Why did we ever move to the 3-4 from a 4-3?

?

90 percent of the fan base demanded it.

Upset when it happened…just to point out many were very happy and claimed it was the “forward thinking” this team needed.

!

aren't any good - does it really matter?

In comment 15420259 Eric from BBI said:

Quote:

90 percent of the fan base demanded it.

If there was a demand I wasn't part of it. And we don't seem to be any better for it because we don't have the proper personnel to run a 3-4; no nose tackle, no edge rushers, no reliable inside linebacker to partner Martinez. I've been examining the question whether or not the Giants should switch back to the 4-3 starting in the 2022 offseason.
Should the Giants change to a 4-3 next season? - ( New Window )

In comment 15420261 Giantimistic said:

Quote:

!

It isn't working since we don't have the pieces to run either one in an effective manner.

Fans wants wins.

Most have no clue how that happens.

Being Multiple is great....but without reliable DEs, nor Edges....we are the opposite of multiple.

When the Giants struggled during the post 2011 years and were playing the 4-3, fans repeatedly asked, "Why the hell are we playing the 4-3?!"

This was an almost weekly debate on BBI.

BTW, we don't have the personnel to play the 4-3 now either.

Not being able to cover TEs in our division using a 4-3....

In comment 15420270 George from PA said:

Quote:

Fans wants wins. Most have no clue how that happens. Being Multiple is great....but without reliable DEs, nor Edges....we are the opposite of multiple.

George, it's a snarky response because the bulk of fans were saying the problem a few years ago was we weren't playing the 3-4.

Anyone who has been around BBI for more than a few years knows this.

can't switch to a 4-3 now. As Eric notes, we don't have the personnel, specifically the DEs, which have a much different role in a 4-3 than a 3-4. The DEs in a 4-3 are supposed to be pass rushers.

Could we do it next year? Probably. Williams and Lawrence could be DTs in a 4-3 IMO. The problem is that we'd need at least three traditional 4-3 DEs. With all of our other holes and limited cap room, that might be difficult.

He is currently a little light but I suspect...he can grow into it.

4-3 vs 3-4

Hell....we won in the 80s with the 3-4 and won in 2007/2011 with the 4-3.

Its not the system....but the players

But if you’ve got that special guy who can be both then it’s great. Not easy to get that guy or a couple of talented edge types but that’s not easy either. Seems to me getting 4-3 ends and DTs is more doable. But, the 3-4 is more common now, right? I like the 4-3 and have ever since LT and Banks were gone. I knew we’d never have that again.

In comment 15420275 AcidTest said:

Quote:

can't switch to a 4-3 now. As Eric notes, we don't have the personnel, specifically the DEs, which have a much different role in a 4-3 than a 3-4. The DEs in a 4-3 are supposed to be pass rushers. Could we do it next year? Probably. Williams and Lawrence could be DTs in a 4-3 IMO. The problem is that we'd need at least three traditional 4-3 DEs. With all of our other holes and limited cap room, that might be difficult.

My plan would be to draft two (one in the first round) and sign a veteran on a one-year deal.

In comment 15420273 cpgiants said:

Quote:

Not being able to cover TEs in our division using a 4-3....

Makes sense, except in a 3-4 it's no different. Lmao.

In comment 15420286 George from PA said:

Quote:

He is currently a little light but I suspect...he can grow into it.

I'll be honest, I don't know what to expect from Elerson Smith.

is still going strong?

Eric is right. That discussion happened all the time. It actually preceded the post 2011 years. I remember hearing that even with Strahan and then people would point out how Strahan would be wasted in a 3-4. Then 5 days later same argument.

In comment 15420259 Eric from BBI said:

Quote:

90 percent of the fan base demanded it.

Really? I don't recall that. I recall so many recognizing we had no LBs for the move.

In comment 15420271 Eric from BBI said:

Quote:

When the Giants struggled during the post 2011 years and were playing the 4-3, fans repeatedly asked, "Why the hell are we playing the 4-3?!" This was an almost weekly debate on BBI. BTW, we don't have the personnel to play the 4-3 now either.

Well, not now. But, we did at the time of the switch.

In comment 15420275 AcidTest said:

Quote:

can't switch to a 4-3 now. As Eric notes, we don't have the personnel, specifically the DEs, which have a much different role in a 4-3 than a 3-4. The DEs in a 4-3 are supposed to be pass rushers. Could we do it next year? Probably. Williams and Lawrence could be DTs in a 4-3 IMO. The problem is that we'd need at least three traditional 4-3 DEs. With all of our other holes and limited cap room, that might be difficult.

So? We didn't have the personnel to switch to a 3-4, and still don't.

Don't we, like other teams, switch between a 3-4 and a 4-3. The problem is we have no "DE type" pass rushers. Our best pass rushers are really more DT types. Oh yeah, and our LB's suck

In comment 15420464 Banks said:

Quote:

Eric is right. That discussion happened all the time. It actually preceded the post 2011 years. I remember hearing that even with Strahan and then people would point out how Strahan would be wasted in a 3-4. Then 5 days later same argument.

yep. it seems like it was a constant source of discussion.

At the time everyone thought it was insane because we had halfway decent defensive linemen and literally the worst linebackers in the league.

vice versa. It’s not the formation it’s how the players fit the formation. There were only two times it made sense to me, once when Parcells went to a 3-4 because it got the best players on the field , Dan Lloyd, H. Carson, LT and the michigan player whose name escapes me but he wore #10. And when Carson and reasons played the middle and LT and Banks played outside.

A great deal depends on where the athletes in college are playing so you have a supply of 3/4DTs and OLB’s or you have more DE’s.

And today there’s lots of mix em up anyway. Giants problems not formation but need lb’ers of some sort to bridge gap in middle. Those lb’ers must be able to cover.

We need to make up for the loss o f Martines and need some ERs. Weakest point is the middle D and in the middle of the defensive line.

We need a plan, and players to fulfill the plan otherwise it won’t matter.

been here. Let's win another with Eli. OK, let's completely tear down the defense too.

In comment 15420464 Banks said:

Quote:

Eric is right. That discussion happened all the time. It actually preceded the post 2011 years. I remember hearing that even with Strahan and then people would point out how Strahan would be wasted in a 3-4. Then 5 days later same argument.

Yep, when I saw the title of this thread. My first thought was the majority on here were asking for it and excited when Betcher brought it to the Giants

In comment 15420522 PatersonPlank said:

Quote:

Don't we, like other teams, switch between a 3-4 and a 4-3. The problem is we have no "DE type" pass rushers. Our best pass rushers are really more DT types. Oh yeah, and our LB's suck

We switch out our base a lot. But, we don't have the DL to switch to a real 4-3.

In comment 15420724 plato said:

Quote:

vice versa. It’s not the formation it’s how the players fit the formation. There were only two times it made sense to me, once when Parcells went to a 3-4 because it got the best players on the field , Dan Lloyd, H. Carson, LT and the michigan player whose name escapes me but he wore #10. And when Carson and reasons played the middle and LT and Banks played outside. A great deal depends on where the athletes in college are playing so you have a supply of 3/4DTs and OLB’s or you have more DE’s. And today there’s lots of mix em up anyway. Giants problems not formation but need lb’ers of some sort to bridge gap in middle. Those lb’ers must be able to cover. We need to make up for the loss of Martines and need some ERs. Weakest point is the middle D and in the middle of the defensive line. We need a plan, and players to fulfill the plan otherwise it won’t matter.

The Michigan guy who wore No. 10 was Brad Van Pelt. On the other hand, I thought the Giants switched to a 3-4 before Parcells got there in ‘81; a lot of books say the three linemen were George Martin, John Mendenhall (replaced by Curtis McGriff in ‘80), and Gary Jeter.

why JPP was moved out.

and I mentioned how vital and difficult it is to find impact 3-4 OLBs, and how few players wind up being truly multiple.

Fast forward and here we are, struggling as predicted.

In comment 15420464 Banks said:

Quote:

Eric is right. That discussion happened all the time. It actually preceded the post 2011 years. I remember hearing that even with Strahan and then people would point out how Strahan would be wasted in a 3-4. Then 5 days later same argument.

Funny thing; a few days before the draft this year I was wondering why the Giants drafted Strahan when they were using a 3-4 defense.

was behind the 4-3 switch.

In comment 15420930 JonC said:

Quote:

was behind the 4-3 switch.

I'm surprised; from what I know about Reeves, he seemed like a 3-4 guy judging by his years with the Broncos with players like Rulon Jones at end/tackle and Karl Mecklenburg at inside linebacker/edge.