CountDorkula Posted November 22, 2010 Posted November 22, 2010 With all the players we have fit for the 4-3 and success we have been having since moving back to the 4-3 D, IMO we should stick with it. I think the main reason the D was beyond atrocious in the first half of the season was due to players not being played at their natural positions. If we do stick with it we need a LB,DT(opposite of Williams, your best D player who I think we should scheme the D around) and possibly a DE via the Draft and FA. Our defense would be tremendously better suited, and overall. Not to mention Chris Kelsay since going back to DE has been on fire getting pressure seveal time a game. So what say you. Stick with the 4-3 or continue the transition?
RealityCheck Posted November 22, 2010 Posted November 22, 2010 With all the players we have fit for the 4-3 and success we have been having since moving back to the 4-3 D, IMO we should stick with it. I think the main reason the D was beyond atrocious in the first half of the season was due to players not being played at their natural positions. If we do stick with it we need a LB,DT(opposite of Williams, your best D player who I think we should scheme the D around) and possibly a DE via the Draft and FA. Our defense would be tremendously better suited, and overall. Not to mention Chris Kelsay since going back to DE has been on fire getting pressure seveal time a game. So what say you. Stick with the 4-3 or continue the transition? Continue the transition of course. They still aren't that good at the 4-3 either. Better, but not playoff quality, so why settle for a scheme limited by current players that predominantly aren't that great to begin with? Forge ahead next year I say.
lets_go_bills Posted November 22, 2010 Posted November 22, 2010 I prefer the 4-3. But they need to pick one and stick with it. This is a 3-4 team now and they have drafyed personnel for it and will continue to do so.
Green Lightning Posted November 22, 2010 Posted November 22, 2010 Keep doing the transition. Be patient, it will get better and better. I'm sold on the 3-4, but less sold on our DC. But that can be addressed in the off season.
C.Biscuit97 Posted November 22, 2010 Posted November 22, 2010 The only thing I didn't like about switching to the 3-4 is that the majority of the teams in the league now run it. running the 4-3 now is a lot rarer and could give you advantage. At the same time, why can't we jsut run a hybrid 3-4/ 4-3? It will give an OC a lot to think about.
BadDad Posted November 22, 2010 Posted November 22, 2010 The only thing I didn't like about switching to the 3-4 is that the majority of the teams in the league now run it. running the 4-3 now is a lot rarer and could give you advantage. At the same time, why can't we jsut run a hybrid 3-4/ 4-3? It will give an OC a lot to think about. Great idea (a hybrid), that looks like waht they are aiming at. Although I can't stand Kelsay this past few years, he had a decent game yesterday when playing in his natural position.
billsfan89 Posted November 22, 2010 Posted November 22, 2010 Run both have it so you have both looks. Most good teams that run a 3-4 run about a 60-40 split of 3-4 to 4-3 anyway. I say lets run both BUT lets still feature the 3-4 a clear majority of the time. KC "forced" the 3-4 on their team two years ago and after two brutal seasons forcing guys from a 4-3 to a 3-4 they have adapted well to the 3-4 this year being a pretty good D. All in all we are stuck with the 3-4 we need to stick with it but the 4-3 could be thrown in there to spice things up and slow the bleeding.
Recommended Posts