So earlier this week, in Danny O'Neil's weekly chat, a couple of folks raised the question of whether we might move to a 3-4 defense.  In the past, I would have laughed this off because we flat-out didn't have the personnel necessary to field a 3-4 team.  Danny didn't shoot down this idea, though, and suggested that we might have the personnel necessary (or be a couple of pieces away) from fielding a 3-4.

While I don't believe a 3-4 would magically solve all of our problems on defense, I think it could help in highlighting some of our strength in the LB corps and put more playmakers on the field.  There are obvious drawbacks to changing the scheme (growing number of 3-4 teams competing for talent, difficult transitions, etc) which could hurt the team in the short-run, which make me a hesitant to advocate for it, but it seems like interesting idea to bat around while we wait for the next kickoff.

So here's my new position chart based on available personnel:

MLB - Lofa, Heater, Leroy (?), Curry (?)

OLB - Tapp, Reed , Curry (?), Leroy (?), Kerney (probably cut)

NT - Mebane (?), Cole (backup NT in GB), Red (?),

DE- Mebane (?), Red (?),  Jackson (DE/DT in a 4-3), Redding (DE/DT in a 4-3, might not be here), Terrill (hopefully cut)

While the LBs may be a little small for a 3-4, I think we'd get a nice mix of pass-rush and pass-coverage out of them (if Tapp and Reed could adapt to playing upright).  

I think the biggest question-marks are the guys on the DL.  I think one could make a case for Cole (6'1", 330lbs), Red (6'4", 318lbs) or Mebane (6'1", 300lbs) playing NT, while we'd probably want to stick LoJack (6'4", 271lbs), Red/Mebane or Redding (6'4", 292lbs) (if he sticks around) in at DE.  The NT is a critical part of the 3-4 defense and very difficult to staff well, but there seems to be pretty good depth at DL in the next draft.

Moving to a 3-4 is a very serious enterprise, which can take years and can result in significant decreases in production from players in the LB and DL corps.  This piece shouldn't be read as an advocacy piece, but rather a jumping-off point for wild speculation about whether we could actually field a 3-4 team (give or take a few pieces picked up in the offseason).

I spent a long time talking trash here and the Niners proved my words wrong.  I was expecting a difficult, physical, close matchup, not the blowout the Niners brought.  Thanks for putting up with hosting the influx of FG visitors this week and our incessant trash talking.  You guys were right, we were wrong and I'm back here to take my lumps.  To start things off, here are a couple of ways I was wrong:

• Frank Gore absolutely tore up a Seahawks run D I though was strong.
• The Niners' defense brought the pressure, played physical and stuffed the run.  The Niners' secondary shut down what I thought to be a pretty potent WR corps.  The Seahawks D gave up huge runs up the gut, a ton of short passes and way too many conversions on 3rd and long.
• Shaun Hill was a better QB than I thought he was.  He played his game a lot better than Hasselbeck did.
• Vernon Davis played a better game than John Carlson.

So once again, congratulations.  I hope the next time the Niners and Seahawks meet, the game is more competitive.

While the Lakers haven't been seen eye-to-eye with FA's Lamar Odom and Trevor Ariza, apparently, they have found a replacement for one (or both).  According to Ken Berger of CBSSports.com (via RealGM), Ron Artest has agreed, in principle, to sign with the Lakers:

"I'm definitely going to L.A. -- to sign, yeah," Artest said in a phone interview. "Lakers, Lakers, Lakers. I'm in L.A. right now."

Artest said he met with Lakers owner Dr. Jerry Buss Thursday and previously had spoken with Lakers coach Phil Jackson. He was en route to his financial manager's office, where he planned to huddle on the phone with his agent, David Bauman, to finalize details.

The parameters of the deal still need to be agreed upon, however.

"I don't really care about the money," Artest said. "I'll play there for nothing. ... L.A. was very interested in me, and they got me."

It looks like Artest is willing to take a cut in salary to play on a championship team.  While this doesn't preclude the re-signing of either Ariza or Odom, does it change the calculus a  bit.  Does this make LA more or less likely to re-sign Odom or Ariza?  Is Artest an upgrade, a value signing or a downgrade from the squad the Lakers fielded last year? 

Most importantly, how does this affect the ability of the Blazers to compete with the Lakers next year?

Update: More details emerge (h/t to himynameisjoey):

ESPN The Magazine's Chris Broussard reports that Artest and the Lakers have reached a verbal agreement on what is believed to be a three-year contract worth an estimated $18 million. Wednesday is the first day free agents are permitted to sign new deals.

This represents a significant cap hit and means that the Lakers definitely won't be re-signing both Odom and Ariza.  At least one of them will play on another team next year (if not both).

It's just a throwaway line in a bigger story, but Jeff Eisenberg of the Press Enterprise suggests that Portland may be a suitor for Trevor Ariza (via Ball Don't Lie):

While Ariza has maintained that he hopes to wear purple and gold again next season, agent David Lee said Monday that the Lakers won't receive any hometown discount from his client. Lee declined to reveal how much of a raise Ariza will seek when he becomes an unrestricted free agent Tuesday night at 9:01 p.m., but he said the young forward's upside should make him the most coveted wing player on the market.

Among the teams Lee expects to pursue Ariza: Detroit, Portland and Toronto, franchises with enough cap space to more than double Ariza's $3.1 million salary of last season. [emp. added]

Trevor Ariza is a great, young, long defensive SF who was a major key to LA's playoff success.  He's now a free agent and will probably be resigned by LA, but there's a chance he could end up in red and black.  I'm sure there are a bunch of mixed feelings about this guy here after he clocked Rudy, but his acquisition may represent a great way to strengthen the Blazer squad while weakening the Lakers.

So, my questions:  Is Trevor Ariza a guy you'd want at all on this squad?  Is he worth $6 million per year (or more)?  Is it even possible (or more likely than, say, trading Trout and a sock full of wooden nickels for Rubio)?

Since the removal of the hand check from the arsenal of the perimeter defender, it has become a lot harder to defend speedy PGs.  A major discussion on this board has been the need for a defensive-minded PG who can shut down an "Aaron Brooks-type" player.  Well, what if the rules preclude the ability to shut down a player like that?

Inspired by a poster on Forum Blue and Gold, Henry Abbot (at Truehoop) raises an interesting question: "If nobody can stop those guys consistently without drawing a lot of fouls, why carry a player who specializes in trying?"

Well, maybe the answer is to forget about it.

The Lakers have had their best success not with small and quick but with bigger and longer. Look at it this way, under today's rules Tony Parker could not defend Tony Parker, Jameer Nelson could not stop Jameer Nelson. Defending these guards with bigger, longer players allows some room for mistakes with good recovery. They Lakers had some of their best success this season when Trevor Ariza was switched to cover a point guard. Just something to think about. 

-Kurt from FB&G

While many of us are dreaming of a PG who can make Brooks look like Sergio (while shooting 45% from the 3 and drawing fouls on a regular basis), is it an impossible dream?  Do these guys actually exist and is it a problem for which an achievable solution exists? Or should we just settle for the best overall PG available?

Bonus Question:  If we're give up trying to find a defensive-oriented PG, does Ben Gordon make sense?  His major strengths--shooting, shooting, and more shooting--seem to fit well with our needs at the 1.

Note: Edited a couple of times to clarify sources, etc