ASHKUM BEAR Posted January 2, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 2, 2013 My only problem with Emery's answer on switching to a 3-4 is that in talking about the 2 gap scheme he ran in KC, he also brought up other one gap schemes that he says 'teams call it a 3-4'. Well.. My question is, why couldn't we run a one gap 3-4 then if it meant not having to draft a nose tackle? The difference between one gap and two gap is the former relies more on speed and quickness, which we seem to already have, rather than size and girth required to play in a 2 gap scheme. That could be something we might be able to do. I posted the real 3-4 is something I don't see us doing unless a coach has a great layout on how to transform our team that is realistic. We still have a top rated defense even though they are aging. I think the biggest preference is to keep the team as intact as possible since we don't have many resources to add in terms of draft picks and cap space. I think at the moment we are hoping to build upon the offense, but thats just my opinion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stinger226 Posted January 2, 2013 Report Share Posted January 2, 2013 My only problem with Emery's answer on switching to a 3-4 is that in talking about the 2 gap scheme he ran in KC, he also brought up other one gap schemes that he says 'teams call it a 3-4'. Well.. My question is, why couldn't we run a one gap 3-4 then if it meant not having to draft a nose tackle? The difference between one gap and two gap is the former relies more on speed and quickness, which we seem to already have, rather than size and girth required to play in a 2 gap scheme. In his speech he talked about not having the personal to change to a 3-4 and would not want to retool the defense right now. Some one would have to work with the talent we have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bears4Ever_34 Posted January 2, 2013 Report Share Posted January 2, 2013 In his speech he talked about not having the personal to change to a 3-4 and would not want to retool the defense right now. Some one would have to work with the talent we have. He said they didn't have the personnel right now to run a traditional 3-4 with a nose tackle in a 2 gap scheme. The question at hand is whether or not they would have the personnel to run the one gap scheme that doesn't call for big ends or a nose tackle, which would seem to fit us better between the two styles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted January 3, 2013 Report Share Posted January 3, 2013 He said he wasn't opposed, but it would take convincing. He said they ran a true 3-4 in KC, and that takes a big NT and two big DEs that we don't have. Now there are hybrids that may work but with our current roster transforming to a true 3-4 would not make much sense unless the potential coach has a great transformation plan. I admit the Bears don't have the big NT, but you don't think the assortment of Izzy, Peppers, Melton, and Wooton could fulfill the role of 3-4 DE? This looks pretty awesome to me: NT: Player X DE: Peppers, Melton LB: Wooton, Briggs, Urlacher, SMC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balta1701-A Posted January 3, 2013 Report Share Posted January 3, 2013 I admit the Bears don't have the big NT, but you don't think the assortment of Izzy, Peppers, Melton, and Wooton could fulfill the role of 3-4 DE? This looks pretty awesome to me: NT: Player X DE: Peppers, Melton LB: Wooton, Briggs, Urlacher, SMC The biggest problem is...finding that player X tends to be the most difficult part of the 3-4, IMO. Those big, run-stopping nose tackles are tough to find, there's only a handful in the league, They're hard to keep healthy because of the insane body type requirements, and they can even be fairly inconsistent when you do find one (Raji comes to mind there). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted January 3, 2013 Report Share Posted January 3, 2013 The biggest problem is...finding that player X tends to be the most difficult part of the 3-4, IMO. Those big, run-stopping nose tackles are tough to find, there's only a handful in the league, They're hard to keep healthy because of the insane body type requirements, and they can even be fairly inconsistent when you do find one (Raji comes to mind there). Agreed. Which is why I was hesitant to put Paea in there. He's the only one that truly doesn't fit into any traditional 3-4 role. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DABEARSDABOMB Posted January 3, 2013 Report Share Posted January 3, 2013 I admit the Bears don't have the big NT, but you don't think the assortment of Izzy, Peppers, Melton, and Wooton could fulfill the role of 3-4 DE? This looks pretty awesome to me: NT: Player X DE: Peppers, Melton LB: Wooton, Briggs, Urlacher, SMC Why is everyone ready to move away from the 4-3 cover 2 defense. I don't get it. This defense is good. If we are hiring an offensive coach and have the right personell for the 4-3 and run it well (and for all I know Marinelli will stick around and he's proven to be a very very good DC), then what is the hurry in switching to the 3-4. There are plenty of 3-4 defenses that totally suck. This defense is good...I see why we want to fix the offense but see no reason to fix the D (other then continuing to try and find new talent so that the D can get younger). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockren Posted January 3, 2013 Report Share Posted January 3, 2013 Why is everyone ready to move away from the 4-3 cover 2 defense. I don't get it. This defense is good. If we are hiring an offensive coach and have the right personell for the 4-3 and run it well (and for all I know Marinelli will stick around and he's proven to be a very very good DC), then what is the hurry in switching to the 3-4. There are plenty of 3-4 defenses that totally suck. This defense is good...I see why we want to fix the offense but see no reason to fix the D (other then continuing to try and find new talent so that the D can get younger). I agree. I think it has been a long conceived notion just because people here feel Emery's #1 draft choice from last year was a 3-4 guy and it maybe tipped what Emery really wanted to do all along. I agree with you, though....I'd rather not switch and would keep most of the defensive staff should we hire an offensive minded coach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bears4Ever_34 Posted January 3, 2013 Report Share Posted January 3, 2013 Unless the new head coach has a preference for the Cover 2, you're probably going to see a change in scheme. That's what happens when you make a change at head coach. You can't worry about what happened in the past because it's about moving forward and molding together your own team with your own vision. The stars on your defense are all old and dated. It would be the wrong decision, in my opinion, to stick with the same system. Those old guys aren't going to be around for much longer, and then what do you have? They're better off making the change now, and going through a 1-2 year transition period, if that, to whatever defense they want to run. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DABEARSDABOMB Posted January 3, 2013 Report Share Posted January 3, 2013 Unless the new head coach has a preference for the Cover 2, you're probably going to see a change in scheme. That's what happens when you make a change at head coach. You can't worry about what happened in the past because it's about moving forward and molding together your own team with your own vision. The stars on your defense are all old and dated. It would be the wrong decision, in my opinion, to stick with the same system. Those old guys aren't going to be around for much longer, and then what do you have? They're better off making the change now, and going through a 1-2 year transition period, if that, to whatever defense they want to run. Normally if you hire an offensive head coach, he's going to hire a guy he is comfortable and let that guy run the system. They might have a preference to one system or another but in many instances they may have worked with teams that have ran both types of defenses and thus have contacts that have ran both. I'd have a hard time seeing an offensive coach completely change the teams defensive structure given how the defense has performed. That said, they very well might not want to keep Marinelli around and it is their right to bring in their guys but if the Bears hire an offensive coach I'd put the odds as pretty good that they would be comfortable running a similar system to what Lovie did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted January 3, 2013 Report Share Posted January 3, 2013 Why is everyone ready to move away from the 4-3 cover 2 defense. I don't get it. This defense is good. If we are hiring an offensive coach and have the right personell for the 4-3 and run it well (and for all I know Marinelli will stick around and he's proven to be a very very good DC), then what is the hurry in switching to the 3-4. There are plenty of 3-4 defenses that totally suck. This defense is good...I see why we want to fix the offense but see no reason to fix the D (other then continuing to try and find new talent so that the D can get younger). I don't have a problem with the 4-3. I prefer the 3-4, but traditional is fine. What I have a problem with is a passive, cover-2, 4-3 system. Something we've seen for years now. I want to see players like Urlacher and Briggs killing QBs as well as making tackles in open space. Any system that has Urlacher back pedaling more than charging the QB is just wrong in my opinion. I know he's fast, but it's defensive castration to take away the killer instinct of players like him. Four sacks in the last three years. That's pathetic. Sure, other MLBs don't have big sack stats either, but a guy with Urlacher's speed is being really underutilized if he doesn't have more sacks and QB hits. He's not the same type of MLB as Ray Lewis, a guy who can fend off a ton of blocks and still make the tackle. We've seen him get buried by blockers more than once. So that leaves a defensive coach with three real options to use the speed: back, forward, lateral. We saw lateral when the Bears had Ted Washington and Keith Traylor. It was magnificent to watch Urlacher run all over the place. We've seen backwards, running deep middle in pass protection (the ultimate reason he was injured). We haven't really seen forward. That, in a nutshell, is why I welcome the 3-4 change. The 3-4 mandates that all LBs are multi-dimensional and could potentially attack at any time. But if they can mix it up somewhat in a 4-3, fine with me as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DABEARSDABOMB Posted January 3, 2013 Report Share Posted January 3, 2013 I don't have a problem with the 4-3. I prefer the 3-4, but traditional is fine. What I have a problem with is a passive, cover-2, 4-3 system. Something we've seen for years now. I want to see players like Urlacher and Briggs killing QBs as well as making tackles in open space. Any system that has Urlacher back pedaling more than charging the QB is just wrong in my opinion. I know he's fast, but it's defensive castration to take away the killer instinct of players like him. Four sacks in the last three years. That's pathetic. Sure, other MLBs don't have big sack stats either, but a guy with Urlacher's speed is being really underutilized if he doesn't have more sacks and QB hits. He's not the same type of MLB as Ray Lewis, a guy who can fend off a ton of blocks and still make the tackle. We've seen him get buried by blockers more than once. So that leaves a defensive coach with three real options to use the speed: back, forward, lateral. We saw lateral when the Bears had Ted Washington and Keith Traylor. It was magnificent to watch Urlacher run all over the place. We've seen backwards, running deep middle in pass protection (the ultimate reason he was injured). We haven't really seen forward. That, in a nutshell, is why I welcome the 3-4 change. The 3-4 mandates that all LBs are multi-dimensional and could potentially attack at any time. But if they can mix it up somewhat in a 4-3, fine with me as well. Urlacher was a special athlete and it would have been interesting to see him in a more attacking offense, however, this defense is not fast anymore. Dline has some speed but Urlacher isn't fast anymore and I don't know that i'd ever characterize Briggs as a speedster (hell of a LB though). But I also have a hard time arguing against the cover 2, especially given the successes of this defense under Marinelli. Really the only time the Cover 2 struggled was when Babich was calling the shots. Under Marinelli and Rivera, it was quite good. Probably because it wasn't a vanilla cover 2 under either of them (they ran it with wrinkles where Babich was very very vanilla). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balta1701-A Posted January 3, 2013 Report Share Posted January 3, 2013 Urlacher was a special athlete and it would have been interesting to see him in a more attacking offense, however, this defense is not fast anymore. Dline has some speed but Urlacher isn't fast anymore and I don't know that i'd ever characterize Briggs as a speedster (hell of a LB though). But I also have a hard time arguing against the cover 2, especially given the successes of this defense under Marinelli. Really the only time the Cover 2 struggled was when Babich was calling the shots. Under Marinelli and Rivera, it was quite good. Probably because it wasn't a vanilla cover 2 under either of them (they ran it with wrinkles where Babich was very very vanilla). The couple caveats I keep noting about the Cover 2 are...yes, we all got frustrated when Lovie's teams would go into prevent mode at 2:00, but that's not a knock against the cover 2, even if it is a knock against the coach's scheme. Second, the Bears have been highly flexible in adapting their scheme to their personnel and situations. Their most common defense this year was the cover-1. And third...the Cover 2 deserves a hell of a lot more credit than it gets. It gives up some points yes...but it has a remakable ability to slow down a high-flying passing attack. The best example I can give of this is last year's super bowl...2 bottom ranked defenses that got to the game because of high flying offenses, predicions of a huge scoring game, and a 21-17 final score that happened because both teams sat in the cover 2 the whole game, got pressure through their lines, and didn't give up the big play. It's the same reason that Rodgers's packers regularly score in the 20's against the Bears; if you can get pressure in that defense, a high flying passing attack punts to your team 8 times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaskan Grizzly Posted January 3, 2013 Report Share Posted January 3, 2013 Going with the thought of NOT having to totally rebuild, it makes more sense to try and stay with what the team knows best, its defense. Currently its defense is the Cover 2. There are three (??) Pro Bowlers on the team because of it, so it would be simply ludicrous to change out of it. Obviously one of the biggest reasons why Lovie was dismissed was due to his inability (or at least manage) the transition of the Offense to a higher level. If a new coach comes in, he will probably need to focus on the offense and should leave the Defense alone...for the most part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearFan2000 Posted January 5, 2013 Report Share Posted January 5, 2013 He said he wasn't opposed, but it would take convincing. He said they ran a true 3-4 in KC, and that takes a big NT and two big DEs that we don't have. Now there are hybrids that may work but with our current roster transforming to a true 3-4 would not make much sense unless the potential coach has a great transformation plan. I liked how he approached that question about staying 43 or moving to 34. I think he has absolutely the right mentality on this. He understands and we've hashed and rehashed this on this board of whether or not the Bears do have the players to run a 34. I like that Emery is open to a 34 but wants a candidate that would like to bring a 34 to convince him that we have or could have the personnel to do it right. Emery as far as I can tell is extremely meticulous and insistent on having a firm plan. I think this one thing he will want out of a candidate. He will want to know their plan for this team moving forward, how they intend to implement that plan. I don't see this as excluding a candidate because they prefer a 34 because we run a 43. But rather if we are to make the change that he is convinced that we can in fact make that transition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.