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

[Alexander]

Originally Posted by THUMPER

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.

Very true, but I think Coach Parcells is right as well.

Glover will be more effective playing 60% than 100% of the snaps. He clearly got wore out last year without a breather.

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.

It is foolish to think we can just switch to the 3-4 exclusively overnight.

We simply don't have the right players. We still need a strong inside presence. We still need a defensive end even if Marcus Spears starts from day one. We still need a outside linebacker.

In 2006, we can add these pieces and run it every down. I would be amazed and also disgusted if we try to do it now.

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.

We will see it more because we have more of the pieces. The Patriots did it this way too. More and more, year by year, as they added pieces, they converted over to what they show now.

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.

Nguyen is a bit small for the center of this defense. He has all the brains to make it work, I just think he is going to struggle unless Ferguson has a career year. I can visualize him getting steam rolled again like he did last year. That is why we still need a bigger presense inside. Hopefully James is that player.

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.

I just hope we do not the 3-4 exclusively, get burned and have to adjust to more of a hybrid. My hopes are that we are working on a hybrid defense from the beginning.

[Alexander]

Originally Posted by TruBlueCowboy

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.

Yes. He would be an amazing LBer in the 46.

We could very easily run a 46 variant with him inside the box.

If we had a free safety like Ed Reed. That is why the Ravens are running it. They have Reed to play centerfield, a great end in Suggs, two good fast outside LBers in Thomas and Polley, Ray Lewis playing Mike Singletary, two excellent corners and a stout SS like Will Demps.

We don't come close to that.

Besides, I can imagine Mike Zimmer trying to come up with the schemes that Buddy Ryan did. I wonder if Buddy could send him an old playbook.

[doomsday_II]

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.

Actually, the '46' comes from a player numbered 46, Doug Plank from the Bears. He was the SS safety playing up on the line of scrimage as as forth LBer and is the center piece which anchors the defense. This fits Roy perfectly.

[TruBlueCowboy]

Originally Posted by doomsday_II

Actually, the '46' comes from a player numbered 46, Doug Plank from the Bears. He was the SS safety playing up on the line of scrimage as as forth LBer and is the center piece which anchors the defense. This fits Roy perfectly.

My biggest fear is Roy's career will be over and no defensive coordinator ever took full advantage of his talents.

[Alexander]

Originally Posted by doomsday_II

Actually, the '46' comes from a player numbered 46, Doug Plank from the Bears. He was the SS safety playing up on the line of scrimage as as forth LBer and is the center piece which anchors the defense. This fits Roy perfectly.

You are right about the origins of the name, my bad.

But look back at the Chicago defense of that era. Duerson was the strong safety and Fencik was the free safety. They were both very smart and could hit and cover. What else do we have at safety besides Roy Williams?

Andre Waters played the 46 SS with the Eagles. Wes Hopkins was the safety who bore the coverage responsibilities.

Either way, you have to have a safety who can not only cover, but can direct the secondary. If Williams is in the box as a SS, who plays FS? Izell Reese? Justin Beriault?

[doomsday_II]

Originally Posted by TruBlueCowboy

My biggest fear is Roy's career will be over and no defensive coordinator ever took full advantage of his talents.

Seems to be that way so far.

The more I think about this 46 the better I like the idea. I always remembered the dominating defensive lines in the 46, but after reading a little bit about it the SS, LBer's, and corners who can cover make it work. Roy is arguebly our best defensive player and a 46 would definitely showcase his skills.

[Alexander]

Originally Posted by doomsday_II

Seems to be that way so far.

The more I think about this 46 the better I like the idea. I always remembered the dominating defensive lines in the 46, but after reading a little bit about it the SS, LBer's, and corners who can cover make it work. Roy is arguebly our best defensive player and a 46 would definitely showcase his skills.

Just do not turn into the "46" Nors.

Thanks.

[doomsday_II]

Originally Posted by Alexander

You are right about the origins of the name, my bad.

But look back at the Chicago defense of that era. Duerson was the strong safety and Fencik was the free safety. They were both very smart and could hit and cover. What else do we have at safety besides Roy Williams?

Andre Waters played the 46 SS with the Eagles. Wes Hopkins was the safety who bore the coverage responsibilities.

Either way, you have to have a safety who can not only cover, but can direct the secondary. If Williams is in the box as a SS, who plays FS? Izell Reese? Justin Beriault?

Someone would have to step up at FS, but a pressure D sure makes that job easier.

[dbair1967]

there is a reason the "4-6" defense in its pure form is defunct...it had a number of glaring weaknesses vs the pass...Ryan's kid may indeed run some variations of it (and Jeff Fisher and Greg Williams as well) but nobody is going to run the 4-6 as a base defense anymore

David

[Alexander]

Originally Posted by dbair1967

there is a reason the "4-6" defense in its pure form is defunct...it had a number of glaring weaknesses vs the pass...Ryan's kid may indeed run some variations of it (and Jeff Fisher and Greg Williams as well) but nobody is going to run the 4-6 as a base defense anymore

David

It is no more flawed than any other system. The 3-4 is vulnerable against the run if you don't have the right nose tackle.

The 46 is not run anymore because you have to have the perfect players to run it right. Ryan had that in Chicago and Philadelphia. He did not have it in Houston or Phoenix.

Like everything else, personnel makes it, not schemes.

[TruBlueCowboy]

Originally Posted by dbair1967

there is a reason the "4-6" defense in its pure form is defunct...it had a number of glaring weaknesses vs the pass...Ryan's kid may indeed run some variations of it (and Jeff Fisher and Greg Williams as well) but nobody is going to run the 4-6 as a base defense anymore

David

I agree and that's why I'm only promoting it in addition to the 4-3, much like what some of the other teams you listed do. The Cowboys want more pressure on the QB, well, instead of entirely overhauling the defense, just add some new stuff on top of the free agents and rookies. I think it's a little drastic to go all 3-4 this year, already, which it's sounding more and more like they will based on the stuff I've been reading. I think Parcells will play smart, he might be keeping everyone in the dark to keep other teams on their toes. He always has been a KGB type coach with this stuff.

[dbair1967]

Originally Posted by doomsday_II

Actually, the '46' comes from a player numbered 46, Doug Plank from the Bears. He was the SS safety playing up on the line of scrimage as as forth LBer and is the center piece which anchors the defense. This fits Roy perfectly.

the first guy that made a name for himself in that scheme was Todd Bell...I think he made the probowl in 1984 and had one of the best sack total seasons in history for a safety...he held out in 1985 and I think was never a factor after that...his holdout opened the door for Dave Dureson I think

David

[jobberone]

The 46 went away as teams learned how to exploit it. Offenses and defenses and variations of them have come and gone. Always will. It's the equivalent of predator/prey evolution. Sooner or later the sabre toothed cat gets reinvented again and again.

And it's true you need players with talent to win in any scheme.

But I don't think it's true you can put a talented player in any position and expect them to excel equally at each position. I'm speaking of moving say a LB to any LB spot in any scheme. Some players play at higher levels at one position in a certain scheme and don't do well if moved around.

Not sure I'm getting that across properly.

[Alexander]

Originally Posted by jobberone

But I don't think it's true you can put a talented player in any position and expect them to excel equally at each position. I'm speaking of moving say a LB to any LB spot in any scheme. Some players play at higher levels at one position in a certain scheme and don't do well if moved around.

Then you disagree with Mike Zimmer, jobber:

“Here’s my big beef. People get caught up in ‘can’t-do’s.’ They think because a guy did one role well, he can’t do another thing. They get put in boxes. Take Ray Lewis with the Ravens. They used to play a 4-3. He was great. Then they won a Super Bowl in a 3-4. He was great. Now Baltimore is going back to a 4-3. And guess what? He’ll be great."

[blindzebra]

Originally Posted by Alexander

Then you disagree with Mike Zimmer, jobber:

“Here’s my big beef. People get caught up in ‘can’t-do’s.’ They think because a guy did one role well, he can’t do another thing. They get put in boxes. Take Ray Lewis with the Ravens. They used to play a 4-3. He was great. Then they won a Super Bowl in a 3-4. He was great. Now Baltimore is going back to a 4-3. And guess what? He’ll be great."

They won a super bowl playing the 4-3 with Adams and Goose at DT letting Lewis go unblocked, they switched to a 3-4 when Adams left in FA.