View Full Version : Notice that we played the 4-3 almost the whole game?
MichaelWinicki
10-09-2005, 07:02 PM
Or some variation of a 4-man line...
I know I did!
Great move. We're far better as a 4-3 team.
blindzebra
10-09-2005, 07:04 PM
We were in 4-3 and 4-2-5 for all but one drive, the one they scored we came out in a 3-4.;)
Imagine that.:lmao2:
lwehlers
10-09-2005, 07:05 PM
probaly the reason why is because of dat was not playing today.
kingwhicker
10-09-2005, 07:06 PM
Well, because it's the greatest defense that man has ever devised. Unfortunately we have a guy obsessed with the that wants to change the best scheme for us.
The30YardSlant
10-09-2005, 07:06 PM
Actually, we had 3 linemen, 3 LBs and Ware was lined up outside as a rusher. So technically, we still were using 4 LBs even though one was in a stance.
MichaelWinicki
10-09-2005, 07:07 PM
probaly the reason why is because of dat was not playing today.
Dunno.
I hope that's not the answer because that means our 3-4 is even more fragile than anyone could have imagined.
I'm hoping that we've finally wised up and decided to go with four defensive lineman when teams go with 3 wides in the game.
MichaelWinicki
10-09-2005, 07:08 PM
Actually, we had 3 linemen, 3 LBs and Ware was lined up outside as a rusher. So technically, we still were using 4 LBs even though one was in a stance.
To me Ware is a DE, not a OLB. And any guy that goes into a 3pt stance is a DE.
Sarge
10-09-2005, 07:08 PM
Actually, we had 3 linemen, 3 LBs and Ware was lined up outside as a rusher. So technically, we still were using 4 LBs even though one was in a stance.
Wouldn't thst be a 4-3?
blindzebra
10-09-2005, 07:08 PM
Actually, we had 3 linemen, 3 LBs and Ware was lined up outside as a rusher. So technically, we still were using 4 LBs even though one was in a stance.
Not when that line was Ellis, Ferguson, Glover and Ware.
That was a 4-3 with Ware at RDE.
The only time we were in a true 3-4 they drove for their FG.
MichaelWinicki
10-09-2005, 07:10 PM
It wouldn't break my heart to see the 3-4 go in the dumpster. Any defense that can hold Philly to 120 yards is the defense we should stick with IMHO.
The30YardSlant
10-09-2005, 07:10 PM
Wouldn't thst be a 4-3?
Yes, but we were still using 4 LBs. Ware is NOT an NFL DE.
I dont really care what we run, just stating the facts.
Miki -
Bledsoe - is this the same guy you Bill fans said sucked? I know 2002 was blacked out by some but Geez- A TAD WRONG THERE!
MichaelWinicki
10-09-2005, 07:10 PM
Wouldn't thst be a 4-3?
Yeah it is but we have someone that is trying to play games with us. :)
BrAinPaiNt
10-09-2005, 07:11 PM
Miki -
Bledsoe - is this the same guy you Bill fans said sucked? I know 2002 was blacked out by some but Geez- A TAD WRONG THERE!
Can we keep this thread on topic...you know...one of your favorite topics. :laugh1:
TruBlueCowboy
10-09-2005, 07:11 PM
Cowboys were stupid to go to the 3-4 this year. We HAVE the line now for the 4-3. Ware, Ellis and Canty at ends. Glover and Fergy stuffing up the middle. This defense can kick some bleep if Parcells would just stick with its strength on the front seven, which are the linemen, not those linebackers.
MichaelWinicki
10-09-2005, 07:12 PM
Miki -
Bledsoe - is this the same guy you Bill fans said sucked? I know 2002 was blacked out by some but Geez- A TAD WRONG THERE!
First off I think the season is going to last a little longer there Nors...
Secondly, nice seeing your 3-4 get used so much aye?
MichaelWinicki
10-09-2005, 07:12 PM
Yes, but we were still using 4 LBs. Ware is NOT an NFL DE.
I dont really care what we run, just stating the facts.
Who says he isn't.
He's bigger than Dwight Feeney.
Its all 3-4 - And VARIATIONS OFF THAT! BP described that all TC. The chicken littles are in retreat mode.
Go Defense - we rocked McSoups world! Bledsoe and offense kicked major ***! And that was a 4-3 we shredded!
Sarge
10-09-2005, 07:13 PM
Yeah it is but we have someone that is trying to play games with us. :)
................. ;)
TruBlueCowboy
10-09-2005, 07:13 PM
Yes, but we were still using 4 LBs. Ware is NOT an NFL DE.
I dont really care what we run, just stating the facts.
He's a DE in the same mold as KGB and maybe could be a Haley who bulks up and slowly progresses to a lineman. Cowboys are forcing too much with all those linebackers. Play to your strength.
MichaelWinicki
10-09-2005, 07:13 PM
Cowboys were stupid to go to the 3-4 this year. We HAVE the line now for the 4-3. Ware, Ellis and Canty at ends. Glover and Fergy stuffing up the middle. This defense can kick some bleep if Parcells would just stick with its strength on the front seven, which are the linemen, not those linebackers.
You're damn right.
MichaelWinicki
10-09-2005, 07:14 PM
Its all 3-4 - And VARIATIONS OFF THAT! BP described that all TC. The chicken littles are in retreat mode.
Go Defense - we rocked McSoups world! Bledsoe and offense kicked major ***! And that was a 4-3 we shredded!
Wrong again Nors about it being a variation of the 3-4. Prove it. ;)
The30YardSlant
10-09-2005, 07:14 PM
Who says he isn't.
He's bigger than Dwight Feeney.
Its not his size that is in question, Freeney is not only the fastest DE in football but he has the moves to really dominate tackles. Ware hasnt shown that he can do that, all of his sacks have come off of speed rushes from the edge. Today was the first of his sacks when he didnt get to the QB virtually untouched.
MichaelWinicki
10-09-2005, 07:15 PM
He's a DE in the same mold as KGB and maybe could be a Haley who bulks up and slowly progresses to a lineman. Cowboys are forcing too much with all those linebackers. Play to your strength.
You're damn right again!
I'm so sick of seeing mediocre linebackers out there while more talented defensive line sit that I could scream.
Sarge
10-09-2005, 07:15 PM
Its all 3-4 - And VARIATIONS OFF THAT! BP described that all TC. The chicken littles are in retreat mode.
Go Defense - we rocked McSoups world! Bledsoe and offense kicked major ***! And that was a 4-3 we shredded!
Nors - are you telling us you didn't see us play any 4-3 today?
First off I think the season is going to last a little longer there Nors...
Secondly, nice seeing your 3-4 get used so much aye?
Used? Are you clueless? We gave up 3 points defensively all game. How many 3 and outs? NICE DISTRACTION.
Our Base 3-4 is vastly better than last years Base 4-3. 4 more sacks and we actually stopped McSoup!
Bledso 3 more TD's, No INTS - (NO SACKS?) 300 yards - 30+ points!
Life is good and we are back in the game!!!!!
MichaelWinicki
10-09-2005, 07:17 PM
Its not his size that is in question, Freeney is not only the fastest DE in football but he has the moves to really dominate tackles. Ware hasnt shown that he can do that, all of his sacks have come off of speed rushes from the edge. Today was the first of his sacks when he didnt get to the QB virtually untouched.
Personally HH31 I really think you have an extremely weak position on the map at this point and retreat may be your best option. :)
Sitting Bull
10-09-2005, 07:17 PM
I don't recall ever hearing Parcells say we "switched" to a 3-4. In fact, he always maintained that the players we drafted and signed were added to provide the flexibility to play a number of different defenses, depending on our opponent. I don't need a label to feel good about what we're capable of doing with our personnel.
I'll need to rewatch, but I primarily remember seeing 4 down linemen with two linebackers (Shanle and James).
I don't care what you call it, but I like having 4 DL on the field. Having Glover and Ferguson side by side plays to this team's strengths. Not to mention having the ability to roll in guys like Ellis, Spears, Canty, Ware and Ratliff.
Anyone think the activation of Ratliff and Ogbogu and the deactivation of Coleman makes more sense now? Very little 3-4 means no real reason to have Coleman active.
Who was the third LBer in the 4-3 looks you guys saw?
And Ware is most definitely a DE at times. When you line up on the LOS in a three point stance, you are a DE. He was a DE in college, it is his natural position. I never understood Parcell's mantra that Ware couldn't hold up as a DE playing against OTs. What does Freeney do with great success all the time?
MichaelWinicki
10-09-2005, 07:19 PM
Used? Are you clueless? We gave up 3 points defensively all game. How many 3 and outs? NICE DISTRACTION.
Our Base 3-4 is vastly better than last years Base 4-3. 4 more sacks and we actually stopped McSoup!
Bledso 3 more TD's, No INTS - (NO SACKS?) 300 yards - 30+ points!
Life is good and we are back in the game!!!!!
Did it ever occur to you Nors that this year's defense could be better than last year's because... now put that bag of cheese puffs on the floor and put away that Sam's Club orange soda you drink... that we have better players this year?
Used? Are you clueless? We gave up 3 points defensively all game. How many 3 and outs? NICE DISTRACTION.
Our Base 3-4 is vastly better than last years Base 4-3. 4 more sacks and we actually stopped McSoup!
Bledso 3 more TD's, No INTS - (NO SACKS?) 300 yards - 30+ points!
Life is good and we are back in the game!!!!!
Agreed, we are all happy about the result. This the first game I felt there was some imagination and thought on the part of the defensive game planners.
Don't count this as any sort of justification for the 3-4 thought, Dallas rarely played it today.
Shuttemdown41
10-09-2005, 07:20 PM
Some can sing that old song to the high heavens, I know what I saw - and that was 4 down linemen with 3 backers or 2 backers and an extra DB. Spin until the sun stops shining, it doesn't change the facts.
MichaelWinicki
10-09-2005, 07:21 PM
I'll need to rewatch, but I primarily remember seeing 4 down linemen with two linebackers (Shanle and James).
I don't care what you call it, but I like having 4 DL on the field. Having Glover and Ferguson side by side plays to this team's strengths. Not to mention having the ability to roll in guys like Ellis, Spears, Canty, Ware and Ratliff.
Anyone think the activation of Ratliff and Ogbogu and the deactivation of Coleman makes more sense now? Very little 3-4 means no real reason to have Coleman active.
Who was the third LBer in the 4-3 looks you guys saw?
And Ware is most definitely a DE at times. When you line up on the LOS in a three point stance, you are a DE. He was a DE in college, it is his natural position. I never understood Parcell's mantra that Ware couldn't hold up as a DE playing against OTs. What does Freeney do with great success all the time?
Nice analysis. All this talk about Ware not being a DE or not being able to be a full-time DE is goofy.
Sarge
10-09-2005, 07:21 PM
. When you line up on the LOS in a three point stance, you are a DE.
BINGO.
Cbz40
10-09-2005, 07:22 PM
Nice analysis. All this talk about Ware not being a DE or not being able to be a full-time DE is goofy.
Exactly......
MichaelWinicki
10-09-2005, 07:26 PM
Some can sing that old song to the high heavens, I know what I saw - and that was 4 down linemen with 3 backers or 2 backers and an extra DB. Spin until the sun stops shining, it doesn't change the facts.
You bet it doesn't. If this doesn't prove we're a better defense with 4 downlineman then nothing will. You don't hold the top offense in the league to 3 points and 120 yards by being "lucky".
TheSkaven
10-09-2005, 07:29 PM
probaly the reason why is because of dat was not playing today.What he said. This team's weakness on defense is linebacker, especially so without Dat. 4-3 was the right move.
Kudos to Parcells and Sean Payton. A wonderfully called game. I hope the Cowboys stay aggressive and stop falling back on 3 yards and a cloud of dust.
Bob Sacamano
10-09-2005, 07:30 PM
that's what the Pats did in the Super Bowl vs the eagles, played 4-3 so as to better contain McNabb from hurting them with his legs
zagnut
10-09-2005, 07:35 PM
Parcells in the post-game said himself it was mostly nickle D that was played tonight with both 3 and 4 DLmen. We were not playing the 4-3 any more than other weeks according to BP. He may define it a little differently than everyone else, but that;s his stance.
We did pretty much what New England did last year.
MichaelWinicki
10-09-2005, 07:35 PM
that's what the Pats did in the Super Bowl vs the eagles, played 4-3 so as to better contain McNabb from hurting them with his legs
I think it's because the Eagles are a 3-wide team. We've had our heads handed to us repeatedly while staying in a 3-4. Going to a 4-2-5 makes perfect sense... we should have done it weeks ago. Our linebackers are the weakest part of our team.
diehard2294
10-09-2005, 07:38 PM
Yes I did, and it was very affective. They were pushing Tre Thomas around like a rag doll,and he's one big boy :eek:
I think it's because the Eagles are a 3-wide team. We've had our heads handed to us repeatedly while staying in a 3-4. Going to a 4-2-5 makes perfect sense... we should have done it weeks ago. Our linebackers are the weakest part of our team.
Can't do that against a run heavy offense. It'd be a disaster.
We'll see more 3-4 next week.
MichaelWinicki
10-09-2005, 07:58 PM
Can't do that against a run heavy offense. It'd be a disaster.
We'll see more 3-4 next week.
I don't disagree with that. I'm just saying get out of the 3-4 when other teams go 3-wide .
50cent
10-09-2005, 08:12 PM
we actually played more nickle per se than actual 4-3.
TheSkaven
10-09-2005, 08:14 PM
Exactly......Hey CBZ, I am out on my porch enjoying my last Montecristo #2 Cuban cigar. No more for me unless I get another business trip to Europe. :( Hope you are enjoying one as well! :)
PullMyFinger
10-09-2005, 08:14 PM
Did it ever occur to you Nors that this year's defense could be better than last year's because... now put that bag of cheese puffs on the floor and put away that Sam's Club orange soda you drink... that we have better players this year?
OMG MW thats got to be the post of the week....... :lmao:
AbeBeta
10-09-2005, 08:17 PM
we actually played more nickle per se than actual 4-3.
What? If you have a 3-4 base you run 4 DL out there in the nickel? And sometimes you even mix in a few regular 4-3 looks?
Since this is about the 50th time we've been over this I've decided to choose to ignore all that we've learned about the 3-4 since the off season and make crazy claims about how we should never have switched to a base 3-4.
After all, we need something to wring our hands over this week.
TruBlueCowboy
10-09-2005, 08:17 PM
we actually played more nickle per se than actual 4-3.
I think the main point everyone is making, and was made throughout the offseason, is we would rather see a 4 man line, and the linemen who are built to run it. Ware doesn't play any better as a linebacker, Glover is better in a 4 man line with Fergy alongside him, Coleman and Spears don't do as much for us as Ellis and Canty, too many young inexperienced linebackers for a 3-4, etc., etc..... Maybe that 3-4 unit will get better as the season goes on.
I don't recall ever hearing Parcells say we "switched" to a 3-4. In fact, he always maintained that the players we drafted and signed were added to provide the flexibility to play a number of different defenses, depending on our opponent. I don't need a label to feel good about what we're capable of doing with our personnel.
:bow::thankyou::clap2:
50cent
10-09-2005, 08:31 PM
I think the main point everyone is making, and was made throughout the offseason, is we would rather see a 4 man line, and the linemen who are built to run it. Ware doesn't play any better as a linebacker, Glover is better in a 4 man line with Fergy alongside him, Coleman and Spears don't do as much for us as Ellis and Canty, too many young inexperienced linebackers for a 3-4, etc., etc..... Maybe that 3-4 unit will get better as the season goes on.I wont argue that. I would say it is wise to mix it up as well. My point is, by looking at the game book, A. Glenn actually started. That means we came out in our nickle package. 4 man front or 3 man front, BP has stated over and over, the only assignment that changes is Ware. The other 3 lineman keep their 3-4 principles. Whatever BP did, it through the Eagles for a loop and worked. Or should I say Zimmer?
50cent
10-09-2005, 09:01 PM
During Bps post game comments, he even admitted we played mostly nickle because of their formations. This is not directed toward TruBlue, but its funny how some of you don't post anymore when your theories are damaged!! I guess some of you heard the post game comments too, and decided to tuck and hide.
MichaelWinicki
10-09-2005, 09:15 PM
During Bps post game comments, he even admitted we played mostly nickle because of their formations. This is not directed toward TruBlue, but its funny how some of you don't post anymore when your theories are damaged!! I guess some of you heard the post game comments too, and decided to tuck and hide.
I know I'm not running and hiding. I'm one of the ones right along that has suggested that staying in the 3-4 while the other teams went 3-wide was getting us killed... and it was. IMHO we play the 4-2-5 far better than we do the 3-4-4.
50cent
10-09-2005, 09:23 PM
I know I'm not running and hiding. I'm one of the ones right along that has suggested that staying in the 3-4 while the other teams went 3-wide was getting us killed... and it was. IMHO we play the 4-2-5 far better than we do the 3-4-4.Im glad you at least chimed in, but it wasn't directed toward you either. Just to those that refuse to admit we don't run the 4-3. The 4-2-5 is not the 4-3. The 3-3-5 is not the 4-3, and we as BP stated didn't run it today. When will some of you, and not you Mike, admit that a 4 man front isn't the 4-3?
Im glad you at least chimed in, but it wasn't directed toward you either. Just to those that refuse to admit we don't run the 4-3. The 4-2-5 is not the 4-3. The 3-3-5 is not the 4-3, and we as BP stated didn't run it today. When will some of you, and not you Mike, admit that a 4 man front isn't the 4-3?
Half the posters on here don't have a clue about defensive formations. I agree that too many people try to classify the nickel as 4-3. The funny thing is, its both people that support and dislike the 4-3.
The team has run 4-3 over/under type schemes however. The Washington game in particular and they also ran it in short yardage situations against Oakland.
I am a huge fan of getting 4 defensive lineman on the field. The team is far more talented and far deeper on the defensive line. The linebackers are one of the weakest areas on the team, IMO.
50cent
10-09-2005, 09:48 PM
Half the posters on here don't have a clue about defensive formations. I agree that too many people try to classify the nickel as 4-3. The funny thing is, its both people that support and dislike the 4-3.
The team has run 4-3 over/under type schemes however. The Washington game in particular and they also ran it in short yardage situations against Oakland.
I am a huge fan of getting 4 defensive lineman on the field. The team is far more talented and far deeper on the defensive line. The linebackers are one of the weakest areas on the team, IMO.Well if we just draft, Brooks, Hawk, or Carpenter, or Howard, then or LB core will be okay, but I'm starting to jump on the Vince Young bandwagon. It would be the perfect time to grab him, and let him sit behind Bledsoe for a couple of years and.....oh don't get me started.
Well if we just draft, Brooks, Hawk, or Carpenter, or Howard, then or LB core will be okay, but I'm starting to jump on the Vince Young bandwagon. It would be the perfect time to grab him, and let him sit behind Bledsoe for a couple of years and.....oh don't get me started.
I am really like Bobby Carpenter. Interesting tidbit on Carpenter, his dad, Rob, played for Parcells on the Giants in the 80s.
If the team drafted Carpenter, Burnett bulked up and moved inside and the team resigned Fujita for depth, I would feel a bit more comfortable about the LBing corps.
50cent
10-09-2005, 09:54 PM
I am really like Bobby Carpenter. Interesting tidbit on Carpenter, his dad, Rob, played for Parcells on the Giants in the 80s.
If the team drafted Carpenter, Burnett bulked up and moved inside and the team resigned Fujita for depth, I would feel a bit more comfortable about the LBing corps.
You and me both! I was amazed at the speed of the OSU LB core this weekend. They lost, but they are players. Young in the first and Carpenter in the second would suit me just fine. Hey, I can dream right?
You and me both! I was amazed at the speed of the OSU LB core this weekend. They lost, but they are players. Young in the first and Carpenter in the second would suit me just fine. Hey, I can dream right?
I'll agree with you on Carpenter. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see him in the second.
There are a few linebackers ahead of him right now, but that could easily change. Its only October.
50cent
10-09-2005, 10:12 PM
I'll agree with you on Carpenter. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see him in the second.
There are a few linebackers ahead of him right now, but that could easily change. Its only October.
I think I even saw OSU run some 3-4 last night. He would be a perfect fit, I just don't know if well draft a LB or sign one in FA.
VACowboy
10-09-2005, 10:22 PM
50cent, I am so on board with you. I've always been a huge Bobby Carpenter fan. I saw Young play a couple of times last year and wasn't impressed with him as an NFL QB prospect, but he's come a long, long way. People who say he'll be a WR at the next level are nuts IMHO. But... He won't be leaving Austin, and Parcells isn't picking a QB on the first day anyway. Nice to dream, though.
50cent
10-09-2005, 10:30 PM
VA, I talked about this the other day. Its so hard to predict which way we wil go in the draft. We have so much cap money that, we can really plug holes in FA. Not like we did this past off-season, but nibble here and there. That puts us in the BPA mode during the draft. Whose to say the BPA isn't a QB, a OL, a LB, a WR or anything?
VACowboy
10-09-2005, 10:42 PM
I hope you're right.
Notice we were up 24 points in 1st half!!!!!!!!!!!
Lets do that all day every day!
phdefense
10-09-2005, 11:16 PM
We were playing our nickel defense instead of staying in the 3-4 when they went with 3 WR for a change.
I think I even saw OSU run some 3-4 last night. He would be a perfect fit, I just don't know if well draft a LB or sign one in FA.
I am working on an 06 FA list. I haven't gone over it with a fine toothed comb yet and I still have about 4 teams to finish, but having said that. The 06 FA class isn't looking real strong.
Granted, I don't have enough information to know which players can have their contracts voided and become free agents by that route, but the FA class isn't looking too great yet.
CrazyCowboy
10-10-2005, 07:13 AM
3-4 or 4-3......all I know is this.....it was the BEST DANG defense the COWBOYS have played since we won our last Super Bowl!
I don't really care what we call it........but, please keep playing this same defense!
Sarge
10-10-2005, 07:17 AM
3-4 or 4-3......all I know is this.....it was the BEST DANG defense the COWBOYS have played since we won our last Super Bowl!
I don't really care what we call it........but, please keep playing this same defense!
You can call it what you want - but the fact of the matter is, we had 4 down lineman most of the game.
MichaelWinicki
10-10-2005, 07:17 AM
We were playing our nickel defense instead of staying in the 3-4 when they went with 3 WR for a change.
We also played some regular 4-3 in there too.
MichaelWinicki
10-10-2005, 07:19 AM
You can call it what you want - but the fact of the matter is, we had 4 down lineman most of the game.
Morning Sarge.
And other than Bledsoe's great performance seeing the 4 down-linemen on defense so often was the second most uplifting thing for me yesterday.
Sarge
10-10-2005, 07:20 AM
We also played some regular 4-3 in there too.
Morning Winky.
;)
:)
DC Cowboy
10-10-2005, 07:21 AM
Or some variation of a 4-man line...
I know I did!
Great move. We're far better as a 4-3 team.
Prob. to a page from the NE Patriots, they did that to Philly in the SB.
Cbz40
10-10-2005, 07:21 AM
When there are 4 DL in a 3point stance on the LOS.....I would say 4/3
I may be wrong but where was the 3 LB? Am I correct in saying we were in the nickle most of the time?
Sarge
10-10-2005, 07:24 AM
When there are 4 DL in a 3point stance on the LOS.....I would say 4/3
Depends what's behind the 4 DL really.
Fact is, we have mediocre LB's and depth at DL, so we SHOULD see more 4 DL IMO. It's one of the overall strengths of this team (DL).
Dallas31
10-10-2005, 07:30 AM
To me Ware is a DE, not a OLB. And any guy that goes into a 3pt stance is a DE.
I agree.
I didn't watch the 3-man vs. 4-man line thing....but I felt with Dat out that there was no way that you can say we are better off in a 3-4 without him.
It is questionable anyway to feel we are better off in a 3-4 over a 4-3 with everyone healthy.
If we played 4-3 with Aaron Glenn, Newman, and/or Henry at cornerback, we'd return to being a top 5 defense easily.
Its not his size that is in question, Freeney is not only the fastest DE in football but he has the moves to really dominate tackles. Ware hasnt shown that he can do that, all of his sacks have come off of speed rushes from the edge. Today was the first of his sacks when he didnt get to the QB virtually untouched.He bull rushed thomas for his sack today, what are you talking about?
jterrell
10-10-2005, 07:41 AM
Not when that line was Ellis, Ferguson, Glover and Ware.
That was a 4-3 with Ware at RDE.
The only time we were in a true 3-4 they drove for their FG.
BP has addressed this oh about 10 times in press conferences and noted we play 3-4 principles even when we go to a 4 man line. I.E. Ware's job doesn't change because they dont want him to learn 2 positions.
Our best defense on paper is clearly the nickel and we really should use it in all but short yardage situations or against power running teams.
Having Ellis, Glover and Ware in the game is good no matter how we do it. Man that 3-some gets pressure. Add in Canty and the blitz package and we can do damage.
The difference in the 3-4 and 4-3 is not where you line up so much as what your job is. The 4-4 defense usually has 5 guys on the line for instance but its not a 5-2 because of responsibility.
jterrell
10-10-2005, 07:42 AM
BTW, we copied what NE did to the Eagles last year in the Super Bowl.
We have built a similar style team with the 3-4 scheme and deep DL.
joseephuss
10-10-2005, 07:45 AM
He bull rushed thomas for his sack today, what are you talking about?
His sack against the 49ers was also not a speed rush.
I noticed that Dallas often did not line up a nose tackle. There were many times where the defensive tackles were lined up shading the guards. That was a different look. Their typical 4-3 alignment the last several seasons had someone shading the center to force a double team and of course the 3-4 has the nose tackle directly on the center. Nice alignment wrinkle.
TruBlueCowboy
10-10-2005, 07:50 AM
Well if we just draft, Brooks, Hawk, or Carpenter, or Howard, then or LB core will be okay, but I'm starting to jump on the Vince Young bandwagon. It would be the perfect time to grab him, and let him sit behind Bledsoe for a couple of years and.....oh don't get me started.
I'm all for it if it increases the formations Zimmer can employ effectively (<-- key word being effectively LOL). Right now I'm scared to death everytime scrubs like Singleton and Shanle are out there dictating the defense when it means someone like Glover or Fergy has to sit who I personally feel scares an offensive coordinator just a wee bit more. :) Regarding Vince Young, watch out for the Texas hype machine. This is the same Vince Young, the Big 12 just isn't as strong as it used to be. I'm an Ag so I'm a homer, but I think Reggie McNeal has every single physical tool that Young has and probably a stronger arm too. I'm for legit 1st round QBs or bust. So sick of projects. I'd be willing to give up the farm for Leinart. All his question marks are the same crap I heard with Carson Palmer and Peyton Manning.
TruBlueCowboy
10-10-2005, 07:54 AM
I also wanted to add that I think regardless of what formation Parcells decides to use against an opponent, it looks like he is starting to abandon this "keep 'em fresh" philosophy and as the season goes on, we're going to see less of guys like Kenyon Coleman regardless of the formation, and he's going to rely on more of his elite linemen. As well it should be. Keep the monsters in, take the scrubs out.
SmashFactorGolf
10-10-2005, 08:15 AM
Parcells on pc on NFL channel said they played alot of nickel all day
MichaelWinicki
10-10-2005, 08:17 AM
I also wanted to add that I think regardless of what formation Parcells decides to use against an opponent, it looks like he is starting to abandon this "keep 'em fresh" philosophy and as the season goes on, we're going to see less of guys like Kenyon Coleman regardless of the formation, and he's going to rely on more of his elite linemen. As well it should be. Keep the monsters in, take the scrubs out.
I hope Coleman never sees the field again.
Sarge
10-10-2005, 08:21 AM
I hope Coleman never sees the field again.
:beer2:
Charles
10-10-2005, 08:24 AM
I hope Coleman never sees the field again.
yep and we all know the Cowboys replaced him with a traditional 4-3 DE :rolleyes:
Atleast you have something to hang your hat on this season :lmao2:
DLCassidy
10-10-2005, 08:29 AM
I thought this unbelievably long and often bitter debate was over. Guess it's hard to give up a pet position.
Charles
10-10-2005, 08:30 AM
BTW, we copied what NE did to the Eagles last year in the Super Bowl.
We have built a similar style team with the 3-4 scheme and deep DL.
:hammer: Exactly.
Our defense is a base 3-4 with the versatilty to show 4 man fronts.
The nickle package in the 3-4 has a 4 man front. The coaching staff has been preaching versatilty before the draft. The drafted personnel that suit a base 3-4 defense, but are versatile enouggh to shift to 4 man fronts. That wasn't a traditional 4-3/ . It was a nickel with 2 LBs and 5 defensive backs with Wares ability to drop into the LB spot from the Line of scrimmage.
It's amazing what these guys who were proven wrong by Nors long time will hang their hat on.
ghst187
10-10-2005, 08:40 AM
I'm all for it if it increases the formations Zimmer can employ effectively (<-- key word being effectively LOL). Right now I'm scared to death everytime scrubs like Singleton and Shanle are out there dictating the defense when it means someone like Glover or Fergy has to sit who I personally feel scares an offensive coordinator just a wee bit more. :) Regarding Vince Young, watch out for the Texas hype machine. This is the same Vince Young, the Big 12 just isn't as strong as it used to be. I'm an Ag so I'm a homer, but I think Reggie McNeal has every single physical tool that Young has and probably a stronger arm too. I'm for legit 1st round QBs or bust. So sick of projects. I'd be willing to give up the farm for Leinart. All his question marks are the same crap I heard with Carson Palmer and Peyton Manning.
please just say "NO" to Big 12 QBs. The best one I've seen plays a TT and TT doesn't put out NFL-ready QBs.
Leinert would be worth it I think. But I think its a bit premature to bring in Drew's replacement because we still aren't 100% sure that Henson isn't it and Drew probably has 2-3 more good seasons in him AFTER this one. Keep your eye on the USC-Notre Dame game next week. Best two QB's in the country going at it. Quinn has one more year of eligibility left and he will probably stay for it after this year. That will give Quinn another year under Crennel, which will be huge. Quinn has all the tools, arm strength, smarts, mobility, and lastly moxie. Giving up the farm in '07 for him if Henson doesn't turn the corner might be worth it. I think we only need an OG, FS, and LB from the '06 draft. Maybe we trade some picks to gear up for '07 draft.
TruBlueCowboy
10-10-2005, 08:41 AM
:hammer: Exactly.
Our defense is a base 3-4 with the versatilty to show 4 man fronts.
The nickle package in the 3-4 has a 4 man front. The coaching staff has been preaching versatilty before the draft. The drafted personnel that suit a base 3-4 defense, but are versatile enouggh to shift to 4 man fronts. That wasn't a traditional 4-3/ . It was a nickel with 2 LBs and 5 defensive backs with Wares ability to drop into the LB spot from the Line of scrimmage.
It's amazing what these guys who were proven wrong by Nors long time will hang their hat on.
Well, I admit I wasn't totally thrilled about Parcells's reactionary response to shift to a 3-4, but I've never been on the "Let's trash Nors!" bandwagon.
But, I just wanna say that I don't think anyone can really claim victory yet on this long running defensive argument. If anything, the guys who were crying "Let's run the nickel all year long!" can claim victory this week. :laugh2:
The Cowboys have looked flat-out awful in several games this year with their 3-4 unit. We got to an early lead yesterday, the Eagles don't have a running game that scares us so we played with an extra defensive back several plays, if we could do that every game, any defense is going to look damn good.
TruBlueCowboy
10-10-2005, 08:43 AM
please just say "NO" to Big 12 QBs. The best one I've seen plays a TT and TT doesn't put out NFL-ready QBs.
Leinert would be worth it I think. But I think its a bit premature to bring in Drew's replacement because we still aren't 100% sure that Henson isn't it and Drew probably has 2-3 more good seasons in him AFTER this one. Keep your eye on the USC-Notre Dame game next week. Best two QB's in the country going at it. Quinn has one more year of eligibility left and he will probably stay for it after this year. That will give Quinn another year under Crennel, which will be huge. Quinn has all the tools, arm strength, smarts, mobility, and lastly moxie. Giving up the farm in '07 for him if Henson doesn't turn the corner might be worth it. I think we only need an OG, FS, and LB from the '06 draft. Maybe we trade some picks to gear up for '07 draft.
That's going to be an awesome game! I can't wait to watch!
Charles
10-10-2005, 08:50 AM
Well, I admit I wasn't totally thrilled about Parcells's reactionary response to shift to a 3-4, but I've never been on the "Let's trash Nors!" bandwagon.
But, I just wanna say that I don't think anyone can really claim victory yet on this long running defensive argument. If anything, the guys who were crying "Let's run the nickel all year long!" can claim victory this week. :laugh2:
The Cowboys have looked flat-out awful in several games this year with their 3-4 unit. We got to an early lead yesterday, the Eagles don't have a running game that scares us so we played with an extra defensive back several plays, if we could do that every game, any defense is going to look damn good.
Very true.
It always comes down to personnel. We have much better talent at almost every position and back-up positions as compared to last year.
If we are to project which defense will be the base.....based on our young talent nucleus then 3-4 it is. Spears, Canty and Ware..............the shift to bigger LB since 2003.......the signing of a traditional NT.
Our defense is 3-4 base, but with the versatility to shift fronts, Parcells studied the Patriots game plan against the Eagles and implemented it in the game on Sunday. Not every team can excute that game plan. It would be impossible for a team like the Redskins who run a 4-3 base to do so. The don't have versatilry at the DE position to drop into coverage.
Well, I admit I wasn't totally thrilled about Parcells's reactionary response to shift to a 3-4, but I've never been on the "Let's trash Nors!" bandwagon.
But, I just wanna say that I don't think anyone can really claim victory yet on this long running defensive argument. If anything, the guys who were crying "Let's run the nickel all year long!" can claim victory this week. :laugh2:
The Cowboys have looked flat-out awful in several games this year with their 3-4 unit. We got to an early lead yesterday, the Eagles don't have a running game that scares us so we played with an extra defensive back several plays, if we could do that every game, any defense is going to look damn good.
Exactly. I said before the season that people would argue about what defense this team was even playing. Lo and behold, it has happened.
Call it nickel, call it a four man line, call it an "offshoot of the 3-4", call it late to dinner, call it whatever lets you crow about "being right" which is apparently the cool thing to do around here.
Frankly, I don't care and most people are wrong anyway. Just as long as Dallas play four lineman more often and the team keeps winning, I am happy.
Very true.
It always comes down to personnel. We have much better talent at almost every position and back-up positions as compared to last year.
If we are to project which defense will be the base.....based on our young talent nucleus then 3-4 it is. Spears, Canty and Ware..............the shift to bigger LB since 2003.......the signing of a traditional NT.
Our defense is 3-4 base, but with the versatility to shift fronts, Parcells studied the Patriots game plan against the Eagles and implemented it in the game on Sunday. Not every team can excute that game plan. It would be impossible for a team like the Redskins who run a 4-3 base to do so. The don't have versatilry at the DE position to drop into coverage.
I agree with a lot of this. I love the versatility.
Frankly, I am not fond of straight 3-4 or 4-3. I don't like the linebackers enough.
I'd rather play some variation that actually gets Ware on the field as a 5th lineman/linebacker. Go with only 2 "true" linebackers until the team gets more talent there in the offseason.
I'll preach four lineman all year long. That is where the talent on this team is at.
Charles
10-10-2005, 09:08 AM
I agree with a lot of this. I love the versatility.
Frankly, I am not fond of straight 3-4 or 4-3. I don't like the linebackers enough.
I'd rather play some variation that actually gets Ware on the field as a 5th lineman/linebacker. Go with only 2 "true" linebackers until the team gets more talent there in the offseason.
I'll preach four lineman all year long. That is where the talent on this team is at.
Versatility is the name of the game.
3-4 defense held the Redskins in check for 56 minutes and generated 5 sacks, INT etc.
It will be a game by game implementation. It will be funny watching this ridiculous battle go on as the fronts will change almost every week depending on which front or packages give us the best match-ups or chances to succeed, but what is clear is that based on our off-season defensive personnel moves our base defense is 3-4.
dwmyers
10-10-2005, 09:11 AM
we actually played more nickle per se than actual 4-3.
Our standard pass defense is a 4-2-5, so that makes sense. And since the Iggles run poorly, why would we be in a run defense anyway (esp since we got on top early and they HAD to pass)?
David.
joseephuss
10-10-2005, 09:20 AM
Versatility is the name of the game.
3-4 defense held the Redskins in check for 56 minutes and generated 5 sacks, INT etc.
It will be a game by game implementation. It will be funny watching this ridiculous battle go on as the fronts will change almost every week depending on which front or packages give us the best match-ups or chances to succeed, but what is clear is that based on our off-season defensive personnel moves our base defense is 3-4.
It is very clear that personnel is the biggest difference between this season and last season. I can't imagine last year's team trying to run the same schemes as this season's squad. They would have been an even worse defense.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.