NFL: Falcons and 3 other teams favorites for Langford - Printable Version
+- Atlanta Falcons Talk (http://atlantafalconstalk.com)
+-- Forum: Falcons Fans Message Boards (/Forum-Falcons-Fans-Message-Boards)
+--- Forum: Talk About The Falcons & So Much More (/Forum-Talk-About-The-Falcons-So-Much-More)
+--- Thread: NFL: Falcons and 3 other teams favorites for Langford (/Thread-NFL-Falcons-and-3-other-teams-favorites-for-Langford)
Pages: 1 2
RE: Falcons and 3 other teams favorites for Langford - Aftermath - 03-13-2012 10:38 PM
RE: Falcons and 3 other teams favorites for Langford - Radical - 03-13-2012 11:01 PM
(03-13-2012 09:04 PM)Aftermath Wrote: because I don't like the guy and no longer trust his direction of the team, quite simple really.
Because anyone who knows football can look at this team and see why we can't just transition to a full fledged 3-4. Not all 4-3 teams are the same.
RE: Falcons and 3 other teams favorites for Langford - Aftermath - 03-13-2012 11:40 PM
(03-13-2012 11:01 PM)Radical Wrote: Because anyone who knows football can look at this team and see why we can't just transition to a full fledged 3-4. Not all 4-3 teams are the same.
admittedly, the roster as it stands now isn't conducive to a 3-4 D, but a few personnel tweaks and we could at least be moving in the right direction. The thing that worries me about running a hybrid is that I don't think we will have the personnel to run either a 3-4 or a 4-3 effectively, if we let Abe go we lose our pass rush threat in the 4-3, unless we sign a fatty we wont have the inside presence for a 3-4. I trust in Nolan, and I'm sure he will do the best he can, but I can't help but think that the D would be better off making the immediate transition instead of existing in personnel and philosophical limbo for a year or more.
RE: Falcons and 3 other teams favorites for Langford - Radical - 03-14-2012 12:08 AM
Which is why we're going to run a 4-3 hybrid.
RE: Falcons and 3 other teams favorites for Langford - Jayhawk-Falcon2012 - 03-14-2012 12:13 AM
Here's my question for those who are arguing about the 4-3/3-4/Hybrid.
Why couldn't we run a >Hybrid< system....guess it really lies in the idea, for me at least, we're just opening our options. We could be a team that runs both a 4-3/3-4 and if you don't have a competent QB you're screwed, and even if you do have a good QB Nolan isn't BVG. I don't see all the hate for Smith's comment about a hybrid system. Shit we got our D-coordinator didn't we?
Explain your crying/yelling/tantrum
RE: Falcons and 3 other teams favorites for Langford - Aftermath - 03-14-2012 12:51 AM
(03-14-2012 12:13 AM)Jayhawk-Falcon2012 Wrote: Here's my question for those who are arguing about the 4-3/3-4/Hybrid.
From a personnel and philosophical perspective the 3-4 and 4-3 are completely different, if we don't have the personnel to run one that's fine, but citing a lack of personnel as a reason not to make a complete transition and then pointing out that we will run a hybrid in the same breath doesn't make much sense. If we don't have the guys to run a 3-4 then we don't have them, that isn't magically going to change 10-12 snaps a game. The only other logical assumption is that we are going to carry personnel needed to run both schemes. this means 4-3 DEs that can play OLB in a 3-4, 4-3 DTs that can play DE in a 3-4, and of course 3-4 linebackers that can play in a 4-3. From what I can see on the roster we don't have many players that will fit seamlessly into both schemes and we would still need a fatty to stuff the middle on 3-4. Since I don't think we have the guys that can easily transition back and forth the only other option is to keep personnel on the roster that are scheme specific (i.e. the 3-4 DT, 4-3 MLB, 4-3 pass rush DE) this means either giving the defensive side of the ball an extra roster slot or three or rolling without as much depth at some defensive positions as we normally would, neither one of which is ideal.
People like to talk about a 3-4/4-3 hybrid as if it is a stepping stone from one to the other that teams use when they don't have the personnel but in reality a true hybrid defense is more difficult to run than a straight 3-4 or 4-3 base due to the personnel concerns that arise. It can take a team longer to develop and acquire personnel for a hybrid D than either base defense, especially if a team lacks those 4-3 De/3-4 OLB tweeners. I get that transitioning to a 3-4 from a 4-3 is a process, but running a hybrid, and a successful one at that, requires even more forethought and preparation unless a team is willing to take a few roster spots from the offense and hand it over to the defense and even then you get the problem that I mentioned earlier with a Kendall Langford, a 3-4 DE that will command starter money but would essentially be nothing more than a role player for us.
Lets also not overlook the fact that the hybrid is perhaps the most complex and complicated defense in the NFL and we are in the process of losing our MLB/playcaller/defensive leader in free agency. But still, as complicated as this all is Nolan has done it before and I trust in him to do it again, what I don't trust is Mike Smith and his ability to give Nolan the free reign over the D that he needs in order to be successful. People like to hate on BVG but that D he ran here was nothing like the D he had a reputation for running in college, but it was quite similar to the D Smith ran in Jacksonville.