Do We Have The Pieces For A 3-4 We Can Build In 2 Years?

[chad72]

Tell me, even if Peyton comes back, do we have pieces for a 3-4 D? If McCarthy can do it in 2 years with the right coach, can we do it by hiring the right coach? Are we that scared of thinking outside the box? Let us do some thinking and tell me why we cannot do it. If we can get it done in a couple of years with Peyton around, we might give him just as much a chance to win a SB as endlessly tweaking our 4-3.

NT: draft one big one, Nevis is pass down NT and AJ can be back up run down NT

DE: Anderson, Brayton, Moala (played 3-4 DE at USC for 2 years at least) - will all excel in run containment, IMO

OLB: Mathis (he can play 2 or 3 pt. stance, IMO and be equally effective), Hughes (blitzed stand up in college all the time), Wheeler (blitzed stand up in college all the time), Draft two more

MLB: Draft one, find out if Freeney can play MLB since he is athletic and his pass rush moves can take advantage of slower guards

CBs: Draft 2 man CBs, 1 good safety

We may be closer than we think we are to a 3-4 D. Discuss.

Edited October 24, 2011 by chad72

[Mouthfire]

I think the biggest hurdle is finding the right coach to implement it (see Wade in Houston). Otherwise, I think we'll be spinning our wheels.

Moala sucked as a 3-4 DE at USC.

Freeney would be best suited for OLB in the 3-4, not MLB, IMO.

All in all, I think the best bet is to find another (competent) 4-3 coach and concentrate on drafting D line and CB's, rather than overhauling the whole system. I think we're pretty set with 4-3 linebackers.

[Ramblinwreck7]

Freeney would definitely be a 3-4 OLB, not ILB.

Edited October 24, 2011 by Ramblinwreck7

[GoGoColts]

We are better off just sticking with a 4-3. This team really just needs 2 legitimate nose tackles, 1 decent starting corner, and a good strong safety and we will be in business. The run would get stopped and sacks would go way up.

Everybody always wants to switch to a 3-4. There is no need. Switching to a more active scheme and drafting better players will fix the defense. Totally switching schemes will just set the team back.

Edited October 25, 2011 by GoGoColts

[Jason_]

We are better off just sticking with a 4-3. This team really just needs 2 legitimate nose tackles, 1 decent starting corner, and a good strong safety and we will be in business. The run would get stopped and sacks would go way up.

Everybody always wants to switch to a 3-4. There is no need. Switching to a more active scheme and drafting better players will fix the defense. Totally switching schemes will just set the team back.

I'll trade one of the NT's for a LB. I think AJ is fine, especially if we have someone to start in front of him and he is for depth. On the other hand, I'm not convinced this is a solid LB group going into the future. They played very well for a few games but have really played poorly in the last couple of games. I'd still like to add a quality MLB like Manti Te'o.

I agree with everything else you said though.

[GoGoColts]

The defense that punched the greatest offense in history in the mouth was a 4-3 defense. The NY football Giants.

[Ramblinwreck7]

I'll trade one of the NT's for a LB. I think AJ is fine, especially if we have someone to start in front of him and he is for depth. On the other hand, I'm not convinced this is a solid LB group going into the future. They played very well for a few games but have really played poorly in the last couple of games. I'd still like to add a quality MLB like Manti Te'o.

I agree with everything else you said though.

I think they just need to improve in coverage, because Kavel Conner is not very good in coverage. They probably should see how Ernie Sims will play at LB in the base defense instead of just the nickel. Even when Sims was hurt Conner took Sims place in the nickel defense... why wasn't Wheeler put in there? I'm sure Philip is better in coverage than Kavel Conner has been. They are pretty good against the run as a unit though, which is nice to see.

I didn't watch the 2nd half of the Saints game, so I didn't see all of the rushing yards that our defense gave up. Maybe the backups were put in.

Edited October 25, 2011 by Ramblinwreck7

[Jason_]

I think they just need to improve in coverage, because Kavel Conner is not very good in coverage. They probably should see how Ernie Sims will play at LB in the base defense instead of just the nickel. Even when Sims was hurt Conner took Sims place in the nickel defense... why wasn't Wheeler put in there? I'm sure Philip is better in coverage than Kavel Conner has been. They are pretty good against the run as a unit though, which is nice to see.

I didn't watch the 2nd half of the Saints game, so I didn't see all of the rushing yards that our defense gave up. Maybe the backups were put in.

My problem with the LBs actually is lack of consistency in being physical against the run. I was very happy with their play through the first couple of games once Angerer took over as starting MIKE like many were, but like many said it was a good start but could they keep it up? The last few games they've not been nearly as effective. Yes they're still making a lot of tackles but as many have already discussed, to some degree the tackle numbers are inflated because of the amount of opportunities the other teams have gotten. I do agree, that at least the high number of tackles means the guys are making stops, but how many of them are stops 2-3 yards downfield when they should have been at the LOS or even in the backfield?

I like Angerer...a lot, but I don't think he's the long term answer for us at MLB. Here is a combo I'd really like to see at least given a chance is to draft Te'o and put him at MIKE, move Angerer to WILL and Edds at SAM. Yes it's very early to say whether or not Edds will turn into anything because we've only seen him so far on ST. However consider this....the Colts have signed, released, signed and released Nate Tripplett, who was essentially brought in and out for depth and to play on special teams. It's not uncommon for the Colts to sign/release guys from their own practice squad as the season goes on depending on injuries and things like that. With Edds, they made the more aggressive move (aggressive, imo, for what we typically see from the Colts in this regard) and brought Edds in off the NE practice squad. Antonio Johnson is another player the Colts previously swiped off the PS of another team and he is now a regular starter. I'm not saying Edds will wind up the same way but I just get a gut feeling they have more planned for him than just being here for ST. It'll be up to him to take the opportunity, if it's given to him, and run with it.

If that combo doesn't work out then they could swap Edds to WILL and Angerer to SAM. They could also try out combos with Angerer at SAM with Conner or Moten at WILL or Angerer at WILL with Wheeler at SAM. Lots of different combos they could try but having that bigger, physical presence in the middle with Te'o would go a long way imo towards helping our DL in the running game.

That's all of course assuming that Simms isn't re-signed at the end of the year but if he plays well and is brought back then that would open up yet more combinations to try.

If they don't want to take a first round LB (which wouldn't surprise me at all) then I'd love to see someone picked up in the middle rounds like Chris Galippo of USC, James Michael Johnson of Nevada, Jerry Franklin of Arkansas, or Mychal Kendricks of Cal.

[doogansquest]

The problem with going 3-4 right now is the fact that it gets obliterated by the big air attacks everyone is moving to. It's not an evolution of the game, as some would mistakenly claim, but rather a conscience decision to avoid having one's run game shut down. The extra LB's and Safeties present in the 3-4 just can't cover the additional WR's and TE's of the spread. Moving to a 3-4 would set us behind, in my honest opinion, as teams like the Packers, Patriots, Falcons, Chargers, Saints, etc., are becoming so pass oriented.

[chad72]

The problem with going 3-4 right now is the fact that it gets obliterated by the big air attacks everyone is moving to. It's not an evolution of the game, as some would mistakenly claim, but rather a conscience decision to avoid having one's run game shut down. The extra LB's and Safeties present in the 3-4 just can't cover the additional WR's and TE's of the spread. Moving to a 3-4 would set us behind, in my honest opinion, as teams like the Packers, Patriots, Falcons, Chargers, Saints, etc., are becoming so pass oriented.

I think Mike McCarthy changed to the 3-4 because he wanted his pass rush to get to the QB, he could have just continued with his 4-3 and blitzed more, he did not do that. The DT position being such a difficult position to play, interior pass rush cannot be banked upon or coached as easily as good secondary play in this league that is easier to coach. If you can find a guy like Suh in every draft, that would be nice but we know how hard it is. So, teams move to the 3-4, generate the pass rush, force the QB to get rid of the ball quick, and use their man corners to make plays. Our LBs are not good at blitzing like the Saints LBs or Chicago LBs, so blitzing using our 4-3 will take a revamp of our LB corp, IMO. Hence moving to 3-4 will take just as much time as tweaking our 4-3 to become like the Saints or Bears. The best pass defenses generally have some of the best man corners and blitzing LBs, like the Jets.

Edited October 25, 2011 by chad72

[GoGoColts]

The problem with going 3-4 right now is the fact that it gets obliterated by the big air attacks everyone is moving to. It's not an evolution of the game, as some would mistakenly claim, but rather a conscience decision to avoid having one's run game shut down. The extra LB's and Safeties present in the 3-4 just can't cover the additional WR's and TE's of the spread. Moving to a 3-4 would set us behind, in my honest opinion, as teams like the Packers, Patriots, Falcons, Chargers, Saints, etc., are becoming so pass oriented.

That's true. This is why the Patriots beat the Steelers a lot. A lot of the 3-4 teams end up playing a lot of 4-3 nickle and dime packages because of that.

Now, a thing that I like about a lot of 3-4 defenses is the idea of having a "move pass-rusher." The Chargers for example used to move Merriman around to make him difficult to account for. Our team could generate a lot more sacks that way. But, as I said, having a more active defense and a "move pass-rusher" does not require a switch to a 4-3.

[jskinnz]

The Colts do not have the personnel to make a quick switch to a 3-4, especially if you consider Mathis & Freeney as part of the personnel. Mathis is not an OLB. Freeney is not a linebacker of any kind. There is not a DT on the roster now who could play the nose necessary in a 3-4. They are far better suited to drafting players who fit the current scheme.

[GoGoColts]

The Colts do not have the personnel to make a quick switch to a 3-4, especially if you consider Mathis & Freeney as part of the personnel. Mathis is not an OLB. Freeney is not a linebacker of any kind. There is not a DT on the roster now who could play the nose necessary in a 3-4. They are far better suited to drafting players who fit the current scheme.

We don't have a DT on the roster who can play DT period.

[doogansquest]

I think Mike McCarthy changed to the 3-4 because he wanted his pass rush to get to the QB, he could have just continued with his 4-3 and blitzed more, he did not do that. The DT position being such a difficult position to play, interior pass rush cannot be banked upon or coached as easily as good secondary play in this league that is easier to coach. If you can find a guy like Suh in every draft, that would be nice but we know how hard it is. So, teams move to the 3-4, generate the pass rush, force the QB to get rid of the ball quick, and use their man corners to make plays. Our LBs are not good at blitzing like the Saints LBs or Chicago LBs, so blitzing using our 4-3 will take a revamp of our LB corp, IMO. Hence moving to 3-4 will take just as much time as tweaking our 4-3 to become like the Saints or Bears. The best pass defenses generally have some of the best man corners and blitzing LBs, like the Jets.

Revamping an LB corps in the 4-3 would take far less time (given that Wheeler and Hughes can blitz, believe it or not) than finding 3-4 prototypical LB's, a dominant NT (which come along once-in-a-never), two large DE's that may as well be DT's, and man-cover corners. Not to mention the 2-3 seasons it often takes for the team to gel in that mold.

We don't need nearly as much as people think. We need to get healthy, for one, and then get some CB's and we will see major improvements almost instantly.

The best pass defenses aren't 3-4's (unless their schedule has them playing bad passing teams). When teams can spread them out, they simply can't blitz like they want to, because they don't have enough corners who can cover 4 WR's, plus a back or a TE. If they don't spread out to match the offense, they get burnt for a big play against good QB's. It might work against the Grossmans, Jacksons, and Painters of the world, but not against Brees, Brady, Rodgers, or Manning (who all hold great records against Pittsburgh, Baltimore, and NYJ, btw). Cleveland has the #1 pass defense right now, and they play in a 4-3 that they just switched to this season.

It's simply better for covering the field. Excessive LB blitzes work against bad QB's. Furthermore, the Packers are 32nd in pass defense right now, so I'm not so sure how they help the blitzing theory (which again, only works against bad QB's).

It usually helps against the run, as 3 large linemen can stop the o-line push, while 4 larger-than-usual LB's can make a play with assistance from a roaming safety. As we've seen with teams like Baltimore, however, they pour everything into making that defense work (and it has), but their offense has been consistently miserable.

If defense wins championships, Baltimore should have 5 or 6 rings. No team has had a longer stretch of such dominant defensive play.

We don't need the best defense to win Super Bowls with Manning (and whoever is next); we just need to be better equipped. A 4-3 is simply more prepared for the future, given where teams are headed, than is a 3-4. The 3-4 has been cute for about a decade now, because stopping the run was so important. Now teams can just spread those LB's out and force them to cover WR's.

[chad72]

Revamping an LB corps in the 4-3 would take far less time (given that Wheeler and Hughes can blitz, believe it or not) than finding 3-4 prototypical LB's, a dominant NT (which come along once-in-a-never), two large DE's that may as well be DT's, and man-cover corners. Not to mention the 2-3 seasons it often takes for the team to gel in that mold.

We don't need nearly as much as people think. We need to get healthy, for one, and then get some CB's and we will see major improvements almost instantly.

The best pass defenses aren't 3-4's (unless their schedule has them playing bad passing teams). When teams can spread them out, they simply can't blitz like they want to, because they don't have enough corners who can cover 4 WR's, plus a back or a TE. If they don't spread out to match the offense, they get burnt for a big play against good QB's. It might work against the Grossmans, Jacksons, and Painters of the world, but not against Brees, Brady, Rodgers, or Manning (who all hold great records against Pittsburgh, Baltimore, and NYJ, btw). Cleveland has the #1 pass defense right now, and they play in a 4-3 that they just switched to this season.

It's simply better for covering the field. Excessive LB blitzes work against bad QB's. Furthermore, the Packers are 32nd in pass defense right now, so I'm not so sure how they help the blitzing theory (which again, only works against bad QB's).

It usually helps against the run, as 3 large linemen can stop the o-line push, while 4 larger-than-usual LB's can make a play with assistance from a roaming safety. As we've seen with teams like Baltimore, however, they pour everything into making that defense work (and it has), but their offense has been consistently miserable.

If defense wins championships, Baltimore should have 5 or 6 rings. No team has had a longer stretch of such dominant defensive play.

We don't need the best defense to win Super Bowls with Manning (and whoever is next); we just need to be better equipped. A 4-3 is simply more prepared for the future, given where teams are headed, than is a 3-4. The 3-4 has been cute for about a decade now, because stopping the run was so important. Now teams can just spread those LB's out and force them to cover WR's.

Very valid points, +1 for that

[Ramblinwreck7]

Revamping an LB corps in the 4-3 would take far less time (given that Wheeler and Hughes can blitz, believe it or not) than finding 3-4 prototypical LB's, a dominant NT (which come along once-in-a-never), two large DE's that may as well be DT's, and man-cover corners. Not to mention the 2-3 seasons it often takes for the team to gel in that mold.

We don't need nearly as much as people think. We need to get healthy, for one, and then get some CB's and we will see major improvements almost instantly.

The best pass defenses aren't 3-4's (unless their schedule has them playing bad passing teams). When teams can spread them out, they simply can't blitz like they want to, because they don't have enough corners who can cover 4 WR's, plus a back or a TE. If they don't spread out to match the offense, they get burnt for a big play against good QB's. It might work against the Grossmans, Jacksons, and Painters of the world, but not against Brees, Brady, Rodgers, or Manning (who all hold great records against Pittsburgh, Baltimore, and NYJ, btw). Cleveland has the #1 pass defense right now, and they play in a 4-3 that they just switched to this season.

It's simply better for covering the field. Excessive LB blitzes work against bad QB's. Furthermore, the Packers are 32nd in pass defense right now, so I'm not so sure how they help the blitzing theory (which again, only works against bad QB's).

It usually helps against the run, as 3 large linemen can stop the o-line push, while 4 larger-than-usual LB's can make a play with assistance from a roaming safety. As we've seen with teams like Baltimore, however, they pour everything into making that defense work (and it has), but their offense has been consistently miserable.

If defense wins championships, Baltimore should have 5 or 6 rings. No team has had a longer stretch of such dominant defensive play.

We don't need the best defense to win Super Bowls with Manning (and whoever is next); we just need to be better equipped. A 4-3 is simply more prepared for the future, given where teams are headed, than is a 3-4. The 3-4 has been cute for about a decade now, because stopping the run was so important. Now teams can just spread those LB's out and force them to cover WR's.

Ummmm... I'm pretty sure that a team like Baltimore who runs a 3-4 won't keep 4 linebackers or 3 lineman on the field if they are covering 3 or more WR's... That's what Nickel and Dime formations are for. The Packers used a 2-4-5 a lot last year when they were defending the pass. There's also the 3-2-6 and the 3-3-5 and other combinations as well.

3-4 teams don't use their base defense the whole game, just like 4-3 teams don't use their base defense the whole game. It is just a matter of having a bunch of quality CB's on your roster, no matter the formation you use.