Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

just go to a 4-3 ffs


Clevfan4life

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

This topic is Retard.

 

Let's go through an entire draft, training camp, and two rounds of cuts assuming a 3-4.... and then switch to a 4-3.

I wouldnt disagree if we gadnt drafted two primary pass rushers that currently at least look "way" better in the 4-3. Im not clamoring for 4-3 cause i like seeing 4 dreamy studs bent over at the line, although..............,,.?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Hence my emphasis on mentioning the biggest difference are the OLB's.

 

To me, finding a collegiate DE and turning him into successful 2pt player might be the hardest thing to project and coach. It takes quite a while before you reap any real benefits.

Biggest exceptions to that rule I can think of would be Aldon Smith and Mack. However both of those players had time and coaching as rush linebackers while still in school. Now that I think of it, Aldon really didn't play from a 2pt much in his monster rookie year. Ogba and Carl have not received

that type of time at the position before. Plus I don't see either possessing the physical makeup for the spot.

 

I cant speak for aldon but i watched alot of macks tape and he was all over the place. Standind, sitting..it didnt matter. He even looked good at ilb'er.......i wanted him so fucking bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always preferred the 4-3 system unless you absolutely do not have enough big guys to staff the D line.

I always like the 4-3 simply out of Nostalgia.

 

The Fearsome Foursome

The Doomsday Defense

The Purple People Eaters

The Steel Curtain

The New York Sack Exchange

Reggie White/Eagles line

Gino Marchetti/Big Daddy Lipscomb Colts line

Willie Davis/Henry Jordan Packers DL

Howie Long/Lyle Alzado Raiders DL

The 1985 Bears: Dent, Hampton, McMichael, Perry

 

And don't forget the 1964 Browns: Wiggin, Glass, Kanicki, Modzelewski

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is Retard.

 

Let's go through an entire draft, training camp, and two rounds of cuts assuming a 3-4.... and then switch to a 4-3.

What I would say is suit your defense to match your talent. If we have the DL to play 4-3....and we don't have the LBs to play 3-4, then play 4-3...and vice versa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I would say is suit your defense to match your talent. If we have the DL to play 4-3....and we don't have the LBs to play 3-4, then play 4-3...and vice versa.

Except we've been drafting the last 4 years for a predominantly 3-4 defence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But in Browns fashion, they ended up drafting players that are better suited for a 4-3 haha.

The only issue I see with switching to a 4-3 is that whilst Shelton and Meder would be OK in the middle, we're a bit thin thereafter. Cooper, maybe, Hughes maybe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paea could be something but the others are filler.

 

Do any of them give you the warm and fuzzies as 3-4 DTs?

Nope. But Nassib does somewhat in that role. Still a single offseason with a decent investment at the position and a 4-3 is very possible. Though you could say the same about the 3-4, just need a top DE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always like the 4-3 simply out of Nostalgia.

 

Not like there were a lot of other choices in the 60's and 70's...

 

The only issue I see with switching to a 4-3 is that whilst Shelton and Meder would be OK in the middle, we're a bit thin thereafter. Cooper, maybe, Hughes maybe.

 

I've always liked Hughes best as a 4-3 DT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Not like there were a lot of other choices in the 60's and 70's...

 

There was the 5-2....and the 53 defense which were in fact played at times. More as specialty defenses. Of course, they could be played back when there was full bump and run allowed on receivers.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope. But Nassib does somewhat in that role. Still a single offseason with a decent investment at the position and a 4-3 is very possible. Though you could say the same about the 3-4, just need a top DE.

 

Both nassib and ogbah are 4-3 guys mate. In fact, if sny of those two could hack the 3-4 i think its nassib. Ogbah is way too stiff for 3-4 olb'er

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think people dont understand that for dl switching between 3-4 and 4-3 is really nothing unless you have a dlightly undersized 4-3 dt that u mive to NT. Thats the only time switches really give sny problems. A good 3-4 NT is going to do just fine moving 3ft to his left ir right. Infact they prob would appreciate the chance to get upfield some more

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both nassib and ogbah are 4-3 guys mate. In fact, if sny of those two could hack the 3-4 i think its nassib. Ogbah is way too stiff for 3-4 olb'er

I'm well aware. In a 4-3 we only get two of Orchard, Ogbah and Nassib on the field though, and in a 3-4 we can get 3. So there's that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Not like there were a lot of other choices in the 60's and 70's...

 

 

I've always liked Hughes best as a 4-3 DT.

 

5-2 (unless you're an Okie fan then we'll call it the 34 Bud Wilkinson)

 

 

Listening to the ohfsn broadcast for the bears game, zegurs said that the starting rotation was in full 4-3 look....so that was ogbah and nassib. Orchard didnt comein till the 3-4 rotation came on later

As expected. In our four man front you'll see Orchard on passing downs. Until then he'll remain our starting WLB. I wouldn't mind seeing a package with Orchard, Ogba, Coop and Carl.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

5-2 (unless you're an Okie fan then we'll call it the 34 Bud Wilkinson)

 

 

 

As expected. In our four man front you'll see Orchard on passing downs. Until then he'll remain our starting WLB. I wouldn't mind seeing a package with Orchard, Ogba, Coop and Carl.

U want orchard in there as one of the 4-3 olb'ers? I read that wrong right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5-2 (unless you're an Okie fan then we'll call it the 34 Bud Wilkinson)

 

True on the 5-2, but by the time I "became aware" of pro football, Tom Landry had developed the 4-3 as NYG's DC... and the league never looked back. Except once when George Allen unexpectedly sprang it on an opponent in a playoff game (IIRC).

 

POP QUIZ: Who was Landry's OC counterpart with NYG?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

True on the 5-2, but by the time I "became aware" of pro football, Tom Landry had developed the 4-3 as NYG's DC... and the league never looked back. Except once when George Allen unexpectedly sprang it on an opponent in a playoff game (IIRC).

 

POP QUIZ: Who was Landry's OC counterpart with NYG?

 

Vince-Lombardi-Tom-Landry-New-York-Giant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

True on the 5-2, but by the time I "became aware" of pro football, Tom Landry had developed the 4-3 as NYG's DC... and the league never looked back. Except once when George Allen unexpectedly sprang it on an opponent in a playoff game (IIRC).

 

POP QUIZ: Who was Landry's OC counterpart with NYG?

Yea, I was going to say Lombardi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Allie Sherman?

 

Nope... Actually was my guess as well... went to verify and found:

In 1957 (Allie) returned to the Giants as a scout and then rejoined the coaching staff in 1959 as offensive coordinator, replacing Vince Lombardi when he was appointed head coach of the Green Bay Packers.[3] Lombardi, a good friend, wanted Sherman to join him as the Packers' offensive coordinator, but Sherman wanted the Giants head coach position.

A couple links later came the right answer... I know I'd never have gotten it.

The Giants' 1956 championship team not only included players who would eventually find their way to the Pro Football Hall of Fame, but a Hall of Fame coaching staff, as well. Head coach Jim Lee Howell's staff had Vince Lombardi coaching the offense and Tom Landry coaching the defense.[19]

Jim Lee Who?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...