3-4 or 4-3?

by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 30, 2008 9:36 PM EST Comment 28 comments

I am interested to hear from my fellow Browns fans. Should the Browns change to a 4-3 or stick with a 3-4? I personally am a 3-4 fan IF A TEAM HAS THE CORRECT PERSONNEL. This is the problem the Browns face.

This will be the offseason that can change this franchise. If it is Ferentz or Spagnuolo it will probably be a 4-3. Mangini or McDaniels will probably stick with 3-4.

What are the Browns better suited for?

4-3 DEFENSIVE LINE

DT; Shaun Rogers and Corey Williams give the Browns a very good DT tandem. I know that Williams did not perform well this season but he was playing out of position. He had 14 combined sacks the two previous years in Green Bay. I think that these two would be a fearsome DT combo. BACK-UPS; Shaun Smith (If he sticks after the Brady Quinn fight) and Robaire Smith could be brought back at a lower price. Rubin will also be kept and could be a decent piece.

DE; This is where it is ugly. Wimbley would be a starter going back to his college position. At 6-3 255 he is pretty much the same size as Osi Umeniyiora. Let's hope he can start playing like him! I can hope right? The other side would have to be addressed. Maybe Robaire Smith could be slid out but I doubt it. Alex Hall could be worked in as a pass rusher. The draft could help with Micheal Johnson from GT but I don't see any Mario Williams in this draft. Could be our big FA spend (Terrell Suggs?)

OLB; I know that most people want the Browns to move D'Qwell Jackson to OLB, but I don't. I think that Leon Williams will be a very good 4-3 OLB and would be a starter right away. LB's are easy to find in the draft and FA. It is easier finding a 4-3 LB than a 3-4. You don't have to worry about a pass rush aspect to a player.

MLB; I would keep DQ here at MLB. Unless the Browns sign Bart Scott to be a MLB then we could move DQ outside along with Leon Williams. The rest of LB's (Davis, etc.) are either wildly ineffective or interchangeable so no big deal.

The DB's would be the same no matter it being a 3-4 or 4-3.

Poll

Would you rather the Browns have a 3-4 or 4-3 defense next season?

3-4

97 votes

4-3

263 votes

Who cares, we give up 30 PPG either way.

130 votes

490 votes | Poll has closed

0 recs | Comment 28 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

DQ can’t be a Mike in the 4-3 scheme. Way too small.

Shaun Smith would be an end, and I don’t know whether Wimbley could be an end as well. Is he big enough now? Does he play big enough?

by gahnki on Dec 30, 2008 9:43 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Smith is way too slow and big to play end in a 4-3.. He’s definetly a backup DT

"There's nothing that cleanses the soul like getting the hell kicked out of you." Woody Hayes.

by rose_11 on Dec 30, 2008 10:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

He would be an end. He is much quicker than people give him credit.

by gahnki on Dec 30, 2008 11:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

DQ is the same size as Antonio Pierce the Giants MLB, and with Big Baby and Corey Williams in front of him I think he is just fine size wise.

by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 30, 2008 10:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

He’s the same listed size. I don’t think he plays big, though. He needs those big space eaters, and if we are going to a one gap scheme he would not have them. If we went to Tampa Two then he may have a shot, but I still doubt it.

by gahnki on Dec 31, 2008 12:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

DQ is big enough to play MLB in a 4-3, but it would have to be the right scheme. Everyone we have on D is bigger than the Colts’ LBs.

Shaun Smith would definitely be a DT in the 4-3. The only DE we have with a shot at being a DE in a 4-3 scheme is Robaire Smith and he is old and might not make a comeback.

Wimbley could put his hand on the ground, but would be undersized. He is ~255 and plays smaller than that.

by rufio on Dec 30, 2008 10:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Shaun Smith was a defensive end at South Carolina. They played a 4-3 as well. He would have to lose some weight, but he is a more natural DE than he is a DT.

by gahnki on Dec 31, 2008 12:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Although, I should add that you may be right if he can’t shed weight efficiently. When people bulk up they sometimes lose their quickness that they had earlier. Smith might have lost it.

by gahnki on Dec 31, 2008 12:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I prefer the 3-4, because it allows so many more opportunities to confuse people… when its run properly. When its run poorly, it simply choreographs where the pass rush is coming from pre-snap.

by Fundamentals on Dec 30, 2008 10:27 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

The theory is that any of the front seven can come on a blitz at any time. Too bad we usually rushed the three with their hands in the dirt.

by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 30, 2008 10:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

With an empty roster, I like the 3-4.

A creative mind can bring a lot of pressure from a lot of places no matter how many guys have their hands on the ground, though. The Eagles and Giants often drop their DEs back in to coverage, and all of their LBs can rush the passer.

Whoever our coach is needs to keep our DL’s weight under control. The body fat percentages of Corey Williams and Shaun Smith really hurt their effectiveness. Plus, the opposing team knows they are coming at the passer because they are way too slow at their current weights to drop back.

Whichever way we go, we need more “3 technique” DTs, guys who would play DT in a 4-3 or DE in a 3-4, are 290-310 lbs (or more if they are just freaks) but more importantly are QUICK. They need to be able to rush the passer and push one OL in to the backfield. Rogers could probably be this type of guy because he is so fast as a DT, but we don’t have another guy big/strong enough to take on 2 blockers.

We also need more big LBs/small DEs. These guys need to be really fast and weigh about 250-270. They also need to be able to rush the passer, but don’t need a whole lot of power, just speed and a few moves.

If you gave me one or two of either of those types of guys I could really turn up the heat, so someone who is an actual DC would have no excuse. The really good 3 technique guys seem to go really early (think Glenn Dorsey), but the big OLB types can be found everywhere in the draft.

If Michael Johnson could pack on 10-15 pounds of muscle between his bowl game and the combine, he could become a Mario Williams type of guy who could be a star DE. Stranger things have happened.

by rufio on Dec 30, 2008 10:52 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I don’t see a 4-3 LB on this team. Jackson is small and average. Wimbley would be moved to the line. Williams, I need to be convinced that he exists. More than anyone, he disappeared this year.

With a 3-4 at least you have Jackson and Wimbley as serviceable parts of the linebacking group, even if not ideal starters.

If starting from scratch, I lean towards the 4-3. I think it is too easy to run on a 3-4, unless you are GREAT 3-4. I certainly would not choose a New England style of 3-4 that Crennel ran. This is probably my biggest fear with either Romeo staying or Mangini coming in- they would be content with this bend, but don’t break 3-4. There is no attacking and no creativity. If you want to run a vanilla, base D 90% of the time, fine. But I’d rather do it with a 4-3, run a few stunts and rarely blitz. Much better than having a bunch of undersized LBs in a “3-4” with the 4th rusher coming from the same side every down.

by DaytonDogg on Dec 31, 2008 2:01 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Jackson would fit better in a 4-3 precisely because he is small. That was the whole thing with Jonathan Vilma becoming less effective when the Jets switched to the 3-4 because he wasn’t big enough to play in the 3-4. He was traded to the Saints who envisioned him as a quick middle linebacker in the 4-3

by Roger Dorn on Dec 31, 2008 12:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Two things:
1) I think the type of defense (much more detailed than just 3-4 and 4-3) has a lot to do with the size of LBs you look for. I think of a Urlacher type at the middle of a 4-3. Could Jackson be an OLB in a 4-3? Maybe, but it is a position change that I don’t really want to waste our time on because:
2) Jackson is small and average, regardless of system. He may be our most well rounded LB on the team, but he is a borderline NFL starter. He just isn’t that good. And a lot of that is due to the fact that he gets dragged 2-4 yards after he hits a RB.

by DaytonDogg on Dec 31, 2008 12:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

My main problem with DQ is that he rarely makes the “big” play. He played pretty damn well down the stretch (couple of INT’s vs. TEN) and did lead the NFL in tackles this year. I think the kid has talent, we just need someone to tap into that talent.

by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 31, 2008 12:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

A lot of both of your problems with DQ could be based on how Romeo wanted our defense to play.

Romeo was preaching a “read and react” style, where LBs were not encouraged to go for a “big play”, did not attack, and the entire team was coached to wait for ballcarriers to come to them (and even Shaun Rogers would get knocked back 2-4 yards if he had no momentum vs a RB who had 7 yards to pick up speed).

Jackson is listed at 240 lbs, which is only 15 off of Urlacher. Antonio Pierce is listed at 238. He’s good enough to win a Super Bowl. Gary Brackett is listed at 235 and he’s good enough for the Colts. Barrett Ruud is listed at 241. Those LBs are in “Tampa-2” schemes and Jim Johnsonesque schemes, which are two of the most popular 4-3 schemes in the NFL right now.

Jackson has played in the Romeo bend/don’t break system his entire NFL career. Unless someone is going to bring knowledge of Maryland’s defensive schemes from back in 04-05 and knowledge of how Jackson performed in them I don’t think it is fair to criticize him for doing his job. We don’t know if he can’t do something if he has never tried to do it.

If you want to say he missed tackles, fair. If you want to say we could get someone better, fair. But its not fair to criticize him for not doing things that he wasn’t assigned to do. Lets at least wait until he and the rest of the defense play in a (hopefully) new scheme.

p.s. the scheme/style of defense (and hence the responsibilities of a particular position) matter a lot more than the number of people with their hands on the ground (3-4 vs 4-3) when talking about player evaluation.

by rufio on Jan 4, 2009 2:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

While I agree that Romeo’s scheme had something to do with that, Teddy Bruschi was always making big plays for the Pats at ILB.

Don’t get me wrong, I like D’Qwell and think we should keep him. I just don’t see him as a playmaker LB in the Patrick Willis and Bart Scott mold. That’s not a huge knock, but a small concern.

by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 4, 2009 9:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I pretty much agree with that except with putting Scott on Patrick Willis’ level. Patrick Willis is unreal. I would love a 1A to go with Jackson as the 1B.

by rufio on Jan 8, 2009 12:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Actually, 3-4 linebackers are typically quicker and smaller. They deal less with offensive linemen, because of the space eaters in front of them. If we went to the 4-3, can DQ shed blocks with guys 50-100 pounds heavier than him?

Maybe Vilma wasn’t big enough for their specific role for him but that is team specific.

by gahnki on Dec 31, 2008 12:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I see this as a defense in flux. It needs a guiding hand to shape it into something effective, but I think it could be effective in either direction. Unfortunately, we’re necessarily a bit more tilted towards the 34 right now. We’d probably (short of some brilliant trades) have to pay a bit of a personnel penalty to utilize a 43, although I don’t believe that tax would be too much to bear.

My biggest peeve is watching the aggressiveness and domination by our two most hated rivals on defense. They attack, they win. We sit back on our heels and wait to lose.

You mention the difference between the NE 34 and the others, e.g. Pitt’s. Well I say EXACTLY. The Crennel style 34 is just a different approach to the same defensive philosophy we’ve subscribed to since the rebirth – bend but don’t break. Bleh. Man up and hit the QB!

That’s another reason I don’t want Mangini. He’s the same as Crennel, but has demonstrated even less success.

by danvail on Dec 31, 2008 11:15 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

You mention the difference between the NE 34 and the others, e.g. Pitt’s. Well I say EXACTLY. The Crennel style 34 is just a different approach to the same defensive philosophy we’ve subscribed to since the rebirth – bend but don’t break. >

That’s not true. Butch Davis defenses were very aggressive. Ultimately, it does not matter what scheme or philosophy you have. You just have to get the personnel and run it correctly.

by gahnki on Dec 31, 2008 12:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Previous comment was butchered.

You mention the difference between the NE 34 and the others, e.g. Pitt’s. Well I say EXACTLY. The Crennel style 34 is just a different approach to the same defensive philosophy we’ve subscribed to since the rebirth – bend but don’t break.

That’s not true. Butch Davis defenses were very aggressive. Ultimately, it does not matter what scheme or philosophy you have. You just have to get the personnel and run it correctly.

by gahnki on Dec 31, 2008 1:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Hrmm, I didn’t recall that, but I’ll take your word for it. I was fairly new to football in 2001, though, so you’re probably right. Perhaps it just seems like we’ve running this predictable, vanilla defense forever.

by danvail on Jan 1, 2009 3:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’m not a great football strategist (thankfully there are other folks who have explained schemes on this site), but I always thought that the bend-but-don’t-break thing was supposed to be applied situationally, rather than wholesale across the entire 4 quarters. When the threat of a blitz is reduced to less than a 10% chance it would seem that an offense could play a lot freer.

The predictability of the Browns D never posed too great a threat. You really didn’t need Miss Cleo to tell you what they were going to do next. Almost makes you wonder how they didn’t finish ranked 32nd. The Browns D could be unpredictable (see UFO defense) but they seldom tried to be.

So regardless of whether they go 3-4 or 4-3 I think the thing that they must do is get more creative.

by JustBob on Dec 31, 2008 4:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The “Prevent” base defenses that Ohio State and the Browns employed the past few seasons have taken years off my life.

by mgtbfb on Jan 2, 2009 2:27 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I agree. But – isn’t that type of ‘prevent’ common when coaches don’t trust their personnel? In the Buckeyes case, Tressel prefers to play a “minimize risk- keep it close” type of game, trying to win late in the game. In the Browns’ case, I just don’t think the coaching staff had any real trust in the personnel, or in their ability to make the big play. Big plays often are accompanied by big risk, and big risk is associated with easy criticism. Far easier to play it “safe”, take few risks, and cover your rear. The trouble with that idea is that it so often leads to incremental failure – death by a thousand cuts, rather than by one swift blow. Risk taking requires confidence both in your personnel and in your own ideas and schemes. Both appear to be lacking with the Browns. Bring on the new regime!

by drjeo on Jan 2, 2009 3:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs