3-4 V 4-3

[Shamrock]

With a lot of discussion about the 4-3 V 3-4 fronts on the board, I was wondering whether Ron Edwards (healthy) would be able to play a Left end spot in the 3-4, similar to say, Trevor Pryce in Denver. He is still a relative unknown force. He's been caught behind Adams and PW, gets a shot and tears a shoulder. The toll on the shoulder outside wouldn't be as significant as that of an interior lineman, tending to have a triangle that contains a TE instead of only linemen? Could he occupy a role similar to Phil Hansen and swing between a left end in the 3-4 and when in an obvious 4 man front, inside at left tackle leaving a better pass rusher outside; role occupied at various times by Bennett, Paup and Jim Jeffcoat.

Just a thought...

[Stussy109]

I liek the idea of a 3-4 with this years team. We could have a D-line of Kelsay, Adams/Edwards Schobel/Denney. LB corps is keep posey around, and start Crowell as 2nd MLB. Imagine having Spikes, Fletcher, Crowell and Posey on the field for most plays? I also like our personells ability to be able to switch between both 3-4 and 4-3

[stuckincincy]

I liek the idea of a 3-4 with this years team.  We could have a D-line of Kelsay, Adams/Edwards Schobel/Denney.  LB corps is keep posey around, and start Crowell as 2nd MLB.  Imagine having Spikes, Fletcher, Crowell and Posey on the field for most plays?  I also like our personells ability to be able to switch between both 3-4 and 4-3

590772[/snapback]

 

The 3-4 can be stung by a team that passes reliably to the rb's.

[RuntheDamnBall]

The 3-4 can be stung by a team that passes reliably to the rb's.

590946[/snapback]

That kind of sounds like the Bills already. Brady can pass to the RBs all day against us. Couldn't get worse, could it?

[stuckincincy]

That kind of sounds like the Bills already.  Brady can pass to the RBs all day against us.  Couldn't get worse, could it?

590949[/snapback]

 

Sadly so.

 

The 3 - 4 often sends a LB to rush, and others tend towards somewhat deep coverage. Because the 3-4 lb's tend to be on the big side, they aren't especially agile. Nothing against PGH's implementation of the 3-4. They do have Polamalu help out there. They do it well, as BAL did beforehand.

 

IIRC, Kelly and Thurmon Thomas did a bang-up job on the 3-4's that were a bit more prevalent at that time.

[Fake-Fat Sunny]

I think the key question surrounding debate around this move is the one: What kind of 3-4 will we run? I think the answer starts for us with, The Bills will not run the 3-4 asth Bills use to run it, because we simply do not have players with the talents to make it a good scheme for them.

 

This is not surprising because if the Bills "new" 3-4 requires a DE of the same capabilities of Bruce Smith to make it work, it ain't happ.

 

We visualize the 3-4 as needing:

 

1. A tough reliable stay at home RDE who allows the LDE to freelance but has the skills to take advantage of an increased number of 1-on-1s he gets. (aka P. Hansen)

2. A mobile NT who is undersized but stuffs the run by getting to the POA (aka J. Wright)

3. The best LDE ever who sometimes always needs a double-team (just ask Boomer who got creamed when the singled Bruce), made the OL shift his way and sometimes commanded a triple team. Not only was he the best at pass rush, but also he was a talent against the run.

4. A deep LB corps.

 

A "new" Bills 3-4 will not be able to replicate these talents, so if we are going to make it work we are going to have to have another base application of the system.

 

This is not impossible at all.

 

1. Bruce did not play all the time due to nicks and suspensions and the Bills found a way to make the 3-4 work without these talents though the quality was greatly diminished by losing a great player.

 

2. We are used to one kind of 3-4, but just as there are many ways to run a 4-3, there are many different styles of playing a 3-4 which can be effective. Other teams in the league run the 3-4 effectively and they do not have Bruce either.

 

3. We are taliking about the 3-4 as a base set. but not the only set. I think one of the times we were most effective with the 3-4 base is when Phat Pat emerged suddenly out of UDFA status and we had a 4-3 with Big Ted and Phat Pat we used a lot and well.

 

I think what is missing from our discussion of the 3-4 is that no one is skilled DC and has described how you make the 3-4 work well with our personnel. This guessing game is made even more complicated as we do not know what the Bills plan to do with well-paid, and accomplished but old and complaining Sam Adams.

 

Overall, these are the tools I see us having to work with:

 

Schobel- Traditionally an RDE, but not only can line up anywhere, but has demonstrated the athleticism to do some fairly deep pass coverage in the zone blitz. Historically has been a little weak at the POA, but has a constanty motor to go with his atleticism and is hitting the peak of his career and is a force to be reckoned with.

 

His usual double digit sack totals are even more impressive given that he actually pulled this off with him doing a lot of downfield pass coveraqe. He deserved the extension he signed with his play. His broad skills and flexibility make him a player you can build around with a switch to the 3-4, but it would seem that if one asked him to be Phil Hansen it would take away something he does well (pass coverage in the zone blitz and emphasize something he does not do as well (strength at the POA) as his primary role. Anyone who advocates the 3-4 has a lor of splainin to do (as Rickey Ricardo would say) as to how we get the highest and best use out of Schobel in this scheme.

 

Adams- Generally considered a goner as a Bill by many as he has seemed to be one of the more dissatisfied folks by how we ran the D. He is a talent making the Pro Bowl year before last. He still has one of the fastest first steps in the league and can absolutely blow up an opponents play if he guesses right. With his first step he has been an effective pass rusher. He also is a big boy who commands a lot of attention and if he happens to stay at home on a play he is a big clog.

 

However, his game is about making good guesses and consistently staying home is not what he does well. His unique combination of being a huge body but a nimble athlete is odd. It offers great options, but if the O guesses right we are going to get killed unless someone is watching his back. Probably the biggest effect of losin Phat Pat was not his play or level of output (he was getting older and it showed, but that his presence and big body allowed Adams to free lance a lot because PW would be there when he guessed wrong to clean-up the trash.

 

Again, those who want to switch to a 3-4 and propose that Adams is the new Big Ted who makes this work are ignoring the fact that Sam has never played in the style of a Big Ted (though he has the size to do it) nor has he played with the stay-at-home or POA orientation of a Jeff Wright (though he has the athleticism to do this). My particular sense is that you cannot count on him sacrificing parts of his game or playing with the disicpiline and consistency necessary to make this work. Inconsistency and elusiveness are what his game has been about.

 

Add to that he is getting older and one day his skills may simply disappear (or a sudden injury occurs) and the Bills simply should not count upon Adams as the mainstay of making the move to 3-4.

 

Edwards- He showed some neat skills with is critical back-up work in 2004 where he demonstrated such productivity as a designated pass rusher in 3rd and long situations, his play forced Sam Adams to the bench much to SA's dismay (his talents were simply made for this situation). However, any hopes that we had that finally Edwards play meant he was ready to step up into a starting role were dashed when he was taken advantage of by opposing rushers when hestarted fulltime and then he suffered a season ending injury.

 

Edwards has always been a disappointment as he was the only player drafted in the 5th round or better in the 2001 draft who not only did not press for starting on this cap hell team but he was not even good enough to be active.

 

He became a starter by default and was disappointing. Again, it is unclear how he would be best used in a 3-4 and is someone you would rely on at your own risk.

 

Denny- I see him as the positive bookend for Edwards. it was the same story as Edwards as he was so over-matched initially that he could not even be made active most of his rookie year. He apparently did not bend his knees properly and with his Ted Hebdricks like Big Stork body, even very young pros could get undermeath him, tie him up and easily defeat him.

 

Particularly since we had picked up the older than most Denny (the BYU grad took two years off to do a mission overseas)with the idea that he would contribute immediately this was disappointing. Particularly because TD had done a trick that must have been delicious for him up trading up for a draft pick just ahead of his old nemsis Pitts who were on the phone with Denny letting him know they would pick him and TD stole him, the long knives which were after TD used Denny's immediate problems have evidence for their case that TD was an idiot.

 

However, IMHO where Edwards generally remained a disappointment, Denny has actually developed into quite a player who fills a valuable and unique role on the D. Denny mastered his leverage problems that kept him on the bench. He then showed not only good athleticism for a DL player, but actually extraordinmary athleticism for someone with his gangly body and huge wingspan.

 

Denny turned out to be made for the zone blitz as not only do his big arms really help him in pass coverage, but his athleticism allows him to get back in pass coverage quickly. The INT he made in pre-season 2004 in what really was deep medium zone coverage was extraordinary.

 

Even better, Denny showed talent as a run stuffer and the Bills could even line him up as a DT in some Ds.

 

Yet, despite all this, his flexibility allows him to be adequate in multiple roles, he is not great in any of them. he is difficult to account for in a zone blitz scheme where it is unclear to the O where he will be. However, if he is put into a basic role we need him to perform consistenly in a 3-4, the O will know this too and probably pick on his weaknesses. Again there needs to be some explainin as to how a 3-4 is going to work with him.

 

Kelsay- Yet, another player who has shown he can occaisionally be great and usually is at least adequate. However, without the bonus of unpredictability of the zone blitz there is a question as to whether an O that can key on him and his talents and failings will not be able to exploit him consistenly. He still is relatively young and next year is the point in his career where he may prove to be something special if his occaisional great play turns into consistent great play, However, rather than raw skill and great moves his occaisional great plays may be mostly due to him having a constnat motor. I can easily envision him being in the Phil Hansen role in a 3-4, but who is in the Bruce Smith and Jeff Wright roles and how do we deal with Denny and A Schobel also being best suited using the old Bills 3-4 as a model for the Hansen role only one of them can play.

 

Anderson- I thought he actually played better than I expected last year. However, this mostly says how low my expectations were for him last year. I expected Edwards to beat him out for the replacing Phat Pat role and Edwards did. However, given Edwards was not that good at the role it does not say a lot for Anderson.

 

Once Edwards and TKO got hurt and it came in conjunction with the wheels coming off the Bills run D even with these two players. Anderson was forced to play a starters role. He was not the formidable player we wanted, but aactually I think he showed he can be a credible back-up DT. He just is not starter caliber yet be it a 3-4 or a 4-3. he is young yet so who knows he might blossom or at least show additional signs this year. However, again he is no one one would count on.

 

Bannan, Jefferson, Sape, Powell, Word, Whomever- No need to write anyone off at this point but all of these players need to show us that they even deserve a back-up roke. Sape has shown the most but even he must show that the injury that landed him on IR was a nick he recovered from before anyone relies upon him.

 

I think this a pool which is deep with adequate players but does not have anyone approaching the Jevon Kearse or Bruce Smith like talents that can never be left one on one. Most of these players I double at my choice when I pick the POA to go throgh them and when I send my double team that way I expect to roll right over them, be it a 4-3, 3-4 or whatever.

[Stussy109]

I think the key question surrounding debate around this move is the one: What kind of 3-4 will we run?  I think the answer starts for us with, The Bills will not run the 3-4 asth Bills use to run it, because we simply do not have players with the talents to make it a good scheme for them.

 

This is not surprising because if the Bills "new" 3-4 requires a DE of the same capabilities of Bruce Smith to make it work, it ain't happ.

 

We visualize the 3-4 as needing:

 

1. A tough reliable stay at home RDE who allows the LDE to freelance but has the skills to take advantage of an increased number of 1-on-1s he gets. (aka P. Hansen)

2. A mobile NT who is undersized but stuffs the run by getting to the POA (aka J. Wright)

3. The best LDE ever who sometimes always needs a double-team (just ask Boomer who got creamed when the singled Bruce), made the OL shift his way and sometimes commanded a triple team.  Not only was he the best at pass rush, but also he was a talent against the run.

4. A deep LB corps.

 

A "new" Bills 3-4 will not be able to replicate these talents, so if we are going to make it work we are going to have to have another base application of the system.

 

This is not impossible at all.

 

1. Bruce did not play all the time due to nicks and suspensions and the Bills found a way to make the 3-4 work without these talents though the quality was greatly diminished by losing a great player.

 

2. We are used to one kind of 3-4, but just as there are many ways to run a 4-3, there are many different styles of playing a 3-4 which can be effective. Other teams in the league run the 3-4 effectively and they do not have Bruce either.

 

3. We are taliking about the 3-4 as a base set. but not the only set. I think one of the times we were most effective with the 3-4 base is when Phat Pat emerged suddenly out of UDFA status and we had a 4-3 with Big Ted and Phat Pat we used a lot and well.

 

I think what is missing from our discussion of the 3-4 is that no one is skilled DC and has described how you make the 3-4 work well with our personnel.  This guessing game is made even more complicated as we do not know what the Bills plan to do with well-paid, and accomplished but old and complaining Sam Adams.

 

Overall, these are the tools I see us having to work with:

 

Schobel- Traditionally an RDE, but not only can line up anywhere, but has demonstrated the athleticism to do some fairly deep pass coverage in the zone blitz.  Historically has been a little weak at the POA, but has a constanty motor to go with his atleticism and is hitting the peak of his career and is a force to be reckoned with.

 

His usual double digit sack totals are even more impressive given that he actually pulled this off with him doing a lot of downfield pass coveraqe. He deserved the extension he signed with his play.  His broad skills and flexibility make him a player you can build around with a switch to the 3-4, but it would seem that if one asked him to be Phil Hansen it would take away something he does well (pass coverage in the zone blitz and emphasize something he does not do as well (strength at  the POA) as his primary role.  Anyone who advocates the 3-4 has a lor of splainin to do (as Rickey Ricardo would say) as to how we get the highest and best use out of Schobel in this scheme.

 

Adams- Generally considered a goner as a Bill by many as he has seemed to be one of the more dissatisfied folks by how we ran the D.  He is a talent making the Pro Bowl year before last. He still has one of the fastest first steps in the league and can absolutely blow up an opponents play if he guesses right. With his first step he has been an effective pass rusher. He also is a big boy who commands a lot of attention and if he happens to stay at home on a play he is a big clog.

 

However, his game is about making good guesses and consistently staying home is not what he does well. His unique combination of being a huge body but a nimble athlete is odd. It offers great options, but if the O guesses right we are going to get killed unless someone is watching his back.  Probably the biggest effect of losin Phat Pat was not his play or level of output (he was getting older and it showed, but that his presence and big body allowed Adams to free lance a lot because PW would be there when he guessed wrong to clean-up the trash.

 

Again, those who want to switch to a 3-4 and propose that Adams is the new Big Ted who makes this work are ignoring the fact that Sam has never played in the style of a Big Ted (though he has the size to do it) nor has he played with the stay-at-home or POA orientation of a Jeff Wright (though he has the athleticism to do this). My particular sense is that you cannot count on him sacrificing parts of his game or playing with the disicpiline and consistency necessary to make this work. Inconsistency and elusiveness are what his game has been about.

 

Add to that he is getting older and one day his skills may simply disappear (or  a sudden injury occurs) and the Bills simply should not count upon Adams as the mainstay of making the move to 3-4.

 

Edwards- He showed some neat skills with is critical back-up work in 2004 where he demonstrated such productivity as a designated pass rusher in 3rd and long situations, his play forced Sam Adams to the bench much to SA's dismay (his talents were simply made for this situation).  However, any hopes that we had that finally Edwards play meant he was ready to step up into a starting role were dashed when he was taken advantage of by opposing rushers when hestarted fulltime and then he suffered a season ending injury.

 

Edwards has always been a disappointment as he was the only player drafted in the 5th round or better in the 2001 draft who not only did not press for starting on this cap hell team but he was not even good enough to be active.

 

He became a starter by default and was disappointing. Again, it is unclear how he would be best used in a 3-4 and is someone you would rely on at your own risk.

 

Denny-  I see him as the positive bookend for Edwards. it was the same story as Edwards as he was so over-matched initially that he could not even be made active most of his rookie year.  He apparently did not bend his knees properly and with his Ted Hebdricks like Big Stork body, even very young pros could get undermeath him, tie him up and easily defeat him.

 

Particularly since we had picked up the older than most Denny (the BYU grad took two years off to do a mission overseas)with the idea that he would contribute immediately this was disappointing. Particularly because TD had done a trick that must have been delicious for him up trading up for a draft pick just ahead of his old nemsis Pitts who were on the phone with Denny letting him know they would pick him and TD stole him, the long knives which were after TD used Denny's immediate problems have evidence for their case that TD was an idiot.

 

However, IMHO where Edwards generally remained a disappointment, Denny has actually developed into quite a player who fills a valuable and unique role on the D.  Denny mastered his leverage problems that kept him on the bench.  He then showed not only good athleticism for a DL player, but actually extraordinmary athleticism for someone with his gangly body and huge wingspan.

 

Denny turned out to be made for the zone blitz as not only do his big arms really help him in pass coverage, but his athleticism allows him to get back in pass coverage quickly.  The INT he made in pre-season 2004 in what really was deep medium zone coverage was extraordinary.

 

Even better, Denny showed talent as a run stuffer and the Bills could even line him up as a DT in some Ds.

 

Yet, despite all this, his flexibility allows him to be adequate in multiple roles, he is not great in any of them.  he is difficult to account for in a zone blitz scheme where it is unclear to the O where he will be. However, if he is put into a basic role we need him to perform consistenly in a 3-4, the O will know this too and probably pick on his weaknesses.  Again there needs to be some explainin as to how a 3-4 is going to work with him.

 

Kelsay-  Yet, another player who has shown he can occaisionally be great and usually is at least adequate.  However, without the bonus of unpredictability of the zone blitz there is a question as to whether an O that can key on him and his talents and failings will not be able to exploit him consistenly. He still is relatively young and next year is the point in his career where he may prove to be something special if his occaisional great play turns into consistent great play, However, rather than raw skill and great moves his occaisional great plays may be mostly due to him having a constnat motor. I can easily envision him being in the Phil Hansen role in a 3-4, but who is in the Bruce Smith and Jeff Wright roles and how do we deal with Denny and A Schobel also being best suited using the old Bills 3-4 as a model for the Hansen role only one of them can play.

 

Anderson- I thought he actually played better than I expected last year.  However, this mostly says how low my expectations were for him last year.  I expected Edwards to beat him out for the replacing Phat Pat role and Edwards did.  However, given Edwards was not that good at the role it does not say a lot for Anderson.

 

Once Edwards and TKO got hurt and it came in conjunction with the wheels coming off the Bills run D even with these two players. Anderson was forced to play a starters role.  He was not the formidable player we wanted, but aactually I think he showed he can be a credible back-up DT. He just is not starter caliber yet be it a 3-4 or a 4-3.  he is young yet so who knows he might blossom or at least show additional signs this year.  However, again he is no one one would count on.

 

Bannan, Jefferson, Sape, Powell, Word, Whomever- No need to write anyone off at this point but all of these players need to show us that they even deserve a back-up roke. Sape has shown the most but even he must show that the injury that landed him on IR was a nick he recovered from before anyone relies upon him.

 

I think this a pool which is deep with adequate players but does not have anyone approaching the Jevon Kearse or Bruce Smith like talents that can never be left one on one.  Most of these players I double at my choice when I pick the POA to go throgh them and when I send my double team that way I expect to roll right over them, be it a 4-3, 3-4 or whatever.

591093[/snapback]

 

 

 

Nice analysis... Are u a coach

[stuckincincy]

I think the key question surrounding...

591093[/snapback]

 

Brevity being the soul of wit....

 

They have the wrong horses.

 

They have no notable expertise.

 

A clever team can slap the 3-4 around. It didn't wane in popularity for unsound reasons.

 

Trends sooner or later come back for another curtain call...

 

 

[1959BillsFan]

Brevity being the soul of wit....

 

They have the wrong horses.

 

They have no notable expertise.

 

A clever team can slap the 3-4 around. It didn't wane in popularity for unsound reasons.

 

Trends sooner or later come back for another curtain call...

591172[/snapback]

 

You make a great point. I think it was Marv that said, teams go to different varieties of the 3-4, but sooner or later, they always switch bach to the 4-3 for the mere fact, few know how to run it, few know how to sustain it for more than a few years, few players really want to play it.

 

I mention that last statement about players because the front 7 in a 3-4 take a beating. Their durability becomes questionable after a year or two, as a consequence, sustaining the 3-4 means you have to really keep continuous planning to maintain it's effectiveness and that takes coaches that know how to run it and scouts that know how to draft for it.

[D' men]

3-4 . Unless we get Ngata in the first round. Then it would be 4-3.

 

Front 3: Schobel-Adams-Denney/kelsay

 

LB: Spikes-Fletcher-Haggan/someone from the draft in the 5th round-Crowell

 

It could work!