Actually not. The 3-4 ILB, weak or strong, is a sideline-to-sideline player while often having to bang heads between the tackles. Dropping in middle coverage is a tough job. It's a full-field, 360 degree position. At 4-3 OLB you're playing in more space and in half the field.
Disagree here, but more in nuance. You sound like you're talking about a 4-3 over, which Jimmy Johnson ran in Dallas and we ran in Green Bay under Jim Bates. In that alignment, yes, all 4 linebackers are up off the ball and you have left and right OLBs. It's not the typical 4-3 played anymore.
I'm talking about 4-3 under, which is what the Packers ran under Fritz in the Super Bowl years and what Seattle runs now. The linebackers shift towards the tight end side and you create a Strong and Weak linebacker. The Strong is on or nearly on the LOS and is responsible for jamming the TE and holding contain. Think of this position at 3-4 OLB-lite--just take away the pass rush requirements and there's your man. The Weak is now your playmaker and man coverage guy should the running back release to his side. This is the more typical 4-3 alignment today and what we would end up with if we swapped.
Perry is a better player than Matthews at this stage. Cutting a guy's pay, assuming he'd agree to it, rewards you with a declining player who is not entirely happy. That's why you don't see it done very often.
True, but I'm mostly happy with Matthew's contract. This year, he's not playing up to it. I'd be tempted to sit on it and see what happens. It's not like we need the money. At least not yet. You can usual convince a player to take a cut in exchange for more guaranteed money.
Matthews would be as good of a 4-3 backer as he was an ILB...not very.
Make him the SOLB in base and mug the TE and help hold contain. When you go to nickel, he becomes your other edge rusher. In other words, almost the exact same job he has today. Though he'd probably be even more over-paid in that situation.
If there's little difference, then why make an issue out of it? The fact of the matter is Seattle does use 4 D-Linemen who all play with their hands in the dirt with regularity, including Avril and Bennett who fit the 4-3 DE mold. It's different, with different kinds of personnel up front.
The difference is between the SOLB and the open DE or elephant or LEO. Whatever you call the right DE. Have him stand up in a two point stance. Now it's a 3-4. It's that simple. What I like in a 3-4 vs. a 4-3 you have two guys that are more or less the same, both OLBs, rather than a SOLB and a LEO. Having two stand up guys allows them to swap between "I'm the 4th guy rushing, because I'm away from the TE" LEO role and "I'm mugging the TE" SOLB role.
But I come from the perspective that Capers' system is flawed, not just this year, and not just exposed by CB injuries, but evidenced for several years running. It might be better to bring in some fresh air rather than work off something that's flawed.
You're not wrong there, I think Capers' time is up. But 3-4's are not inherently flawed. Plenty of good defenses run a 3-4. I'd prefer adjustment and refinement rather than scraping the whole thing. Capers' run defenses for the most part have been good. His turnover ratio has been good. They've gotten good pressure.
Where he's failed is covering tight ends over the middle. Some of that is scheme, some of that is personnel. Good receiving TEs are hard to find. The linebackers who can cover them are harder to find.
The other spot is in the secondary. I do think they've ended up getting too cute back there and that's where a change in DC might help. Cover 0, 1, 2, 3, man, or zone is basically the same regardless of what the front is doing.
I personally don't like cover-3 just because it's so simple. It's the coverage quarterbacks have been playing against since high school, if not earlier. Unless you Thomas and Sherman in two of the deep thirds, it's vulnerable.
