Was switching to the 4-3 a mistake?

[Gadfly22]

Seemed to make sense with a Ware/Ratliff/Hatcher/Spencer starting lineup. But a Ware/Hayden/Hatcher/Selvie front is gonna give you trouble, as we're seeing.

 

[TwoDeep3]

So depending on a one year and out franchise designee, an undrafted free agent that really was not that great to begin with and an unproven player like Crawford was reasonable?

It still was a decision based on faith, which as we know is a huge flaw of this front office. The biggest miscalculation was Ratliff, which is why we heard Jerry Jones lamenting his absence just as recently as Sunday.

This is exactly right. This front four was built on a wing and a prayer. This front office does that a great deal, hoping things work out.

There are some eerie correlations between the front office decisions and some fans.

 

[Tabascocat]

The team was built for the 3-4, the team drafted/FA for the 3-4. Switching to the 4-3 was a knee-jerk reaction and I suspect to cover up other areas of concern(offense/Garrett).

Having said that, it wouldn't have mattered, lost too many bodies, nagging injuries mixed in with little to no talent. I was expecting a 4-3/3-4 hybrid with man-to-man but we just don't have the talent to accomplish that.

The defense is a mess and can not be fixed this season, might even take a couple more seasons to fix, or at least make it viable.

 

[jobberone]

So depending on a one year and out franchise designee, an undrafted free agent that really was not that great to begin with and an unproven player like Crawford was reasonable?

It still was a decision based on faith, which as we know is a huge flaw of this front office. The biggest miscalculation was Ratliff, which is why we heard Jerry Jones lamenting his absence just as recently as Sunday.

No I don't agree with that assessment. Bass looked liked a contributor my most. Spencer was looking to have a career year needing another contract. And Crawford came on last year. You only have so much ability to upgrade in the offseason and DL didn't look like a critical area to most. OL was #1 then DB esp S. Also the offense failed the club again last year so we had to look at TE and WR and RB. You cannot plan for this many injuries esp along the DL which looked like a strength to most.

 

[Future]

We are playing a lot more man than people want to admit and we are still not very good at it. We are not really running a Tampa 2. We are just not covering anyone very well.

True, but that has only been exposed against elite WRs and passing offenses....and those teams do it to just about every defense. NO, Chicago, and Detroit were the worst, and, surprise surprise, their big, elite WRs beat all of our coverages. Against the less dominant passing offenses, the man coverage has worked well.

 

[Stash]

No I don't agree with that assessment. Bass looked liked a contributor my most. Spencer was looking to have a career year needing another contract. And Crawford came on last year. You only have so much ability to upgrade in the offseason and DL didn't look like a critical area to most. OL was #1 then DB esp S. Also the offense failed the club again last year so we had to look at TE and WR and RB. You cannot plan for this many injuries esp along the DL which looked like a strength to most.

No.

You're wrong in trying to justify using picks on TE, WR, and RB.

There were clearly bigger needs that were ignored. Folks said it the and they were right. Jerry Jones and his organization have always placed their priorities on the flash players and shiny objects rather than where they belong.

 

[jobberone]

This is exactly right. This front four was built on a wing and a prayer. This front office does that a great deal, hoping things work out.

There are some eerie correlations between the front office decisions and some fans.

They spent a franchise tag on Spencer and a third on Crawford who was a third and IMO played well last year improving all year. Bass looked good and most other than a few disgruntled fans in retrospect either think not or conveniently overlook it. You can only spend so many resources on one area of the team and that was one of the areas that looked the strongest going into the draft.

No team I've ever seen has overcome all these injuries although depth has been an issue on this club for years.

 

[The Natural]

A poster here brought up a good point a few days ago..how do you switch defensive schemes in the offseason, and then not spend a single high draft pick into the trenches of that defense? The problem they had with the 3-4 is they didnt invest enough to the defensive line, so you switch schemes and do the same thing. Think about this for a second. In the last 4 years, we've drafted 2 defensive linemen

 

[jobberone]

No.

You're wrong in trying to justify using picks on TE, WR, and RB.

There were clearly bigger needs that were ignored. Folks said it the and they were right. Jerry Jones and his organization have always placed their priorities on the flash players and shiny objects rather than where they belong.

Give some more info and I'll listen. Telling me others said so does not compute.

 

[xwalker]

Sure, we're getting the interceptions and flashy defensive plays but our defense is atrocious relative to the past few seasons. So, was it a mistake?

It's the players, not the scheme.

Ware: A shell of himself. Scheme is not his problem.
Spencer: IR, scheme is not an issue
Ratliff: In Chicago, scheme is not an issue
Crawford: IR, scheme is not an issue

Wilber: Looks better at 4-3 LB than he did as a 3-4 OLB.
Lee: Injuries are not scheme dependent

Who would play NT and OLB if they were in a 3-4 this year. Josh Brent, Ratliff and Spencer are gone. Selvie can't play OLB in the 3-4.

The only 2 players that I see that might have been negatively affected by the change are Claiborne and Carter; however, Claiborne's primary issue is not being on the field. That leaves Carter as the lone player that might be having issues due the the scheme; however, that is odd because he is playing the same position/scheme that he played in college.

 

[Tabascocat]

They spent a franchise tag on Spencer and a third on Crawford who was a third and IMO played well last year improving all year. Bass looked good and most other than a few disgruntled fans in retrospect either think not or conveniently overlook it. You can only spend so many resources on one area of the team and that was one of the areas that looked the strongest going into the draft.

No team I've ever seen has overcome all these injuries although depth has been an issue on this club for years.

Don't say that too often Doc. Last thing we need is Jerry using the same players as next years answer and ignoring the line

I can see it now:
Ware - will return to form
Crawford - the next powerhouse
Bass - who knows
Hatcher - break the bank for him
Spencer - see Ware and resign him to a two-year contract
Lee - will never get injured again
Carter - he will do better when we switch back to the 3-4
etc, etc

I do agree that the DL looked better on paper before the draft but I hope he doesn't repeat that this year. We need an influx of quality players and move on from the past.

 

[TwoDeep3]

They spent a franchise tag on Spencer and a third on Crawford who was a third and IMO played well last year improving all year. Bass looked good and most other than a few disgruntled fans in retrospect either think not or conveniently overlook it. You can only spend so many resources on one area of the team and that was one of the areas that looked the strongest going into the draft.

No team I've ever seen has overcome all these injuries although depth has been an issue on this club for years.

The premise of the defensive line was based on Spencer and Rat and that the line would be built on three 30+ year olds and one guy who would be 30 by the end of the season. I agree injuries took their toll, but the brain trust built this defense from the back end, and haven't even done a sterling job of that.

But the bromide no pass rush no pass defense holds true. So while we can mince words over what if, the collective theory on building the defense is flawed for this team. And no amount of blue sky about what could have been changes that.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

No.

The NFL is changing its offenses. They will either spread them out and throw or use read-option. If you spread them out, the 3-4 now doesn't have both of your best pass rushers going at the QB. And with the read-option, it is more likely to put your OLB's in read and react.

Currently, the top-5 ranked defenses according to FO.com are:

Seattle
Arizona
Carolina
Cincinnati
Buffalo

Arizona runs a hybrid 3-4/4-3. The rest use 4-3 except for the Bills. Tampa is ranked 6th...and run a 4-3.

The 4-3 Cover 2 was designed to stop deep passes. The 3-4 was more designed to help against the run and confuse QB's, particularly Peyton Manning. Now offenses are so pass happy that the 4-3, IMO, works better in today's game.




YR

 

[17yearsandcounting]

This defense is worse than expansion teams.

Just keep repeating "Its the players, not the scheme"

 

[Stash]

Give some more info and I'll listen. Telling me others said so does not compute.

It would be easier with a Search function, but many of us wanted a considerable investment made in both lines and were worried when yet another backup TE was taken with our second round pick, this isn't news or any revelation, it was well known by anyone who was positing here at draft time.

All of the positions you mentioned - TE, WR, and RB were for backup positions, a luxury for a team with so many holes in starting positions.

But, since they're flashier than the grunts who simply do the dirty work, they're minimized, to the team's detriment.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Sure, we're getting the interceptions and flashy defensive plays but our defense is atrocious relative to the past few seasons. So, was it a mistake?

yes it was and I laugh when I recall the posts here bemoaning fact we played a 3-4 saying, we are traditionally a 4-3 as if that should factor in at all.

 

[Broges74]

Yeah I agree with the others stating that Cover 2 is the issue not 4-3/3-4

 

[NextGenBoys]

No it wasn't bad moving to a 4-3. It was bad moving to a 4-3 that is rooted in a Cover2/Tampa 2. We invest heavily in man to man resources, then go out and pick a coach who is known for a predominantly zone scheme.

We switched to a 4-3 to help protect Lee and Carter a bit so they wouldn't take such a pounding and get hurt. But we didn't have the safeties nor the corners to play it. Just seemed like they threw random ideas on the board and whatever stuck they went with.

 

[Alexander]

No I don't agree with that assessment. Bass looked liked a contributor my most. Spencer was looking to have a career year needing another contract. And Crawford came on last year. You only have so much ability to upgrade in the offseason and DL didn't look like a critical area to most. OL was #1 then DB esp S. Also the offense failed the club again last year so we had to look at TE and WR and RB. You cannot plan for this many injuries esp along the DL which looked like a strength to most.

Your logic in this post could not have been any more Jonesian. I would swear you were related to them.

 

[Coy]

The only thing I know is we should have never fired Rob Ryan, he made miracles playing with that defense last year.