Punkabilly56
Member
- Messages
- 145
- Reaction score
- 6
I say scrap the 3-4. go back to 4-3. the D was fine as a 4-3 under Zimmer. Parcells brought in his renowned 3-4 and screwed things up.
:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:Punkabilly56;2369356 said:I say scrap the 3-4. go back to 4-3. the D was fine as a 4-3 under Zimmer. Parcells brought in his renowned 3-4 and screwed things up.
Punkabilly56;2369356 said:I say scrap the 3-4. go back to 4-3. the D was fine as a 4-3 under Zimmer. Parcells brought in his renowned 3-4 and screwed things up.
Punkabilly56;2369356 said:I say scrap the 3-4. go back to 4-3. the D was fine as a 4-3 under Zimmer. Parcells brought in his renowned 3-4 and screwed things up.
Punkabilly56;2369356 said:I say scrap the 3-4. go back to 4-3. the D was fine as a 4-3 under Zimmer. Parcells brought in his renowned 3-4 and screwed things up.
BraveHeartFan;2369515 said:I'm curious about this but what exactly would the change to a 4-3 do for the secondary not playing up to par?