You could have hired a 3-4 D guy, let 1/2 the defense go in the offseason and we wouldn't be any worse on that side if the ball. Yea, losing 15 d-linemen to injuries hurt, but holy Christ our safeties play out of position a lot Burn it down and start over Is "wouldn't be any worse" really a glowing recommendation of making a switch to the 3-4? Either way you slice it, turnover is needed. 3-4, 4-3, 46, just get the right players in there. Okay maybe we don't want the 46 unless we're facing AP with Ponder at Q, but you get the idea. That being said, Emery has more experience scouting for a 3-4, so if he thinks he would do better finding a fit for that defense, lets go for it. I'm not making an argument for a 3-4, just one against this d coaching staff