Your Switch From 4-3 To 3-4

[Bob Sacamano]

that the 3-4 outperforms the 4-3 against WCO teams and does not do as well against running teams. I would like to see some stats on this subject if anyone has them.

I read somewhere when we 1st made the switch, that 3 of the top 5 rushing Ds in '04 were 3-4 Ds

 

[Bob Sacamano]

The only problem Parcells made was not employing this scheme from day 1.

Parcells didn't have the type of players to run the 3-4 when he 1st came in here, that's why he did it in '05

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Not necessarily with regard to stopping the run...San Diego and Pittsburgh had the #1 and #3 defenses against the run in the NFL last year. 84.3 and 86.0 ypg against the run is pretty darn stingy!

that's what I'm talking about, the reason we didn't do to well against the run is because the talent at LB wasn't up to par, esp. up the middle with Bradie being a 1st year starter and Dat missing extended time

 

[dwmyers]

I'm posting this with all due respect to your defense, because I think its only going to get better and a #10 ranking with all the young players you had last year in the 3-4 is going to bode well in the future.

What I wonder about, is what led to the decision to switch? Zimmer had the #1 defense in 2003 using the 4-3, then the defense slipped big time in 2004. What do you think was the cause of that?

In 2005 the defense made an upswing once again. What do you all think led to the defense not doing as well in 2004, and how do you think Parcells and Zimmer came about with the decision to switch schemes when the 4-3 in 2003 was the #1 defense in the league?

I think the switch from 4-3 to 3-4 was a "preference" thing. More importantly, a Parcells defense has to have some size to it. Parcells likes his defensive players big and fast, and we were little and fast. That meant the only defense we were fit to play was a 4-3.

The performance in 2003 I think had a couple components, one of which was the effect on morale that Parcells had. The team had been so poor for so long and had suffered from misdirection so often that some players played their heart out that year. But because of a lack of will, perhaps, they couldn't duplicate their performance in 2004. Guys like Willie Blade had once in a lifetime seasons.

davidrubey has spoken about the easy schedule, but the schedule had been easy for years. We had 3 straight 5-11 seasons and none of those schedules were killers. The 2003 defense ranked high, but the issues with that defense were:

* no pressure from the standard defense. To generate a pass rush we max blitzed a lot.
* thin secondary. Though it was better than other years, there wasn't much past Newman and Mario Edwards.

Part of the DL pressure issue is the horrid draft record that Jerry had wrt DLs of all kinds. The only successful defensive lineman from about 1996-2003 was Greg Ellis. As far as drafting DTs go, the verdict is still out on this team. Last year they seemed to figure out how to draft 3-4 DEs, and that was a huge step forward.

Anyway, because of the 2003 results, JJ and Parcells were overconfident and let some critical people go. They thought they could easily replace CB Mario Edwards and that really wasn't the case. Willie Blade, shorn of the energy of 2003, couldn't make the team and RDT became a huge hole all year long. Woody was injured and Newman started losing confidence. So the whole thing fell apart.

Anyway, 2005 led to some much needed size on the line. The switch to the 3-4 wasn't perfect, but it created a reason to upsize the whole defense. One of the side effects of the size increase is that the team is now big enough to play a 3 man line or a 4 man line at will. If Carpenter starts, our OLBs will be in the 250-260 lb range, and both Ware and Carpenter have jets on them. Our secondary is pretty good now, and if Watkins comes through it's going to make things tough for opponents. The jury is still out on whether our pass rush has improved. Losing Glover hasn't helped it, IMO. But adding players like Hatcher and Carpenter may help it overall.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

As been stated, it's what Parcells prefers. While they did have the #1 defense in 2003, it had some weaknesses in that they weren't all that great at tackling one-on-one, they wore down easily, and they struggled to sack the passer. Jerry Jones has pretty much done everything Parcells has wanted and asked for, but since it's been 10 years since we've had a double digit sacks guy and Jones likes a good pass rush, he was fully on board with changing the scheme since finding a "hand in the dirt" pass rusher hadn't worked for Dallas since Charles Haley.

Rich...........

 

[Screw The Hall]

I'm not much of an X's and O's guy, so all I know is what people tell me.

Woody Widenhoffer, who was the defensive coordinator for a while with the Steelers in the late 1970s and early 1980s, lives here now and told me that he prefers the 3-4 because:

-- Very good 4-3 defensive ends (especially the right ends) are very rare ... guys like Julius Peppers. Dallas should know this as well as anyone (Carver, Pittman, Ekuban, etc.). It's easier to find the 3-4 OLBs to rush the passer.

-- It's easier to disguise who is rushing the QB in the 3-4. That fourth rusher could come from either side ... or up the middle.

-- When you run the 3-4, you have more linebackers on your roster, which, in turn, helps your special teams coverage units.

The second point is my favorite. It's a way of making your rush look like a blitz while still only sending 4.

 

[Mentos]

The second point is my favorite. It's a way of making your rush look like a blitz while still only sending 4.

I like point 3. I hadn't really ever thought of that before.