fit your personnel, not the reverse.
You're talking we if we had an elite 4-3 D. We had an aging, oft-injured pass rusher who could kick ass in the 3-4. We traded him, got a star center, and he got a big contract we all know he won't be worth because of injuries. After that...what? Thomas, ??, DRob, Ellis is a kickass 4-3 line? Mangini didn't exactly walk into the same situation Mike Tomlin did in Pittsburgh.
1. Vince Lombardi isn't god or the law. 2. He says you should plan your schemes to fit your personnel, not design your defense to fit your personnel.
I don't care what defense we run as long as we have a NT and a pass-rushing beast on the outside and linebackers that hit all day and were ranked in the top 15, I'm happy. But seriously, whatever defense we run we better have the proper personnel for that scheme or else we will suck.
A couple things... #1) Our corners, Barrett aside, are man-to-man cover corners. When Herm left, he took his Cover-2 with him, and Mangini's scheme calls for more man coverage, not zone, by the CBs. Revis is a fast, athletic corner who is fantastic in man coverage, and Dyson was brought in because he had experience playing in a man scheme. Dyson was to Mangini's scheme what Donnie Abraham was to Herm's Cover-2. Also, with all the safety blitzing we do, our corners have to be adept at man-to-man coverage, as it is very rare that a team will be in a zone and bring one, or both safeties on a blitz. #2) I just don't understand where you're coming from saying that in a 4-3, the linebackers are going to be in coverage all the time. A 4-3 is different than a Cover-2, or Cover-3 scheme. Just because they are often used together, doesn't mean that they are one in the same. Many teams can, and do, line up in a 4 man front, and continue to blitz LBs often, in addition to running many stunts with the four down linemen and playing man coverage on the outside. To insinuate that you need great cover backers to line up in a 4-3 is just wrong. A 4-3 can be very successful with a base defense of a 2, man under scheme, with the safeties playing the deep halves, the corners playing man coverage, one backer (which would usually be the perfectly capable Vilma) playing a middle hook-curl zone, or spying the QB or RB, and the other two backers either playing man on the first men out of the backfield, playing the flats, or blitzing. There are many variations on this, including the 1, man under, which would usually be used against a team with a very good TE, as to keep the SS in man on the TE most of the time. But again, if you think that all 3 LBs in every 4-3 scheme are going to be in coverage all day, you're more than a little off. Bottom line is that you can play either man, or zone, or a combination of the two on any play, out of any formation. Not all 3-4 teams are zone-blitzing teams (and most of the time, we are not, although we do have a decent amount of zone-blitzes in our scheme) and not all 4-3 teams are Cover-2, or Cover-3 teams. If you're going to run a 3-4, you need a good pass-rushing OLB, big DEs, and a good NT. After that, you should plan your coverage around what you have personnel wise. If you're going to run a 4-3, you should have good pass-rushing DEs, and an athletic, sideline to sideline type MLB. Again, after that, you should plan your coverage around what you have personnel wise.
