Better suited for 4-3?

[Rack]

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.

Running a 4-3 with this group would likely make our horrible pass rush even worse.

 

[Yeagermeister]

Our lb's are too big for a 4-3 and Ware is too small

 

[ghst187]

For a fair evaluation of the 3-4, I think we need two things:
1) another effective passrushing LB so we can disguise which LBs will blitz, hence the entire 3-4 advantage
2) and most importantly, a DC that knows how to run the 3-4 and design an effective blitz package

I honestly feel that there are several DCs in the league that would have the talent on our defense looking like the Bears or Ravens defense as far as stopping power and intimidation factor. Zimmer's bend but don't break keeps every game at least close enough for our offense to win, but it keeps game close enough for us to lose also. His blitz packages are embarrassing and so ineffective, its probably why we don't run more of them.
I do feel like we have the talent to be as good and intimidating as the Bears or Ravens on D and I don't think I'm overestimating our talent by saying that. I think its coaching.
Another thing that kills me about Zimmer is that we haven't ever developed an effective passrusher until D Ware, despite using a slew of draft picks to find one. The last one we had, Haley, was a great passrusher when he came here....and he largely ignored what the DC was telling him to do anyway.

 

[Rack]

Our lb's are too big for a 4-3 and Ware is too small

You're kidding, right?

 

[theebs]

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.

the players here were handpicked for this defense.

Do you want ware lining up at end every down, I dont. He is so athletic I like him coming off the edge standing up. He presents all kinds of problems.

 

[2much2soon]

For a fair evaluation of the 3-4, I think we need two things:
1) another effective passrushing LB so we can disguise which LBs will blitz, hence the entire 3-4 advantage

Thats my feeling. Even deaf and blind people in the parking lot know Ware is going to be blitzing.

 

[Vintage]

Our lb's are too big for a 4-3 and Ware is too small

Burnett, Carpenter, and James played LBers in college in 4-3's.

Ayodele played OLB in a 4-3 in Jacksonville.

 

[theogt]

the players here were handpicked for this defense.

Do you want ware lining up at end every down, I dont. He is so athletic I like him coming off the edge standing up. He presents all kinds of problems.

This gets a big hammer icon. Ware would be wasted at 4-3 DE, but is a monster at 3-4 OLB.

 

[Rack]

This gets a big hammer icon. Ware would be wasted at 4-3 DE, but is a monster at 3-4 OLB.

I agree with this as well.


In a 4-3, Ware would be a pass rush specialist, not an every down player. At least he'd be more effective that way.

 

[Eddie]

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

I disagree. What's alot of talent at LB?

Ware would play DE. That's a simple fix.

The rest of the LB's are JAG's.

 

[Novacek84]

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

BINGO! Zimmer ain't the guy to run this defense.

 

[theebs]

BINGO! Zimmer ain't the guy to run this defense.

Seriously.

My head is going to explode from these zimmer comments.

I just dont get it.

 

[burmafrd]

I seem to recall that Landry did invent the 4-3; he is the one that made Sam Huff the first MLB star.

 

[Deputy493]

It is not the scheme, it is the personnel. Whether we ran a 3-4 or 4-3, we would still have a huge hole at our Safety spots (coverage wise anyway). Both schemes are effective and have won championships, it is a matter of the personnel you have out there.

 

[chinch]

Better suited for 4-3?

No.

it's not even worth explaining it further from a philosophical or personnel standpoint

 

[wileedog]

I really don't see the point, other than appeasing Landry's ghost.

Zimmer (under Parcells direction) would still most play a read and react, bend don't break philosophy, which is 90% of the problem most people have with him. ANd its Bill who is calling the vanilla style 3-4, because we have players even with the system dumbed down who are missing their assignments left and right, a la the FB gaffes.

The 4-3 isn't going to make Spears or Canty any better pass rushers. Its not going to make James an even mediocre blitzer. Its not going to cover for Roy and Watkins/Davis' problems. Its not going to make our LBers magically remember to cover the flats.

Zimmer may not be the best coach for the 3-4, but Parcells has had nothing but success with it wherever he has been. Again, other than nostaligia, switching now seems rather pointless. We just need to play better in the system we're in.

 

[Chuck 54]

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.

ummm...was that anywhere around the time we committed to running two TE's and no FB?

I think we'll end up running whatever we think will do the best job next year.

The front 3 who can't rush the passer or even push the pocket in the 3-4 aren't likely to sudden become serious contributers because they line up in the 4-3, imo.

 

[theogt]

ummm...was that anywhere around the time we committed to running two TE's and no FB?

I think we'll end up running whatever we think will do the best job next year.

The front 3 who can't rush the passer or even push the pocket in the 3-4 aren't likely to sudden become serious contributers because they line up in the 4-3, imo.

I don't recall if he said we'd commit to running a 2 TE set for years to come, but he did say he was committed to keeping the 3-4.

 

[AdamJT13]

In a 4-3, Ware would be a pass rush specialist, not an every down player. At least he'd be more effective that way.

Ware might be able to play OLB in the 4-3, but he also wouldn't be as much of a force as he is as a 3-4 OLB.

 

[AdamJT13]

I seem to recall that Landry did invent the 4-3; he is the one that made Sam Huff the first MLB star.

That's correct. Landry took the common 5-2 defense and created the 4-3, with Huff as the centerpiece. He later developed the Flex to improve the defense's lateral flow along the line.