Was the switch to 3-4 worth it?

[Deep_Freeze]

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.

Well, Zimmer was a 4-3 coach too. I'm just saying we had to start at almost scratch for the 3-4, we would have had more pieces to improve the 4-3 and it would have cost us less picks and resources.

 

[dwmyers]

Well, Zimmer was a 4-3 coach too. I'm just saying we had to start at almost scratch for the 3-4, we would have had more pieces to improve the 4-3 and it would have cost us less picks and resources.

Since we've only been at the 3-4 two years now, which picks these last two years would you have made differently, and how would that have improved our team last year?

So, who differently would you have picked and how would they have made us a better winning team?

David.

 

[Galian Beast]

Well the whole point of going to the 3-4 was getting the proper personnel on the field, which is apparently easier to do with the 3-4 than the 4-3.

They say its easier to find really good linebackers than really good linemen.

Although I think we're in the position where we could easily run either formation. And I think when you have the ability to switch if you want, is the key to knowing that you have talented players.

It didn't really take us that long to go to the 3-4. And the player that we lost in the transition while talented, weren't really going to be with the team all that long. La'Roi Glover and Dexter Coakley being those players. Still wish we had Glover though. Don't think we should have released him. He could have been a force on nickel downs. And maybe you could have moved him to the end in the 3-4. And occasionally used him to spell Ferguson...

 

[Rush 2112]

Since we've only been at the 3-4 two years now, which picks these last two years would you have made differently, and how would that have improved our team last year?

So, who differently would you have picked and how would they have made us a better winning team?

David.

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

David.

Link

Please don't OD.

 

[Deep_Freeze]

Since we've only been at the 3-4 two years now, which picks these last two years would you have made differently, and how would that have improved our team last year?

So, who differently would you have picked and how would they have made us a better winning team?

David.

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

Well, names have already been named in this trend, they are easy to look back on. Besides, it is easy for you to sit back and tell me to do all this research to figure out who we could have drafted, what round, if our pick was in the right place, how good they are, if they fit, etc. Meanwhile, you can just sit back and look at who we already have, then nitpick me to death.

I'm talking scheme here, I'm sorry, I'm not going to spend my night, again, doing all that research, I'm not a slave, lol. Nothing against you, its just not worth it. If you throw as many picks as we have at our D, you will turn up with some good players through free agency and the draft.

It is obvious that it would have taken less to stay with the 4-3, than start from mostly scratch with the 3-4, again, the point of this trend is more of was the sacrifice to change the D worth it.

 

[Deep_Freeze]

In case your as lazy as me , here are a few from this very thread, if you haven't read them:

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.

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.

 

[big dog cowboy]

Was the switch to 3-4 worth it?

Yes.

This would have been a great poll question.

 

[dwmyers]

In case your as lazy as me , here are a few from this very thread, if you haven't read them:

Well, your list has nothing to do with what would have made the scheme improve our team because almost all those players were available when we played a 4-3.

Stautner's argument is that we could have improved our team more by following his prescription and skipping the drafting of:

1st - DeMarcus Ware
4th - Chris Canty
6th - Montavous Stanley.

Deal is, two of the "saved" picks are second day picks, and getting even one starter out of two second day picks is pretty remarkable. I'd be prone to suggest that Canty was such a bargain that there is no reason you would have picked him any differently. And 6th round..??

So the deal ultimately is between Ware and someone else. That someone else might be T Jammal Brown of Oklahoma.

Now the downside of Stautner's plan is that two expensive veterans have been retained (Glover, Abraham), salary cap room has to be accorded for those guys, and someone else isn't going to be signed in 2006. That someone else is probably TO.

I'm not sure collectively we're that much better off with Stautner's suggested 4-3. We're relying on aging 30+ veterans to handle the load. The cost of those veterans will be paid out and therefore, a free agent will be lost.

David.

 

[Deep_Freeze]

Well, your list has nothing to do with what would have made the scheme improve our team because almost all those players were available when we played a 4-3.

Stautner's argument is that we could have improved our team more by following his prescription and skipping the drafting of:

1st - DeMarcus Ware
4th - Chris Canty
6th - Montavous Stanley.

Deal is, two of the "saved" picks are second day picks, and getting even one starter out of two second day picks is pretty remarkable. I'd be prone to suggest that Canty was such a bargain that there is no reason you would have picked him any differently. And 6th round..??

So the deal ultimately is between Ware and someone else. That someone else might be T Jammal Brown of Oklahoma.

Now the downside of Stautner's plan is that two expensive veterans have been retained (Glover, Abraham), salary cap room has to be accorded for those guys, and someone else isn't going to be signed in 2006. That someone else is probably TO.

I'm not sure collectively we're that much better off with Stautner's suggested 4-3. We're relying on aging 30+ veterans to handle the load. The cost of those veterans will be paid out and therefore, a free agent will be lost.

David.

That is just an example Stautner used, I would take Spears off and keep Canty instead. I leave off Carp, cause I don't need a first round talent at LB for the 4-3, I do draft a backup DT, maybe a bit higher in the draft, but we really don't need to with Ratiff on that list.

1st - Ware
1st - Spears
1st - Carp
6th - Stanley(doesn't matter if we do it or not, it is a 6th)

So that is 3 1st rounders and 1 6th rounder for other spots, and is the 4 picks we speak of and what they could have been. With Stautner's setup, you are getting Merriman, Canty, or Abraham in that RDE spot. We wouldn't need to put another pick into Spears, not necessary.

With those additional first rounders, we could have done anything we want, trade up down, whatever. But you do have to see that is a huge price to pay to convert to the 3-4.

So here is the scenario:

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

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

OLB: Ayodele
MLB: James
OLB: Singleton

Draft or FA and Burnett, keep Fowler and Shanle.

Add another 1st rounder to that D if you want too, cause there is plenty of room to do whatever with those extra picks you get from staying with the same scheme. We would have the future to replace Glover whenever.

It is just simple and makes sense. Now, is the 3-4 worth 3 1st rounders and a 6th rounder??

 

[dwmyers]

It is just simple and makes sense. Now, is the 3-4 worth 3 1st rounders and a 6th rounder??

Yes, because you're thin beyond belief at tackle; you have no two gap tackle other than Ferguson who can't play on third down. You're relying on Canty as your backup DT and a starting DE, and Glover is backed up by Raitliff.

The scheme we have now has two full rotations at just about every position. You've accumulated your "gains" by giving yourself less than an adequate rotation across your front 7.

David.

 

[Deep_Freeze]

Yes, because you're thin beyond belief at tackle; you have no two gap tackle other than Ferguson who can't play on third down. You're relying on Canty as your backup DT and a starting DE, and Glover is backed up by Raitliff.

The scheme we have now has two full rotations at just about every position. You've accumulated your "gains" by giving yourself less than an adequate rotation across your front 7.

David.

The starters would be Merriman or Abraham, Glover, Fergy, and Ellis. The backups are Canty(might start), Ratliff, Hatcher and Coleman. That is a backup at every position. Our defense has the same depth in the middle right now and we are getting by with it, same situation.

I encourage you to at least open your mind up to a different opinion other than your own. Sometimes we get so worked up trying to defend our view without considering what the other person is actually saying.

I acknowledge that I really like some of the advantages of the 3-4 if we use all the blitz packages available. Heck, I probably prefer the 3-4, as long as most teams use the 4-3, cause it is easier to fill spots if we start with it, but in this case, we didn't start with it.

But, the bottom line is we gave up alot to get the 3-4, and we do have to decide if the advantages are worth it.

 

[Deep_Freeze]

Yes.

This would have been a great poll question.

That would be cool, but I know most people are just going to support whatever we actually did, without looking at other options we could have done in a positive light.

 

[Galian Beast]

Deep Freeze, you're assuming a lot here.

Who says merriman would be as effective playing end in the 4-3. And when was John Abraham available two years ago?

Do you realize how many defensive ends we went through?

Also Abraham has proven that he can't stay on the field.

How old is Glover? And how many more years do you think he would have A)been on this team, B)been as effective as he was in the past. We signed him to a pretty cheap deal when we got him, but obviously he was going to want more money after his deal was up.

He has .5 sacks in st. louis right now.

You don't use 1st round picks for depth. At least not on purpose.

Ayodele plays strong side not weak side linebacker.

The talented players we had in the 4-3 were coming into age, so that is a moot point.

 

[Deep_Freeze]

Deep Freeze, you're assuming a lot here.

Who says merriman would be as effective playing end in the 4-3. And when was John Abraham available two years ago?

Do you realize how many defensive ends we went through?

Also Abraham has proven that he can't stay on the field.

How old is Glover? And how many more years do you think he would have A)been on this team, B)been as effective as he was in the past. We signed him to a pretty cheap deal when we got him, but obviously he was going to want more money after his deal was up.

He has .5 sacks in st. louis right now.

You don't use 1st round picks for depth. At least not on purpose.

Ayodele plays strong side not weak side linebacker.

The talented players we had in the 4-3 were coming into age, so that is a moot point.

Most of your questions have already been answered in this trend. Ya'll wanted a plan on how, we gave you how. Ya'll wanted how much we would save by staying with the 4-3, we did that. Ya'll wanted names, we even gave you some (which is far harder than any info given by the "In Bill we trust" crowd).

I listed 4 DEs, that is 2 more, they are out there. You never know how a certain player will fit into your individual team, ask the Broncos on their defensive pickups. We could have picked someone who flopped somewhere else, that would have been good here. That is why talking scheme makes alot more sense than trying to name names and argue about them.

When we went through DEs, our scouting department was horrible, it has been revamped now. Injuries are injuries, can't help that. Glover is older, you don't build the D around him, he is a veteran presence and can be replaced down the line. A veteran presence like AGlenn and Fergy we have now. All of this has been explained in this thread already, don't know why you are asking it again, hopefully you have read it all, it is quite a great thread.

.5 sacks, well, we need more info than that to know how many he would have here. Just like the Merriman vs. Ware arguements (I'm not bringing them up to argue them, don't want to go there, just an example) we don't know how good Merriman would be on our team or his number of sacks here. Now, our best pass rusher has 1 sack, don't see that as far superior. Pressure from DTs is a bonus. You replace vets as you go, as needed, you don't have to dump everyone and start all over.

We can use the 1st round picks for whatever we want, I just layed out the way would have 3 1st round picks and asked if losing those picks is worth switching to the 3-4. It is really pretty simple and easy to see that we did give up alot of resources to convert, and I don't understand the denial you guys have about it. Maybe its the blue and gray glasses or the cowboys can't do wrong, I don't know.

 

[ConstantReboot]

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.

I'm sorry but I don't think you understand something about our defense. It needed a complete overhaul and not a basic tune-up.

This defense was so ingrained with the bend but don't break philosophy of Zimmer's 4-3 that we needed to change not only the personnel, but also the philosophy.

I believe that the philosophy of the 4-3 had to go. We weren't creating pressure on the QB and creating sacks and turnovers. Our linebackers were quick but a bit smallish and our Dline were easily manhandled.

How many of you saw in fustration when we blitzed everyone and still didn't get pressure? How bout leaving our corners like Rio out on an island and would constantly get burned? How about no name QBs would have career days against this defense?

Our 4-3 defense of ole' was not a championship defense. It could not be fixed with adding a few guys here and there. It needed a new way of thinking.

Our new defense was built on the philosophy of bigger, better, and stronger men up front. We didn't have rely on the blitz to put pressure and we can be creative and move our men around to create different mismatches.

Our new defense also allowed us to find the right personnel easier than it was to find than the 4-3. We took years and several high draft picks in trying to find a DE to replace Hailey. We have failed year after year doing so.

Give it up. The 3-4 has several advantages over the 4-3. Parcells knows that. He's coached it before and made a championship defense doing it. I don't see why there is anything wrong with it?

 

[Stautner]

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?

This doesn't makes sense. You guys seem to think that keeping Glover and Coakley would mean we were building the defense around them.

By your logic we should have released Bledsoe and Flozell because they are too old to build an offense around.

Let's try and see if this idea strains you too much - we could have focused hard on the other front 7 positions leaving Glover and Coakley in place, and OVER TIME (another couple of years) we could have worked in replacements.

Consider Larry Allen. We didn't build an offense around Allen the last few years, we merely got what we could out of him while working on improving other more immediate needs, and over time we eventually found a replacement.

With the conversion we were forced to scramble and find replacements for Glover and Coakley immediately rather than focus on the problem areas, and at the same time we had to try and upgrade most of the other front 7 positions as well.

That's why we had to utilize so many draft picks and FA signings on the front seven - we were reqaching the point of no return and had to increase our odds of finding adequate replacements.