Newbury: Cowboys’ New Look Defensive Line

[Deep_Freeze]

Originally Posted by xwalker

I think his reference to drafting 2 DTs was mostly due to the fact that Brent will not be on the team and Ratliff is almost done physically and Spears/Coleman are done.

Oh, I can see the reasoning for it, doesn't mean I have to like it though. Just underlines how bad of timing it was to make the switch in the first place when we already had too many holes.

But of course we needed 'change' to sell tickets....

[xwalker]

Originally Posted by Deep_Freeze

Oh, I can see the reasoning for it, doesn't mean I have to like it though. Just underlines how bad of timing it was to make the switch in the first place when we already had too many holes.

But of course we needed 'change' to sell tickets....

I don't see where the 4-3 is making it worse. The situations with Brent, Ratliff, Spears and Coleman would be the same if they stayed with RR's defense.

[Deep_Freeze]

Originally Posted by xwalker

I don't see where the 4-3 is making it worse. The situations with Brent, Ratliff, Spears and Coleman would be the same if they stayed with RR's defense.

Yeah but Hatch, Lissemore, and Crawford do fit the 3-4 better, now who knows. I have optimism for them, but now we are starting all over again wondering...with alot of question marks.

[xwalker]

Originally Posted by Deep_Freeze

Yeah but Hatch, Lissemore, and Crawford do fit the 3-4 better, now who knows. I have optimism for them, but now we are starting all over again wondering...with alot of question marks.

I don't really agree with that statement.

The way that Hatcher played on many downs in RR's defense is very similar to the 3-tech in Kiffin's 4-3-under (i.e. the Weak-Side DT is isolated on the outside of the Guard away from a possible double-team from the Center).

Crawford appears to be a good fit as the Strong-Side DE. He was actually slightly undersized as a 3-4 DE, but be the ideal size range for the SDE. This is the position that he played in college.

Lissemore played 3-4 DE and NT. The 1-tech is basically between those 2 size wise.

The best immediate thing about Kiffin's defense is that it will be much less dependent on retaining Spencer. In RR's defense, the Cowboys didn't have any candidates to replace Spencer.

The only spot that is opened up due to Kiffin's 4-3 is the SLB. Fortunately, that is historically the cheapest or easiest spot to fill in the Tampa-2.

[Deep_Freeze]

Originally Posted by xwalker

I don't really agree with that statement.

The way that Hatcher played on many downs in RR's defense is very similar to the 3-tech in Kiffin's 4-3-under (i.e. the Weak-Side DT is isolated on the outside of the Guard away from a possible double-team from the Center).

Crawford appears to be a good fit as the Strong-Side DE. He was actually slightly undersized as a 3-4 DE, but be the ideal size range for the SDE. This is the position that he played in college.

Lissemore played 3-4 DE and NT. The 1-tech is basically between those 2 size wise.

The best immediate thing about Kiffin's defense is that it will be much less dependent on retaining Spencer. In RR's defense, the Cowboys didn't have any candidates to replace Spencer.

The only spot that is opened up due to Kiffin's 4-3 is the SLB. Fortunately, that is historically the cheapest or easiest spot to fill in the Tampa-2.

Well I believe Hatch will have a career year this year, being that its a contract year for him. I guess thats what makes me not happy when I read about the 2 DTs, while we need the youth, I'm bullish on Hatch this coming season.

Crawford, that will be up to the staff on where he fits cause I'm still in between on him at DT or DE. Lissemore, well he is the round piece in a square hole along with all the rest of the list of guys we have at the position now. Getting rid of all those guys (Spears, Coleman, TRat) can help only if you have youth ready to replace them, and right now we don't and it just makes our list of needs longer.

[xwalker]

Originally Posted by Deep_Freeze

Well I believe Hatch will have a career year this year, being that its a contract year for him. I guess thats what makes me not happy when I read about the 2 DTs, while we need the youth, I'm bullish on Hatch this coming season.

Hatcher had a career year in 2012 also. He is a good player but he will be 31 when the season starts.

Crawford, that will be up to the staff on where he fits cause I'm still in between on him at DT or DE. Lissemore, well he is the round piece in a square hole along with all the rest of the list of guys we have at the position now.

I don't see any problem with Lissemore playing the 1-tech. It might be a better position for him than either DE or NT in RR's defense.

What other guys are "round pieces" in a square hole?

Getting rid of all those guys (Spears, Coleman, TRat) can help only if you have youth ready to replace them, and right now we don't and it just makes our list of needs longer.

The issues with these players are separate from the scheme.

Coleman is 34. Spears is overweight and has a degenerative condition in one or both knees. Ratliff can't seem to stay healthy. Probably from being an undersized NT for too many years.

[wileedog]

Originally Posted by xwalker

The way that Hatcher played on many downs in RR's defense is very similar to the 3-tech in Kiffin's 4-3-under

Because he played it does not mean he played it *well*. People keep saying "They did it in RR's defense." Guess what, RR got fired because his defense sucked. Why are the same bad players going to play better in a different scheme?

Crawford appears to be a good fit as the Strong-Side DE. He was actually slightly undersized as a 3-4 DE, but be the ideal size range for the SDE. This is the position that he played in college.

Great. He hasn't played it in the NFL.

Lissemore played 3-4 DE and NT. The 1-tech is basically between those 2 size wise.

Lissemore was a 3-4 JAG whose destiny is now to be a 4-3 JAG.

The best immediate thing about Kiffin's defense is that it will be much less dependent on retaining Spencer. In RR's defense, the Cowboys didn't have any candidates to replace Spencer.

Only if you and others continue to make the assumptions that a bunch of mostly average 3-4 DLinemen are somehow going to play better in a 4-3, even though they were acquired pretty much specifically to play in a 3-4.

The only spot that is opened up due to Kiffin's 4-3 is the SLB. Fortunately, that is historically the cheapest or easiest spot to fill in the Tampa-2.

"Spot open" vs. "spot adequately filled" is again a very important distinction. And that's not even getting into depth, of which there is absolutely none.

I still think those who think this is going to be a seamless transition in one year to a 4-3 for the front 7 are absolutely deluding themselves, and this article is yet another exhibit.

[Deep_Freeze]

Originally Posted by xwalker

Hatcher had a career year in 2012 also. He is a good player but he will be 31 when the season starts.

I don't see any problem with Lissemore playing the 1-tech. It might be a better position for him than either DE or NT in RR's defense.

What other guys are "round pieces" in a square hole?

The issues with these players are separate from the scheme.

Coleman is 34. Spears is overweight and has a degenerative condition in one or both knees. Ratliff can't seem to stay healthy. Probably from being an undersized NT for too many years.

They are all old as dirt, I know that, but we can't replace everything in one year here with all the other issues on this team. Hatch might have a good season, then we can let him walk, thats why I would rather have Crawford at the 3 tech instead of DE....especially if we keep Spencer.

Lissemore, Coleman, Spears, and TRat are round pieces, none really fit this scheme except TRat. Lissemore is more of a 3-4 DE than anything else, but of course he has shown to be marginal at best anyway. We need the improvement in the DL with youth, but now we just need 1 more guy than we did before which puts pressure everywhere else. I do agree with him we need 2 DTs, problem is what it does to our other needs.

[Deep_Freeze]

Originally Posted by wileedog

I still think those who think this is going to be a seamless transition in one year to a 4-3 for the front 7 are absolutely deluding themselves, and this article is yet another exhibit.

Yeah, this is a fear of mine that some people I guess didn't get from the article. Basically, we need 3 new guys in the front 7 now instead of the 2 that we needed before the change.

A team that already has alot of holes didn't need to increase its needs, and thats why I'm at least hoping Hatch can have a career year instead of us needing a guy for that spot.

[BAT]

Originally Posted by Deep_Freeze

Well I believe Hatch will have a career year this year, being that its a contract year for him. I guess thats what makes me not happy when I read about the 2 DTs, while we need the youth, I'm bullish on Hatch this coming season.

Crawford, that will be up to the staff on where he fits cause I'm still in between on him at DT or DE. Lissemore, well he is the round piece in a square hole along with all the rest of the list of guys we have at the position now. Getting rid of all those guys (Spears, Coleman, TRat) can help only if you have youth ready to replace them, and right now we don't and it just makes our list of needs longer.

Crawford played strongside DE in college and played very well. Do not think of him as playing Wares spot, weakside DE, because Ware will play a 9 technique. Crawford, or the strongside DE, will be playing 5 technique, which is essentially a DT/DE hybrid, especially when the SAM walks down to the LOS to play the 9 technique spot and set the edge during certain looks in a 4-3 under.

[BAT]

And referring to the young guys: Lissemore and Crawford, as JAGs is ridiculous. No one knows how much better than can be now that they no longer need to read and react before attacking the ball. Like Jimmy's D, the DL now have carte blanche to attack first and read on the way to the ball. There is no way you could compare their play/production from a 3-4 to a 4-3. You just do not know. Heck, even Kiffin and Marinelli do not know for sure yet.

At least Hatcher has experience playing the 3 technique and was fairly successful at it. Imagine how many more sacks he could have racked up if he did not have to read first before rushing the passer. And everyone seems to forget Brian Price, he is someone who could play either DT spot. The guy is zero risk if he does not pan out, big time reward if he does. And Marinelli has some familiarity with him the short time Price was with the Bears.

[Woods]

I think regardless if we were 34 or 43 we would have to inject some youth to the DL.

Coleman, Spears, Brent are probably gone regardless.

I think a healthy Rat would make a good rotational player. But clearly, we need to add some quality this year to the DL.

[xwalker]

Originally Posted by Deep_Freeze

They are all old as dirt, I know that, but we can't replace everything in one year here with all the other issues on this team. Hatch might have a good season, then we can let him walk, thats why I would rather have Crawford at the 3 tech instead of DE....especially if we keep Spencer.

Lissemore, Coleman, Spears, and TRat are round pieces, none really fit this scheme except TRat. Lissemore is more of a 3-4 DE than anything else, but of course he has shown to be marginal at best anyway. We need the improvement in the DL with youth, but now we just need 1 more guy than we did before which puts pressure everywhere else. I do agree with him we need 2 DTs, problem is what it does to our other needs.

Coleman and Spears issues are not related to the scheme!

Lissemore's size (6-3, 303) is more of the prototype DT in Kiffin's scheme than either a 3-4 DE (prototype = Watt 6-6, 295) or 3-4 NT (prototype = 320 lbs or more).

The 3-4 OLBs (Ware, Spencer), 3-4 DEs and 3-4 NTs all project to DL in the 4-3. That is 5 spots reduced to 4. This results in 1 less DL position to fill not 1 more.

[xwalker]

Originally Posted by wileedog

Because he played it does not mean he played it *well*. People keep saying "They did it in RR's defense." Guess what, RR got fired because his defense sucked. Why are the same bad players going to play better in a different scheme?

Hatcher had a career year in 2012.

Great. He hasn't played it in the NFL.

Is Crawford more proven in the 3-4 after 1 year?

Lissemore was a 3-4 JAG whose destiny is now to be a 4-3 JAG.

If true, how is it relative to the change to the 4-3?

Only if you and others continue to make the assumptions that a bunch of mostly average 3-4 DLinemen are somehow going to play better in a 4-3, even though they were acquired pretty much specifically to play in a 3-4.

"Spot open" vs. "spot adequately filled" is again a very important distinction. And that's not even getting into depth, of which there is absolutely none.

I still think those who think this is going to be a seamless transition in one year to a 4-3 for the front 7 are absolutely deluding themselves, and this article is yet another exhibit.

You have not shown where any of them would be worse due specifically to the change in defenses.