Richardson and Coples were both in 4-3 schemes in college. Plus you can have Coples play in his natural position in the base defense. Snacks is the only guy I would question as a starter in the 4-3 as you got Wilkerson and Richardson in at DT. I would look to trade Snacks anyway - maybe they put that first round tender on him and the Browns look to acquire him. The worry about the Jets in a base 4-3 are the linebackers.
Funny we are talking about this now. I got lambasted by so called "experts" on this board for suggesting a switch to the 4-3 months ago. With regards to the bold, I agree that the LBs need to be addressed regardless if we stay in a 3-4 or switch to the 4-3; we need to get younger. Harris is a FA, Babin and Pace are likely cap casualties, and Coples is playing out of position. Moving to the 4-3 kills 2 birds with one stone. Guys like Richardson and Coples get to line-up in spots where they can be even more productive, 3 technique and DE respectively and there's one less LB spot to have to address. My 4-3 vision looks like this: -Mo traded for a 1st. Although the thought of Mo and Richardson in the middle of a 4-3 is a wet dream, the potential cost of both against the cap is too much. I don't want to make the same mistake the Detroit is likely going to make this upcoming off-season by letting Suh walk for nothing. -Sign Greg Hardy at a slight discount because of his legal troubles. -Resign Snacks and/or Ellis. Starting line-up: Coples…Richardson…Harrison/Ellis…Hardy
fuck that. why would we trade away our valuable 5t DE for a player with legal troubles? especially when we have acres of cap space at present? we can afford both Wilkerson and richardson, Idzik's whole thought process and actions were predicated on our ability to do just that, its his parting gift. we can structure wilkerson's deal to be compatible with higher richardson cap hit in 2017, it won't be hard. my 4-3 vision looks like this: Coples…Richardson…Harrison…Wilkerson
Snacks is actually the prototypical 1 technique DT you want next to your disruptive 3 technique. Generally the 1-technique is expected to take on double teams from the center and guard, to free up his other fellow defensive linemen for one on ones. The 4-3 1 technique DT does pretty much the same thing the 3-4 0 technique does except they line-up at different spots. Mo and Richardson inside in a 4-3 is great for passing downs but that would not be ideal on early run downs.
suh on the other hand wouldnt fit here. he plays richardsons position, dt, i don't imagine we'd give up on him there. what are we gonna make suh a nose tackle? that'd be a waste of the 10's of millions we'd owe him... why pay suh to play the interior when we have a younger cheaper pair more than able to get the job done? just re-up Mo, tender or extend snacks and exercise coples un-guranteed 5th year option.
Wilkerson is kind of the odd man out in a 4-3. He's good on the outside but better inside and inside in a 4-3 somebody has to play the 1 technique. He and Rich can switch off between 3 and 1. We'd have a ridiculously insane pair of inside rushers but I think we would be vunerable against the run. You have to stop the run first to put offense in must pass situation before you can unleash your pass rush. Hardy is a better outside edge rusher and that's what this team needs regardless of scheme. At the end of the day, it's not my money so if the Jets could fit Mo and Rich under the cap still get an edge rusher while not having to compromise other areas on the team, then I'm all for it.
i thought snacks would be the 1 tech? that refers to playing just left or right of center, the nose tackle position. then theres the 3tech between a guard and tackle, a 5tech off the tackle on the strong side and another weak side DE thats more of a pure pass rusher. that would be richardson,wilkerson and coples respectively. its basically the same responsibilities they'd had before, just modified a bit. why would wilk not fit in with that?
just a precursor to what we could see with a Quinn 4-3(this is a great site) http://www.fieldgulls.com/football-...defining-the-seahawks-defense-an-introduction don't claim to be a defensive expert but i think our staff can adjust to something like this and not be round pegs in square holes.
i Think all of our D-linemen are built for any kind of scheme because Rex mixed up schemes all the time. We've all seen us in 3-4,4-3,46, u name it.
Wilkerson can play the 1-technique. He's done so throughout the season creating single match-ups for Richardson - as you know the Jets didn't run just the 3-4. Wilkerson is very good at shedding blocks, taking on double teams - I think he could play this role just fine. The Jets could always use more defensive lineman if the match-up dictates the run. Replace Snacks with Douzable and try and grab another first rounder if you can. At the end of the day, you have options - keep the defensive line versatile - Snacks with the cap # won't be worth it. I would rather upgrade the linebacking corps to make up for any potential run issues. Snacks is the expendable one, not Wilkerson. You don't trade Wilkerson under any circumstance. He compliments Richardson far too well.
I just think you're under rating Wilkerson and over thinking the entire alignment. They're both very good players against the run and are used to double teams even though I think Wilkerson would play outside in the 4-3. The true problem area would be speed around the edge. I am however in the camp that doesn't believe Wilkerson is worth a $60, $70, $80 million dollar deal. Pencil him in at around 40-45 million for 4-5 years and front load it. Richardson seems like he'll probably end up being the better player so two or three years into Wilkersons deal he becomes more expendable even though we should try to keep him. If this league has turned into anything its a league that relies on a dominant front 4 above all else. If you don't need to blitz you beat the big time quarterbacks much easier which is why we should keep these two together whatever front we end up player.
These fronts rely a lot on Wagner and Chancellor to stop off tackle runs though. Not to say they can't be mixed in but we don't have any player on this defense with the closing speed or ability to get off tackle like they do.
Pryor and DD. They'll mean the most to Quinn's defense, hopefully Pryor gets his act together fast. I wanna see him do what we drafted him to do and thats knock some heads off. If anybody has great speed and pursuit on our defense it's those two.
No problem staying with a 3-4 hybrid. Just thinking of what the transition would look like year one, it doesn't look too bad either way because of the DL versatility. And regardless it's imperative they acquire a proven cover corner or two.
My plan is to sign literally anybody but that worthless piece of scum Suh. I will be IRATE if we get him.
I'm assuming by the bold you mean the 7 & 6 techniques which Mo will be fine at but that means Coples is our 9 technique which you refer to as the "weak side DE". In that scenario Coples is the guy that's out of place IMO as I don't see him as "...a pure [speed] pass rusher"; I see him more as the 7 & 6 technique "power end" which you have Mo playing. One could trade Coples and find a better rush end but his trade value is nothing compared to what you can get for Mo.
I suppose, but that seems like a LB issue more than one with the line. my point was more to highlight a couple of roles coples and the sons would fill if we went with a seattle stlye 4-3, and to point out that we don't need to do a damn thing to our D-line roster should we switch, least of all move on from Mo or as OP suggests sign Suh. The idea of pryor taking the role of his supposed favorite player Kam intrigues the hell out of me. either he or Allen can wind up benefitting hugely from that kind of D…but then I and others thought the same with rex's D so who knows… Davis will either play Mike or Will, I can see him excelling at either role in a 4-3 though I wonder if he's capable of being main signal caller of the D as it were should he play mlb. as is he might have to, he's the only clear mainstay on this linebacker corps… even Harris doesn't appear to have a long shelf life if he's brought back. we need an overhaul at linebacker no matter what the scheme come to think of it… I mean are we really gonna go to war with Reilly as our SAM?
There's not a position on the d-line that I believe Wilkerson can not play in and well at. That's not the issue. He's going to demand upwards of 10+ million a year I believe. That's a lot of money to pay a 1T. The reason why Wilkerson is the most likely to be traded is because of Rich, his potential contract demands and the quality of compensation that would be sent back in return for him in a trade. New GMs don't trade guys like Snacks and Coples, they trade guys like John Abraham, Darelle Revis, Keyshawn Johnson…etc. Guys that's going to yield them first round picks. Note the afore-mentioned former Jets were traded away w/o us being deep at their respective positions. With regards to the LB corps, 4-3 LBs are usually light and fast and depend on the d-line to keep them clean to make tackles. If the d-line is leaking you are not going to stop the leak with your LBs; you'll have to bring in safeties in the box and deal with the issues that can of worms brings.
