The hybrid 4-3 we will be playing

[AsthmaField]

I'd play him at the Will because he's more free to use his speed and run to the ball. I see him being the designated MLB in the nickel.

McCarthy said that the morning after the first round that he and Quinn met and talked about how to deploy Parsons. He said they think he can play both “off the ball” and “on the ball” because he’s so good at rushing the QB. He said they want him to be used in many ways.

“Off the ball” is like what you’re talking about at Will or Mike LB. “On the ball’ would be either as the SAM in a 43-under standing at the line of scrimmage, or as the LEO as the de facto right DE.

He made it sound like they would use him both ways, meaning as a run and hit LB where he could traditionally blitz, or on the line where he would be more of a pass rusher than a blitzer… although he would be able to drop into coverage if they wanted him to.

We don’t know for sure how or where they’ll use him but with what they talked about after the first round… it sounds like both ways, which I’d be good with.

In a Sports Illustrated article, they say that Pete Carroll, when he was at USC played Clay Matthews as the SAM and people thought they were running a 34 scheme because Matthews was lined up outside the big end (LDE) on the line of scrimmage. So in that LB spot, Parsons would be considered “on the ball”.

In that same article, they say that the SAM ‘backer can also move over to the LEO spot, which makes me think they might use Parsons some at LEO and SAM.

I could see them using Micah some at Mike or Will, some at SAM and some at LEO. I’m not sure if they will, but I’d like to see it. It would depend on what formation as well as down and distance.

Ultimately, it seems like we’re just going to have to wait to see how they’ll use him. But it doesn’t sound like they’re just going to stick him at one LB spot and leave him there.

 

[Cebrin]

There are a lot of folks, still, who think we will be running a 3-4. There are a lot of folks, still, who think we're rid of the Tampa 43 that Marinelli used.

Simply put, the front that Seattle began to use in 2010 is the same front that Monte Kiffin used on Tony Dungy's Tampa 2, just on steriods.

Compared to the old Tampa 2 front, rather than having a DE, 3T, 1T and DE, you have a Leo, a 3T, a 1T and a big end. Or maybe you have a big end, a 3T, a 1T and a big end. Or maybe you have a Leo, a 3T, a 1T, and a 1 gapping big end.

It's not uncommon for the DC to switch out player roles on a game to game basis.

So what's a big end and what's a Leo? Big end is the end on the strong side of the formation. Leo is on the weak side. According to SI, an ideal two gapping big end is 280-295 pounds, 20 pounds lighter than a 3-4 DE. Leos can be regular 43 DEs, but because they are weak side, successful Leos can be lighter. And they can be hands in the dirt or 2 point stance, according to what they prefer.

The base therefore is a 4-3 under where 1/2 of the defense is using 3-4 techniques and the other half (the weak side half) is using 4-3 techniques.

But on a game to game basis, it doesn't have to be that.

In 2010, when they came up with this, they had to deal with Seattle's then horrible run defense. And it worked out of the box. If you want specific links, I can DM you my wikipedia draft..

D-

Nice post, thanks for clarifying!

 

[gimmesix]

So, are you saying that Parsons would be the LEO? Or in addition to the LEO (at WILL)?

Not sure. Generally, the Leo seems to be an end whose job is to rush the passer. I'd say that Lawrence is the Leo, but since he's on the TE side I'm not sure he'd qualify under the strict definition of the position. I definitely see Lawrence as DPR in the 3-4 fronts.

So I guess I'm saying that I don't know what Quinn will designate them, but I wouldn't be surprised if our "linebackers" in the 3-4 front are: WLB Parsons, ILB LVE, ILB Smith, SLB/DPR Lawrence. Offenses would know generally that Lawrence is coming but would have to figure out when Parsons is run/pass blitzing and when he's not. I would want Parsons as free as possible to run to the ball and attack.

 

[gimmesix]

McCarthy said that the morning after the first round that he and Quinn met and talked about how to deploy Parsons. He said they think he can play both “off the ball” and “on the ball” because he’s so good at rushing the QB. He said they want him to be used in many ways.

“Off the ball” is like what you’re talking about at Will or Mike LB. “On the ball’ would be either as the SAM in a 43-under standing at the line of scrimmage, or as the LEO as the de facto right DE.

He made it sound like they would use him both ways, meaning as a run and hit LB where he could traditionally blitz, or on the line where he would be more of a pass rusher than a blitzer… although he would be able to drop into coverage if they wanted him to.

We don’t know for sure how or where they’ll use him but with what they talked about after the first round… it sounds like both ways, which I’d be good with.

In a Sports Illustrated article, they say that Pete Carroll, when he was at USC played Clay Matthews as the SAM and people thought they were running a 34 scheme because Matthews was lined up outside the big end (LDE) on the line of scrimmage. So in that LB spot, Parsons would be considered “on the ball”.

In that same article, they say that the SAM ‘backer can also move over to the LEO spot, which makes me think they might use Parsons some at LEO and SAM.

I could see them using Micah some at Mike or Will, some at SAM and some at LEO. I’m not sure if they will, but I’d like to see it. It would depend on what formation as well as down and distance.

Ultimately, it seems like we’re just going to have to wait to see how they’ll use him. But it doesn’t sound like they’re just going to stick him at one LB spot and leave him there.

I won't be surprised by any of that because I know we want to mix it up and not be predictable. We know that Lawrence can play either side as well.

I don't think SLB will be his home, because I think Lawrence is better coming off the left side, but it's most likely we'll shift him around a lot. I'm not sure we'll do that early, though, unless he learns fast. We may want to put him in one spot and let him go so that he won't be thinking too much and can just react.

Actually, with Smith and LVE having played multiple linebacker positions, we could be in good shape to shift them around so that offenses have trouble recognizing who is where. Maybe Parsons is the Leo, but it looks like he's the Mike or he's the Will when it appears he's going to be the Sam. The more confusion we can cause, the better. Of course, we want to make sure we are confusing the other team and not ourselves, so we'll have to be sure these players can handle it.

 

[AsthmaField]

Not sure. Generally, the Leo seems to be an end whose job is to rush the passer. I'd say that Lawrence is the Leo, but since he's on the TE side I'm not sure he'd qualify under the strict definition of the position. I definitely see Lawrence as DPR in the 3-4 fronts.

So I guess I'm saying that I don't know what Quinn will designate them, but I wouldn't be surprised if our "linebackers" in the 3-4 front are: WLB Parsons, ILB LVE, ILB Smith, SLB/DPR Lawrence. Offenses would know generally that Lawrence is coming but would have to figure out when Parsons is run/pass blitzing and when he's not. I would want Parsons as free as possible to run to the ball and attack.

I view the primary LEO as Gregory, who should be pretty ideal on that edge rushing role.

Lawrence should be the Big End in some sets because he’s so solid against the run, and might even play as a 3T in some situations, but he could also see time at LEO, maybe in a heavy set. I don’t know… it’ll be interesting to watch in camp.

In a Sports Illustrated article about Pete Carroll’s defense, they list the LEO as typically weighing anywhere from 245 to 275. It is usually the smaller end and the teams best pass rusher. Lawrence could fit there but Gregory fits like a glove.

I’ve wondered if they might spell Gregory some with Parsons in passing situations and with Lawrence on rushing downs.

At this point it is just a ton of speculation. We will all have a better feel for this defense after Quinn has had a season here.

And the linebackers in the 34 front (although it isn’t truly a 34 front) would be the 3 standard LB’s plus Gregory at LEO. Say:

Sam - Parsons
Mike - Smith
Will - LVE
LEO - Gregory

Like this:

‘Lawrence could still be on the left side with Parsons on the edge outside of him.

The line could be Lawrence at 3T, Bohanna at NT, and Odighizuwa at the other 3T.

So there would be 5 guys “on the ball” going from left to right:
Parsons - Lawrence - Bohanna - Odighizuwa- Gregory

The LB could be different though. You might have Parsons at Mike and Jaylon at Sam. Or Parsons at Will, LVE at Mike, and Jaylon at Sam.

There are many different ways that they could do it.

As far as Parsons and how he will be used, I do think they’ll do what you said and have him running free to the ball or they’ll use him as an edge to rush the passer sometimes. That’s what it has sounded like the plan is so far.

 

[DogFace]

Leo would seem to fit Randy nicely. His speed and that extra space to “get going” should work for him.

As we know and the articles states IF we get some ok converge this D seems like a great fit for our roster and it appears our draft plan.

 

[DuncanIso]

There are a lot of folks, still, who think we will be running a 3-4. There are a lot of folks, still, who think we're rid of the Tampa 43 that Marinelli used.

Simply put, the front that Seattle began to use in 2010 is the same front that Monte Kiffin used on Tony Dungy's Tampa 2, just on steriods.

Compared to the old Tampa 2 front, rather than having a DE, 3T, 1T and DE, you have a Leo, a 3T, a 1T and a big end. Or maybe you have a big end, a 3T, a 1T and a big end. Or maybe you have a Leo, a 3T, a 1T, and a 1 gapping big end.

It's not uncommon for the DC to switch out player roles on a game to game basis.

So what's a big end and what's a Leo? Big end is the end on the strong side of the formation. Leo is on the weak side. According to SI, an ideal two gapping big end is 280-295 pounds, 20 pounds lighter than a 3-4 DE. Leos can be regular 43 DEs, but because they are weak side, successful Leos can be lighter. And they can be hands in the dirt or 2 point stance, according to what they prefer.

The base therefore is a 4-3 under where 1/2 of the defense is using 3-4 techniques and the other half (the weak side half) is using 4-3 techniques.

But on a game to game basis, it doesn't have to be that.

In 2010, when they came up with this, they had to deal with Seattle's then horrible run defense. And it worked out of the box. If you want specific links, I can DM you my wikipedia draft..

D-

Good stuff!

 

[Redball Express]

Yep. I agree. From the most general of perspectives, I don't see this defensive group as having a high enough collective football IQ to grasp the different assignments and roles that this scheme seems to imply. Same as last year imo. The ability to teach it onhands during TC to the defense does not convince me either.

In my opinion they need to play fast, instinctual, downhill, swarming, gang tackle football and not hafta think.

Didn't Parsons say he was a find ball - get ball type a guy?

Just do the KISS thing with this group Quinn. Keep it Simple Stupid.

Find what each players strength is and have him be good at doing that one thing. It's the prob with this team as a whole. They prefer a player to be position flex average at multiple roles/positions rather than focusing on the one thing/role/position that a player truly excels at.

Ya know kinda like player over scheme.
Or putting a player in his best position to succeed.

Seems like I read those somewhere, lol

jmo

This sound alot like what got everybody confused early on. Sounds like alot of thinking to me. Defense works best if you keep it simple so players can just react and play. Not get cerebral and think about what has been called. So Quinn maybe good but is this just more or the same as last year. Does the defense make the players or do the players make the defense. Or do the coaches make the difference. I am unclear

 

[Cowboysheelsreds053]

There are a lot of folks, still, who think we will be running a 3-4. There are a lot of folks, still, who think we're rid of the Tampa 43 that Marinelli used.

Simply put, the front that Seattle began to use in 2010 is the same front that Monte Kiffin used on Tony Dungy's Tampa 2, just on steriods.

Compared to the old Tampa 2 front, rather than having a DE, 3T, 1T and DE, you have a Leo, a 3T, a 1T and a big end. Or maybe you have a big end, a 3T, a 1T and a big end. Or maybe you have a Leo, a 3T, a 1T, and a 1 gapping big end.

It's not uncommon for the DC to switch out player roles on a game to game basis.

So what's a big end and what's a Leo? Big end is the end on the strong side of the formation. Leo is on the weak side. According to SI, an ideal two gapping big end is 280-295 pounds, 20 pounds lighter than a 3-4 DE. Leos can be regular 43 DEs, but because they are weak side, successful Leos can be lighter. And they can be hands in the dirt or 2 point stance, according to what they prefer.

The base therefore is a 4-3 under where 1/2 of the defense is using 3-4 techniques and the other half (the weak side half) is using 4-3 techniques.

But on a game to game basis, it doesn't have to be that.

In 2010, when they came up with this, they had to deal with Seattle's then horrible run defense. And it worked out of the box. If you want specific links, I can DM you my wikipedia draft..

D-

Dwmyers, thanks for this informative writeup my man. Kudos to you!

 

[Techsass]

What does my comment have to do with anything you said lol

I wanted to give him a LIKE, but it looked like he was aiming a dig at you.

 

[AbeBeta]

Here you can see the 2-gap 4T and 1T with the 1-gap 3T and LEO (DE).

The 4T could be Urban
The 1T could be Bohannon (I hope) or Watkins
The 3T could be Odighizuwa or Gallimore
The LEO could be Gregory, maybe Lawrence, and possibly Parsons some.

You can see that the SLB will sometimes drop in coverage but will also sometimes go after the QB. Quinn and McCarthy have both mentioned Parsons playing there and sending him after the QB. That would be ideal IMO because I think that he is a natural rusher. They could send 5 at the QB with Parsons and Gregory coming off the edge’s. That could be potent if you can just get some decent coverage.

On certain passing downs, you could have this:

Here you could have:

SLB Parsons
3T Odighizuwa
0 (NG) Bohannon
3T Gallimore
LEO Gregory

That could be very good at getting to the passer. Parsons could go or he could drop, creating indecision much like a 34 can with its OLB’s.

Bottom line is that it is called multiple for a reason. There is a lot that Quinn can do and many different lineups of defensive personnel.’

What people need to understand is that the guys Quinn has been bringing in are versatile and could be used in different positions depending on down/distance.

People should be very excited about watching this defense IMO.

Dude. You a proposing a pass rush D with Lawrence. That's insane and hurting your credibility

 

[75boyz]

This sound alot like what got everybody confused early on. Sounds like alot of thinking to me. Defense works best if you keep it simple so players can just react and play. Not get cerebral and think about what has been called. So Quinn maybe good but is this just more or the same as last year. Does the defense make the players or do the players make the defense. Or do the coaches make the difference. I am unclear

Yep. Perfectly stated. And as you and I BOTH are unclear in the effectiveness of this proposed change for all your reasons mentioned, I would go with a simpler base 4-3. Just maybe a tad more aggressive than Marinelli's conservative approach.
I believe the risk/reward in wholesale philosophical change will expose this group of defenders as square pegs in round holes just like last year regardless of Quinn's having a full offseason and regular training camp to teach it.

My opinion anyway.

Nice post again.

 

[AsthmaField]

Dude. You a proposing a pass rush D with Lawrence. That's insane and hurting your credibility

Do what?

 

[xwalker]

Technically, Quinn said it is “going to look like a 34”. He phrased it that way because it isn’t really a 34, IMO.

You're overthinking it. Market inefficiencies aren't exploited by a defense you run 15 snaps a game

It's more roster management efficiency than market efficiency.
- They can make their pass rushers better against the run by changing the alignment based on run or pass situations.

Just taking a step back and considering the basic issue that 4-3 D-Coordinators face:

• They usually have 4 DTs and 4 DEs active.
• They want to load up on pass rushers but they also need to stop the run or they'll never get into good pass rushing situations.
• How do you make pass rushers better run defenders? Move them further to the outside.
• Even an average sized 4-3 DE becomes a "big" LB.
• A pass rushing DT becomes a power DE.
• Then they carry 1 big run stopper to play NT.
• The 4-3 SLB is removed and the NT is added. That's 80 to 100 extra pounds added to the front 7.
• They can carry 1 less off-ball type LB in order to carry the NT because they play 2 off-ball types both in run defense and pass defense.

 

[817Gill]

I wanted to give him a LIKE, but it looked like he was aiming a dig at you.

Yeah wasn’t sure what I said to illicit that type of response

 

[xwalker]

I don't think you will see Parsons at Sam. Parsons himself said he's going to be playing Mike / Will. Also if Parsons is playing Sam, that means he's coming off the field in passing situations. If you are teaching him all 3 lb positions in year 1, that's probably a bit overboard for any rookie. I'm guessing Jaylon will play Sam

Position names become a bit nebulous in multiple front type defenses. There is also a variance depending on coaching staff.

In Marinelli's defense, the WLB didn't really align specific to the the weak or strong side of the defense.

 

[visionary]

This sound alot like what got everybody confused early on. Sounds like alot of thinking to me. Defense works best if you keep it simple so players can just react and play. Not get cerebral and think about what has been called. So Quinn maybe good but is this just more or the same as last year. Does the defense make the players or do the players make the defense. Or do the coaches make the difference. I am unclear

actually no, it’s very simple once the assignments are understood

 

[Redball Express]

Yep. Perfectly stated. And as you and I BOTH are unclear in the effectiveness of this proposed change for all your reasons mentioned, I would go with a simpler base 4-3. Just maybe a tad more aggressive than Marinelli's conservative approach.
I believe the risk/reward in wholesale philosophical change will expose this group of defenders as square pegs in round holes just like last year regardless of Quinn's having a full offseason and regular training camp to teach it.

My opinion anyway.

Nice post again.

Well..I have learned not to think the way somebody leads you..its usually a smokescreen to hide the flaws in a plan. This holding Quinn as some sort of guru reminds me of how Marinelli was regarded at times..but he was revealed in Detroit when he was fired as HC. So while Quinn is not looking for a new HC position..the FO building him up as the fix for our problems. I have my doubts about Quinn as he has been given responsibilities before and failed. Dallas likes to do this with regularity. Marinelli, Ryan and. Others were hear before Quinn with marginal success..

 

[75boyz]

Well..I have learned not to think the way somebody leads you..its usually a smokescreen to hide the flaws in a plan. This holding Quinn as some sort of guru reminds me of how Marinelli was regarded at times..but he was revealed in Detroit when he was fired as HC. So while Quinn is not looking for a new HC position..the FO building him up as the fix for our problems. I have my doubts about Quinn as he has been given responsibilities before and failed. Dallas likes to do this with regularity. Marinelli, Ryan and. Others were hear before Quinn with marginal success..

Totally agree in that big picture perspective. Yes, the Defensive Coordinator of the Dallas Cowboys...
A savior for a year and the scapegoat for the next.
As the CZ poster Mountaineer Cowboy has said about Quinn for this year though is accurate imo.
And that is he need only get the Defensive rankings in the low 20s or even 19 and he will be seen as the next "answer."
But as you alluded to, its just the same re- cycling that will take place with that particular job title(DC) again and again.
Whether he gets fired as a scapegoat or offered another HC gig somewhere else, the cycle of churning this all important job title (DC)will continue and will continue to fail.
Leaving a previous defensive roster and scheme to begin again. And again.

jmo

 

[Majic]

I was encouraged by what DQ said about learning from past mistakes and evolving his DEF to compete with the NFL today. I think there will be quite a difference to how he set up his DEF in Seattle