4-3, 3-4: Which one is harder to beat?

[weymouthst]

Your basically looking at the LOS as the difference, 4 with the 43 and 5 with the 34. 3-4 disguises the 5 man blitz well, and plays the run better as well since you have 2 ILB's covering the gaps.

4-3 you rely heavily in your MLB to cover 2 gaps, where the 3-4 has 2 ILB's covering those same gaps. The OLB's for the 4-3 are meant to cover the outside lanes.

I would like to see a 3-4 base over the 4-3, but with our d-line and LB's as of right now, I think the 4-3 is deff the best way to go.

[iamhubby1]

IMO, on passing downs they are the same Defense. You still have to rush 4, which still leaves 3LB. The fundamental difference comes in the run game. You have 4 LB for support. That is big in my book. On the flip side, if you can limit the run with just 4, it gives you flexibility as well. If all that is true. Then it just comes down to philosophy, coaching, and personnel. The coach with the most versatile players can do more scheming. Other than that, it is all just gravy in the boat.

[weymouthst]

I also think that whatever formation gets your best players out there, make it happen.

Having a 3-4 looks puts CJ, Hardy, Dwan, TD, Keek, Beason, and now Blackburn as the front 7.

I would rather see a 3-3-6 look, that puts TD and Blackburn in a rotation together, and puts 6 DB's on field.

But like Beason said, our 4-3 formation, depending on who comes in as the other DLineman, could be "scary good" as long as people stay healthy.