The 3-4 solution

[waldoputty]

Go through the Taco posts and you'll see plenty of outlandish claims. And yes, he was compared to Ware and Watt. Lol.

You can succeed in both schemes. Neither is a failed scheme. I'm not sure why you made that point in your reply considering i didn't mention it, but anyone claiming the 3-4 is a failed scheme is indeed a blowhard and total idiot. Agreed.

the key point of the thread is IF we fail this season, a 3-4 scheme is easier to get good edge players.
regarding taco, his physical stats are close to hardy and bosa.

 

[gmoney112]

the key point of the thread is IF we fail this season, a 3-4 scheme is easier to get good edge players.
regarding taco, his physical stats are close to hardy and bosa.

Well, getting good edge players is difficult anyway, regardless of scheme.Unless you pick top 15 for a few years or just get lucky in the draft, it's very difficult to homebrew one. That's why they go for so much in FA.

I actually think a 3-4 is harder to build. Neither scheme is going to have pass rushers just laying around though.

Physical attributes aren't really relevant unless they're in a specific outlying range on either side of the curve imo (either really good or really bad). Most NFL players are going to be pretty good athletes

 

[xwalker]

.....

As a wise man once said (Well @bkight13 said a few minutes ago), NNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOO!!!

When the Cowboys played the 3-4 there were constant threads of people wanting to switch back to the 4-3.

Parcells claimed finding 3-4 OLBs was easier, but in reality that turned out to be false.
Wait. He found Ware. Phillips found Spencer, who was at least serviceable. He also pent a low round pick on Erik Walden, who has had a productive career.

Ware was the #11 overall pick.

Spencer was #26 overall (A first round pick).

Before Taco, the Cowboys drafted DLaw at #34 overall (A 2nd round pick).

It's hardly an equal comparison.

Marinelli's defense is a great compromise (At least in theory) between a traditional 4-3 and the 3-4. He shifts the line to the right which puts the SDE head up on the OT but moves the WDE out away from the OT more like a 3-4 OLB. This allows for smaller DEs on the right side. It makes the RDE and the 3-tech DT the top pass rushers instead of both DEs. The SDE is little more like a 3-4 DE; whereas, the WDE is more like a 3-4 OLB. The big difference is that the DEs don't have to play coverage. It's much easier to find a SDE that can play the run than to find a 3-4 SLB that can play the run and play in coverage.
Marinelli plays a shell game. Especially when he does not have an elite talent. He needs a quality 3-T or a Rice or Peppers at end.

End of story.

If he doesn't have that, he has to spend the majority of his time playing smoke and mirrors.

The Cowboys have built a top offense unit because Marinelli was content to use smoke and mirrors. Is the ability to use smoke and mirrors a bad thing? Wade had a ton of talent and didn't do Jack with it.

In addition to all of the above, I hate the concept of switching schemes. You've spent years teaching players one scheme and trying to acquire players for that scheme. Now you're throwing all of that away and starting over.
Get the right mind in charge, that switch is not dramatic. We went from 3-4 concepts under Parcells and Phillips and then tried to get cute with Old Man Kiffin and now Marinelli trying little tweaks here and there, and even copying from other schemes, like Seattle, without even knowing what we were doing. Now I see people hailing a return to zone coverage. I guess it is real hard to make up your mind what straw to reach for..

That is one reason I hope Eberflus gets his shot sooner than later. He has had ample opportunity to learn from both sides of the fence.

They have deviated from Marinelli's history:
No more Tampa-2.
More man coverage.
3-man Line
More blitzing in recent years.

Demontre Moore playing as a stand-up DE in the HOF game.

Give Marinelli the same players that Wade had and I think he would do more with them.

Wade had all of these players in their prime:
Ware
Ratliff
Canty
Spencer
Backups Spears and Josh Brent

Not in his prime, but Greg Ellis was there for 2 years.

 

[waldoputty]

Well, getting good edge players is difficult anyway, regardless of scheme.Unless you pick top 15 for a few years or just get lucky in the draft, it's very difficult to homebrew one. That's why they go for so much in FA.

I actually think a 3-4 is harder to build. Neither scheme is going to have pass rushers just laying around though.

Physical attributes aren't really relevant unless they're in a specific outlying range on either side of the curve imo (either really good or really bad). Most NFL players are going to be pretty good athletes

just seemed DEs are the most difficult to get after QBs.
yea, i remember our 5th round pick that had pretty good stats that bombed.
the guy from purdue - cannot remember his name.

 

[xwalker]

This thread gave me a fistula.

I had to look that up and I'm still not sure I know what it is...

 

[waldoputty]

I had to look that up and I'm still not sure I know what it is...

yes it is a real word.
i remember seeing in some biology class.

 

[xwalker]

That IMO is the biggest disappointment with the FO........four years into this system and we are still looking for the elite edge player. We may the 3-T in Collins but w/o an elite edge, he's going to see a ton double team

Yes, but they focused more on the offense.

The ideal plan to build an NFL team usually involves building the offense first because it generally takes longer for it to come together. The investments they didn't make had some issues (Claiborne, Gregory) that were unrelated to the coaches or scheme.

The Nineties Super Bowls teams had a strong slant towards offense, especially early on.

 

[xwalker]

if taco played like bosa or hardy, we are golden.

They are definitely better comparisons for what Taco could become.

Instead, most fans are comparing Taco to the Ware or Von Miller style of player.

Both Bosa and Hardy would look terrible compared to the speed measurable(s) of Ware and Von Miller.

 

[Alexander]

As a wise man once said (Well @bkight13 said a few minutes ago), NNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOO!!!

When the Cowboys played the 3-4 there were constant threads of people wanting to switch back to the 4-3.

Parcells claimed finding 3-4 OLBs was easier, but in reality that turned out to be false.
Wait. He found Ware. Phillips found Spencer, who was at least serviceable. He also pent a low round pick on Erik Walden, who has had a productive career.

Ware was the #11 overall pick.

Spencer was #26 overall (A first round pick).

Before Taco, the Cowboys drafted DLaw at #34 overall (A 2nd round pick).

It's hardly an equal comparison.

Marinelli's defense is a great compromise (At least in theory) between a traditional 4-3 and the 3-4. He shifts the line to the right which puts the SDE head up on the OT but moves the WDE out away from the OT more like a 3-4 OLB. This allows for smaller DEs on the right side. It makes the RDE and the 3-tech DT the top pass rushers instead of both DEs. The SDE is little more like a 3-4 DE; whereas, the WDE is more like a 3-4 OLB. The big difference is that the DEs don't have to play coverage. It's much easier to find a SDE that can play the run than to find a 3-4 SLB that can play the run and play in coverage.
Marinelli plays a shell game. Especially when he does not have an elite talent. He needs a quality 3-T or a Rice or Peppers at end.

End of story.

If he doesn't have that, he has to spend the majority of his time playing smoke and mirrors.

The Cowboys have built a top offense unit because Marinelli was content to use smoke and mirrors. Is the ability to use smoke and mirrors a bad thing? Wade had a ton of talent and didn't do Jack with it.

In addition to all of the above, I hate the concept of switching schemes. You've spent years teaching players one scheme and trying to acquire players for that scheme. Now you're throwing all of that away and starting over.
Get the right mind in charge, that switch is not dramatic. We went from 3-4 concepts under Parcells and Phillips and then tried to get cute with Old Man Kiffin and now Marinelli trying little tweaks here and there, and even copying from other schemes, like Seattle, without even knowing what we were doing. Now I see people hailing a return to zone coverage. I guess it is real hard to make up your mind what straw to reach for..

That is one reason I hope Eberflus gets his shot sooner than later. He has had ample opportunity to learn from both sides of the fence.

They have deviated from Marinelli's history:
No more Tampa-2.
More man coverage.
3-man Line
More blitzing in recent years.

Demontre Moore playing as a stand-up DE in the HOF game.

Give Marinelli the same players that Wade had and I think he would do more with them.

Wade had all of these players in their prime:
Ware
Ratliff
Canty
Spencer
Backups Spears and Josh Brent

Not in his prime, but Greg Ellis was there for 2 years.

Your decision to color code this really made it unintelligible.

 

[The Quest for Six]

i dont think you were saying that with ware chasing the QB.

Always hated the 3-4, Ware could have played defensive end in a 4-3 scheme...

 

[Alexander]

Always hated the 3-4, Ware could have played defensive end in a 4-3 scheme...

But, but he would be undersized.

That is what I keep seeing now.

 

[xwalker]

Finding that elite edge player is hard, especially if you are playing a four man line and don't incorporate pressure schemes very often.

It is like expecting and waiting for the stars to align.

Part of the problem is we spent at least a year thinking we were going "Seatlle-style". Now we are trying to replicate the one successful defense that Marinelli has ever been in charge of. Problem now is finding a Julius Peppers in his prime. Good luck.

Charles Haley had 6 sacks in 92 and 4 in 93. The Cowboys won the Super Bowl both of those years.

Haley get a lot of credit, but that DL was more about depth than top tier talent. They had backups that could have started on many teams (Jimmie Jones, Lett, Chad Hennings). The other starters were solid but not Star players (Maryland, Tony Casillas, Tony Tolbert).

The starting lineup for that 1st Super Bowl:
Tony Tolbert
Russell Maryland
Tony Casillas
Charles Haley - The top "Star" player.
Vinson Smith
Robert Jones
Ken Norton Jr. - One of to "Star" players.
Kevin Smith
Larry Brown
Thomas Everett - At the end of his career.
James Washington

 

[xwalker]

But, but he would be undersized.

That is what I keep seeing now.

Mayowa started 6 games last season. He is listed at 6-3, 240.

Ware was 6-4, 251 when drafted and reported to have been over 260 at some points in time.

In the Giants style of 4-3, Ware would get beat up, but in Marinelli's style, he would be fine at WDE. Marinelli's WDE requirements are very similar to the requirements of a WOLB in the 3-4 but without the need to play in coverage.

 

[Alexander]

Charles Haley had 6 sacks in 92 and 4 in 93. The Cowboys won the Super Bowl both of those years.

Haley get a lot of credit, but that DL was more about depth than top tier talent. They had backups that could have started on many teams (Jimmie Jones, Lett, Chad Hennings). The other starters were solid but not Star players (Maryland, Tony Casillas, Tony Tolbert).

The starting lineup for that 1st Super Bowl:
Tony Tolbert
Russell Maryland
Tony Casillas
Charles Haley - The top "Star" player.
Vinson Smith
Robert Jones
Ken Norton Jr. - One of to "Star" players.
Kevin Smith
Larry Brown
Thomas Everett - At the end of his career.
James Washington

I made this point earlier.

Depth is a good thing.

But thinking there is any way we could possibly replicate the depth on those 1990s teams is beyond idiotic.

We had a fortunate trade. We had a top pick in the draft. We had a good free agent pickup in Casillas. Some underrated picks from Brandt in Hennings and Norton. Another robbery of a trade on Thomas Everett. A late round steal in Larry Brown. Plus Plan B throwaways like James Washington.

That is not something that you could do with the current system.

 

[xwalker]

Your decision to color code this really made it unintelligible.

Your original post was all within the quotes and intelligible. Ideally each response would be in it's own quotes. I probably should have done it that way. I see you changed your original reply to make it more readable.

 

[Alexander]

Mayowa started 6 games last season. He is listed at 6-3, 240.

Ware was 6-4, 251 when drafted and reported to have been over 260 at some points in time..

So help me understand.

Some people think the Charlton pick was necessary because you can't have undersized ends.

Then Mayowa is a solution, while being undersized?

Which is it?

Or is it the case where people are really just grasping at whatever success they can like a log in a raging river?

Benson Mayowa may have got sack numbers but he was hardly a reason any OC stayed awake at night and wondered how on earth he could stop him.

In case you missed it, I was not arguing that undersized players were an issue.

The whole idea about favoring a three man front is the number of options it clears up for rushers and even situational players.

Very 4-3 teams have that luxury. The one team I see is Minnesota who has Hunter coming in and doing it.

 

[LocimusPrime]

Interesting. The Broncos and Seahawks both developed outstanding defenses in recent yrs by drafting..signing...etc. The Cowboy OL is a testament to what can be done with the determination of a FO. The Cowboys could be capable of making a trade or two. No, its entirely "possible" to obtain a top defense. It gets back to the skills of the FO...I mean when it comes to finding offensive talent..it seems astute. It could well be done on the other side of the ball.

I also think it can be done as well. For the price of taco and Crawford we could get 1 war daddy type. And if we hit on another on in the draft we would be set. For example if we moved up and took bosa, our line could have been Oliver Vernon, bosa, Collins,Paea. Not bad.

Not saying that I would have moved up for bosa but just giving an example

 

[xwalker]

I made this point earlier.

Depth is a good thing.

But thinking there is any way we could possibly replicate the depth on those 1990s teams is beyond idiotic.

We had a fortunate trade. We had a top pick in the draft. We had a good free agent pickup in Casillas. Some underrated picks from Brandt in Hennings and Norton. Another robbery of a trade on Thomas Everett. A late round steal in Larry Brown. Plus Plan B throwaways like James Washington.

That is not something that you could do with the current system.

It's an example. Obviously, the salary cap era is different than that era.

My point is that the more quality depth you have on the DL, the more likely you can get by without elite starters.

The Cowboys offense was the opposite. They had no legit backups for Emmitt or Irvin. It was probably not much better in terms of backups for both OTs. Even in 94, the loss of Erik Williams killed their chance to win another SB.

 

[Alexander]

I also think it can be done as well. For the price of taco and Crawford we could get 1 war daddy type. And if we hit on another on in the draft we would be set. For example if we moved up and took bosa, our line could have been Oliver Vernon, bosa, Collins,Paea. Not bad.

Not saying that I would have moved up for bosa but just giving an example

I don't think you can look at it that way.

Moving up to get elite talent is not easy and most of the time you are going to get burned.

The idea is to have a system and then draft to it.

Defensively, this is perhaps the first draft in the last four years where it looks like that is the case.

I guess that is part of the fifteen year Garrett plan.

We will get there if we keep stacking one good draft on top of another. Getting better.

 

[LocimusPrime]

I don't think you can look at it that way.

Moving up to get elite talent is not easy and most of the time you are going to get burned.

The idea is to have a system and then draft to it.

Defensively, this is perhaps the first draft in the last four years where it looks like that is the case.

I guess that is part of the fifteen year Garrett plan.

We will get there if we keep stacking one good draft on top of another. Getting better.

I agree that you do get burnt moving up. Doesn't always work in your favor. I can dig it