Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Chicago Bears' started by BSBEARS, Feb 11, 2014.
From that article it seems like Trestman, from an offense perspective, considers an opposing 3-4 defense more challenging than a 4-3. If he ultimately would like to have a 3-4 defense in Chicago, then this would be a rare opportunity for him to make the switch, due to the fact there will be a number of key roster changes on D anyway. It may not be so easy to switch in other years. If he wants a 3-4 or 3-4 hybrid, then this is his chance.
Pretty much my take as well:5_5_1:
Have to agree with both of you. Since we are retooling the Defense this would seem to as good a time as any.
Agreed. Do it now, or forever hold your peace!
agreed with you guys, i mean how much worse could we be from last year? ha
I like the defensive perspective, of "what scheme is hard to play against" vs. "I like this scheme best, because I'm the boss". I like the 3-4 because of the creativity it offers the DC. The 3-4 is a situational D up here, but because the front seven are so big in the NFL, I can see it as an "almost every down' D. My preference is for a hybrid that plays mostly 3-4, but will happily switch to a 4-3 when the O finds a way to exploit a 3-4 weakness, or when it makes sense for the situation (i.e. third and long, send four on the rush and have two LBs and a hybrid dropping in coverage). I've always favoured schemes that have the flexibility to counter or exploit the opposition, rather than the simplistic, plough ahead regardless mentality.
We seem to have enough LB's to get a 3-4 defense going. Get a NT type and a DL,and then go secondary. Not in that order,BPA at each pick.