Switching to 4-3

[Deputy493]

Deputy, you've got some great logic there. Our safeties stink, so we should just play out the string doing the exact same thing that HASN'T worked the last several games instead of trying to add some new wrinkles.

Brilliant.

I never said that, but thanks for trying to put words in my mouth.

I simply don't see how a change to the 4-3, when we have been building our team to a 3-4 will change the fact that we stink (our safeties in particular) in coverage.........it is not scheme it is personnel.

Go back to the 4-3, try whatever, but it won't change the fact that we stink in deep coverage........we had these exact problems when we still ran the 4-3 ad many of you thought a switch to the 3-4 would change that......it won't change until 1) we get a consistent pass rush (I agree with this philosophy) and 2) we get some good coverage safeties, like we had with Woody.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Everyone knows our safety coverage has been awful. You aren't exactly breaking news to us.

What the team is obviously trying to do is improve the pressure on the QB by trying a different scheme. You don't think more QB pressure would affect the other team's passing effectiveness?

 

[Deputy493]

Everyone knows our safety coverage has been awful. You aren't exactly breaking news to us.

What the team is obviously trying to do is improve the pressure on the QB by trying a different scheme. You don't think more QB pressure would affect the other team's passing effectiveness?

Sure it would, in fact I have always said that Charles Haley was the final piece to our Superbowl puzzle in 92....a consistent, good pass rush makes average secondaries look very good, look no fruther than the Pats of the past few years.............but what makes everyone think that going back to a Zimmer 4-3 (which we abandoned) will generate more pass rush? The 3-4 was schemed to create more pass rush, which it hasn't, I just fail to see how that will change............I mean on passing downs we have 4 down lineman already with Ware in the stance as a DE......I am not against trying anything, but those that think this will be a magical solution are crazy, IMO.........In many ways I like the 4-3 better, but in the end we still have the same weaknesses and to me it seems kind of late to change your defensive philosophy before the last regular season game.

 

[silver]

the worst thing we can do is do nothing and expect better results. me thinks we run the 4-3 to bring in more beef up front because we can't stop the run. our starting nt doesn't have a legit back up and he's wearing down at the end of the season. at 4-3 we can rotate spears, ferguson, ratliff and canty at dt with ware, hatcher, and even carpenter or burnett at de

 

[theogt]

well, does it matter what I say? Because you will blame someone else no matter what I say.......

Well, it was the first question I asked and it's taken you this long to answer. I guess it takes you a while to come up with some actual substance instead of just calling people homers.

what plays come to mind, well the two middle deep pass plays to Jones in the Saints game just before half.......one was reversed (which should not have been), then we turn around and give up a TD to him on pretty much the same play after the 15 yard penalty.........where was the Safety on that play or whose fault was that, since I know you will refuse o blame our Safeties.

Well, it's quite the stretch to say that the first pass to Jones was Roy's fault. It was actually Bradie James that was covering Jones at the time. Like I said, Bradie sucks.

However, the fact that he dropped that pass was certainly Roy's doing. So your first point in the argument actually works against you.

On the second pass the receiver split Roy and James' zones. James was too slow to keep up with the receiver, but Roy was a single deep safety and had about 3-4 deep routes coming his way. Hardly his fault when one of the routes happens to split his zone. I'm not sure too many safeties make play on that one. Roy did, however, miss the tackle but that doesn't say anything about his coverage now does it?

Devery Henderson had 2 catches for 92 yards and a TD....is that all on Henry or did a Safety not get over in time or fulfill his assignment?

The first Henderson catch he beat Roy, who bit on the play fake. The second Henderson catch was on Henry and Davis. Henry got burned. I've said 1000 times that Henry is slow and gets burned. Keith Davis is absolutely terrible and shouldn't even be playing football at this point. He's not playing safety for us anymore, though, so I'm not sure this helps your argument at all.

Who's fault was it that Schobel was wide open in the middle of the field for a TD the other day? Whos' fault was the long screen to LJ Smith? Let me guess everyone else but a Safety.

The second screen to LJ Smith was Burnett's fault. In case you were wondering, he's a linebacker, not a safety. This is obvious from the tape, but if you would like I can pull a quote of Parcells saying it was Burnett's fault? I guess you'd just call him a homer, though.

 

[D-BOI99]

Anyone think that bill is switching to 4/3 to try to get pressure with d-line without blitzing? Just wondering b/c he say's in his press conference that he doesn't like to blitz or try to do trick plays, stunts or anything of that nature. If so it appears were going to be running a vannilla defense just as before. Anyways I hope we can get pressure and everything will work out.

 

[fanfromvirginia]

Sure it would, in fact I have always said that Charles Haley was the final piece to our Superbowl puzzle in 92....a consistent, good pass rush makes average secondaries look very good, look no fruther than the Pats of the past few years.............but what makes everyone think that going back to a Zimmer 4-3 (which we abandoned) will generate more pass rush? The 3-4 was schemed to create more pass rush, which it hasn't, I just fail to see how that will change............I mean on passing downs we have 4 down lineman already with Ware in the stance as a DE......I am not against trying anything, but those that think this will be a magical solution are crazy, IMO.........In many ways I like the 4-3 better, but in the end we still have the same weaknesses and to me it seems kind of late to change your defensive philosophy before the last regular season game.

I think what you're ignoring here (and, yeah yeah, you're right about our safeties sucking) is that we had a half decent pass rush earlier in the season before Ellis went out and our D was much better. And our safeties were just as gawdawful as they are now, if not worse.

Changing back and forth between the 4-3 and the 3-4: has been done successfully; is what BP and Zimmer originally promised to do; would confuse opposing Ds (at least much more than is being done now) IF done correctly; deserves a shot.

What's the worst that can happen if we switch to the 4-3 for 10-15 plays in the first half? We might get burned by opposing WRs...?

 

[Yakuza Rich]

I love the people that think the 4-3 is the answer. Ware is better rushing the passer standing up, it's pretty clear and evident that he is. And the last year we had the 4-3 was in 2004, and it was the worst defense we've had in probably the last 15-20 years. Plus going to the 4-3 would put guys even in a worse position, especially since we have nobody for the WILL Backer spot and James would be even more out of position since he would be required to play more coverage. Oh yeah, that puts Spears out of position as well.

I don't think we'd be a great pass rushing team in the 3-4 with Ellis out. But the main issue isn't the scheme as much as it is Zimmer...his inability to get his players to disguise a defense and his unwillingness to stunt on occasion. Some blame Parcells, but Belichick disguised blitzes and stunted under Parcells and for a conservative type of coach, Parcells doesn't have any problems being creative and aggressive on offense.



YAKUZA

 

[mmohican29]

This move speaks volumes if it's true. First, to me it signals the end of BP in Dallas. No way a coach of his stature can continue on as head coach when the defense he installed and hand selected players for, fails.

Secondly, the move itself scheme wise is much too late. If we are going to be playing a 4-3, it will be vanilla and will rely on the talents of Ware and Canty at DE to supply heat on the QB and does nothing to help our zone heavy coverage schemes.

Thirdly, I think the move is a good one all things considered. It is our only chance at winning in the playoffs and I think Parcells knows this now for sure.

God save the Cowboys.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

I think what you're ignoring here (and, yeah yeah, you're right about our safeties sucking) is that we had a half decent pass rush earlier in the season before Ellis went out and our D was much better. And our safeties were just as gawdawful as they are now, if not worse.

Our pass rush was slightly better with Ellis, but it wasn't in the "good" category. Teams weren't throwing with such great success on passes out on the flats and Zimmer can't figure that out. Also, earlier in the year we were still awful at disguising blitzes. We turned things around a bit in the disguise for a few games...right after the second Washington game...but now the blitz disguise is as bad as ever.

I could live going with the 4-3 if we had Shanle (a guy we deeply miss because even though he's weak against the run, he's a good cover guy and blitzes well). But w/o Shanle we really don't have the personnel for the 4-3 and we'd be taking Ware out of his most effective position and Spears and James would be *worse off*.


YAKUZA

 

[Chocolate Lab]

You really think one Scott Shanle is the whole reason the 43 wouldn't work for us?

Somewhere, Nors is smiling.

This isn't a permanent change, it's just a wrinkle -- just like the Pats use it. A change in front might cause confusion for the offense, and we can use as much of that as we can get.

And I totally disagree that our players can't play it. Who says Spears would be horribly out of position in it? He sure wasn't in college. As Carpenter and everyone else save Canty weren't.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

This move speaks volumes if it's true. First, to me it signals the end of BP in Dallas. No way a coach of his stature can continue on as head coach when the defense he installed and hand selected players for, fails.

I wouldn't go that far. Remember, we played a 4-3 his first 2 seasons with Parcells and were far, far worse of a defense in 2004. Parcells has implemented things before with his players and they've failed, but he's come back and gotten them to be better. We had Vinny and he failed, wound up with Bledsoe who eventually failed pretty quickly, and then we wound up with Romo.

I think it may spell doom for Zimmer if anything. Parcells is the type of guy that believes that good football players and good coaches can play and coach in any system. He's said that to plenty of players, more recently Greg Ellis.

So if Parcells wants a 3-4 and gets the players for it and they have to revert to a 4-3, I think it shows Parcells that Zimmer isn't his guy for the job.

Or at least I hope.


YAKUZA

 

[felix360]

to bad ellis is out for the season :bang2:

 

[Yakuza Rich]

You really think one Scott Shanle is the whole reason the 43 wouldn't work for us? .

No, but I think for it to have a chance, we would need Shanle. Ayodele can play 4-3 SAM backer (although he's playing better at ILB in the 3-4). Then you've got probably Bradie at MLB and that'll make him have to cover more and probably Burnett would play WILL LB and I don't think he's remotely ready to play there.

And I totally disagree that our players can't play it. Who says Spears would be horribly out of position in it? He sure wasn't in college.

"That's the thing about the good ole days. They're old." - Slim Charles.

As Carpenter and everyone else save Canty weren't

Carpenter was a SAM backer at Ohio State and while I think the kid could be potentially a very good football player, he's got to play backup since he's a liability against the run.

We'd still be very weak at MLB, WILL LB, and left DE.



YAKUZA

 

[LaTunaNostra]

We'd still be very weak at MLB, WILL LB, and left DE.



YAKUZA

What do you think about our increased capacity for some interior push, or actual interior pass rush in the 4-3?

Especially considering the QBs we will be facing in the palyoff(s)...Haselbeck, Brees, Garcia, etc

 

[Hostile]

Somewhere Nors head just exploded.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

All I'll say, Rich, is that I think our personnel is fitted just fine for the 4-3. Yes, MLB would probably be our biggest problem, but you know, Bradie hasn't exactly been excelling at 34 ILB anyway. (And wouldn't it be something if Bradie weren't the MLB?)

Just looking at the big picture, I think we have at least as much talent at DL as LB right now, although not having Ratliff hurts that some. Sure, lack of experience and practice would be a problem right now, but still, it's only for certain looks.

I think it's worth a try and frankly, I'm just glad our coaching staff is willing to try something new.

 

[VA Cowboy]

I'd like for them to stay with the 4-3 as the base defense. I'm just surprised they let it out prior to the game. Although, I think our seeding is pretty much set, unless the Iggles implode against Atlanta, which is unlikely.

 

[neosapien23]

All I'll say, Rich, is that I think our personnel is fitted just fine for the 4-3. Yes, MLB would probably be our biggest problem, but you know, Bradie hasn't exactly been excelling at 34 ILB anyway. (And wouldn't it be something if Bradie weren't the MLB?)

Just looking at the big picture, I think we have at least as much talent at DL as LB right now, although not having Ratliff hurts that some. Sure, lack of experience and practice would be a problem right now, but still, it's only for certain looks.

Burnett, Adoyele, and Carpenter would be just fine with me. I always thought Carpenter and Burnett were better 4-3 linebackers.

 

[VA Cowboy]

You really think one Scott Shanle is the whole reason the 43 wouldn't work for us?

Somewhere, Nors is smiling.

nors: "thats desparation move....."

Straight from the lips of the village idgit.