scs787 Posted January 27, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 27, 2013 Paea is not a 3-4 NT i don't care what the pundits say. Sure hes strong but hes not big and he doesn't command a double team at all Maybe the guys on the NFL network, who make a living on football don't know what they're talking about, but in my fantasy mock world the 355 pound Kwame Geathers would be big enough....BTW San Frans backups at NT are all under 305 pounds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowlingtwig Posted January 27, 2013 Report Share Posted January 27, 2013 Maybe the guys on the NFL network, who make a living on football don't know what they're talking about, but in my fantasy mock world the 355 pound Kwame Geathers would be big enough....BTW San Frans backups at NT are all under 305 pounds. We need a starter at NT 1st don't u think. No team can make a dramatic switch like that and not have a dropoff. Plus what's so wrong with what we run. They did pretty good last yr dont u think Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scs787 Posted January 27, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 27, 2013 We need a starter at NT 1st don't u think. No team can make a dramatic switch like that and not have a dropoff. Plus what's so wrong with what we run. They did pretty good last yr dont u think Kwame Geathers would be the starting NT in the 3-4.....They did but I just like the idea of getting our 1st round pick more time on the field and moving to a 3-4 would do that. SMC is not an every down DE but he could be a dynamite every down OLB in a 3-4. I think the move makes our old defense younger and even more dynamic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowlingtwig Posted January 27, 2013 Report Share Posted January 27, 2013 Kwame Geathers would be the starting NT in the 3-4.....They did but I just like the idea of getting our 1st round pick more time on the field and moving to a 3-4 would do that. SMC is not an every down DE but he could be a dynamite every down OLB in a 3-4. I think the move makes our old defense younger and even more dynamic. More dynamic than 9 defensive TDs? How many teams have been more dynamic than that lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scs787 Posted January 27, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 27, 2013 More dynamic than 9 defensive TDs? How many teams have been more dynamic than that lol Yes more dynamic than 9 defensive TDs. I believe the secondary can stay the same or be even better in a 3-4 scheme because there would be even more pressure on the QB. How long does that dynamic last with the older guys? But let me throw it out there that I'm fine with staying same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowlingtwig Posted January 27, 2013 Report Share Posted January 27, 2013 Yes more dynamic than 9 defensive TDs. I believe the secondary can stay the same or be even better in a 3-4 scheme because there would be even more pressure on the QB. How long does that dynamic last with the older guys? But let me throw it out there that I'm fine with staying same. No team in any era using any scheme has ever had more than 9 so pardon me if I'm skeptic on this. Personally i look to stay using same scheme for a couple more yrs as there is nothing wrong what we have been doing plus how about the saying "If it ain't broke don't fix it" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scs787 Posted January 27, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 27, 2013 No team in any era using any scheme has ever had more than 9 so pardon me if I'm skeptic on this. Personally i look to stay using same scheme for a couple more yrs as there is nothing wrong what we have been doing plus how about the saying "If it ain't broke don't fix it" And it probably wont happen again, defensive touchdowns isn't the only thing that makes a team dynamic. Like I said, I'm ok with keeping things the same, and won't make a peep when they decide to stick with it....It's just fun to speculate lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted January 28, 2013 Report Share Posted January 28, 2013 Well if ur just looking for a huge guy to play NT then sure that's easy however its more complex than that lol. In order for the 3-4 to flourish u must have a huge guy(like u mentioned) but he also MUST command a double team occupying the center and 1 of the guards. Needs to be powerful enough to push the pocket in which allows the ends and typically rush LB to do there work. Typically this guy is the star on the defense without the notoriety because like u said they dont get stats. GB has a nice NT in BJ Raji. Problem there is injury. When guy goes down that DL can no longer get pressure on the qb. Regardless of what style of D u want to run the key is the Dline must sustain pressure on the qb. In a 3-4 its a little harder cuz ur talking 3 down lineman against 5 OL guys and u can't always blitz a LB Why not?! It's a matter of numbers, and you absolutely can blitz a LB every play. It's just a matter of scheming it and being deceptive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ54 Posted January 28, 2013 Report Share Posted January 28, 2013 ....BTW San Frans backups at NT are all under 305 pounds. Because finding good NT is difficult. Which goes back to my point that many teams now run the 3-4 so finding the right talent for the scheme is harder than it was 10 years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted January 28, 2013 Report Share Posted January 28, 2013 More dynamic than 9 defensive TDs? How many teams have been more dynamic than that lol Dude. That's weak. The 9 defensive TDs are much less about the system ran and much more about the players in the system. I don't give a damn if you run a 2-6-3 or some random, oddball, pee-wee league formation on defense. You put Charles Tillman in that defense and you're going to get turnovers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowlingtwig Posted January 28, 2013 Report Share Posted January 28, 2013 Dude. That's weak. The 9 defensive TDs are much less about the system ran and much more about the players in the system. I don't give a damn if you run a 2-6-3 or some random, oddball, pee-wee league formation on defense. You put Charles Tillman in that defense and you're going to get turnovers. My overall point still remains the same. If it ain't broke don't fix it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted January 28, 2013 Report Share Posted January 28, 2013 My overall point still remains the same. If it ain't broke don't fix it I don't like that saying when applied to this defense. However, if you must... It may not be broken, but it's breaking. With all the early turnovers, this year was an aberration (almost 5 more points a game over the second half of the season). Include the last couple years for a better sample size. There is only so long that one of the fastest MLB's in NFL history can cover the deep middle. There is only so long the best ball-stripper in NFL history will be playing CB. There is only so long one of the best DEs in NFL history will be there to collapse the edge. If there ever was a time for a change (if the front office wants one), now is it. Waiting for it to become a major problem is not what the Bears should do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowlingtwig Posted January 28, 2013 Report Share Posted January 28, 2013 I don't like that saying when applied to this defense. However, if you must... It may not be broken, but it's breaking. With all the early turnovers, this year was an aberration (almost 5 more points a game over the second half of the season). Include the last couple years for a better sample size. There is only so long that one of the fastest MLB's in NFL history can cover the deep middle. There is only so long the best ball-stripper in NFL history will be playing CB. There is only so long one of the best DEs in NFL history will be there to collapse the edge. If there ever was a time for a change (if the front office wants one), now is it. Waiting for it to become a major problem is not what the Bears should do. Im not saying stand pat and wait for it crumble my lord. I want to continue at least another yr before making that type of switch. We have a defense that can win now so it seems foolish to completely switch it right now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongo3451 Posted January 28, 2013 Report Share Posted January 28, 2013 Im not saying stand pat and wait for it crumble my lord. I want to continue at least another yr before making that type of switch. We have a defense that can win now so it seems foolish to completely switch it right now I agree. If our D is left alone, we know it's top ten. The new DC is going to put his stamp on his new D though, so we will absolutely see some new looks. There is no way he's gonna want to hear that he's winning with Lovie's D, cause he's already going to be doing it with Lovie's people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted January 28, 2013 Report Share Posted January 28, 2013 I agree. If our D is left alone, we know it's top ten. The new DC is going to put his stamp on his new D though, so we will absolutely see some new looks. There is no way he's gonna want to hear that he's winning with Lovie's D, cause he's already going to be doing it with Lovie's people. We do?! 2012 says: 2011 says: <_> I don't think it's a guarantee the Bears have a top-10 defense if left alone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongo3451 Posted January 28, 2013 Report Share Posted January 28, 2013 We do?! 2012 says: 2011 says: <_> I don't think it's a guarantee the Bears have a top-10 defense if left alone. I get it, but... How good would that D have been if our offense didn't keep them on the field so much? Here's the big if. If Trestman can get the offense to 15-18 in the NFL and win the time of possession battle. I would take bets on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scs787 Posted January 28, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 28, 2013 I don't like that saying when applied to this defense. However, if you must... It may not be broken, but it's breaking. With all the early turnovers, this year was an aberration (almost 5 more points a game over the second half of the season). Include the last couple years for a better sample size. There is only so long that one of the fastest MLB's in NFL history can cover the deep middle. There is only so long the best ball-stripper in NFL history will be playing CB. There is only so long one of the best DEs in NFL history will be there to collapse the edge. If there ever was a time for a change (if the front office wants one), now is it. Waiting for it to become a major problem is not what the Bears should do. I thoroughly agree. If they ever make the change now is the time. To add to the 5 points more in the 2nd half argument I'll throw out some more splits. 1st Half/2nd Half Sacks 25/16 Passes defended 51/39 INTs 17/7 TDs 7/1 FFs 16/10 Sure seems like it's breaking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowlingtwig Posted January 28, 2013 Report Share Posted January 28, 2013 I thoroughly agree. If they ever make the change now is the time. To add to the 5 points more in the 2nd half argument I'll throw out some more splits. 1st Half/2nd Half Sacks 25/16 Passes defended 51/39 INTs 17/7 TDs 7/1 FFs 16/10 Sure seems like it's breaking. U also knew that as teams in 2nd half were much tougher. I.e SF and hou Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scs787 Posted January 28, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 28, 2013 U also knew that as teams in 2nd half were much tougher. I.e SF and hou You mean teams you have to beat to win a super bowl?? So you're saying they fed on weaker teams which to jasons point makes the teams success on defense somewhat of an aberration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowlingtwig Posted January 28, 2013 Report Share Posted January 28, 2013 You mean teams you have to beat to win a super bowl?? So you're saying they fed on weaker teams which to jasons point makes the teams success on defense somewhat of an aberration. I wouldn't say an aberration as this D has always feasted on turnovers since lovie took over. I would say aberration if this was 1 time but it's not.And let's be completely honest how many ppl really thought back in camp this was a SB winning team. I know i didn't Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scs787 Posted January 28, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 28, 2013 I wouldn't say an aberration as this D has always feasted on turnovers since lovie took over. I would say aberration if this was 1 time but it's not.And let's be completely honest how many ppl really thought back in camp this was a SB winning team. I know i didn't I for one thought they did but that's because I trusted Mike Tice when he said the Oline was gonna be ok. Our LBs have 3 sacks in the last 2 years, moving to a 3-4 allows you to get more pressure on the QB and thats what I wanna see. SF LBs have 53 in that time period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowlingtwig Posted January 29, 2013 Report Share Posted January 29, 2013 I for one thought they did but that's because I trusted Mike Tice when he said the Oline was gonna be ok. Our LBs have 3 sacks in the last 2 years, moving to a 3-4 allows you to get more pressure on the QB and thats what I wanna see. SF LBs have 53 in that time period. A cover 2 may not be sexy but it works best when front 4 get the pressure which allows the LB and secondary to do what they do. Does it really matter how u get pressure as long as the D as a whole performs at high level Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scs787 Posted January 29, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 29, 2013 I just think with players getting faster and more athletic particularly at the LB position it's a shame that we weren't getting pressure from the LBs AND the DLine. The 3 sacks in 2 years isn't at all sad to you? In a 3-4 you can still have one or 2 of your LBs float in the middle of the field and also bring pressure from 1, 2, or more. It's no surprise to me there are only 2 teams using the cover 2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowlingtwig Posted January 29, 2013 Report Share Posted January 29, 2013 I just think with players getting faster and more athletic particularly at the LB position it's a shame that we weren't getting pressure from the LBs AND the DLine. The 3 sacks in 2 years isn't at all sad to you? In a 3-4 you can still have one or 2 of your LBs float in the middle of the field and also bring pressure from 1, 2, or more. It's no surprise to me there are only 2 teams using the cover 2. We don't blitz using LBs all that often doesn't that play into it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scs787 Posted January 29, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 29, 2013 We don't blitz using LBs all that often doesn't that play into it Obviously, which is silly IMO. If they add speedy talents like SMC and Ogletree to the LB core AND had guys like Melton and Peppers getting to the QB don't ya think that makes the defense all the more scary? You can still use Briggs and Roach in coverage (and let them attack at times, switch it up so they don't know who's coming). 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.