Was the switch to 3-4 worth it?

[Stautner]

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.

Don't you think personnel has something to do with it - and the age of that personnel? A few years ago Strahan set an NFL record for sacks in that same 4-3 defense ....... the scheme obviously wasn't a problem then.

 

[Deep_Freeze]

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.

Seems some of them don't seem to be able to see outside the box........like talking to the wall......lol.

 

[Doomsdayblitz]

I think it is way too early to tell, but, according to NFL.com, after two games, our overall defense was ranked #4 in the NFL. Not bad for a scheme we've only been using for a little over a year.

What I really like about this scheme is that it not only brought us several 300 lb. DLs, but several ATHLETIC 300 lb. DLs. Spears, Canty, Ratliff, and Hatcher probably wouldn't have been drafted were we still in the 4-3. I do know that we wasted at least 3 first round picks reaching for a pass rushing DE while we were in the 4-3. I love the way teams are having a much harder time running against us. This leaves us to pin our ears back & go after the QB!

We do need another pass rushing ace, & I wish we would have taken Manny Lawson. With his 6-6 height, he has the frame to put on another 25 lbs. & be the 6-6, 265 SSLB, Mike Vrabel, Willie McGinnest type Parcells loves to have. With him on one end, and Ware on the other, both would benefit.

 

[Rush 2112]

Don't you think personnel has something to do with it - and the age of that personnel? A few years ago Strahan set an NFL record for sacks in that same 4-3 defense ....... the scheme obviously wasn't a problem then.

That D was pathetic and their O was even worse.

My personal issue with the 4-3 is the ability to get the RIGHT parts without compromising size.

BP wants the DE's 285 and the DT's 300+.

In addition to that you know he wants his LB's in the 250 range.

To get those DL you're talking top 20 picks in most cases.

In DE's specifically you're looking for Peppers, Mario or Spears size (I'm sure I'm missing someone).

DT's you're talking Kevin Williams type guys who have the size, but still have the quickness to be one gap penetrators.

If you're fortunate enough to get the front seven put together the way BP would want it in a 4-3, you sure as hell aren't going to be able to keep that way in free agency.

Lose one of our 3-4 DE's and we've got solid size and athleticism as backups.

Lose Peppers type guy and you're toast IMO.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

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 ...............?

the problem is that we still would have bigger question marks left if we stayed with 4-3. the key to the 4-3 defense are the DEs that create pressure on the QB using a lot of the front 4 allowing the LBs to run around and make plays side line to side line. We drafted 8 DEs in the draft and failed to find one that was any good or dominant including Ellis, who is good but not great.

finding LBs to fit a 3-4 defense is a little easier. plus its a trend in the NFL for several reasons.

as mentioned finding the right DE that can dominate ala peppers, strahan, osi, etc. that's a cr@p shoot as evident from the number of failed high draft picks.

also 3-4 allows you to pressure the QB, though it might be suspect against power running games, though not many teams run that.

so why the trend to 3-4? its the rule changes to allow for more passing and one way to counter that is by pressuring the QB (since you can't breath on the WR any longer). so a few teams switched to the 3-4 including us. plus with pittsburgh and new england having success and this being a copy cat league.

I think we filled the defense including depth in 2 years and it would have taken us longer to do it with the 4-3.

its easier to find LBs than pass rushing DE demons. its easier to design blitz schemes and run them from the 3-4 than find talent that can pressure with the front 4.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

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.

I am not sure what good players you are talking about? Coackly? who was a marginal LB. or Glover who is still good but not great? who else did we let go that was of improtance?

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

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?

where I disagree is that we might have spent just as many draft picks to fill in the 4-3 defense. if you look at the defenses its a front 7...we needed two DEs, DT, 3 LBs instead we have 4 LBs and 3 DL men. the back 4 still is the back 4. so who says we didn't need to get as many players to fill those roles unless you feel ekuban was the answer.

plus we have drafted offensively, its just hasn't been in the 1st round. what causes you to say this perhaps is because we missed on two OL men picked int he 2nd and 3rd.

 

[Stautner]

In DE's specifically you're looking for Peppers, Mario or Spears size (I'm sure I'm missing someone).

DT's you're talking Kevin Williams type guys who have the size, but still have the quickness to be one gap penetrators.

If you're fortunate enough to get the front seven put together the way BP would want it in a 4-3, you sure as hell aren't going to be able to keep that way in free agency.

Lose one of our 3-4 DE's and we've got solid size and athleticism as backups.

Lose Peppers type guy and you're toast IMO.

Your point is pretty cloudy - all coaches are looking for the best combination of size and speed they can find. Obviously Parcells wanted bigger LB's than he had - that's why Coakley was going out regardless of 4-3 vs. 3-4. But Ellis was easily a reasonable size for a DE in a 4-3, and the flexibility of the 4-3 is partly based on the ability to utilize DE's ranging from 255 to 305. In the 3-4 DE's HAVE to be close to 300 pounds or better because there is only one interior lineman.

We could have upgraded the size of our LB's - size isn't exclusive to the 3-4.

Look at it this scenario:

DE: Draft pick (Merriman?) or FA (Abraham)
DT: Glover
DT: Ferguson
DE: Ellis

* Draft Spears, Ratliff and Hatcher for depth, and keep Coleman as well.

OLB: Ayodele
MLB: James
OLB: Singleton

Draft Carpenter and Burnett, keep Fowler and Shanle.

This scenario dramatically improves our pass rush from before, shores up the run defense with Ferguson in the middle, and improves our overall size ...... PLUS ........ it only takes 8 transactions rather than the 11 it took to make the coversion to 3-4. Those other three transactions may have been useful for the O-line or other spots.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

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.

it is still the front 7. so instead of finding an extra DE we went after finding a LB. that's the basic difference. plus its easier to fill the DL with 3-4 type DL men than it is finding DL men to fit the 3-4 and be effective. we had 8 DEs picked in the previous years trying to find that impact DE that can provide the pass rush needed for a successful 4-3 defense. You know the long list of failed 4-3 DEs picked high. I am not sure erasmus james is a pass rushing demon. he hasn't shown much yet.

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.

two players on the down side of their careers that needed to be replaced. I certainly don't include them in the building blocks unless you think we had a shot to make the superbowl in a year or two after 2003.

well, I guess we still do. and we switched to 3-4.

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.

there were more holes on that defense including having to replace LBs, DT, DE. like I said instead of drafting a DE we drafted more LBs to fill the 3-4 LB spots.

plus its all about available players. we got sware and pears who could have played either defense. we got Canty and that was one main reason we were able to switch because we now had the 3-4 DEs.

every team goes into the draft with a contingency plan.

so once we got canty then we were able to make the move to a 3-4 rather easily as opposed to having to wait another draft year to find another 3-4 DE.

Ferguson could have played both.

so it didn't cost us a lot to make this move. I don't know which other player in the 4th round would have been better than picking canty that would have made this team so much better.

ratliff a 7th round pick...who else could we have had that would have made a big difference.

I am just not following the logic of having to spend so many draft picks to switch. it just is not true.

much like this year, if we didn't have a chance to get fasano then we probably wouldn't switch to a 2 TE formation as our base offense.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

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.

I am not sure what you mean 2 vs. 5. unless you consider glover and coackly corner stones of the defense to build around. those two would need to be replaced any way. unless you thought plugging in 2 players on defense and other draft picks would have made us a superbowl contender immediatley?>

in the draft its not just targeting a player, specially after the first round. its the best player available to you based on your board. so I am sure they picked the best player available rather than targeting a position or player and picking them earlier than they are worth (ala goodrich, carter, etc.).

IMO the 4-3 needed bigger patching than you are indicating. we needed new OLBs and needed a DT and DE...which we drafted one 8 times including first round picks and missed on all of them. In case you forgot, ellis is good but not great. I don't consider him a corner stone on the DL to build around.

 

[Zaxor]

there was a few players like Berry coming out of Denver and went to AZ

who we could have had and tighten-up the 4-3 just fine...Dat would still probably be able to play not having to take on O-lineman on every play...

so sure it was a waste...but Bill is a 3-4 guy so it was to be expected... what irks me is that it took him 2 years to decide to do it

 

[chinch]

Don't you think personnel has something to do with it - and the age of that personnel? A few years ago Strahan set an NFL record for sacks in that same 4-3 defense ....... the scheme obviously wasn't a problem then.

like when the 49ers TORCHED the Gints in the playoffs? the Gints D has folded like a cheap suit every big game... yet people lap up the sacks and stuff (and the laughable record and #4 falling down).

the 3-4 is a no-brainer. many of us wanted it year 1 but that wasn't possible or realistic with all the roster turnover and salary cap.

 

[CrazyCowboy]

The 3-4 is what Bill wanted.....and I do enjoy it....but, wish we would zone blitz more like the Steelers.

 

[Stautner]

it is still the front 7. so instead of finding an extra DE we went after finding a LB. that's the basic difference. plus its easier to fill the DL with 3-4 type DL men than it is finding DL men to fit the 3-4 and be effective. we had 8 DEs picked in the previous years trying to find that impact DE that can provide the pass rush needed for a successful 4-3 defense. You know the long list of failed 4-3 DEs picked high. I am not sure erasmus james is a pass rushing demon. he hasn't shown much yet..

Don't you get it - it wasn't remotely as simple as finding an extra LB as opposed to finding an extra DE. We ALSO had to find NEW linemen because the old 4-3 linemen didn't fit. And not just NEW starters, but NEW backups as well.

In other words, it took 3 NEW starters on the D-line and 3 new backups - plus another backup drafted specifically for the 3-4 that got cut - 7 NEW D-linemen in all when the 4-3 D-line could have been shored up with Ferguson, a new pass rushing DE (maybe Merriman or Abraham in free agency) and a couple of younger players (maybe Spears, and a couple of others - maybe pick 2 out of Canty, Ratliff and Hatcher).

In other words, we could have kept some people in place and still dramatically improved the D-line with 4-5 new players rather than 7.

Same applies to LB - the 3-4 resulted in us being forced to find 3 NEW starters and new backups, when 1 or two new starters, and fewer new backups would have been fine in the 4-3.

two players on the down side of their careers that needed to be replaced. I certainly don't include them in the building blocks unless you think we had a shot to make the superbowl in a year or two after 2003...

You are still not seeing the nose in front of your face. Obviously Glover and Coakley were not going to be in the plans 5 years later, but they were still productive, although Coakley was probably gone regardless of the scheme because Parcells wanted a bigger guy.

Still, can't you see it is possible to utilize players skills and experience for 4-5 years and have plenty of time to find suitable replacements - the only choice isn't just to throw them away and start from scratch - hoping to toss around enough draft picks to find some productive players - knowing the players will be unknown quantities with no experience ......?

there were more holes on that defense including having to replace LBs, DT, DE. like I said instead of drafting a DE we drafted more LBs to fill the 3-4 LB spots.

Sure there were holes to fill - you're still wearing blinders. The point is that to convert to 3-4 we not only had to fill holes, we had to discard and replace players that were NOT holes. In the old defense there were holes mainly at one DE spot and one DT spot, and Parcells wanted to improve the size at the WOLB spot (Coakley's position). So three (3) holes. With the conversion we had to get 3 new starters on the D-line - plus new backups who fit the scheme - and 3 new starting LB's - plus new backups who fit the scheme.

You keep acting as if we had to replace the same number of players either way, and thats crap.

plus its all about available players. we got sware and pears who could have played either defense. we got Canty and that was one main reason we were able to switch because we now had the 3-4 DEs.

And when Parcells decided to convert, he knew in advance - with certainty - that those guys were not only going to be available, but were going to pan out ....... right? Don't you remember - he didn't decide to convert to the 3-4 because he had those guys - he decided before those guys were available.

What if those guys weren't available OR hadn't panned out - the point is that we HAD to throw around a LOT of picks to increase our odds.

every team goes into the draft with a contingency plan.

so once we got canty then we were able to make the move to a 3-4 rather easily as opposed to having to wait another draft year to find another 3-4 DE.

Ferguson could have played both.

so it didn't cost us a lot to make this move. I don't know which other player in the 4th round would have been better than picking canty that would have made this team so much better.

ratliff a 7th round pick...who else could we have had that would have made a big difference....

Like Ferguson, Ratliff could have played both, but getting him was a bigger priority due to the conversion. As for who else could have made a difference, I think I'll pass on researching the 7th round in that year.

The point has never been that EVERY pick would only work in the 3-4, just that it took more picks to ensure we would have the right guys.

I am just not following the logic of having to spend so many draft picks to switch. it just is not true.

I've made it clear in this thread how we could have shored up the 4-3 with 6-8 transactions rather than 11 - it's not that hard to understand if you take the time to go back and read.

much like this year, if we didn't have a chance to get fasano then we probably wouldn't switch to a 2 TE formation as our base offense.

We ran a 2 TE offense most of last year .......

 

[dwmyers]

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?

Don't have a clue who this 'Henry' is, (oh wait, perhaps Anthony Henry) but in short..

We were way too small. We had to be rebuilt and we had an expert in the 3-4. Keeping Glover and Ellis gives us only half a line and it misses the essential piece of a 4-3 and that's the big two gap tackle that would make it all work. And then you have that missing RDE..none of those guys are easy to find.

You're also missing two linebackers of size. That's more than half the defensive front seven to replace, and if you use draft choices, your success rate is at best 50%.

Nah. I think they bit the bullet and did the right thing.

David.

 

[ravidubey]

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.

One of the main reasons behind the conversion, Deep_Freeze, is that it's harder to build and maintain a dominant 4-3 than it is to build a dominant 3-4. The 4-3 features what's maybe the hardest position to fill in football: The pass rushing C-gap RDE.

On most 4-3 defenses the RDE tries to rush the passer from the blind side yet is beaten most of the time by today's ginormous LOT's. RDE's need to be long-armed, quick, tall, and strong.

How many Osi Umenyora's and Michael Strahan's are there in the league? Yet almost every 3-4 defense has a featured pass rusher of above-average skill-- Jason Taylor, DeMarcus Ware, Shawn Merriman, Jerry Porter, and now Kamerion Wimbly.

The confusing looks, etc. are secondary next to meeting this primary need of finding (and maintaining) front-seven pass rushers. You can scheme from any defense, but 4-3's require the RDE to be their best pass rusher and that's nearly impossible to fill (just as Jerry Jones).

 

[Deep_Freeze]

Don't have a clue who this 'Henry' is, (oh wait, perhaps Anthony Henry) but in short..

We were way too small. We had to be rebuilt and we had an expert in the 3-4. Keeping Glover and Ellis gives us only half a line and it misses the essential piece of a 4-3 and that's the big two gap tackle that would make it all work. And then you have that missing RDE..none of those guys are easy to find.

You're also missing two linebackers of size. That's more than half the defensive front seven to replace, and if you use draft choices, your success rate is at best 50%.

Nah. I think they bit the bullet and did the right thing.

David.

Ok, I like the blitz options available with the 3-4, even if we don't use them presently. But some of you can't see the forest for the trees. Too small?? Our team wasn't any smaller than when we won all those title with them only a decade before. The 4-3 needs fast LBs. BP likes big LBs cause he favors the 3-4 anyway.

Sure, we had tried for years to find a DE on the other side of Ellis. But back then we also had a horrible scouting department and JJ was calling the shots. Nough said.

Our D wasn't so bad that it was beyond repair. Back then, our offense was pretty horrible too. We have gotten lucky with the FA pickups that we have gotten for the offense. But the same way you like the fact that we have young and upcoming guys on D, should make you upset that we don't have the same thing on offense.

BP knows what he did, I'm sure McQ might have a future, but I also believe he was selling that cause he knows he has few young and upcoming guys on offense. He finally got the D he wanted, and scarificed alot to get it. Its time to see the forest or big picture, and not just focus on what we have now, but what we could have had also. Like a future at every position on offense, which we don't have presently, but we do have on D cause we have spent all of our picks and resources to get it.

 

[Stautner]

One of the main reasons behind the conversion, Deep_Freeze, is that it's harder to build and maintain a dominant 4-3 than it is to build a dominant 3-4. The 4-3 features what's maybe the hardest position to fill in football: The pass rushing C-gap RDE.

On most 4-3 defenses the RDE tries to rush the passer from the blind side yet is beaten most of the time by today's ginormous LOT's. RDE's need to be long-armed, quick, tall, and strong.

How many Osi Umenyora's and Michael Strahan's are there in the league? Yet almost every 3-4 defense has a featured pass rusher of above-average skill-- Jason Taylor, DeMarcus Ware, Shawn Merriman, Jerry Porter, and now Kamerion Wimbly.

The confusing looks, etc. are secondary next to meeting this primary need of finding (and maintaining) front-seven pass rushers. You can scheme from any defense, but 4-3's require the RDE to be their best pass rusher and that's nearly impossible to fill (just as Jerry Jones).

I can accept this as a logical and well thought out opposition point of view - as opposed to most who have disagreed with the premise that making the conversion may have cost us overall, you limited yourself to facts and points that have a reasonable foundation.

 

[Rush 2112]

Your point is pretty cloudy - all coaches are looking for the best combination of size and speed they can find. Obviously Parcells wanted bigger LB's than he had - that's why Coakley was going out regardless of 4-3 vs. 3-4. But Ellis was easily a reasonable size for a DE in a 4-3, and the flexibility of the 4-3 is partly based on the ability to utilize DE's ranging from 255 to 305. In the 3-4 DE's HAVE to be close to 300 pounds or better because there is only one interior lineman.

We could have upgraded the size of our LB's - size isn't exclusive to the 3-4.

Look at it this scenario:

DE: Draft pick (Merriman?) or FA (Abraham)
DT: Glover
DT: Ferguson
DE: Ellis

* Draft Spears, Ratliff and Hatcher for depth, and keep Coleman as well.

OLB: Ayodele
MLB: James
OLB: Singleton

Draft Carpenter and Burnett, keep Fowler and Shanle.

This scenario dramatically improves our pass rush from before, shores up the run defense with Ferguson in the middle, and improves our overall size ...... PLUS ........ it only takes 8 transactions rather than the 11 it took to make the coversion to 3-4. Those other three transactions may have been useful for the O-line or other spots.

It isn't cloudy at all.

Ellis is "about 15 pounds light for the prototype DE".

Per BP

That makes Merriman, Ware, Abraham light for what he would want as a 4-3 DE as well.

Before someone says it, I know BP took Abraham in the draft.

A) He would have eventually built his 3-4 there.
B) Sometimes you have to take what you can get (limited supply). That's what building the 4-3 so tough.

For those who have said Ware/Merriman types could be full time 4-3 DE.

That's how Abraham/Kearse end up broken down every few months.

We passed on Abraham when available.

That answers that.

And your D scenario:

Merriman/Abraham = small
Glover = small
Ferguson = right size
Ellis = small

We had every opportunity to build that D and it's clear as day why we didn't.

And I've said before.......

You don't build a D around guys who won't be here in 2-3 years.

Glover, Ellis, Dat, Dex........

Not sure how anything I've said can be cloudy when it comes straight from BP's mouth?

I even gave perfect examples of what he would be looking for in a 4-3 DE.

Peppers, Mario (we had him rated #1 as well), Reggie, Spears.

Low and behold Shaun Ellis (BP 1st rounder) is 285.

 

[Verdict]

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.

Well said.