Wouldn't a 4-3/4-6 defense be a better choice for the Cowboys?

[TruBlueCowboy]

I'm reading more and more about the Ravens who are going 4-3 now but are also going to go back to their defensive coordinator's (he is Buddy Ryan's kid) 4-6 roots. The more I read about it, the more it makes sense for their roster, and I think it would have made sense on the Cowboys too. I can't help but fear Dallas is going 3-4 just because it's the old defense that won Parcells his Super Bowls, not because it's practical for the team right now. I write this even with the draft picks the Cowboys scored.

Ray Lewis commented recently to the media that he was ecstatic to be running the 4-3 now because he was sick of going up against offensive linemen and wanted to go after the running back more often. Well, Lewis has never been the biggest linebacker, and I remember size questions when he came out fo college, so I imagine Dat Nguyen (and possibly other undersized misplaced guys like Singleton) is probably dreading this new defense too. I see a disaster in the making, especially because the Cowboys aren't going after bigger vets such as Peter Boulware.

Wouldn't the Cowboys work out well with some 4-6 looks with Roy Williams playing the classic "46" linebacker/safety role? Dallas has two hybrid linebackers/defensive end pass rushers in Ware and Thornton who I'm sure would do great in a 4-6. And most importantly, they now have the corners to play it. I think Glenn is very underrated, I wouldn't be surprised if he could actually win a starting spot. We find out now that Newman's diminished play last year was because of an injury, and Henry is the best the Cowboys have had since Kevin Smith to compliment their best corner. The 4-6 forces turnovers and wouldn't be a permanent fixture, just something to apply the heat when needed. Makes more sense to stay 4-3, give some 4-6 or occasional 3-4 for the heat they want, instead of going all the way with this new 3-4.

As others have mentioned, why play fellas like Shanle when you can put Glover on the field? It just makes sense to keep the 4-3. Glover will be a new man with someone like Ferguson taking double-teams. Dat Nguyen seems like the type of guy you always want going sideline-to-sideline whether it be the 4-3 or 4-6.

Anyone else starting to feel some panic about this new 3-4? The Cowboys sure are depending on a lot of inexperienced young guys and players probably not fit for the 3-4. It would make more sense to be a 4-3 and give some 4-6/3-4 looks. I wonder if it's a desperate attempt by Parcells to try and go out in a blaze of glory. It doesn't seem like the same methodical approach he has had to everything else. I wonder if he was too conservative last year and too rash this year?

[Smashmouth24]

It does seem that Parcells is worried more about himself being comfortable with the defensive calls than putting out a defense that might produce immediately.

[Hollywood Henderson]

Please Smash...
Parcells has seen enough of zimmy to know he can't coach a 4-3...
He can however, hold a clip board for one more year while Parcells coaches a 3-4...

No more WUSSY ball in Dallas!

[Doomsday101]

Originally Posted by Hollywood Henderson

Please Smash...
Parcells has seen enough of zimmy to know he can't coach a 4-3...
He can however, hold a clip board for one more year while Parcells coaches a 3-4...

No more WUSSY ball in Dallas!

This takes place only in your own mind. Zimmer is still in charge of the defense no matter how much you may try and deny it.

[BIGDen]

Stop making so much sense TruBlue! It's hurting my head. I agree with everything you said.

[dbair1967]

does it matter what system they run? hell we just need to see good defense again, its been a LONG time since we've seen good defense here...if Parcells thinks the best chance to have a defense that forces turnovers at a decent rate and gets consistent pressure on the QB is a 3-4 then so be it

people get too carried away with the "system" crap...you need good players...good players can work in whatever system you apply as long as the coaches know how to implement it...put bad players in whatever "system" you want and you'll normally get bad results...

David

[slick325]

Originally Posted by dbair1967

does it matter what system they run? hell we just need to see good defense again, its been a LONG time since we've seen good defense here...if Parcells thinks the best chance to have a defense that forces turnovers at a decent rate and gets consistent pressure on the QB is a 3-4 then so be it

people get too carried away with the "system" crap...you need good players...good players can work in whatever system you apply as long as the coaches know how to implement it...put bad players in whatever "system" you want and you'll normally get bad results...

David

Nicely put.

[TruBlueCowboy]

Originally Posted by dbair1967

does it matter what system they run? hell we just need to see good defense again, its been a LONG time since we've seen good defense here...if Parcells thinks the best chance to have a defense that forces turnovers at a decent rate and gets consistent pressure on the QB is a 3-4 then so be it

people get too carried away with the "system" crap...you need good players...good players can work in whatever system you apply as long as the coaches know how to implement it...put bad players in whatever "system" you want and you'll normally get bad results...

David

So you're saying that right this minute, if any team in the league went from a 4-3 to a 3-4 or vice versa, if they have the same players, they'd have the same results as the year before?

[slick325]

Originally Posted by TruBlueCowboy

So you're saying that right this minute, if any team in the league went from a 4-3 to a 3-4 or vice versa, if they have the same players, they'd have the same results as the year before?

Not to put words in David's mouth but I think he is just stating the obvious, talent wins games in every sport. Put our 5-11 teams (same rosters) in the 3-4 defense and we would be...............5-11 since we had no playmakers. Put our 1992 defense (a 4-3 that was #1 in the league that season) in a 3-4 and we still would be very good because of the depth of talent on that team.

[Doomsday101]

Originally Posted by slick325

Not to put words in David's mouth but I think he is just stating the obvious, talent wins games in every sport. Put our 5-11 teams (same rosters) in the 3-4 defense and we would be...............5-11 since we had no playmakers. Put our 1992 defense (a 4-3 that was #1 in the league that season) in a 3-4 and we still would be very good because of the depth of talent on that team.

I would have to agree with that. Personnel has to be there no matter what system you use

[doomsday_II]

Originally Posted by TruBlueCowboy

I'm reading more and more about the Ravens who are going 4-3 now but are also going to go back to their defensive coordinator's (he is Buddy Ryan's kid) 4-6 roots. The more I read about it, the more it makes sense for their roster, and I think it would have made sense on the Cowboys too. I can't help but fear Dallas is going 3-4 just because it's the old defense that won Parcells his Super Bowls, not because it's practical for the team right now. I write this even with the draft picks the Cowboys scored.

[View Full Quote]Ray Lewis commented recently to the media that he was ecstatic to be running the 4-3 now because he was sick of going up against offensive linemen and wanted to go after the running back more often. Well, Lewis has never been the biggest linebacker, and I remember size questions when he came out fo college, so I imagine Dat Nguyen (and possibly other undersized misplaced guys like Singleton) is probably dreading this new defense too. I see a disaster in the making, especially because the Cowboys aren't going after bigger vets such as Peter Boulware.

Wouldn't the Cowboys work out well with some 4-6 looks with Roy Williams playing the classic "46" linebacker/safety role? Dallas has two hybrid linebackers/defensive end pass rushers in Ware and Thornton who I'm sure would do great in a 4-6. And most importantly, they now have the corners to play it. I think Glenn is very underrated, I wouldn't be surprised if he could actually win a starting spot. We find out now that Newman's diminished play last year was because of an injury, and Henry is the best the Cowboys have had since Kevin Smith to compliment their best corner. The 4-6 forces turnovers and wouldn't be a permanent fixture, just something to apply the heat when needed. Makes more sense to stay 4-3, give some 4-6 or occasional 3-4 for the heat they want, instead of going all the way with this new 3-4.

As others have mentioned, why play fellas like Shanle when you can put Glover on the field? It just makes sense to keep the 4-3. Glover will be a new man with someone like Ferguson taking double-teams. Dat Nguyen seems like the type of guy you always want going sideline-to-sideline whether it be the 4-3 or 4-6.

Anyone else starting to feel some panic about this new 3-4? The Cowboys sure are depending on a lot of inexperienced young guys and players probably not fit for the 3-4. It would make more sense to be a 4-3 and give some 4-6/3-4 looks. I wonder if it's a desperate attempt by Parcells to try and go out in a blaze of glory. It doesn't seem like the same methodical approach he has had to everything else. I wonder if he was too conservative last year and too rash this year?

Buddy Ryans Bears and philly defenses were the two most feared defenses in past memory. Four dominating defensive linemen and two rush backers are the prerequisite. If our rookies come through it would be doable.

[blindzebra]

Originally Posted by TruBlueCowboy

So you're saying that right this minute, if any team in the league went from a 4-3 to a 3-4 or vice versa, if they have the same players, they'd have the same results as the year before?

Tell that to Atlanta, in a 3 year span they went from a 4-3 and were pretty good on defense to a 3-4 and sucked, then back to a 4-3 and had a sack and turnover machine.

Just because you have good players...and you MUST have them for a scheme to be successful...does not mean they can play in any scheme and do it equally well.

We have no depth at NT, we are still too light at a couple of LB spots and have very questionable depth there and we will be counting on several rookies and UDFA for this to work.

We will be trading a Pro Bowl DT for a scrub LB to get it on the field, which is silly.

Parcells got embarrassed last season and the coach that is too old to coach thugs and hoodlums, too old to lose, is too old to lose not playing his defense.

This force feeding of the 3-4 could bite us in the arse at the worst and even at the best it won't be the magical sack and turnover machine some will lead us to believe.

[Alexander]

Originally Posted by doomsday_II

Buddy Ryans Bears and philly defenses were the two most feared defenses in past memory. Four dominating defensive linemen and two rush backers are the prerequisite. If our rookies come through it would be doable.

The centerpiece of the "46" is the free safety, hence the name.

That player has to be able to cover man to man and be smart enough to make the defensive calls and direct a secondary that is left in zero coverage the majority of the time while the linebackers and lineman attack the ball, specifically the quarterback.

We don't have that.

[THUMPER]

Originally Posted by TruBlueCowboy

I'm reading more and more about the Ravens who are going 4-3 now but are also going to go back to their defensive coordinator's (he is Buddy Ryan's kid) 4-6 roots. The more I read about it, the more it makes sense for their roster, and I think it would have made sense on the Cowboys too. I can't help but fear Dallas is going 3-4 just because it's the old defense that won Parcells his Super Bowls, not because it's practical for the team right now. I write this even with the draft picks the Cowboys scored.

[View Full Quote]Ray Lewis commented recently to the media that he was ecstatic to be running the 4-3 now because he was sick of going up against offensive linemen and wanted to go after the running back more often. Well, Lewis has never been the biggest linebacker, and I remember size questions when he came out fo college, so I imagine Dat Nguyen (and possibly other undersized misplaced guys like Singleton) is probably dreading this new defense too. I see a disaster in the making, especially because the Cowboys aren't going after bigger vets such as Peter Boulware.

Wouldn't the Cowboys work out well with some 4-6 looks with Roy Williams playing the classic "46" linebacker/safety role? Dallas has two hybrid linebackers/defensive end pass rushers in Ware and Thornton who I'm sure would do great in a 4-6. And most importantly, they now have the corners to play it. I think Glenn is very underrated, I wouldn't be surprised if he could actually win a starting spot. We find out now that Newman's diminished play last year was because of an injury, and Henry is the best the Cowboys have had since Kevin Smith to compliment their best corner. The 4-6 forces turnovers and wouldn't be a permanent fixture, just something to apply the heat when needed. Makes more sense to stay 4-3, give some 4-6 or occasional 3-4 for the heat they want, instead of going all the way with this new 3-4.

As others have mentioned, why play fellas like Shanle when you can put Glover on the field? It just makes sense to keep the 4-3. Glover will be a new man with someone like Ferguson taking double-teams. Dat Nguyen seems like the type of guy you always want going sideline-to-sideline whether it be the 4-3 or 4-6.

Anyone else starting to feel some panic about this new 3-4? The Cowboys sure are depending on a lot of inexperienced young guys and players probably not fit for the 3-4. It would make more sense to be a 4-3 and give some 4-6/3-4 looks. I wonder if it's a desperate attempt by Parcells to try and go out in a blaze of glory. It doesn't seem like the same methodical approach he has had to everything else. I wonder if he was too conservative last year and too rash this year?

You make some good points TBC. I too would rather see our 4 best DLs on the field as a group rather than having one of them sitting for an undetermined amount of plays while we run the 3-4. Whether that is Glover, Ellis, Ferguson, or Spears, I would much rather see them on the field than the bench.

I still believe we WILL see a lot of the 4-3 this year and not nearly as much of the 3-4 as the mediots would have us all believe. Parcells has stated many times that he will use a hybrid defense that incorporates some of the 3-4 and some of the 4-3 as well as some other stuff and not to be too concerned with which scheme/style we will run as it will change constantly.

That said, he has used the 3-4 more than anything else in previous years and is more comfortable with it than the 4-3 so I do expect to see us in that lineup much more often this year, but I don't necessarily like it.

The 3-4 works when you have dominant LBs and big, solid DLs who are not necessarily playmakers. Your playmakers are the LBs in the 3-4. The problem I see is that we really only have one playmaker at LB right now and that is Ware, although Burnett has the ability but is not as proven at it as Ware. Dat has some ability as a playmaker but has not shown much over the years. Hopefully that is due more to Zimmer's pansy defensive style than his true skills.

I think our draft picks and FA signings make us an ideal 4-3 team with Ware or Roy blitzing from one side or the other on almost every play. Our DBs are much improved over last year's group with the addition of Henry and Glenn as well as moving Roy to SS where he belongs. FS is really not that much of a concern to me as I don't think he will see the field that much anyway as we will probably play Newman, Henry, and Glenn a lot.

Parcells has always said that he will put the best 11 guys on the field and to me, based on our players, that means a 4-3 rather than the 3-4. I guess we will see what he does come September.

[TruBlueCowboy]

Originally Posted by Alexander

The centerpiece of the "46" is the free safety, hence the name.

That player has to be able to cover man to man and be smart enough to make the defensive calls and direct a secondary that is left in zero coverage the majority of the time while the linebackers and lineman attack the ball, specifically the quarterback.

We don't have that.

High risk defense but for all the times that Roy screwed up, I also think we'd benefit from having him up there rushing the QB so often.