Its not always as easy as replacing EVERYONE you think sucks. The replacements are not always there and even if they are the potential upgrade at one position (NT) may not be as great as the potential upgrade at another (ILB) so you go with what you have at NT for another year. Just using those two positions as examples. It certainly should not be too difficult to replace both if the guys you have are that bad and you forgo a few other improvements.

Originally Posted by: sschind 

I would argue that we are playing the 3-4 as it should be. We have the 2-4, 1-4, 2-3, 4-1, 4-2, 4-3 and many more versions. I would say that Dom is being as creative as ever with the different combinations he is putting out there. And the results show that.

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan 

Actually, I would would rather go to a 4-3 and leave Clay in the middle. but if we insist on using this linebacker defense with lousy inside linebackers - than yes I would like to have studs like Bowman and Willis. SF losing both of them is like having Packers karma shifted on to them.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 

If we could draft another LB very early this year, I would love playing a 4-3 next year. A DT rotation of Raji,Daniels,Guion,Boyd,Pennel. DE with Peppers, Neal, Jones, Perry. LB with Barrington, Clay and TBD and Hawk as a backup.

I could see it being successful.

Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins 

In general, I like the 3-4 just as an overall defensive philosophy. It incorporates surprise and an attacking mentality.

However, our guys fit more into a 4-3.

Originally Posted by: nerdmann 

In general, I like the 3-4 just as an overall defensive philosophy. It incorporates surprise and an attacking mentality.

However, our guys fit more into a 4-3.

Originally Posted by: nerdmann 

What about years 2011-13? Our defense is blowing our window at winning hardware because they lack proper personnel to play the defense they've chosen to run with. I've seen this movie before in the Sherman years, it's real frustrating. Winning the NFC North is cool and gives leverage when arguing with Bears and Vikings fans, but it is really not what the fans of the Packers really want to see.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 

So all we have to do is go to a 4-3 and injuries and failed draft choices will never be a problem? Sweet. Worthy, Barnett, Bishop wouldn't have blown out knees. Jones wouldn't have turned the ankle. Perry wouldn't have hurt everything. Etc. I didn't know. 🤔

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan 

Perry, Jones and Neal are 4-3 DEs regardless of injuries or draft position. So is Peppers for that matter.

Originally Posted by: nerdmann 

One issue that some feel has hurt Jones is being a tweener between defensive tackle and defensive end. His best fit could come as a defensive end in a 3-4 defense. He has the length and strength to set the edge. If Jones is drafted into a 4-3 defense, he would be best as a base left end on running downs and moving inside to defensive tackle in passing situations. He looks like a late first-round or early second-round pick.

I've never understood why so many Packers fans accept the mediocrity we have at inside linebacker. And then to compound the problem, we try filling the outside linebacker position with defensive ends. It doesn't make any sense.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 

Furthermore, as coaches and recruiting gurus all attest, there’s more talent at the high school level at the linebacker position than on the defensive line. Instead of force-fitting linebackers into defensive ends with their hands in the ground, the 3-4 allows high school linebackers to play the college game standing upright. Fourteen college teams will use a base 3-4 defense in 2010; seven of them were 4-3 squads last year.

Though Bud Wilkinson is often considered the “godfather” of the scheme, 17 of the 32 teams in the NFL used some sort of 3-4 alignment last year. It’s no coincidence, then, that a bevy of new coordinators with pro pedigrees are bringing the scheme to the college game this season.