Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Are the Bears Switching To A 3-4?
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Chicago Bears
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
AZBearsFan


Moderator
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 10972
PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2013 7:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CWood21 wrote:
I don't see the DLine to play a 34 and that's a big part of.

DE: ???
NT: ???
DE: Corey Wootton

OLB: McClellin
ILB: Briggs
ILB: Urlacher
OLB: Peppers

I think Paea would fit as a 3-4 DE. We could probably make it work starter wise especially if we could find an adequate NT but ALL of our depth players are a misfit.
_________________

GRRLacher wrote:
I told you guys AZ was awesome...he in fact makes triple the pay I get for moderating here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gene


Joined: 03 Jan 2013
Posts: 91
PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2013 7:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Superman(DH23) wrote:
If Pep wanted to play OLB he would have gone to a team running a 3-4. He never wanted to play the position, he wanted out of Carolina where he felt he had been disrespected.
He definitely wanted to play 3-4, but it was specifically for the Pats, and we killed that wish with an amount of money that most people said was ridiculous at the time. The Pats supposedly called his agent right around the time Lovie was knocking on his door.

Not that what he wants would matter. While he's built for the 4-3, he'd be fine in a 3-4. He's got better coverage skills than most 3-4 OLB, anyway.

pigsooie5 wrote:

Honestly I feel Henry Melton could play DE in a 3-4.

DE: Corey Wootton
NT: Stephen Paea
DE: Henry Melton

OLB: Julius Peppers
ILB: Lance Briggs
ILB: Brian Urlacher/Draftee
OLB: Shea McClellin

I actually like that a lot.

Yep, this would be it. It'd probably be respectable, at least, but I don't see it working nearly as well as our 4-3, so it won't happen. A lot guys who could probably handle the transition well (Wootton, Melton, Peppers, Briggs) are prototypical 4-3 guys, so their play would likely drop off at least a little.

A lot of people felt Paea should have been a one-gap 3-4 NT coming out, anyway, so that's good.


Last edited by Gene on Sun Jan 06, 2013 7:55 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ugLymayNe


Joined: 31 Oct 2006
Posts: 12701
Location: Wisconsin
PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2013 7:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Depending on the scheme, any 4-3 team can easily transition to the 3-4...

Peppers is damn there a Phillips' prototype for DE. Shea is the prototype OLB for that scheme. The problem for the Bears is I don't see a TED or a NT.

Take a Phillips type scheme, put Peppers, a draft pick, and Paea on the DL and Wooten-draft pick-Briggs-Shea at OLB and they would be fine. ROLB in that scheme is basically the same as 4-3 DE.

Melton's only spot in that D is reserve pass rusher.
_________________
@PJHotel_
Uglystik1072<---Gamertag

Sig brought to you by Justo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
IronMike84


Joined: 17 Jun 2009
Posts: 7135
PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2013 10:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ugLymayNe wrote:
The problem for the Bears is I don't see a TED or a NT.

This is the biggest issue. This thread comes up several times per year and people act like the 3-4 just uses two MLBs. In reality, Briggs would be a MIKE and you couldn't possibly expect Urlacher or Roach to play TED.
_________________
Rotoworld.com wrote:
...internet mock drafts, which have ridiculously become the measuring stick for where players are "supposed" to go.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sugashane


Joined: 06 Jan 2013
Posts: 1192
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 1:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

IronMike84 wrote:
ugLymayNe wrote:
The problem for the Bears is I don't see a TED or a NT.

This is the biggest issue. This thread comes up several times per year and people act like the 3-4 just uses two MLBs. In reality, Briggs would be a MIKE and you couldn't possibly expect Urlacher or Roach to play TED.


On our team I only see Izzy as a possible TED. Just because he does have good instincts and is a high effort guy, at 275 pounds he will not get pushed around as Urlacher or Roach. The negative is his speed would limit him on long stretch plays, and you would have to hope he could clear a way for another LB.

As for NT, Paea and Toeaina would likely have to rotate a fair amount, but they could be serviceable.

If we did a 3-4 I would only really hope for one such as the Colts, which have the rush, will, mike, and sam. It is just basically a 4-3 with a bit more flexibility.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AZBearsFan


Moderator
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 10972
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sugashane wrote:
IronMike84 wrote:
ugLymayNe wrote:
The problem for the Bears is I don't see a TED or a NT.

This is the biggest issue. This thread comes up several times per year and people act like the 3-4 just uses two MLBs. In reality, Briggs would be a MIKE and you couldn't possibly expect Urlacher or Roach to play TED.


On our team I only see Izzy as a possible TED. Just because he does have good instincts and is a high effort guy, at 275 pounds he will not get pushed around as Urlacher or Roach. The negative is his speed would limit him on long stretch plays, and you would have to hope he could clear a way for another LB.

As for NT, Paea and Toeaina would likely have to rotate a fair amount, but they could be serviceable.

If we did a 3-4 I would only really hope for one such as the Colts, which have the rush, will, mike, and sam. It is just basically a 4-3 with a bit more flexibility.

Welcome to the forum Sugashane. Please resize your avatar. It's too big. Must be 80x80 pixels or less.

Thanks.
_________________

GRRLacher wrote:
I told you guys AZ was awesome...he in fact makes triple the pay I get for moderating here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DaMike


Joined: 21 Nov 2010
Posts: 5646
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 10:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

IronMike84 wrote:
ugLymayNe wrote:
The problem for the Bears is I don't see a TED or a NT.

This is the biggest issue. This thread comes up several times per year and people act like the 3-4 just uses two MLBs. In reality, Briggs would be a MIKE and you couldn't possibly expect Urlacher or Roach to play TED.
Urlacher would make a great Thumper with is size and instincts.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Madmike90


Joined: 25 Jan 2009
Posts: 22834
Location: Scotland
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 10:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Can we not just say taking the defence that ranked 5th in total yards allowed and 3rd in scoring allowed and changing it to anything else is an idiotic idea and be done with it?...we don’t have any need to change our D from what it is…we don’t have the personal to run a 3-4 D…and we don’t have the resources to overhaul our front 7 with the other needs we have on the team…our defence is far from an issue…any new HC worth his salt will see what he has in place and leave it alone…look at Mike Tomlin in Pittsburgh…he got the job because of his work with a 4-3 cover 2 D in Minnesota…he gets the Pitt job and sees that they have 3-4 zone blitz personal and LeBeau to run it…so he leaves it alone…that is what our next HC has to do.
_________________
Adopt-a-Bear 2014…Lance Briggs
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
topwop1


Joined: 08 Jan 2008
Posts: 5250
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 11:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Madmike90 wrote:
Can we not just say taking the defence that ranked 5th in total yards allowed and 3rd in scoring allowed and changing it to anything else is an idiotic idea and be done with it?...we don’t have any need to change our D from what it is…we don’t have the personal to run a 3-4 D…and we don’t have the resources to overhaul our front 7 with the other needs we have on the team…our defence is far from an issue…any new HC worth his salt will see what he has in place and leave it alone…look at Mike Tomlin in Pittsburgh…he got the job because of his work with a 4-3 cover 2 D in Minnesota…he gets the Pitt job and sees that they have 3-4 zone blitz personal and LeBeau to run it…so he leaves it alone…that is what our next HC has to do.


Exactly what I have been saying. Any good coach that is hired here will see that the defense is a strength as is heading forward and will not want to tinker with that. 3-4 is just a fad that some fans get enamored with and think will yield automatic championships. Green Bay, New England, Houston and San Francisco all run a 3-4 so it must be the best thing to do right? Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pigsooie5


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 4176
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 11:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Madmike90 wrote:
Can we not just say taking the defence that ranked 5th in total yards allowed and 3rd in scoring allowed and changing it to anything else is an idiotic idea and be done with it?...we don’t have any need to change our D from what it is…we don’t have the personal to run a 3-4 D…and we don’t have the resources to overhaul our front 7 with the other needs we have on the team…our defence is far from an issue…any new HC worth his salt will see what he has in place and leave it alone…look at Mike Tomlin in Pittsburgh…he got the job because of his work with a 4-3 cover 2 D in Minnesota…he gets the Pitt job and sees that they have 3-4 zone blitz personal and LeBeau to run it…so he leaves it alone…that is what our next HC has to do.

And what would Mike Tomlin had done if LeBeau didn't stick around to run it? This is likely to be the issue in Chicago. I just don't see our Defensive coaching staff sticking around, with it comes change to our scheme in all likelihood. It won't be as drastic as switching to a 3-4 IMO, but no doubt this Defense will have change too. I know this last week has gone against everything you wanted with this team, but you should start warming up to the idea of change. Even on Defense.
_________________

BEARS------BULLS------DODGERS------KINGS
Adopt-A-Bear: Kyle Long, Guard
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Madmike90


Joined: 25 Jan 2009
Posts: 22834
Location: Scotland
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 11:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

pigsooie5 wrote:
Madmike90 wrote:
Can we not just say taking the defence that ranked 5th in total yards allowed and 3rd in scoring allowed and changing it to anything else is an idiotic idea and be done with it?...we don’t have any need to change our D from what it is…we don’t have the personal to run a 3-4 D…and we don’t have the resources to overhaul our front 7 with the other needs we have on the team…our defence is far from an issue…any new HC worth his salt will see what he has in place and leave it alone…look at Mike Tomlin in Pittsburgh…he got the job because of his work with a 4-3 cover 2 D in Minnesota…he gets the Pitt job and sees that they have 3-4 zone blitz personal and LeBeau to run it…so he leaves it alone…that is what our next HC has to do.

And what would Mike Tomlin had done if LeBeau didn't stick around to run it? This is likely to be the issue in Chicago. I just don't see our Defensive coaching staff sticking around, with it comes change to our scheme in all likelihood. It won't be as drastic as switching to a 3-4 IMO, but no doubt this Defense will have change too. I know this last week has gone against everything you wanted with this team, but you should start warming up to the idea of change. Even on Defense.


Given how smart an HC Tomlin is he would have promoted Ray Horton or Keith Butler to run the same 3-4 zone blitz scheme…the exact same as if Rod Marinelli decides not to come back here we should promote Jon Hoke to run the exact same D that has been so successful for so long...let’s remember all those assistants are still under contract…changing a top 5 D for the sake of change is flat out stupid.
_________________
Adopt-a-Bear 2014…Lance Briggs
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wiscbearsfan


Joined: 06 May 2006
Posts: 6350
Location: WI
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 11:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Madmike90 wrote:
and we don’t have the resources to overhaul our front 7 with the other needs we have on the team


That's really the key, their resources. Emery is going to get an offensive HC who will get more out of their current personnel but still have significant needs (OL, TE, WR). On top of that you still need to re-sign some of their own UFA's lest they have a massive number of holes to fill.

The reality is that you just don't have enough draft picks and cap space to make the kinds of additions you probably need to make to have it work.

That being said with the progressing age of this defense we are going to see significant turnover among their defensive personnel over the next couple years so a switch to a 3-4 could be a future consideration, I just don't think it happens quite yet.
_________________
Quote:
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist. And like that.........he is gone.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
IronMike84


Joined: 17 Jun 2009
Posts: 7135
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 3:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'd like to point out once again that any desire on the part of Bear fans to switch to a 3-4 is mostly a matter of wanting what we don't have.
_________________
Rotoworld.com wrote:
...internet mock drafts, which have ridiculously become the measuring stick for where players are "supposed" to go.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sugashane


Joined: 06 Jan 2013
Posts: 1192
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Madmike90 wrote:
Can we not just say taking the defence that ranked 5th in total yards allowed and 3rd in scoring allowed and changing it to anything else is an idiotic idea and be done with it?...we don’t have any need to change our D from what it is…we don’t have the personal to run a 3-4 D…and we don’t have the resources to overhaul our front 7 with the other needs we have on the team…our defence is far from an issue…any new HC worth his salt will see what he has in place and leave it alone…look at Mike Tomlin in Pittsburgh…he got the job because of his work with a 4-3 cover 2 D in Minnesota…he gets the Pitt job and sees that they have 3-4 zone blitz personal and LeBeau to run it…so he leaves it alone…that is what our next HC has to do.


Agree completely, I just hope we can keep Marinelli and either re-sign Urlacher for less or get a better option than Roach for the mike.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Chicago Bears All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group