Argument: 43 is the superior defense

[bdubbs]

So I've come to the conclusion that I think the 43 defense is superior for the sake of FOF, for two main reasons.

1) Roles are more defined

In a 43 you're always bringing at least 4 on the pass rush, and you know you want pass rush skills on all your DL if possible. Your LBs are tacklers and pass defenders and you don't have to blitz at often

In a 34 your DL doesn't have as big an impact on the pass rush, and you are blitzing at least 1 most of the time. This is supposed to be your WLB most of the time, but there's a fair amount of the time its one of your other 3 lbs, or a CB.

2) It's easier to find a good size fit

I'm a believer that being drastically undersized at a position has an impact on performance. I'm also a believer that there's many situations where undersized players have very high bars. Maybe this is just something that's happening to me personally, but I find that a lot of the "value" picks I find in middle rounds at LB or CB are undersized. This hurts them a little less in a 43 defense.

Thoughts?

[A-Husker-4-Life]

True 3-4 is ok.

[Sharkn20]

As you can't fully control who blitzes and who not in the 34 defense I am agree with you. I have been always a Super fan of the 34 defense in game as it is more variable and offers you different things to do, but with less control over blitzes, I am switching myself to a 43 recently.

[bdubbs]

I'm not trying to argue that the 34 isn't effective in this game, plenty of top defenses in leagues I've been in use it. There are draw backs and advantages when it comes to roster building for each. A 43 defense calls for a lot of DL players with a polished skill set, where a 34 defense just calls for DL with size, a big run D bar, and preferably some PD. A 34 defense calls for more polished LBs, especially on the inside.

Part of the issue for me is also how many LBs are on the field. In a 34 both of your ILBs are key to stopping 2 WR sets, but one of them has to sit for 3 WR sets. There's ways to deal with that like bumping your subbed ILB to SLB in 3 WR sets if he's a stud or finding a bargain player who has the skill set, but not the endurance to play all the snaps who can be signed for cheaper at ILB.

IMO all of that is just more trouble than it needs to be when you can just run a 43.

[tzach]

i'd say a 43 defense is easier to build than a 34, but i don't have any evidence that either one is superior in game.

[garion333]

3-4 tended to be the better way to go in FOF2k7 and FOF7 because of the cost savings of only three DL vs four DL, but in FOF8 I think it's much easier to field a 4-3 team because DTs are relatively plentiful.

[bdubbs]

Just to add to that statement Garion I don't think DT's command much more salary than an equally skilled LB in fof8. Funny thing is a quick look at the past NAFL season shows 3/4 of the top pass rushing DT's from a year ago were NT's out of the 34.