- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 6,575
- Reaction Score
- 16,641
The benefits of. 4-3 over a 3-3 have been articulated like 100 times now. Can we stop asking the same question as a rhetorical device to make a false point.A couple of points:
- In a league full on gunslingers and no huddle offenses why would you not play 5 d-backs?
- What are people advocating a 4-3-4, 5-2-4, 4-4-3? Explain why another alignment would be better?
- Unlike Diaco's alignment, where they lined up like blocking dummies in basically the same spot, I see lots of movement and different looks.
- Anything they could do to keep blockers off Junior would be a good adjustment. He's aggressive and probably needs to make at least 15 tackles a game.
- It would be great if they could game plan to try and take away the things teams to well.
- 3-3-5 makes sense. Need to execute better and to free up playmakers (maybe just Junior) to make plays.
If you want to argue personnel, fine. The personnel analysis posted is thoughtful, but flawed. You don't need 20 DBs on the roster. You don't need 10 -12DL. It's nice to have. It's not a need.
How many DLs does it take to run a 4-3? Four. Actually more like two or three, because you can use hybrids for the DEs. So, we can have "light" or "heavy" packages. We have tight ends sitting on the bench that can convert to DL. We can likely get by with 6 deep.
You guys are getting bamboozled by RE . I'm ecstatic he's back, but let's not forget he was a stubborn no change guy before. If you watched CFB yesterday, you'll see most big boys playing out of 4-3 or 3-4 base all day, even the speed teams. There is no substitute for getting upfront pressure and you have to have leverage on the edge. If you don't, you're dead...ala...being shredded for 600 yards a week.
