The only sad part of returning to a 4-3 would be under utilizing one of the leagues premier NTs.... Big Phil. As I've said before he embraced that position better than I thought he would. He is already one of the leagues elite NTs IMO. But he's also a great DT. While the drop off at NT is noticeable when Phil takes a blow, Rubin, Hughes and (my man) Wynn are all solid DTs. The four of them comprise a strong DT rotation.

Big plus in a reversion to the 4-3 would be Sheard's return to a three-point... something Kruger could do as well.

Mingo could stand up on run downs and get down in stance in nickel and dime packages.

TC,

Except for your omitting a WR, I agree with your draft assessment.

And while I still could see us tapping an ILB, otherwise I'd have no issues with standing pat on D-personnel with a return to the 4-3.

@miktoxic said:

I've come to the conclusion you shouldn't be a cleveland browns fan. I think that team about 2 hours east is more your style.

@gftchris said:

1) Yes, and Mingo will still never be a 4-3 DE in the NFL...you know this right? He was a hybrid at LSU...they let him stand up and track to the ball which is where he most effective. At 6'5 Mingo would have to get to at least 270 to play 43DE. The 6ft guys like Freeney can get away with only being 260. So I reiterate, Mingo will never be a 4-3 DE in the NFL unless he takes a year or two off from the league where he isn't going to get routinely drug screened.

2) According to my uncle I just texted with to confirm, who is a lifetime Raiders honk....Bryant rotated between DE and DT at Oakland. WHich is why raiders fans liked him. He wasn't the weakside speed rusher, OBVIOUSLY....but he played alot of snaps apparently at DE and was good at it. But here in Cleveland, if we keep our personnel as is...you realize we have stupid amount of excess at DL right? Bryant would absolutely get put out on the ends and that's where he should go. We should always have 3 of those DL's on the line AT ALL TIMES. Otherwise you're rotating 2 spots among 5 guys...that's Retarded right? Our best pressure this year by far came up the middle from the 3 down lineman. Why would you take one of those guys away and put in one of two dudes who didn't get it done this year despite going man up the whole season? Nobody double teamed any of our guys on the edge...wasn't necessary. Bryant on the strongside with Sheard on the other is probably going to be our best lineup...Kruger can sub in for Bryant when he gets tired because both will basically rush the qb the same way. Kruger should definitely not be the starter on that line next year, no way. As the 4-3 DE Bryant will do everything Kruger can and more.

@tim-couch-pulls-out said:

Oh we absolutely got more production from the 4 man rush in 2012, that's one of the main reasons I didn't want us to go back to the 3-4 because I thought Sheard and Parker were awesome off the edge. Honestly those two were so close to having a Hali/Houston type season in 2012. The Eagles game they beat the lineman like stepchildren and chased Vick around all day long but didn't log a single sack I beleive. It was like that the whole season it felt like, those guys were back there quick on every damn play but their sack numbers weren't quite there. WHen you watched Sheard and Parker rush you could see they were polished rushers with Freeney like skillsets. When I watched Mingo and Kruger rush this year they have like one thing they do well and that's it. Kruger had his bullrush and Mingo had was track starring around the edge. Very little repertoire from both those guys. Sheard also dropped off this season no doubt, but he was asked to do alot standing up this year which changes your rush. The guy who was allowed to put his hand down most was Kruger, yet Sheard was the most effective when he put his hand in the ground.

@clevfan4life said:

oh we did huh? check the stats dude...we had 40 sacks this year vs 37 in 2012. I wasn't overjoyed with our outside edge production for sure...but as a team we did better rushing the passer this year than last. On top of that we also stopped the run a hell of alot better. Improving this defense should be the objective..not another rebuild. And yes I said the same thing when Shurmur got fired...I saw promise in that 4-3 we were running. But they tossed it and went with something different...fine. Are we gonna tell Sheard hey buddy, we know we asked you to lose weight last offseason and get prepped for a new position.....but now we're gonna need you to go back up to DE weight. Fucking bullshit.

I'm sure we had more rushes of five or six players in 2013 than we did in 2012, though.

I don't think we were as effective rushing the passer, I think we just brought more pressure more often.

We could get away with adding no quality picks to the defense this year in the draft and still have a lot of talent. Our first, second and third priorities should be QB, OG, and RB.

We need a #2 CB and maybe an ILB, depending on the progression of Robertson and the contract of DQJ. That's it. I could honestly see us fielding the exact same defense next season.

@clevfan4life said:

You know that Mingo was a 4-3 DE in college, right? And that that was a big knock on taking him to play OLB in our new 3-4? And that when you say things like that you're basically negating any point you're trying to make even if it were valid...you know this as well, right?

You know also that Bryant was a 4-3 DT for Oakland before we signed him, right? And that that's probably where he'd play, in rotation with Taylor and Rubin, if we were to switch to a 4-3?

@clevfan4life said:

i've come to a conclussion that you are just a complete and total douchebag raised by wolves.

fuck you and anybody that looks like you.

@topdawg31 said:

Clowney is not and never will be a 4-3 outside backer, you know this right? And Mingo is not and never will be a 4-3 DE...you know this as well right? Clowney currently fits with this team in either Sheards or Krugers spot...he won't play as an interior lineman on a 3-4. If we switch to a 4-3...which fuck my ass sideways while I run it's looking like we're switching again......than Clowney would fit right in as one of the ends. But basically next year we'd have mugshot, kruger, sheard and then Clowney as DE's. It's going to be a mess is what I'm saying.

@tml1138 said:

I'm not buying into this stopgap coach stuff at all, it's just an attempt to save face.

@gftchris said:

If we were to go back to a 4-3, the sounds of Mingo on one side and Jadaveon Clowney on the other would shake up the AFC North. We still need LBs badly. DQ's ten yards downfield tackles are getting old. Has he ever had a TFL?

@miktoxic said:

oh we did huh? check the stats dude...we had 40 sacks this year vs 37 in 2012. I wasn't overjoyed with our outside edge production for sure...but as a team we did better rushing the passer this year than last. On top of that we also stopped the run a hell of alot better. Improving this defense should be the objective..not another rebuild. And yes I said the same thing when Shurmur got fired...I saw promise in that 4-3 we were running. But they tossed it and went with something different...fine. Are we gonna tell Sheard hey buddy, we know we asked you to lose weight last offseason and get prepped for a new position.....but now we're gonna need you to go back up to DE weight. Fucking bullshit.

But they might not have a choice? At least that's what they claim: http://www.clevelandbrowns.com/news/article-1/Browns-will-be-flexible-in-coach-search/036eea23-0832-4ee3-81d6-ad0b7dc69a69

@miktoxic said:

My point is that the actual system doesn't matter so much, apart from getting used to it. What I'd relaly like to see is not changing the system every two years, settle on a system and bring in coaches that agree with and can work with the system we have in place, if not the players. Then you're not creating holes for yourself to fill, and can concentrate on bringing in quality not quantity.

For example, last year, we had to let go Parker, Rucker, Fujita, Gocong etc and we brought in Groves, Kruger, Mingo and Bryant, as part of the change in system. Sure, we might have upgraded the positions, but we might only have brought in one or two instead of 4 or 5. We might still have drafted Mingo, but one of rucker/parker probably would have stayed. We wouldn't have signed Kruger, I doubt we sign Bryant - Rubin and Taylor are pretty solid DTs - and that right there is a large amount of money that can be invested elsewhere.

So the point is, stick with your system, stop causing problems for yourself.

chris if i'm missing your point please explain.

my point was with this group of defenders that have played here now for over 2-3 years they looked better in the 4-3.

@the-gipper said:

I'll take Skov, no problems.

@miktoxic said:

Hopefully not. But you seem to be missing my point...