Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

BmoreBird22

Switch to the 4-3?

61 posts in this topic

I've seen this discussed in various places, so let's put a thread together for it.

With the addition of CJ Mosley, the Ravens would have three linebackers capable of flowing sideline to sideline and playing the 4-3. With the additions of Jernigan and Urban, two 4-3 DT's, aand4-3 DT being the natural position of Canty and Ngata, you have to wonder if a switch is coming.

Would you embrace the switch? Pros? Cons? Don't fix what isn't totally broken?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It'll still be a mixture of 4-3 / 3-4,l like we've been playing, but I think some of the personnel (Jerrigan) they brought in fit more in a 4-3 than 3-4 - although Jerrigan could play 3-4 end if he had to.

 

The FO raved about Brent Urban as being a prototypical 5-technique which leads me to believe the mixture of our defenses will remain.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When did the 43 become Ngata's natural position? Did he shed 40 pounds and significantly improve his pass rush this offseason?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When did the 43 become Ngata's natural position? Did he shed 40 pounds and significantly improve his pass rush this offseason?

 

Well, Ngata would be a solid 4-3 one technique a la Tony Siragusa or Pat Williams from the old Williams Wall. He'd be great in that role.

 

As for our base, I have no clue. It sounds to me that we're going with a single gap 3-4 or a version of Seattle's defense. It would be stupid to run a two gap system with the players we have, but we also don't quite have the personnel for a full 4-3 switch. Running a single gap scheme would also make it easier to switch between 3-4 and 4-3 fronts.

 

Also, as many have pointed out, we're in nickel for most snaps, so our base defense is relatively insignificant. Still an interesting discussion point, though.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When did the 43 become Ngata's natural position? Did he shed 40 pounds and significantly improve his pass rush this offseason?

I didn't realize that Vince Wilfork was a small guy

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't realize that Vince Wilfork was a small guy

 

New England plays a bit of 4-3, but they still primarily run a 3-4. But even in their 4-3 sets, Wilfork is a dominant one tech.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's think about the future (next 5 years) since a scheme change would not just be for next year. With that said, 3-4 hybrid seems to still be the way to go based on how our LB core is trending. The next 5 years, Daryl Smith should not be a factor and Elvis should not be counted on either. With them eliminated, we still have the possibility of a great LB core. Jack/Will in Brown because of his speed and potential ability to pursue and clean up the play from the weak side and a possible great fit in CJ being the MIKE - able to be the point of attack in run defense.

 

Upshaw is a good edge setting SAM in a 3-4 - on the ball, but do not see him being as effective in a 4-3 at SAM; he would have to be made into a DE to keep him on the line - and I do not see him being effective there either because of his pass rush limitations. Finally, Suggs has been the stereotypical hybrid RUSH/WILL OLB/DE being able to set the edge AND rush the passer. He will need to be replaced in the coming drafts to complete the rebuilding of our 3-4 LBs.

 

Basically what I am saying, is that I think in order to switch to a 4-3, there are much more holes to fill to be effective as compared to sticking with our current 3-4 hybrid scheme when you look to the future. Brown and CJ can play WILL and SAM in a 3-4 or 4-3, so no problem there. Also, I think our young interior line is flexible and athletic enough to play DT/NT in a 3-4 or 4-3. However, I think our problem comes with DE and OLB in a 4-3 vs a 3-4. In a 3-4 we need to eventually replace Suggs at OLB. BUT, in a 4-3 we would not only need to replace Suggs, but also find another good DE opposite him and a SAM LB.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in order to really build a great defense we need a dynamic young passrusher.

and that along with another cb should be picks one and two next year
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and that along with another cb should be picks one and two next year

I love how we were all like "We need help on offense"

and now that we can get back to being a seattle like defense everyone's like "I want all the defense."  Hopefully we can develop some younger CBs.  But pass rushers are genuinely tough to come by

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love how we were all like "We need help on offense"

and now that we can get back to being a seattle like defense everyone's like "I want all the defense." Hopefully we can develop some younger CBs. But pass rushers are genuinely tough to come by

I dont want all defense. We will need a cb so when we go three wide webb can slide in and a pass rusher. I would have no issues this year if for example we drafted dennard 1 and attachou or kony ealy in the second. I think that would have been a far better 1 and 2
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont want all defense. We will need a cb so when we go three wide webb can slide in and a pass rusher. I would have no issues this year if for example we drafted dennard 1 and attachou or kony ealy in the second. I think that would have been a far better 1 and 2

Attachou interested me as well.  Thought Dennard was also a good player.  obviously we're not going to know until the season, but there must be something up with Koney Early for him to slide THAT far.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Attachou interested me as well. Thought Dennard was also a good player. obviously we're not going to know until the season, but there must be something up with Koney Early for him to slide THAT far.

I think those picks would be equally as good value but better impacts as in positions of greater need. I mean we only have 2 players on the roster that can pass rush, and we only have 4 cbs, one a drug failure away from a season ban, another a average to below players.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's think about the future (next 5 years) since a scheme change would not just be for next year. With that said, 3-4 hybrid seems to still be the way to go based on how our LB core is trending. The next 5 years, Daryl Smith should not be a factor and Elvis should not be counted on either. With them eliminated, we still have the possibility of a great LB core. Jack/Will in Brown because of his speed and potential ability to pursue and clean up the play from the weak side and a possible great fit in CJ being the MIKE - able to be the point of attack in run defense.

Upshaw is a good edge setting SAM in a 3-4 - on the ball, but do not see him being as effective in a 4-3 at SAM; he would have to be made into a DE to keep him on the line - and I do not see him being effective there either because of his pass rush limitations. Finally, Suggs has been the stereotypical hybrid RUSH/WILL OLB/DE being able to set the edge AND rush the passer. He will need to be replaced in the coming drafts to complete the rebuilding of our 3-4 LBs.

Basically what I am saying, is that I think in order to switch to a 4-3, there are much more holes to fill to be effective as compared to sticking with our current 3-4 hybrid scheme when you look to the future. Brown and CJ can play WILL and SAM in a 3-4 or 4-3, so no problem there. Also, I think our young interior line is flexible and athletic enough to play DT/NT in a 3-4 or 4-3. However, I think our problem comes with DE and OLB in a 4-3 vs a 3-4. In a 3-4 we need to eventually replace Suggs at OLB. BUT, in a 4-3 we would not only need to replace Suggs, but also find another good DE opposite him and a SAM LB.

I agree 100%. If we try to make that shift, our DE spots will be very weak. Our starters would be fine, but we would have nobody to spell them and be effective. We were actually lining Upshaw up at the 3 tech on several occasions over the last 2 years. I'm not sure he has the pass rush to play a true DE in the 4-3. Our interior line depth would be ridiculous, but we don't have the depth to make that switch this year. I could defiantly see us mixing in more 4-3 looks though.

For the future though, I see a different story. Back when we were plucking Adalius Thomas out of the 6th round, there was only a couple of teams ran the 3-4. It was much easier to get those kind of players late because 4-3 teams weren't looking for a player like him. A player like that would go in the 2nd or 3rd today, because the demand is much higher.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think those picks would be equally as good value but better impacts as in positions of greater need. I mean we only have 2 players on the roster that can pass rush, and we only have 4 cbs, one a drug failure away from a season ban, another a average to below players.

I think Dennard and Mosley were Similar quality players in my eyes.  I didn't see Attacho as the same quality of player as Jernigan.  Though when we pick Jernigan my initial reaction was he wasn't a scheme fit.  I still feel like he was a considerably better prospect than Attachou, who's more athlete at this point.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree 100%. If we try to make that shift, our DE spots will be very weak. Our starters would be fine, but we would have nobody to spell them and be effective. We were actually lining Upshaw up at the 3 tech on several occasions over the last 2 years. I'm not sure he has the pass rush to play a true DE in the 4-3. Our interior line depth would be ridiculous, but we don't have the depth to make that switch this year. I could defiantly see us mixing in more 4-3 looks though.

For the future though, I see a different story. Back when we were plucking Adalius Thomas out of the 6th round, there was only a couple of teams ran the 3-4. It was much easier to get those kind of players late because 4-3 teams weren't looking for a player like him. A player like that would go in the 2nd or 3rd today, because the demand is much higher.

Yes, that is true also. I think it will be easier to fill a #2 CB and stud RUSH OLB over the next 5 years (or however long Suggs stays effective, as well as Webb) to complete a 3-4 roster than it will to find 2 great DEs and a 4-3 SAM OLB, as well as a #2 CB for a 4-3 roster. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Ngata would be a solid 4-3 one technique a la Tony Siragusa or Pat Williams from the old Williams Wall. He'd be great in that role.

 

As for our base, I have no clue. It sounds to me that we're going with a single gap 3-4 or a version of Seattle's defense. It would be stupid to run a two gap system with the players we have, but we also don't quite have the personnel for a full 4-3 switch. Running a single gap scheme would also make it easier to switch between 3-4 and 4-3 fronts.

 

Also, as many have pointed out, we're in nickel for most snaps, so our base defense is relatively insignificant. Still an interesting discussion point, though.

 

Even being in nickel most of the time, it is still kind of relevant to the discussion considering nickel formations can have anywhere from one to four DL.

If we are running three or less DL, Ngata needs to be able to eat up as many blockers as possible, and not necessarily remaining stationary while doing so; he might be asked to get off his block and hit someone else as well. If we are running 4 DL, Ngata needs to help generate a pass rush.

While Ngata moves pretty well for a guy his size, both scenarios above are far from his ideal role. Even when he was in his prime, his pass rush was pretty inconsistent.

 

*edit*

 

That said, if we want to use him like we did the fatties back in the day, yep, he'd be good for that.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't realize that Vince Wilfork was a small guy

He isn't. But Wilfork has nothing to do with Ngata.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been against this for a long time because we didn't have the personnel for it. I think we have it now with Mosley and Jernigan. Get our best players on the field.

 

                        Suggs - Ngata - Canty - Dumervil

 

                            Brown      Mosley       Smith

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been against this for a long time because we didn't have the personnel for it. I think we have it now with Mosley and Jernigan. Get our best players on the field.

 

                        Suggs - Ngata - Canty - Dumervil

 

                            Brown      Mosley       Smith

 

Replace Canty with Jernigan, and that looks nasty as hell.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Replace Canty with Jernigan, and that looks nasty as hell.

Yes, but as I stated above, it is a little short sighted. Canty, Dumervil, and Smith will probably be gone after next year and Suggs and Ngata after 2015-2016 season. 4-3 is a possibility for NEXT year, but we do not have a future roster to sustain it I think. Could be wrong though...

 

I think this is the difference between this board and the front office. People freak out and overreact based on not making immediate impact changes. You have to think 3-5 years down the road. Do not mortgage your future with knee jerk changes in the present...we learned that after the 2000 super bowl.

 

With that said, next year will be strong with CBs and DE/OLBs. Would be nice to pick up a great DE/OLB in the first next year.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Replace Canty with Jernigan, and that looks nasty as hell.

I think they would rotate. Obviously Jenigan is the future (hopefully).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but as I stated above, it is a little short sighted. Canty, Dumervil, and Smith will probably be gone after next year and Suggs and Ngata after 2015-2016 season. 4-3 is a possibility for NEXT year, but we do not have a future roster to sustain it I think. Could be wrong though...

I think this is the difference between this board and the front office. People freak out and overreact based on not making immediate impact changes. You have to think 3-5 years down the road. Do not mortgage your future with knee jerk changes in the present...we learned that after the 2000 super bowl.

With that said, next year will be strong with CBs and DE/OLBs. Would be nice to pick up a great DE/OLB in the first next year.

Dumervil is going to be here for a while, and what's most important is getting the best players on the field IMO.

I doubt we go strictly 4-3, but I'll bet we'll see more of it this year.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but as I stated above, it is a little short sighted. Canty, Dumervil, and Smith will probably be gone after next year and Suggs and Ngata after 2015-2016 season. 4-3 is a possibility for NEXT year, but we do not have a future roster to sustain it I think. Could be wrong though...

 

I think this is the difference between this board and the front office. People freak out and overreact based on not making immediate impact changes. You have to think 3-5 years down the road. Do not mortgage your future with knee jerk changes in the present...we learned that after the 2000 super bowl.

 

With that said, next year will be strong with CBs and DE/OLBs. Would be nice to pick up a great DE/OLB in the first next year.

 

 

Of course it's short sighted; we have no idea what the roster is going to look like 3-5 years from now, and neither does the FO.

 

Once Canty/Ngata/Suggs/Dumervil are gone, we replace them with the best players we can find, and figure out our scheme from there. Until then, that 4-3 looks mean

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He isn't. But Wilfork has nothing to do with Ngata.

The Patriots played the 4-3 (think they still do) and Wilfork was never a small guy. A 4-3 defensive line isn't all tiny guys
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Patriots played the 4-3 (think they still do) and Wilfork was never a small guy. A 4-3 defensive line isn't all tiny guys

You're thinking in generalities. I'm talking about Ngata specifically....and not Ngata of three years ago, today's version.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're thinking in generalities. I'm talking about Ngata specifically....and not Ngata of three years ago, today's version.

Use him like Pat Williams or Tony Siragusa. Big boy that eats up blocks and allows the other guys to wreak havoc

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Use him like Pat Williams or Tony Siragusa. Big boy that eats up blocks and allows the other guys to wreak havoc

That's fine, but he'd be coming off the field a lot on passing downs. He has been losing one on one the last couple years; much less consuming two blockers. Maybe Canty or someone else could come in for him then. I just would not call Ngata a natural 4-3; at least not anymore.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2a95zc4.jpg

 

Switching to the 4-3 is the only logical solution.  Our second round draft pick doesn't have a place in the 3-4, and the 4-3 would allow us to maximize the theoretical talent of the players on the field.  Ngata at the 1-tech, Jernigan at the 3-tech, Mosley as the MLB, Daryl as the SLB, and Brown at the WLB with Dumervil as the LE and Suggs at the RE is the best set up.  McPhee would be a better 4-3 DE than anything else, Upshaw should be fine there too.  We're a little thin at LB and maybe the 3-tech, but it's the best way to maximize talent.  It's not like Pees utilizes versatile blitz packages, which is supposed to be the advantage to using a 3-4.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites