Posted: 1/25/2013 9:46 PM
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
*Brownies with the 4-3 contained Moon very well.
Copyright © 2013
and Scout.com. All rights reserved. This website is an unofficial independent source of news and information, and is not affiliated with any school, team, or league.
MSN PrivacyLegalAdvertise on MSNAbout our adsRSS
© 2012 Microsoft|