Saw a report this morning that we are going back to a base 4-3 defense.

If so....Soliai won't be back.

That report also indicated that Misi would move inside and. Burnett and Dansby would play outside. Apparently Misi played ilb his first two years in college.

Dline would be Langford-Starks-odrick-wake

Interesting. Our defense was not exactly on fire last year so I welcome the change.

Would definitely need a better pass rush from the DE spot to be successful in the 4-3.

Krunk Fu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Would definitely need a better pass rush from the
> DE spot to be successful in the 4-3.


And more speed at olb. Wouldn't surprise me to see Dansby and/or Burnett traded.

maybe we draft quentin coples (supposed to be 4-3 DE) in the 1st. I hate taking a DL #1 again.
I always thought we had the personnel for a 4-3 more than 3-4. We've got a ton of DL but not many good LBs. Dansby played in 4-3 with AZ I think, don't think he's going anywhere, he's our best LB.

Going back to a base 4-3 does not mean that we will not line up with multiple fronts. Soliai could certainly play in both formations. He might even be better lining up over the guard. Wilfork certainly played in a ton of 4-3 formations this year.

It's way too soon to jump to any conclusions.

berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> maybe we draft quentin coples (supposed to be 4-3
> DE) in the 1st. I hate taking a DL #1 again.
> I always thought we had the personnel for a 4-3
> more than 3-4. We've got a ton of DL but not many
> good LBs. Dansby played in 4-3 with AZ I think,
> don't think he's going anywhere, he's our best LB.

We really don't have that much on DE for the 4-3.

The basic formula for 4-3 is smaller speed rushers at DE and two guys inside that eat up blockers. Langford is more of a 3-4 de where they play run first and are larger guys.

We can play Starks and odrick Inside but we are woefully thin when it comes to speed rushers. All we have is wake.

At lb we have 3 guys who fit one position. MLB. None of the have the speed needed to cover in space as an olb in the system.

I expect we will see 2 guys traded or cut out of the Dansby, Misi, Burnett group.

Usually that starts with the older more expensive guys.

Absolutely. We don’t have a legit 4-3 DE, even Wake is not a prime fit.

If you want to see what REALLY GOOD 4-3 DE’s look like, check out the Giants. We don’t have anyone even close.

And our DT’s? No way. And…like we don’t have a great MLB which is prerequisite for 4-3. I don’t see this happening…

Really?

If so, this is precisely the kind of “retooling” and/or “rebuilding” that’s NOT necessary and counterproductive to the plan we’ve implemented for 4 or 5 years. The problem is:

we haven’t drafted an OLB that’s a game changer – which is necessary for 3-4 (Wake alone is not enough). I think at this point it will be easier to add one dominant pass rusher on the outside than scrap the entire front 7. I mean

really? OMG its groundhog day all over again

and again and again… Who’s “brilliant idea” is this???

BNF. And bewildered.

Could you post a link to the report? I haven't seen it. I'm not madly in love with the 3-4, but our defense has been pretty solid the past couple of years in that scheme. Their failing has been more about not coming up big in big moments (e.g. losing leads). Does the 4-3 address this better than the 3-4? I have my doubts. I think that's more about heart and attitude.

Our defense would have been great last year if they didn't start the season completely out of shape

So that puts Wake at one DE, but what about the other side? Odrick? Do Langford and Starks move to DT?

In a 4-3, the MLB is the QB of the defense. 4-3 defenses live and die by the MLB. When we had Zach, we were monsters. When we had Crowder, we were pussy cats. I'm not sold on Misi moving to MLB just because he played it before. If we're serious about moving to a 4-3, then I see us drafting an ILB early.

Koa Misi played DE and DT at Utah. He did not play ILB. Karlos Dansby made his name in the league as a WLB in Arizona's 4-3. Kevin Burnett was a safety in college, and pass coverage is his best skill. He would likely be a nice fit at SLB in the 4-3. Soliai, Langford, and Merling are all free agents, And with JT retiring, the front 7 was going to need retooling anyway.

dolfanmark Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Koa Misi played DE and DT at Utah. He did not play
> ILB. Karlos Dansby made his name in the league as
> a WLB in Arizona's 4-3. Kevin Burnett was a safety
> in college, and pass coverage is his best skill.
> He would likely be a nice fit at SLB in the 4-3.
> Soliai, Langford, and Merling are all free agents,
> And with JT retiring, the front 7 was going to
> need retooling anyway.

So, again, that leaves us without a MLB...the most important position in a 4-3. Are we going to risk that on a rookie or a guy who's never played it?!

montequi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> dolfanmark Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Koa Misi played DE and DT at Utah. He did not
> play
> > ILB. Karlos Dansby made his name in the league
> as
> > a WLB in Arizona's 4-3. Kevin Burnett was a
> safety
> > in college, and pass coverage is his best
> skill.
> > He would likely be a nice fit at SLB in the
> 4-3.
> > Soliai, Langford, and Merling are all free
> agents,
> > And with JT retiring, the front 7 was going to
> > need retooling anyway.
>
> So, again, that leaves us without a MLB...the most
> important position in a 4-3. Are we going to risk
> that on a rookie or a guy who's never played it?!

I don't think that MLB is the most important position in the 4-3

I believe it's DT.

If you don't have two large and mobile DT's that demand double teams then offenses can lend help on the outside to slow your pass rush and
the can get a lineman on your MLB and for e him to make plays further downfield.

If you have those DT's then you mlb can read and react and attack the line of scrimmage and your DE's will be singled up on their OT's.

Yeah, but while the DTs are responsible for the pass rush, the reason that the MOST important person in the 4-3 is that the MLB is responsible for damn near everything else, the run, the dump-off, moving from side to side, in short, the Zach Thomas.

THE Truth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> montequi Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > dolfanmark Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Koa Misi played DE and DT at Utah. He did not
> > play
> > > ILB. Karlos Dansby made his name in the
> league
> > as
> > > a WLB in Arizona's 4-3. Kevin Burnett was a
> > safety
> > > in college, and pass coverage is his best
> > skill.
> > > He would likely be a nice fit at SLB in the
> > 4-3.
> > > Soliai, Langford, and Merling are all free
> > agents,
> > > And with JT retiring, the front 7 was going
> to
> > > need retooling anyway.
> >
> > So, again, that leaves us without a MLB...the
> most
> > important position in a 4-3. Are we going to
> risk
> > that on a rookie or a guy who's never played
> it?!
>
> I don't think that MLB is the most important
> position in the 4-3
>
> I believe it's DT.
>
> If you don't have two large and mobile DT's that
> demand double teams then offenses can lend help on
> the outside to slow your pass rush and
> the can get a lineman on your MLB and for e him to
> make plays further downfield.
>
> If you have those DT's then you mlb can read and
> react and attack the line of scrimmage and your
> DE's will be singled up on their OT's.

Nope. Remember, you have 2 DTs but only ONE MLB. In a 3-4, the NT is the most important guy. If he can't hold his own, the defense crumbles. In a 4-3, it's the MLB that needs to be good. That's why we were so good when we had Zach Thomas. We had a number of different DTs in front of him during those years, but as long as we had ZT we were good. The same applies to Ray Lewis in Baltimore and Mike Singletary in Chicago. Those guys anchored their defenses. Put in mediocre MLBs and those defenses would have been average to above average. Put HoF level MLBs and you have a HoF defense. The DTs weren't nearly as important.

why in the world are we switching to a 4-3? didn't GB run a 3-4? why would philbin want to switch and create new needs to fill?

berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> why in the world are we switching to a 4-3? didn't
> GB run a 3-4? why would philbin want to switch and
> create new needs to fill?


Kevin Coyle, who will be the new defensive coordinator, comes from a 4-3 system.

And our ability to field a 3-4 is not great, so that's not a compelling reason to keep it. Kendall Langford and Paul Soliai are free agents, and Soliai will cost well beyond what we can afford. We are only $6M under the cap, without Soliai and Langford. So, there are two big holes to fill. And, we have never been able to find the pass rusher for opposite Wake. And now JT has retired. So, there is another big hole to fill. Either way, there are multiples holes to fill on defense.

Another thing to consider here is that the 3-4 is sort of in vogue. When a scheme gets in vogue, there is more demand for players that fit that type of scheme. So, it may actually be a little easier to land some 4-3 players.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/25/2012 02:03PM by dolfanmark.

berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> why in the world are we switching to a 4-3? didn't
> GB run a 3-4? why would philbin want to switch and
> create new needs to fill?


I suspect it is for a few reasons. First, Cincinnati Bengals secondary coach Kevin Coyle is perceived as the front runner to become the Miami Dolphins defensive coordinator. He comes from a 4-3 system.

Next, it sounds like Ireland believes the personnel better fits a 4-3. This would explain why Solai and his salary are expendable.

Finally, it is possible that projects areas of strength in the draft that would better suit the 4-3 scheme. Initially, I was convinced we would pick a OT like Reiff or Martin, could we be eyeing Couples? If he isn't available, I am intrigued by Brockers as a DT.

At least find a way to sign and trade Soliai - that would have to be #1 on the list.

Can you trade a dude that's been franchised?

BigNastyFish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> At least find a way to sign and trade Soliai -
> that would have to be #1 on the list.
>
> Can you trade a dude that's been franchised?


Franchising him for the purposes of trading him is against the CBA. And here is the issue with a sign and trade. Most times, a guy doesn't want to be franchised. He wants the long term deal. So, a team threatens him with, "accept and sign this long term deal and we'll trade you, or else we franchise you for another 1 year deal." And if the long term deal's annual salary is close to the franchise tag, a player would like that idea. In this case, the tag for Soliai is $15M, probably double his market value. So, the threat would be "sign this 3 year, $24M deal and we'll trade you, or we'll franchise you and pay you $15M for this year alone." In that case, if you are Soliai, you'd be happy with the one year at $15M, because how much of that $24M long term deal is guaranteed?

That's the problem here. Soliai's franchise tag # is way higher than his market value. It's just not going to work out.

dolfanmark Wrote:

>
> Franchising him for the purposes of trading him is
> against the CBA. And here is the issue with a sign
> and trade.


where did you hear this? this is exactly what the pats did with Cassell, so unless the CBA changed in this respect, it is not against the CBA. Did the CBA change? That would be the first i heard of that.

I was never for keeping Soliai. Let him Carey, Henne and Bell go. Maybe we will get an extra 4th rnd comp pick in 2013.

If we are switching to the 4-3, doesn't it point to the fact that we aren't in the market to trade up for RGIII?

We need the picks to retool the defense--don't see how we could do it through free agency alone.

I think Ireland is looking to let our free agents go on defense, preserve the cap space to sign Manning or Flynn at QB, and restock the defense through the draft.

Should also give us a compensatory pick or two the following year.

Its a lot easier to go to a 43 from a 34 than visa versa anyway...

Odrick and Wake both played 43 DE before and transitioned to their perspective positions.

You need a bigger guy on the strong side anyway and Odrick could be a monster LDE. Look at Richard Seymour for instance. Not comparing the production just the size. He would probably drop 20 or so anyway as he was coming out of College. Two Penn State DE's...and we also still have Merling who was a 43 DE and struggled at 34 DE....and Misi was also a DE.

Dansby excelled in a 43 at WLB. He had six sacks as a WLB in AZ as well as many turnovers.

From what I have read from Ireland, It could be Dansby at WLB, Burnett at SLB and Misi at MLB. Lets not go giving away all our talent btw (Burnett and Dansby). This would be a nice LB crew.

and you still need a NT in most 43 lines. Soliai would be that middle clogger with Starks next to him who can get upfield.

Sounds like a pretty nice front 7 to me...even if we cant resign Langford and just keep Paul.

It would be nice to have that stud MLB again as we had in Zach. More of a focal point in a 43....and Misi would be a big one.

.....................................................................................
“I'm here" You're welcome!" - Kenny Powers

Good points eesti but I think Odrick played DT in the 4-3 at Penn State. I would much rather keep Paul than Langford but the price may be too high. Langford would be nice as a run stopping DE since we would presumably have Dansby at WOLB and he would get some opportunities to blitz. But Paul would form a really nice three man rotation at DT with Starks and Odrick. I think we will only be able to resign one of them and it will come down to money. Either way I think we will be able to still trade up for RGIII and just use FA to fill in some depth on the defense for now.

As I let the idea of switching to 4-3 sink in I do see some possibilities, but my reservations are:

1) losing Paul Soliai when he’s at the peak of his career in absolutely unjustifiable. Really big dudes like him are very hard to duplicate. I’d consider his loss a certified failure on the personnel and financial side. Bottom line, only losing franchisees let players like Paul just walk away…

2) IMO Langford would be lost in the 4-3 because he’s not a legit DE and not a DT. IMO he’s far more expendable than Soliai. Langford was drafted because he’s a “tweener” and now that same fact seemingly dooms his career in Miami.

3) Misi is another “tweener” like Langford and I can’t project him as a 4-3 MLB. He’s a bit large and lumbering for that position IMO. I mean really, can you see Misi tearing it up anything like a real MLB, lack a Zack Thomas? I can’t…

So here we have two recent 2nd round picks specifically made for a 3-4 that are really displaced in a 4-3. That part I don’t like at all – discarding young talent because they don’t fit with the new “system.”

I don’t think Odrick is ever going to be compared to Seymour. And he’s more suited to 4-3 DT than DE IMO. So the only legit 4-3 DE we have is Wake. And that means we need to invest more draft capital to try and solve a “problem” we’ve been spending high picks on for years… Franchises don’t get anywhere when they continually spin their wheels…

Whatever. I’m more in favor of staying 3-4 and drafting a dominant OLB to match with Wake. But that is absolutely not happening when you bring in a DC to implement 4-3. It just seems like we’re admitting the 3-4 was a mistake and now we’ve got to backtrack and put some dudes in positions they are less than ideal for.

So Project BIG is dead. And now we have another project to deal with… Can you say the shit never ends…

I hope I’m wrong and the transition is easy and painless. But one way or another, I think this switch is going to require more draft capital and therefore set us behind on other positions of need, such as OL, TE, WR, and of course, a few QB prospects.

Not digging it at this point.

BNF.

Agree completely with bnf

Actually I believe Odrick played DE at Penn State and Ireland is the one that said Odrick could play DE or DT in a 43. He said it would be up to the coaching staff though.

.....................................................................................
“I'm here" You're welcome!" - Kenny Powers