#42 we trade away (plus Dat) for Howard

[Hostile]

01 You are wrong on Pats.
They played both 3-4 and 4-3 that season. You were there? (not) I was and thats BB lore.

have a great evening!

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/2002/playoffs/news/2002/01/30/drz_breakdown/#defense

Starting lineups for Super Bowl XXXVI

Front 7 for New England. I believe you'll see 4 D-linemen and 3 LBs. I know that's what I see.

[font=helvetica,arial] Bobby Hamilton (91) LDE
[/font][font=helvetica,arial] Brandon Mitchell (96) LT
[/font][font=helvetica,arial] Richard Seymour (93) RT
[/font][font=helvetica,arial] Anthony Pleasant (98) RDE

[/font][font=helvetica,arial] Mike Vrabel (50) SLB
[/font][font=helvetica,arial] Tedy Bruschi (54) MLB
[/font][font=helvetica,arial] Roman Phifer (95) WLB

39 Super Bowls played. Going with your numbers 5 ran the 3-4. Simple math 34 ran the 4-3.

That's 15% to 85%. Yet you want to play the longer odds?


See how stats can be manipulated?
[/font][font=helvetica,arial][/font]

 

[junk]

Ware, Ferguson, Canty, Spears are all 3-4 players.

Canty, yes. Ferguson has played it, but publicly stated he prefers 4-3. Ware and Spears were 4-3 ends in college. They are projected as 3-4 players, not established 3-4 players.

The key to the draft picks is versatility. They can probably play both schemes which I expect to see a lot of this year.

 

[Nors]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/2002/playoffs/news/2002/01/30/drz_breakdown/#defense

Starting lineups for Super Bowl XXXVI

Front 7 for New England. I believe you'll see 4 D-linemen and 3 LBs. I know that's what I see.

[font=helvetica,arial] Bobby Hamilton (91) LDE
[/font][font=helvetica,arial] Brandon Mitchell (96) LT
[/font][font=helvetica,arial] Richard Seymour (93) RT
[/font][font=helvetica,arial] Anthony Pleasant (98) RDE

[/font][font=helvetica,arial] Mike Vrabel (50) SLB
[/font][font=helvetica,arial] Tedy Bruschi (54) MLB
[/font][font=helvetica,arial] Roman Phifer (95) WLB

39 Super Bowls played. Going with your numbers 5 ran the 3-4. Simple math 34 ran the 4-3.

That's 15% to 85%. Yet you want to play the longer odds?



See how stats can be manipulated?
[/font][font=helvetica,arial][/font]

Pats are a 3-4 team and everyone knows that - they were in and out of 4-3 and 3-4 that season. I'm hoping the 3-4 makes it 4 of past 5 SuperBowls. Yesteryear means NOTHING to modern football today.

 

[junk]

Pats are a 3-4 team and everyone knows that - they were in and out of 4-3 and 3-4 that season. I'm hoping the 3-4 makes it 4 of past 5 SuperBowls. Yesteryear means NOTHING to modern football today.

Cheering for the pats again, huh?

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Pats are a 3-4 team and everyone knows that - they were in and out of 4-3 and 3-4 that season. I'm hoping the 3-4 makes it 4 of past 5 SuperBowls. Yesteryear means NOTHING to modern football today.

I don't know that you can say the Pats are a 34 team and everybody knows it. I think the Pats play a great deal more 43 then most realize.

 

[blindzebra]

Pats are a 3-4 team and everyone knows that - they were in and out of 4-3 and 3-4 that season. I'm hoping the 3-4 makes it 4 of past 5 SuperBowls. Yesteryear means NOTHING to modern football today.

Which is it?

Let me guess, JUST the 3-4 part won the Super Bowl right?

 

[Scotman]

I don't post often, but I read the board every day. I'll go on record as saying I'm in Nors' court. It seems every time he posts, someone brings up the 34 or Ty Law. He will then respond with his opinions and everybody jumps on him.


I see most of his posts as light hearted and fun (as well as opinionated).

When I read Nors' posts, they make the most sense to me. They have for a long, long time. I think we'll see a lot more 34 this year than most people think. I think you'll see it increasing over the course of the year as well.

I like both Glover and Ellis, but I wouldn't build a defense around them at this point in their careers. I'd reduce their plays and let them be tremendously effective when they are in there. Linemen are not like RB's in that they tend to wear down as the game progresses, not get into a rythym. A D-lineman can come in off the bench and wreck havoc for a few plays and them take a few plays off. Ellis will only get worn down against the larger OL if he's in there every play. He won't be and neither will Glover.

I'd argue that we have BETTER players for a 34 than we do a 43. Here is my logic. Granted, the players we have all fit well into a 43, if the best are on the field all day long. They can't and won't.

Our depth now lies in the 34. We can consistently put a better 34 on the field and maintain fresh players. The arguement keeps getting posted that we swap Glover for Shanle in the 34. Maybe so. But when Glover is completely worn out by the end of the game, he's not as effective. And he's another year older. A fresh linebacker vs. a worn out Dlineman is more than fair. We will see a more effective Glover in a reduced role.

NORS has been predicting a 34 switch for a long time. I'm right there with him. Further, I don't understand what it is everybody is afraid of losing. Have any of you really been happy with our defense in the last 6-7 years? Really?

 

[Crown Royal]

I don't post often, but I read the board every day. I'll go on record as saying I'm in Nors' court. It seems every time he posts, someone brings up the 34 or Ty Law. He will then respond with his opinions and everybody jumps on him.


I see most of his posts as light hearted and fun (as well as opinionated).

When I read Nors' posts, they make the most sense to me. They have for a long, long time. I think we'll see a lot more 34 this year than most people think. I think you'll see it increasing over the course of the year as well.

I like both Glover and Ellis, but I wouldn't build a defense around them at this point in their careers. I'd reduce their plays and let them be tremendously effective when they are in there. Linemen are not like RB's in that they tend to wear down as the game progresses, not get into a rythym. A D-lineman can come in off the bench and wreck havoc for a few plays and them take a few plays off. Ellis will only get worn down against the larger OL if he's in there every play. He won't be and neither will Glover.

I'd argue that we have BETTER players for a 34 than we do a 43. Here is my logic. Granted, the players we have all fit well into a 43, if the best are on the field all day long. They can't and won't.

Our depth now lies in the 34. We can consistently put a better 34 on the field and maintain fresh players. The arguement keeps getting posted that we swap Glover for Shanle in the 34. Maybe so. But when Glover is completely worn out by the end of the game, he's not as effective. And he's another year older. A fresh linebacker vs. a worn out Dlineman is more than fair. We will see a more effective Glover in a reduced role.

NORS has been predicting a 34 switch for a long time. I'm right there with him. Further, I don't understand what it is everybody is afraid of losing. Have any of you really been happy with our defense in the last 6-7 years? Really?

Funny. None of us dragged this old thread back out from the archives.

 

[Scotman]

Really? I may very well be doing something wrong. I didn't intend to pull this out of the archives. It appeared to me that many of the later comments were current.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I don't post often, but I read the board every day. I'll go on record as saying I'm in Nors' court. It seems every time he posts, someone brings up the 34 or Ty Law. He will then respond with his opinions and everybody jumps on him.


I see most of his posts as light hearted and fun (as well as opinionated).

When I read Nors' posts, they make the most sense to me. They have for a long, long time. I think we'll see a lot more 34 this year than most people think. I think you'll see it increasing over the course of the year as well.

I like both Glover and Ellis, but I wouldn't build a defense around them at this point in their careers. I'd reduce their plays and let them be tremendously effective when they are in there. Linemen are not like RB's in that they tend to wear down as the game progresses, not get into a rythym. A D-lineman can come in off the bench and wreck havoc for a few plays and them take a few plays off. Ellis will only get worn down against the larger OL if he's in there every play. He won't be and neither will Glover.

I'd argue that we have BETTER players for a 34 than we do a 43. Here is my logic. Granted, the players we have all fit well into a 43, if the best are on the field all day long. They can't and won't.

Our depth now lies in the 34. We can consistently put a better 34 on the field and maintain fresh players. The arguement keeps getting posted that we swap Glover for Shanle in the 34. Maybe so. But when Glover is completely worn out by the end of the game, he's not as effective. And he's another year older. A fresh linebacker vs. a worn out Dlineman is more than fair. We will see a more effective Glover in a reduced role.

NORS has been predicting a 34 switch for a long time. I'm right there with him. Further, I don't understand what it is everybody is afraid of losing. Have any of you really been happy with our defense in the last 6-7 years? Really?

The problem with our defense the last 6 or 7 years is not a question of scheme. It is a question of talent.

You believe that we are in a better position to support a 34? How do you see this as such? Please expalain your position.

 

[Scotman]

Fair enough ABQ. I'll try, but keep in mind that I am not as articulate as I'd like to be.


I think it is simply a matter of depth. Our experienced guys are suited to the 43. Glover and Ellis being the best of them. But, in large part, the talent we have been acquiring is better suited to the 34. Now, our strengths still lie in the 43 but we do not have the depth for a 43 rotation. We are deeper, IMO, with the rookies for a 34. Without a rotation and not allowing for wearing down through out the game, we're better suited for a 43. But if the plan is to keep fresh bodies in the game, we have more youth and depth for a 34. That's why I stated that I think you'll see more and more 34 as the year progresses and our youth gains in experience.

Don't know if that was clear or not but I appreciate the objective question.
Scot

 

[Crown Royal]

Really? I may very well be doing something wrong. I didn't intend to pull this out of the archives. It appeared to me that many of the later comments were current.

I wasn't talking about you. I was talking about the poster whom you are defending from the 'attacks' of others.

 

[Scotman]

I wasn't talking about you. I was talking about the poster whom you are defending from the 'attacks' of others.

Fair enough again. I wasn't trying to be a smart alec. I could very well post incorrectly or go through the posts incorrectly from a lack of experience doing so.

I can see why he's defending himself, though. I also don't see it being against his nature to do a little good natured "in your face" if the opportunity presents itself (which it did).

No harm no foul.
Scot

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Fair enough ABQ. I'll try, but keep in mind that I am not as articulate as I'd like to be.


I think it is simply a matter of depth. Our experienced guys are suited to the 43. Glover and Ellis being the best of them. But, in large part, the talent we have been acquiring is better suited to the 34. Now, our strengths still lie in the 43 but we do not have the depth for a 43 rotation. We are deeper, IMO, with the rookies for a 34. Without a rotation and not allowing for wearing down through out the game, we're better suited for a 43. But if the plan is to keep fresh bodies in the game, we have more youth and depth for a 34. That's why I stated that I think you'll see more and more 34 as the year progresses and our youth gains in experience.

Don't know if that was clear or not but I appreciate the objective question.
Scot

When I look at our team, I believe we are better suited to a 43 but obviously, opinions vary.

The only players I see better suited to a 34 are probably Canty (not really sure. I think he can go either way), Thornton (probably a 34 OLB), Shanle (Probably best suited to play ILB in 34) and Keith O'Neil (Also, probably an ILB in a 34).

Ellis, Ware, Carson, Spears, Glover, Coleman, James, Nguyen and Singleton, I veiw as better suited to a 43.

 

[Scotman]

True, opinions vary.


I would disagree on Ware and Spears, I think they'll be a perfect fit in a 34. But then again, I may be wrong.

I totally agree on Ellis and Glover and Nguyen but I think all of these guys are approaching an age where they can't play every down and be as effective.
And while it sounds awful, I think everyone else you mentioned are just role players and if they don't fit you find another role player and plug them in.

 

[AtlCB]

You are putting oversized 3-4 de'S in a 4-3? Ellis can't handle RDE
No matter how you slice it we are getting bigger this year! Where is Coakley and I see you bailed on Al s(mall)alf

Huh??? Ellis would actually be a better RDE than LDE. The LDE faces more double teams (he has to face the TE as well). The RDE is usually the smaller and better pass rusher of the two DE's. Parcells has also moved Ellis from the LDE position to the RDE position.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

True, opinions vary.


I would disagree on Ware and Spears, I think they'll be a perfect fit in a 34. But then again, I may be wrong.

I totally agree on Ellis and Glover and Nguyen but I think all of these guys are approaching an age where they can't play every down and be as effective.
And while it sounds awful, I think everyone else you mentioned are just role players and if they don't fit you find another role player and plug them in.

The problem may be that people view players from the perspective of what defense they like as opposed to what actually fits them best.

For example, I look at Ware and I see a guy who could easily play in a 34. I think he has the natural ability to do so. Having said that, he's never played it before. I look at him and I also see fine ability to play the edge rushing RDE position. He's a very experience hand down pass rusher. Because of his natural ability, he could also play either OLB position in a 43. If you look at this from the perspective of experience, I'd have to say that he's better suited to a 43. I believe he has the ability to play a 34 but that's not the same as being better suited to due so IMO.

If I look at Spears, I see a guy who's 6-4 295-300 or so. This is an extremely agile man for his size. I believe he was a Basketball player, for a time, while at LSU. This guy can move well. He has played both 34 and 43 while at LSU but the problem I see with Spears in a 34 is that his best work is not done as a player that locks up and plays run. He is better, IMO, at disrupting. He can lock up and play strong but we're talking about a guy who is an exceptional athlete for his size. He really is the closest thing to Seymour I've seen in some time, IMO. If he plays DE in a 34, his responsability will be to hold the LOS and eat blocks. To me, that's a waste of this mans ability. If you play him in a 43, I think you create a lot of problems for the offense in that you can line him up at DE or either DT position. He's big enough to play snaps as a 1 or 2 technique DT and he's quick enough to play the 3 technique DT (think Leon Lett). He can be slid out to playe LDE and still give a pretty good pass rush for that position as well. To me, I look at him and I see a guy who fits the 43 better because of his versatility. Can he play 34? Sure, but why would you waste him there?

 

[Scotman]

The problem may be that people view players from the perspective of what defense they like as opposed to what actually fits them best.

For example, I look at Ware and I see a guy who could easily play in a 34. I think he has the natural ability to do so. Having said that, he's never played it before. I look at him and I also see fine ability to play the edge rushing RDE position. He's a very experience hand down pass rusher. Because of his natural ability, he could also play either OLB position in a 43. If you look at this from the perspective of experience, I'd have to say that he's better suited to a 43. I believe he has the ability to play a 34 but that's not the same as being better suited to due so IMO.

If I look at Spears, I see a guy who's 6-4 295-300 or so. This is an extremely agile man for his size. I believe he was a Basketball player, for a time, while at LSU. This guy can move well. He has played both 34 and 43 while at LSU but the problem I see with Spears in a 34 is that his best work is not done as a player that locks up and plays run. He is better, IMO, at disrupting. He can lock up and play strong but we're talking about a guy who is an exceptional athlete for his size. He really is the closest thing to Seymour I've seen in some time, IMO. If he plays DE in a 34, his responsability will be to hold the LOS and eat blocks. To me, that's a waste of this mans ability. If you play him in a 43, I think you create a lot of problems for the offense in that you can line him up at DE or either DT position. He's big enough to play snaps as a 1 or 2 technique DT and he's quick enough to play the 3 technique DT (think Leon Lett). He can be slid out to playe LDE and still give a pretty good pass rush for that position as well. To me, I look at him and I see a guy who fits the 43 better because of his versatility. Can he play 34? Sure, but why would you waste him there?

I agree with everything you've said about Ware. I probably don't give adequate value to where he lined up in college.

On Spears, I think he'll wind up bigger than he is now. I bet he settles in aroun310. He looks to have the frame for it. I see him being big, fast and dominate in a 34 in a year or two. But your points are well taken.

 

[Hostile]

Pats are a 3-4 team and everyone knows that - they were in and out of 4-3 and 3-4 that season. I'm hoping the 3-4 makes it 4 of past 5 SuperBowls. Yesteryear means NOTHING to modern football today.

I offered you a link and proof that they lined up in a 4-3 in 2001 when they won Super Bowl XXXVI.

In other words, I backed up my claims....again.

 

[Hostile]

Really? I may very well be doing something wrong. I didn't intend to pull this out of the archives. It appeared to me that many of the later comments were current.

You didn't do anything wrong, just are misinformed. He brought the thread back to life after 3 months, not his "detractors."

Every article that mentions the 3-4 or the defense gets a snide comment or reminder that he has been championing this cause. Those snide comments usually result in people responding. If you initiate the contact, it makes little sense to complain about the retaliation, especially when if facts are introduced he runs and hides.