Does the 3-4 worry you? - Dallas Cowboys Forum

Ken · 02-14-2005

It didn't worry me until I really started to think about it.

For every San Diego and Pittsburge, their is a Baltimore and Atlanta. Teams that switched to the 3-4 and found success and then teams that scrapped it after a year or two and switched back. Baltimore is going back to the 4-3 this year after a few year trial.

They should have known better than anyone they could win with the 4-3. They had one of the best defenses of all time in 2000. Why would they change when they know all it takes is the correct personel? They certainly weren't inept with the 3-4 but I think they saw it's limitations.

I also think when you look at Pitt and San Diego they had the correct coaches to make the transitions easier. In San Diego, Wade Phillips came in and is a 3-4 guru. He obviously knows the pieces he needs to field a competetive defense. In Pitt, they didn't switch from a 4-3, but they did transition from a coach who wasn't agressive back to Dick Lebaue, who they enjoyed their most success with in the mid 90s. Obviously these two coaches made a huge difference in their respective defenses.

Then you look at the cowboys.....

They showed only two years ago that with not even ideal personel they could lead the league in defense with the scheme they were running. They are essentially missing a corner, big DT, Pass rushing End, another playmaking LB, and a cover safety. That is what stands between their current predicament and a dominant defense. 5 Players.

Then you look at what happens when you switch to 3-4......

Our current coach knows nothing about it. This is much worse than Atlanta's situation where they failed in the transition. Oh sure, Parcells knows the defensea, but does he really have the time to coach defense all year? And if so, what do we need Zimmer for?

To transition to a 3-4, we need A large playmaking middle backer or two, a stud pass rushing LB or two, a mamoth DT, a safety, and a corner.

It really just seems like it would be wiser to just stick with the scheme we have and try and fill the pieces we need rather than trying to find all new personel to fill a defense no one knows. WHat if this defensive transition is a complete failure?

Do we transition back to the 4-3 a few years from now? Just seems like a recipe for Cincyville to me.

What do you think?

Rack Bauer · 02-15-2005

The 3-4 doesn't worry anymore then going another season under Zimmer's 4-3. In fact, the 3-4 worries me considerably LESS then Zimmer's 4-3.

Chuck 54 · 02-15-2005

I don't really care what defense we run...anyone who thinks the style of defense is going to make a difference is kidding himself and not looking at history.

The team with the best players on defense will usually have the best defense.

You think the 85 Bears couldn't have played a 3-4?
You think the 92 Cowboys couldn't have lined up in a 3-4?
You think the Ravens couldn't play a 4-3? or the Steelers?

Imagine Randy White and John Dutton rotating at NT; Too Tall, Harvey Martin, and Jeffcoat rotating at DE. Randall Godfrey and Robert Jones in the middle with Darren Smith and a host of others at OLB....

NOPE....you can line up our current defensive players in any freakin' formation you want, and they are still going to suck because they aren't very good...they aren't impact players.

You find a scheme that can take 1 CB, 1 safety, 1 very good DT and 1 decent DE, along with a passel of smurf LB's who hustle and turn that into a great defense, and you will be the next NFL genius.

Bring in another stud at DT; at least 1 very good DE; a couple of impact LB's; a good RCB and a decent FS....then I don't care what defense you want to run, you'll probably be successful.

Zaxor · 02-15-2005

If a Team is a power running team with straight ahead line blocking the 3-4 is weak it is also weak against running QB's that can pass that is why it is best to be able to implement both and run them both effectively...

but...

In a pass happy NFL the 3-4 is much better suited defense or if a team relies on finess for its blocking scheme...

Zaxor

Hostile · 02-15-2005

Yes, it does. Defensive schemes have nothing to do with defensive dominance. You can build a dominant defense using any scheme. We seem to be switching not because we have the personnel to do it but rather because it is a current fad that our Head Coach has a comfort level with. Recipe for disaster to run a scheme without the proper personnel.

For reference I give you Atlanta in 2003 and Oakland in 2004. Many here think that all we need is a NT to get the ball rolling. I submit to you that Ted Washington wasn't enough to get that ball rolling in Oakland and he's one of the best NTs of the last decade. It takes more than a NT.
We have personnel better suited to a 4-3. Moving to a 3-4 is a major overhaul. I'm not kidding, if we switch I expect our defense to be our weak point unless we add 7 to 10 players this off season. Notice I did not say starters.

Bad idea.

wileedog · 02-15-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hostile

We have personnel better suited to a 4-3.

Correction. We have personnel better suited to a poor 4-3.

The only impact players we have on the front 7 are Glover and Ellis, possibly Dat if the right people are around him. I think Ellis and Dat at least can be successful in a 3-4, leaving only Glover as the the sticking point.

We need to revamp the front 7 and add a safety and CB anyway, so we're looking at a major overhaul no matter what scheme we use. If that's the case I'd just assume move to a scheme the head coach is comfortable with and has a better track record evaluating talent for.

In the end, as Wayne mentioned above, what we need is better players. I really don't think how many LBers we put on the field at a time is the real concern.

StreetPlayaRoss21 · 02-15-2005

Its a waste of the money were paying glover to use him as a 3-4 end, plus we dont hve the lbs for the switch, only Dat, but he could be to short to play inside on a 3-4, outside? whoknows

jterrell · 02-15-2005

I love the 3-4.

I expect it to be ported to a 3-3-5 type scheme as time passes and teams pass even more. Make the front 6 real big guys who can tackle and play 2 rovers(Roy Williams type guys).

You will need big backers and big DL.

Ellis, Pat Williams, Glover
Bradie James, Dat, Ed Hartwell
RW, Keith Davis, TNew, Gary Baxter, Will Demps

... would be real nice and the setup I'd like to use as a DC.

You could take out Davis and put in Frazier or Hunter on Nickel situations and take out Davis and put in Carson on short yardage stuff.

Hollywood Henderson · 02-15-2005

The only thing to "fear" is to continue to do what we had been doing..."occupy & engage" Even when out D was ranked high, we sucked vs quality teams with good offenses...

Parcells and 95% percent of fans have seen enough of zimmy to last a lifetime...

Parcells has spent perhaps too much time with the offense and now its time for him to take the time to do what he does best...
COACH Defense...

zimmy? he can go flip bugers and the TEAM will be that much better off!

Oh, and lil Dat is too small & SLOW to play as an everydown LBer no matter what scheme...He could be effective in a nickle/dime & ST role though...

Nors · 02-15-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rack

The 3-4 doesn't worry anymore then going another season under Zimmer's 4-3. In fact, the 3-4 worries me considerably LESS then Zimmer's 4-3.

Anything but The passive 4-3 cover 2

I've posted on merits of changing to 3-4 for going on a yaer and a half. People should have been more worried staying in a flawed scheme with bad talent.

FIX IT PARCELLS!

Nors · 02-15-2005

The hallmark of a BB/BP 3-4 defense is the ability to switch on the fly to a 4-3. We will still throw 4-3 looks at teams.

You need abigger OLB's that can cover but also be able to play down on the edge and pass rush.

3-4 ON THE WAY!!!!!!

joseephuss · 02-15-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken

It didn't worry me until I really started to think about it.

For every San Diego and Pittsburge, their is a Baltimore and Atlanta. Teams that switched to the 3-4 and found success and then teams that scrapped it after a year or two and switched back. Baltimore is going back to the 4-3 this year after a few year trial.

They should have known better than anyone they could win with the 4-3. They had one of the best defenses of all time in 2000. Why would they change when they know all it takes is the correct personel? They certainly weren't inept with the 3-4 but I think they saw it's limitations.

[View Full Quote]

San Diego may have switched to the 3-4, but they were not a great defense. They only had 29 sacks and gave up over 250 yards a game thru the air. They ranked lower than Dallas. They played better than their 2003 defense, but that had more with them getting rid of a sucky player in Marcellus Wiley and many of their young guys in the secondary just gaining experience. Also their offense took quite a burden off them by controlling the clock and scoring points.

InmanRoshi · 02-15-2005

This isn't like a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" moment or anything. Its broke. What's the worst case scenerio if we move to a 3-4? That we're mediocre against the run and at the other team's mercy against the pass? You mean like last year? When we were running the 4-3? The formation we're supposedly suited for?

I really don't care, but I hate the argument "We have the personnel to run the 4-3." No, as the poster pointed above, we have the personnel to run a really crappy 4-3. If that's fine by you, then no need to change. Otherwise, we need major defensive talent upgrades no matter the scheme. So I really don't worry about "we need new players".

Its much easier to find personnel to run a 3-4 in this league, even with so many teams switching over to find it. Its much easier to find 250 lb pass rushers than it is to find 280 lb. pass rushers. The Chargers can find Steve Foley for a song, but don't ever expect the Cowboys to just magically stumble into a 6'6" 280 double digit sack man.

I don't really care if we struggle next year. We're not winning the Superbowl next year with Drew Henson starting his first year. I'm worried about what's best for the next 3 or 4 years.

Nors · 02-15-2005

[quote=InmanRoshi]This isn't like a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" moment or anything. Its broke. What's the worst case scenerio if we move to a 3-4? That we're mediocre against the run and at the other team's mercy against the pass? You mean like last year? When we were running the 4-3? The formation we're supposedly suited for?

We have fixins for a real bad 4-4. I SEE NO REASON NOT TO CHANGE TO AN AGGRESSIVE 3-4 FRONT. We have $20M in free agent money to spend. Two first rounders in a draft stocked with 3-4 players. Spears, Merriman, Pollack, Ware, AnTaj and Canty (eye is ok)

All this Atlanta, Okland 3-4 stuff is garbage. One team had a poor season when Vick was down and Raiders totally sucked in 2003 too

4-3 Defenses for ya, Chiefs, San Fran WhoooHoooo

You also missed what Pats and Steelers did! Super Bowl and combined 29-3 regular season record!

This is the same old sorry discussion we had last year, the difference is now the majority of the board see's the merits of moving to a 3-4. There are pockets of "players don't" groundfire. But its sporadic. From all thats been reported and talked about its a done deal we are going to the 3-4.

If Parcells is going down its going to be with his defense, not Dungy's 4-3 cover 2.

FIX IT PARCELLS!

Derinyar · 02-15-2005

We have 3 to 4 quality starters for a 4-3 defense. If we are generous we have two quality starters for a 3-4. Anyone who argues that its easier to find 5 guys who can play than to find about 3 is a fool. More teams are begining to look for that hybrid player. At least people here have stopped pointing to Shanle and Thornton as reasons to switch to a 3-4.

Moving to a 3-4 we need 2 OLB, at least 1 MLB, and probably 2-3 DLine. And thats before we get to the backups we need to impliment the defense. So basically we need 2-3 NT, 2-4 DE, 4 MLB, 4 OLB. Looks like a pretty intimidating list. So lets count Shanle and Thornton as backup players, and toss James in there also. So now we are down to 3 MLB and 1 OLB(if we pretends that one of the three in the last sentence is starter material). It could work, but its just not likely to be an effective defense for 2 to 3 years, at minimum.