Mendez: Cowboys linebacker Sean Lee puts it on himself to learn the 4-3 'inside and..

[ravidubey]

I have always admired the really aggressive zone blitz 3-4s but running that defense requires commitment to pressure and turnovers.

This is the 10-6 defense- built to take advantage of the fact most games are lost and not won. It can look impressive when it confuses retarded QB's, damaged offensive lines, and fledgling offenses, but face a real offense and the shell game consistently gets exposed.

Anyways, personnel will trump the scheme every time, but 4-3 schemes are the simplest to teach and can stop almost every offensive attack out there. The Run and Shoot is so pass-heavy that your base set will change to nickel, but no one runs that anymore.

 

[Genghis Khan]

Yeah, he won't be able to move laterally as well, but I'm not that concerned about the run defense. How many teams run the ball any more?

On the other hand, part of the reason we lost to the Redskins and lost the division was because we couldn't stop the run.

 

[Genghis Khan]

That makes a huge difference. The best defenses are active and aggressive, not passively waiting.

We sure had an active and aggressive defense under Mike Zimmer.

In other words, the scheme is far less important than the players playing it and the coaches coaching it. Scheme is overrated imo.

 

[boozeman]

On the other hand, part of the reason we lost to the Redskins and lost the division was because we couldn't stop the run.

And if the DL doesn't do it's part, stopping the run will continue to be an issue. That's why the depth, especially the interior, is key.

We have to be able to send these guys in waves if we intend to rush the passer like they keep talking about.

 

[boozeman]

We sure had an active and aggressive defense under Mike Zimmer.

In other words, the scheme is far less important than the players playing it and the coaches coaching it. Scheme is overrated imo.

This craze about the 4-3 being a panacea to our defensive woes is absolutely idiotic.

It will come down to coaching, being assignment sound and the personnel to fit what they are asking them to do.

Hell, half the issue last year was people being confused about assignments even when we were healthy.

If Kiffin improves the discipline, that's half the battle.

 

[ravidubey]

We sure had an active and aggressive defense under Mike Zimmer.

In other words, the scheme is far less important than the players playing it and the coaches coaching it. Scheme is overrated imo.

The 3-4 defense in Dallas was never as good as the 4-3 was back in 2003, even when Wade led the league in sacks. Zimmer did well with what he had back then and he's doing well in Cincy now.

Of course you need good players, but if your best player is out on an island hesitating then that's poor design.

This craze about the 4-3 being a panacea to our defensive woes is absolutely idiotic.

I don't think anyone on this board ever claimed it to be a panacea. Our weaknesses are the same, but the scheme enhances the strengths the team has. Lee and Carter are by design better protected and Ware and Spencer are closer to the QB and their role is simplified to attacking a gap. Ratliff is also not forced into a double team as often.

Those are our most impactful front seven players, and each is made slightly better.

 

[Lotuseater]

The 3-4 defense in Dallas was never as good as the 4-3 was back in 2003, even when Wade led the league in sacks. Zimmer did well with what he had back then and he's doing well in Cincy now.

Of course you need good players, but if your best player is out on an island hesitating then that's poor design.



I don't think anyone on this board ever claimed it to be a panacea. Our weaknesses are the same, but the scheme enhances the strengths the team has. Lee and Carter are by design better protected and Ware and Spencer are closer to the QB and their role is simplified to attacking a gap. Ratliff is also not forced into a double team as often.

Those are our most impactful front seven players, and each is made slightly better.

Right on.

 

[townsend]

The 2003 defense was bullshit. In 2007 and 09 we held down some legitimate offenses (not the Pats though).
Whenever 2003 defense faced a legitimate team it folded like paper.

 

[ravidubey]

The 2003 defense was bullshit. In 2007 and 09 we held down some legitimate offenses (not the Pats though).
Whenever 2003 defense faced a legitimate team it folded like paper.

While I agree they were not as good as they looked statistically, they held the eventual Superbowl champ to 12 points and the previous year's Superbowl champions to 16 points. That's not bullshit, especially when the offense was led by Quincy Carter, Antonio Bryant, and Troy Hambrick. Had the current offense been on that team, they would have gone deep into the playoffs. Maybe won the whole thing.

Dallas's 2007 defense rarely held any legit offense down without major help from the Cowboys offense. That team relied on Romo and TO to score so much they made opponents 1-dimensional. The defense allowed 27 points three times, 35, and 48 points. Only twice the offense didn't score enough in those games to win.

The 2009 team played a lot of bad teams, and lost consistently to the Giants and basically any team with a balanced offense. The 2009 team's best effort was in New Orleans and even still they couldn't stop a 4th quarter surge that nearly lost the game.

You could count on the 2003 defense not to fold at the end. If they struggled, like at Philly, on Thanksgiving vs Miami, or at Carolina in the playoffs you could see them in trouble from the start. There's nothing wrong with being outmatched, but they worked their asses off anyways. That defense played with heart and Dat Nguyen expended whatever years of football he had left into that one season. Darren Woodson was also at his very best. If they had any semblance of an offense to help them; I mean at all, they'd have done well.

People have contended that the 3-4 is easier to stock with talent than the 4-3, and I think the last several years have proved the exact reverse. You have to not only have talented players, you also need a beast of a coaching staff to put it all together and keep it going.

Regardless, offense has driven who will win the Superbowl this last decade, not defense.

 

[townsend]

I wasn't discussing scheme per se. I'll agree that 03 team played harder (hell with Parcells as HC instead of Wade, that's a given) But the 07 and 09 teams were both better at creating pressure, and turnovers. They were also much more talented.

09 in particular is better in every single category. Your criticism just isn't valid. Yes they beat up some bad teams, but they also shut out a 5th ranked Eagles offense (as well as holding it to 14 and 16 points in other games), and kept Brees and Rodgers under 20 pts. (Oh, and they absolutely stopped the 4th quarter surge in New Orleans.)

03 played many more bad teams: the shitty Redskins, and shitty Giants twice, a Vickless falcons team, a Penningtonless Jets, an abysmal Bills offense, an abysmal Lions offense, the Bucs team they held to 16 was in a major slump, and hell even the Dolphins weren't in the top of the League in scoring, though I'm sure the Thanksgiving game helped elevate their position. While holding Brady to 12 is still pretty impressive (it was a 12th ranked offense that year), he wasn't the high scoring MVP Brady we know today, the Dolphins, Bills, and Browns held him to 12 or less as well that year. It's not nearly as impressive as the highs achieved by that 09 unit.

Bottom line, 09 defense allowed less points, playing much stronger competition. (Also I concede the 03 offense was pretty bad. Although I recall the scheme being very conservative, and focusing on time of possession, to keep the defense rested, which isn't something Garret has ever been great at.)

 

[ravidubey]

Bottom line, 09 defense allowed less points, playing much stronger competition. (Also I concede the 03 offense was pretty bad. Although I recall the scheme being very conservative, and focusing on time of possession, to keep the defense rested, which isn't something Garret has ever been great at.)

Can't dispute those technical points, but the 03 team did nearly the same thing with a ton less talent on both sides of the ball. It's true the competition was among the weakest I've ever seen, but the Cowboys were a bad team talent wise. Had that 09 offense been on the 03 team-- the combination would have been dangerous.

 

[townsend]

The 09 offense was still the weak link of the team. I imagine Julius Peppers and Mike Rucker would have shut down the team in the same way Jared Allen and Ray Edwards did. in 09 Peterson and Favre would have been holy hell on that 03 defense.