3-4 or 4-3 Defense?

[TDF]

I know this is basically a pass first league and speed on defense is a must, but with the trend towards running QBs and and the Packers lack of stopping the run since the switch to the 3-4 should the Packers consider switching to 4 D lineman?
I think if Martinez leaves via FA they should consider the switch to 4-3 and draft a MLB in round 1. Maybe Gary could switch to a down lineman and the Smiths OLBs. What do you guys think?

 

[GaryE]

I know this is basically a pass first league and speed on defense is a must, but with the trend towards running QBs and and the Packers lack of stopping the run since the switch to the 3-4 should the Packers consider switching to 4 D lineman?
I think if Martinez leaves via FA they should consider the switch to 4-3 and draft a MLB in round 1. Maybe Gary could switch to a down lineman and the Smiths OLBs. What do you guys think?

I know this: San Fran 40 whiners ran the ball down our throats. Garappalo threw a total of 8 passes with only 6 completions. We were embarrassed. I blame coaches for not immediately making an adjustment in the first quarter. One player runs for 220 yards and we cannot stop him. All the talk about not quitting, not giving up, is so much fluff. Regarding Pro Football, Winning is what matters, not how you feel after you get your A** handed to you.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The Packers wouldn't have been able to stop the Niners run game no matter which base defense they would have used.

In my opinion fans put way too much stock into the base alignment as nickel and dime defenses are used for the majority of snaps anyway.

 

[XPack]

I doubt we have that specific distinction as we have hybrid packages used often.

However as a base, I preer 3-4.

SF is more on quality rather than tactics. We lacked ILBs to stuff the holes.

 

[Grode80]

Ever since the Packers switched from a 4-3 to a 3-4, the defense has time and time again been the weak link. Besides for the years we had Charles Woodson and Nick Collins. And even then our defense lost us more games then the offense cost us a game. Heck think about the Brett Favre years when our D was unstoppable running a 4-3 and Brett cost us games more so throwing untimely INTs. I say go back to the 4-3 cause the 3-4 does not and has not worked at all.

 

[Pkrjones]

Since Raji left have the Packers had a starting DT weighing more than 320 lbs? THAT, to me, is the key towards a dominant 3-4 D, having a massive plugger to jam the middle and keep OG's off of the ILB's. It seems (just going from my foggy memory) that after B.J. the more important emphasis was pass rush up the middle/pocket-push?

Examples of the immovable middle man: Damon Harris 350, Linval Joseph 330, Dontari Poe 346, Vince Wilfork (listed as 325, guessing closer to 360).

I actually like the pieces that are on our D, just missing a massive man in the middle. In the draft there are a few giants: Fotu, Roy or Daniels? Maybe this would help keep our ILB's a little bit "cleaner" and able to react into gaps rather than shedding OG's?

 

[mradtke66]

Eh, it really doesn't matter. If we switched to a 4-3 for our last game (and magically, everyone is healthy), our starting front 7 would likely be the same in either case.

In a 4-3 our front 7 looks like:

Z-Smith at LE
Lowry/Keke at 3T
Clark/Lancaster at NT
P-Smith at RE

Fackrell at SOLB
Martinez at MLB
Greene at WOLB

I'd argue that grouping is slightly worse that our 3-4 front of


Z-Smith at LOLB
Lowry at RE
Clark at NT
Lancaster at 3T/RE
P-Smith at ROLB

Martinez at SILB
Greene/Goodson at WILB

 

[bigbubbatd]

I doubt we have that specific distinction as we have hybrid packages used often.

However as a base, I preer 3-4.

SF is more on quality rather than tactics. We lacked ILBs to stuff the holes.

While I agree our ilb were terrible there is no way to perfectly fill holes that are as big as some of those holes were. That game was very much on our dts and our ilb

 

[Calvin]

Its not the scheme, its the players minus Clark and the Smiths

 

[rmontro]

Ever since the Packers switched from a 4-3 to a 3-4, the defense has time and time again been the weak link.

Well, we were good with the 4-3, but we had guys like Reggie White, Sean Jones, Santana Dotson, Gilbert Brown, etc.

 

[Dantés]

Does not matter.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Ever since the Packers switched from a 4-3 to a 3-4, the defense has time and time again been the weak link. Besides for the years we had Charles Woodson and Nick Collins. And even then our defense lost us more games then the offense cost us a game.

The Packers switched to a 3-4 defense when Capers was hired as defensive coordinator in 2009. During the two season Woodson and Collins were on the roster afterwards the tea ranked second in points allowed in the entire league and aside of the playoff loss in Arizona wasn't the reason the team lost any games.

Since Raji left have the Packers had a starting DT weighing more than 320 lbs? THAT, to me, is the key towards a dominant 3-4 D, having a massive plugger to jam the middle and keep OG's off of the ILB's. It seems (just going from my foggy memory) that after B.J. the more important emphasis was pass rush up the middle/pocket-push?

Examples of the immovable middle man: Damon Harris 350, Linval Joseph 330, Dontari Poe 346, Vince Wilfork (listed as 325, guessing closer to 360).

I actually like the pieces that are on our D, just missing a massive man in the middle. In the draft there are a few giants: Fotu, Roy or Daniels? Maybe this would help keep our ILB's a little bit "cleaner" and able to react into gaps rather than shedding OG's?

Talent not weight is the most important factor in keeping opposing teams from putting up points. As an example the Niners don't have a single defender weighing more than 300 pounds.

 

[Grode80]

The Packers switched to a 3-4 defense when Capers was hired as defensive coordinator in 2009. During the two season Woodson and Collins were on the roster afterwards the tea ranked second in points allowed in the entire league and aside of the playoff loss in Arizona wasn't the reason the team lost any games.



Talent not weight is the most important factor in keeping opposing teams from putting up points. As an example the Niners don't have a single defender weighing more than 300 pounds.

The Packers Defense since the switch to 3-4 has given up 51, 37, 45, 23, 28, 26, 44, and 37 in their playoff losses. And for the games against Seattle, the Niners with Kap, and Arizona with the Hail Marys, the only close games they lost, the Defense was on the field last.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The Packers Defense since the switch to 3-4 has given up 51, 37, 45, 23, 28, 26, 44, and 37 in their playoff losses. And for the games against Seattle, the Niners with Kap, and Arizona with the Hail Marys, the only close games they lost, the Defense was on the field last.

There's no doubt the Packers defense struggled for a lot of years but aside of the Cardinals playoff game in 2009 that's not true for the two seasons they had Woodson and Collins on the field.

 

[Grode80]

There's no doubt the Packers defense struggled for a lot of years but aside of the Cardinals playoff game in 2009 that's not true for the two seasons they had Woodson and Collins on the field.

You’re honestly probably right but I’m going more off playoff looks then regular season if anything.

 

[Grode80]

Also I’d like to point out the 3-4 is built on being able to defend scrambling QBs as well, but from what I’ve personally seen the Packers one biggest weakness in years past has been QBs that take off and run the ball. But if someone can find stats of the Packers D actually fairing better against let me know I haven’t been able to find anything yet.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

You’re honestly probably right but I’m going more off playoff looks then regular season if anything.

You know that the Packers won the Super Bowl in 2010 during the second season after they swapped to a 3-4 defense with the unit significantly contributing to that championship, don't you???

 

[Pkrjones]

2009 draft added (2) 1st round defenders in Raji (#9) and CM3 (#26) which helped get the Packers into the playoffs & SB in 2010. Gute finagled (2) 1st rounders last year, I highly doubt he can pull it off, again.

This D needs a starting ILB who can consistently make plays at or behind the LOS. It also needs more help at DT next to Clark.

Short of spending 2 additional high 1st round picks to pair with Clark & Gary (as SF has done over the last 4 years) how does this D get substantially better? A stout, run-stopper NT/DT needs to join GB's starting rotation.

Sitting at #30 we'll miss-out on the top 2 DT's (Brown & Kinlaw) so IMHO grab a WR or ILB @30, the other w/ #62 and either DT Fotu or Gallimore with #94.

 

[G0P4ckG0]

I know this doesn't necessarily carry over to real life, but in my Madden/NCAAF career modes I always found 4-4 to be most effective, with the OLBs and secondary being speed-focused (lots of OLB blitzes). Linemen all run-stoppers and MLBs being coverage-focused.

If our defense went that route I would not complain at all.

 

[Pkrjones]

I know this doesn't necessarily carry over to real life, but in my Madden/NCAAF career modes I always found 4-4 to be most effective, with the OLBs and secondary being speed-focused (lots of OLB blitzes). Linemen all run-stoppers and MLBs being coverage-focused.

If our defense went that route I would not complain at all.

If a team went 3 WR (guessing happens over 50% of the time?) then you'd either have a LB vs WR OR your 3 DB's 1 on 1 with the WR and no additional S help. That 4-4 is what Pettine should have come out with in the 2nd half to stop the run & force SF to pass but it didn't happen.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I know this doesn't necessarily carry over to real life, but in my Madden/NCAAF career modes I always found 4-4 to be most effective, with the OLBs and secondary being speed-focused (lots of OLB blitzes). Linemen all run-stoppers and MLBs being coverage-focused.

If our defense went that route I would not complain at all.

I'm sorry but the Packers should definitely not look to Madden to improve their defense for next season.

 

[G0P4ckG0]

If a team went 3 WR (guessing happens over 50% of the time?) then you'd either have a LB vs WR OR your 3 DB's 1 on 1 with the WR and no additional S help. That 4-4 is what Pettine should have come out with in the 2nd half to stop the run & force SF to pass but it didn't happen.

And that's why those coverage guys would be speed and also why you would blitz in that situation, with a ILB covering zone.

 

[G0P4ckG0]

I'm sorry but the Packers should definitely not look to Madden to improve their defense for next season.

Agreed, but was basically making a point that 3-4 and 4-3 have holes just like any other scheme. Sometimes an experiment is worth trying if nothing else has worked, which it hasn't in quite some time.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Agreed, but was basically making a point that 3-4 and 4-3 have holes just like any other scheme. Sometimes an experiment is worth trying if nothing else has worked, which it hasn't in quite some time.

The Packers defense finished this season ninth in points allowed cracking the top 10 for the first time since 2010. Unfortunately the Niners were a terrible matchup for the unit but overall there's no doubt it's significantly improved over the past seasons.

 

[Grode80]

You know that the Packers won the Super Bowl in 2010 during the second season after they swapped to a 3-4 defense with the unit significantly contributing to that championship, don't you???

Okllkkk? Then the following year they gave up 37 to an Eli Manning led Giants team. And since the. The D hasn’t once given them a chance at another SuperBowl