RKG Definition

[jday]

I've gone back and forth on the whole 4-3 v 3-4 argument simply due to the creativity allowed in the (3-4) but also grew up on the 90s dynasty and initially hated the Parcells 3-4. Ware made it tolerable but I never thought I would see such a bland version of the 3-4 scheme. Loved Parcells overall, but common Billy, throw a twist in thr or something

There are certainly aspects of the 34 I like, which is why I would like to see the Cowboys mix it in were situations dictates a possible advantage in that lineup; for instance, 2nd and long versus 2 receiver sets. But as young as this defense is now, it's probably best to keep thing's simple for this season.

 

[jday]

Exactly. And it's funny how the definition the OP gives from Garrett has changed over the years after losing so much. It used to be by character, now he's saying it's good players. Seems like he's back tracking on his original definition.

You guys remember when he came on board full time, he wanted guys wearing suits on the plane? Stupid. These guys are football players not executives of a corporation. Instead of worrying about what they're wearing, you should be worrying about if they can rush the passer or not. And that's the same thing I said back then when guys were blasting me for it. I mean, get real. If you had to choose 1, would you want your guy to kill the other team, or be in Church every Sunday?

You could be right about the "suit up" idea; I've never really been a fan of that. But I'm pretty sure church going or even the suit wearing never fell into Jason's defintion of an RKG. I honestly think the suit idea was simply a ploy to instill discipline back in a team that Wade Phillips player's-coach mentality had destroyed. But, having said that, in the many quotes that Garrett has, when giving a definition of RKG, none of them say anything about church going, suit wearing, or even character. In every definition that I've read talent, willingness to work hard on and off the field, being a team player are generally what he's talking about. And, no, this is not a new concept that Garrett created. This is pretty much what every team look's for.

 

[Bullflop]

I might agree that McClain's acquisition suggest departure from the RKG philosphy if they actually had placed a real investment in him. But this is nothing more than a free look to see if he can be the type of player they are looking for. Off-the-field issues aside, he cam out of college possessing many of the qualities Garrett looks for, so if he can somehow return to being that player, he could prove to be a steal. And, as I mentioned in the OP, with the loss of Lee, this was chance they couldn't pass up. If his head isn't into it, they can put him off the team for what will likely be his final retirement.

I don't think the investment made by the team has anything to do with the player's character. The player in question either has the type of character a team needs or he doesn't, regardless of the team's commitment that's involved. I would agree that the contract is one that allows an easy out in the event that player doesn't pan out as the team might hope but McClain's recent past leaves plenty of room for having valid reservations about his level of passion for the game. In any case, I wish him well.

Having said that, I'll definitely be keeping an open mind and remain hopeful that he's able to display the passion that he claimed to be missing only a year ago and yet again before that. Maybe the change of scenery will help to overcome that. I'll surely be keeping my fingers crossed that he does well in training camp and possibly beyond. There's no doubt we need someone with his level of talent on defense if he'll just find a way to keep his head straight. In the meantime, you can bet I'll be praying he does just that.

 

[jday]

I don't think the investment made by the team has anything to do with the player's character. The player in question either has the type of character a team needs or he doesn't, regardless of the team's commitment that's involved. I would agree that the contract is one that allows an easy out in the event that player doesn't pan out as the team might hope but McClain's recent past leaves plenty of room for having valid reservations about his level of passion for the game. In any case, I wish him well.

Having said that, I'll definitely be keeping an open mind and remain hopeful that he's able to display the passion that he claimed to be missing only a year ago and yet again before that. Maybe the change of scenery will help to overcome that. I'll surely be keeping my fingers crossed that he does well in training camp and possibly beyond. There's no doubt we need someone with his level of talent on defense if he'll just find a way to keep his head straight. In the meantime, you can bet I'll be praying he does just that.

Even the detractors on this thread deep-down hope he pans out. But what I was trying to say is people change, people grow up...especially after having children. I'm not saying that's the case of Rolando McClain...I'm saying it's possible he's not the same guy he was when being convicted of the various stupid crimes on his record. That's why despite the RKG philosophy, the Cowboys will take chances on certain talent's. Especially if said talent has displayed some RKG qualities. One of the things that Garrett really likes in players he draft's is them having team captain on their college resume; McClain has that. While in college he was also a gym rat and studied film. So Garrett, I believe, sees the potential for RKG and is willing to take a chance to see if that guy has returned. As I have said many times on this thread, if McClain can't be that guy, he is very easily removed. They took a similiar chance on Dez Bryant, and I'd say he has panned out pretty well...and in that situations, they did actually invest alot in the belief that he would grow up. Despite some initial issues, I honestly am excited about Dez's future.

 

[xwalker]

I don't agree with every point but you obviously put some thought into your response and appreciate the debate. You pushed on one of the holes of my argument in terms of the erratic production of Ware/Hatch/Selvie throughout the season. I know we had no pass rush...I watch the games, but the team has cleverly used the injury excuse to whitewash the poor planning that went behind the move from the 3-4 in the first place. Two agings OLBs in their prime...put em in a 4-3? The only two players the scheme seemed to fit were Rat and Hatch (both @ 3 tech). Instead of pushing Rat to DE and signing a prototypical NT, the team panicked because of an embarrassing loss to RG3 mainly using the read option. This was also thought to stop Vick in PHI who was lighting us up regularly.

I understand that 4-3 teams would almost always prefer to have depth and rotate but the team was light on DL as a result of drafting for the 3-4 (outside of NT of course) and neglecting in developing the position for several seasons (same applies to OLBs to rotate with Ware/Spencer though they did try with Butler and a couple of other misses). I would say Lee and Spencer were the critical injuries to this D, with Ware being iffy later in the season, but not much else. Those are two really good players that would've assisted (Ware/Lee) in making the D @ least mid range. I hate that it came down to the final game (again) as a result of the game mismanagement @ the hands of JG whose supporters like to point to injuries to distance him from just how important these miscues are. I just don't see what positive Garret brings to this organization outside of drafting OL early (which I love). If anything, he is the only mainstay (year to year) outside of great talent that prevents the team from succeeding or even making the playoffs. One year, the OL, the next year, injuries, the next, the secondary. Each year the team is 8-7 going into their final game (regardless of the justifications/excuses) but are only pushed into a must win bc of poor game management by their HC.

I am a Romo guy, so no issues there at all. I feel his best opps have been squandered and the only light @ the end of the tunnel is that Linny will ride the Romo-Dez connection to the playoffs while also relying on Murray to maintain the momentum of the games and to protect the D. What is frustrating is that there was NOTHING that would've prevented this formula working last season to get this team into the post season. It is now being used as the way to go, but what was the hold up last year? I can only think of one person, well two people technically

There are certainly aspects of the 34 I like, which is why I would like to see the Cowboys mix it in were situations dictates a possible advantage in that lineup; for instance, 2nd and long versus 2 receiver sets. But as young as this defense is now, it's probably best to keep thing's simple for this season.

I like the idea of the Marinelli type front 7 over the 3-4.

1. The NFL has become a passing dominated league. In the 3-4, they use a 4-man line in obvious passing situations indicating that a 4-man line gives the best pass rush.

2. Marinelli is about pass-rush 1st. In RR's and Wade's defenses Ware was often in a read-and-react mode. I hated that. I wanted him on a all-out pass rush at all times. Marinelli's scheme basically puts the RDE in pass-rush mode almost 100% of the time. He even allows the RDE to completely abandon run defense often.

3. Parcells sold Jerry on the 3-4 being better for finding players, but that turned out to be false. The OLB position in a 3-4 is very difficult. You need a "3-tool" player there that can cover, rush and defend the run. The SOLB position is particularly difficult because that player has to be almost perfect in reading the offense. The SOLB was usually responsible for the RB in the flat. If he mis-played that, it was easy for the RB to get wide open in the flat if the SOLB rushing when the RB was going out for a pass route.

4. In Marinelli's 4-3 under, the RDE can be a smaller player that in a 4-3 like the Giants run. This player only has to rush the passer and play some run defense. There is no need to worry about finding a player that can also play coverage. It's easiest to find pass rushers in the 250 pound range instead of the 280 pound DE that the Giants and some other 4-3 teams tried to acquire.

5. The LDE in Marinelli's defense does not need to be an elite athlete like the RDE. This makes is easier to find bigger players to fill this position because a strong run defender is required here.

6. The DTs can be short. In the 4-3 the DEs needed to be taller players but also have to be strong enough to play 2-gap at times. Marinelli's defense can utilize either, but there is more availability of the shorter players that don't fit all schemes.

7. The ILBs in the 3-4 are normally bigger than 4-3 LBs. This often ends up with players that are not that good in coverage like Bradie James. It easier to find quality coverage LBs in the Marinelli scheme.

8. In Marinelli's scheme most of the "thinking" is removed from the DL and placed on the LBs and secondary. This makes sense because there is more time to react the further the player is away from the line.

 

[Bullflop]

Even the detractors on this thread deep-down hope he pans out. But what I was trying to say is people change, people grow up...especially after having children. I'm not saying that's the case of Rolando McClain...I'm saying it's possible he's not the same guy he was when being convicted of the various stupid crimes on his record. That's why despite the RKG philosophy, the Cowboys will take chances on certain talent's. Especially if said talent has displayed some RKG qualities. One of the things that Garrett really likes in players he draft's is them having team captain on their college resume; McClain has that. While in college he was also a gym rat and studied film. So Garrett, I believe, sees the potential for RKG and is willing to take a chance to see if that guy has returned. As I have said many times on this thread, if McClain can't be that guy, he is very easily removed. They took a similiar chance on Dez Bryant, and I'd say he has panned out pretty well...and in that situations, they did actually invest alot in the belief that he would grow up. Despite some initial issues, I honestly am excited about Dez's future.

I think it's obvious we're both pulling for the same thing here. Let me assure you I haven't lost faith in human nature just because Rolando McClain has had problems with his commitment to football. I'm sure we're on the same page in hoping for his success.

 

[Alexander]

Quick, someone run and tell the 15 teams that run the 3-4 that they are doing it wrong and we have the best coach/scheme to be successful in today's passing league.

 

[xwalker]

Quick, someone run and tell the 15 teams that run the 3-4 that they are doing it wrong and we have the best coach/scheme to be successful in today's passing league.

Well the Super Bowl champs that won with a dominating defense and were about the only defense to really limit the Denver offense was a 4-3.

 

[jday]

Quick, someone run and tell the 15 teams that run the 3-4 that they are doing it wrong and we have the best coach/scheme to be successful in today's passing league.

Why would we let them in on our secrect? Do you work for the Patriots?

 

[Alexander]

Well the Super Bowl champs that won with a dominating defense and were about the only defense to really limit the Denver offense was a 4-3.

And the year before, it was a rugged 3-4 defense that was able to stop the vaunted read option.

If you are looking for defenses that are handy and easy to supply talent for, you are waving a flag for the wrong one if you think the Tampa 2 scheme is any easier to acquire talent for than any other. In this scheme, you need the 3-T and weakside OLB, a quality MLB capable of playing deep zone coverage and overall, a pretty strong line to get the pressure required. Hardly any easier than trying to stock a quality 3-4.

 

[xwalker]

Why would we let them in on our secrect? Do you work for the Patriots?

No, I think he's a Commanders Washington guy.

How's that for being politically correct and not using that evil word?

 

[speedkilz88]

Speedy WOLB are important to the scheme but fairly easy to find since they don't require size at the position.
The MLB who can cover in deep zones isn't that difficult to find either. Again size isn't that important which makes it easier.
The 3T is the most important position but again size isn't that important. They just need a quick twitch guy. The Cowboys even found two udfas that at least fit the bill in Coleman and Whaley. Whaley being available because of injury.

 

[jday]

And the year before, it was a rugged 3-4 defense that was able to stop the vaunted read option.

If you are looking for defenses that are handy and easy to supply talent for, you are waving a flag for the wrong one if you think the Tampa 2 scheme is any easier to acquire talent for than any other. In this scheme, you need the 3-T and weakside OLB, a quality MLB capable of playing deep zone coverage and overall, a pretty strong line to get the pressure required. Hardly any easier than trying to stock a quality 3-4.

I am going to have to respectfully disagree..especially given the number of teams that have switched over to the 34. Initially, when the Cowboys did it, the 34 was in the minority, but now that the Saints, Commanders, Eagles etc moved to it, it has become much more difficult to find players who fit the specific mold.

 

[jnday]

I like the idea of the Marinelli type front 7 over the 3-4.

1. The NFL has become a passing dominated league. In the 3-4, they use a 4-man line in obvious passing situations indicating that a 4-man line gives the best pass rush.

2. Marinelli is about pass-rush 1st. In RR's and Wade's defenses Ware was often in a read-and-react mode. I hated that. I wanted him on a all-out pass rush at all times. Marinelli's scheme basically puts the RDE in pass-rush mode almost 100% of the time. He even allows the RDE to completely abandon run defense often.

3. Parcells sold Jerry on the 3-4 being better for finding players, but that turned out to be false. The OLB position in a 3-4 is very difficult. You need a "3-tool" player there that can cover, rush and defend the run. The SOLB position is particularly difficult because that player has to be almost perfect in reading the offense. The SOLB was usually responsible for the RB in the flat. If he mis-played that, it was easy for the RB to get wide open in the flat if the SOLB rushing when the RB was going out for a pass route.

4. In Marinelli's 4-3 under, the RDE can be a smaller player that in a 4-3 like the Giants run. This player only has to rush the passer and play some run defense. There is no need to worry about finding a player that can also play coverage. It's easiest to find pass rushers in the 250 pound range instead of the 280 pound DE that the Giants and some other 4-3 teams tried to acquire.

5. The LDE in Marinelli's defense does not need to be an elite athlete like the RDE. This makes is easier to find bigger players to fill this position because a strong run defender is required here.

6. The DTs can be short. In the 4-3 the DEs needed to be taller players but also have to be strong enough to play 2-gap at times. Marinelli's defense can utilize either, but there is more availability of the shorter players that don't fit all schemes.

7. The ILBs in the 3-4 are normally bigger than 4-3 LBs. This often ends up with players that are not that good in coverage like Bradie James. It easier to find quality coverage LBs in the Marinelli scheme.

8. In Marinelli's scheme most of the "thinking" is removed from the DL and placed on the LBs and secondary. This makes sense because there is more time to react the further the player is away from the line.

I would rather see a creative hybrid that uses both 4-3 and 3-4 schemes, but i don't know if the players are smart enough to run a system like that. As for Marinelli's system, I would prefer a different version of the 4-3. Keeping things simple and putting players into a position where they can make plays should be the first priority. Using a defense that fits the players and their talents would be a welcome change.

 

[Alexander]

Speedy WOLB are important to the scheme but fairly easy to find since they don't require size at the position.
The MLB who can cover in deep zones isn't that difficult to find either. Again size isn't that important which makes it easier.
The 3T is the most important position but again size isn't that important. They just need a quick twitch guy. The Cowboys even found two udfas that at least fit the bill in Coleman and Whaley. Whaley being available because of injury.

If it is so easy, why did Lovie Smith inherit Briggs and Urlacher and still had to spend multiple draft choices at DT and had to buy Julius Peppers before his defense became respectable?

He could have just got all of these players that are so easy to find just like we are, right?

 

[Alexander]

I am going to have to respectfully disagree..especially given the number of teams that have switched over to the 34. Initially, when the Cowboys did it, the 34 was in the minority, but now that the Saints, Commanders, Eagles etc moved to it, it has become much more difficult to find players who fit the specific mold.

It is a simple matter of preference. There is no distinct advantage of one system over the other. More teams run a 4-3 that requires pass rushing ends and an interior difference maker. We just traded out one set of harder to find pieces for another. If one system were easier to find talent for, more teams would be running to jump on that train.

The only real advantage to the 4-3 over the 3-4 is the fact that you have less projection to do with the college prospects available. Relatively few top shelf college programs run a 3-4 variant and it makes the process a little harder for some players.

 

[jnday]

And the year before, it was a rugged 3-4 defense that was able to stop the vaunted read option.

If you are looking for defenses that are handy and easy to supply talent for, you are waving a flag for the wrong one if you think the Tampa 2 scheme is any easier to acquire talent for than any other. In this scheme, you need the 3-T and weakside OLB, a quality MLB capable of playing deep zone coverage and overall, a pretty strong line to get the pressure required. Hardly any easier than trying to stock a quality 3-4.

You just listed the reasons that I dislike the Tampa Two. Other versions of the 4-3 don't need such scheme specific players. The Tampa is also outdated IMO.

 

[speedkilz88]

You just listed the reasons that I dislike the Tampa Two. Other versions of the 4-3 don't need such scheme specific players. The Tampa is also outdated IMO.

Seattle runs a variance of the Tampa scheme.

 

[Alexander]

You just listed the reasons that I dislike the Tampa Two. Other versions of the 4-3 don't need such scheme specific players. The Tampa is also outdated IMO.

The defense is outdated mainly because of the fact we could not put the correct twists into it. I do not believe Marinelli is any more flexible than Kiffin in terms of shaping the system to fit the personnel. They kept talking about the "Seattle" defense last offseason and we saw none of the creativity. Perhaps the lack of a DL rotation hurt that, but I do not know. If they truly believed that was the wave of the future, they would have tried a little harder to get themselves a better centerfielder at safety.

 

[Alexander]

Seattle runs a variance of the Tampa scheme.

Funny, Pete Carroll sums up his defense differently:

"Our defense is a 4-3 scheme with 3-4 personnel. It's just utilizing the special talents of our guys."