If You Could Run Any Defense, Which Type Of Defense Would You Choose?

[ProfessaPackMan]

I'm assuming we're all smart enough to know the basic fundamentals of what each defense does, but I want to know if you could run your own defense, what type of Defense would you run?

Would you run the 4-3 which has been the staple of alot of teams for years and consists of alot of Bump and Run Coverage?

The 3-4, which has been gaining alot of popularity among teams in the league since that seems to be the Defenses most teams are running now and seemed to be the most successful defense in the league?

The 46 Defense created by the 85 Bears and still used this day by the Eagles, who have also had success running it for the past decade?

The Cover 2 aka the Tampa 2 Defense, which was popularized by former Coach Tony Dungy during his time in Tampa Bay, where teams such as Chicago, Minnesota, and Indianapolis have had success with it as well?

This should be an interesting thread to see what people know about NFL Defenses.

[shnuskis]

I have always been a fan of the 3-4. It gives the defense a verity of directions and positions to attack the line of scrimmage from. This makes it harder to prepare for as well. It also puts more speed on the field as well as more speed on the roster to be used for special teams.

Between the 3-4 and 4-3, I like to be one of the teams in the minority. Up until this year(a lot of teams changing recently) the 3-4 was in the minority. The type of players they are looking for in free agency and the draft were different than the teams running 4-3. This means less competition for those players who drop further in the draft and can be gotten easier in free agency.

[OSUFan_88]

A 3-4. If you get the proper players to play the 3-4 *rushing linebackers, great NT, good DL that can eat blocks* then you're going to have the best defense in the NFL. To further that point, I'd take an attacking 3-4, not a passive one.

The 3-4 is, in my opinion, so much faster and causes so much more confusion than any other defense. One could say the cover two, but if you don't have pass rushers, the QB can sit back and pick it apart. Another could say the 46, however I find that to be the absolute hardest defense to run since it seems like you have 8 in the box the whole time.

In a 3-4, you never know where the fourth, fifth or sixth rusher is coming from. That is the beauty of the 3-4, because you have to have a good QB and a great offensive line to counter act it, and most of the time pressure up the middle will make a QB very uncomfortable.

The 3-4 also makes, in my opinion, players look much better than they really are. Heck, look at James Harrison, the DPoY, he was able to take some natural abilities and apply that into a dominating force. Attacking 3-4's always seem to be turning out great linebackers that go else where and completely fail.

So, yeah, 3-4 Pittsburgh-like attacking defense.

[SPTO]

The 46 for the simple reason that I want the opposing QB to feel the pressure as often as possible. Sure, that'll mean we may give up some big plays but by and large the defense works well and causes the opposing QB to either get sacked or make mistakes he otherwise wouldn't.

[LBzrule]

The 46 is really not a defense. It is a front that teams stem to from any of the other defenses. Nobody today lines up in the 46 as their base look. They either start out in the 4-3 or the 3-4.

[SPTO]

Quote: Originally Posted by LBzrule

The 46 is really not a defense

It's not a base defense today but in the mid '80s through to the mid 90s it certainly was. The Bears, Eagles and Rams used it as a base defense. I'm sure there were other teams that used it from time to time during that timeframe.

[ZM Punk]

I would run the 3-4 for the main reason others have said. It allows you to have more speed on the field. And thats always a good thing.

[deaduck]

I went with the 3-4 but the 3-3-5 ( not on your poll) intrigues me for the simple line of logic that it puts more speed/athletes on the field and yet can be a prevent/cover with no personnel changes.