Insite into Trestmans thought on 3-4 defense

Discussion in 'Chicago Bears' started by BSBEARS, Feb 11, 2014.

  1. BSBEARS

    BSBEARS Pro-Bowler

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    Messages:
    2,841
    Likes Received:
    936
    Ratings:
    +1,258 / 4 / -0
    ßearz ßuckz:
    2,049ß
    #1
  2. JustAnotherBearsFan99

    JustAnotherBearsFan99 Assistant Head Coach
    SuperFan DBS Writer

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    Messages:
    11,550
    Likes Received:
    3,440
    Ratings:
    +4,097 / 4 / -1
    ßearz ßuckz:
    3,501ß
    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.
     
    #2
    • Like Like x 2
  3. BSBEARS

    BSBEARS Pro-Bowler

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    Messages:
    2,841
    Likes Received:
    936
    Ratings:
    +1,258 / 4 / -0
    ßearz ßuckz:
    2,049ß
    Pretty much my take as well:5_5_1[1]:
     
    #3
  4. JJ-30

    JJ-30 Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2013
    Messages:
    222
    Likes Received:
    127
    Ratings:
    +186 / 0 / -0
    ßearz ßuckz:
    87ß
    Have to agree with both of you. Since we are retooling the Defense this would seem to as good a time as any.
     
    #4
    • Like Like x 1
  5. mshu7

    mshu7 Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2013
    Messages:
    308
    Likes Received:
    125
    Ratings:
    +164 / 0 / -0
    ßearz ßuckz:
    246ß
    Agreed. Do it now, or forever hold your peace!
     
    #5
  6. VJ18

    VJ18 Veteran

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2013
    Messages:
    322
    Likes Received:
    83
    Ratings:
    +109 / 0 / -0
    ßearz ßuckz:
    111ß
    agreed with you guys, i mean how much worse could we be from last year? ha
     
    #6
  7. billatter

    billatter Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2013
    Messages:
    340
    Likes Received:
    284
    Ratings:
    +352 / 0 / -0
    ßearz ßuckz:
    218ß
    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.
     
    #7
    • Like Like x 2
  8. jackiejokeman

    jackiejokeman Pro-Bowler

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,846
    Likes Received:
    187
    Ratings:
    +245 / 2 / -1
    ßearz ßuckz:
    733ß
    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.
     
    #8

Share This Page

Copyright © DaBears.com. This site is a news, entertainment and information site covering the Chicago Bears and their fans.
DaBears.com is an independent fan site and not associated with the Chicago Bears, National Football League, or any other media site.
All content is provided by, and for, Bear fans. We invite your participation and suggestions.