Let's assume either case could happen:

- Mangini or another coach retains Ryan and the 3 - 4
- A new coach installs a 4 - 3.


Do we have a core of LBers that allow up to function?

A few weeks ago, I'd have scoffed. Now I'm rethinking.

David Bowens has blown my mind with his play at ILB. AFAIC, he can stay, but I want him inside, but only at a 3 -4 ILB. Not a long-term solution, for a year or two to allow draft picks to address other needs and evaluate Maiava.

I like what Matt Roth brings in an attacking 3 - 4. But I wonder if he's a long-term fit at SS OLB in a 3 - 4 or if he can cover enough ground there in a 4 - 3 . I like him as a bull rusher, though. Poor man's Kevin Greene?

Kam has really flourished - relatively speaking - as much as he can - with this new staff. I think he can play WS OLB in a 3 - 4 for a while very effectively, even if he'll never reflect # 10 overall value.

That leaves one more OLB position open in a 3 - 4 if Roth isn't the guy, or Ny'Quil and Barton came back at ILB next to Bowens at ILB, and Roth goes to SS OLB.

Questions:

Can Roth handle a TE in any sceme as a SS OLB? Or is he just a pass rish specialist?

IMhO Kam is too light to ever play R DE in a 4 - 3. Can he play LBer in a 4 - 3 ? SS OLB ?

Wither NyQuil? A good 4 - 3 MLB or a number machine who lacks big play ability vs the run? Could he play 4 - 3 OLB ?

4 - 3 OLB - is that guy on the roster?

IMhO, Trusnik is a nice Ster, but not a starter in any sceme. I also think Veikune is just a complete bust being kept on by the guy who picked him, like a lessor Chaun Thompson or Marquis Smiff.

Anyway, if we keep a 3 - 4, what do we NEED to do this off season to be a good D - not the 86 Giants dudes, just a good D if the d backfield improves.

Likeewise, if Walrus insists on a 4 - 3 reboot, what do we NEEED to do to compete? How far of a setback is it?

Whether the Walrus switches to 4-3 or stays with 3-4, I think the transition won't be as tough as most think. Rubin & ROgers are your starting two DTs with Williams to give a breather. As for DEs, I think Wimbley would be better as a 4-3 DE he can just bull rush til his heart's content. Also I can see Roth as a 4-3 DE a la Kapman in Green Bay before their transition.

Regarding the LBs, the questions are can is Bowens a MLB in the 4-3 or an OLB? If he is the OLD, the NyQuil is your MLB. Regardless of scheme, a LB NEEDS to be drsfted in rounds 1-3 who can play immediately. I can see in a 4-3 set you LBs looking like this: OLB- Bowens, MLB- NyQuil, OLB- draft pick.

In a 3-4, thus: OLB: Roth/Wimbley, MLB: Bowens/NyQuil/Maiavia, OLB: draft pick/Veikune

IMhO we don't have the LBs for either system. In a 4-3, I'd suppose Barton would be MLB with Bowens as SSLB and Jackson at WSLB. I think Wimbley is an odd man out in a 4-3 and Roth could be a rotation DE on passing downs. In a 3-4 any of Jackson, Barton, Bowens, Trusnik or, even Veikune, could be ILBs but there's no Ray Lewis among them. On the outside, Wimbley is adequate (at best), and Roth is better than that, but not much. I'd still prefer going to a 4-3 because we have better DLmen than LBers. Rogers and Williams inside backed up by Rubin and Smith would make a very tough defensive tackle rotation. For DE we would have Mosley and Coleman backed up by Roth and Wimbley on passing downs. LBers would be Jackson on the weak side, Barton in the middle and Bowens on the strong side - backed up by Maiva and Trusnik.

Good question JB.

But what we all need to remember is that every team really has two primary defenses, the Base and the Nickel.

Seriously.

Roth and Wimbley at OLB, as well as Bowens at ILB looked very good as a Base D. Trusnik fared pretty well in the base D as an ILB too, despite not appearing to be a long term solution. I'd be interested to see how he graded out compared to DQ vs. the run. Will also be interesting to see what happens with Barton. Personally I think he sucked and that Trusnik outplayed him last year due to his greater size. Trusnik and Bowens FILLED @ 100 mph on run reads and held their ground. Say what you want about their speed and talent, they did a nice job vs. the run when they've been on the field at ILB.

---
We've did see Ryan make a ton of adjustments in passing situations which would normally dial up a nickel or even a dime defense. This package is where we REALLY need speed at all LB and DB positions. We can play a 4-3 shell by moving Roth and/or Wimbley down to DE and taking out a DE or two to get more speed on the field.

This would be a perfect opportunity to draft/sign some SPEED at the OLB, ILB and DB positions and work them into the Nickel packages first, then possibly bump out the weaker vets.

On the DBs, I think Berry or the stud CB from FLA would be a nice fit for us. Personally I was very impressed with Mike Adams at both CB and S, and thought Furrey did a nice job at S as well. But a shutdown corner in the draft will allow Wright to ease into a #2 CB role, and Adams into the nickel on passing downs. McDonald is not very consistent, and is undersized.

I think you pick your poison. The line may be better suited to the 4-3, and the backers are probably better suited to the 3-4.

If you go 4-3, Corey Williams moves inside and he may become an asset instead of an albatross. Rogers can play inside and then you have to figure out who your rush ends are. Problem is that I can't see many of these linebackers playing 4-3.

If you stay 3-4, then you've at least got a couple of workable guys in NyQwell and Roth. I think Wimbley signed a six-year deal, so he should be on board for the next two years. I'm just not sold on him standing up. Can he bulk up and move to end in the 4-3?

Either way, this batch of personnel is going to largely gone when you finally can run your new defense effectively, so Holmgren should go with the system with which he's the most comfortable.

Ideally speaking, I prefer the 3-4. Blitzes are more disguised and it's more versatile. You have to pressure the quarterback in the NFL, and the 3-4 is generally more aggressive at doing so.

Personnel issues might be changing my position though. I think it's worth mentioning that it's probably easier to draft and project the 4-3. You draft a guy from college for the 4-3, and if he can't play it's because he can't play, not because he can't integrate mentally or physically into the new system. In other words, no Kam Wimbleys. I kinda like the idea of playing a different style than the rest of the division, too.

Both systems have their strengths and weaknesses, but I think I'm actually leaning 4-3 just because of how much easier your job would be from a personnel perspective.

If Berry & Suh are off the board, Rolando McClain is the pick. Cat is big and fast and could play MLB in both Ds. Might be able to run the Tampa Two Urlacher/Bears style with him.

Who is this Chaun Thompson you speak of, any relation to Al Gore?

You take him over Haden? I'm not sure who I take if I'm in that position.

I'd really like to improve our awful secondary, but I'd be just as happy with McClain. 6-4, 258 with a 4.6 40-time. Probably still room to fill out, if you want him to. Regardless of what defense we run, we need a badass LB to set the tone for the other guys.

I think so. Even as the AFC North moves to more pass oriented offensives, I still see Parker/ Mendenhall/ McClain/ Rice/ Benson running all over the Browns. And if McClain can move in space, he helps in both the run game and the intermediate pass game. the National Title game should be a showcase of his skills. Texas throws a lot of underneath crossing and wheel route/ RB check-down type passes, so we'll see.