Better suited for 4-3?

[Bizwah]

Sorry, but I've never really been sold on this 3-4 we've been running. I don't see how we're a better defense running the 34 over the 43.

Our main problem, IMO, with our 43 defenses in the past was our lack of good DL. We had Ellis and Glover....good players, but both need complimentary players to make them better. Unfortunately, we never did get them help.

Now, I feel we have excellent pieces to run a very good 43.

DE: Hatcher\Spears
DT: Spears\Canty
DT: Ferguson/Ratliff
DE: Ware

LB: Carpenter/Burnett
LB: James
LB: Ayodele

I think we have pieces to run both defenses. But I think making Zimmer, a 43 guy, a coach in the 34, we're trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

Parcells will not be our coach much longer....and the list of coaches that know the 34 is small. I would hate to see us bypass good coaching prospects because they aren't 34 guys.

Fortunately, our personnel is suited for either. I especially think a guy like Burnett would be a force in a 43.

I don't know....maybe part of me thinks it's blasphemous to see a Cowboy team running a 34. I mean, it was Landry that invented the 43 to begin with.

 

[Doomsday101]

Sorry, but I've never really been sold on this 3-4 we've been running. I don't see how we're a better defense running the 34 over the 43.

Our main problem, IMO, with our 43 defenses in the past was our lack of good DL. We had Ellis and Glover....good players, but both need complimentary players to make them better. Unfortunately, we never did get them help.

Now, I feel we have excellent pieces to run a very good 43.

DE: Hatcher\Spears
DT: Spears\Canty
DT: Ferguson/Ratliff
DE: Ware

LB: Carpenter/Burnett
LB: James
LB: Ayodele

I think we have pieces to run both defenses. But I think making Zimmer, a 43 guy, a coach in the 34, we're trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

Parcells will not be our coach much longer....and the list of coaches that know the 34 is small. I would hate to see us bypass good coaching prospects because they aren't 34 guys.

Fortunately, our personnel is suited for either. I especially think a guy like Burnett would be a force in a 43.

I don't know....maybe part of me thinks it's blasphemous to see a Cowboy team running a 34. I mean, it was Landry that invented the 43 to begin with.

Landry invented the flex 4-3 not the 4-3 itself.

 

[Future]

switching to the 4-3 now would waste a lot of talent at LB IMO.

 

[Doomsday101]

switching to the 4-3 now would waste a lot of talent at LB IMO.

Well Dallas does line up in the 4-3 as well as our base 3-4

 

[theogt]

Jerry stated around draft time this year that he was going to keep the 3-4 in place for quite a while. Of course he could change his mind, but if we end up going deep in the playoffs this year, I think that could go a long way in convincing Jerry to keep it going for at least a few more years after Bill leaves.

 

[theogt]

Well Dallas does line up in the 4-3 as well as our base 3-4

We haven't lined up in the 4-3 all season that I can remember. We use the nickel, but not the 4-3.

 

[Joe_Fan]

Sorry, but I've never really been sold on this 3-4 we've been running. I don't see how we're a better defense running the 34 over the 43.

Our main problem, IMO, with our 43 defenses in the past was our lack of good DL. We had Ellis and Glover....good players, but both need complimentary players to make them better. Unfortunately, we never did get them help.

Now, I feel we have excellent pieces to run a very good 43.

DE: Hatcher\Spears
DT: Spears\Canty
DT: Ferguson/Ratliff
DE: Ware

LB: Carpenter/Burnett
LB: James
LB: Ayodele

I think we have pieces to run both defenses. But I think making Zimmer, a 43 guy, a coach in the 34, we're trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

Parcells will not be our coach much longer....and the list of coaches that know the 34 is small. I would hate to see us bypass good coaching prospects because they aren't 34 guys.

Fortunately, our personnel is suited for either. I especially think a guy like Burnett would be a force in a 43.

I don't know....maybe part of me thinks it's blasphemous to see a Cowboy team running a 34. I mean, it was Landry that invented the 43 to begin with.

Get an actual DC who knows how to run a 34 before you go off talking about whether or not your sold.

 

[khiladi]

Get an actual DC who knows how to run a 34 before you go off talking about whether or not your sold.

I think his actual point is that we have the PERSONNEL for a strong 4-3, so the shift back is not as big as some people want to project.

switching to the 4-3 now would waste a lot of talent at LB IMO.

I don't think our talent is that great... Our LBs are the one's being exposed on the flats... too big and not that fast... And if there is any position that is not the difficult to replace, it is LB... there are plenty of decent LBs in the NFL...

 

[VACowboy]

We haven't lined up in the 4-3 all season that I can remember. We use the nickel, but not the 4-3.

Exactly. The 4-2-5 has more in common with the 3-4 than the 4-3.

 

[Bizwah]

Get an actual DC who knows how to run a 34 before you go off talking about whether or not your sold.

Maybe you're right about getting a DC that knows the 34 and how to use it. Maybe that would make it more effective.

But why do I need to wait on that before I go off about it?

I don't like the 34...never have....

Am I not allowed to have an opinion on the matter?

 

[conner01]

we've spent 2 years learning the system. seems silly to change now that we've learned it and drafted for it for so long.an neither have any effect on the biggest weakness which is the safety spot on deep passes

 

[Bizwah]

Landry invented the flex 4-3 not the 4-3 itself.

Maybe I read it wrong then.

I remember reading a long time ago that most teams used a 5 man front. It was Landry that pulled one of the DL back to the middle and made him a MLB. The article hailed Landry as the father of the 43. I believe he and Lombardi both were assistants on the same team.

Of course, I read that about 10 or so years ago.....I'm starting to get a little old in the brain. I just don't remember things like I used to.

 

[theogt]

Exactly. The 4-2-5 has more in common with the 3-4 than the 4-3.

I'm not so sure about that. It's the same as the 4-3 with a LB exchanged for a DB and moved out to cover the receiver in a slot. If a TE is put in the slot or a back is motion out to the slot, a 4-3 is very similar. The only real difference is that one players is faster, smaller and better in coverage.

 

[theogt]

I think his actual point is that we have the PERSONNEL for a strong 4-3, so the shift back is not as big as some people want to project.



I don't think our talent is that great... Our LBs are the one's being exposed on the flats... too big and not that fast... And if there is any position that is not the difficult to replace, it is LB... there are plenty of decent LBs in the NFL...

The reason they've been exposed in the flat is a few mental errors. If that means they don't have talent, so be it. However, it has absolutely nothing to do with being too big or not fast. I don't think anyone would say that Ware, Ayodele, and Singleton/Carpenter are too slow or too big. That's pretty silly.

James, however, is one of the slowest LBs we've had. His slowness is part of the reason we can't blitz up the middle.

 

[Rack]

We haven't lined up in the 4-3 all season that I can remember. We use the nickel, but not the 4-3.

I get extremely annoyed by ignorant people that see 4 down linemen and say "We're lined up in a 4-3".

 

[Bizwah]

we've spent 2 years learning the system. seems silly to change now that we've learned it and drafted for it for so long.an neither have any effect on the biggest weakness which is the safety spot on deep passes

Again, I don't know how much change would have to be made. Our players can play either system....and most have played the 43 for years anyway.

 

[Doomsday101]

Maybe I read it wrong then.

I remember reading a long time ago that most teams used a 5 man front. It was Landry that pulled one of the DL back to the middle and made him a MLB. The article hailed Landry as the father of the 43. I believe he and Lombardi both were assistants on the same team.

Of course, I read that about 10 or so years ago.....I'm starting to get a little old in the brain. I just don't remember things like I used to.

I know he brought about the flex. As for which defense we should run I admit I have always been a pro 43 guy but I think the 34 is a good defense as well and in the end they both require one thing and that is player executing within it. I don't think either style of defense is the magic bullet to cure what ails you I think what ever you run it comes back to players making plays.

 

[stealth]

Jerry should lure one of buddy ryan's kids to be our DC, no way the ravens one leave though he would be my first choice. With whatchamafunk getting fired in Oakland I bet the other long haired one will be first in line for the head coaching job. Maybe that means in a year he will be available.

 

[zeromaster]

I don't like the 34...never have....

Am I not allowed to have an opinion on the matter?

Not if it conflicts with the belief systems of some of the posters here.


It seems from recent threads that some of the players should be proving things to some of us Zoners. Why that is, is a mystery to me; it's not like we're signing the checks. The concept is, to quote the Zen philosopher Tyson: "ludicrous".

JMO

 

[DipChit]

I dont think it even matters right now. For one thing we've got to get the FS prob fixed with someone thats totally sure of what they're doing back there (with the skills as well).

And for another it's not like we're having to sit a Strahan or Reggie White just cause we're hell bent on running the 3-4.