#42 we trade away (plus Dat) for Howard

[Hostile]

Hos, I have to disagree with you on this one. Just because we have four fine front four players (assuming Howard gets onboard) doesn't mean all four will play every down. There will be times when some are out on rotation, out due to injury and schemes will change for different teams and even during games and on certain downs. So having the versatility to run either 4-3 or 3-4 makes it even more attractive to me. It certainly will cause teams to prepare for more and create more match up problems. We we exploit those matchup problems foreseen and those that arise during games.

I think we will run a combination of schemes this year according to who is here and healthy and how those personnel match the other team and situations. The addition of Howard and/or Abraham and others who play the 4-3 and/or 3-4 better just make things better IMO.

Jobber, I have never maintained that all 4 will play every down. However, I have continued to maintain that Glover is one pretty undisputable reason why a pemanent switch to a 3-4 is not in the works for 2005. Those who believe a 3-4 will magically fix everything wrong with our defense have failed to recognize that in him we have one of the best DTs in the game and moving him would be a foolhardy move.

I have always maintained that we run schemes based on situation and circumstance. I have said for 2 years now that we were already running some 3-4 packages as well as Dime and Nickel packages.

I will lighten up on this when people are just as excited about a Dime or Nickel package. That isn't what they are harping on though. They continue to beat a dead horse that a switch is inevitable. No it isn't.

The way to win is not to switch for the sake of switching but to add the right personnel. Now, I will openly admit Ferguson can play NT in a 3-4 and play it well. I continue to point out that Glover make sit more likely we will play mostly 4-3.

Now we're looking to add Darren Howard. Winning defense is accomplished by putting your best 11 on the field. I seriously doubt that barring injury we have many situations where any of those 4 DL ride pine or are inactive for a game.

As I also pointed out we have not looked at LBs at all. Now, we may be waiting until the draft. I admit that. But if we were switching to a 3-4 it seems pretty evident to me that we would have done more at LB besides releasing a guy to free up cap space.

If we switch schemes it will be a gradual switch with a focus on personnel. Right now it appears to me that we are shoring up our 4-3 base defense by adding 2 DL. Call me crazy, but that's how I see it.

 

[Hostile]

Go see what Ravens are doing! Running a 3-4 and some 46 defense. Funny stuff.

Last 2 years you said never. Last year Parcells added 3-4 to training camp/play book and used it some.

We added a 3-4 NT. He's using it more in 2005.

Howard can play 3-4 defense as well as a 4-3, but that deal is not happening. Price in SB and draft pick and players way too steep. I can see why Saints trying to unload his salary.....

http://www.nfl.com/stats/teamsort/NFL/DEF-TOTAL/2004/regular?sort_col_1=4

I challenge you to prove that statement in bold to me. If you do happen to luck out and find some vague reference I will gladly show you all the posts about the 46 being a dinosaur that YOU posted.

You're so wishy washy on this topic that it's funny.

Your initial claim was that the 46 was derived from the 3-4. No getting around that and 100% wrong as I have proven many times over.

 

[AsthmaField]

Boy... everyone seems touchy tonight.

Ware should be a very good player at the next level. I think he's on the radar for a lot of teams.

Will he go before Pollack, Roth, etc.? I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me on bit to see Ware come off the board with some big school producers still sitting there.

I'd love to get Ware at 42 but I'm afraid he'll be gone. I hope I'm wrong.

It's all speculation, of course, but that's my take on it.

 

[Hostile]

Boy... everyone seems touchy tonight.

Ware should be a very good player at the next level. I think he's on the radar for a lot of teams.

Will he go before Pollack, Roth, etc.? I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me on bit to see Ware come off the board with some big school producers still sitting there.

I'd love to get Ware at 42 but I'm afraid he'll be gone. I hope I'm wrong.

It's all speculation, of course, but that's my take on it.

Naw, it's just a username.

I actually get very happy when I have a debate to chew on. Know where I can find one?

 

[AsthmaField]

Naw, it's just a username.

I actually get very happy when I have a debate to chew on. Know where I can find one?

I was just kiddin' around.

Debate with you? Noooooooo thanks. I know better. Luckily, our opinions usually mirror each other pretty closely... oh, and I know what a 30 yard slant is... er, isn't.

 

[blindzebra]

Naw, it's just a username.

I actually get very happy when I have a debate to chew on. Know where I can find one?

There never was a debate on this issue, unless it was the personnel versus scheme issue.

You, me and others that Nors loves to say were dead *** wrong about the 3-4, have always said if we had the personnel to fit that system fine but we did not, and we still don't have the personnel.

If anything, after we trade for Howard, we are moving FURTHER away.

 

[Nors]

I challenge you to proce that statement in bold to me. If you do happen to luck out and find some vague reference I will gladly show you all the posts about the 46 being a dinosaur that YOU posted.

You're so wishy washy on this topic that it's funny.

Your initial claim was that the 46 was derived from the 3-4. No getting around that and 100% wrong as I have proven many times over.

Hos I never said that never!
All I ever said was there were similarities between the 46 and 3-4 in that they all had a NT, and played players up and and down in the box, And moved it around. Both D's caused confusion to Oline on who was coming and who might drop into coverage.

 

[Nors]

There never was a debate on this issue, unless it was the personnel versus scheme issue.

You, me and others that Nors loves to say were dead *** wrong about the 3-4, have always said if we had the personnel to fit that system fine but we did not, and we still don't have the personnel.

If anything, after we trade for Howard, we are moving FURTHER away.

BlindZ:

1) WE ADDED 3-4 TO PLAYBOOK THIS YEAR AND USED IT SOME
2) We added a NT

3) You know Howard had 8 of his sacks last year from DT? He played DT/DE in college. At 280 he is a perfect 3-4 DE actually.....

But that trade is dead....

 

[Hostile]

Hos I never said that never!
All I ever said was there were similarities between the 46 and 3-4 in that they all had a NT, and played players up and and down in the box, And moved it around. Both D's caused confusion to Oline on who was coming and who might drop into coverage.

Nice way to dodge answering the proof challenge.

Auntie Em, Auntie Em, it's a twister, it's a twister.

It's what you said. Maybe you didn't mean it because you said it rashly, but it is what you said. I remember it rather vividly and have called you on it several times. You always avoid answering it and just call the 46 a dinosaur.

 

[Hostile]

I was just kiddin' around.

Debate with you? Noooooooo thanks. I know better. Luckily, our opinions usually mirror each other pretty closely... oh, and I know what a 30 yard slant is... er, isn't.

Would you explain that to HeavyHitta31?

I seem to cause him to do this and I worry about more damage.

 

[blindzebra]

BlindZ:

1) WE ADDED 3-4 TO PLAYBOOK THIS YEAR AND USED IT SOME
2) We added a NT

3) You know Howard had 8 of his sacks last year from DT? He played DT/DE in college. At 280 he is a perfect 3-4 DE actually.....

But that trade is dead....

We had 3-4 looks BEFORE Parcells got here. We used it, what 5% of the snaps, and this magical scheme produced how many game changing plays? I recall it forced a rookie QB to call a timeout.

Our 4-3 defense has used a NT for several years, unfortunately we have not had a player of Ferguson's ability in that spot.

So Howard can play 3-4 DE, which multi-millionaire, pro-bowl level player do we sit?

Where are the playmaking LBs?

 

[Nors]

We had 3-4 looks BEFORE Parcells got here. We used it, what 5% of the snaps, and this magical scheme produced how many game changing plays? I recall it forced a rookie QB to call a timeout.

Our 4-3 defense has used a NT for several years, unfortunately we have not had a player of Ferguson's ability in that spot.

So Howard can play 3-4 DE, which multi-millionaire, pro-bowl level player do we sit?

Where are the playmaking LBs?

Yep we were bottom of the league D, keep defending Zimmer and his 4-3.
There was no 3-04 HERE pre Parcells.

Howard is a SAINT, AND THIS IS ABOUT A TEAM, players play what helps us win. How was Howards great DE push and his D, DEAD LAST IN THE nfl. LAST

Lets give him a $16M bonus, and a #2, and Dat. Stop the madness.


3-4 is coming, and as much as you might hate it - Howard is a versatile player.

 

[Nors]

Nice way to dodge answering the proof challenge.

Auntie Em, Auntie Em, it's a twister, it's a twister.

It's what you said. Maybe you didn't mean it because you said it rashly, but it is what you said. I remember it rather vividly and have called you on it several times. You always avoid answering it and just call the 46 a dinosaur.

Nope your terminology is yours. I never said it as you did. Move on - reread my opinion as restated today. You get so hung up on Dent being lined up super wide and rather in a 3 point or up you miss the similarities on what both D's are doing to a Oline.




And yes its a Dinosaur! 46

 

[EveryoneElse]

The 4-3 has never been the problem. Lack of a pass rush IS the problem and will be until we get some guys that can put pressure on the QB.

Until I read for myself that the deal is dead, I'll continue to hope we sign the guy.

Howard would fill a hole in our defense.

 

[Hostile]

Nope your terminology is yours. I never said it as you did. Move on - reread my opinion as restated today. You get so hung up on Dent being lined up super wide and rather in a 3 point or up you miss the similarities on what both D's are doing to a Oline.




And yes its a Dinosaur! 46

This gets funnier all the time as you try and dig your way out of the hole only to dig yourself in deeper. Now you want to tell me Dent basically played OLB. Sure he did Nors, and on the left side no less.



Dan Hampton was the RDE in the Bears 46. Look it up if you doubt me.

Swing and a miss.

Once again, a theory crashes and burns when faced with irrefutable facts.

Translation...you keep bringing flyswatters to a gunfight.

 

[Waffle]

Yep we were bottom of the league D, keep defending Zimmer and his 4-3.
There was no 3-04 HERE pre Parcells.

Howard is a SAINT, AND THIS IS ABOUT A TEAM, players play what helps us win. How was Howards great DE push and his D, DEAD LAST IN THE nfl. LAST

Lets give him a $16M bonus, and a #2, and Dat. Stop the madness.


3-4 is coming, and as much as you might hate it - Howard is a versatile player.

Please God...NO!!!!!!! That's like paying $50 for a Happy Meal™. Hell, Orlando Pace's SB was less than that and he's argubly the best Olineman in football.

Howard's too pricey for my blood if these numbers are what he's asking for. We shouldn't trade Dat either. I don't want to trade any picks for the guy unless it's a 2 or 3 in 2006 or 2007...Maybe.

For the record,I don't see us going full blown 3-4 in 2005. 3-4, 4-3, 46...who freakin' cares as long as we are applying some pressure on opposing QBs.

Switching to a 3-4 defense doesn't equal QB pressure by default. There are plenty of guys in 4-3s who sack the QB all the time. Ever heard of Michael Strahan? What about that Simeon Rice dude?

 

[Nors]

This gets funnier all the time as you try and dig your way out of the hole only to dig yourself in deeper. Now you want to tell me Dent basically played OLB. Sure he did Nors, and on the left side no less.



Dan Hampton was the RDE in the Bears 46. Look it up if you doubt me.

Swing and a miss.

Once again, a theory crashes and burns when faced with irrefutable facts.

Translation...you keep bringing flyswatters to a gunfight.

All I ever said was they lined Dent UP wide (FACT)...You so miss the point totally, you deserve to sleep in the bed you made - genious! :

Out.

http://www.nfl.com/teams/story/CHI/6303504

 

[junk]

genious!

That is funny.

 

[DeaconBlues]

Yep we were bottom of the league D, keep defending Zimmer and his 4-3.
There was no 3-04 HERE pre Parcells.

Both Gailey and Campo tried 3-4 looks. Campo used to drop Roy Williams as the fourth LB.

 

[Hollywood Henderson]

The problem with the Pre- Parcells 3- down lineman zimmy WUSS has employed is that it was in passing downs with extra slow safties added who couldn't cover MIke Irvin's grandma...

Or else he would rush a tiny whimpy player like Dat who can't handle that job, at all...He can't over power the smallest of RB's...

zimmy can't coach it or anything else...

He doesn't have a clue how to coach agressive innovative football...

So its Parcells taking over on D in a 3-4 or more wasting the talents of players AGAIN on D...