Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Tennessee Titans and NFL Talk' started by acqua7, Oct 9, 2012.
Agreed. We don't have talent for 43 or 34 right now. Zero playmakers currently on our D.
Not upset about either one of those in the least...I hope we cut Hasselbeck and Amano as well...we'd have so much cap room...If we don't make a splash this offseason I might lose faith!!!
All the teams that are successful in running the 43(bears, giants, seahawks) all have something the Titans don't have; elite defensive ends. The Titans clearly don't have those, and even if we drafted a guy like Mingo we still would only have 1(possibly) great D-end. It was successful for us when we had Kearse and Vandy(and a solid rotation), but it's just not in the cards for our current roster to be successful in a 43.
With that said, I think Wimbley and Ayers COULD be great 34 OLBs, so the pieces are more in place for us to go ahead and switch to the 34 instead of hoping Morgan and Wimbley turn into something they're not. I do think our needs would be more in the direction of inside linebacker and nose tackle if we did this opposed to pass rusher. IMO(could be wrong) I think Wimbley, Ayers, and Brown would be a great rotation at 34 OLB.
Besides.... 49ers, Ravens, and Steelers...enough said..
Meh. The FA class isn't anything to get excited about.
First off, we will not get him as a DC. When he is fired some team will be dumb enough to make him another head coaching offer and that team will end up even more undiciplined than the Jets. 3-4 would be workable. Also, I am not going to speculate on future guys. OLB is one area we are probably better suited to a 3-4. Ayres for one would do better in a 3-4. Wimbley probably would too. Here is how it goes with the current roster:
Martin//Harris Casey/Marks Morgan/Klug
Ayers Brown McCarthy Wimbley
An issue arises on the DL and with ILB. We were able to pick up players like Jurrell Casey, Mike Martin and Colin McCarthy later in the draft than their skills warrented mainly because the are not well suited to a 3 -- which most of the league is playing now. Trying to play 3-4 with players not suited to it leads to disaster. The 2010 Buffalo Bills are a good example. They had a solid 4-3 D under Jurron. A terrible offense with terrible TOP doomed them. Gailey installed a 3-4 the next year with essentially the same players and their Defence was terrible.
I've had this conversation wth friends. Something to consider however. The Giants won the Super Bowl last year behind an excellent 4-3 defence. Switching to a 3-4 is not going to magically make us better. I think our issues, especially on defence, have more to do with coaching than scheme. Terrible TOP on the offense plus not having an NFL calibre SS are also major killers.
The packers play a 3-4 and their defense was terrible last year.
How is changing to a 3-4 make us a better defense?
And Wimbley was an OLB with his 2 previous teams and was considered expendable.
The trend in the nfl has been to go back to the 4-3 in case anybody hasn't noticed and the redskins should be playing a 4-3. The giants won the super bowl with a 4-3 and the Pats are a better defense playing the 4-3.
Zach Brown a 2nd rd pick is basically useless in a 3-4. real smart.
Since when do we ever go with a "trend"!?
besides dont you feel that our D is just stale, i've felt this way for a while now...
Last year, while the top 5 defences were 3-4 5 of the bottom 7 teams in total defence were 3-4. It is not always so simple.
That's a lame reason to completely change a defense.
Whatever defense you play you have to have good coaching and good players it has nothing to do with being stale.