Was the switch to 3-4 worth it?

[Stautner]

There are signs that we are building a defense that "could" be very good. We seemingly have most of the pieces in place anyway.

But to get here we had to scrap much of what we had before and start over - letting players go (some good ones), concentrating our draft on defense designed to accomplish the conversion to 3-4 despite there being other needs.....

Was it worth it? Could we have gotten our defense in shape sooner if we had kept the 4-3, kept Glover, kept Ellis at DE, moved James into MLB, and acquired Henry?

Would this have left us needing only a few parts to fill on defense rather than having to focus so heavily on D-line in the last few years (Spears, Canty, Ferguson, Hatcher, Ratliff, Stanley) and LB (Ware, Burnett, Carpenter, Ayodele, Fujita) and therefore made us more flexible to improve on both sides of the ball?

That's 11 draft choices and free agents that we added specifically to help convert to 3-4 in that last 2 years ..... would we have been better off staying in the 4-3, adding a only a few of these players (or others instead) that would fit in the 4-3 and using some of the other draft picks and free agent money in other places ....... like O-line and FS?

Was changing to the 3-4 worth what we did?

OPINIONS ...............?

 

[DragonCowboy]

I'd still have to see to come up with a decision.

If we don't end up becoming a top 3 defense in a few years, I'd say it wasn't worth it, just because of all the focus we put on the defense, while basically ignoring the offense.

We might've been able to get a good young QB (not sure if Romo is that QB) instead of plugging in Testaverde and Bledsoe.

 

[joseephuss]

It is a wait and see. The scheme won't matter as much as the players in the scheme.

It is worth bringing good players to the team. That needed to happen no matter what scheme was used. That is also what did not happen between 2003 and 2004. They needed upgrades over Ekuban at RDE, Edwards at RCB, Blade at NT and overall defensive depth. Instead, they downgraded at all those positions. The 2004 season seems like a wasted season.

 

[Doomsday101]

I have been a long time 4-3 guy, played it in through Jr. high, high school and college and watched Dallas for years play the 4-3. Having said that I have no problem with Dallas running the 3-4 and think we the people we have in this defense they will develop into a very good defensive unit. There is no magic system it comes down to do you have the personnel to run a particular system and I think we do. I also think it will be easier drafting players to fit in this system

 

[stilltheguru]

I'd still have to see to come up with a decision.

If we don't end up becoming a top 3 defense in a few years, I'd say it wasn't worth it, just because of all the focus we put on the defense, while basically ignoring the offense.

We might've been able to get a good young QB (not sure if Romo is that QB) instead of plugging in Testaverde and Bledsoe.

*remembers the 4-3 from 2004*

its quite obvious this is the defense for us and the defense i want us to run FOREVER!

 

[conner01]

we are there now so i guess it does'nt matter. the 3/4 is easier to find players. hard to find good rushing de's for the 4/3

 

[Stautner]

It is a wait and see. The scheme won't matter as much as the players in the scheme.

It is worth bringing good players to the team. That needed to happen no matter what scheme was used. That is also what did not happen between 2003 and 2004. They needed upgrades over Ekuban at RDE, Edwards at RCB, Blade at NT and overall defensive depth. Instead, they downgraded at all those positions. The 2004 season seems like a wasted season.

Of course they needed to upgrade, but the question is was it worth having to let good players go and start over having to focus so much of our draft and free agent attention on converting to 3-4 when perhaps we could have just kept the 4-3, picked up a few players needed to put that scheme on track .....

We certainly wouldn't have needed to draft or otherwise acquire 11 D-linemen and LB's if we had stayed in the 4-3. Maybe 4-5 D-linemen and LB's would have done the trick, and we could have had the resources needed to upgrade the O-line and FS positions as well.

In other words, don't look at it just from the standpoint of needing to upgrade the defense either way, but also from the standpoint of what, if anything, it cost us in the overall picture.

 

[DragonCowboy]

Of course they needed to upgrade, but the question is was it worth having to let good players go and start over having to focus so much of our draft and free agent attention on converting to 3-4 when perhaps we could have just kept the 4-3, picked up a few players needed to put that scheme on track .....

We certainly wouldn't have needed to draft or otherwise acquire 11 D-linemen and LB's if we had stayed in the 4-3. Maybe 4-5 D-linemen and LB's would have done the trick, and we could have had the resources needed to upgrade the O-line and FS positions as well.

In other words, don't look at it just from the standpoint of needing to upgrade the defense either way, but also from the standpoint of what, if anything, it cost us in the overall picture.

If we go top three, the only problem I'd have with it is if we have a horrible offense. If not, I'm fine. We let go good old players, and replaced them with good young players. So I don't have a problem with that.

 

[Stautner]

*remembers the 4-3 from 2004*

its quite obvious this is the defense for us and the defense i want us to run FOREVER!

I'm not talking about the defense we have now versus the 4-3 defense from 2004 ...... if you want to look at it that way I can recall the 4-3 from 2003, 1993, and from the 1970's .......

Don't you think we could have upgraded from the 4-3 defense of 2004 if we had used some of our draft and free agent efforts on doing so - that some of those efforts used to acquire 11 people specifically for the 3-4 conversion could have been used to upgrade the 4-3?

In other words, don't you think the personnel is a factor, or is the reason we are better now than in 2004 solely because of the scheme?

 

[noshame]

I think it was wastefull, we just needed to add a few pieces to the 4-3 and we could have(remained) a top five defense. With all the extra attention we could have given the offense, we'd be a play-off team by now, and a favorite to the SB.

I mean really, with the picks we've spent on defense we should be the '85 Bears by now.

My biggest issue with Bill is he tried to win as we rebuilt, and that cost us players and time.

 

[TEK2000]

Of course they needed to upgrade, but the question is was it worth having to let good players go and start over having to focus so much of our draft and free agent attention on converting to 3-4 when perhaps we could have just kept the 4-3, picked up a few players needed to put that scheme on track .....

We certainly wouldn't have needed to draft or otherwise acquire 11 D-linemen and LB's if we had stayed in the 4-3. Maybe 4-5 D-linemen and LB's would have done the trick, and we could have had the resources needed to upgrade the O-line and FS positions as well.

In other words, don't look at it just from the standpoint of needing to upgrade the defense either way, but also from the standpoint of what, if anything, it cost us in the overall picture.

Exactly which GOOD players have we let go of from the 4-3? LaRoi Glover?

Most every other player we've let go of is either 1) NOT IN THE NFL anymore, or 2) not doing any better than what they did here (which wasn't much).
All the VERY GOOD/Great players are still here.. Roy Williams, Greg Ellis, Terrence Newman... etc. etc.

ALL free agent Free Safeties over the past couple of years (ESPECIALLY this past offseason) were OVERPAID. I'm glad we stuck with drafting Watkins... I think he's going to turn out just fine (as he's shown thus far).

MY OPINION: This team NEEDED a complete overhaul regardless of whether we stuck with the 4-3 or converted to the 3-4.

 

[dboyz]

I'll say yes, because it is the scheme that Parcells is most comfortable in, and it's important that the head coach is comfortable with the scheme.

In addition although we had a number 1 defense in 2003, we were not a dominant defense that created a lot of sacks and turnovers.

We also didn't have to give up on many young players in the transition. Yes, we had to give up on Coakley and Glover, but they were on the downside anyway.

Guys like Williams, Newman translated just fine to the 3-4 because it's not different to them and even Ellis has made the transition.

 

[TEK2000]

You guys act like we haven't drafted a single offensive players since Parcells has been here.

 

[baj1dallas]

If you're going to say it cost us $2.50 to build the 3-4 when we could have built up the 4-3 for $2.29....well maybe it wasn't worth it, but it is what it is and you can't go back now.

I will say they got significantly younger on defense.

 

[Stautner]

I'll say yes, because it is the scheme that Parcells is most comfortable in, and it's important that the head coach is comfortable with the scheme.

In addition although we had a number 1 defense in 2003, we were not a dominant defense that created a lot of sacks and turnovers.

We also didn't have to give up on many young players in the transition. Yes, we had to give up on Coakley and Glover, but they were on the downside anyway.

Guys like Williams, Newman translated just fine to the 3-4 because it's not different to them and even Ellis has made the transition.

I would agree with a lot of this.

Obviously the DB's aren't a consideration - that doesn't depend on 4-3 vs. 3-4.

The point about the 2003 defense is accurate, but moot really. Like I said before, past defenses don't matter in this discussion because at times we have been very good in the 4-3 and at times not very good.

And like you, I have no problem replacing good older players with good younger ones, except that if you do it all at once there can be a dropoff while the young guys work through the learning curve.

The other problem is that good older players are proven, while draft picks, despite all the potential, just don't always pan out - so there is risk involved.

But the point I want to emphasize that is the crux of the debate is what did we possibly sacrifice in terms of the overall team by using 11 draft picks and/or free agent acquisitions in only 2 years on our defensive front seven so that we would have the right people for the 3-4 ........?

How much did that cost us? Did it cost us the ability to upgrade dramatically in the O-line? At FS? Did we have to go after TO because we didn't have draft spots available for WR?

 

[DragonCowboy]

I still want to see if we're susceptible to the deep pass as we were in the past.

 

[ravidubey]

It all really came down to the 2005 draft where they were able to get Ware, Spears, Burnett, Canty, and Raitliff. Those building blocks cemented our move to the 3-4. If we were staying 4-3, then Erasmus James or Derrick Johnson might have been Cowboys with Brady in the middle, Singleton on the outside, and Ellis at the other end. We may have drafted a Castillo or Patterson to man the middle next to Ferguson.

Instead we hit the mother load, getting five really good players to add to Newman, Brady, and Roy. Fergy, Glenn, and Henry cemented things. With Burnett playing well Carp may have been overkill, but Watkins and Hatcher look great.

I can't think of a better defense than ours; we are up there with Pittsburgh and Baltimore. Carolina, Seattle, Washigton, and San Diego are overrated.

 

[Deep_Freeze]

This is an excellent question. We have spent alot trying to change to the 3-4, when we could have used some of that to build on offense a bit. We went to the 3-4 cause it is Bill's baby. I like the 3-4 alot, especially in longer passing downs. I also love the blitz packages that you can use, it is far superior to the 4-3 in this way(course, we really haven't used those packages yet).

I do believe that if you are going to switch from the 4-3 to the 3-4, you need quite a few players that could play in both to get you started. Well, in our case, the only player we had was James in the frontline and now of course Ellis was able to make the switch.

We basically have a new front 7. We could have upgraded 2-3 spots with the 4-3, then use the rest on other parts of the team. We better love the 3-4 and our D has to be good, cause it has cost us a whole lot in other positions.

I like the D, but we did let 2 probowlers (Glover & Coakley) go to convert. And now, we don't have any probowlers up there presently. That is a huge statement.

If it was my team, I would have probably stayed with the 4-3 and fill some of the holes in it, and get some offense in here. Hindsight is always 20/20, but in this case, we knew it was going to be a big job to do and we would have to give up alot for it. Is it worth it?? Guess we will find out over the next 2 seasons.

 

[FLcowboy]

There are signs that we are building a defense that "could" be very good. We seemingly have most of the pieces in place anyway.

But to get here we had to scrap much of what we had before and start over - letting players go (some good ones), concentrating our draft on defense designed to accomplish the conversion to 3-4 despite there being other needs.....

Was it worth it? Could we have gotten our defense in shape sooner if we had kept the 4-3, kept Glover, kept Ellis at DE, moved James into MLB, and acquired Henry?

Would this have left us needing only a few parts to fill on defense rather than having to focus so heavily on D-line in the last few years (Spears, Canty, Ferguson, Hatcher, Ratliff, Stanley) and LB (Ware, Burnett, Carpenter, Ayodele, Fujita) and therefore made us more flexible to improve on both sides of the ball?

That's 11 draft choices and free agents that we added specifically to help convert to 3-4 in that last 2 years ..... would we have been better off staying in the 4-3, adding a only a few of these players (or others instead) that would fit in the 4-3 and using some of the other draft picks and free agent money in other places ....... like O-line and FS?

Was changing to the 3-4 worth what we did?

OPINIONS ...............?

Gee, it's a little early to make a decision, or even form an opinion. A 1 and 1 record doesn't really tell us anything. But, if you want to take a chance and go out on a limb, I'd say yes, since the Cowboys signed T.O.

 

[Derinyar]

The problem is one of the hardest things to get in football is a good pash rushing 4-3 DE. They usually don't hit the FA market and frequently don't live up to draft hype. And for our 4-3 defense to have become dominant we would have needed to get someone better than Ellis for the other side.