Was the switch to 3-4 worth it?

[Stautner]

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.

The "prototype DE" ...... ? Some of the most successful 4-3 DE's in the NFL are in the 255-265 range - Ellis is 270 and has at times played closer to 280.

AS for what Bill believes, that isn't the topic here - what the members of this website believe is the topic.

As for not building a D around guys that don't have a long term future with the team - the scenarios I have put together DON'T do that. Surely you aren't naive enough to believe that teams commonly and with ease build defenses with NO older players.

Bill knows that isn't true - remember, he brought in Ferguson and Glenn, both of whom are older than Glover and Ellis.

As for your "prototype DE", name me successful 4-3 DE's that are like Spears and Mario Williams at 290-300 lbs - you're going to find it isn't that common, and that in fact, there are more highly successful 4-3 DE's that are considerably lighter than that.

 

[Rush 2112]

The "prototype DE" ...... ? Some of the most successful 4-3 DE's in the NFL are in the 255-265 range - Ellis is 270 and has at times played closer to 280.

AS for what Bill believes, that isn't the topic here - what the members of this website believe is the topic.

As for not building a D around guys that don't have a long term future with the team - the scenarios I have put together DON'T do that. Surely you aren't naive enough to believe that teams commonly and with ease build defenses with NO older players.

Bill knows that isn't true - remember, he brought in Ferguson and Glenn, both of whom are older than Glover and Ellis.

As for your "prototype DE", name me successful 4-3 DE's that are like Spears and Mario Williams at 290-300 lbs - you're going to find it isn't that common, and that in fact, there are more highly successful 4-3 DE's that are considerably lighter than that.

Depends on how you define succesfull for those undersized DE's.

I'm sure it's mostly sacks, but stopping the run and the ability to stay on the field healthy matters too.

Members can believe whatever they want to.

Clearly doesn't mean they would be correct.

I didn't say NO older players.

I said don't build it around them.

Follow me here.

This D is built around the young guys.

Ellis, Ferguson, Glenn are add-ons.

The fact that it isn't that common to find successul 290-300 4-3 DE's is the whole point.

You can't find em.

There are only so many guys that big and athletic on the planet.

Reggie White, Peppers, Mario.

What's that cost you in terms of the pick or money to sign em?

Oh and then, you're only talking about having one DL so far.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

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 you forget that our LB group for a 4-3 was getting old unless you advoacate building around Dat and Coakly. We still would have to find two LBs to play in the 4-3. and the problem with finding a DE is finding the good ones, as evident from 8 failed attempts in the draft in previous years. Why continue to do the same thing and fail at it. maybe its time to make a change.

now as for the picks. Spears and Ware both fit the 4-3 and 3-4 style of play. we would have drafted them any way.

so the difference is getting an extra DE to play the 3-4. that's what its all about. not about how many picks to switch to a 3-4. what made it possible was getting canty in the 4th.

if we don't get canty, the 4-3 scheme would have been a very strong possiblity.

unless there was a player that right now was rated much better than canty that we should have taken, I can't see a reason that switching to the 3-4 put us behind anything.

its just like this year, when we drafted fasano, do you seriously think we would have gone to a two TE formation if we didn't get fasano? I seriously doubt it. so you make a plan, you have contingencies and you go about drafting. if things fall into place and you find the players you want to carry out the plan, then you do.

front 7, still is a front 7.

 

[Rush 2112]

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 wish I would have thought of that.

I'm envious of the props you got.

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]

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..

upgrade at 2 LB spots. upgrade at DE 1 spot. upgrade at DT one spot that makes it 4 spots we needed to upgrade for the 4-3.

for the 3-4 we needed to upgrade at 2 LB spots and 2 DE spots and 1 DT spot. so that's 5 spots... did you think we need to replace the entire LB group as well as the DL? I guess James didn't count. he was drafted when we were a 4-3 defense. he played behind coakly.

but the problem is that finding DEs that are any good in the 4-3 is a very risky proposition. we failed at it 8 times. even ellis could be considered a failure because he was good never great and has never made it to a probowl.

so perhaps we needed to also upgrade his position as well.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

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.

coakly was on his way down and on the wrong side of 30. unless you think we were very close to being a superbowl calibur team!!! so did you want to go about building a defense around coakly!! give me a break....

plus we failed at drafting really really really really bad for 8 year prior. so Bp started to draft well for us and maybe his specialty is in finding 3-4 type players.....so here is your choice.

continue to gamble and fail in drafting well for the 4-3

or draft well for the 3-4?

what's your choice?

 

[Rush 2112]

upgrade at 2 LB spots. upgrade at DE 1 spot. upgrade at DT one spot that makes it 4 spots we needed to upgrade for the 4-3.

for the 3-4 we needed to upgrade at 2 LB spots and 2 DE spots and 1 DT spot. so that's 5 spots... did you think we need to replace the entire LB group as well as the DL? I guess James didn't count. he was drafted when we were a 4-3 defense. he played behind coakly.

but the problem is that finding DEs that are any good in the 4-3 is a very risky proposition. we failed at it 8 times. even ellis could be considered a failure because he was good never great and has never made it to a probowl.

so perhaps we needed to also upgrade his position as well.

You hit the nail on the head.

I've gone back and done the math in the draft.

1 for 9 at the 4-3 DE spot post Jimmy.

0 for something atrocious at the DT spot.

 

[Fletch]

Name me some of the "good" players we released? Michael Myers? Ekuban? Glover was productive, but aging nevertheless.

We have more talent on defense than we have had in years. Scheme does not really matter as long as you have the talent to play whichever scheme is being used. We have that now.

 

[Rush 2112]

Name me some of the "good" players we released? Michael Myers? Ekuban? Glover was productive, but aging nevertheless.

We have more talent on defense than we have had in years. Scheme does not really matter as long as you have the talent to play whichever scheme is being used. We have that now.

Scheme does matter when it's easier to find the talent in one scheme vs another.

Full-sized 4-3 DE's are very limited in number and cost prohibitive to attain.

 

[rlgiv]

As long as most of the other teams are still running the 4/3 I think it is and was worth the switch.

 

[dwmyers]

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..

Well then you answered your own question. If I were a 4-3 expert and a head coach I might have looked for only one big man, to fill the two gap RDT spot. Actually I would have wanted two, one as backup. I was personally tired of watching guys like Mike Myers get pancaked, and a Glover is wasted unless he's partnered with a DT that can allow him to play three technique.

But Bill is into big defensive players, and at some point he was going to rebuild the whole thing into the size categories he likes best. And after watching our line be ineffective for years, getting some bigger better linemen was going to be a plus.

 

[dwmyers]

Scheme does matter when it's easier to find the talent in one scheme vs another.

Full-sized 4-3 DE's are very limited in number and cost prohibitive to attain.

All we had to do was pass on Ekuban and draft Patrick Kerney and this argument goes down the drain too.

David.

 

[Rush 2112]

All we had to do was pass on Ekuban and draft Patrick Kerney and this argument goes down the drain too.

David.

Let me guess..........

OC's are supposed to fear Kerney/Ellis with their average of 7.6/6.6 sacks a year?

Seeing how Abraham is head and shoulders above Ellis you must have ATL going to the SB this year with Abraham/Kerney combo.

 

[dwmyers]

Let me guess..........

OC's are supposed to fear Kerney/Ellis with their average of 7.6/6.6 sacks a year?

Seeing how Abraham is head and shoulders above Ellis you must have ATL going to the SB this year with Abraham/Kerney combo.

Your second comment is needless and unnecessary. Do I need to start replying in kind to you until there is a moderator warning about it? Is that all you respect?


David.

 

[Rush 2112]

Your second comment is needless and unnecessary. Do I need to start replying in kind to you until there is a moderator warning about it? Is that all you respect?


David.

Geez.......

Sorry, didn't mean to offend you with "You must have ATL going to the SB".

I can see how that might be taken the wrong way.

Do we need to put you on suicide watch too?

 

[Deep_Freeze]

Well then you answered your own question. If I were a 4-3 expert and a head coach I might have looked for only one big man, to fill the two gap RDT spot. Actually I would have wanted two, one as backup. I was personally tired of watching guys like Mike Myers get pancaked, and a Glover is wasted unless he's partnered with a DT that can allow him to play three technique.

But Bill is into big defensive players, and at some point he was going to rebuild the whole thing into the size categories he likes best. And after watching our line be ineffective for years, getting some bigger better linemen was going to be a plus.

Yes, Bill likes bigger players is what everyone knows. But the real situation is that for the 3-4 to work, you do have to get bigger cause you don't have the extra DL. It is a function of the 3-4 that makes him need bigger players.

So since the bigger players are just a function of the 3-4, we had to make 11 transactions as Stautner has tried to point out for forever.

coakly was on his way down and on the wrong side of 30. unless you think we were very close to being a superbowl calibur team!!! so did you want to go about building a defense around coakly!! give me a break....

plus we failed at drafting really really really really bad for 8 year prior. so Bp started to draft well for us and maybe his specialty is in finding 3-4 type players.....so here is your choice.

continue to gamble and fail in drafting well for the 4-3

or draft well for the 3-4?

what's your choice?

*sigh* Repeating things in this trend, lol. Anyway, of course you don't build a D on Coakley, instead you use him as a veteran presence kinda like Fergy or A Glenn right now. Replace him down the road instead of right away.

When you say, "or draft well for the 3-4", you are assuming that we have drafted well for the 3-4. I haven't mentioned this, but we do presently run the 3-4 and we will see the success those picks have in it. There are quite a few of them that haven't done much yet, and the same could be said of some of the people drafted for the 4-3 in the past.

We give them the benefit of the doubt cause they are young. Our bad history of picking DEs is always brought up, but our scouting department was pretty bad then two. Now with a revamped scouting department, we would have more success with personnel.

I just don't understand why you guys can't see that really we had to get mostly a new front 7 with backups for the 3-4, to make it work. It has been layed out out well in this trend (refer back if you need to under Stautner), 11 transactions for the 3-4 compared to around 7 transaction for the 4-3.

The 3-4 is a nice system, and I hope it proves to be worth what we gave up to get it.

 

[dwmyers]

Geez.......

Sorry, didn't mean to offend you with "You must have ATL going to the SB".

I can see how that might be taken the wrong way.

Do we need to put you on suicide watch too?

I'm putting you on ignore. Enjoy the board.

David.

 

[dwmyers]

Yes, Bill likes bigger players is what everyone knows. But the real situation is that for the 3-4 to work, you do have to get bigger cause you don't have the extra DL.

So since the bigger players are just a function of the 3-4..

No I don't buy this. We were undersized in the interior for the 4-3 and the 3-4. Now perhaps this can be said a different way.

We lacked adequate interior defense. We needed a two gap tackle before Bill ever came on board. That we got it for one year from Willie Blade was a miracle of Parcell's magic. But he certainly wasn't the answer at RDT and it was a huge gap.

Personally I don't believe you build 4 man fronts from the outside in. You build them from the inside out. And we didn't have anyone who could tear a front up like Bob Lilly and/or Randy White. We had guys who got canned.

Now if we had chosen Lovie Smith or Tony Dungy or any of the good modern 4-3 coaches, yes, rebuilding the defense may have been faster, mostly because we wouldn't have had to replace the linebackers. But the line was a mess and had to be rebuilt.

David.

 

[Deep_Freeze]

No I don't buy this. We were undersized in the interior for the 4-3 and the 3-4. Now perhaps this can be said a different way.

We lacked adequate interior defense. We needed a two gap tackle before Bill ever came on board. That we got it for one year from Willie Blade was a miracle of Parcell's magic. But he certainly wasn't the answer at RDT and it was a huge gap.

Personally I don't believe you build 4 man fronts from the outside in. You build them from the inside out. And we didn't have anyone who could tear a front up like Bob Lilly and/or Randy White. We had guys who got canned.

In that quote that you quoted me on, I'm assuming we would sign a DT regardless of which scheme. We just need to add less players with the 4-3, it is just that simple. Whether you are thinking about starters or starters and bench, it should be obivous.

Now in the modern game, the 3-4 has its advantages, the question this thread asked was do those advantages outweigh the sacrifices.

Now if we had chosen Lovie Smith or Tony Dungy or any of the good modern 4-3 coaches, yes, rebuilding the defense may have been faster, mostly because we wouldn't have had to replace the linebackers. But the line was a mess and had to be rebuilt.

David.

Thank you for finally admitting going with the 4-3 would have made us not have to replace LBs, although it is true for the whole front 7.

 

[dwmyers]

Thank you for finally admitting going with the 4-3 would have made us not have to replace LBs, although it is true for the whole front 7.

Ehhh. That's not what I said. What I said was that with certain 4-3 coaches we would not have had to replace the linebackers. That's not true of all 4-3 coaches.

The people who use Dungy's scheme (such as Lovie Smith) can get away with smaller linebackers. So can those who use the 4-3 that Jimmy Johnson used here. But 225 is small even by 4-3 standards. Not every 4-3 coach likes or wants 220 pounders as linebackers.

David.