Hmmm... I sorta agree, 4-3 sure can be nice if you find those freak athlete DEs, and we're unlikely to be in position to draft them.Always liked 4-3 D. Problem is the guys needed don't grow on trees and odds against us when picking in lower 3rd of draft most years.
We had an awesome D-Line with Favre era with White, Dotson, Brown, Jones.
Those big guys don't grow on trees, hardly ever become free agents unless at end of careers, and go between picks 1-5 in draft.
So say ZSmith plays Jones position, would think Clark in Dotson's position, but don't see anyone on team to play White's and Brown's position.
Imo though a tough task, we need to find a stud ILBer. And also for years been saying need a hybrid of Safety/LBer to cover. Those TEs.
But I don't like how in some circles (not you) a switch 4-3 is now being talked about as a miracle cure. Same circles that talked about 3-4 being a miracle cure when Capers rode into town. Now there's talk that Pettine going to the booth would somehow solve everything (regardless of him being in the booth last season).
Fact is: No such simple change works, better players work regardless of 4-3 or 3-4. Get better ILBs and a compliment to Clark, and it won't matter whether we call the Smiths and Gary DEs or OLBs - and really, especially the 270+ pound Z and Gary are closer to the 4-3 DE prototype than Matthews -type 3-4 OLB.
Anyways, we would not play 4-3 nor 3-4 a lot due to the simple reason that teams field more pass catchers than in the 90s. Better debate would be about 4-2 versus 3-3, I guess.