Giants Pregame Thread

[DYoungJelly]

Originally Posted by MTK

I’m praying for a switch to the 4-3 so in 5 years or so we can hear about how we need to switch back to a 3-4


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You're always so dismissive of this discussion.

Is the roster better suited for a 3-4?

[FrenchSkin]

Originally Posted by DYoungJelly

You're always so dismissive of this discussion.

Is the roster better suited for a 3-4?

Yeah I don't think it's that ridiculous to think switching to a 4-3 would indeed make quite a difference. Sheehan and Cooley have both been advocating for it for quite some time.
Now, the priority absolutely is for the guys to be well coached. But I don't think this discussion is irrelevant at all.

Plus, I've often read here, as an argument for "it wouldn't change much", that we already play a lot of snaps in a 4-3... which is false: we rarely do. We do run a lot of snaps in Nickel 4-2-5 but very rarely in a 4-3. You have to think it does make quite a difference against the run.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by DYoungJelly

You're always so dismissive of this discussion.



Is the roster better suited for a 3-4?

I just think it’s funny since people were clamoring for the 3-4 for years.

And I think it’s more important who’s coaching the D vs the base alignment we run about 30% of the time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FrenchSkin]

Originally Posted by MTK

I just think it’s funny since people were clamoring for the 3-4 for years.

And I think it’s more important who’s coaching the D vs the base alignment we run about 30% of the time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thats 100 % on point. But I don't think anybody here would take Manusky in a 4-3 vs virtually anybody else in a 3-4.

[DYoungJelly]

Originally Posted by MTK

I just think it’s funny since people were clamoring for the 3-4 for years.

And I think it’s more important who’s coaching the D vs the base alignment we run about 30% of the time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I believe a 4-3 is better over the long run not because of any schematic advantage. Baltimore has had a very good defense for over a decade in the 3-4.

I believe it's better because the available personnel coming out of the draft fit the requirements of a 4-3 better.

We haven't had that unicorn who is a long, twitchy, natural olb the whole time we have been a 3-4.

We haven't had that 375lb immovable object to gum up the middle. Pot Roast was so out of shape he couldn't be effective two plays in a row.

We haven't had the incredibly fast ilb who are heat seeking missiles a 3-4 requires. Our two fastest ilbs have been Keenan Robinson and Cole Holcolm. Arguably, if someone (Fletcher) has great instincts and knowledge, it can make up for speed.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[DYoungJelly]

Originally Posted by MTK

I just think it’s funny since people were clamoring for the 3-4 for years.

And I think it’s more important who’s coaching the D vs the base alignment we run about 30% of the time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

30%...

Just heard on Sheehan's pod ( 12-20-19 @ 1 hour and 6 min) from Friday that Sweat dropped into coverage 12 times against the eagles.

Just put into text for posterity you're ok with that.

That the 3-4 isn't a big deal...

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[mooby]

Originally Posted by DYoungJelly

You're always so dismissive of this discussion.

Is the roster better suited for a 3-4?

We've had a base 3-4 for 10 years now and not once has our D ranked in the top ten for anything.

Everybody knows you don't stay in the 3-4 alignment except a small percentage of the time.

I agree, if our personnel is better suited for a base 4-3 we need to switch.