Was the switch to 3-4 worth it?

[Deep_Freeze]

we would still need to draft or sign a QB, which we have, sign or draft a WR, or 2, which we have, sign or draft a RCB, which we have, sign or draft a FS, which we have, sign or draft an Olineman, or 2, or 3, which we have, sign a NT, which we have

I don't see where the switch has impeded us in bringing in players that were much needed elsewhere

OK, for the 3-4, we had to go out and sign Ayodele & Fergy. We had to draft Canty, Spears, Ware, and now Carp. That is the 6 main guys that we have added to make the front 7 work, there are more, but we won't talk about them just to make you look better. None of them are on your list.

In the 4-3, we wouldn't have had to use our draft picks on those 4 guys. Say we sign Fergy and draft a DE. That is all we needed for the 4-3 to be solid. Could have used those other 3 picks elsewhere. In the 4-3, you don't need to go with OLBs high in the draft to get a good one.

We just would have had to spend less picks and resources on the defense, period.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

OK, for the 3-4, we had to go out and sign Ayodele & Fergy. We had to draft Canty, Spears, Ware, and now Carp. That is the 6 main guys that we have added to make the front 7 work, there are more, but we won't talk about them just to make you look better. None of them are on your list.

I know, because I'm responding to you saying that drafting and signing for the 3-4, although only 2 free agents were signed w/ the 3-4 it's main intent, took resources away from other positions, although if you look closely, we've addressed them, so I don't know what working on the 3-4 has taken away from us

it's easier to find 3-4 personnel, our coach is a 3-4 coach, maybe the only regret is we didn't switch soon enough, but the personnel wasn't there in the '03 and '04 offseasons to do so

 

[wileedog]

OK, for the 3-4, we had to go out and sign Ayodele & Fergy. We had to draft Canty, Spears, Ware, and now Carp. That is the 6 main guys that we have added to make the front 7 work, there are more, but we won't talk about them just to make you look better. None of them are on your list.

In the 4-3, we wouldn't have had to use our draft picks on those 4 guys. Say we sign Fergy and draft a DE. That is all we needed for the 4-3 to be solid. Could have used those other 3 picks elsewhere. In the 4-3, you don't need to go with OLBs high in the draft to get a good one.

We just would have had to spend less picks and resources on the defense, period.

But with an aging Coackley and Glover, with Dat gone and Brady not suited to being a 4-3 MILB, you would wind up spending the resources in a year or two anyway.

THis way we have a young defense set up for years. Address the offense next offseason and lay the foundation there and you are set up on both sides of the ball without any reliance on aging vets (assuming ROmo hits).

We have one of the youngest front 7's in football, and time will tell but they have the potential to be among the most talented. How anyone can argue against this to keep Dexter Coakley and a 32 year old Glover is beyond me.

I will agree wholeheartedly that the move should have been made sooner. But the 2004 offseason was a blatant disaster all the way around.

 

[Deep_Freeze]

I know, because I'm responding to you saying that drafting and signing for the 3-4, although only 2 free agents were signed w/ the 3-4 it's main intent, took resources away from other positions, although if you look closely, we've addressed them, so I don't know what working on the 3-4 has taken away from us

Umm, I'm pretty sure you can realize that I said that you wouldn't have had to bring in 4 high round draft picks for the front 7, along with 2 FAs. Please read twice if you need to: It took those picks from other positions

you don't need to go w/ DEs high in the draft to get a good one for the 4-3 either, yet 4-3 teams in need of a dominating one do, yet there are more misses there than OLBs

it's easier to find 3-4 personnel, our coach is a 3-4 coach, maybe the only regret is we didn't switch soon enough, but the personnel wasn't there in the '03 and '04 offseasons to do so

I find it hard to believe that in 3 years, the personnel wasn't there. I can't name names, I'm not a sports almanac, but I find that real hard to believe.

You still can't argue that we had to use more picks and FAs to get the 3-4. 4 draft picks for the 3-4, plus 2 FAs are just the main guys. Thats 6 main guys, the 4-3 would have needed around 2. It is hard for me to think that you can't see that.

 

[Derinyar]

Umm, I'm pretty sure you can realize that I said that you wouldn't have had to bring in 4 high round draft picks for the front 7, along with 2 FAs. Please read twice if you need to: It took those picks from other positions



I find it hard to believe that in 3 years, the personnel wasn't there. I can't name names, I'm not a sports almanac, but I find that real hard to believe.

You still can't argue that we had to use more picks and FAs to get the 3-4. 4 draft picks for the 3-4, plus 2 FAs are just the main guys. Thats 6 main guys, the 4-3 would have needed around 2. It is hard for me to think that you can't see that.

Its probable you could have made an around average 4-3 defense with less picks, or at least different picks. The problem is we just weren't likely to find a weak side DE that we needed. That player is almost as rare as the franchise QB. There are only two I can think of that have moved in recent years, Bert Berry and Javon Kearse, that I would think are good talents. Berry had the issue of only having one good year before getting his deal. Kearse is a great talent, that can't stay on the field consistently. The really good weak side DE's just don't move, because they are the most important piece to make a dominant 4-3.

The main thing is if you want to be taken seriously you need to tell who they could have gotten to play that weak side DE, whos not just a guy.

 

[burmafrd]

BP wanted a bigger D anyway- which we needed to do.Small quick D's will get worn down- thats just the way it is. Glover is still a stud, but Coakley was on the way down. So really we would only have Glover, Dat, James, Ellis. And Dat was on borrowed time. Maybe he MIGHT have lasted longer in a 4-3, but it is doubtfull. So even if we stayed with the 4-3, we still needed a DT, DE, and at least one LB. PLUS depth. Of which we had very little. AND above all you need a monster DE pass rusher to make it all work- show me one that was available in the draft or FA in the last 3 years- an ALL PRO one that does not have a history of injuries (Kearse). And he would have had to have been in the Reggie White mold since BP would have wanted a bigger D anyway.

 

[Verdict]

Since Skylar Green didnt make the 53 man roster, I would have loved to have seen us package the pick we used on Green and the pick we used on Carpenter and trade up a little bit and snagged Wimbley instead. This defense would have been "sick".

 

[TEK2000]

http://www.dacowboys.com/index.php?pid=51

How many of these guys from our 2004 roster would still be on the roster and actually doing worth a damn for us if we had stuck with the 4-3 and saved us ALL these picks like some are stating?

Looks to me like there's not more than maybe 10 to 12 guys from that entire list that are even in the NFL still.

 

[Angus]

The underlying question is: Was the switch to Parcells worth it? Because once that switch was made, sooner or later he was going to run the 3-4, and the sooner the better as far as he was concerned. Its a nonsense question unless you want to debate the worth of Parcells.

 

[Deep_Freeze]

Look at my avator..........NAMES!!!!!!!!!!! NAMES!!!!!!!!!!!


Unless you are a sports almanac, it is hard to come up with names that aren't on your team. Easy to name the guys we got, but not the guys we didn't get.

Osi Umenyiora was available in 2003, 14.5 sacks, 2nd rounder.
Robert Mathis, 2003, 11.5 sacks, 5th rounder.
Jared Allen, 2004, 11 sacks, 4th round.
Adewale Ogunleye traded in 2004, 10.5 sacks, Undrafted.
Will Smith, 2005, 8.5 sacks, 1st round.

Just some, but the names really don't matter, it is just a crutch to help the denial of any past mistakes, and any second guessing of what we actually did.

 

[Hiero]

most of what we had on defense that was 4-3 talent was old anyways. I think it was a good time to switch considering we needed major overhaul on defense anyways

 

[SuspectCorner]

if there is anyone still doubting that it is easier to find big, athletic 3-4 linebackers and big, beefy 3-4 DLs than it is to find the all-important speedy edge-rushing DE for the 4-3... all i can say is "way to ignore the obvious".

let's see... eight years trying to replace haley and now in two seasons parcells has made that search a moot point.

go figure.

was it worth it? only if ya believe the ol' saw - "Defense wins championships."

and i do. i really do.

 

[Dough Boy]

Look at my avator..........NAMES!!!!!!!!!!! NAMES!!!!!!!!!!!


Unless you are a sports almanac, it is hard to come up with names that aren't on your team. Easy to name the guys we got, but not the guys we didn't get.

Osi Umenyiora was available in 2003, 14.5 sacks, 2nd rounder.
Robert Mathis, 2003, 11.5 sacks, 5th rounder.
Jared Allen, 2004, 11 sacks, 4th round.
Adewale Ogunleye traded in 2004, 10.5 sacks, Undrafted.
Will Smith, 2005, 8.5 sacks, 1st round.

Just some, but the names really don't matter, it is just a crutch to help the denial of any past mistakes, and any second guessing of what we actually did.

On your list I'll give you Osi. Great pick by the Giants. A major reach at the time, but it panned out. Mathis could only play for the Colts. He can't hold up against the run. Jared Allen, same as Mathis. Ogunleye was undrafted becuase he was hurt his Sr. year with a torn ACL. The Dolphins could afford to take him becasue they were long at the position and could afford it (much like us with Chris Canty). Will Smith. Please... He couldn't beat out Darren Howard. 8.5 sacks is nothing to shout at, Greg Ellis our strong side DE in the 4-3 averages about the same.

As many have said, the 4-3 rush end is a rare bread. Must rush the passer and not be a liablity against the run. I give you Osi. The rest of your list are reaches.

 

[ATurkishSeaOtter]

I couldn't be happier with the switch to the 3-4. We have a very young and by all accounts it appears we will have a very good D for years to come. I disagree with your main point that switching to the 3-4 cost us some probowl player. Getting rid of these players during the late side of their careers while aging was a very smart thing to do. It gave us a lot more cap room to work with and let us bring in younger players who by all account more than a handful will be future probowlers. The whole team needed a revamp and switching to the 3-4 made it that much easier to rebuild the D.

Although Dallas had the number #1 ranked D in 2003 doesnt mean it was the most dominant. Ranking such as these can be often times misleading.

Also going on what Tek said, looking at the past players that were on this team before parcells took over and how many are still playing in the NFL (or how well they are doing on their current teams) shows that we were more than a couple draft picks towards the 4-3 being set for years to come

I think in the end we would have spent just as many draft picks rebuilding and keeping the 4-3 intact and we now have a very young very deep D. When coaches come into a new team, they often like to run the team like they have in the past, especially when that coach has done well running teams a certain way.

We could have easily hit busts on people we were drafting to keep the 4-3 operational but in the end we did pretty well drafting for the 3-4 and as we all know, its the D that wins championships not the O. Even if your the rams, they had a good D that year also.

My mindless post of jumbled thoughts is now complete, I hope it makes even a bit of sense.

 

[ATurkishSeaOtter]

In the 4-3, we wouldn't have had to use our draft picks on those 4 guys. Say we sign Fergy and draft a DE. That is all we needed for the 4-3 to be solid. Could have used those other 3 picks elsewhere. In the 4-3, you don't need to go with OLBs high in the draft to get a good one.

Maybe im mistaken but how many nose tackles operate in a 4-3?

 

[ConstantReboot]

I'm am more than happy with the switch to the 3-4.

For almost a decade we have wasted draft pick after draft pick trying to build the 4-3 to a top notch defense. Still, we were unable to and still we kept trying to find that missing link, the one that would eventually make us forget the greatness of Charles Hailey.

Switching to a 3-4 from a 4-3 not only overhauled the personnel involved. It allowed Parcells to overhaul the defensive bend but don't break philosophy which was ingrained into the players mindset. Now we can become more aggressive and can use all sorts of different sets and looks in trying to confuse the offense. We were never able to do that with the 4-3 and teams knew exactly what we were going to do even before we did it. See Zimmer's blitz package to know what I'm talking about.

So I'm really pleased with the switch. Not only the personnel, but the philosophy was changed for the better.

 

[Clove]

In my mind, it comes down to philosophy. BP is a HOF coach who uses the 3-4, so why should he changed something he's a master of?

 

[BigDFan5]

Was having a very young and scary defense worth it? uhh yeah

 

[chinch]

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

absolutely.

we we'll be set for years and will have a plug/play system

i know alot of you guys want 4-3 with BLITZING or MANY SACKS but look at the Giants defense this year w/ Strahan and Osi.... downright laughable.

 

[Stautner]

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

MAYBE YOU MISSED THIS:

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.