Why are so many people against the 3-4? [Archive] - Dallas Cowboys Forum

vlad

11-14-2006, 08:26 AM

CrazyCowboy

11-14-2006, 08:28 AM

I believe it is just because our 3-4 does not employ any imagination in getting to the qb

superpunk

11-14-2006, 08:31 AM

stealth

11-14-2006, 08:35 AM

same reason I don't trust marmots. I am prejudiced

Hostile

11-14-2006, 08:39 AM

I personally like it better. Ours is still a 'catalytic' player away from being dominant, and with Ellis gone I'm worried since no one else gets consistent pressure on the QB (and not just flying behind the pocket)

Just curious why so many like the 4-3. Everytime we have a bad game or someone goes down there seems to be a lot of clamoring for the 4-3 again. Not sure why...Several things might factor in.

1. Parcells has not produced the way most hoped and he brought the 3-4 so people have soured on it.

2. Not getting pressure on the QBs.

3. Many old school fans relish the Doomsday I & II 4-3 schemes that produced championships.

The scheme doesn't matter. Said that when we were a 4-3 team, staying consistent. It's all about the personnel and how they execute the system.

Winning is a great deodorant.

Maikeru-sama

11-14-2006, 08:51 AM

Dunno. Some people just long for the days when we had to blitz to compensate for lack of talent, Greg Ellis started his vacation in November, and the only Asian player in the NFL was our best front seven player.

Good times.

Not really.

There are several teams with "talent" that will blitz and come up with "creative" and "unpredictable" schemes on a regular basis.

Just because you "have" talent doesn't mean you should stop being creative and just play "uncreative" and "line up and beat you mono-y-mono" football.

- Mike G.

superpunk

11-14-2006, 08:54 AM

Not really.

There are several teams with "talent" that will blitz and come up with "creative" and "unpredictable" schemes on a regular basis.

Just because you "have" talent doesn't mean you should stop being creative and just play "uncreative" and "line up and beat you mono-y-mono" football.

- Mike G.

OK....random. I was outlining why we had send the house blitzes while running the 4-3, not why other teams do so. But, ok. :)

This team's in the second year of the 3-4. We have alot of young pieces. Right now Parcells is playing the percentages, and we;re getting results. If FS wasn't such a black eye the results would be phenomenal. It takes a few years for the young players and the system to be perfect. I'm great with the change.

Stautner

11-14-2006, 08:56 AM

Several things might factor in.

1. Parcells has not produced the way most hoped and he brought the 3-4 so people have soured on it.

2. Not getting pressure on the QBs.

3. Many old school fans relish the Doomsday I & II 4-3 schemes that produced championships.

The scheme doesn't matter. Said that when we were a 4-3 team, staying consistent. It's all about the personnel and how they execute the system.

Winning is a great deodorant.

This (bold type above) is a simple truth that many don't seem to understand.

Maikeru-sama

11-14-2006, 08:58 AM

OK....random. I was outlining why we had send the house blitzes while running the 4-3, not why other teams do so. But, ok. :)

This team's in the second year of the 3-4. We have alot of young pieces. Right now Parcells is playing the percentages, and we;re getting results. If FS wasn't such a black eye the results would be phenomenal. It takes a few years for the young players and the system to be perfect. I'm great with the change.

Personally, I think we are getting results from a "Quantitative" point of view. But when we watch the games (Qualitative), there seems to be a lack of a pass rush, especially against good teams.

Sam I Am

11-14-2006, 09:01 AM

Well, there are many reasons. The biggest and applies to most things is the fact that people are affraid of what they don't know. Dallas has always been a 4-3 defense and it's what people know. Switching to the 3-4 is unfamiliar and people don't like being out of their comfort zone. As Parcells likes to say. Lookit, we are one of the highest ranked defenses in the league yet everyone is complaining about how we should be a 4-3 defense. It's why Parcells is the coach and everyone else is just a fan.

Change is good. Without some sort of change progress doesn't happen.

noshame

11-14-2006, 09:08 AM

Doomsday

11-14-2006, 09:12 AM

Just seems like the same ole defense just ran out of a 3-4 instead of a 4-3. I really thought we would see more creativity out of the 3-4 scheme then we have.

Stautner

11-14-2006, 09:15 AM

Why?

I saw the '85 Bears, along with many great cowboy defenses.

I also saw thew 90's cowboy offenses mutilate one of the best 3-4 defenses ever. Over and over:laugh1:
As Hostile said, the scheme isn't the key, it's having the right personnel and executing properly, regardless of 4-34 or 3-4.

Juke99

11-14-2006, 09:22 AM

I'm not against it.

I'm against the way we run it.

The upside to the 3-4 is that the QB never knows where the pressure is going to come from.

For us...the pressure is...When Ware has his hand on the ground, he's rushing.

That's it.

No surprise there.

I also worry that when it will limit us with regard to the next coach. He's going to have to be 3-4 guy OR we're gonna have to scrap it and start over again.

I hated the idea of Zimmer learning it on the fly. If you're gonna run it, get a guy in here who's had experience with it.

sago1

11-14-2006, 09:24 AM

I guess I just envisioned the Steelers defense and thought we'd be like that--aggressive and creative to bring a lot of pressure on opponents' QBs. With Ellis gone, Ware is gonna have to step it up. He may be playing better in coverage and against the run but I thought we drafted him to be our best pressure guy; I think he has maybe 5 sacks entering his 10th game, so there still certainly time for him to pick up his QB pressure and also increase his sack total. If he doesn't and Singleton/Carpenter/Glymph can't get the job done, it will be a long afternoon in Dallas.

2much2soon

11-14-2006, 09:25 AM

I also saw thew 90's cowboy offenses mutilate one of the best 3-4 defenses ever. Over and over:laugh1:

Selective memory if you are referring to the SB with Pitt.
Beyond a few highlight reel blocks on some of Pitt's LBs early in the game, they held Dallas's running game down. Less than 4ypc if memory serves correctly.
Don't believe it? I didn't either until I went back and checked a few years ago after one of these discussions where I was taking your side of the argument.
Neil Odonnel's play was more of a factor in winning than game than taking apart their defense.

ravidubey

11-14-2006, 09:34 AM

I personally like it better. Ours is still a 'catalytic' player away from being dominant, and with Ellis gone I'm worried since no one else gets consistent pressure on the QB (and not just flying behind the pocket)

Just curious why so many like the 4-3. Everytime we have a bad game or someone goes down there seems to be a lot of clamoring for the 4-3 again. Not sure why...

We have unimaginative coaches and either poorly-coached or outright stupid players. We draft defense every year, and every year we end up saying we are a "catalytic" player short.

The 3-4 demands a level of organizational committment and knowledge that we do not possess. Our scouts don't know the subtleties of it, our coaches know even less, and if our coaches don't know it then you know our players are flying clueless out there.

The organizations in Pittsburgh and San Diego know how to find brilliant 3-4 defensive linemen in the later rounds and regularly stock their linebacking corps with exactly the right kinds of players. Smart, big, fast, and aggressive. We are just big and maybe fast.

Sam I Am

11-14-2006, 09:54 AM

The organizations in Pittsburgh and San Diego know how to find brilliant 3-4 defensive linemen in the later rounds and regularly stock their linebacking corps with exactly the right kinds of players. Smart, big, fast, and aggressive. We are just big and maybe fast.

NFL Rank in Total Defense:
Chicago Miami Dallas Jacksonville Baltimore Minnesota Oakland San Diego New England New York (Giants) Pittsburgh

Wow, if they (Pitt and San Diego) know how to do it and we are ranked WELL above them and were stupid, then my god lets raze the lands and kill the animals! The world is in chaos!

Hostile

11-14-2006, 09:58 AM

This (bold type above) is a simple truth that many don't seem to understand.It's too bad you missed Nors.

:laugh2:

ravidubey

11-14-2006, 10:07 AM

NFL Rank in Total Defense:
Chicago
Miami
Dallas
Jacksonville
Baltimore
Minnesota
Oakland
San Diego
New England
New York (Giants)
Pittsburgh
Wow, if they (Pitt and San Diego) know how to do it and we are ranked WELL above them and were stupid, then my god lets raze the lands and kill the animals! The world is in chaos!

Again, anyone who thinks these rankings mean squat is smoking dope. Oakland is 7th on that ridiculous list. What matters is what you see on the field. We get blasted backwards by good teams and rarely if ever dictate to them. Our front seven has no stamina, and our free safety exposes the weaknesses of the players around him rather than covering them up like he's supposed to.

Our strategy is to contain the other team, just like we did in the 1990's, except we don't have a powerhouse OL and multiple HOF'ers on offense pummeling the opposing defense and chewing up clock.

Our punter helped our defense tremendously early in the season (outside of his muffed snap) almost like another defender on the field, but he's been coming back to Earth lately.

We need Carpenter and Burnett to show they are something special and energize the defense like Romo did the offense.

Dale

11-14-2006, 10:10 AM

Again, anyone who thinks these rankings mean squat is smoking dope. Oakland is 7th on that ridiculous list. What matters is what you see on the field.

Oakland actually has a pretty darn good defense from what I've seen.

Sam I Am

11-14-2006, 10:11 AM

Again, anyone who thinks these rankings mean squat is smoking dope. Oakland is 7th on that ridiculous list. What matters is what you see on the field.

Oaklands defense is isn't that bad of course they haven't really played in big offensive teams yet. Their biggest problem right now isn't their defense it's their offensive line really blows ***!

Juke99

11-14-2006, 10:18 AM

Juke99

11-14-2006, 10:19 AM

Oaklands defense is isn't that bad of course they haven't really played in big offensive teams yet. Their biggest problem right now isn't their defense it's their offensive line really blows ***!

Did I read somewhere that their offensive line coach was running a bed and breakfast before taking the coaching position with them???

JPM

11-14-2006, 10:26 AM

Did I read somewhere that their offensive line coach was running a bed and breakfast before taking the coaching position with them???

Oh no, you heard correctly.
Reminds me of the movie Major League where they hire the manager on the phone while he is running a tire shop.

Stautner

11-14-2006, 10:28 AM

Yardage stats aren't how the 3-4 should be rated.

It's not a contain defense.

It's a defense that is supposed to be aggressive...and cause turn overs...give the offense a short field...get ya some cheapie TD's.

It's not about how much yardage you give up.

Its about sacks...int's...etc.

We don't do that very well.

We run a 3-4 within a 4-3 mentality.

This is bogus. ALL defenses are concerned with yardage first and foremost. NO defense relies that dramatically on turnovers. Any team that puts turnovers ahead of preventing first downs will get burned.

The 3-4 can be an agressive defense, but so can a 4-3. It's all in the style you play, not the base defense itself. Teams can attack from the 4-3 just like they can with the 3-4, and teams can play containment in a 3-4 just like in a 4-3.

An attacking style IS NOT about getting turnovers more than preventing teams from gaining yardage, it's about preventing teams from gaining yardage WHILE hopefully increasing the chance of turnovers.

Sam I Am

11-14-2006, 10:32 AM

Did I read somewhere that their offensive line coach was running a bed and breakfast before taking the coaching position with them???

I didn't know that, but apparently he still runs it only now it's location is the line of scrimage. Bedding down the offensive linemen and feeding the defensive linemen QB for breakfast!

ravidubey

11-14-2006, 10:34 AM

Oakland actually has a pretty darn good defense from what I've seen.

I agree it looks decent, but we've seen what happens to defensive stats when your offense can be so easily outscored.

I can't recall what your stance was regarding our defense despite all the stats-based posts raving about it back in 2003. The verdict was it stunk and was great vs average competition and a paper tiger against the best.

I'd much sooner trust the Aikman rankings regarding defense than the overall defensive rankings which are based on yards.

Team A allows a 70 yard bomb and then forces a fumble on a sack in the redzone giving the ball back to their offense. Team B allows 40 yards
but gives up a field goal. Which defense was more effective?

It's a trick question that's impossible to answer just by looking at stats. You have to watch the games, and watching Dallas' defense play I see a team that doesn't want to get beat, not a team that wants to dominate the competition.

Juke99

11-14-2006, 10:53 AM

This is bogus. ALL defenses are concerned with yardage first and foremost. NO defense relies that dramatically on turnovers. Any team that puts turnovers ahead of preventing first downs will get burned.

The 3-4 can be an agressive defense, but so can a 4-3. It's all in the style you play, not the base defense itself. Teams can attack from the 4-3 just like they can with the 3-4, and teams can play containment in a 3-4 just like in a 4-3.

An attacking style IS NOT about getting turnovers more than preventing teams from gaining yardage, it's about preventing teams from gaining yardage WHILE hopefully increasing the chance of turnovers.

Well obviously, a team isn't going to be oblivious to yardage. Did I suggest we rush 11 guys at the QB on every play?

We'll just disagree.

If you don't think that the 3-4's biggest advantage is that it leads to confusion for the offense which in turn, leads to turnovers, then so be it.

Tracking defenses by yardage stats is in fact, the thing that is bogus. This ain't 1968.

Stautner

11-14-2006, 11:01 AM

Well obviously, a team isn't going to be oblivious to yardage. Did I suggest we rush 11 guys at the QB on every play?

We'll just disagree.

If you don't think that the 3-4's biggest advantage is that it leads to confusion for the offense which in turn, leads to turnovers, then so be it.

Tracking defenses by yardage stats is in fact, the thing that is bogus. This ain't 1968.

I didn't say that creating confusion for defenses wasn't an advantage of 3-4 defenses - then again in your previous post you didn't say it was either.

You seemed to indicate it was more about pressuring offenses into turnovers. Admittedly confusion can be part of that - but that's not what you said.

Nevertheless, what the hell 1968 has to do with preventing opposing offenses from gaining yardage is beyond me - that was the primary goal of defenses THEN and is STILL the primary goal of defenses.

Turnovers are a byproduct of the style of defense, not the focus of it.

I will readily grant that yardage isn't the ONLY indicator of the effectiveness of a defense, whether 3-4 or 4-3, but for you to suggest it isn't an important indicator is ridiculous.

Doomsday101

11-14-2006, 11:02 AM

Well obviously, a team isn't going to be oblivious to yardage. Did I suggest we rush 11 guys at the QB on every play?

We'll just disagree.

If you don't think that the 3-4's biggest advantage is that it leads to confusion for the offense which in turn, leads to turnovers, then so be it.

Tracking defenses by yardage stats is in fact, the thing that is bogus. This ain't 1968.

Right now Dallas ranks 4th in the NFL in take aways. I agree pressure is important but it seems so many want Dallas to blitz all day long and that is not going to happen. Dallas is one of the top teams in stopping the run which leaves teams with many 2nd and long and 3rd and long situations. We have done well in 3rd down defense. I know the defense has some faults but this defense is not as bad as what many want to claim. Like I said I want to see better pass rushing from the defense but defense is not just about pass rushing

noshame

11-14-2006, 12:19 PM

As Hostile said, the scheme isn't the key, it's having the right personnel and executing properly, regardless of 4-34 or 3-4.

Then why do 3-4 defenses switch to a 4-3 when facing mammoth OL's?

noshame

11-14-2006, 12:27 PM

Selective memory if you are referring to the SB with Pitt.
Beyond a few highlight reel blocks on some of Pitt's LBs early in the game, they held Dallas's running game down. Less than 4ypc if memory serves correctly.
Don't believe it? I didn't either until I went back and checked a few years ago after one of these discussions where I was taking your side of the argument.
Neil Odonnel's play was more of a factor in winning than game than taking apart their defense.

I'd be referring to the Bills.

In the Pitt game we scored the first three times we had the ball. Jumped out to a 13-0 lead and seemed to relax.

2much2soon

11-14-2006, 01:18 PM

I'd be referring to the Bills.

In the Pitt game we scored the first three times we had the ball. Jumped out to a 13-0 lead and seemed to relax.

Hmm, maybe I had selective memory. I forgot Buffalo ran the 3-4 back then. Maybe thats because their defense seemed to be invisible, especially in the first SB matchup.