Should we scrap the 3-4? | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Should we scrap the 3-4?

What defensive scheme should we run?

  • Keep the 3-4

    Votes: 23 52.3%
  • Switch back to 4-3

    Votes: 21 47.7%

  • Total voters
    44

VT Dolphan

Pro Bowler
Joined
Jan 16, 2007
Messages
1,541
Reaction score
4
Location
PA/VA
A lot of people have been calling for Pasqualoni's head this season, I'm kind of apathetic about it. Yes, the defense was awful at times, but he really didn't have a whole lot of talent to work with either.

It's starting to make me wonder whether or not we should just scrap the 3-4 in general. The two necessary components of a 3-4 are obviously having a massive, two-gap nose tackle and a stable of talented linebackers. When healthy,

Ferguson is a good nose tackle, but certainly not elite like Ngata or Wilfork. But the guy can never stay healthy and has to be getting close to retirement. Paul Soliai is a serviceable player, but should not depended upon as the anchor to our defense. In the past there wasn't as great a demand for defensive linemen who fit the prototypical nose tackle build, but now it seems like at least half the league uses some form of the 3-4.

Last year the only elite NT prospect was BJ Raji. This year? Suh could likely play nose but seems better suited for a 4-3, and he'll be a top 3 pick anyway. Terrence Cody is an elite one-down run stuffer, but also a cardiac arrest waiting to happen. Dan Williams is garnering first round attention and could be a solution, but I'm not sold on him yet. What I'm trying to say is, unless we strike gold in the later rounds, we're probably not walking out of the draft with or future NT.

What is the strength of this defense? Clearly it's the defensive line. Randy Starks has truly blossomed as a playmaker in the 3-4. When he came to Miami he was kind of a tweener in that we weren't sure whether he was better suited at end, or to bulk up some and slide over to nose tackle on passing downs. But, I'd say it's worked pretty well so far. Kendall Langford is a prototypical 3-4 end, and Phillip Merling has been beefed up to try to look the part as well.

What is weakness of this defense? Probably Gibril Wilson, but the linebacking corp as a whole was pretty wretched. It is clearly a weak spot, and forcing 4 linebackers to be out there at all times only magnifies this problem. Joey Porter has likely played his way out of Miami and is getting too old to be effective. Jason Taylor likely will be gone as well. What does that leave us with? A potential pass rushing machine in Cameron Wake, and nothing else really. Ayodele and Torbor are not starting caliber players. Crowder is the king of racking up tackles 5+ yards past the line of scrimmage and has really never made a game changing play (any one of us could have made that pick in the Pats game). Keep Wake, keep Crowder only because we just gave him the extension. Scrap the rest.

I'm beginning to think we'd be better off switching to a 4-3. We could move Starks and Langford inside to defensive tackles. Merling could then be moved back to his more natural 4-3 end spot that he played so well at Clemson. Whether or not Cam Wake is capable of stepping in full-time as the other end seems doubtful, but we could always draft a rush end.

Our linebacking corp would still be pathetic without help from free agency or the draft, but at least there will be one less of them to worry about.
 
Scheme isn't the problem, LB's that can't cover or tackle is the problem...
 
Maybe because we're trying to fit square pegs in round holes? Like I said, our LB's are horrible...there would be one less to worry about with a 4-3.
 
Every time you change between 4-3 and 3-4 you set your self back... way back... lets just stick with it and keep getting more players to fit.
 
Wasn't the 3-4 adopted because we knew our secondary was going to be kind of inexperienced this year?
 
Nah. I'd say stick with it. Our ends are 3-4 built, especially Starks, who admitted he is thriving because he is in the 3-4 D. And then more than likely we are transforming the linebackers to be of the 3-4 mold during this offseason.
 
Maybe because we're trying to fit square pegs in round holes? Like I said, our LB's are horrible...there would be one less to worry about with a 4-3.

that's true, but we would probably have to address DE if we switched to a 4-3. one DE and three Lbs or four LBs doesn't make much of a difference. it's still 4 players.
 
You spend 2 years getting players to fit a 3-4 and when things dont go smoothly becuase you dont have the full complment of player you need to properly run a 3-4 you want to change your mind....No Sir!

It would be a massive waste of time to switch now.....I'd give it another couple of seasons before I even considered changing.
 
You spend 2 years getting players to fit a 3-4 and when things dont go smoothly becuase you dont have the full complment of player you need to properly run a 3-4 you want to change your mind....No Sir!

It would be a massive waste of time to switch now.....I'd give it another couple of seasons before I even considered changing.

I believe they call it rebuilding?
I think it takes more than two years to rebuild! Patience people!
We are going in the right direction!
 
The problem with the defense is a lack of talent, not the scheme. The 4-3 is not some magic elixir. It does not instantly make you a better defense. It is not inherently better than the 3-4. In some ways the 3-4 is actually superior, since the 3-4 is geared more toward stopping the big play, if you have the talent to execute it.

Relevant fact: of the nine teams to win the Super Bowl so far in this decade, the majority of winners ran the 3-4.

2001: Baltimore, 3-4
2002: New England, 3-4
2003: Tampa Bay, 4-3
2004: New England, 3-4
2005: New England, 3-4
2006: Pittsburgh, 3-4
2007: Indianapolis, 4-3
2008: New York, 4-3
2009: Pittsburgh, 3-4

Three winners ran the 4-3, six ran the 3-4.
 
I think it's both the players And the scheme. Do we need better players all across the board on D... Yes. But do the defensive schemes and playcalling seem attrocious at times... Yes. I still refuse to believe that Gibril Wilson is THAT bad in coverage, the guy is Never around the ball when it's in the air. Yes he sucks but nobody is That bad.
 
The problem with the defense is a lack of talent, not the scheme. The 4-3 is not some magic elixir. It does not instantly make you a better defense. It is not inherently better than the 3-4. In some ways the 3-4 is actually superior, since the 3-4 is geared more toward stopping the big play, if you have the talent to execute it.

Relevant fact: of the nine teams to win the Super Bowl so far in this decade, the majority of winners ran the 3-4.

2001: Baltimore, 3-4
2002: New England, 3-4
2003: Tampa Bay, 4-3
2004: New England, 3-4
2005: New England, 3-4
2006: Pittsburgh, 3-4
2007: Indianapolis, 4-3
2008: New York, 4-3
2009: Pittsburgh, 3-4

Three winners ran the 4-3, six ran the 3-4.
yeah but run this stat and let me know what the outcome is for the top 10 best defenses ever and let me know what percentage is( 3-4) ( 4-3) ? to me the two best defenses this decade that were dominators were the superbowl Bucs and Ravens ! never been a fan of the 3-4
 
A lot of people have been calling for Pasqualoni's head this season, I'm kind of apathetic about it. Yes, the defense was awful at times, but he really didn't have a whole lot of talent to work with either.

It's starting to make me wonder whether or not we should just scrap the 3-4 in general. The two necessary components of a 3-4 are obviously having a massive, two-gap nose tackle and a stable of talented linebackers. When healthy,

Ferguson is a good nose tackle, but certainly not elite like Ngata or Wilfork. But the guy can never stay healthy and has to be getting close to retirement. Paul Soliai is a serviceable player, but should not depended upon as the anchor to our defense. In the past there wasn't as great a demand for defensive linemen who fit the prototypical nose tackle build, but now it seems like at least half the league uses some form of the 3-4.

Last year the only elite NT prospect was BJ Raji. This year? Suh could likely play nose but seems better suited for a 4-3, and he'll be a top 3 pick anyway. Terrence Cody is an elite one-down run stuffer, but also a cardiac arrest waiting to happen. Dan Williams is garnering first round attention and could be a solution, but I'm not sold on him yet. What I'm trying to say is, unless we strike gold in the later rounds, we're probably not walking out of the draft with or future NT.

What is the strength of this defense? Clearly it's the defensive line. Randy Starks has truly blossomed as a playmaker in the 3-4. When he came to Miami he was kind of a tweener in that we weren't sure whether he was better suited at end, or to bulk up some and slide over to nose tackle on passing downs. But, I'd say it's worked pretty well so far. Kendall Langford is a prototypical 3-4 end, and Phillip Merling has been beefed up to try to look the part as well.

What is weakness of this defense? Probably Gibril Wilson, but the linebacking corp as a whole was pretty wretched. It is clearly a weak spot, and forcing 4 linebackers to be out there at all times only magnifies this problem. Joey Porter has likely played his way out of Miami and is getting too old to be effective. Jason Taylor likely will be gone as well. What does that leave us with? A potential pass rushing machine in Cameron Wake, and nothing else really. Ayodele and Torbor are not starting caliber players. Crowder is the king of racking up tackles 5+ yards past the line of scrimmage and has really never made a game changing play (any one of us could have made that pick in the Pats game). Keep Wake, keep Crowder only because we just gave him the extension. Scrap the rest.

I'm beginning to think we'd be better off switching to a 4-3. We could move Starks and Langford inside to defensive tackles. Merling could then be moved back to his more natural 4-3 end spot that he played so well at Clemson. Whether or not Cam Wake is capable of stepping in full-time as the other end seems doubtful, but we could always draft a rush end.

Our linebacking corp would still be pathetic without help from free agency or the draft, but at least there will be one less of them to worry about.
we've already committed 2 years to the 3-4.....IMO its too late to look back now....
 
I don't really like the 3-4 as a defense, for all of its strategic merits as far as blitzing and stuff I've just hardly ever seen a 3-4 that appeared as stout against the run as a solid 4-3. But switching back and forth between systems is foolhardy because we've brought in an awful lot of players who fit in the 3-4 system primarily, not a lot of them are star potential players but guys we need to keep contributing into the future like Merling, Langford, Wake, and others. Switching back to the 4-3 would just make us worse because the only good players we have on our defense now wouldn't fit as well into it.
 
It would help Wake alot, but im sticking with the 3-4. Boy if we ever did, cutting Roth would have been sooo dumb
 
Back
Top Bottom