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

Scrap the 3-4 and the ZBS...
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
daintrain28


FF Fanatic

Joined: 04 Feb 2005
Posts: 19643
Location: Bettendorf, Iowa
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 11:14 am    Post subject: Scrap the 3-4 and the ZBS... Reply with quote

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!
I Am Rodgers wrote:
We traded MD Jennings for Julius Peppers. TT DA WHITE WIZARD
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
spilltray


Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 10480
Location: Green Bay, WI
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 11:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
_________________
Wilfred wrote:
Memory is like the Packers when they are behind by two touchdowns in the 4th quarter... It comes back.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
CWood21


Moderator
Joined: 27 Jun 2008
Posts: 35430
Location: 'Merica
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 3:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
jfinley88


Joined: 08 Feb 2010
Posts: 11481
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 3:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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

Does anybody know how often we used four down linemen last year?
_________________
JammerHammer21 wrote:
jfin is one of those 1000 monkeys sitting at a typewriter that will eventually type out all of Shakespere.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PossibleCabbage


Joined: 25 Apr 2011
Posts: 3304
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 3:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ajdodge09


Joined: 01 Mar 2008
Posts: 4634
Location: Monterey Bay
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 3:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CWood21 wrote:
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.


I'd assume we'd put Perry at RE. I remember a lot of people saying he was better suited to be a 4-3 end because that's what he played at USC.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CWood21


Moderator
Joined: 27 Jun 2008
Posts: 35430
Location: 'Merica
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 3:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ajdodge09 wrote:
I'd assume we'd put Perry at RE. I remember a lot of people saying he was better suited to be a 4-3 end because that's what he played at USC.


I knew I was forgetting someone.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
ChaRisMa


Joined: 08 Mar 2007
Posts: 7256
Location: @_G_Tom
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 3:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I still think we drafted last year towards being able to do both. Have that flexibility.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
HyponGrey


Joined: 23 Jun 2012
Posts: 3736
Location: Down the road from NFL Films
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 3:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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

spilltray wrote:
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.
Give this man a prize. Our schemes take advantage of the talent pool, 3-4 and ZBS prospects are much easier to find.

Also remember that 4-3 is essentially 3-4 minus a tech. Most 4-3 DE play OLB in 3-4. I know we all know that, but its good to be reminded sometimes.
_________________
justo wrote:
Bostick drove a guy 12 yards and finished off with a pancake and I'm not sure where my pants went.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kal-El


Joined: 29 Apr 2010
Posts: 3788
Location: Milwaukee, WI. Team: Packers.
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 3:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ajdodge09 wrote:
CWood21 wrote:
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.


I'd assume we'd put Perry at RE. I remember a lot of people saying he was better suited to be a 4-3 end because that's what he played at USC.


I'd switch Hawk and Clay for that matter as well. Hawk is pretty much doing SLB work for us in this scheme, and Clay at WLB would be free to make more plays.
_________________
stockholder wrote:
Nothing coherent. Ever.

Lorde <33333333
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PossibleCabbage


Joined: 25 Apr 2011
Posts: 3304
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 3:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ajdodge09 wrote:

I'd assume we'd put Perry at RE. I remember a lot of people saying he was better suited to be a 4-3 end because that's what he played at USC.


Honestly, I don't think Perry really is that well suited to playing RE in a 4-3. With his lack of ideal size and his reliance on speed and finesse moves he'd likely get blown off the ball by most good LTs.

I like him much better as an OLB.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CornOnDaCobb


Joined: 16 Jan 2013
Posts: 521
Location: Tampa, FL
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 3:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CWood21 wrote:
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.


Wouldn't Nick Perry play right end?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
KManX89


Joined: 25 Oct 2012
Posts: 1905
Location: Charlotte, North Carolina
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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


This.

I think we could play a little bit of both with the guys we drafted last year, basically run a 3-4/4-3 hybrid base like the Falcons, Jets, Broncos, Ravens, Texans, Patriots, etc, use.

But that would potentially mean using a high pick on a hybrid 4-3 DE/3-4 OLB-type player in the draft (like a Sam Montgomery, Alex Okafor, Dion Jordan, possibly Barkevious Mingo if he falls, etc), when we have several pressing needs elsewhere, on OL, DL, ILB and S, and I'd rather spend the early picks on any of those positions. We'll also need to draft Finley's future replacement, because I don't see us sticking with him beyond next year. Sure, he may have earned himself one more year with the club after he really started to turn it on towards the end of the season, but that's it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
packattack86


Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Posts: 2908
Location: Springfield, IL
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 11:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SDN40


Joined: 13 Jan 2008
Posts: 3857
PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 12:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 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