Why are so many people against the 3-4?

[Dale]

Again, anyone who thinks these rankings mean squat is smoking dope. Oakland is 7th on that ridiculous list. What matters is what you see on the field.

Oakland actually has a pretty darn good defense from what I've seen.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Again, anyone who thinks these rankings mean squat is smoking dope. Oakland is 7th on that ridiculous list. What matters is what you see on the field.

Oaklands defense is isn't that bad of course they haven't really played in big offensive teams yet. Their biggest problem right now isn't their defense it's their offensive line really blows ***!

 

[Juke99]

Yardage stats aren't how the 3-4 should be rated.

It's not a contain defense.

It's a defense that is supposed to be aggressive...and cause turn overs...give the offense a short field...get ya some cheapie TD's.

It's not about how much yardage you give up.

Its about sacks...int's...etc.

We don't do that very well.

We run a 3-4 within a 4-3 mentality.

 

[Juke99]

Oaklands defense is isn't that bad of course they haven't really played in big offensive teams yet. Their biggest problem right now isn't their defense it's their offensive line really blows ***!

Did I read somewhere that their offensive line coach was running a bed and breakfast before taking the coaching position with them???

 

[JPM]

Did I read somewhere that their offensive line coach was running a bed and breakfast before taking the coaching position with them???

Oh no, you heard correctly.
Reminds me of the movie Major League where they hire the manager on the phone while he is running a tire shop.

 

[Stautner]

Yardage stats aren't how the 3-4 should be rated.

It's not a contain defense.

It's a defense that is supposed to be aggressive...and cause turn overs...give the offense a short field...get ya some cheapie TD's.

It's not about how much yardage you give up.

Its about sacks...int's...etc.

We don't do that very well.

We run a 3-4 within a 4-3 mentality.

This is bogus. ALL defenses are concerned with yardage first and foremost. NO defense relies that dramatically on turnovers. Any team that puts turnovers ahead of preventing first downs will get burned.

The 3-4 can be an agressive defense, but so can a 4-3. It's all in the style you play, not the base defense itself. Teams can attack from the 4-3 just like they can with the 3-4, and teams can play containment in a 3-4 just like in a 4-3.

An attacking style IS NOT about getting turnovers more than preventing teams from gaining yardage, it's about preventing teams from gaining yardage WHILE hopefully increasing the chance of turnovers.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Did I read somewhere that their offensive line coach was running a bed and breakfast before taking the coaching position with them???

I didn't know that, but apparently he still runs it only now it's location is the line of scrimage. Bedding down the offensive linemen and feeding the defensive linemen QB for breakfast!

 

[ravidubey]

Oakland actually has a pretty darn good defense from what I've seen.

I agree it looks decent, but we've seen what happens to defensive stats when your offense can be so easily outscored.

I can't recall what your stance was regarding our defense despite all the stats-based posts raving about it back in 2003. The verdict was it stunk and was great vs average competition and a paper tiger against the best.

I'd much sooner trust the Aikman rankings regarding defense than the overall defensive rankings which are based on yards.

Team A allows a 70 yard bomb and then forces a fumble on a sack in the redzone giving the ball back to their offense. Team B allows 40 yards
but gives up a field goal. Which defense was more effective?

It's a trick question that's impossible to answer just by looking at stats. You have to watch the games, and watching Dallas' defense play I see a team that doesn't want to get beat, not a team that wants to dominate the competition.

 

[Juke99]

This is bogus. ALL defenses are concerned with yardage first and foremost. NO defense relies that dramatically on turnovers. Any team that puts turnovers ahead of preventing first downs will get burned.

The 3-4 can be an agressive defense, but so can a 4-3. It's all in the style you play, not the base defense itself. Teams can attack from the 4-3 just like they can with the 3-4, and teams can play containment in a 3-4 just like in a 4-3.

An attacking style IS NOT about getting turnovers more than preventing teams from gaining yardage, it's about preventing teams from gaining yardage WHILE hopefully increasing the chance of turnovers.

Well obviously, a team isn't going to be oblivious to yardage. Did I suggest we rush 11 guys at the QB on every play?

We'll just disagree.

If you don't think that the 3-4's biggest advantage is that it leads to confusion for the offense which in turn, leads to turnovers, then so be it.

Tracking defenses by yardage stats is in fact, the thing that is bogus. This ain't 1968.

 

[Stautner]

Well obviously, a team isn't going to be oblivious to yardage. Did I suggest we rush 11 guys at the QB on every play?

We'll just disagree.

If you don't think that the 3-4's biggest advantage is that it leads to confusion for the offense which in turn, leads to turnovers, then so be it.

Tracking defenses by yardage stats is in fact, the thing that is bogus. This ain't 1968.

I didn't say that creating confusion for defenses wasn't an advantage of 3-4 defenses - then again in your previous post you didn't say it was either.

You seemed to indicate it was more about pressuring offenses into turnovers. Admittedly confusion can be part of that - but that's not what you said.

Nevertheless, what the hell 1968 has to do with preventing opposing offenses from gaining yardage is beyond me - that was the primary goal of defenses THEN and is STILL the primary goal of defenses.

Turnovers are a byproduct of the style of defense, not the focus of it.

I will readily grant that yardage isn't the ONLY indicator of the effectiveness of a defense, whether 3-4 or 4-3, but for you to suggest it isn't an important indicator is ridiculous.

 

[Doomsday101]

Well obviously, a team isn't going to be oblivious to yardage. Did I suggest we rush 11 guys at the QB on every play?

We'll just disagree.

If you don't think that the 3-4's biggest advantage is that it leads to confusion for the offense which in turn, leads to turnovers, then so be it.

Tracking defenses by yardage stats is in fact, the thing that is bogus. This ain't 1968.

Right now Dallas ranks 4th in the NFL in take aways. I agree pressure is important but it seems so many want Dallas to blitz all day long and that is not going to happen. Dallas is one of the top teams in stopping the run which leaves teams with many 2nd and long and 3rd and long situations. We have done well in 3rd down defense. I know the defense has some faults but this defense is not as bad as what many want to claim. Like I said I want to see better pass rushing from the defense but defense is not just about pass rushing

 

[noshame]

As Hostile said, the scheme isn't the key, it's having the right personnel and executing properly, regardless of 4-34 or 3-4.

Then why do 3-4 defenses switch to a 4-3 when facing mammoth OL's?

 

[noshame]

Selective memory if you are referring to the SB with Pitt.
Beyond a few highlight reel blocks on some of Pitt's LBs early in the game, they held Dallas's running game down. Less than 4ypc if memory serves correctly.
Don't believe it? I didn't either until I went back and checked a few years ago after one of these discussions where I was taking your side of the argument.
Neil Odonnel's play was more of a factor in winning than game than taking apart their defense.

I'd be referring to the Bills.

In the Pitt game we scored the first three times we had the ball. Jumped out to a 13-0 lead and seemed to relax.

 

[2much2soon]

I'd be referring to the Bills.

In the Pitt game we scored the first three times we had the ball. Jumped out to a 13-0 lead and seemed to relax.

Hmm, maybe I had selective memory. I forgot Buffalo ran the 3-4 back then. Maybe thats because their defense seemed to be invisible, especially in the first SB matchup.

 

[alancdc]

Question for me is how can we do what Pitt did to them in the playoffs last year? They could not block them.