Parsons confirms 3-4 base and initial position

[Verdict]

I have to say that confuses me a bit. To me, the advantage of the 3-4 is in its ability to disguise things, especially blitzes and pressure. The trade off is having less size and numbers on the line of scrimmage in the run game.

Why run that in base downs only to change it up in obvious passing downs? That doesn’t make sense to me.

I have heard that the 3-4 is superior in run defense. I don’t know if that is true or not, but it has been spoken.

It is easier to find a 3-4 outside linebacker than a really good 4-3 DE. That’s pretty well settled.

 

[Mattitude]

They have to sign a vet nose tackle for game 1. Highly doubt a rookie 6th round pick is starting nose tackle in a 3-4 day 1. But 3-4 SILB would be Micah Parsons best position. If we had a pass rushing inside backer during the parcels/wade phillips era that defense would have been legendary in cowboys fans minds

 

[Prossman]

I love the idea of running hybrid defenses. the problem last year was we didnt have the personal to run a 3-4 .

 

[Hawkeye19]

Running some 3-4 looks makes a ton of sense considering the athletes we have at LBer and their skillsets.

Parsons, Smith, Gregory, and Basham can all pressure the QB.

Parsons, LVE, Neal and Cox can cover a ton of ground sideline to sideline. On nickel downs Cox and Neal can handle coverage responsibilities.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Also, MM swore he wouldn't go to a single call defense.

It's a very good sign he didn't back down to save his paycheck.

Kind of OT to the thread, but this is a key point. I have no doubt based on past history that Jerry would prefer a 43. But Mike didn't give in, insisted on a multiple look defense, and that's what he got. Unlike the last guy, MM didn't just roll over to save his paycheck.

Like you said, that's a very good sign.

 

[JBS]

Kind of OT to the thread, but this is a key point. I have no doubt based on past history that Jerry would prefer a 43. But Mike didn't give in, insisted on a multiple look defense, and that's what he got. Unlike the last guy, MM didn't just roll over to save his paycheck.

Like you said, that's a very good sign.

So you are certain Jerry has nothing to do w this 3-4 idea? You sure Jerry doesn't want to get all of his expensive lbs on the field? I'm not so sure

 

[Chocolate Lab]

So you are certain Jerry has nothing to do w this 3-4 idea? You sure Jerry doesn't want to get all of his expensive lbs on the field? I'm not so sure

I'm not certain of anything... But I remember Lacewell convincing Jerry to bring back the 43 (with Kiffin) and him talking down Parcells forcing the 34, saying how good Zimmer's 43 was, how the 43 was always used here in the glory days of Jimmy, etc.

I just hope all the LBs means this is the last year of #54.

 

[DRella]

IF everyone stays healthy and plays to their potential, Dallas will want LVE, Smith, Parsons and Cox/Neal on the field as much as possible. Which ultimately will mean more 3-4 schemes.

 

[Bobhaze]

It’s probably been said here already, but one of this team’s foundational problems on defense are simple- the defensive philosophies change like the weather in Texas. We’ve had 8 defensive coordinators with at least 4 scheme changes since our last SB.

We went from the 4-3 through the 90s, then to the 3-4 under Parcells, then back to the 4-3 under Garrett, then whatever last year was (4-2-5?) in Big Mac’s first year, and now back to some kind of 4-3 base under Dan Quinn. These pendulum swings make it very difficult to build a cohesive defensive roster.

 

[SackMaster]

I have heard that the 3-4 is superior in run defense. I don’t know if that is true or not, but it has been spoken.

It is easier to find a 3-4 outside linebacker than a really good 4-3 DE. That’s pretty well settled.

It all depends on the players and supply vs demand.

If you have the right players, yes a 3-4 defense is generally better against the run due to the 3 DT+ sized D-linemen.

Obviously the NT is huge (think 320+), but the DEs should be in the 290-300+ lbs range too. It is all about having 3 d-linemen capable of occupying 4 or more o-linemen at all times. If that happens, then the 4 LBs should have little problem getting to the ball carrier. But when you have d-linemen getting blown off the ball a few yards, like Dallas had for most of last year, then the D can be ran on very easily.​

As far as which is easier to find, 3-4 OLB or 4-3 DE, that really all depends on how many teams are running each of those defenses.

If most of the league is running a 4-3, then finding those DEs that can hold up going against OTs on a down-by-down basis and being a viable passrushing threat throughout the game are not going to be easy to find. But if most of the league is running a 3-4, then the supply of OLBs capable of passrushing, setting the edge, and not be a total liability in coverage will be difficult to find.​

JMHO.

 

[Cowboyny]

isn’t this just a dime package? Or Parsons playing DE/OLB.

No, they will use a 4 man line (one could be a stand-up rusher, 2 linebackers, and 5 defensive backs in the nickel, the dime will add another defensive back onto the field. Parsons will most likely play on the line of scrimmage is the base as the strong-side linebacker.

 

[Cowboyny]

There's no such thing as a 4-3 nickel. They will have a 4 man line on pass downs.

4-2-5

 

[Cowboyny]

They are playing a 3-4 base with some 4-3 under looks. --3 down linemen 2 stand up edges to carry space across the front.
It is going to be interesting to see what he does differently from Nolan and how he employs all the possible sub packages to match up with the different offenses they face.

Think we are going to see some bear fronts with Parsons lineup up at the line of scrimmage, where Tank will be lined up on the other side.

 

[Cowboyny]

Against the run? How do you know the other team is going to run?

Obvious run downs and personnel packages.

 

[Plankton]

4-2-5

again, there’s no such thing as a 4-3 nickel.

 

[BAT]

I'm curious what it will look like from a personnel standpoint.

I assume the base would be something like (based on the players we currently have on the roster; some will be cut)

DE Urban/Hill/Golston
NT Bohanna/Gallimore/Hamilton
DE Watkins/Odighizuwa

OLB Parsons/Gregory/Basham/Carter
ILB Vander Esch
ILB Smith
OLB Lawrence/Armstrong/Anae

The nickel/dime:

DE Gregory/Basham/Carter/Anae
DT Gallimore/Odighizuwa
DT Hill/Golston/Watkins
DE Lawrence/Armstrong

LB Parsons/Cox
LB Neal/Cox

Whether it is a true 3-4 or a DQ 4-3 over (which has 3-4 elements like 3 DL in 300 lbs range), DLaw does not fit.

 

[gimmesix]

Whether it is a true 3-4 or a DQ 4-3 over (which has 3-4 elements like 3 DL in 300 lbs range), DLaw does not fit.

I think Lawrence will be a DPR playing the edge in whatever defense we run. He's not going to play linebacker in the true sense and he's not going to play 3-4 end. I don't think Quinn will have trouble fitting a player like Lawrence into what he wants to do, and if he does, he's not the DC we need.

 

[BAT]

I think Lawrence will be a DPR playing the edge in whatever defense we run. He's not going to play linebacker in the true sense and he's not going to play 3-4 end. I don't think Quinn will have trouble fitting a player like Lawrence into what he wants to do, and if he does, he's not the DC we need.

I'm okay packaging DLaw for upgrade at LG or 3 tech.