The 4-3 or the 3-4?

[kernowboy]

There has been a lot of desire to switch to the 3-4 but I wounder what might be the better move for the Bills


It has been suggested because our run defence has been atrocious but the 3-4 is designed to blitz more and disrupt the pass, and pass defence wasn't the Bills major problem. Jim Johnson proved you could blitz a lot from a 4-3 base
We don't have a massive NT necessary to shore up the run defence and with more teams moving to a 3-4 we risk overpaying either in Free Agency or in the draft.
A number of our players would need to switch and it is very debateable whether some could achieve this. Just look at how Aaron Kampman faired at the Packers
No team in the current playoffs are a 3-4 team who beat a 4-3 team. The Vikings, Saints and Colts beat the Cowboys, Cardinals and Ravens respectively whilst the Jets and Chargers are both a 3-4.I am beginning to wonder if a move to a 3-4 defence just adds another problem to the current long list of them.

[Don't Panic]

Forgive me for starting this off by citing one of my old threads, but there was a lot of good (un)scientific data to come out of this, and it helps address your 3rd point...

http://www.billszone.com/fanzone/showthread.php?t=185021

With the talk of Pees, and from what we've heard from Nix and Gailey thus far, I have really been thinking about what it would take to get us to a hybrid look next year.

If you're going to run a hybrid, you can't be terrible at stopping the run in the 3-4, and you can't be poor against pressuring the QB in the 4-3. A good QB will make adjustments to whatever scheme he sees you line up in, so you have to be flexible for any given situation that may arise.

The poll showed that the BZ fanbase thinks Maybin, Schoebel, Johnson, Stroud, Williams, Mitchell and Poz could all have a role in a hybrid defense. Assuming Schoebel comes back, and that Maybin can develop into someone who can play DE in a 4-3 and OLB in a 3-4 (big assumption at this point), that would leave us needing a situational 3-4 DT and a situational LB (debatable whether it's MLB or OLB... depends on where you think Poz and Mitchell fit in) away from being stocked for both schemes.

I would argue that we could get by at DT with a guy who is stout, but not a typical 3-4 NT. He would have to be bigger than Stroud, but given that he's going to see the field only 50% of the time, not your typical NT-style beast. That would be wise to grab in FA. I have no idea right now who's available, but I'll do some research and see what could be out there.

Determining where our strengths are at LB (I see Poz and Mitchell both having merit at either LB position) helps decide what addition we'll need at that spot. I could see us fixing the problem with a 2nd or 3rd round pick.

With all that being said, we would still be a 4-3 majority defense (2/3 of the snaps). There simply isn't enough quality personnel to make it the dominate scheme. But the hybrid look makes it harder to gameplan for us, and can give our DBs more of a cushion to make plays. If Pees is the guy, I think this is what we're going to see.

[dplus47]

I am beginning to wonder if a move to a 3-4 defence just adds another problem to the current long list of them.

FWIW (which might not be a lot, I know), I remember reading in one of those "Bills coordinator search" blurbs somewhere, was one NFL "source" saying of the Bills' D: "I can't think of a group in the NFL less suited for the 3-4."

Right now, the Bills D is emphasizing small and fast. 3-4, of course, emphasizes big and strong.

You guys have been through enough rebuilding to last a lifetime. The switch to a 3-4, whether or not you agree with the above "ill-suited" statement, will take a few years of drafts and free agency to get done. As a fan, who wants that?

[Don't Panic]

FWIW (which might not be a lot, I know), I remember reading in one of those "Bills coordinator search" blurbs somewhere, was one NFL "source" saying of the Bills' D: "I can't think of a group in the NFL less suited for the 3-4."

Right now, the Bills D is emphasizing small and fast. 3-4, of course, emphasizes big and strong.

You guys have been through enough rebuilding to last a lifetime. The switch to a 3-4, whether or not you agree with the above "ill-suited" statement, will take a few years of drafts and free agency to get done. As a fan, who wants that?

Very true... we should not be looking to make the full switch to a 3-4. I have to believe that Nix is fully aware of the time that would take. A hybrid may work though... especially with the right DC. Could only take a couple of personnel moves to get there.

kboy... you mentioned Linval Joseph in the Pees thread. I'll add Howard Green to the mix. He is an upcoming FA with the Jets. If we wanted to be a little more bold and give more of a 3-4 look more of the time, Gabe Watson (who I've seen mentioned a few times here) could be a fit. He'd be costly, but I could see him on the field in every 3-4 scheme and even some 4-3 schemes next to Stroud.

[billistic]

Considering that the Bills don't have squat, scratch that, the Bills do have squat at DE and OLB, it simply doesn't matter how they line up the front 7 azz clowns.

The lack of an NT is the least of their problems.

When you draft Aaron Maybin to solve your pass rush problems, it's exactly like trading a future #1 draft pick to get Losman as the franchise QB.

That crap continues to bite for years.

Can you say gangrene?

[djjimkelly]

we already cant stop the run in a 4-3 so my guess not having a true prototype NT in a 3-4 we wont be any worse against the run

[psubills62]

If, perchance, they do want to end up having a 3-4 defense, I think the move would be assisted greatly by transitioning to a heavier 4-3 defense this year. We just don't have the personnel (mainly at LB) to fill out a 3-4 defensive roster. Move to a heavy 4-3, similar to what the Giants have, with a role for some rushing OLB's, and then the next offseason it may be possible to move to a 3-4.

[Night Train]

A big difference between a prototype 4-3 and a Tampa 2 4-3, in terms of front 7 size, coverage responsibilities, blitzes, zones etc.

Can't believe some view all 4-3's are like the D we ran last year. This place gets dumber by the minute.

[dplus47]

If, perchance, they do want to end up having a 3-4 defense, I think the move would be assisted greatly by transitioning to a heavier 4-3 defense this year. We just don't have the personnel (mainly at LB) to fill out a 3-4 defensive roster. Move to a heavy 4-3, similar to what the Giants have, with a role for some rushing OLB's, and then the next offseason it may be possible to move to a 3-4.

That's just it. The linebackers in a 3-4 need to take on blocks, so they need to be bigger guys. Zach Thomas was very successful in Bates' 4-3, where he had 2 giants in front of him to keep blockers off him, but he didn't really have the size to play in a straight 3-4. The Bills could do what the Giants do, which is run a 4-3 and do a lot of zone blitzing. I don't think the Bills have huge problems on defense, so I don't get the outcry for a switch.

[jamze132]

Well anything is better then the Crap 2 defense Perry Fewell ran...

[mayotm]

There are successful 4 -3 and 3 - 4 defenses in the league. Good players and coaches win games, not schemes.

[Don't Panic]

This place gets dumber by the minute.

But we didn't run exclusive T2 this year... I can think of many times when I saw Fewell throw in some traditional 4-3 looks... times when there wasn't straight zone coverages for the LBs. I don't think that's a very fair statement, although the point that we need to adjust personnel for a traditional 4-3 is a given.

[Saratoga Slim]

There are successful 4 -3 and 3 - 4 defenses in the league. Good players and coaches win games, not schemes.

Yeah, more or less. Of the four teams that played today, the Colts, Vikings & Saints all run the 4-3. Only the Jets run a 3-4. The Super Bowl will feature two 4-3 defenses. Just saying - I don't think there needs to be a rush to the 3-4. There's plenty of evidence that the 4-3 is still very viable.

Our defense was undeniably soft against the run this year, but it kept us in enough games points-wise that with any kind of offense at all, we could easily have won 3-4 more games. That would have made playoffs a possibility.

My point is that I think our defense is a lot closer to where it needs to be than our offense. While I find the 3-4 intriguing, I really think that switching it over makes the rebuilding project that much bigger.

I'd like to see what Gailey can do in 2010 by focusing on the offense, and doing some comparatively minor tinkering with the defense.