Kiper not sure if this is exceptional draft....

[JackWagon]

This is why the 3-4 is just a better scheme. It gives you more options to find players. Particularly edge rushers.

So why are we switching to the 4-3 and going on the never ending DT quest? (Shante Carver, Kavika Pittman, Greg Ellis, Ebenezer Ekuban)

 

[Risen Star]

So why are we switching to the 4-3 and going on the never ending DT quest? (Shante Carver, Kavika Pittman, Greg Ellis, Ebenezer Ekuban)

Because our football operations is run by an oil man. It's really that simple.

Sure, you can field a nasty championship level 4-3 but the 3-4 is more flexible.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

I don't care what Kiper says. He's shown a terrible ability as a scout. He's a talking head that has helped make the draft fun and popular. Kudos to him for doing so.

But, as far as accurately assessing talent he's quite horrendous. If you want to accurately assess talent, you need to follow Gosselin's route and corral as many legitimate talent evaluators around the league as you can and get their thoughts. I am far more interested in Colbert's assessment than Kiper's.





YR

 

[Yakuza Rich]

This is why the 3-4 is just a better scheme. It gives you more options to find players. Particularly edge rushers.

I disagree that it is the better scheme at this moment. Particularly since the 4 of the top-6 teams in defensive efficiency according to FO.com were 4-3 schemes

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamdef

And 1 of them not included was Arizona which runs 4-3 and 3-4.

Now...10 years ago the 3-4 gave teams more options to find edge rushers. But, most of the league was running a 4-3. Now with most of the league running 3-4 schemes you have roughly the same supply of players, but far more demand for those players. Meanwhile, there is still the same supply of 4-3 type of players, but far less demand. That allows 4-3 teams to get the best 4-3 players while 3-4 teams have to divvy up the pool of talent they can find.

Furthermore, the offensive schemes and philosophies have changed. You're generally getting offenses doing 1 of 2 things:

1) Spreading them out and throwing from the shotgun, a lot. (i.e. Green Bay, New England, etc)

2) Read-Option

The 3-4 greatly improved at defending the read option, but it's still not as adept as at defending it as a 4-3 that strives to go straight up field instead of running horizontal to the line of scrimmage.

But the spread them out, shotgun, throw it often offenses give 3-4 schemes a lot of trouble. It will force one of your outside rushers into pass coverage and now you have 1 outside rusher and 3 down linemen that are not usually great pass rushers going at the QB. With the 4-3 you're sending 4 down linemen that are going up field. And you're allowing yourself to not have to blitz as much.

If anything, the 4-3 has just changed over time because of the offenses. There's no more Mike Zimmer 'stop the run first and second, then go after the QB' (his words, not mine). And in the past if there was an issue with the 4-3 is that they would struggle against the run and could get worn down against the run because they would go upfield and had smaller players. But with today's offenses avoiding the run so much or having O-Linemen more geared towards pass protection and smaller receivers that can't run block...it's not nearly the issue it once was.

I still think Pete Carroll figured out how to nail all of the weaknesses of your typical 4-3 scheme by using more Cover 3, and going after large, physical DB's and going after speed in his front 7.






YR

 

[TheCount]

Because our football operations is run by an oil man. It's really that simple.

Sure, you can field a nasty championship level 4-3 but the 3-4 is more flexible.

Jerry stated the reason for the switch was because it's easier to get guys up to speed in the 4-3, which I agree with. It's not like we were doing anything particularly creative with the 3-4 to begin with.

 

[JackWagon]

Jerry stated the reason for the switch was because it's easier to get guys up to speed in the 4-3, which I agree with. It's not like we were doing anything particularly creative with the 3-4 to begin with.

So it gives him the go ahead to pick players with low IQs ... oh .. that explains his last cornerback. oh remember the one everyone said was the next deon ... yea him.

 

[xwalker]

So why are we switching to the 4-3 and going on the never ending DT quest? (Shante Carver, Kavika Pittman, Greg Ellis, Ebenezer Ekuban)

It's actually more difficult to find 3-4 OLBs. The SOLB in 3-4 of RR and Wade was the most difficult position on the field, IMO. You have to find a 3-tool player that can play the run, play coverage and rush the passer. Not only does it require the physical ability to do all of these things, but it's difficult mentally to know when to rush vs cover. They have often have to read the RB to see if he running a route before they decide to rush or cover and there are many other situations that are difficult to read.

It should be easiest to find a DE in the Marinelli type scheme. The Weak Side DE can be similar in size to some 3-4 OLBs but does not need to have coverage ability and the mental aspect is much easier. The SLB can be a bigger player to play the run and does not need to be a super pass rusher because the scheme is geared towards getting more pass rush from the 3-tech DT than most other schemes. The WDE and 3-tech DT are the top 2 pass rush positions; whereas, in most 4-3s the DEs are the top pass rushers.

A 4-3 like the Giants run is more difficult in terms of finding players than the Marinelli type defense. They look for players that are both big and have top pass rush ability on both sides. It's still easier than finding a 3-tool player for the 3-4 OLB position, especially the Strong Side 3-4 OLB.

 

[dbonham]

3-4 has it's own headaches. Remember the frustration of finding a DE that can actually impact the game? How we never found our big NT? The constraints of an OLB that can only rush, or only cover? The grass is always greener.

 

[Risen Star]

I disagree that it is the better scheme at this moment. Particularly since the 4 of the top-6 teams in defensive efficiency according to FO.com were 4-3 schemes

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamdef

And 1 of them not included was Arizona which runs 4-3 and 3-4.

9 of the top 14 defenses last year, according to NFL.com, were 3-4 defenses. Including one coached by a familiar face whose probably still belly laughing at our mistake.

If you listed the best defenses of the last 20 years the vast majority would be 3-4 defenses.

Now...10 years ago the 3-4 gave teams more options to find edge rushers. But, most of the league was running a 4-3. Now with most of the league running 3-4 schemes you have roughly the same supply of players, but far more demand for those players. Meanwhile, there is still the same supply of 4-3 type of players, but far less demand. That allows 4-3 teams to get the best 4-3 players while 3-4 teams have to divvy up the pool of talent they can find.

10 years ago. Now. It's a superior scheme.

It's a superior scheme because it's more flexible. It's much easier to find rush linebackers than it is a down DE who can get to the QB but also hold up in the run game. A 3-4 defense is more balanced. It's harder to block. A 4-3 is much more predictable.

This is why the 3-4 came about. It was about creating edge pressure. The lack of DE's who could do it. It's as true today as it was then. It's always easier to find a rush LB.

Most of the league is not running the 3-4. Half the league is. But there is simply a bigger supply of players capable of filling the rush LB role than there are quality pass rushing DEs.

Furthermore, the offensive schemes and philosophies have changed. You're generally getting offenses doing 1 of 2 things:

1) Spreading them out and throwing from the shotgun, a lot. (i.e. Green Bay, New England, etc)

2) Read-Option

The 3-4 greatly improved at defending the read option, but it's still not as adept as at defending it as a 4-3 that strives to go straight up field instead of running horizontal to the line of scrimmage.

But the spread them out, shotgun, throw it often offenses give 3-4 schemes a lot of trouble. It will force one of your outside rushers into pass coverage and now you have 1 outside rusher and 3 down linemen that are not usually great pass rushers going at the QB. With the 4-3 you're sending 4 down linemen that are going up field. And you're allowing yourself to not have to blitz as much.

It doesn't take much common sense to figure out if you get a DL off the field and replace him with a much more athletic LB, you're going to defend the read option better. Not that that is really meaningful as that's a passing fad.

It just boils down to what makes the QB and his protection work harder and to me it is definitely the 3-4 look. That was one of the worst mistakes Jerry Jones has ever made when he got rid of Rob and that scheme.

If anything, the 4-3 has just changed over time because of the offenses. There's no more Mike Zimmer 'stop the run first and second, then go after the QB' (his words, not mine). And in the past if there was an issue with the 4-3 is that they would struggle against the run and could get worn down against the run because they would go upfield and had smaller players. But with today's offenses avoiding the run so much or having O-Linemen more geared towards pass protection and smaller receivers that can't run block...it's not nearly the issue it once was.

I still think Pete Carroll figured out how to nail all of the weaknesses of your typical 4-3 scheme by using more Cover 3, and going after large, physical DB's and going after speed in his front 7.

Nobody's saying you can't have a dominant 4-3 defense. Of course you can. But overall you will find a better success rate with the 3-4 than you will the 4-3.

 

[xwalker]

They go to a 4 man line in the nickel on teams that run a 3-4 defense.

Parcells said the advantage of the 3-4 was run defense.

 

[arglebargle]

They go to a 4 man line in the nickel on teams that run a 3-4 defense.

Parcells said the advantage of the 3-4 was run defense.

Pulling out the Parcells card! You bastid... Next you'll be dragging out some Parcells quote on the value of cornerbacks or some such thing.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

9 of the top 14 defenses last year, according to NFL.com, were 3-4 defenses. Including one coached by a familiar face whose probably still belly laughing at our mistake.

If you listed the best defenses of the last 20 years the vast majority would be 3-4 defenses.



10 years ago. Now. It's a superior scheme.

It's a superior scheme because it's more flexible. It's much easier to find rush linebackers than it is a down DE who can get to the QB but also hold up in the run game. A 3-4 defense is more balanced. It's harder to block. A 4-3 is much more predictable.

This is why the 3-4 came about. It was about creating edge pressure. The lack of DE's who could do it. It's as true today as it was then. It's always easier to find a rush LB.

Most of the league is not running the 3-4. Half the league is. But there is simply a bigger supply of players capable of filling the rush LB role than there are quality pass rushing DEs.



It doesn't take much common sense to figure out if you get a DL off the field and replace him with a much more athletic LB, you're going to defend the read option better. Not that that is really meaningful as that's a passing fad.

It just boils down to what makes the QB and his protection work harder and to me it is definitely the 3-4 look. That was one of the worst mistakes Jerry Jones has ever made when he got rid of Rob and that scheme.



Nobody's saying you can't have a dominant 4-3 defense. Of course you can. But overall you will find a better success rate with the 3-4 than you will the 4-3.

You’re using NFL.com’s ‘defensive rankings’ which are based on yards allowed. This has been proven to be a faulty and incomplete look at how to accurately measure the effectiveness of a defense. That’s why I use FootballOutsiders.com which factors in the quality of the offenses faced, down and distance situations, etc.

Dallas used Wade’s 3-4 in 2010 and 27th in Defensive Ranking according to FO.com. And it was worse that year when Wade was coaching than it was until Garrett became the head coach. For all of the ‘belly laughing’ Wade is allegedly doing, he should have worried about his own defense when he was here because it got him fired in the end. And it’s not like he doesn’t want to be a HC as he tried to apply for the Houston job but they told him ‘thanks, but no thanks.’

Even after we fired Wade, we still stuck with the 3-4 and finished 16th in Defensive Ranking in 2011 and 23rd in 2012 (again, according to FO.com). Wade’s Houston defenses were really good, but fell to 18th in 2013.

You’re making a grandiose assumption in that almost all of the best defenses in the past 20 years were 3-4 schemes. From 1995 to 2008-ish, most of the schemes in the NFL were 4-3. Jimmy showed that you could use smaller, but faster players to your advantage. It was something that the pros didn’t think would work in the pro game. Dungy created the 4-3 Cover 2. And then Kiffin created the Tampa 2 with Over and Under looks and soon almost everybody was using some form of 4-3 from 1994-ish to 2008-ish. In that time you had a Ravens 2000 defense which used the 4-3 exclusively. The Giants had a dominant defense that year and were also a 4-3. Kiffin’s defenses ranked in the top-10 in FO.com’s every year except for 2 when he was in Tampa and they were a 4-3. We also had Jim Johnson’s Eagles defenses and Lovie Smith’s early Bears defenses…each 4-3 schemes. The real long-standing, dominant 3-4 defense was the Steelers. The Patriots 3-4 scheme was really great for a few years, but then became their weakness.


And if the 3-4 is ‘superior’ because it creates a great pass rush, then why did the Giants in 2007 have the most dominant pass rush in the past 10+ years and used…a 4-3 scheme?

I don’t think either scheme is superior. But as Landry stated, schemes end up evolving because teams try to figure out ways to beat it. And from a pure supply and demand standpoint, that plays a huge factor as well.


Teams started to beat the 4-3 Cover 2 by getting athletic tight ends and fast slot WR’s to go deep down the seam and attack the MLB having to drop deep in coverage. Teams went to the 3-4 to help confuse adept QB’s and help stop the run. So, teams started using more shotgun and 3 & 4 WR sets in order to force one of the edge rushers to have to drop back in coverage. And for now, it’s working.

So now the majority of the league plays a 3-4, it’s providing 4-3 teams with an advantage in the draft because they don’t have to compete with as many teams for the same pool of players. And it allows them to play against shotgun and pass happy teams and get their 4 best down linemen to rush the QB.


Eventually teams will follow the Seahawks model. Especially if Dallas becomes successful with the 4-3. It’s a copycat league. And then as more teams go to the 4-3, there will be some coach that goes back to the 3-4 and figures out how to add some new twists to stop whatever new offenses are doing from a schematic and personnel perspective.


There is no superior.



YR

 

[Risen Star]

You’re using NFL.com’s ‘defensive rankings’ which are based on yards allowed. This has been proven to be a faulty and incomplete look at how to accurately measure the effectiveness of a defense. That’s why I use FootballOutsiders.com which factors in the quality of the offenses faced, down and distance situations, etc.

Proved by who? You?

No matter what you want to say about the rankings, when 9 of the top 14 are a 3-4 it kind of shows how effective that defense is.

Dallas used Wade’s 3-4 in 2010 and 27th in Defensive Ranking according to FO.com. And it was worse that year when Wade was coaching than it was until Garrett became the head coach. For all of the ‘belly laughing’ Wade is allegedly doing, he should have worried about his own defense when he was here because it got him fired in the end. And it’s not like he doesn’t want to be a HC as he tried to apply for the Houston job but they told him ‘thanks, but no thanks.’

When the Cowboys ran the 3-4 they did so without getting a wide bodied nose tackle to anchor the defense. Only the Cowboys would do this. This is why our 3-4 never became what it could have been, though it was light years better than the current defense.

And it's Rob Ryan that is belly laughing. Ya know, the guy who left here and immediately turned around the Saints defense once he implemented his superior scheme.

You’re making a grandiose assumption in that almost all of the best defenses in the past 20 years were 3-4 schemes. From 1995 to 2008-ish, most of the schemes in the NFL were 4-3. Jimmy showed that you could use smaller, but faster players to your advantage. It was something that the pros didn’t think would work in the pro game. Dungy created the 4-3 Cover 2. And then Kiffin created the Tampa 2 with Over and Under looks and soon almost everybody was using some form of 4-3 from 1994-ish to 2008-ish. In that time you had a Ravens 2000 defense which used the 4-3 exclusively. The Giants had a dominant defense that year and were also a 4-3. Kiffin’s defenses ranked in the top-10 in FO.com’s every year except for 2 when he was in Tampa and they were a 4-3. We also had Jim Johnson’s Eagles defenses and Lovie Smith’s early Bears defenses…each 4-3 schemes. The real long-standing, dominant 3-4 defense was the Steelers. The Patriots 3-4 scheme was really great for a few years, but then became their weakness.

I'm stating a fact that most of the dominant defenses in the league over the last 20 years were a 3-4. From Baltimore's epic defenses to Pittsburgh's to New England's.

And if the 3-4 is ‘superior’ because it creates a great pass rush, then why did the Giants in 2007 have the most dominant pass rush in the past 10+ years and used…a 4-3 scheme?

Because the Giants had the personnel to do it. Nobody said you can't have a great 4-3 defense, just that the 3-4 is superior. Which it is.

I don’t think either scheme is superior. But as Landry stated, schemes end up evolving because teams try to figure out ways to beat it. And from a pure supply and demand standpoint, that plays a huge factor as well.

Sure it does. The supply of rush LBs is greater than the supply for down DEs capable of consistently getting to the QB. Since the demand is equal, as the league is equally split between the 3-4 and 4-3, you're far more likely to find your edge pressure in a 3-4. One of the reasons it's a better defense.

So now the majority of the league plays a 3-4, it’s providing 4-3 teams with an advantage in the draft because they don’t have to compete with as many teams for the same pool of players. And it allows them to play against shotgun and pass happy teams and get their 4 best down linemen to rush the QB.

You keep making this claim and it hasn't gotten less wrong. The majority of the league isn't running a 3-4. Half the league is. The other half is running a 4-3. It just seems like most everybody's in a 3-4 because you only really hear about the better defenses.

Half the league is running a 3-4. Look it up.

Eventually teams will follow the Seahawks model. Especially if Dallas becomes successful with the 4-3. It’s a copycat league. And then as more teams go to the 4-3, there will be some coach that goes back to the 3-4 and figures out how to add some new twists to stop whatever new offenses are doing from a schematic and personnel perspective.

It may change in the future, who knows, but the 3-4 has been the better defense for at least two decades. Teams may want to follow the Seahawks' model or they may want to follow the 49ers' model.

There is no superior

I've given you the reasons why I believe there is and it's the 3-4 that is the better scheme. It's more confusing to the offense, more flexible with looks, more easily stockpiled with capable players.

You may disagree but I suspect that's only because the Cowboys made the switch (mistake) back to the 4-3.

 

[manster4ever]

Mel Kiper isn't very credible to me... I never was a fan of his so I take what he says with a grain of salt.

exactly...Kiper is mediocre at best

 

[SilverStarCowboy]

It's a deeper draft from beginning (top 16-20 DL) and mid (2-4 DT, FS,) 5th (RBs) and late (6-7 OG, WR)...should be an exciting time indeed to be a Cowboys Fan if the choices go correctly the Cowboys could improve for the future substantially.


It's simple, there will be grades on more people who do not get Drafted than usual due to the pure numbers in this class.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

I've given you the reasons why I believe there is and it's the 3-4 that is the better scheme. It's more confusing to the offense, more flexible with looks, more easily stockpiled with capable players.

You may disagree but I suspect that's only because the Cowboys made the switch (mistake) back to the 4-3.

You're claiming your opinions and stating them as fact.

I was a big 3-4 fan and I'm not saying it is inferior overall. I'm stating that defensive schemes provide advantages based on how the league is trending.

The main advantage the 4-3 has is it allows for smaller, faster players to thrive. The defense will have more team speed. It also allows for the defense to send 4 of their best pass rushers upfield all of the time.

I think you've stated some of the weaknesses of the 4-3, but have skipped out on the weaknesses of the 3-4 which requires larger, slower players and often times 1 of the OLB's has to drop back in coverage.

There is no superior because it depends on:

1) What the offenses in the league are doing

2) The amount of teams running the same base formation.

Back in 2003 I would have preferred the 3-4. Less teams were running it so there was demand for the talent pool. And teams were not throwing the ball 60%+ of the time out of the shotgun with 3 and 4-WR sets.

Now it's different. And that's a big reason why 4 of the top 6 defenses last year were 4-3 schemes.

Eventually, more teams will go back to 4-3 and offenses will come up with something new to beat the 4-3 and the teams that go to a 3-4 and add a little twist to it will be the dominant defenses in the NFL.






YR