Anybody else find this a tad ironic?

[parchy]

Did Parcells know what he was doing when he changed our defensive set? The 3-4 has worked out alright this year, but it's funny considering the history of the franchise. Landy basically created the 4-3 defense from the ground up and the Cowboys were the first team to have a head coach dedicated to it. Landry revolutionized defense in the NFL with the Giants and Cowboys, and it's kind of sad to have to turn the page on that for some newfangled system.

I've always wondered what Landry would think if he knew Parcells changed the D to a 3-4. He was such a visionary, and it seems like we spent so much time and effort switching when it would have been just as advantageous to stay in the 4-3. We don't have the linebackers or the linemen to make it work long term, so I'm still kind of wondering why...

 

[Tuna Helper]

Did Parcells know what he was doing when he changed our defensive set? The 3-4 has worked out alright this year, but it's funny considering the history of the franchise. Landy basically created the 4-3 defense from the ground up and the Cowboys were the first team to have a head coach dedicated to it. Landry revolutionized defense in the NFL with the Giants and Cowboys, and it's kind of sad to have to turn the page on that for some newfangled system.

I've always wondered what Landry would think if he knew Parcells changed the D to a 3-4. He was such a visionary, and it seems like we spent so much time and effort switching when it would have been just as advantageous to stay in the 4-3. We don't have the linebackers or the linemen to make it work long term, so I'm still kind of wondering why...

I agree with Landry's development of the 4-3, but I think Parcells' grand vision was to have a hybrid defense. I have noticed that we play both 3-4 and 4-3 mixes. The Patriots have been sporting a hybrid since Belichick arrived there, and it is no secret that Parcells covets this hybrid defense.

I personally love the idea of a hybrid defense. Belichick has given Peyton Manning fits with his defensive alignment, and the number of different fronts he throws out on the field. I think we are headed in the same direction, but we aren't there yet.

 

[parchy]

I agree with Landry's development of the 4-3, but I think Parcells' grand vision was to have a hybrid defense. I have noticed that we play both 3-4 and 4-3 mixes. The Patriots have been sporting a hybrid since Belichick arrived there, and it is no secret that Parcells covets this hybrid defense.

I personally love the idea of a hybrid defense. Belichick has given Peyton Manning fits with his defensive alignment, and the number of different fronts he throws out on the field. I think we are headed in the same direction, but we aren't there yet.

We didn't need a hybrid though... we'd had the #1 defense in the league with the 4-3 and had the personnel to carry it through. Our linebackers are weak as hell, and instead of having to worry about filling that position for a 3-4 this off-season, we could be focusing all of our energy towards the O-Line, FS and WR.

 

[Reality]

You can't replace your entire defense (meaning players) in one off-season. Not to mention the fact that two of our starting linebackers along with two of their replacements have been lost for season. Change is always tough initially, but by next season, the defensive personnel will better match the scheme.

 

[Tuna Helper]

We didn't need a hybrid though... we'd had the #1 defense in the league with the 4-3 and had the personnel to carry it through. Our linebackers are weak as hell, and instead of having to worry about filling that position for a 3-4 this off-season, we could be focusing all of our energy towards the O-Line, FS and WR.

The #1 defense thing is a bit misleading. True, the 2003 team had the top ranked defense in the league, but it was not a playmaking defense. Turnovers were few and far between, and we did not get many sacks. Good things happen when you confuse the QB, pressure the QB and force turnovers.

Also, the defensive rank is often based on yards allowed, and this can be misleading in itself. For example, if special teams are poor, and the opposing team has a short field to work with over and over again, then the defense gets credited with fewer yards allowed.

Another example...years ago, the Vikings had the top ranked offense in the NFL, but this was because their return game sucked, and they consistently started with bad field position, forcing them to make up the yardage on offense.

Point is that special teams, offense, and defense must all work together, and sometimes it is better to be ranked in the middle of the pack in all 3 phases.

 

[parchy]

You can't replace your entire defense (meaning players) in one off-season. Not to mention the fact that two of our starting linebackers along with two of their replacements have been lost for season. Change is always tough initially, but by next season, the defensive personnel will better match the scheme.

Why was the change necessary? Take a look.

Linebackers - maybe the weakest spot on the team, especially now that Dat is gone, and we add another spot at the position? Why? That is just more work and $ spent in the off-season for something that didn't need to happen. Worry about rotating guys into three spots instead of four and that position looks a whole better.

D-Line - Glover and Ellis are assets, and they're such obvious 4-3 guys. Neither has a future in this defense now that it has changed. Ellis has had good sack numbers this year, but both benefit much, much more from the 4-3. That's two assets more than we had at linebacker, yet we subtract a spot from them and add one behind them. Still doesn't make any sense to me. Putting a stop-gap next to Glover is relatively easy, and then drafting another DE fixes the problem... now you have a great 4-3 with 4-3 personnel, and NOW.

The secondary doesn't really matter, but for a team that gets so burned by the deep ball, you'd think having a guaranteed 4-man rush instead of three would take some serious pressure off of one of the weaker cover safety combos in the league.

I'm not saying I don't support the 3-4 (and there are tons of things I like about it), but I still question the timing and point to it all.

 

[Reality]

We didn't need a hybrid though... we'd had the #1 defense in the league with the 4-3 and had the personnel to carry it through. Our linebackers are weak as hell, and instead of having to worry about filling that position for a 3-4 this off-season, we could be focusing all of our energy towards the O-Line, FS and WR.

Yeah, two seasons ago we had the number one defense .. last season we had a horrible defense.

The truth is that our 4-3 tampa style defense was smoke and mirrors and was too dependent on star players. That concept works great when 1) you have star players and 2) they stay healthy and play every game. Unfortunately, all it took was not having a star cornerback and our best defensive player (Woodson) missing the whole season to show just how fragile that defensive scheme was.

While, I don't like the bigger-means-slower concept Parcells has switched to, I do grealty appreciate the fact that the defense is built more around a team effort than star player effort.

I mean think about the defensive players we've lost this season .. if before the season started you knew our defense would be starting some of our rookies and that Dat Nguyen, Al Singleton, and Anthony Henry would miss a large part of the season and that our defensive packages would include Jacques Reeves, Ryan Fowler, etc. most would have said the Cowboys would be lucky to keep teams under 30 points.

My only wish for the defense next season is that Parcells tries to add big players that are still fast and quick.

-Reality

 

[parchy]

The #1 defense thing is a bit misleading. True, the 2003 team had the top ranked defense in the league, but it was not a playmaking defense. Turnovers were few and far between, and we did not get many sacks. Good things happen when you confuse the QB, pressure the QB and force turnovers.

Playmaking, not playmaking... who cares? That defense stopped other teams from scoring carried a team with a woeful offense to the playoffs and a 10-6 record. I'd take that defense every year.

 

[wileedog]

I'm not saying I don't support the 3-4 (and there are tons of things I like about it), but I still question the timing and point to it all.

I think the point is very simple.

Bill is a coach who very much believes in the 3-4. And the bottom line is if you are going to pay a coach $5M a season, you install a system in which he is most comfortable and effective coaching.

THe problem here is not why did we go to the 3- 4 this year. The problem is why didn't we switch to it out of the gates in 2003? That was the mistake IMO.

 

[junk]

Parchy, I've wondered that same thing all offseason and all year.

To make this defense respectable, the team needs to add at least an OLB, ILB and a FS.

Could it have been better with a 4 man front? I absolutely think so. BP is a 3-4 guy, so he felt the need to go to it with a roster that didn't really fit it.

We are sitting here in the last week of the season worried about the loss of Singleton and Nguyen. Those two guys had no business playing a 3-4, yet it was the base defense.

Now, Dallas is talking of ditching Ellis and Glover this offseason. For what? Eliminates the DL rotation (one of the nice aspects of the 3-4). Requires a couple of LBers to be signed/drafted.

Play a hybrid defense. I sure haven't seen it. Other than nickel and occasional 4-3 over/under schemes, I sure haven't seen the team play any sort of 4-3.

Adapt your defense to the skill on your team. The D would have been way better if Parcells hadn't been trying to fit square pegs in round holes.

 

[Sarge]

Playmaking, not playmaking... who cares? That defense stopped other teams from scoring carried a team with a woeful offense to the playoffs and a 10-6 record. I'd take that defense every year.

That's NOT the defense we had last year.

 

[Rack]

Landy basically created the 4-3 defense from the ground up and the Cowboys were the first team to have a head coach dedicated to it.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but are you saying that Tom Landry invented the 4-3 defense? If so, that is incorrect. He created the 4-3 flex, not the 4-3. And the 4-3 was being used before the cowboys used it. I mean, if it weren't, then what kind of defenses were teams using? The 3-4 didn't show up till the 70s (dolphins were the first to use it).

Or maybe teams were using a 4-4 or something. I dunno. But I do know we weren't the first to use a 4-3 (just the 4-3 flex).

 

[Hostile]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but are you saying that Tom Landry invented the 4-3 defense? If so, that is incorrect. He created the 4-3 flex, not the 4-3. And the 4-3 was being used before the cowboys used it. I mean, if it weren't, then what kind of defenses were teams using? The 3-4 didn't show up till the 70s (dolphins were the first to use it).

Or maybe teams were using a 4-4 or something. I dunno. But I do know we weren't the first to use a 4-3 (just the 4-3 flex).

You're correct, Landry created the Flex. Teams already used the 4-3.

To Parchy's question, Parcells has had his greatest successes running a 3-4 defense. We did not run a pure 3-4 this year. We used an awful lot of 4-3 sets, in particular in Nickel situatons.

I doubt Landry would roll over in his grave over the use of the 3-4. If anything he'd probably smile at the action of seeking players of high moral character.

At this point after losing 4 LBs to injury we're probably better suited to run the 4-3. We may already have been better suited given the top 4 Down Lineman we had. However, if the team was to achieve what Parcells wanted they needed to be committed to the 3-4.

The defense achieved some of Parcells' goals, but not all of them. That is why I don't believe he'll retire. There's a job to finish.

 

[Rack]

We used an awful lot of 4-3 sets, in particular in Nickel situatons.

A nickel and a 4-3 are two entirely different fronts. It's a pet peave (sp?) of mine when people say "we use a 4-3 when we're in our nickel" or something like that. A nickel defense is a nickel defense, and a 4-3 is a 4-3. A nickel has a 4 man front, but it doesn't have the 3 LBs required to make is a "4-3".

Sorry, that just annoys me.

I think the 3-4 we ran this year was basically a 4-3 over with the weakside end standing up. It seemed it was almost ALWAYS only the weakside backer that "blitzed". There was absolutely zero "exotic" blitzes this year.

That said, it's a good thing our defense played well despite being so "vanilla". That's a good sign. Imagine how we'll do next year when the players (and dcoord) have enough understanding of the defense to create some confusing blitzes. I mean, watch the steelers on D, then watch us. It's night and day. We're extremely vanilla. We basically beat people (when we do beat them) with pure man power. There's nothing disguised in our D that catches an offense off guard. Again, that's a good thing since we've been successful at it (for the most part). Can't wait to see some crazy stunts/games/blitzes out of our D next year.

 

[Dallas31]

A nickel and a 4-3 are two entirely different fronts. It's a pet peave (sp?) of mine when people say "we use a 4-3 when we're in our nickel" or something like that. A nickel defense is a nickel defense, and a 4-3 is a 4-3. A nickel has a 4 man front, but it doesn't have the 3 LBs required to make is a "4-3".

Sorry, that just annoys me.

good point

 

[Rick_Deckard]

I have been reading a great book called "America's Game - The Epic Story of How Pro Football Captured a Nation" by Michael MacCambridge. In the book, Landry is credited with taking former Giants head coach Steve Owen's umbrella defense and modifying it to create the 4-3-4 (simply the 4-3). The middle guard was moved 3-5 yards behind the line of scrimmage, and became the middle linebacker. Sam Huff became the defensive leader and one of the first purely defensive stars in the NFL. Of course, the defensive scheme was later modified into the flex.

It is interesting to note that while Landry was the defensive coordinator of the Giants, the offensive coordinator was Vince Lombardi. What a staff!

I highly recommend the book for anyone who is a fan of the NFL and its history.

 

[Cbz40]

A nickel and a 4-3 are two entirely different fronts. It's a pet peave (sp?) of mine when people say "we use a 4-3 when we're in our nickel" or something like that. A nickel defense is a nickel defense, and a 4-3 is a 4-3. A nickel has a 4 man front, but it doesn't have the 3 LBs required to make is a "4-3".

Sorry, that just annoys me.

I think the 3-4 we ran this year was basically a 4-3 over with the weakside end standing up. It seemed it was almost ALWAYS only the weakside backer that "blitzed". There was absolutely zero "exotic" blitzes this year.

That said, it's a good thing our defense played well despite being so "vanilla". That's a good sign. Imagine how we'll do next year when the players (and dcoord) have enough understanding of the defense to create some confusing blitzes. I mean, watch the steelers on D, then watch us. It's night and day. We're extremely vanilla. We basically beat people (when we do beat them) with pure man power. There's nothing disguised in our D that catches an offense off guard. Again, that's a good thing since we've been successful at it (for the most part). Can't wait to see some crazy stunts/games/blitzes out of our D next year.

You and me both........

We too vanilla......I'll be glad when we can add a few sprinkles on top.

 

[AdamJT13]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but are you saying that Tom Landry invented the 4-3 defense? If so, that is incorrect. He created the 4-3 flex, not the 4-3. And the 4-3 was being used before the cowboys used it. I mean, if it weren't, then what kind of defenses were teams using? The 3-4 didn't show up till the 70s (dolphins were the first to use it).

Or maybe teams were using a 4-4 or something. I dunno. But I do know we weren't the first to use a 4-3 (just the 4-3 flex).

Landry created the 4-3 when he was a player-coach with the Giants in 1954. Before that, teams usually used a 5-3 against the run and a 5-2 against the pass. He didn't create the Flex until he was with the Cowboys.

 

[big dog cowboy]

Did Parcells know what he was doing when he changed our defensive set?

That is a little harsh don't you think?

 

[parchy]

Landry created the 4-3 when he was a player-coach with the Giants in 1954. Before that, teams usually used a 5-3 against the run and a 5-2 against the pass. He didn't create the Flex until he was with the Cowboys.

This was what I was alluding to.