What happens to 4-3 Linebackers?

[dbair1967]

They are all BIG LBers!

The small one's break down in it!

you mean like Sam Mills when he was in New Orleans and Carolina?



David

 

[Eskimo]

Donnie Edwards isn't big but had a big year for SD last year.

Hasn't Roman Phifer been an important role Player for the Pats?

 

[Nors]

Pats backers are huge

We last year were like 6-2 228, 5-11 235 6 232

Lets look at front now

Ware 6-5 252
Fujita 6-5 250
James ? 6-3 242
Shanle 6-2 240 played at 245 in College and is bigger than listed 237

Me thinks we are getting bigger! Small LB's in a true 3-4 are the exception.

Snap, Crackle and Pop!

 

[Nors]

http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11529&highlight=defense


props HH

The transformation is almost complete -

 

[junk]

Weak. A fan certainly wouldn't be gleeful about injuries simply to be able brag about his guy (ie a backup) playing.

I'm glad that the team has overcome some injuries, but to use them as a tool to push your 3-4 agenda is pretty lame.

Personally, I hate to see any guy go out with an injury.

 

[dallasfaniac]

Nors,

Please explain what you consider big again, just for clarifications sake.

Over 6-2? Over 240? What do you consider big? Is someone who is 6-4 220 a big linebacker? Is someone 6-1 245 a small linebacker? All this talk about those smaller linebackers are not the norm, then what do you consider the 'norm'?

 

[scottsp]

Nors, you were doing so well today prior to this thread.

Just one question for you: When Dallas was winning SBs in the early to mid 1990s, boasting, by and large, the top defense in football, were you going on and on and on about larger 3-4 LBs then?

I seriously doubt you were.

Jimmah prefered smaller, faster linebackers and that's a fact. And there were teams, like the Giants, that preferred and went with big linebackers back then.

Facts are, talent is talent. You don't have to incessantly ramble about the prototype 3-4 backer. Quality talent will succeed in either scheme.

Do you get that?

 

[BigDFan5]

Nors, you were doing so well today prior to this thread.

Just one question for you: When Dallas was winning SBs in the early to mid 1990s, boasting, by and large, the top defense in football, were you going on and on and on about larger 3-4 LBs then?

I seriously doubt you were.

Jimmah prefered smaller, faster linebackers and that's a fact. And there were teams, like the Giants, that preferred and went with big linebackers back then.

Facts are, talent is talent. You don't have to incessantly ramble about the prototype 3-4 backer. Quality talent will succeed in either scheme.

Do you get that?

He was a Giants fan in the 90s

 

[scottsp]

He was a Giants fan in the 90s

Oh. My bad.

 

[jterrell]

BP likes bigger backers. I dont think there was any question he would slowly but surely upgrade the size of the entire front 7. All of the young guys are bigger then their elder counterparts.

All that said Glover is a small DT, Ellis is not huge and Ware is only big for a LB who drops into coverage which he does rarely. Those are the 3 best players of that front 7 and one are massive guys for their position by any means.

I was never a big fan of Singleton because he is just an average backer. He was generally in good position and generally made the tackle but never really disrupted anything for the opponent. He is a solid vet tho and did what he was brought in to do.

The LOLB will probably be the smallest backer on the starting unit. That player will drop into coverage much more and play a lot more flats because Ware is simply so good as a pass rusher. Fujita is a solid pass rusher to complment Ware but really looks stiff in coverage. That was a problem he had in KC as well. If we are rushing Fujita and dropping Ware I am not sure that helps us more than dropping Singleton and rushing Ware.

Dat is a very good player and can play either system. He was a Butkus candidate playing the 3-4 in college. He is getting injured because he plays a tough physical positon and his mass is incredible for his frame. Nothing baout Dat is small. He is ridculously muscled up and plenty strong. He also plays at a good speed and makes strong sure-handed tackles with excellent form. He had a neck injury same as Irvin and Moose did. Nothing about size where necks and backs come in.

 

[Nors]

Parcells said he expects Scott Shanle to start his fifth straight game alongside Bradie James. Shanle has replaced Dat Nguyen in the lineup ever since the veteran went down with a neck injury.

Nguyen returned for the Cardinals game in a limited role, playing mostly on the team's dime defense and some nickel. Parcells said he plans to keep the rotation the same against the Eagles.


Dallas had sucess with somewhat smaller Backers in 90's. They also had Haley, Lett, Maryland, Jones, Tolbert and a serious DLine rotation in front of them.


That defense was good but we won those 3 Super Bowls mainly to an OFFENSE run by Aikman, Smith, Irvin, Novacek, Moose and a great Oline......

 

[scottsp]

There are plenty of great offenses which exist and are ultimately undone because their defense was not up to snuff. Those Dallas defenses were usually atop the league in total D. They had much to do with those championships.

And with regards to talent on other parts of that defense, correct. You're right. You make my point very well. Talent wins out. Who doesn't want bigger and faster? We all do.

The 3-4 requires talent, just as the 4-3 or anything else. It's obvious you still don't grasp this concept.

 

[Nors]

I grasp it - the 90's Dallas defense was not dominant at all - - good yes.

Benefited from a Hall of fame laden OFFENSE - JMO

 

[scottsp]

I suggest you go back and take a look at some of those game tapes. No one is arguing the quality of the offense, but this team was not beating people 34-20 each week. They were generally winning games 24-13.

That defense shut people down.

 

[BigDFan5]

we were top 5 in points allowed 5 years in a row. #1 Totl D twice #2 twice

 

[jay cee]

There are plenty of great offenses which exist and are ultimately undone because their defense was not up to snuff. Those Dallas defenses were usually atop the league in total D. They had much to do with those championships.

And with regards to talent on other parts of that defense, correct. You're right. You make my point very well. Talent wins out. Who doesn't want bigger and faster? We all do.

The 3-4 requires talent, just as the 4-3 or anything else. It's obvious you still don't grasp this concept.

That Texans 3-4 is not looking so good right now, that's for sure. I'm thinking they are in need of a serious influx of talent.

And even I have to admit that this was one of Nor's lamest posts, I think he was a little bored and just wanted to start up a little internet fight to spice things up a little around here.

Like TO, Nors just can't stand when things are going along smoothly, he has to create controversy.

 

[jay cee]

I grasp it - the 90's Dallas defense was not dominant at all - - good yes.

Benefited from a Hall of fame laden OFFENSE - JMO

That post just confirmed my thoughts. Nors is just looking to stir the forum up a little bit.

 

[big dog cowboy]

Nors is just looking to stir the forum up a little bit.

 

[Nors]

Dat and Als not fits in our future. Shanle starting again for 5th straight week per BP PC today. We are going bigger - and we are starting to snuff out offenses of late....

McSoup next to get punched square in the face. No more LB's hiding behind players....

 

[blindzebra]

we were top 5 in points allowed 5 years in a row. #1 Totl D twice #2 twice

But it was not the 3-4, thus not as good as it could be.