I don't like it, mostly because it would take Matthews, our best player on defense by 2 or 3 heads and shoulders, and makes him less impactful. After that, I'll break down what I see: 1) Defensive ends: We need two, we have one (Perry) would could put his hand in the dirt and rush the passer. Matthews would be okay as a the RDE on passing downs, but Perry isn't heavy enough to play LDE in base and hold up to the run. So do you play him RDE in base and flip to LDE in nickel? That seems sub-optimal. Regardless, we need to "spend big" on another pass-rush DE to complete the transition. 2) Three technique tackles: We have a lot here. Neal, Worthy, Daniels, and even Raji project here. Wilson doesn't fit in the 4-3 at all, really. 3) Nose tackle: Raji and Pickett, though Pickett's time is running out. 4) SLB: Matthews. No one else on the roster is a complete player--cover the TE, beat the TE in the running game, blitz. Move him to rush-end in nickel. 5) MLB/WLB: Hawk and Bishop, who goes where depends on the specific scheme. Bishop is the better player, so I'd put him whichever is the playmaker, usually the W. But the W needs to be a better, quicker coverage guy. I'm not sure we have that guy on the roster. I'd probably put Bishop MIKE and draft the WILL. Walden, Zombo, and Moses all get cut, because they don't fit the scheme at all. We start drafting a ton of defensive linemen, as we'd need to flip our rosters numbers. Currently 6 linemen and 9 linebackers goes to 9 linemen and 6 backers. We realistically have to spend a whole draft just to get the roster numbers looking right. So there we'd go. We're missing two big pieces--a second complete DE and a coverage linebacker, would spend a lot of roster capital getting the numbers right, and we'd under-use our Game Changer (Matthews) on defense. I don't like the idea one bit. I also don't think it solves any problems, other than giving us a bigger pool of replacement DCs, assuming Capers is fired/retires.
Who said that? It remains to be seen, but do you have evidence to suggest he can't be taught? I did put him at ROLB in my hypothetical.
I want Clay to be the mike, urlacher style. They could even go sign the old man to accelerate the teaching process.
Mathews plays coverage quite a bit, and well when given the opportunity. Hawk played MLB before we switched to the 3-4, along with playing it in College (and main reason he was a top-5 pick), he would be fine there.
On the contrary, I think a good 4-3 DC makes Matthews MORE impactful across the board. Right now, if he gets over-matched at the line, he basically is completely neutralized. Look no further than the last game for reference. Also, Mike Neal is suited just fine to play DE. I never said we're perfectly equipped as-is for the 4-3, but I have no doubt we're no more 1 or 2 players shy. That said, the only 4-3 guy I'd be interested in is Smith. We all know that's not happening anyway, but it's something to pass the time.
He they moved him around to DE OLB and MLB in college, and we've had him play ILB on occasion here. Hawk excelled the most at WLB, that was the position we drafted him for. We moved him to MLB the next year and it wasn't the same.
The defense they ran at USC was really a hybrid scheme. Technically, he was a defensive end. In reality, he was in a two point stance most of the time. And yes, he's played all over our formation depending on the play call. But to stick him at MLB full-time would be a waste. Eh, I'd disagree with that. He never really excelled. Also, the Jim Bates 4-3 is different. In most, 'modern' 4-3s, the WILL is the playmaker, the MIKE takes on more blocks. The Bates 4-3 is the exception. Would you really like Hawk to be your play maker? I wouldn't.
How would moving Matthews to a position where he rushes, or is a threat to, less be an improvement? One think I like about the 3-4 is the flexibility. In the 3-4, I'd argue Matthews is more free to roam. I think he's too slow. As a 4-3 end, he'd have more contain responsibilities. That worries me. I also don't think he could be an effective edge rusher, which is important for a 4-3 end. It's not so much that we would need one or two guys, I'd be willing to agree that we need one or two guys to improve our 3-4, but our total depth. We'd need an influx of linemen and end up cutting a lot of linebackers, which probably carry some cap penalties and would 'waste' more already made draft picks. Hey, I love a good argument. Though I don't think I'd like Smith. Tampa-2 is nice against teams like us, but overall I think it's a less-viable every down defense. Particularly with rule changes--John Lynch is a perfect "you catch the ball and I will kill you" Tampa-2 safety. Lots of those plays will draw flags. And a Tampa-2 scheme extends our mis-match to cornerback. In a Tampa-2, your corners are build more like safeties and much be better tacklers. Our corners are smaller, fast guys who can play man. We'd have to replace them too.
Not really. I'd prefer he'd be a backup. He's not really good at anything, but okay at a lot of stuff. Having him play the MIKE in a normal 4-3 would be the smallest change for him. Which is why I'd said I'd put Bishop at MIKE and draft the new WILL.
I'll stick to my guns and say put him in the position he played in college, the position he was drafted to play.
When we went from 4-3 to 3-4 everyone was happy because our defense sucked for so long and maybe that was the change we needed. In short, it wasn't and neither will going back to 4-3. We need a good defensive coordinator.
I'd also say that the NFL greatly changed how the game is to be played with the rules that it implemented between 2010 and 2011. Only a hear and a half after we switched to the 3-4. Subjectively I'd say that the 4-3 D's seem to be preforming better since those drastic rule changes were implemented.
I'd say 3-4 is keeping up. 2 3-4 defenses in the top 5 regular season, 3 in top 5 rush D, 3 in top pass D, and that's with 3-4 being outnumbered. College runs a lot of 4-3 though, so that hurts. 49ers, Redskins, Packers, Texans, Colts. That's 5 3-4 in the Playoffs, Patriots and Ravens recently switched, and Seahawks switched a few years back. Plus IMO Broncos are better suited for 3-4
Couldn't agree more Wood! Capers is so over rated! His inability to make changes in the second half of Saturdays game as well as many others, shows that the game has passed him by. I would love to see Lovie come in and shake things up on defense. I can almost hear the Bear fans crying now! Time for TT to draft or go free agent on a great DE and start giving the secondary a chance with some actual pressure on the QB. Was it just me or did Brad Jones look TERRIBLE on Saturday? Having 3 starting linebackers put on IR this year definitely hurt!
TT stated one of the main reasons to run a 3-4 was that so many more elite pass rushers were available in that mold than the coveted 4-3 premium pass rusher like a Jared Allen or Julius Peppers. So far he's acquired CMIII and who? No impact from Perry so far & being on IR gives him an incomplete grade so that's an unknown. Walden is flashy but terribly inconsistent. Jones, no. Zombo is an enigma. In back-up roles periodically he shines but an every-down player he is not. Francois is ST all the way. Every other LB left is an inside player, not a pass rusher. They're either under-sized or lack the technique to out-hustle huge offensive tackles. We've had four draft classes to stockpile these supposedly plentiful players & yet here we are with CMII being double-teamed & almost 600 yards yielded in a playoff game. I don't think Capers takes the fall for this since players must play. Coaching only gets you so far. Dom is a proven commodity with significant credentials to show for his efforts over the years. I think it's just a re-group situation, get our injured players healthy & get this thing rolling again.
The packers will stay a 3-4 instead of a 4-3. There is a couple reasons for this but there is one main reason. Clay Matthews. Clay Matthews is a pass rusher ( No shocker). In a 4-3 the pass rush come from the 4 down lineman. It is most effective when the rush can get home from the 4 down lineman. I do not see Matthews being a defensive end in a 4-3. People have brought up him up as a Linebacker. He would have to completely change as a player. He would have to play coverage almost exclusively. He would have to play the run completely different. People have said we can just blitz him quite a bit. That beats the whole purpose of rushing 4 and getting pressure with the 4 down lineman. The second reason why we shouldn't is our 4 down lineman that would make sense from our current team wouldn't be fit right. Our line would look like this RDE Perry DT PIckett DT Raji LDE ? People have said Neal Daniels at that LDE spot. The problems with this current line. Perry- Would put him back at his college spot but we have no idea how he will produce. Pickett- No pass rush, Raji- Decent pass rusher could make the transition. LDE This is the biggest problem we would have. We have no player that would truly fit here. We would need a LDE in the draft and another defensive end to fill the spot. In a draft which we could use a lot of help fixing up the defense and replacing players we would spend to much on players who would fit a new scheme. Plus our best player would not be able to do what he does and that is rush the passer.
Also look at it this way. In a 3-4 the play is determined a lot by the linebackers. We get Bishop ,DJ Smith and Perry back. Then we can add some D line and Linebackers and have enough picks to fix our other problems like O line , Running game, Wide receiver, TE.
