Are The Packers Actually Better Set Up To Play a 4-3?

[The Shadow]

Probably in the minority here, but in assessing the Packers' D personnel, I think perhaps they are actually better suited for a 4-3 than a 3-4.

RE : 1. Mathews 2. Perry : Maybe Perry would be better served spelling Mathews. His move from DE to LB has not been a rousing success & he prefers rushing from the right side, anyways. Mathews is a football player, period. He is very similar to Jared Allen; he would be absolutely fine at DE.

LE : 1. Neal 2. Datone Jones : Neal, like Perry, would also be a better fit at DE (he can re-add 15 lbs.). A platoon here would be quite nice, allowing Jones to mature.

We would have 3 #1's & a #2 choice at DE.

2 DTs : I have no idea if Raji, Pickett or Jolly returns, but : a rotation of any (or all) of these + Daniels, Boyd & Worthy seems pretty stout. Raji does not belong at DE - and Pickett can now only play the nose. Those 2, however, both inside, spelled by Jolly & the younger guys, might prove a rather formidable combo.

OLB : Ok, this is where the draft - and one quality FA - comes into play. I would (if we keep him) move Brad Jones back to Will. He could be serviceable there for a season or two. A #1 or #2 pick or a FA should be pursued to fill the Sam.

Mike : 1. Hawk 2. Barrington/Francois. Hawk, while not spectacular, provides steadiness. Barrington has intriguing potential. Still, my #1 or #2 draft pick would come here.

CB : I think both Shields & Williams should be signed. Hayward, in my opinion, is a Woodson clone & will be a huge key to the secondary - if he can stay healthy.

Safety : If TT uses picks at the LB position, then this is where the quality FA comes in. If a FA was signed at LB, then the #1 or #2 should be spent here. HOWEVER : Hyde could very well be the WILD CARD here. He should begin the safety tutoring course immediately!

...........................
To sum up : instead of the usual :"These players were drafted specifically for the 3-4" line, I see something quite different with our personnel.
I do think TT should accept a bit of a drafting hiatus from offensive players - at least in the first 3 rounds.
Ok, tell me why I am wrong.

[red]

unless we get the mess at safety figured out i don't think it matters what we run

and i have no clue if any of our guys would be better in the 4-3. guys like perry, neal, worthy, could just flat out be busts that can't play anything in the NFL

and i'm not convinced brad jones should be a starter in any scheme at any position

[denverYooper]

You'd better watch out Shadow. Zool started proposing a conspiracy that TT was subtly shifting the team to a 4-3 and never finished the post. Word is he's been snuffed out.

I think TT's a big player in the market for personal attack drones. Better lay low for a while... stay inside, just in case.

[pbmax]

I have to defer to KYPack on this because terminology always gets jumbled but Hawk cannot play MLB in a 4-3 Under.

He's going to get a guard in his earhole and Hawk can't get off blocks now.

If the Packers go back to Bates/Wannestadt/Sanders 4-3 Over, then two big tackles might protect him like it did Barnett. However, let's be clear, no one liked Jimmy Johnson's defense because it was static.

[Smidgeon]

Probably in the minority here, but in assessing the Packers' D personnel, I think perhaps they are actually better suited for a 4-3 than a 3-4.

RE : 1. Mathews 2. Perry : Maybe Perry would be better served spelling Mathews. His move from DE to LB has not been a rousing success & he prefers rushing from the right side, anyways. Mathews is a football player, period. He is very similar to Jared Allen; he would be absolutely fine at DE.

LE : 1. Neal 2. Datone Jones : Neal, like Perry, would also be a better fit at DE (he can re-add 15 lbs.). A platoon here would be quite nice, allowing Jones to mature.

We would have 3 #1's & a #2 choice at DE.

2 DTs : I have no idea if Raji, Pickett or Jolly returns, but : a rotation of any (or all) of these + Daniels, Boyd & Worthy seems pretty stout. Raji does not belong at DE - and Pickett can now only play the nose. Those 2, however, both inside, spelled by Jolly & the younger guys, might prove a rather formidable combo.

OLB : Ok, this is where the draft - and one quality FA - comes into play. I would (if we keep him) move Brad Jones back to Will. He could be serviceable there for a season or two. A #1 or #2 pick or a FA should be pursued to fill the Sam.

Mike : 1. Hawk 2. Barrington/Francois. Hawk, while not spectacular, provides steadiness. Barrington has intriguing potential. Still, my #1 or #2 draft pick would come here.

CB : I think both Shields & Williams should be signed. Hayward, in my opinion, is a Woodson clone & will be a huge key to the secondary - if he can stay healthy.

Safety : If TT uses picks at the LB position, then this is where the quality FA comes in. If a FA was signed at LB, then the #1 or #2 should be spent here. HOWEVER : Hyde could very well be the WILD CARD here. He should begin the safety tutoring course immediately!

...........................
To sum up : instead of the usual :"These players were drafted specifically for the 3-4" line, I see something quite different with our personnel.
I do think TT should accept a bit of a drafting hiatus from offensive players - at least in the first 3 rounds.
Ok, tell me why I am wrong.

Wouldn't Jones be a DT? Except for the Matthew/Perry end you're proposing, that sounds like it'd be a huge 4-3 D-line. Heck, our 3-4 D-line is huge.

[KYPack]

Nah.

Think of a 3-4 front as 3 tackles and the OLB's as pass rushing DE's that don't put their hands in the dirt. One ILB covers and chases, the other is a plugger-type.

The back end if about the same responsibilities in both fronts (with some subtle exceptions).

Right now, we need 3 pieces. At least one DL, an ILB and a safety. That's quite a few pieces to add in one off-season, but it might be done.

Taking this bunch and going 4-3?

The only advantage I can see is Mike Daniels is a natural 4-3 3 tech. the others? CMIII to DE is a huge BZZZT. No way you move that dude to a DE spot. He could play SAM in a 4-3, but what's the reason? These other guys aren't better suited to that D. It'd be change for the sake of change.


there is one thing I've been turning around in my mind. What is the number of NFL teams that play a 3-4, 4-3, and/or a combo? It seems to me (& I could be wrong) there are more 3-4's being played. That would mean that there are more 4-3 style college players on any teams board because of supply and demand.

I would change my opposition to this idea if Mike Zimmer were hired to implement the change. That guy can take a group of defensive guys and forge thenm into an effective unit.

[Rodgers12]

CMIII to DE is a huge BZZZT. No way you move that dude to a DE spot. He could play SAM in a 4-3, but what's the reason?

The Claymaker would make a great "Will", or WLB, in a 4-3. You want the Claymaker blitzing and freelancing, not covering TEs and anticipating power rushes as a "Sam."

[pbmax]

The Claymaker would make a great "Will", or WLB, in a 4-3. You want the Claymaker blitzing and freelancing, not covering TEs and anticipating power rushes as a "Sam."

As a Will in a 4-3, his job might simply be to make tackles the rest of the front funnels to him. Brian Williams (I think his first name was Brian) was exceptional at this. But on regular down and distance, it looks a lot like an ILB in the 3-4.

I would not want a 4-3 run unless it was truly going to morph into something else based on game plan.

[Smeefers]

I read this question asked somewhere and I don't know where, but the response was "If they're better built for a 4-3, then TT has been doing an atrocious job as a GM."

I think this is more a case of "well, that shit didn't work, lets try something else."

[run pMc]

Are The Packers Actually Better Set Up To Play a 4-3?

No.

Are the Packers better set up to play Man or Zone coverage?

[MadScientist]

I read this question asked somewhere and I don't know where, but the response was "If they're better built for a 4-3, then TT has been doing an atrocious job as a GM."

I think this is more a case of "well, that shit didn't work, lets try something else."

Part of it comes from picks like Peri, Jones and Neal not fitting the 3-4 prototypes. Peri especially wanted to be a 4-3 end when he was drafted, and hasn't shown anything as an OLB.

[pbmax]

Part of it comes from picks like Peri, Jones and Neal not fitting the 3-4 prototypes. Peri especially wanted to be a 4-3 end when he was drafted, and hasn't shown anything as an OLB.

Perry and Jones are almost perfect first for the 3-4, OLB and DE respectively. Neal is a bit shorter than ideal but had enough weight at the time. Worthy (style of play and height) and Daniels were the mind benders. Daniels is proof that it you can play, then they will find a spot for you.

[MadScientist]

Perry and Jones are almost perfect first for the 3-4, OLB and DE respectively. Neal is a bit shorter than ideal but had enough weight at the time. Worthy (style of play and height) and Daniels were the mind benders. Daniels is proof that it you can play, then they will find a spot for you.

I'll give you Jones, I may have been thinking Daniels and Worthy. Peri might have been a fit well before the draft when he bulked up specifically to be a 4-3 DE, and then afterwards when he said he wasn't going to loose the weight. The result was he didn't fit the 3-4 OLB, and just plain sucked his first year.

[smuggler]

That's not even true. he played in like 5 games his rookie year and had 3 sacks. Pretty decent, I'd say.

[Zool]

Nah.Right now, we need 3 pieces. At least one DL, an ILB and a safety. That's quite a few pieces to add in one off-season, but it might be done.

We need all 3 of those pieces no matter what scheme is run.