I only saw the second half but Roth looked good, particularly crashing down on running plays. A couple of times I thought the announcers should have singled him out but did not.
Obviously I hope I'm wrong and we feast at every position. But I'm not backing off that Roth is not ideal at that position. In general I don't like the patchwork trend of massive OLBs in the 3-4. IMO, it's somewhat of a concession to the weakness of the scheme, and leads to vulnerabilities that are magnified against the best opponents. I'll always be a 4-3 guy. Watching Spagnoulo at Giants camp last summer and many replays of the glorious Super Bowl convinced me even more. I don't think it's possible a 3-4 team could have stymied that New England team to that extent in perfect conditions without swirling winds, etc. It took 4 rush men with upfield tenacity at the snap to pull that off.
The 3-4 probably allows more likelihood to become a good defense, partially because it's basically a 25/75 minority, requiring adjustments for teams that don't see if often. The 3-4 does yield fewer big plays. In our office I've seen that in the stats, very clear cut. But IMO if you aspire to a great defense and not merely a passable one that can survive alongside a dominant offense, the 4-3 is the way to go. The more you try to reinvent the game the football gods will chuckle and say not so fast. And 275 pound linebackers are an attempt to reinvent the game.
