Was the switch to 3-4 worth it?

[Deep_Freeze]

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.

Yes, we have a good D now. But do you think we could have plugged in 2 starters in our front 7 for improvement, instead of the 5 out of the 7 in the 3-4??

We could have spent those 3 extra starters (picks), for offense. That is the question here, patching the 4-3, instead of totally blowing up the D for the 3-4.

The 4-3 is still a good D. The conversion costs us alot of resources. Personally, I believe it was a price too high to pay. I don't care that we got some good players there, we could have gotten some good young talent on offense also.

 

[Deep_Freeze]

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.

OK, but 5 of our front 7 were replaced with the 3-4. You are talking about replacing 1 spot with the 4-3. Think we could have used those others on something else?? Perhaps.

 

[Death Star]

Whether we kept the 4-3 or moved to the 3-4 probably doesn't make a huge difference in terms of player acquisition. Even if we kept the 4-3, a bunch of players would have been replaced anyway to jive with Parcells 'big man theory'. Our defense was small and fast back then and I've always been under the impression that Parcells favors size and strength regardless of the defensive scheme used.

 

[Stautner]

Whether we kept the 4-3 or moved to the 3-4 probably doesn't make a huge difference in terms of player acquisition. Even if we kept the 4-3, a bunch of players would have been replaced anyway to jive with Parcells 'big man theory'. Our defense was small and fast back then and I've always been under the impression that Parcells favors size and strength regardless of the defensive scheme used.

We wouldn't have needed 300 pound DE's and Glover would have had a role.

We could possibly just have added one quality pass rushing DE to compliment Ellis and Glover (even if we had to overpay a little), acquired Ferguson and drafted another couple of D-lineman to develop and another couple of LB's ....... in other words we possibly could have fixed our front seven with 6 acquisitions rather than 11 - and gotten bigger with those picks - and had room to use those other 5 spots (draft pick/free agents) on other positions.

Even if we had used 7-8 acquisitions to upgrade the 4-3 front seven, that's a lot less than we had to use to convert to the 3-4, and that's a lot fewer opportunities to updgrade other positions.

 

[Stautner]

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

That doesn't have a lot to do with the scheme - the deep coverage by the DB's isn't really affected much by the scheme.

Of course, pass rush is a factor, but who's to say if we had upgraded players in the old 4-3 scheme that we couldn't have improved the pass rush .....?

 

[Clove]

The only mistake I see in us going to a 3-4 is doing it so late. Parcells waited until year 3 to do this. He should've torn the team down day one, and started from ground zero on the defense. The 3 year wait, may have cost us.

 

[Deep_Freeze]

The only mistake I see in us going to a 3-4 is doing it so late. Parcells waited until year 3 to do this. He should've torn the team down day one, and started from ground zero on the defense. The 3 year wait, may have cost us.

I agree with this totally. Changing to a 3-4 when our window was small with aging veterans on offense is definitely a huge risk.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

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

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

I think so, look at all the Dlineman on our team, no 43 RDE among the bunch, you need a good one in the 4-3, and then look at all the DEs that have come through in the draft the past 2/3 years, do you see any that stand out to you as promising, every-down DEs? going to the 3-4 has made it easier for us to find working pieces for it, alot of good LBs coming out, who are producing right away, as opposed to not so many every-down DEs for the 4-3

and anyways, we'd still be spending as long a time finding 43 pieces as we have been finding 34 pieces, any successful scheme is predicated on the right personnel, just w/ Parcells it's easier to find 34 pieces, and it's easier to run it for him

 

[Bob Sacamano]

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.

I don't understand, since bottom-line, it's a front 7 for either scheme

 

[Bob Sacamano]

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.

that's the bottom-line really

 

[Deep_Freeze]

I don't understand, since bottom-line, it's a front 7 for either scheme

We would have only had to upgrade 1 or 2 spots in the front 7 with the 4-3, but with the switch, we had to replace 5 of those 7..........feels like I have said this before..

 

[Bob Sacamano]

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 ........?

who cares what it cost since we'd probably be in the same position we are now

 

[Bob Sacamano]

We would have only had to upgrade 1 or 2 spots in the front 7 with the 4-3, but with the switch, we had to replace 5 of those 7..........feels like I have said this before..

1 or 2? how about everybody except 1 or 2?

 

[Cbz40]

So far the jury is still out. Some weeks when we win I like it.....when we lose I don't.

Seriously, I believe I could grow to like if we ever get get the chance to see the complete package.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

The 3 year wait, may have cost us.

cost us what exactly? rebuilding means you are going to be a bad team, BP knew he had a big rebuilding project ahead of him, but he also likes winning games, and he thought the squad he inherited, and the players he brought in, in '03, were enough to keep us competitive until he would make the switch, it was working for a year at least, as we all saw, that plan didn't work out in '04

I don't see what the problem is, implementing the scheme in '03, or '05, we'd be at the same point we are now anyways IMO

 

[Deep_Freeze]

1 or 2? how about everybody except 1 or 2?

Nah, we just needed to upgrade 2 spots out of front 7 to make that D solid, Coakley and Glover were probowl players that we let go for absolutely no probowl players up there now. Not to say they won't make it, just stating a fact as we stand right now.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Nah, we just needed to upgrade 2 spots to make that D solid, Coakley and Glover were probowl players that we let go for absolutely no probowl players up there now. Not to say they won't make it, just stating a fact as we stand right now.

we'd have to replace those 2 eventually, and it's not like they're lighting the world on fire right now

 

[Deep_Freeze]

we'd have to replace those 2 eventually, and it's not like they're lighting the world on fire right now

Dude, we had to replace 5 out of 7 for the 3-4 to work for us. We got lucky Ellis was able to transfer and we got James, everyone else we spent resources and draft picks to get. Picks we could have used on other things. With the 4-3, we would have had to make less picks for the D cause we already had the pieces to make it work.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

cause we already had the pieces to make it work.

2 solid pieces to build the front 7 around

yeah, we were on our way *end sarcasm*

 

[Deep_Freeze]

2 solid pieces to build the front 7 around

yeah, we were on our way *end sarcasm*

So you are telling me that we only had 2 guys in our whole front 7 when we were running the 4-3 that are any good?

Upgrade the DE opposite Ellis, and that D would have been real solid, and maybe either a DT or OLB.