when exactly were we amazing at the 4-3? we were pretty good the last half of the season in the 3-4, allowing the fewest pts in the final 8 weeks (something like that, not sure) i dont ever remember this amazing 4-3 u are talkin about, please inform me tho, i guess i forgot to watch the jets for a whole season, i was born in '85 so take it from there
We're further away from an effective 3-4, based on personnel, than we would be to an effective 4-3. Obviously neither front is going to be all that good given our talent level but the lack of a NT just makes the 3-4 blow chunks at this point.
Please look at the teams we were playing in those 8 weeks before making that comment. They were the dregs of the NFL.
I like the 3-4......but our team is equiped for 4-3. With the beef eaters we have on the bench, I think we'd have a pretty effective run defense. Just my opinion.
Most of our big interior lineman stink and the weather has been very hot and humid. This weekend should be much cooler and we probably see more 4/3 for that reason alone.
We are a good NT away from a decent 3-4. I am surprised we did not get one in the off season. This is no knock against Robertson who is playing out of position. IMO its not his fault.
That would probably be the biggest adjustment in practice. Pouha and Mosley would heve to take reps and re-study their position, but I actually think Pouha could be capable of doing it as a trial run for this season.
Kind of reminds me of the Herm 'Cover 2' debacle and Ted Cottrell wanting to run the Buffalo scheme. We ended up with a hybrid mess of a defense that never seemed to work until D Henderson took over. Think of all the horrible FA's that we signed to make Herm's vision a reality. I say, play to what your strengths are. I mean honestly guys, does anybody care what they call it, WIN GAMES is all I care about.
3-4.thing is I think we'll have an even worse pass rush with the 4-3 Thomas always was bad in a 4-3, and Eillis is even older. And its a question at our other DT. Our LBers would be great though
"Wah no NT switch to a 4-3!" In both a 3-4 and a 4-3 YOU NEED A NOSE TACKLE. Damnit why do people with no knowledge of schemes insist on opening their mouths in these discussions? Ugh . . . I'm just tired of hearing that. Over. And over. And over. Again. The Giants' front is unique and is based on inverting the run duties of the linebackers and defensive line that you would normally find in a 4-3 and in pass defense, because of the larger linebackers, sacrifices coverage abilities to throw a strong pass rush at the offense. It is very different from most 4-3 schemes, an exception and anomaly. Don't cite it. In a normal 4-3, a NT is still needed. With that rant done with . . . For this team? 3-4. It doesn't hurt that I'm a big 3-4 person. Ellis, despite aging and being thrown around positions that he shouldn't play in (4-3 DT, for example), is made to play the 3-4 end. He was drafted to do that. As previously stated, we just drafted two 3-4 players. I hate to use this phrase, but we need to stay the course. We've got a good pair of safeties that fit the scheme. Kenyon Coleman has proven that he can start at 3-4 end in this league. What does that leave us with? An inconsistent (Not bad. Inconsistent.) NT, inside linebackers that can't shed their blocks (Linebacking 101: First duty, hit and shed. Durr. Even a smaller linebacker can manhandle a lineman 4 yards off the line of scrimmage. The linemen are never in their stance four yards downfield, thus the phrase "born pad-under-pad".) and outside linebackers that can't get a pass rush. The basic 3-4, as far as pass rush is concerned, is designed so that the NT collapses the pocket (pushes in the middle in), the DEs hold their ground (so as to contain the offensive backs) and the outside linebackers pressure the flushed out quarterback. When your inside linebackers can't shed blocks quickly, even if they do shed the block they will get run over by the running back. When your NT doesn't collapse the pocket, it leaves the rushing OLB vulnerable to being picked up by extra blockers. Good things and bad things. With no speed rusher (much less TWO), still no NT, LBs that aren't quick enough (Aside from Vilma. Remember, these were the same guys we had in a 4-3 and they weren't that good. I don't see why everyone insists that our LBs would be so good in a 4-3.) and a secondary that just plain isn't designed for it, why would we ever play the 4-3 with this team? It may not look like it but we're closer to a 3-4 team than we are to a 4-3 team, personnel-wise.
We have a winner. In a 4-3, they still wouldn't have any outside pass rush and the lack of depth at DT would only be further exposed. Speed at the OLB position would also be a major issue. Vilma's a very good 4-3 MLB, but he'd have to be a Ray Lewis/Urlacher in his prime at MLB for this team to be better off in a 4-3 D considering how few players on this roster are better suited for a 3-4.
