RKG Definition

[jnday]

Seattle runs a variance of the Tampa scheme.

I know that. The variance makes a big difference.

 

[jday]

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.

16 teams presently run the 34 defense, which is exactly half of the NFL. So, if not every team running the 43 is looking for the same thing, then by doing simple math you should be able to conclude that the Cowboys will, at least, have a better chance of drafting what they are looking for. As far as the 34, the difference between what coaches are looking for is minimal. You need big blocker-eaters up front that can hold the line and Lb's that can read and react quickly. Granted, most teams will take chances on just about any talent in the hopes that they can develop the player within their scheme, but still, as Walker point out, there is less of an emphasis on body-type in this 43 versus what is pretty much necessary, especially up front, in the 34.

 

[jday]

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 The Tampa is also outdated IMO.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 Cowboys really aren't running the Tampa 2 that often to begin with. Like most team's in today's pass-happy NFL, they spend more time in the Nickel than anything, even 3-4 based teams.

 

[jday]

The defense is outdated mainly because of the fact we could not put the correct twists into it.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.

Last year in the switch from the 34 to the 43, they were scrambling to get ingredients that would make it work. Furthermore, they drafted Wilcox with the belief that he could eventually be that guy. Things didn't work due to personal issues and injuries, but based on what I've read, they still believe he could be the answer. And the fact that they lost almost all of their projected defensive line starters hamstringed their ability to the run defense the way they would have liked.

 

[speedkilz88]

I know that. The variance makes a big difference.

No, it doesn't. The Cowboys are looking for the same players. There isn't much difference in what they are running at all. Current personnel of the Cowboys limited what they could run but they wanted to run what the seahawks were running.

 

[Alexander]

16 teams presently run the 34 defense, which is exactly half of the NFL. So, if not every team running the 43 is looking for the same thing, then by doing simple math you should be able to conclude that the Cowboys will, at least, have a better chance of drafting what they are looking for. As far as the 34, the difference between what coaches are looking for is minimal. You need big blocker-eaters up front that can hold the line and Lb's that can read and react quickly. Granted, most teams will take chances on just about any talent in the hopes that they can develop the player within their scheme, but still, as Walker point out, there is less of an emphasis on body-type in this 43 versus what is pretty much necessary, especially up front, in the 34.

I think you are over simplifying things to slant it pro-4-3.

Not all 3-4 teams are looking for the same types of players either. Not all 3-4 teams are after that big nose tackle. That was one thing that frustrated people with Phillips where they just did not understand that his particular flavor of the scheme did not require what Parcells' brand of the defense did.

And the 4-3 defenses run across the league vary also, and some cannot even really be classified into either category running multiple fronts and principles. Seattle is a perfect example. They have the flexibility to fit the scheme around the player rather than spend time looking for physical prototypes. They do not draft to the scheme, they draft to the player.

Teams that spend time looking for this clone or that clone are only limiting their options when it comes to talent acquisition.

It is about having the right flexibility to make the principles you are applying work with the talent available. If there were a superior scheme there would not be the nearly 50/50 split. The trend is more towards multiple defenses using concepts from both schemes. Our challenge is to be able to either be flexible outside of the Kiffin Tampa 2 formulated decades ago or find the right players to fit the prototypes it demands.

 

[jday]

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.

I definitely agree with you here. I said something similiar earlier in this thread...almost exactly. But as far as "keeping things simple" from what I've read, keeping things simple for the defensive line is exactly what they are trying to do.

 

[speedkilz88]

The seahawks are looking for the same prototypes that the Cowboys are looking for. To claim they are not drafting to their scheme is laughable.

 

[jday]

I think you are over simplifying things to slant it pro-4-3.

Not all 3-4 teams are looking for the same types of players either. Not all 3-4 teams are after that big nose tackle. That was one thing that frustrated people with Phillips where they just did not understand that his particular flavor of the scheme did not require what Parcells' brand of the defense did.

And the 4-3 defenses run across the league vary also, and some cannot even really be classified into either category running multiple fronts and principles. Seattle is a perfect example. They have the flexibility to fit the scheme around the player rather than spend time looking for physical prototypes. They do not draft to the scheme, they draft to the player.

Teams that spend time looking for this clone or that clone are only limiting their options when it comes to talent acquisition.

It is about having the right flexibility to make the principles you are applying work with the talent available. If there were a superior scheme there would not be the nearly 50/50 split. The trend is more towards multiple defenses using concepts from both schemes. Our challenge is to be able to either be flexible outside of the Kiffin Tampa 2 formulated decades ago or find the right players to fit the prototypes it demands.

Regardless of body type, certain players can play any scheme. Ratliff is a great example of that. He was considered under-sized as a DT, but with his strength and explosiveness, he still demanded double-teams. There are exceptions to every rule. But, still you are going to have give and take with every scheme. I'm not trying to sell you on the idea that the 43 is better than the 34...it truly depends on the players you have. I agree with you, offense or defense, your scheme should fit your players, not the other way around. But as I said to Jnday in my last response, much of this talk is much ado about nothing, because the majority of the time, in today's pass-happy NFL teams stay in the Nickel, regardless of what their base scheme is.

 

[jnday]

No, it doesn't. The Cowboys are looking for the same players. There isn't much difference in what they are running at all. Current personnel of the Cowboys limited what they could run but they wanted to run what the seahawks were running.

That is your opinion. They mentioned running a Seahawks type defense when Kiffin was hired, but there was no signs of running it even before injuries . That statement was simply one if Jerry's attempts to gain fan support. Kiffin coached what he knew and it sure wasn't the same defense that the Seahawks use. The defense ran the zone coverage a large percent of the time with man-coverage CBs and the poor fit resulted in poor pass coverage.nit has been discussed here several times and it was one reason that Kiffin is no longer the DC.

 

[speedkilz88]

That is your opinion. They mentioned running a Seahawks type defense when Kiffin was hired, but there was no signs of running it even before injuries . That statement was simply one if Jerry's attempts to gain fan support. Kiffin coached what he knew and it sure wasn't the same defense that the Seahawks use. The defense ran the zone coverage a large percent of the time with man-coverage CBs and the poor fit resulted in poor pass coverage.nit has been discussed here several times and it was one reason that Kiffin is no longer the DC.

The coverages were the only difference and it still was because of injuries. But the scheme was the same. They still look for the same type players.

 

[Idgit]

That is your opinion. They mentioned running a Seahawks type defense when Kiffin was hired, but there was no signs of running it even before injuries . That statement was simply one if Jerry's attempts to gain fan support. Kiffin coached what he knew and it sure wasn't the same defense that the Seahawks use. The defense ran the zone coverage a large percent of the time with man-coverage CBs and the poor fit resulted in poor pass coverage.nit has been discussed here several times and it was one reason that Kiffin is no longer the DC.

There were indications Monte was going to consult in SEA before coming to the Cowboys, and he and Carroll go way back. The goal in Dallas was never to play an outdated version of the Tampa Two, and we were copying the SEA coverages early in the season after Mo was back in the lineup and before defensive injuries piled up. Those early NFCE games against WAS and PHI in particular we're good examples of what I think we wanted to do.

Jerry made noise about going back to more press coverage later in the year before the Saints game, and they ate us up because we couldn't cover the backs out of the backfield, and then Lee went out and we had to drop back into zone, but the plan was still the same. I'm betting we see a lot more of it this season if we avoid the injury bug.

 

[BigStar]

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.

This is a good post in support of the 4-3 move and like the options described in some points but not sure all points are fully supported. Wade was responsible for Ware's most productive seasons and feel that it is hard to imagine Ware being much more dominant as the RE during the same tenure. Ware also showed that he is not as dominant with has hand in the dirt 100% of the time, and if anything, needs the flexibility vary his stance or rush tactics. This would be applied the nickle rush with Ware as RE as well as the rest of the DL. That seems to be the best of both worlds. 3-4 for creativity (Run D) and the nickle rushers for passing squads? RR/Wade also stuck with Rat in the middle (that was the justification given at the time anyway) bc they were a 1 gap 3-4, not a 2-gap D similar to Parcells, so not quite sure about the read and react point regarding Ware or the DL/OLBs. I do understand your point in that pass rush nickel packages of 3-4 teams contain 4 DL though. Spencer surely had his share of run responsibilities to take on as the SOLB in RR's scheme but actually thrived in this role.

 

[BigStar]

Some of you guys are willing to believe some fairly elaborate make believe on this topic. And where'd all this next-Landry nonsense come from? Is it more pure distorted fantasy, or did somebody actually say it in defense of Jason Garrett? He's no Tom Landry.

That said, his definition of the kind of players he wants on the team is straightforward, explicit, and it always has been. And there's no point in denying that he's churned the roster with that definition in mind. You guys can prop up or second guess the various decisions that have gone into it, but the overall direction is pretty clear.

And, as somebody who regularly defended Wade Phillips against attacks by posters who are now apparently his newest and greatest supporters, I'll freely admit that Wade was disrespected for the job he did here. Wade definitely had a better record than both Jason Garrett and Bill Parcels. There's no disputing that. Now, is he a better head coach than either of them? I don't think he is. And, I say that knowing he's got the won-loss record in his favor.

This is a fair point but it is not necessarily that we are fighting for "our boy" we are fighting over scraps under the table.

 

[xwalker]

This is a good post in support of the 4-3 move and like the options described in some points but not sure all points are fully supported. Wade was responsible for Ware's most productive seasons and feel that it is hard to imagine Ware being much more dominant as the RE during the same tenure. Ware also showed that he is not as dominant with has hand in the dirt 100% of the time, and if anything, needs the flexibility vary his stance or rush tactics. This would be applied the nickle rush with Ware as RE as well as the rest of the DL. That seems to be the best of both worlds. 3-4 for creativity (Run D) and the nickle rushers for passing squads? RR/Wade also stuck with Rat in the middle (that was the justification given at the time anyway) bc they were a 1 gap 3-4, not a 2-gap D similar to Parcells, so not quite sure about the read and react point regarding Ware or the DL/OLBs. I do understand your point in that pass rush nickel packages of 3-4 teams contain 4 DL though. Spencer surely had his share of run responsibilities to take on as the SOLB in RR's scheme but actually thrived in this role.

Good post.

Actually, the read and react for Ware was primarily RR. Both Wade and RR had Spencer in read and react.

Yes, Spencer thrived in that defense but he was very underrated. They struggled to find anybody to be his backup. Butler had pass rush ability but couldn't master the complexities of that position. Butler probably would have played more and sooner as a RDE in Marinelli's scheme.

 

[JBS]

Rkg thing got out of hand. This team needs all the players they can get

 

[Doomsday101]

Or an 8-8 coach speaking as if his "method=coaching 101" is some constructed continued course of "progress?" is just as grating on the nerves (to fans). RKG is basically so intentionally vague that it fits "any player" the team picks up once you work around with his "broad variables"...

and if Dallas wins you will not care, you guys go on and on about trival things I think you like being upset, without that you have nothing else to offer up in conversations. Oh Jason talked about a guy being the right fit or RKG? wow that is so hard to handle. lol

 

[BigStar]

and if Dallas wins you will not care, you guys go on and on about trival things I think you like being upset, without that you have nothing else to offer up in conversations. Oh Jason talked about a guy being the right fit or RKG? wow that is so hard to handle. lol

Yes, you are correct that his coach speak would have more meaning or relevance if we were winning. That is kinda our gripe? Stop talking to us fans (or media) like you have cooked up something that has been carefully orchestrated when your results prove otherwise. He has had plenty of time...time to get specific JG (what are you about?).

I was basically pointing out that it is wrong to harp on people who "don't seem to get the definition" when Garrett himself constructed this definition to fit just about any player he chooses after the fact. It fits anybody..even McClain we have found out It's political double talk and it is getting old. 8-8 is getting old but a fan forum shouldn't reflect that? But see JG has this process for building his team; RKG method yada yada yada. Now on to round 4...

 

[Doomsday101]

Yes, you are correct that his coach speak would have more meaning or relevance if we were winning. That is kinda our gripe. Stop talking to us fans like we're stupid and cooked up something that has been carefully orchestrated when your results prove otherwise. I was basically pointing out that it is wrong to harp on people who "don't seem to get the definition" when Garrett himself constructed it that way.

Yes it is coach talk yet you guys take it to another level as if it is some big fricken deal. Most coaches talk in generality and yes I'm sure he does look for certain kinds of players that fit into what he expects out of them. Not all will live up to it. Same with Belicheck when he has talked about the RKG yet Hernandez situation only shows that things do not always work out as the organization planned.

 

[Doomsday101]

Yes, you are correct that his coach speak would have more meaning or relevance if we were winning. That is kinda our gripe?...Stop talking to us fans like you have cooked up something that has been carefully orchestrated when your results prove otherwise. I was basically pointing out that it is wrong to harp on people who "don't seem to get the definition" when Garrett himself constructed this definition to fit just about any player he chooses after the fact. It fits anybody..even McClain we have found out It's political double talk and it is getting old. 8-8 is getting old. But see JG has this new foundation; RKG method yada yada yada. Now on to round 4...

no doubt no one likes going 8-8 and missing the playoffs, heck it is his job that is on the line. He has explained what they want in players guys who are willing to put team over themselfs, guy who are willing to work hard to improve as players. Do all teams look for that? I'm pretty sure they do but as we know not all players are like that and we have cut loose players who are not doing those things. In the end yes his job is not about what he says to the press it is about winning and if he is not doing that then it really will not matter if his pressers are entertaining or not.