Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Packers vs Ravens: Studs and Duds
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="mradtke66" data-source="post: 518577" data-attributes="member: 4199"><p>This tells me you don't really understand the differences between the 3-4 and 4-3. </p><p></p><p>What the 3-4 calls "ends" are roughly equivalent to 4-3 tackles. Big boys to clog up the middle. Moving (most of) them outside is a recipe for disaster. They lack speed for outside contain and the moves to be a legitimate pass rusher. Neal would probably be okay at it, because he can apparently play alright almost anywhere up front. The only other real, 7-9 technique players we have are our OLBs. Datonne played in a 3-4 in college. He's not going to magically turn into a edge rusher.</p><p></p><p>Which moves us along. 3-4 OLBs are 4-3 ends. If we had our guys healthy, (Matthews and Perry), they're the ones to play 4-3 end. Even then, Mulumbo and Palmer are converted 4-3 ends. Those guys converted to 3-4 OLB because they were undersized. Remember: 3-4 OLBs have more in common with 4-3 ends that any player. Consider them "stand up defensive ends" if you must.</p><p></p><p>Which brings us to 4-3 linebackers. Hawk is really the only one that projects cleanly and even then, I'm not sure where the right place to put every one. Jones would probably do alright at SAM, but would Hawk be a better MIKE or WILL? He was a WILL in our most recent 4-3, but which 4-3 we'd play matters. I'd guess MIKE for Hawk, as that's the closest position to what he plays now, but that leaves a HUGE gap at WILL. That's your playmaker, under-sized, pass covering, clean up guy who gets a lot of tackles. No one on our roster projects there, except maybe Barrington? But now we have a new problem--we're short on that class of player. Jones, Barrington, and Hawk, and Lattimore are it. One injury and we're in trouble. Yes, Jones and Lattimore made the transition from OLB to ILB in our scheme. But that's more because they weren't particularly good OLBs.</p><p></p><p>It sucks we're light at OLB for this game, but flipping to a 4-3 would hurt us more. What I could see us doing is using a 3-3 nickel package. Put the three best rushing linemen we have (Jones, Daniels, and Raji?), 2 ILBs, and 1 OLB to rove and pick his spot.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="mradtke66, post: 518577, member: 4199"] This tells me you don't really understand the differences between the 3-4 and 4-3. What the 3-4 calls "ends" are roughly equivalent to 4-3 tackles. Big boys to clog up the middle. Moving (most of) them outside is a recipe for disaster. They lack speed for outside contain and the moves to be a legitimate pass rusher. Neal would probably be okay at it, because he can apparently play alright almost anywhere up front. The only other real, 7-9 technique players we have are our OLBs. Datonne played in a 3-4 in college. He's not going to magically turn into a edge rusher. Which moves us along. 3-4 OLBs are 4-3 ends. If we had our guys healthy, (Matthews and Perry), they're the ones to play 4-3 end. Even then, Mulumbo and Palmer are converted 4-3 ends. Those guys converted to 3-4 OLB because they were undersized. Remember: 3-4 OLBs have more in common with 4-3 ends that any player. Consider them "stand up defensive ends" if you must. Which brings us to 4-3 linebackers. Hawk is really the only one that projects cleanly and even then, I'm not sure where the right place to put every one. Jones would probably do alright at SAM, but would Hawk be a better MIKE or WILL? He was a WILL in our most recent 4-3, but which 4-3 we'd play matters. I'd guess MIKE for Hawk, as that's the closest position to what he plays now, but that leaves a HUGE gap at WILL. That's your playmaker, under-sized, pass covering, clean up guy who gets a lot of tackles. No one on our roster projects there, except maybe Barrington? But now we have a new problem--we're short on that class of player. Jones, Barrington, and Hawk, and Lattimore are it. One injury and we're in trouble. Yes, Jones and Lattimore made the transition from OLB to ILB in our scheme. But that's more because they weren't particularly good OLBs. It sucks we're light at OLB for this game, but flipping to a 4-3 would hurt us more. What I could see us doing is using a 3-3 nickel package. Put the three best rushing linemen we have (Jones, Daniels, and Raji?), 2 ILBs, and 1 OLB to rove and pick his spot. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
No members online now.
Latest posts
2026 Roster Thread - Semi-Live
Latest: OldSchool101
3 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
R
Valuation of NFL Teams
Latest: rmontro
47 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
H
Cam Achord new ST coach - Fire him
Latest: Heyjoe4
Today at 10:59 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Wisky newbie
Latest: Poppa San
Today at 9:25 AM
Introduce Yourself
Christian Watson signs a 4 year 110m extension
Latest: Pokerbrat2000
Today at 9:19 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Packers vs Ravens: Studs and Duds
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top
