Nate Newton calls for switch to 3-4 scheme

Whirlwin · 2024-09-26T09:29:46-0500

The Quest for Six said:
Been there, done that, not interested in going back to a 3-4 defense..

Yes, but it’s the personnel that we have, we’re loaded at linebacker

The Quest for Six · 2024-09-26T09:33:09-0500

Whirlwin said:
Yes, but it’s the personnel that we have, we’re loaded at linebacker

No nose tackle, smallish linebackers that don't fit a 3-4...

The Quest for Six · 2024-09-26T09:33:48-0500

MikeT22 said:
Dallas doesnt have the personnel to run an NFL defense.

That's been pretty evident the last three home games..lol

Whirlwin · 2024-09-26T09:34:48-0500

The Quest for Six said:
No nose tackle, smallish linebackers that don't fit a 3-4...

I understand that, but it’s still better than what we have Mike Parsons can beat the center every single time. Against the run we’re screwed either way.

TheSport78 · 2024-09-26T09:44:12-0500

I agree. They need to go to a 3-4. Dallas doesn't value the DT position and you can get away with an average NT in the 34 (just someone to eat space). Parsons and Williams as the OLBs with Overshown and Kendricks as the ILBs.

nate dizzle · 2024-09-26T09:47:24-0500

Ok who's playing NT? All right, good talk. This was fun.

Rockport · 2024-09-26T09:49:48-0500

Majic said:
It's taken a while but finally, many are coming round to the theory that you cannot play Parsons as a DE in a 3 point stance. This process of moving to this scheme should have started last season, to get the best out of Parsons. Jesse Holley on the same show (Hanging with the boys) concludes we do not have the players to make this work. But Nate quite rightly states the DEF should be about trying to get Parsons free.

'He will never be a DE' Nate Newton

Why has our front office not realised this?

Jerry wants Parsons to play however he wants to play and the coaches must obey and adapt.

Rockport · 2024-09-26T09:51:17-0500

nate dizzle said:
Ok who's playing NT? All right, good talk. This was fun.

Hey McFly, he said that they didn’t have the NT to do it. It’s Nate. Quite the hate Nate Drizzle.

NoLuv4Jerry · 2024-09-26T09:53:34-0500

Hawkeye19 said:
If you don’t want to fill gaps, shed blocks, play your assignments, follow your keys, and make physical tackles, it won’t matter a lick what scheme you run: you will still suck

And that is the problem with this D right now: we got a lit of soft, finesse players that don’t want to be physical at the point pf attack and make the other team dread playing you.

Our culture, mindset, and focus are all broken and wrong

which is why I would not be WORRIED about how to sign Parsons and Bland. Heck, the Commanders would probably LOVE to take Diggs off our hands. I would do it in a heartbeat. He is from the DC area and we could get off his contract. Then work on extending Bland. But you cannot put all your money on that side of the ball in Bland, Diggs and Parsons. Those guys are good for teams that want to attack us through the air. Why would anyone throw the ball against us when they can just run us off the field?

Mac_MaloneV1 · 2024-09-26T09:54:00-0500

Majic said:
This is pre season, have you any stats for weeks 1-3.

Yea sorry ,didn't realize that was pre.

This doesn't breakdown avg. very well but the majority of the teams are in 11 more than half of the time and half more than 60%. The numbers towards at the top (i.e. CLE) and bottom (i.e. BUF) will both more more towards the middle when individual game scripts don't have so much sway.
https://sumersports.com/teams/offensive/personnel-tendency/

nate dizzle · 2024-09-26T10:00:05-0500

Rockport said:
Hey McFly, he said that they didn’t have the NT to do it. It’s Nate. Quite the hate Nate Drizzle.

Maybe you can write another letter asking for one Stan. Have you heard back yet? All you wanted was a lousy letter or a call, you should rip all those pictures off the wall.

charron · 2024-09-26T10:07:36-0500

The best they can do right now is line Parsons up at LB and let him rush from different gaps, preferably inside.

Rockport · 2024-09-26T10:13:06-0500

nate dizzle said:
Maybe you can write another letter asking for one Stan. Have you heard back yet? All you wanted was a lousy letter or a call, you should rip all those pictures off the wall.

Hey, that’s a good idea. Jerry’s pissed at me right now so I may have to wait a day or 2 for an answer.

Bagman · 2024-09-26T10:17:41-0500

The Quest for Six said:
Dallas doesn't have the personnel to run a 3-4 defense..

They don't really have the personnel to run a 4-3 either

Chuck 54 · 2024-09-26T10:28:38-0500

darthseinfeld said:
sIts really hard to run an odd front in passing situations in todays NFL. 3-4 teams run a 4 man line in Nickel and Dime. Even Wade had stopped using an odd front in passing situations with the Ram, and odd fronts were a staple of his zone blitz scheme

The point is that we are not a 4-3 team because Parsons cannot hold up against even average OTs in the run game.
The 3-4 was designed to stop the run. Having a big time OLB who can rush the QB eliminates the passing weakness. In passing situations, many 3-4 OLBs still rush from standing positions, but it eliminates the OLB who is playing hand in the dirt 4-3 from being crushed by the OTs and TE's. In the 3-4, the OT has to block the big DE on his inside shoulder because the guard isn't going to reach him on an off tackle run. That leaves Parsons to deal with the TE or a pulling guard where his quickness can allow him to make a play sooner.

Mac_MaloneV1 · 2024-09-26T10:34:52-0500

Chuck 54 said:
The point is that we are not a 4-3 team because Parsons cannot hold up against even average OTs in the run game.
The 3-4 was designed to stop the run. Having a big time OLB who can rush the QB eliminates the passing weakness. In passing situations, many 3-4 OLBs still rush from standing positions, but it eliminates the OLB who is playing hand in the dirt 4-3 from being crushed by the OTs and TE's. In the 3-4, the OT has to block the big DE on his inside shoulder because the guard isn't going to reach him on an off tackle run. That leaves Parsons to deal with the TE or a pulling guard where his quickness can allow him to make a play sooner.

The first point is false. He can set an edge, it is just a waste of his skillset.

They are just going to run the other direction from what you're saying lol. You're leaving yourself outgapped basically everywhere else.

Nova · 2024-09-26T10:48:53-0500

Or we could trade Parsons.

Rebuilding a defense around a single player is a bad idea.

StarOfGlory · 2024-09-26T10:54:26-0500

Who is supposed to be the big guy holding the point of attack in our 3-4? Sure as hell not Mazi.

exciter · 2024-09-26T10:57:54-0500

Majic said:
It's taken a while but finally, many are coming round to the theory that you cannot play Parsons as a DE in a 3 point stance. This process of moving to this scheme should have started last season, to get the best out of Parsons. Jesse Holley on the same show (Hanging with the boys) concludes we do not have the players to make this work. But Nate quite rightly states the DEF should be about trying to get Parsons free.

'He will never be a DE' Nate Newton

Why has our front office not realised this?

Yup!
That’s all we need is Lawrence running around trying to cover TEs and RBs on a consistent basis.
Nate was a guard not a strategic genus. It’s just mind boggling when people with no coaching experience actually form the delusion they know more about the personnel they see once a week than the actual coaches who see them daily for 6 months!

The Quest for Six · 2024-09-26T10:58:57-0500

Bagman said:
They don't really have the personnel to run a 4-3 either

you got that right!! lol

Nate Newton calls for switch to 3-4 scheme

Cowboy , It’s a way of life.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Cowboy , It’s a way of life.

The Excellence of Execution

Well-Known Member

AmberBeer

AmberBeer

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

AmberBeer

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Ntegrase96

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member