Report: Panthers Considering switch to 3-4

[Moo Daeng]

I'm not opposed to it. But it's going to take time and it might not be a pretty transition. 

If there is really something to finding 3-4 OLB and DEs than who knows. Maybe colleges are loaded with tweeners.

[ForJimmy]

8 hours ago, Sub Zero said:

You still need another Olb, a backup NT,  2 more DE's to backup Kk and (Hopefully replace butler) and another ILB .. You have no depth with your list..

We have no 4-3 defensive line depth either. This makes it a good time to try to switch it up. However there will be learning curves and issues the first season switching. With Rivera being on the hot seat, I’d be surprised if he completely overhauls the defense...

[Louie]

If any coach could transition a defense from a 4-3 to a 3-4, it would be Rivera. He has coached both schemes at a high level. If Tepper has suggested to Ron he would like to see us move to a 3-4, I'm sure Ron explained to him all of the personnel issues and learning curve involved. I actually would like to see it. We could use a shakeup on defense. It would definitely give our NFC South opponents something else to have to adjust to.

[Black&BlueBubba]

11 hours ago, Sub Zero said:

http://walterfootball.com/draft2019DE.php

Free Agent DE

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/free-agents/all/defensive-end/

Thanks.  I was looking at this a while ago.  My question is people are saying that these prospects could be one or the other in terms of scheme fit.  

I guess my confusion is that all of the guys are also listed under the 3-4 OLB on this site as well.  

Maybe as the senior bowl and combine finish there will be more distinguishing metrics of who fits where. 

As an example Brian Burns is way to light to be a 4-3 DE. At least for a couple seasons.  

[Woodie]

.

[Growl]

14 hours ago, Sub Zero said:

No I insinuated that you trying to make a point by saying "well this coach thinks it's the best" was dumb...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bloggingtheboys.com/platform/amp/2014/7/11/5888599/lovie-smith-4-3-defense-dallas-cowboys-tampa-bay-buccaneers

Lovie Smith talking about the 43.. Now what??

lol at what point in this article does lovie smith discuss the economic and practical assembly benefits?

It seems like you know you cant find any citation for something you said would be easy to find, and are now trying to shift the argument to something dumb and irrelevant.

[AU-panther]

14 hours ago, SixMileDrive said:

We're a Cover-3 team that doesn't play much Tampa-2.

All the complaints that people make about the corners playing 5-10 yards off? That's because we are a Cover 3 team. A Tampa-2 team has their corners pressing the WRs almost every play because they have the flat responsibility, not deep zone. Tampa-2 teams blitz the fug out of their outside corners. Bradberry has two career sacks. Yes, Rivera ran Lovie's Tampa-2 in CHI, but he's run Cover-3 since day one here. I'm pretty sure the 3-4 he ran in San Diego was Cover 3 as well, but I can't seem to confirm that with a quick google search. Honestly, I can't think of a single team in the league that runs a ton of Tampa-2 these days, but I don't follow as closely as I used to.

 

https://www.patspulpit.com/2017/9/29/16350138/a-guide-to-beating-the-carolina-panthers-defense-and-the-tampa-2

Either way, we ask Luke to drop into coverage a lot and in our current scheme there is a lot of value in having a MLB with ability and his contract is representative of that. On a lot of 3-4 teams your OLB tend to be expensive.

[thefuzz]

All I can say is that if this is true, that it wasn't Teppers call to make the change.

[Growl]

13 hours ago, AU-panther said:

Ignoring the secondary, what spots in the front seven would you say we need to rebuild if we stay 4-3?

 spots if we switch to 3-4?

that this team is frankly at ground zero in terms of assembling a front 7 around Kuechly, and that this off season is more predisposed to 3-4 talents than frequently out of reach 43 prospects, and that there is more than one player on the Panthers D who potentially possess more value as 34 defenders, is the point here.

[AU-panther]

Just now, Growl said:

that this team is frankly at ground zero in terms of assembling a front 7 around Kuechly, and that this off season is more predisposed tp3-4 talents than out of reach 4-3, and that there is more than one player on the Panthers D who potentially possess more value as 34 defenders, is the point here.

I'm not disagreeing with you about a 3-4 might be better, but I think ground zero is a bit of a stretch and I was looking for something a bit more specific such as: (most teams rotate d line a lot so I think you have to look at the backups also)

4-3: D-line:                                      ? , Short, Poe, Addison

4-3: D-line Backups:              Peppers, Butler, Love, Haynes

4-3: LBs:                                          ?, Kuechly, Thompson

Lets say we let Poe go, sign Graham in free agency, draft a DE (Sweat) in first, and DT in second.

4-3: D-line:                           Graham , Short, 2nd round pick, Addison

4-3: D-line Backups:                     Peppers, Butler, Love, Sweat

4-3: LBs:                                          ?, Kuechly, Thompson

That front seven might improve a lot.  I left a ? for the 3rd LB in both scenarios, could be a young player already on the team or a cheap FA.  Either way they won't play every down anyway because of us in nickel.

If we go 3-4 what are we looking like?

3-4: D-line:                                             Short, Poe, ?

3-4: D-line Backups:                             Butler, Love,? 

3-4: LBs:                                  Addison, Kuechly, Thompson, Haynes

If you added a Free agent and two draft picks (same as the 4-3 scenario) where would you add those?

At the end of the day I think we could rebuild our 4-3 or switch to 3-4.  The question should be which gives us the best chance to match up with current offenses in the league.  Not the one that is easiest to switch to in the short term.

 

 

[Sub Zero]

42 minutes ago, Growl said:

lol at what point in this article does lovie smith discuss the economic and practical assembly benefits?

It seems like you know you cant find any citation for something you said would be easy to find, and are now trying to shift the argument to something dumb and irrelevant.

Wtf are you talking about..  Economic benefits 

For us it cost us way more to make the switch..

Overall

2 of the top 3 defenders in the league are 3/4 Olb.. I don't  know what you're looking for .. Both Defenses  will still cost to have the best personnel for.. 

[Growl]

46 minutes ago, AU-panther said:

I'm not disagreeing with you about a 3-4 might be better, but I think ground zero is a bit of a stretch and I was looking for something a bit more specific such as: (most teams rotate d line a lot so I think you have to look at the backups also)

4-3: D-line:                                      ? , Short, Poe, Addison

4-3: D-line Backups:              Peppers, Butler, Love, Haynes

4-3: LBs:                                          ?, Kuechly, Thompson

Lets say we let Poe go, sign Graham in free agency, draft a DE (Sweat) in first, and DT in second.

4-3: D-line:                           Graham , Short, 2nd round pick, Addison

4-3: D-line Backups:                     Peppers, Butler, Love, Sweat

4-3: LBs:                                          ?, Kuechly, Thompson

That front seven might improve a lot.  I left a ? for the 3rd LB in both scenarios, could be a young player already on the team or a cheap FA.  Either way they won't play every down anyway because of us in nickel.

If we go 3-4 what are we looking like?

3-4: D-line:                                             Short, Poe, ?

3-4: D-line Backups:                             Butler, Love,? 

3-4: LBs:                                  Addison, Kuechly, Thompson, Haynes

If you added a Free agent and two draft picks (same as the 4-3 scenario) where would you add those?

At the end of the day I think we could rebuild our 4-3 or switch to 3-4.  The question should be which gives us the best chance to match up with current offenses in the league.  Not the one that is easiest to switch to in the short term.

 

 

quite frankly it appears the NFC south has figured out Ron Rivera's defense and change for the sake of change might be a great idea, but that's hardly my point

It isn't just this offseason. 

Imagine being able to get guys like tj watt at 30th overall instead of sitting helplessly as the equivocable 43 prospect goes #2 overall every draft/having to trade away multiple 1st rounders to move up and take January Jumpers from UTEP in the top half of the 1st round

[Growl]

2 minutes ago, Sub Zero said:

Wtf are you talking about..  Economic benefits 

For us it cost us way more to make the switch..

Overall

2 of the top 3 defenders in the league are 3/4 Olb.. I don't  know what you're looking for .. Both Defenses  will still cost to have the best personnel for.. 

I'm talking about a higher form of discussion than you've given

You're actually trying to debate which "system" is better. 

No system is ever better. The talent on the field is the real measure of success, and any maneuver that makes acquisition and retention of talent easier/less competitive, is something worth pursuing.

[mc52beast]

Can’t believe Ron would be switching to a 3-4 during a season in which his job is on the line. 

Can see him switching up but not going straight 3-4