I was surprised by the switch to the 4 - 3 - Dallas Cowboys Forum

Reverend Conehead · 02-16-2013

This team went through a lot of trouble to switch to the 3 - 4. The Cowboys had always been a 4 - 3 team. It used the 4 - 3 Flex under Landry and the standard 4 - 3 under Johnson and every coach thereafter -- until Parcells. So we got Rob Ryan's exotic defense, which didn't seem so terrible considering how many players he had to use off the street. The fact that his D kept us in games despite that big disadvantage made me wonder what he would do next year with healthy players. I was thinking that maybe the Ryan 3 - 4 would reach its turning point and really be special next season, or at least have a chance to be. To me it looked like our biggest problems were obviously the O-line and our anemic offense in general. That's why the Ryan firing and junking of the 3 - 4 came as such a shock to me.

I'm not knocking the change, mind you. If Kippen can come in and build an intimidating D that helps us win, you won't hear complaints from me. Many of our problems have nothing to do with the scheme that we use. We need help at safety. We need help at pass rush. I feel like we're wasting Ware's career by not giving him enough help.

I'm curious if others here were surprised by the change and if you like it or don't like it. I personally was surprised and am not sure if I like it or not. I'm keeping an open mind. If it works well, then I'll certainly like it.

BAT · 02-16-2013

The new running QB schemes (pistol), multiple athletic TEs and the spread (4 and 5 WRs) are contributing to the resurgence of the 4-3, both Under and Over.

GloryDaysRBack · 02-16-2013

surprised? Absolutely. Not very often can we expect this franchise to make the right decision.

This one was a no brainer and I was still surprised.

speedkilz88 · 02-16-2013

Kippen? I've seen people misspell his name but that takes the cake. Maybe your phone.

As far as surprised to the move, yes I am because I thought they pretty much married themselves to the 3-4. But now that they've made it I do like the move back. For whatever reason they have had a difficult time getting pressure up the middle, turnovers, and have generally not been a highly ranked defense since the move.

xwalker · 02-17-2013

RR's front-7 was not that much different than the 4-3-under. The same could be said about Wade Phillip's defense.

The outlier was Parcells' 2-gap 3-4.

Yakuza Rich · 02-17-2013

I had a feeling that Ryan was in trouble because the stuff they were talking now was the same things that Broaddus mentioned in a radio interview during the season. I'm thinking it was November when Broaddus mentioned that. While he's a former scout, he's still an employee of the team and you know that this is what he hears from the actual scouts in the organization.

I still like Rob Ryan, but he wasn't infallible. And I can't imagine anybody in the NFL feeling that he's better at coaching defenses than Monte Kiffin.

The move to the 4-3 made sense to me in 3 different parts.

1. A way to defend all of this read option offenses. Shooting gaps instead of read and react and trying to make the decision to take the QB or the RB.

2. So many teams moved to the 3-4 that I believe the 4-3 now provides teams with an advantage in the draft (supply and demand).

3. The loss of Josh Brent and Ratliff's injury problems. Move to the 4-3 and now we have the DE's that can play DT and lift some of the heavy duty off of Ratliff.

I kind of like the idea of the 3-4 where you can move guys around enough and get some missed assignments by the offense. But, the bad part is that it's too much read-and-react agains the read-option and too often we could not get our 2 best pass rushers (Spencer and Ware) rushing the QB at the same time.

YR

Typhus · 02-17-2013

Scheme is far less as important than having the personal already in place despite what you want to call the scheme. It doesnt matter what scheme you currently have, or you are switching to, it boils down to play makers first and foremost.

There is a reason why guys like Ware, Lee, Carter, Carr, Claiborne, Spencer, Hatcher, Rat arent being considered areas of concern, when introducing a new scheme. They can all play the game no matter what you call it, they will find a way to fit in and be effective.

Reverend Conehead · 02-17-2013

Quote:

Originally Posted by Typhus

Scheme is far less as important than having the personal already in place despite what you want to call the scheme. It doesnt matter what scheme you currently have, or you are switching to, it boils down to play makers first and foremost.

There is a reason why guys like Ware, Lee, Carter, Carr, Claiborne, Spencer, Hatcher, Rat arent being considered areas of concern, when introducing a new scheme. They can all play the game no matter what you call it, they will find a way to fit in and be effective.

Well, scheme is important in the sense of fitting one to best accentuate the talents of your players. But I'm with you on the fact that no scheme on this earth will compensate for poor play.