3-4 vs 4-3: Roster building

[Aston]

I've always thought a 34 was easier to make a roster about, but lately I'm reconsidering....

3-4:
The WLB needs to be a great pass rusher and ideally a good run stopper, too. Coverage abilities quite secondary. He's the blindside rusher and the equivalent of a 4-3 rush end.

I have accumulated quite a stockpile of these guys. But none of them are particularly good at playing any other LB position.

Also, none of them can play backup DE. In case I ever want to set my best pass rusher against a RT instead of a LT, I can't just flip the LDE and WLB spots. In a 43 I can switch LDE and RDE.

Lastly, the true mega-stud 34 WLBs are the ones with high PRS, PRT, END, and RD. Usually when you get that you get the entire package: a LB with great cover skills, none of which will be used at WLB.

It's one thing if you can get 2 or 3 of those mega-LBs. But if you can only get 1, why not put him at MLB, get a pass rush only end and stick him at RDE in a 4-3?

4-3

I think it might be easier to get your edge rushers in a 43, and more flexible, because the LDE/RDE can flip back and forth and they are your two best PRT/PRS guys.

Whereas in a 3-4 the RDE is ideally good in PRS/PRT too, but your *best* pass rushers should be the WLB and LDE.

43 also seems more flexible with depth. Your backup LDT/RDT are more or less interchangeable and gain experience at either position faster. In a 3-4, the NT and RDE serve analogous roles, but it will take a long time for a backup NT to swing over to RDE in a pinch, and vice versa.

43 just seems to "make sense" more from a depth chart standpoint.

I dunno, just food for thought. Utah is pretty locked into a 34 for years to come with its three 3-4 WLBs and lack of DT talent, although we have the DEs to run any system we want, and could conceivably start to move in the other direction.

Also, the general consensus (from Ben's MP guide) is that a 3-4 is better, but I've seen veteran players say the 4-3 dominates in this game. Not sure if there's anything to that; to me, they are identical except for roster managing considerations of having your other DE be nominally a LB.

[Guest]

I was initially a 3-4 chauvinist, but now I run a 4-3 on both of my teams. The thing I like best about the 4-3 vs the 3-4 is I just to find it easier to get personnel for a 4-3. Those WLB pass rushers were just not that available for me. (Unless I wanted to put some stud LB at WLB in a 3-4, which is kind of a waste, IMO) When I ran the 3-4 here I used a castoff with affinity at WLB. On the other hand, you can get by with some garbage guy who happens to rush the passer like a beast in the 3-4. In the 4-3 you need studly defensive ends, and on top of that you need two guys who can rush the passer.

I think I'm just going to basically run whatever defense I happen to have the personnel for every year. I switched to 4-3 here just because I drafted Jerome Howe in the second round. Funny thing is, he doesn't seem to be so great a pass rusher since he's mostly PRS with a not so impressive PRT.

I think it might just come down to "How many personnel holes do I need to plug with a 4-3, and how many with a 3-4?" The only problem is it seems to be easier than you'd think to get kind of stuck in one variation or the other - one usually doesn't have/can't get all the personnel to accomplish a switch immediately.

[Aston]

Is it true that the pass rush requirements on a 4-3 RDE are higher than those for a 3-4 WLB? I think it is just that 43 RDEs with high pass rush tend to have higher OVR ratings, no?

[mike17]

The two systems are equivalent in overall production. People like 3-4 because in that scheme you WLB is weighted heavier when it calculates who gets sacks and hurries. You end up with a WLB that puts up masturbatory-worthy stats.

4-3 is just as good, but the pass rush stats are spread around more evenly

[marvelous]

I look at coach and coordinators to see which position groups they develop best. I don't know if there is anything to it, but it's imaginary football anyways.

[Guest]

Quality DTs are easier to come by in mp, so I keep being tempted to switch over to a 4-3. My issue is that I'm not certain what a SLB or WLB should have, bars-wise.

[Aston]

Quality DTs are easier to come by in mp, so I keep being tempted to switch over to a 4-3. My issue is that I'm not certain what a SLB or WLB should have, bars-wise.

Yeah that was always a sticking point for me, I felt lost in a 4-3.

Going on the "they're equal, except the WLB = RDE" thinking, then the WLB is just your 3-4 WILB, and the SLB is the same as the 3-4 SLB in terms of skills required.

Mike that's interesting, I didn't know that the game skewed stats calculations for the WLB position specifically. It would explain the insane numbers they put up.

Coordinators are the only ones that affect player development I think, but that's a pretty good reason, too. Someone who's bad at developing DL but great at LBs for instance, maybe a 3-4 is preferable because "Front Four" impact is so important.

[mike17]

Deciding which scheme to play is all about what players you can get. I will play 4-3 as long as I can find guys like DT Cornelius McKnight floating around in FA.

I was die hard 3-4 for a long time, and recently started switching my teams over to 4-3. It's mostly because I think 4-3 is a bit more flexible. But honestly, I think that neither scheme is inherently better.

[Guest]

Is it true that the pass rush requirements on a 4-3 RDE are higher than those for a 3-4 WLB? I think it is just that 43 RDEs with high pass rush tend to have higher OVR ratings, no?

Yeah, I think it's like someone else said and they're more heavily weighted for sacks, the requirements are the same. I feel like I can just totally ignore run D on a WLB and not feel bad too, whereas I don't feel the same way with an RDE. I probably need to think a little about the WLB's run defense too, it's just my silly FEELINGS.

In FOFL I've kind of wanted to switch to a 3-4 but I haven't been able to snag a pass rushing WLB. I'm always cap strapped over there. I have two RDEs that are total 3-4 RDEs on my roster for about 4-5 seasons now. However, there always seems to be a nice pass rushing DT I can get on the cheap.

[Sharkn20]

Ummmm This year IŽll try to make a 4-3 change cause have two good DEs, one good DT, another DT rising and 3 good LBs that one of they is getting older... I think that it should protect my secondary with more pressure in the line and more run stop in the front 7

[Guest]

The two systems are equivalent in overall production. People like 3-4 because in that scheme you WLB is weighted heavier when it calculates who gets sacks and hurries. You end up with a WLB that puts up masturbatory-worthy stats.

4-3 is just as good, but the pass rush stats are spread around more evenly

My thoughts exactly. I go between the two depending on personnel.