Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
InboxChat RoomChat Room (0 fans in chatroom)

RE: Attacking D = Reboot

Posted: 1/25/2013 9:46 PM

RE: Attacking D = Reboot 

bw wrote: One of the few teams that had true success with the 3-4 has always been the Steelers.

Anyone not named LeBeau running a 3-4 in Cleveland doesn't interest me.  Like that defensive genius, Romeo Crennel.

Every time Tom Brady faces a good 4-3, he has problems.  Real problems.  The 3-4, he eats for lunch.

With the emphasis on QB play that's been around for a while, the only reason to put a 3-4 on the field is to save money so you can spend it on the Offense.  Good 4-3 DEs ain't cheap.

If you can get pressure with the front 4 of a 4-3 Defense, you can drive a QB out of his mind.

And with the success of the 'read-option' QBs this year, look for a lot of copycats.

A 3-4 has no chance against one of them.  None.  A decent 4-3 can contain a scrambling QB much better than can a 3-4.  OLBs in a 3-4 are just too slow, too awkward and not nearly athletic enough to catch a QB like Wilson, Koepernick, Cam Newton or RGIII.

I don't know why the 3-4 hasn't been put on the scrap bin of NFL history.  I don't like it.  Never have.  It's a poor excuse for a 'bend but don't break' defense.

Now, there's also the 'attacking' 3-4 that is essentially a 5-2.  I could live with that.  Sort of. I'd still prefer a 4-3.  More flexible, harder to stop, pressure with the front four is almost impossible to protect against....  Just a better scheme all the way around.

My $.02  noidea

That's right!


Warren Moon

*Brownies with the 4-3 contained Moon very well.

Reply | Quote