As we debate whether Vilma can work in Mangini's scheme, I'd like to bring up a couple of more reasons why Mangini should reconsider his use of the 3-4 as a base defense: 1) Belichick is the master of the 3-4...he knows it inside and out. It is unlikely that Mangini will ever be able to consistently fool Beli at his own game. 2) Even though Belichick plays multiple fronts, and he switches his scout team around to play like the opposing defenses, it's clear from this season's games that the Patriots have more trouble playing against teams that use the 43 as their base defense. Yes, the Pats are undefeated, but their 3 most difficult games of the season were verses teams that play 4 down lineman: The Eagles, the Ravens, and the Giants. Let's see how the Pats fare this week vs. the 43 of the Jags.
Can we please stop with the "we should use a 4-3"? Obviously the 3-4 is not going anywhere while Mangini is here. Give it up!
Mangini won't be here much longer if he's married to the 3-4 and cannot find a suitable nose tackle. I think the 4-3 vs 3-4 arguments are very much in play until the Jets put together a year in the 3-4 where it's obvious that it works. Right now it only stops teams that are busy trying to stop themselves, like Houston and Oakland last year and Tennessee and Kansas City this year.
I'd say that is pretty fair. I expect to have a good game against the Jags...in fact, the Jags are the one team I was rooting against....I would rather have played Tenn or Pitt...but it is what it is. I expect the AFC Championship to be Indy and the Pats anyway...I think most people do.
I think this issue is moot. They have a plan and hopefully they will find the players needed to fit the scheme. It does not happen overnight. Clearly this is not something that will be changed anytime soon, so I dont understand these arguements. Get some patience... Lord knows we all should have some, we are Jets fans after all.
Yeah, the Giants "D" gave them fits. 38 points, 390 yards and one sack. Brady reeeaaalllllyy struggled against that 4-3.
Sounds like 1998. The Vikings high flying offense (the old record holder until this season) wound up losing at Atlanta to another great team that was not quite as great when Randy Moss had his second human game in a row as the opposition spent a lot of time trying to shut him down. It'll be interesting to see if the parallel holds.
I was thinking the same thing:rofl2: The Giants gave the Pats a hell of a game, but 38 points is hardly struggling.
Osi was held on almost every passing attempt in that game. Brady is being protected by the league right now. It will be interesting if the Colts play the Pats if they allow holding by both teams since Brady and Manning are pretty much the face of the league.
I woudnt say the Giants gave up the Pats fits on offense, they still did score 38 pts in the game. If you get to Brady you can slow them down, thats the only way to stop them becasue you cant cover wr's forever especially Moss Stallworth and Welker, but I havent seen that happen yet Brady getting hit and or facing pressure constantly
Quiet, facts have no place on this message board :smile: Let it also be noted that the only team to hold the Pats scoreless in a half was also a 3-4 D (Miami)
I wonder if D-lines containing such losers as: Coles Kearse Osi Strahan Tuck Patterson Cofield Robbins Suggs Ngata Gregg have to do with anything. BTW: The Ravens run a 3-4/4-3 flex D. Just like us. Just like every other 3-4 team. I don't get why people talk about "married" to the 3-4. The 3-4 in theory and practice is a scheme that doesn't allow you to "marry" anything. The 4-3 is one front every single play. Thats marriage.
Exactly and if I remember correctly they didn't exactly struggle against Philly either. Honestly the Jets D in the second game probably gave them mor trouble than anyone.
You're dead wrong on your assessment of the 3-4... Just because it can flex into an 'Over' or 'Under' set does not mean it turns into a 4-3... Moving a LB up to the line, and shifting the three man front to one side or another does not constitute a 4-3 D... The NT will shift to shade the center to one side or the other, but his responsibility does not change, and the LB who was moved up to the line often still has coverage responsibilities. The extra linebacker on the line does not offer any extra protection for the LBs, and the DL still has the same responsibilities it would in a base 3-4... That's a common misconception about the 3-4, that it flexes into a 4-3... Many 3-4 coaches, Mangini included, have stated this in the response to the media when they claim that they 'mixed in a lot of 4-3' or something along those lines.... 3-4 Over or 3-4 Under is NOT 4-3 Not even remotely
Thats not the actual point...it offers a different look...you can move either OLB up...you can line them both up at end...etc. I don't actually care if its not technically a 4-3 D.
