I know, i know, we need to work on the offense. But here is what im thinking. Are we expecting a better than a 10-6 record from the new coaching staff going into next year ? Our 10 win record was mostly because of all the bad teams we played. Are we expecting that or better this season? I think we give our coaching staff at least a year to turn things around. 
I guess we could agree the boys at Halas Hall wants to stick to our base 4-3 package, cover 2. We did bring in a coach who can teach both a 4-3 and a 3-4. 
This is what im thinking its just my opinion and i'm bored.  GO Blackhawks.

1 With a 3-4 defense you will be faster in general on the field.
2. We already have Peppers and Wooten who are ideal d-ends in a 3-4 and peppers played that position already for Carolina. Wooten with his size and speed is a good fit might help to 
add some weight to him . Wooten proved good against the run.
3. We drafted Mclellan last year who is a good fit. I think Briggs and Mclellan both can play outside linebacker.
4. I think we could draft a TED backer in the later part of the draft. I like the Wort kid there. Big strong and nasty, dont need to have blazing speed. Mike backer in a 3-4 , i dont know if Brian would want to play mike backer in a 3-4. I think a young Brian would have been great at it with his speed , so with that i wouldn't resign him. Ouch
5. Nose tackle would be our biggest problem i see right now switching to a 3-4. I would not sign Melton unless we could sign and trade and that does not happen in the NFL to often. 
Plus giving Melton a big contract scares me . I know he is his prime but he tailed off the last 2 years in the middle and later part of the season.
There are some jumbo boys in the draft we could grab and it wouldnt bother me to use our 20th pick on a jumbo nose tackle. There is a good one there but his name escapes me right now.
6. I think we need to draft a cornerback regardless of what defense we play.

 With the Pistol offense Washington , San Fran, and the No huddle, quick play offense New England runs along with what Chip Kelly will be bringing with him i think we need to get faster on the field. I think with the 3-4 we would have more options and can disguise a defense to play the vast aray of offenses will will see more of in the future. As we know the NFL is a copy cat league so look for more teams to be doing what other teams such as New England and what Chip Kelly will be doing, 4,5 receiver sets no huddle shot gun spread.

Once again this is just my opinion and i would like to see this if we can sign what we need on offense through free agency. Gaurd, Tight end, possible center and draft Defense.  OK just my opinion.

Personally....no it's a terrible idea. I don't think Emery ever had any intention of changing the defense.

We don't have the personal for it. Peppers is an ideal 4-3 guy....not the other way around.

This defense is good...it works...and they already told Mel tucker he is running the same defense and is even keeping the previous terminology.

They were a 10-6 team because they won ten games.....I do expect them to improve the defense in one off season. There is no excuse not to. you keep the defense the same.

Similar situation to the 49ers two years ago. You keep the defense, and in one offseason, for them an abnormal strike shortened one, they turned their offense around and were in the NFC championship.

This isn't a re-build....they better be competitive next year. There is no excuse for them not to be. Bears fans should expect them to be right in the thick of it, and no way do you switch defenses.

Wen did Carolina run a 3-4...really don't remember that.

I do not believe peppers ever played in a 3-4. He gave it lip service before signing in Chicago but Carolina never switched.

You dont fix what isn't broke.

Add some youth and depth to the defense and I bet that unit will remain a top 10 unit. I don't see Emery letting the defense "fall off" at any point, while he is still the GM.

Fix the offense...it's been the main problem for the 8+ seasons.

I think peppers can play D-end in both defenses.

gcoop33 wrote: Personally....no it's a terrible idea. I don't think Emery ever had any intention of changing the defense.

We don't have the personal for it. Peppers is an ideal 4-3 guy....not the other way around.

This defense is good...it works...and they already told Mel tucker he is running the same defense and is even keeping the previous terminology.

They were a 10-6 team because they won ten games.....I do expect them to improve the defense in one off season. There is no excuse not to. you keep the defense the same.

Similar situation to the 49ers two years ago. You keep the defense, and in one offseason, for them an abnormal strike shortened one, they turned their offense around and were in the NFC championship.

This isn't a re-build....they better be competitive next year. There is no excuse for them not to be. Bears fans should expect them to be right in the thick of it, and no way do you switch defenses.

Wen did Carolina run a 3-4...really don't remember that.

Tell me why you dont think Peppers can play d-end in a 3-4. He is good against the run , he
has the strength to fight off guards and tackles ,, he is tall and fast . He might be somewhat light but can handle to add some weight. He is good at shedding blocks. I didnt say we had all the personnel for it . Did you even read all i had wrote down. I gave basis to my thoughts, not just to say .....no we cant do that,    AHHH  HE'S A 4-3 GUY , LOL.

The difference between 4-3 and 3-4 barely matters. 1 gap vs 2 gap is what matters, and our personnel is much, much better suited for a 1 gap scheme. When we have Julius Peppers and Henry Melton, why do we need to disguise anything anyway? They'll find their way to the passer. The only player that makes sense as a hybrid defender is Shea. Just stick to what works. You're suggesting a switch for the sake of it.

Btw, a 1 gap 3-4 would probably consist of Melton-Paea-LE with McClellin-MIKE-Briggs-Peppers at LB. This probably wouldn't be a total disaster, but again, it's totally unnecessary. And the thought of Briggs playing OLB is pretty laughable.

Yeah I did read it.....and I think it is a terrible idea.

You need to re-build an offense. You have the luxury of not having to do much to your defense. How hard it is it to figure out.

You have a Future hall of Famer in Peppers and you want to change his position?

And yes chi is right he would be an outside LB in a 3-4.. But that doesn't mean is oils want that.

You are guessing he could play that....We KNOW he is great in a 4-3. Not sure there is any more to it.

---------------------------------------------
--- BEARKILL wrote:

gcoop33 wrote: Personally....no it's a terrible idea. I don't think Emery ever had any intention of changing the defense.

We don't have the personal for it. Peppers is an ideal 4-3 guy....not the other way around.

This defense is good...it works...and they already told Mel tucker he is running the same defense and is even keeping the previous terminology.

They were a 10-6 team because they won ten games.....I do expect them to improve the defense in one off season. There is no excuse not to. you keep the defense the same.

Similar situation to the 49ers two years ago. You keep the defense, and in one offseason, for them an abnormal strike shortened one, they turned their offense around and were in the NFC championship.

This isn't a re-build....they better be competitive next year. There is no excuse for them not to be. Bears fans should expect them to be right in the thick of it, and no way do you switch defenses.

Wen did Carolina run a 3-4...really don't remember that.

Tell me why you dont think Peppers can play d-end in a 3-4. He is good against the run , he
has the strength to fight off guards and tackles ,, he is tall and fast . He might be somewhat light but can handle to add some weight. He is good at shedding blocks. I didnt say we had all the personnel for it . Did you even read all i had wrote down. I gave basis to my thoughts, not just to say .....no we cant do that,    AHHH  HE'S A 4-3 GUY , LOL.

---------------------------------------------

Maybe I am just a little slow but I just don't see a huge difference between a 3-4 and 4-3. The DBs are the same in both. In both schemes LBs can blitz. Perhaps the linemen need to be bigger in one than the other but I've always believed Lovie's linemen were to small anyway. What else is there that differenciates the two?

gcoop33 wrote: Personally....no it's a terrible idea.

/thread

Last thing that needs to be done.

Evesowner wrote: Maybe I am just a little slow but I just don't see a huge difference between a 3-4 and 4-3. The DBs are the same in both. In both schemes LBs can blitz. Perhaps the linemen need to be bigger in one than the other but I've always believed Lovie's linemen were to small anyway. What else is there that differenciates the two?

You are right the DB's and Safeties pretty much are used the same in both defenses , its up to the D-cordinator how he wants to disguise the coverage. 
The Ideal nose tackle is usually big ( fat ) strong and has a low center of gravity. The nose tackle in a 3-4 has to be able to command double coverage.  Center and gaurd which opens a lane ( gap ) in the line of scrimage thats usually where a linebacker shoots up lane.
The job of the defensive end in a 3-4 is not to rush the passer like a 4-3 but to stop the run first and to stay home in containment, until the he reads where the ball is going.
The outside linebackers are usually responsible for making sure the running back does not go outside of him and usually the outside linebackers are the ones who shoot the lanes, gaps and blitz the quartrback, because they are usually the speed guys.
The Middle linebacker is used primarily the same way as in a 4-3 defense. He is usually the leading tackler on the field. He needs to be able to run up and down the field. The other middle linebacker is what they often call a TED backer, he does the dirty work to help free up the middle linebacker.
Basically its harder to read where the pressure will be comming from with a 2 gap defense.

But in a day and age where defensive ends drop into coverage a lot it makes the concept of the 3-4 being more deceptive false. Doesn't it?

Evesowner wrote: But in a day and age where defensive ends drop into coverage a lot it makes the concept of the 3-4 being more deceptive false. Doesn't it?

 The main focus of the defensive end in a 3-4 is to stay( home ) and stop the run. 
In a 3-4 like a 4-3 you are responsible for your field of play so to speak. The ideal D-end
in a 3-4 defense has to be bigger than that of a d-end in a 4-3. The d-end in a 3-4 is usually lined up right across the offensive tackles and has to fight off the offensive tackles to stop the run to his area. I hope that explains it. If you can find an animal to be bigger stronger and faster than the typical offensive tackles up against him then yes i suppose you could have a d-end in coverage.

I can't believe I am doing this, but ..... I ... Have to [gasp] .. agree with Gcoop.

gcoop33 wrote: Yeah I did read it.....and I think it is a terrible idea.

You need to re-build an offense. You have the luxury of not having to do much to your defense. How hard it is it to figure out.

You have a Future hall of Famer in Peppers and you want to change his position?

And yes chi is right he would be an outside LB in a 3-4.. But that doesn't mean is oils want that.

You are guessing he could play that....We KNOW he is great in a 4-3. Not sure there is any more to it.

---------------------------------------------
--- BEARKILL wrote:

gcoop33 wrote: Personally....no it's a terrible idea. I don't think Emery ever had any intention of changing the defense.

We don't have the personal for it. Peppers is an ideal 4-3 guy....not the other way around.

This defense is good...it works...and they already told Mel tucker he is running the same defense and is even keeping the previous terminology.

They were a 10-6 team because they won ten games.....I do expect them to improve the defense in one off season. There is no excuse not to. you keep the defense the same.

Similar situation to the 49ers two years ago. You keep the defense, and in one offseason, for them an abnormal strike shortened one, they turned their offense around and were in the NFC championship.

This isn't a re-build....they better be competitive next year. There is no excuse for them not to be. Bears fans should expect them to be right in the thick of it, and no way do you switch defenses.

Wen did Carolina run a 3-4...really don't remember that.

Tell me why you dont think Peppers can play d-end in a 3-4. He is good against the run , he
has the strength to fight off guards and tackles ,, he is tall and fast . He might be somewhat light but can handle to add some weight. He is good at shedding blocks. I didnt say we had all the personnel for it . Did you even read all i had wrote down. I gave basis to my thoughts, not just to say .....no we cant do that,    AHHH  HE'S A 4-3 GUY , LOL.

---------------------------------------------

I couldn't care less, but they'd need to draft another OLB (opposite McCellan) and a stout NT that demanded a double team.

Does't Tucker like bigger DT in the system he runs as compared to what Lovie does?  I think he likes to stop the run with two bigger tackles and rush the passer off the edge with smaller DE like we have.  This defense could look a little like the one Greg Blatche ran years ago if I am not mistaken.

Ok I see where i failed here with my post. I was making this post thinking if the Bears were to 
change defensive philosiphies , let's do it now and not wait until next year. I figured why wait a year or 2 do it now. I know what Emery said. I know he said someone really would have to convince him , to make a change from there 4-3 to a 3-4 . I heard it. And i know we lack certain players to make that adjustment . I GET IT . 
HOWEVER, and this is what troubles me . Why did we draft Mcclellan. I wasnt here last year , and i am sure you guys beat this up pretty good. Why would a former scout, draft a player suited to play a different defensive scheme? A 3-4 scheme....  1 of 2 things i can think of and the first thing i say i'm sure you'r going to flip. Did he draft Mclellan to avoid Green Bay from drafting him?????
Did he draft Mcclellan because he knew he would fire Lovie and wanted to be more prepared in the case there would have been a defensive switch?  Hey call me a meatball , but i dont get it. I dont see why this guy would have been our first pick last draft. Maybe it's as simple as ,oops i made a mistake, I dont know. 
I post here with my thoughts and opinions, not what i have read out of some scouting report .

Why can't we just go with the fact PE drafted Shea to be a DE. We needed a DE and that's what we drafted. No conspiracies that he was picked to replace Urlacher, be a OLB because we knew Lovie was going to be fired, or we took him to keep him out of GB. Give him time to grow, he did alright for adjusting. He has some great physical skills and instincts. With added strength and knowledge, he will only improve.

BEARKILL wrote: Ok I see where i failed here with my post. I was making this post thinking if the Bears were to 
change defensive philosiphies , let's do it now and not wait until next year. I figured why wait a year or 2 do it now. I know what Emery said. I know he said someone really would have to convince him , to make a change from there 4-3 to a 3-4 . I heard it. And i know we lack certain players to make that adjustment . I GET IT . 
HOWEVER, and this is what troubles me . Why did we draft Mcclellan. I wasnt here last year , and i am sure you guys beat this up pretty good. Why would a former scout, draft a player suited to play a different defensive scheme? A 3-4 scheme....  1 of 2 things i can think of and the first thing i say i'm sure you'r going to flip. Did he draft Mclellan to avoid Green Bay from drafting him?????
Did he draft Mcclellan because he knew he would fire Lovie and wanted to be more prepared in the case there would have been a defensive switch?  Hey call me a meatball , but i dont get it. I dont see why this guy would have been our first pick last draft. Maybe it's as simple as ,oops i made a mistake, I dont know. 
I post here with my thoughts and opinions, not what i have read out of some scouting report .

Look at the defensive Ends that Lovie has always tried to pursue in his career and use... It seems after the signing of the big athletic freak Peppers or trade for Adams that Lovie still has always been about scheming using that UT with quick pass rusher ends. Undersized guys in particular. Shea is at the same weight/Height as Alex Brown was under Lovie and Mark Anderson/Adewale were both guys playing under 270 lbs.

Guys drafted from the legendary Baldwin or Bazuin were undersized. Wootton while tall, is slim and light for his frame to have that quickness. Nothing about Shea was anti-Lovie it's just people were high on his versatility so it meant 3-4 must be the way for Emery too people.

As for the speed angle, yes a 3-4 team has the LBs but there is hardly a scheme that stresses speed over the tampa-2. It's all about having athleticism all around and in a heavy zone coverage with eyes up front, playing those mobile QBs in the past wasn't often an issue under Lovie. Wilson did school them by suddenly pulling out the use of the read option late in that game, but it was a failed adjustment on spot.

ClydeLee wrote:

BEARKILL wrote: Ok I see where i failed here with my post. I was making this post thinking if the Bears were to 
change defensive philosiphies , let's do it now and not wait until next year. I figured why wait a year or 2 do it now. I know what Emery said. I know he said someone really would have to convince him , to make a change from there 4-3 to a 3-4 . I heard it. And i know we lack certain players to make that adjustment . I GET IT . 
HOWEVER, and this is what troubles me . Why did we draft Mcclellan. I wasnt here last year , and i am sure you guys beat this up pretty good. Why would a former scout, draft a player suited to play a different defensive scheme? A 3-4 scheme....  1 of 2 things i can think of and the first thing i say i'm sure you'r going to flip. Did he draft Mclellan to avoid Green Bay from drafting him?????
Did he draft Mcclellan because he knew he would fire Lovie and wanted to be more prepared in the case there would have been a defensive switch?  Hey call me a meatball , but i dont get it. I dont see why this guy would have been our first pick last draft. Maybe it's as simple as ,oops i made a mistake, I dont know. 
I post here with my thoughts and opinions, not what i have read out of some scouting report .

Look at the defensive Ends that Lovie has always tried to pursue in his career and use... It seems after the signing of the big athletic freak Peppers or trade for Adams that Lovie still has always been about scheming using that UT with quick pass rusher ends. Undersized guys in particular. Shea is at the same weight/Height as Alex Brown was under Lovie and Mark Anderson/Adewale were both guys playing under 270 lbs.

Guys drafted from the legendary Baldwin or Bazuin were undersized. Wootton while tall, is slim and light for his frame to have that quickness. Nothing about Shea was anti-Lovie it's just people were high on his versatility so it meant 3-4 must be the way for Emery too people.

As for the speed angle, yes a 3-4 team has the LBs but there is hardly a scheme that stresses speed over the tampa-2. It's all about having athleticism all around and in a heavy zone coverage with eyes up front, playing those mobile QBs in the past wasn't often an issue under Lovie. Wilson did school them by suddenly pulling out the use of the read option late in that game, but it was a failed adjustment on spot.

You are exactly correct. Yes i know the type of athlete lovie likes to play his defense. 
I know how speed is critical in the tampa 2 , tampa 3 or whatever.
You are 100 % correct. The Seahawks were often in a Shotgun formation late in the game,
where WILSON was in a read option. Zone read option... , yes you are right again. 
 The Seahawks zoned blocked , Wilson had the option to hand the ball off or keep it himself and when he did he ran for good chunks of field. So far i agree with everything you said.
We know the Bears defense under Lovie is a bend but dont break defense, cover1 cover 2 or cover 3 where they are playing against the deep ball but leaving parts of the field (middle) open, we all seen the games , the Bear prevent defense.
It's nothing new.......