When was the switch made to 4-3?

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

    When was the switch made to 4-3?

    I was wondering why we didn't draft any 4-3 LBs.  I know that 3-4 LBs are hard to find and evaluate, but why didn't we grab anyone?

    Is it because we decided to switch after the Draft?  Or was it once we traded for Hanesworth did we go all in?
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Artist-Frmrly-Knwn-As-NickC1188. Show Artist-Frmrly-Knwn-As-NickC1188's posts

    Re: When was the switch made to 4-3?

    the 4-3 fits the defensive line personnel better, with the exception of Wilfork.  With Ty Warren unable to stay healthy the past two seasons and Richard Seymour having the same problems toward the end of his time here, it was tough to find well-rounded DE prospects who could engage in the two-gap AND still collapse the pcoket against the pass.  This required the Pats to substitute into subpackages, where Mike Wright would then get steamrolled by good runblocking.  Plus the labor market for 3-4 personnel, which was already limited, has become much more competitive with so many teams switching to 3-4 defenses.  The market for 4-3 personnel, which was already much bigger anyways, has become favorable again because just half the NFL now runs a 4-3 but 3/4++ of college prospects naturally played in a 4-3

    But perhaps most importantly, as evidenced in the Tampa Bay game, it opens up Mayo to be a playmaker as WLB.  He can fly around the field and make plays instead of being in the rigid 3-4 Mike role.  He played the position in college apparently.  While Bruschi gained the acumen to make plays from the 3-4 Mike position with experience, I didn't get that Mayo was developing that way in that defense.

    the 3-4 isn't gone - with Wilfork, Gerard Warren, and Shaun Ellis, the Pats can still field a more-than-competent 3-4 defensive line.  But with all the spread offenses and subpackage defenses in the league today, pressuring the QB in 3.5 seconds or less requires a change in philosophy.  In a two-gap defensive line in a 3-4, the first second or two are already wasted just reading the play and by 3.5-4 seconds the pass is already out of the QB's hand.  A one-gap 4-3 lets the defensive linemen just get upfield and be aggressive
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from oklahomapatriot. Show oklahomapatriot's posts

    Re: When was the switch made to 4-3?

    I don't think there was a switch, it was an addition to the defensive stratgey. The Patriots defense looks like it will have the ability to morph into what ever BB needs for game situations. It has become versatile.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Davedsone. Show Davedsone's posts

    Re: When was the switch made to 4-3?

    I think the idea was we already had the LBs we needed.  I have heard it discussed by Moving the Chains as more of a philosophy shift than a alignment shift.  We go from contain and control to pressure and disrupt.  Along with that change comes an alignment shift, but as a better scheme to base out of to achieve the goal.  So its less about switching where guys line up then it is about knocking kids down and punching the QB in the head.  And they will do it from whatever fronts or alignments suit their purpose.  Tedy had said it would mean less of a mental transition on 3rd down, and I assume with that comes less of an ability to read what we are going to do and counter it, which we got lots of last year and even before that.  I'm exciting about the change.  I think watching both the Giants do it in the SB and the Jets at times last year, I do like pressure schemes better given that we dont have McGinnest, Bruschi, Vrabel backed up by Rodney and the rest.  Our Bend But Dont Break kind of degenerated into Bend Over Here It Comes Again.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from tcal2-. Show tcal2-'s posts

    Re: When was the switch made to 4-3?

    Right after the playoff loss last year.  You know, the one when Snachez had all day to stand in the pocket.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: When was the switch made to 4-3?

    Although they'll never admit that a switch was made, it happend after Crable, Piere Woods, Banta Cain, Thomas, the dude from Okland (for a 3rd), and to some degree Cunningham failed to convince we should stay in it. Add in the fact that our 34 defensive end guys left (Warren, Seymore) and that we drafted/brought in some guys that may be better suited to the 43...Mayo, Guyton, Pryor, Fletcher, Nincovich, Moore, Anderson, Haynesworth, Carter. Is the 34 better? Probably. Is the 34 better when you don't have the horses to run it? I think recent history shows it's not.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share