How would Bruce Smith have fared in a 4-3 setup

[JimKelly12]

I got to thinking today that Bruce spent most of his career as an elite end on a 3-4 setup...any thoughts as to how he would have done if Buffalo was a 4-3 for all those years?

[Beastly Dareus]

I got to thinking today that Bruce spent most of his career as an elite end on a 3-4 setup...any thoughts as to how he would have done if Buffalo was a 4-3 for all those years?

What was the scheme in Washington when he played for them at the end of his career? He had 29 sacks in his 4 years in Washington.

[kota]

He would have had more sacks.

[eschej13]

I got to thinking today that Bruce spent most of his career as an elite end on a 3-4 setup...any thoughts as to how he would have done if Buffalo was a 4-3 for all those years?

 

Its an interesting question, because given his size and quickness, would he have been moved inside on 3rd down? I think he would have been elite anywhere.

[Lurker]

What was the scheme in Washington when he played for them at the end of his career? He had 29 sacks in his 4 years in Washington.

Duh? Bruce was a shell of his 'primetime' self when he played for the 'Skins.

 

During his salad days, he made no bones about how he's be better than Reggie White if he played in a 4-3. I have little doubt he would have had even more sacks had he done so.

[Beastly Dareus]

Duh? Bruce was a shell of his 'primetime' self when he played for the 'Skins.

 

During his salad days, he made no bones about how he's be better than Reggie White if he played in a 4-3. I have little doubt he would have had even more sacks had he done so.

Are you ok?

 

You dont need to respond like I said something wrong. I simply asked what defense he played in while in Washington.

Then I said he had 29 sacks in those 4 years. Which is pretty good especially for his age.

 

No need for the duh? comment big boy

[BillsPhan]

I got to thinking today that Bruce spent most of his career as an elite end on a 3-4 setup...any thoughts as to how he would have done if Buffalo was a 4-3 for all those years?

 

Smith would have had an additional 75 sacks over his 15 years in Buffalo, if they played 4-3 his entire career. Try to imagine a big DT lining up next to Bruce's inside shoulder, instead of only having an inside linebacker 3 yards behind him off the line next to his inside shoulder all those seasons they played the 3-4! The most amazing thing about Bruuuuuce is his consistent 100 tackle seasons he compiled year after year, along with finishing his career as the all time sacks leader in the NFL. And he did all of that taking on a double team almost every single play while he freed up the linebackers to make more plays themselves.

[Thoner7]

I am only 22 so dont remember too much of those days, but I have the comback game on DVD and have been watching a lot of the SB games on the NFLN. From watching the comback game and the Giants SB game - we played more 4-3 than 3-4. C. Bennet was lined up at LDE. Thats only two games but I was suprised to see the 3-4 so much. How oftern were they really in a 3-4? I am just curious...

[billsfan89]

The guy was a beast in a 3-4 with inconsistent help as far as other pass rushers go. If you put Bruce on a team with a 4-3 and a decent other pass rusher on the other side the guy would have had 230ish sacks. Although I heard the argument of well Bruce was on the field more thanks to the Bills hurry up offense thus giving him more opportunities to get sacks. So who knows maybe the K-Guns ability to put him on the field a whole bunch off-set the fact he played in a 3-4 front 7.

[BillsPhan]

Are you ok?

 

You dont need to respond like I said something wrong. I simply asked what defense he played in while in Washington.

Then I said he had 29 sacks in those 4 years. Which is pretty good especially for his age.

No need for the duh? comment big boy

 

Great point! That's over 7 sacks per season, for seasons 16 through 19! In comparison, Aaron Schobel, number two all-time for the Bills in sacks, has averaged only about 8.5 sacks per season during his 9 year career, and he's already contemplating retirement! And Schobel has played his entire career in a 4-3 "gap" defense, which in my humble opinion, should have been offering him more help from inside then Smith ever received. And I always liked Schobel, and if he does retire, finishing number two in sacks all time for the 51 year old Bills' franchise is a hell of an accomplishment with nothing to be ashamed of.

 

That just proves how lucky those of us were to have been able to watch Bruce Smith play for the Bills during his amazing 15 years here. If Aaron Schobel does retire, yes, he will finish number two so far all-time, but with 93 less sacks then Bruce!

[Thurman#1]

He would have had more sacks.

 

 

 

Bingo! 3 - 4 DEs have more run responsibilities and less sack chances. Bruce was a freak!

[C.Biscuit97]

Bruce would easily have the record. Walt Corey was an idiot. If you put Bruce on the Eagles' defense that Reggie White was on, his numbers would have be absolutely mind blowing (even more so). Though he's supposedly a huge douche, he is the greatest Bill ever IMO.

[rocwocka]

his sack numbers would be even further through the roof! probably an extra 30-50 sacks. what i've been thinking recently is that he would probably project to an OLB in a 3-4 scheme in todays NFL. i believe he played at somewhere around 265 for the bulk of his playing time. probably would've had more than 1 interception in his career (btw, i was at that game against the JETS in the early 90's when he made a ridiculous play to snare the pick). couldn't find the pick, but this should suffice...

[vincec]

The Bills designed their defense around Smith. I remember the Bills doing a lot to free up Smith in passing situations from moving him around (I even remember him playing over the nose in some packages) to bringing in Bennett and Paup to play the opposite side. Smith basically played like a 4-3 DE. He was the primary rusher on his side, not Talley. I doubt that he would've done any better in another defense. He might have had more sacks in a blitz happy defense like the 46 but I doubt he could've had any more impact on the game than he had with the Bills.

[BADOLBILZ]

I got to thinking today that Bruce spent most of his career as an elite end on a 3-4 setup...any thoughts as to how he would have done if Buffalo was a 4-3 for all those years?

 

I know this, there wouldn't be any debate as to who the greatest pass rusher of the "sack as a statistic" era was.

 

I'm not going to debate who was the greater overall player, Bruce or Reggie, but statistically Bruce would have probably tacked on at minimum 50 more sacks over his long career.

 

If he had played with Clyde Simmons and Jerome Brown in a "46" style 4-3......maybe 100 more.

 

Bruce was rare, he had the leverage of todays shorter, powerhouse pass rushers, but also had the long arms and tremendous body lean and explosion. There are some great pass rushers today, but nobody very much like Bruce.

[vincec]

I know this, there wouldn't be any debate as to who the greatest pass rusher of the "sack as a statistic" era was.

 

I'm not going to debate who was the greater overall player, Bruce or Reggie, but statistically Bruce would have probably tacked on at minimum 50 more sacks over his long career.

 

If he had played with Clyde Simmons and Jerome Brown in a "46" style 4-3......maybe 100 more.

 

Bruce was rare, he had the leverage of todays shorter, powerhouse pass rushers, but also had the long arms and tremendous body lean and explosion. There are some great pass rushers today, but nobody very much like Bruce.

Bruce Smith is already the greatest pass rusher of the sack stat era, no question, but the objective of football is to win not get Bruce as many sacks as possible. Reggie was a better overall DE because he was dominant against both the run and the pass, could play multiple positions on the line and won a championship.

[K-9]

The guy was a beast in a 3-4 with inconsistent help as far as other pass rushers go. If you put Bruce on a team with a 4-3 and a decent other pass rusher on the other side the guy would have had 230ish sacks. Although I heard the argument of well Bruce was on the field more thanks to the Bills hurry up offense thus giving him more opportunities to get sacks. So who knows maybe the K-Guns ability to put him on the field a whole bunch off-set the fact he played in a 3-4 front 7.

 

It's true that our defense was on the field for FAR more plays than the offense during those years but the biggest factor in Bruce's favor was playing with big leads so much of the time.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[dave mcbride]

It's true that our defense was on the field for FAR more plays than the offense during those years but the biggest factor in Bruce's favor was playing with big leads so much of the time.

 

GO BILLS!!!

How do you figure that? The Bills had a good offense and ran a lot of plays - typically more than the opponents. The fact that they ran the no huddle had no bearing on the number of total plays in a game. They rarely ran the hurry up - maybe at the beginning of games - but if they had the lead, they ran a no huddle in which the plays generally started shortly before the clock ran out. The idea that the Bills D was on the field for more plays than average is a myth. What keeps a defense on the field for more plays are only two things: an offense that can't stay on the field and a defense that can't stay off the field because they don't force punts.

 

In 1992, for instance, the offense ran 1087 plays and the defense 991: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/buf/1992.htm

 

That same year, an average team - the 9-7 Colts - ran 969 offensive plays and 1004 defensive plays: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/clt/1992.htm

[BADOLBILZ]

Bruce Smith is already the greatest pass rusher of the sack stat era, no question, but the objective of football is to win not get Bruce as many sacks as possible. Reggie was a better overall DE because he was dominant against both the run and the pass, could play multiple positions on the line and won a championship.

 

The championship thing is meaningless. Reggie is remembered for making two plays in one series in the SB against the Patriots. The OT he beat was an overwhelmed journeyman scrub named Max Lane. By contrast, Bruce gets a bad rap for not producing big in SB's against premier LT's like Jumbo Elliot, Jim Lachey and Mark Tuinea. But Reggie didn't fare well against the best RT's. He once had a playoff game for Philly against Erik Williams of the Cowboys where he had no tackles. None. Shut the hell out, no stat line at all. Pwned....if you will.

 

In the era just before the zone blitz, pass rushing was mostly an individual battle and teams ran the ball more. Guys like Bruce and Reggie would have some bad days against the best. The difference was Bruce played against the best pass blockers, the league's LT's. Reggie got fat pass rush stats off of a lot of flabby right tackles. Bruce had the occasional Everitt McIvers to abuse, but as a whole if you can pass rush against RT's you will get less resistance. Ask Michael Strahan, who also benefited from not having to face LT's.

 

Bruce was at least at one time the NFL's all time sack leader in the playoffs. He did produce in the playoffs. But it's important to note that the rest of his line was undersized and in the SB's the Giants/Skins/Cowboys all ran the ball at will against the Bills interior thus negating Bruce's pass rush. When the Broncos did the same to the Packers in the SB, people tend to forget that Reggie was completely negated.

 

A lot of the Reggie love is based on myth. He was indeed a great player, but the idea that he was consistently dominant and that Bruce was not is very inaccurate. Reggie was a fantastic talent, but did not always train like a superstar. Reggie was a media darling. Everyone thought he was this great enlightened human being and because of that he was elevated to a status that exceeded his actual game. But people forget his crazy biggoted ramblings and the fact that he had renounced the christian faith prior to his death. This after publicly baptising players and championing the faith for years. It may not have been his fault, but in the end he was a fraud off the field, and while a great player, definitely overrated.

 

Bruce on the other hand was no fraud. He was just a garden variety idiot off the field so he never got the benefit of that good press. But he was a very diligent trainer and was underrated by comparison.

[dave mcbride]

The championship thing is meaningless. Reggie is remembered for making two plays in one series in the SB against the Patriots. The OT he beat was an overwhelmed journeyman scrub named Max Lane. By contrast, Bruce gets a bad rap for not producing big in SB's against premier LT's like Jumbo Elliot, Jim Lachey and Mark Tuinea. But Reggie didn't fare well against the best RT's. He once had a playoff game for Philly against Erik Williams of the Cowboys where he had no tackles. None. Shut the hell out, no stat line at all. Pwned....if you will.

 

In the era just before the zone blitz, pass rushing was mostly an individual battle and teams ran the ball more. Guys like Bruce and Reggie would have some bad days against the best. The difference was Bruce played against the best pass blockers, the league's LT's. Reggie got fat pass rush stats off of a lot of flabby right tackles. Bruce had the occasional Everitt McIvers to abuse, but as a whole if you can pass rush against RT's you will get less resistance. Ask Michael Strahan, who also benefited from not having to face LT's.

 

Bruce was at least at one time the NFL's all time sack leader in the playoffs. He did produce in the playoffs. But it's important to note that the rest of his line was undersized and in the SB's the Giants/Skins/Cowboys all ran the ball at will against the Bills interior thus negating Bruce's pass rush. When the Broncos did the same to the Packers in the SB, people tend to forget that Reggie was completely negated.

 

A lot of the Reggie love is based on myth. He was indeed a great player, but the idea that he was consistently dominant and that Bruce was not is very inaccurate. Reggie was a fantastic talent, but did not always train like a superstar. Reggie was a media darling. Everyone thought he was this great enlightened human being and because of that he was elevated to a status that exceeded his actual game. But people forget his crazy biggoted ramblings and the fact that he had renounced the christian faith prior to his death. This after publicly baptising players and championing the faith for years. It may not have been his fault, but in the end he was a fraud off the field, and while a great player, definitely overrated.

 

Bruce on the other hand was no fraud. He was just a garden variety idiot off the field so he never got the benefit of that good press. But he was a very diligent trainer and was underrated by comparison.

A couple of things - you're generally right, but White was better than you're saying. He played against tougher competition in terms of overall teams (let's not kid ourselves about the AFC East vs. the NFC east in that era),and the Philly D - of which he was the undisputed best player - was certainly better than Buffalo's. Plus let's not forget that he missed a couple of seasons because he played in the USFL (where he dominated). In the end, he was a different player. He played against RTs largely because he was a beast against the run and could handle the monster RTs with his strength (including Williams, who he often played quite well against notwithstanding that one game you cite). He was a better bull rusher than Smith.

 

As for the fact that he was a fraud, come on. If you're going to start judging NFL players on their personalities, then you're going to have some slim pickings. I know a person who dealt with Bruce, and he wasn't a nice guy.

 

Another thing: Bruce played extremely well in the second Bills-Cowboys bowl, forcing Aikman to throw an INT in the first half after he beat Tuinei. The Cowboys spent the entire second half running plays away from him (and behind Erik Williams, who destroyed Hanson). As for the Giants game, he made a big stop on the Giants final possession and had a sack in the endzone. It's quite odd that people say that Elliot stoned him given that. He played poorly in the first Cowboys bowl (Tuinei commented afterward that he didn't play nearly as quick that game as he looked on film), and was basically useless in the Skins bowl (he was still hampered by injuries).