Scrap the 3-4 and the ZBS...

daintrain28 · Joined: 04 Feb 2005 Posts: 19160 Location: Bettendorf, Iowa

Alright, alright, I am being overly dramatical. The truth is we are too well invested in either to switch. And threads like this over the years with the position of "they just don't work" are silly to say the least.

Nonetheless, for the sake of discussion, there is another reason to support such a move.

When the Packers lineup for the 2013 season it will mark the 5th year of the 3-4 and the 8th year of the ZBS in GB. Since that time these schemes have gone from the minority in the league to the norm. More and more teams have switched to running these schemes that it is no longer an obscure system the Pack runs, but a typical system.

This means that GB used to get steals because prospects did not fit other schemes but fit ours. Now that is no longer the case, maybe GB should think about switching back to a Power scheme or 4-3.

I know, it's not going to happen, but it's an interesting discussion...
_________________

Thanks packerbacker87 for the sig!
Green Bay Packers: Super Bowl XLV Champions!

spilltray · Joined: 09 Jan 2006 Posts: 8650 Location: Green Bay, WI

The 3-4 is still easier because there are more 3-4 type pass rushers. The 4-3 DE is becoming more rare the more of a premium is put on speed, especially from the edge. There are still more teams that run the 4-3 than quality DEs that can really fill all aspects of that role. Then you remember that MM has said he prefers the 3-4 because as an offensive guy, he feels the 3-4 is harder to prepare for because it has more moving parts, and the fact that it gives them more LB types for ST play, and I really can't see them philosophically shifting away from it unless MM were to leave.

As far as the ZBS goes, GB's OL is kinda a tweener between the two schemes right now anyway. They are a bit big for a "traditional" ZBS, and a bit undersized compared to most power scheme OLs. One thing to keep in mind though is that conceptually, the ZBS has more in common with pass blocking, especially in a multiple formation/spread passing base offense where players block areas more than guys. The concepts between the run blocking and pass blocking dovetail nicely and with increasingly limited practice time, I think it's better to keep the blocking concepts as similar as possible.
_________________

CWood21 · Joined: 27 Jun 2008 Posts: 30533 Location: 'Merica

Let's say hypothetically, that a transition to a 4-3 was being discussed. How do each of the front seven players fit?

Sure, Clay Matthews could play as a RDE, but do you really think that plays to his strengths? I mean, he can do it but he's better when he's got a bit of space between him and an offensive tackle. Speed is his best strength, but he's got the power there as well. I'd rather use him similar to the way Denver uses Von Miller as a really good SAM.

Going forward...

LDE Mike Neal
NT B.J. Raji
UT Jerel Worthy
RDE ???

WILL AJ Hawk
MIKE Desmond Bishop
SAM Clay Matthews

Sure, Mike Neal probably isn't the ideal LDE but he could probably play there at a decent level but you've got a HUGE gap at RDE.
_________________

^sandwhich on the sig^

jfinley88 · Joined: 08 Feb 2010 Posts: 4612 Location: Orlando

We'd have ridiculous depth at DT... Very Happy

.

Does anybody know how often we used four down linemen last year?
_________________

Jaguarfan witsig

PossibleCabbage · Joined: 25 Apr 2011 Posts: 2447

Honestly, I see no reason to switch from a 3-4 to a 4-3. What's the benefit? What's the appeal?

Is it the notion that certain defensive bigs are "better suited" for playing in a 4-3 because they're not long?

Since, you know, when you play nickel in a 3-4 defense (and you tend to do that a lot in the modern NFL) you line up your defensive bigs exactly as if they were playing in an even front and you line up your pass rushers more or less in the "wide 9" technique that's so popular right now.

There's really very little difference between a 4-3 nickel and a 3-4 nickel.

Now maybe we need better players on defense, but I see no real benefit in transitioning to a scheme where important defensive players are harder to find. It's not like anybody on this roster would be a star at DE in a 4-3; as quality pass-rushing DEs are quite difficult to find.

ajdodge09 · Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 3:11 pm Post subject:

CWood21 · Joined: 27 Jun 2008 Posts: 30533 Location: 'Merica

ChaRisMa · Joined: 08 Mar 2007 Posts: 5331

I still think we drafted last year towards being able to do both. Have that flexibility.
_________________

HyponGrey · Joined: 23 Jun 2012 Posts: 1864 Location: Mount Laurel, NJ

http://www.footballsfuture.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=510650&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

http://www.footballsfuture.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=511153&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Kal-El · Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 3:33 pm Post subject:

PossibleCabbage · Joined: 25 Apr 2011 Posts: 2447

CornOnDaCobb · Joined: 16 Jan 2013 Posts: 246 Location: Tampa, FL

KManX89 · Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:01 pm Post subject:

packattack86 · Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 11:32 pm Post subject:

Why not run a hybrid 3-4/4-3? We play a ton of nickel as is, so switching completely would be a huge setback. I think when we plays teams that like to run like Minny that maybe 4 down lineman would be better to slow AP, but overall it would not be good. Clay is perfectly cast as an OLB, so sticking him at DE would hinder him a bit.

As far as the zbs goes i'm fine w/ it. Many teams use it well amd have success. GB just loves to throw, and we haven't invested a lot in RB's as far as FA or high draft picks. I think this yr TT and MM will look to be more balance bcuz they realize in order to beat the SF's, NY's, and SEA's you need balance. If those defenses don't respect your run game and you only do it out of obligation they can tee off on your QB and make u 1 dimensional.
_________________

SDN40 · Joined: 13 Jan 2008 Posts: 3120

TBH I'm still confused at what the exact problem is with this defense. It's probably a combination of many things, but I will say this. It seems like every year we are hearing about communication problems and guys not in the right place. Complicating things by going with a hybrid or other variations just seem like adding gas to a 4 year fire.
_________________