Reason(s) behind the switch to a 4-3?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from AcrossDaPond. Show AcrossDaPond's posts

    Reason(s) behind the switch to a 4-3?

    While we will still use multiple fronts more than most teams it does seem like were going to be playing more 4-3 than 3-4.  The big question is why the change, when your roster is set up for a 3-4?  This only usually happens when a new HC or DC comes in and set's up "their" system.  

    .

    My thoughts center around the personell on the market and the "value" that can be had.  BB chose the 3-4 initially b/c only a couple of teams played it. The guys that could really flurish in this system didn't have a lot of competition for their skills with most of the teams playing the tampa-2 (out of style now) in a straight 4-3.  Edge rushers and penetrating DL types cost a lot of money. Throw in the fact that b/c not a lot of teams played the 3-4 it confused a lot of teams (payton first and foremost) and BB had struck D-Scheme Gold, a combo of confusion and Value.  

    .

    Now 1/2 the teams in the league are switching to the 3-4, every QB has to know how to play against it and the run stuffing DE and nose tackles are getting paid in a way they weren't before.  The positional value has shifted and everyone is aware of how to beat the 3-4.  

    .

    Time for BB to stay ahead of the curve and get the guys he couldn't afford before.  I have been waiting for this to happen for a while and it looks like it has.  I wonder if we are going to pick up an outside rusher before this offseason is over....
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Reason(s) behind the switch to a 4-3?

    I kind of agree on the fact that everyone is going to it and fighting to get the same players (driving up the prices and depleting the pool of choices), but if you need a pass rusher you have to pay for him. It makes no difference if the rusher is a 34 or 43 guy, they don't grow on trees and they cost a huge amount. I personally think we have been making a slow transition to the 43 for the past year. I find it strange that Belichick was trying to get Peppers last year (he's a 43 end) and now they bring in 43 lineman? They don't draft or sign any 34 outside linebackers? Somthing has got to change, because our defense is not good enough.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from AcrossDaPond. Show AcrossDaPond's posts

    Re: Reason(s) behind the switch to a 4-3?

    In Response to Re: Reason(s) behind the switch to a 4-3?:
    I kind of agree on the fact that everyone is going to it and fighting to get the same players (driving up the prices and depleting the pool of choices), but if you need a pass rusher you have to pay for him. It makes no difference if the rusher is a 34 or 43 guy, they don't grow on trees and they cost a huge amount. I personally think we have been making a slow transition to the 43 for the past year. I find it strange that Belichick was trying to get Peppers last year (he's a 43 end) and now they bring in 43 lineman? They don't draft or sign any 34 outside linebackers? Somthing has got to change, because our defense is not good enough.
    Posted by mthurl

    I agree with the peppers statement as well.  If we got him I think we would have made the change last yr...  

    Can't fault BB for balking at the price tag thou.  Wasn't that a record deal when the bears made it?

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from agill1970. Show agill1970's posts

    Re: Reason(s) behind the switch to a 4-3?

    It's what suits his (BB) current (as well as last years) personell better.  For the proper 3-4 you need a deep core of very talented linebackers.  During our runs to the SB, that position was our biggest strength.  In some ways it spoiled BB because he has been trying to fit a square peg into a round hole after the loss of those LB's.  Now he's realizing he needs to play more to the teams strength, and he's overstocking on DL's because 4-3 will probably be the primary lineup, and with last years abundance of injuries, he wants insurance. 
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from AcrossDaPond. Show AcrossDaPond's posts

    Re: Reason(s) behind the switch to a 4-3?

    Does anyone know what the personell groups were on the field for what % of last yr's snaps were?  This "switch" may have taken place last yr and we just didn't know about it...
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Reason(s) behind the switch to a 4-3?

    Percentage wise we played more base 34 then any other single formation at 42%. But we played a ton of sub packages, 43 'looks', and nickels. We actually only played a true base 43 formation on 3 plays last year
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from artielang. Show artielang's posts

    Re: Reason(s) behind the switch to a 4-3?

    i agree with MVP, i dont think 2 days of training camp means belichick is going to drop 20 years of the 3-4. we very well may see the 4-3 more often as a sub package, but remember last year there was a lot of 4-3 in camp and preseason too but it didnt really materialize in the regular season. haynesworth will play the 5 gap in the 3-4, which isnt really all that different than the interior of a 4-3. he'll need to push two guys back and from yesterday's practice it sounds like he can still do that. 
    to me the most interesting thing about the 4-3 look they have shown in camp is Mayo on the outside. could be interesting to see him play on the edge a bit.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsLifer. Show PatsLifer's posts

    Re: Reason(s) behind the switch to a 4-3?


    i'll stop saying 4-3 and just instead say 4 man line. We have a lot of flexibility with what happens behind that line...So, if a 3 man line was run 42%, then it sounds like a 4 man line was used 58%, or somethign close to that if you drop a percentage here and there if they used any 2 or 5 man lines...The 4 man line is still a larger percentage of snaps than a 3 man line. So, BB's 20 year history as the 3-4 genius doesn't mean much if you consider last year and our alignment percentages.
    Plus, I think BB better than anyone realizes defenses need to be flexible..hence investing high again in a top flight CB prospect that can be used as a safety as well. If your playing more 5 man backfields, then you need the players to pull it off. Dowling becomes a very valuable commodity should he be able to suit up. 

    Plus adding to what Rusty and others said about a larger pool of 4 man line players available, and more colleges playing 4 man lines that anything else..it would seem to reckon it would be also easier scouting and projecting college kids who come out of a 4 man line system vs. moving them to play DE or NT in a 3 man line. With that, if BB was moving to more 4 man lines, and with the plethora of talented lineman in last year's draft, why didn't we grab any? Were there none as good or better than our current stable? That is the suspicious part to me about moving to a 4 man line. I can see both sides, but why not take action in teh draft given it was deep in lineman..unless of course BB and Shanny already had an agreement. 
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Reason(s) behind the switch to a 4-3?

    In Response to Re: Reason(s) behind the switch to a 4-3?:
    i'll stop saying 4-3 and just instead say 4 man line. We have a lot of flexibility with what happens behind that line...So, if a 3 man line was run 42%, then it sounds like a 4 man line was used 58%, or somethign close to that if you drop a percentage here and there if they used any 2 or 5 man lines...The 4 man line is still a larger percentage of snaps than a 3 man line. So, BB's 20 year history as the 3-4 genius doesn't mean much if you consider last year and our alignment percentages. Plus, I think BB better than anyone realizes defenses need to be flexible..hence investing high again in a top flight CB prospect that can be used as a safety as well. If your playing more 5 man backfields, then you need the players to pull it off. Dowling becomes a very valuable commodity should he be able to suit up.  Plus adding to what Rusty and others said about a larger pool of 4 man line players available, and more colleges playing 4 man lines that anything else..it would seem to reckon it would be also easier scouting and projecting college kids who come out of a 4 man line system vs. moving them to play DE or NT in a 3 man line. With that, if BB was moving to more 4 man lines, and with the plethora of talented lineman in last year's draft, why didn't we grab any? Were there none as good or better than our current stable? That is the suspicious part to me about moving to a 4 man line. I can see both sides, but why not take action in teh draft given it was deep in lineman..unless of course BB and Shanny already had an agreement. 
    Posted by PatsLifer


    Well we ran a lot of 2 man and 5 man lines too. I might not be remembering the article right but we were in a 4 man front around 36% of the time
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from jcour382. Show jcour382's posts

    Re: Reason(s) behind the switch to a 4-3?

    they are saying that dom capers uses alot of sub packages and the 2 man front with 9 behind them ... we do seem to do that alot... BB seems to have seen it coming... maybe he got that from us and wanted to implement that fully as the DC...but bill had other ideas on the DC so he went off to GB... just sayin

    but pats have also drafted some serious beef on dline in last two years...so it would seem not by accident...  weston/love/deadrick/brace
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from BrocktonMike. Show BrocktonMike's posts

    Re: Reason(s) behind the switch to a 4-3?

    I'm thinking part of why BB is willing to take a chance of Haynesworth with his conditioning problem & whinning about the 3-4 as to why he didn't play well, is BB will have a strong 4-3 for certain situations and for a number of different teams. 

    If it proves successful, BB will have 16 games to work on it in time for the playoffs.

    Let's face it, the D was one of the worst on 3rd & long. When most teams are 3rd & long, they worry, with the Pats, it was like "Great, we don't have to try to grind out two or three yards, instead, we'll pass, as there's no pass rush.

    But as always, Trust in BB, and see how it works out.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from 49Patriots. Show 49Patriots's posts

    Re: Reason(s) behind the switch to a 4-3?

    BB's been running the 3-4 since before I was born, he coached five 3-4 defenses. Why would he switch it? You still need to pay the Ends in a 4-3 like an OLB in a 3-4.
     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Reason(s) behind the switch to a 4-3?

    In Response to Re: Reason(s) behind the switch to a 4-3?:
    BB's been running the 3-4 since before I was born, he coached five 3-4 defenses. Why would he switch it? You still need to pay the Ends in a 4-3 like an OLB in a 3-4.
    Posted by 49Patriots


    Im pretty sure he ran a the 43 in Cleveland, he had a decent 4 man line that could pressure..Anthony Pleasant, Michael Dean Perry... If I recall. He also was a part of the defense here in 96 that ran the 43, do to personell issues.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from NYC. Show NYC's posts

    Re: Reason(s) behind the switch to a 4-3?

    What I take from take from this is BB will run anything that works. 2,3,4,5 man fronts as long as it's effective. BB is continually re-inventing himself and the team!
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Paul_K. Show Paul_K's posts

    Re: Reason(s) behind the switch to a 4-3?

    In Response to Re: Reason(s) behind the switch to a 4-3?:
    What I take from take from this is BB will run anything that works. 2,3,4,5 man fronts as long as it's effective. BB is continually re-inventing himself and the team!
    Posted by NYC

    And at that, let's mention the 1 man defensive line.  On the last play of the game, Big Vince alone will rush the QB.  10 drop back. 

    Randy Moss made himself useful on such defenses, as he's tall and has sure hands.  That's BB's other trick, moving people around.  On the goal line he lines up defensive linemen and heavy linebackers as extra tight ends.  Vrabel caught a bunch of touchdown passes.  I've seen a fairly fast offensive lineman as a fullback for 300 pounds of full-velocity punch. 

    Next, BB will have his big nickel if the new Denver safety/linebacker works out.  I wouldn't be surprised to see a big dime look too.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Michael02127. Show Michael02127's posts

    Re: Reason(s) behind the switch to a 4-3?

    I think you also have to take into account that the 4-3 is better against the pass and the 3-4 against the run.  This is pass happy league, further more we'd had the best or close to, offense since 2007 meaning teams need to score more to win so they are passing  or trying to pass on us more especially in the 2nd half. 

    Someone here would know better but look up stats from last year where the Pats struggled defensively, I think it was 3rd and long which is usually a 4-3 alignment defense,  so if nothing else we needed to get better in there.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from AcrossDaPond. Show AcrossDaPond's posts

    Re: Reason(s) behind the switch to a 4-3?

    In Response to Re: Reason(s) behind the switch to a 4-3?:
    I think you also have to take into account that the 4-3 is better against the pass and the 3-4 against the run.  This is pass happy league, further more we'd had the best or close to, offense since 2007 meaning teams need to score more to win so they are passing  or trying to pass on us more especially in the 2nd half.  Posted by Michael02127


    Defiantly, I couldn’t agree more.  When the league changed the rules to let Payton win one BB adjusted, got moss welker and Mr Manslaughter himself, Stallworth.  This might be his defensive reaction to the rules changing and the league moving towards more pass heavy sets.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from USMCM1A1. Show USMCM1A1's posts

    Re: Reason(s) behind the switch to a 4-3?

    For those of you saying that BB will never change from a 3-4 because he always ran a 3-4: our player personel acquisition on DL and LB has obviously shifted.  We're not drafting the kind of guys who make sense for the Fairbanks 3-4.  We are trading for/working out guys who most def do not match a Fairbanks 3-4 line (3-technique 1 gappers). 

    So something's up.  I don't know if it is a switch to a 4-3, a hybrid 3-4, or maybe planning around sub-packages.  But since scheme drives player acquisition (and then of course acquired personel affects scheme), the change in personel means something hs changed about our scheme, and I think that's exciting.

    Never boring as Pats fan :)
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Michael02127. Show Michael02127's posts

    Re: Reason(s) behind the switch to a 4-3?

    In Response to Re: Reason(s) behind the switch to a 4-3?:
    For those of you saying that BB will never change from a 3-4 because he always ran a 3-4: our player personel acquisition on DL and LB has obviously shifted.  We're not drafting the kind of guys who make sense for the Fairbanks 3-4.  We are trading for/working out guys who most def do not match a Fairbanks 3-4 line (3-technique 1 gappers).  So something's up.  I don't know if it is a switch to a 4-3, a hybrid 3-4, or maybe planning around sub-packages.  But since scheme drives player acquisition (and then of course acquired personel affects scheme), the change in personel means something hs changed about our scheme, and I think that's exciting. Never boring as Pats fan :)
    Posted by USMCM1A1


    I agree, anyone who says BB will never change anything I thing is wrong. I think he'll do whatever he thinks is the best thing for the team and we seen him do MANY things that we never saw coming.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from AcrossDaPond. Show AcrossDaPond's posts

    Re: Reason(s) behind the switch to a 4-3?

    In Response to Re: Reason(s) behind the switch to a 4-3?:
    In Response to Re: Reason(s) behind the switch to a 4-3? : I agree, anyone who says BB will never change anything I thing is wrong. I think he'll do whatever he thinks is the best thing for the team and we seen him do MANY things that we never saw coming.
    Posted by Michael02127


    Sometimes I think he also just likes be different.  The smartest guy in the room never just does what everyone thinks he'll do.  Thats why hes the smartest guy in the room.  If idiots could predict his moves then they would be coaching...
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from ben-umass. Show ben-umass's posts

    Re: Reason(s) behind the switch to a 4-3?

    Was thinking about this, these early training camp practices are open to the public and the media. they stay open until around the 1st preseason game, correct? what if BB is just practicing the 4-3 when everyone can see him. then when the curtains go up, same 3-4 scheme. mite all just be bait
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from ben-umass. Show ben-umass's posts

    Re: Reason(s) behind the switch to a 4-3?

    A defense that can play both will be a hell of a defense a la 204 Super Bowl
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from weloveme2. Show weloveme2's posts

    Re: Reason(s) behind the switch to a 4-3?

    there is good reason to beileve it is missdirection
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share