Page 1 of 1

3-4 in our future?

Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 3:42 pm
by eagle13
Unless Harrell comes back and plays outstanding and/or we get a super stud DT in draft or FA - and the odds are against all of those - then the coaches have to consider the 3-4 defense next year. LBs are far easier to come across than DL and we already have 5 good LBs (maybe 6 since coaches are so high on Lansanah's future). Biggest need would be backup NT since I doubt Harrell or Jolly could cut it.

And while we're changing the defensive scheme - what better time to change defensive coordinators?

We've touched on this before but its a little dead around here so I thot we could discuss.

Do you think M3 would ever really consider this?
Do you think Pickett could cut it as NT?
Are Jenkins & Kampman adequate as DEs in 3-4?
Would chillar, hawk or bishop play inside w/ barnett?
Does Jolly have any chance as a NT?
Could Harrell play DE in 3-4? Maybe give him a new angle to succeed?

Re: 3-4 in our future?

Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 3:54 pm
by xTitan
If Montgomery and Hunter can't go this week, that leaves GB with only Thompson as a hand to the ground DE, Pettway is more of a 3-4 rush end. I think you may see some variation of the 3-4 this week against Seattle because they simply might have no choice because of injury.

Re: 3-4 in our future?

Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 8:31 pm
by El Duderino
It's nearly impossible for a team to not only switch from a 4-3 to a 3-4 in mid-season, it's even harder to do so with a defensive coordinator who has never in his life run a 3-4 defense. Mix in that Sanders is as uncreative as it gets, i highly doubt it would be productive.

Re: 3-4 in our future?

Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 10:05 pm
by Ayt
I really don't see it happening in the offseason. Sanders being fired is certainly a possibility, but I think we'd still have to bring 4-3 guy because of our personnel.

I'm sure El Dude and others would agree that a new coordinator that runs a 4-3 and actually knows how to design more than 2 blitzes would be nice. Barnett, Hawk, Pop, Bigby, and even Collins could all be very effective in a blitz scheme that utilizes their athleticism instead of just having the blitzers run directly into O-lineman that know they are blitzing since it is so obvious.

Re: 3-4 in our future?

Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 10:35 pm
by El Duderino
Ayt wrote:I really don't see it happening in the offseason. Sanders being fired is certainly a possibility, but I think we'd still have to bring 4-3 guy because of our personnel.

I'm sure El Dude and others would agree that a new coordinator that runs a 4-3 and actually knows how to design more than 2 blitzes would be nice. Barnett, Hawk, Pop, Bigby, and even Collins could all be very effective in a blitz scheme that utilizes their athleticism instead of just having the blitzers run directly into O-lineman that know they are blitzing since it is so obvious.


Hey AYT, don't be unfair to Sanders, he actually has 4 blitz packages, not just 3. In the Tampa game, i nearly fell out of my chair when he sent Woodson once. So his blitz packages are

1. Send Barnett up the gut

2. Send Hawk up the gut

3. Send both Barnett and Hawk up the gut

4. Once every four games or so, send Woodson on a corner blitz

Maybe if we keep him next year, Sanders just might get all radical and add a fifth blitz package to his scheme?

Re: 3-4 in our future?

Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 11:26 pm
by xTitan
I heard it is extremely doubtful that Montgomery and Hunter play....they have no defensive ends other than Thompson who needs a year to get bigger and stronger...what are they going to do? The only reason I thought they may run some 3-4 this weekend is because Jason Wilde said earlier in the week that there very well could be some new, unexpected wrinkles and possibly a changes in personnel.....can't think of what else it could be.

Re: 3-4 in our future?

Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 1:53 am
by El Duderino
Maybe they try some 3-4

Not only are they very short on defensive ends, the tackles are playing to many snaps. One reason i think we've been so poor vs the run is the tackles are getting gassed, thus they are struggling to hold their ground. The tackles left on the roster are all fat guys, play them to many snaps and they'll be sucking wind. Keep in mind also that Pickett sat on the sideline nearly all training camp and didn't play in preseason if my memory is correct. He's still trying to get in game shape and here he's playing more snaps than he'd normally play. Jolly is to heavy to play lots of run downs and also be in there rushing the passer on throwing downs. Corey Williams got gassed later in last season playing to many snaps and he was only carrying about 310-315 pounds, Jolly looks to be around 330 pounds or more.

I agree on J. Thompson, ideally, he'd be on the practice squad, not in games that count. Him and KGB playing end is a potential disaster, i'd run that way all the time.

Re: 3-4 in our future?

Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 6:33 am
by Ayt
El Duderino wrote:
Ayt wrote:I really don't see it happening in the offseason. Sanders being fired is certainly a possibility, but I think we'd still have to bring 4-3 guy because of our personnel.

I'm sure El Dude and others would agree that a new coordinator that runs a 4-3 and actually knows how to design more than 2 blitzes would be nice. Barnett, Hawk, Pop, Bigby, and even Collins could all be very effective in a blitz scheme that utilizes their athleticism instead of just having the blitzers run directly into O-lineman that know they are blitzing since it is so obvious.


Hey AYT, don't be unfair to Sanders, he actually has 4 blitz packages, not just 3. In the Tampa game, i nearly fell out of my chair when he sent Woodson once. So his blitz packages are

1. Send Barnett up the gut

2. Send Hawk up the gut

3. Send both Barnett and Hawk up the gut

4. Once every four games or so, send Woodson on a corner blitz

Maybe if we keep him next year, Sanders just might get all radical and add a fifth blitz package to his scheme?


You are right. I forgot about that "once very four games" Woodson blitz. That is both the least used and the most effective of the four.

It really is sad how vanilla our D is.