anyone agree we need to be a 4-3

[slick325]

Maybe I just don't get it. Why do people actually care which scheme we run? I don't and never have. Some will disagree with that and say I have argued for the 4-3 for 2+ years. No, I haven't. I've argued that we needed to upgrade the defensive personnel.

We have now acquired personnel who can run either scheme. This is a good thing. For the last 2 years we couldn't have effectively done this. The reason I say it is a good thing is simple, versatility.

There is not a doubt in my mind that Bill Parcells and Mike Zimmer will use whatever scheme they feel will work per a given situation and opponent. If one scheme is struggling but the other is tearing it up don't think for one minute that Bill Parcells won't use the one which is more effective. It's called winning. Parcells may have a big ego, but the biggest ego stroke is a win. He's not stupid. He will use what is working. Won't matter one iota whether it is the 4-3 or the 3-4 that is working. He'll dance with the one he's most likely to go home with. If ya know what I mean.

Amen Hostile. Good post.

 

[JDSmith]

Maybe I just don't get it. Why do people actually care which scheme we run? I don't and never have. Some will disagree with that and say I have argued for the 4-3 for 2+ years. No, I haven't. I've argued that we needed to upgrade the defensive personnel.

We have now acquired personnel who can run either scheme. This is a good thing. For the last 2 years we couldn't have effectively done this. The reason I say it is a good thing is simple, versatility.

There is not a doubt in my mind that Bill Parcells and Mike Zimmer will use whatever scheme they feel will work per a given situation and opponent. If one scheme is struggling but the other is tearing it up don't think for one minute that Bill Parcells won't use the one which is more effective. It's called winning. Parcells may have a big ego, but the biggest ego stroke is a win. He's not stupid. He will use what is working. Won't matter one iota whether it is the 4-3 or the 3-4 that is working. He'll dance with the one he's most likely to go home with. If ya know what I mean.

I agree 100%. I think arguing over the scheme is ridiculous. We lacked defensive talent the past few years. We couldn't run a 3 - 4, we could barely run a 4 - 3. We just didn't have the personnel. Now we should be able to run either effectively. I don't understand why anyone would align himself with a particular defense. Neither is better than the other, both have strengths and weaknesses - and most importantly, neither is more valuable than the personnel you have running it. No scheme turns bad players into good players, although some players might be more suited to one scheme or the other. But guys who suck generally suck no matter what scheme you run. And ours have been pretty sucky.

 

[silver]

Amen Hostile. Good post.

ditto

 

[CowboyChris]

Maybe I just don't get it. Why do people actually care which scheme we run? I don't and never have. Some will disagree with that and say I have argued for the 4-3 for 2+ years. No, I haven't. I've argued that we needed to upgrade the defensive personnel.

We have now acquired personnel who can run either scheme. This is a good thing. For the last 2 years we couldn't have effectively done this. The reason I say it is a good thing is simple, versatility.

There is not a doubt in my mind that Bill Parcells and Mike Zimmer will use whatever scheme they feel will work per a given situation and opponent. If one scheme is struggling but the other is tearing it up don't think for one minute that Bill Parcells won't use the one which is more effective. It's called winning. Parcells may have a big ego, but the biggest ego stroke is a win. He's not stupid. He will use what is working. Won't matter one iota whether it is the 4-3 or the 3-4 that is working. He'll dance with the one he's most likely to go home with. If ya know what I mean.

game, set, and match.

 

[junk]

Maybe I just don't get it. Why do people actually care which scheme we run? I don't and never have. Some will disagree with that and say I have argued for the 4-3 for 2+ years. No, I haven't. I've argued that we needed to upgrade the defensive personnel.

We have now acquired personnel who can run either scheme. This is a good thing. For the last 2 years we couldn't have effectively done this. The reason I say it is a good thing is simple, versatility.

There is not a doubt in my mind that Bill Parcells and Mike Zimmer will use whatever scheme they feel will work per a given situation and opponent. If one scheme is struggling but the other is tearing it up don't think for one minute that Bill Parcells won't use the one which is more effective. It's called winning. Parcells may have a big ego, but the biggest ego stroke is a win. He's not stupid. He will use what is working. Won't matter one iota whether it is the 4-3 or the 3-4 that is working. He'll dance with the one he's most likely to go home with. If ya know what I mean.

I am willing to bet people will argue over what scheme is even being run at times this year.

With the versatile lineman and LBers on this team, a 3-4, a 4-3 or a 4-3 over/under could all appear the same without breaking down the actual assignments of players.

All I know is this. The talent of the team lies on the DL. I want to see a scheme that gets Glover, Ferguson, Ware, Ellis, Spears, Burnett and Nguyen on the field as much as possible. A heavy dose of Canty would be nice as well.

 

[dougonthebench]

No!I'm happy with our new defense!

 

[The30YardSlant]

game, set, and match.

Well, apparently you care as you started a thread about it then debated all through said thread

 

[Hostile]

I am willing to bet people will argue over what scheme is even being run at times this year.

With the versatile lineman and LBers on this team, a 3-4, a 4-3 or a 4-3 over/under could all appear the same without breaking down the actual assignments of players.

All I know is this. The talent of the team lies on the DL. I want to see a scheme that gets Glover, Ferguson, Ware, Ellis, Spears, Burnett and Nguyen on the field as much as possible. A heavy dose of Canty would be nice as well.

I agree, that will happen, and 99% of it will be for effect. There are posters who care more about stirring things up and being outrageous than actually discussing the football aspect of why something is done.

 

[Nors]

No!I'm happy with our new defense!

Me too , Parcells is sticking to this 3-4 defense.

Here's to actually creating turnovers and QB pressure. Both in sacks and confusion at point of attack.

 

[Nors]

Anyone agree we will be a 4-3 was the thread question.

Hos - the answer is clearly no.
This is a 3-4 base D. Thats not even debatable anymore.

We can move on now.
Lock er up.

 

[Hostile]

Anyone agree we will be a 4-3 was the thread question.

Hos - the answer is clearly no.
This is a 3-4 base D. Thats not even debatable anymore.

We can move on now.
Lock er up.

Once again, Nors feels threatened by the opinions of others and demands action on a thread. This time, "lock it up." Your manhood isn't being threatened by the discussion, so I think I'll keep it open. If you respond I'll know you approve of this action, or inaction, whichever way you choose to see it.

Ciao.

 

[CowboyChris]

Well, apparently you care as you started a thread about it then debated all through said thread

i agreed with Hos' response, i feel since we kept 8 DL, and with the depth there it would be a better fit for us to be a 4-3 based team, not to mention Glover, Nyguen and Ellis are not ideal 3-4 players. given the talent we have here now Fergy, Spears, Canty, Ware, Burnett, Ratliff, and Pepper these guys still neeed some seasoning. there is no doubt a transition to a 3-4 looks promising, but at this point in time the 4-3 should better serve us. again you put Ellis, Glover, and Coleman as our starting 3-4, and LT will run for 200 yards on us.

 

[JDSmith]

If we line up in a 3 - 4 and get a sack and fumble will anyone here be any more or less thrilled than if we do so in a 4 - 3? I sure won't. I don't care if we are running a 2 - 2 - 7 as long as we get pressure on the QB, stuff the run and generate turnovers. Half the time in preseason I couldn't tell what we were lined up in. I saw a bunch of bodies along the line, whether they were LBs or DL I don't know - and wouldn't until I went back to look at it in slow motion. So for me, however we get it done is fine - as long as we get it done.

 

[Hostile]

i agreed with Hos' response, i feel since we kept 8 DL, and with the depth there it would be a better fit for us to be a 4-3 based team, not to mention Glover, Nyguen and Ellis are not ideal 3-4 players. given the talent we have here now Fergy, Spears, Canty, Ware, Burnett, Ratliff, and Pepper these guys still neeed some seasoning. there is no doubt a transition to a 3-4 looks promising, but at this point in time the 4-3 should better serve us. again you put Ellis, Glover, and Coleman as our starting 3-4, and LT will run for 200 yards on us.

Not picking a fight, but that wasn't exactly my point.

I will be fine with running a 3-4 if it is working for us.

I will be fine with runnign a 4-3 if it is working for us.

I will be fine with switching back and forth. I don't care which scheme we run and never have. I just want it to shut teams down, create pressure,and take the ball away. If our D does that we could run a 1-10 and I wouldn't care.

 

[Hostile]

If we line up in a 3 - 4 and get a sack and fumble will anyone here be any more or less thrilled than if we do so in a 4 - 3? I sure won't. I don't care if we are running a 2 - 2 - 7 as long as we get pressure on the QB, stuff the run and generate turnovers. Half the time in preseason I couldn't tell what we were lined up in. I saw a bunch of bodies along the line, whether they were LBs or DL I don't know - and wouldn't until I went back to look at it in slow motion. So for me, however we get it done is fine - as long as we get it done.

 

[Hiero]

good points, i want to clarify my stance. not that we NEED to run the 4-3 but i think we need to get our good DL on the field as much as possible and now that we have fujita our OLB is catching up to the DL imo, but dl still has a little more talent, so whether its 4-3 or 3-4 i hope we take advantage of our best playmakers as much as possible, and i know that is what bill will do.

 

[Nors]

Well start rooting for the Base 3-4.

Thats what Parcells and Zimmer installed and are running majority of the time.

 

[Nors]

The decision is made.

Please continue on though.

 

[Nors]

No!I'm happy with our new defense!

I'm very happy with our Base 3-4. I like that we have versatility to change our schemes on the fly and actually dictate to Offenses.

Versus a passive, predictable Defense.

 

[Hostile]

The decision is made.

Please continue on though.

Now that we have your blessing, I believe we will. Not that we wouldn't have without you blessing. Don't want to get confusing. What I really mant to say was...

"Thank you for your blessing."