|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,563
Hall of Famer
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,563 |
Quote:
okay... sooo....
Maiva was TWICE the player Follett was.. but how come a lot of us didnt even know who he was when we drafted him?
Because you don't go scouting the country as a scout or a GM or a coach?
Quote:
If you are TWICE the player Follett was... why wasnt he drafted higher than any of the other LB's he played with, ie Mauluga, Cushing, Matthews...
Huh? That makes zero logical sense. So because he wasn't drafted with Mauluga, Cushing or Matthews...he isn't better than Follett? Where was Follett drafted again?
Quote:
Lets be honest with each other.. Maiva has a slim to none chance of being anything more than a backup on this team...
Just as Follett has slim to no chance of being on The Lions.
Maiava will stick in the NFL a long time as a special teams ace. Follett is going to be extremely lucky to be a backup in the NFL.
you had a good run Hank.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,160
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,160 |
If you are TWICE the player Follett was... why wasnt he drafted higher than any of the other LB's he played with, ie Mauluga, Cushing, Matthews...
They played two different spots..Miava was mentioned by the SC LB coach Ken Norton as being the best of the three..but his size was going to be a negative..
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,177
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,177 |
Quote:
I figured I might as well make my first post count, so here it is:
Why the hell do we insist on running a 3-4 defense. This is a defense that virtually no one runs in college and thus it takes very good scouting and coaching in order for it to be successful in the NFL (we seem to have neither). Yes, the 3-4 has some benefits, but all of those benefits come at the expense of ease of implementation, which for a team that has struggled as much as the Browns have on defense should be a priority. Think about it, how do you get a good 3-4 OLB? You take a chance with a college DE that is quick and can work on his feet (but who is not a OLB and thus is a risk). How do you get a NT? You take a big DT and hope they can play over center with a constant double team.
The entire system is built upon being able to scout and develop players that me be slightly out of whack for a traditional 4-3, but could fit the odd roles in a 3-4, which in theory saves you money and high draft picks. The problem is that with the popularity of the 3-4 now, you not only have to have great scouts and coaches, but you also still have to pay in high draft picks and salaries for these 3-4 guys. So in essence, the 3-4 is a complete waste of time/money/draft picks for a team like the Browns that have almost seemingly poor scouting/drafting and an inability to develop out of position players.
I would like to see us scrap the 3-4 and go back to a traditional 4-3 in order to lighten the load on our scouts and give us an opportunity to quickly improve on defense without having to hope guys we draft/sign can play out of position.
There is plenty of 34 defense talent, we just havent addressed the key positions. The 34 is the best defense, its just that we dont have LB's...the soul of the 34.
Every year there is plenty of 34 talent, like this past draft, we just chose to ignore it and go after 2 average college receivers, and a DE that doesnt have the abilities needed to move to the 34.
Its not the defense, its the people picking the players for the defense.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
j/c,...since there are calls for the defense to be better, in concert with changing QB's, why not ?
If this season is as tanked as I think everyone here believes it to be, save some miracle, why not ?
Is is what it is,...if we cannot run a 3-4, and haven't done it well in 5 years (earlier post in the Thread), why not ?
It seems the coaching fraternity is so stuck on getting players to "fit their system(s)"....,...how about for once, let the defense morph into a unit that allows these kids to utilize their talent. That seems to me to be what Baltimore and Pittsburgh allow Ray, Troy, and Harrison to do.
Last edited by OoooRahJoice; 09/29/09 05:23 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,303
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,303 |
Generally speaking, modern football coaches are anal-retentive, thinking-inside-the-box automotons who have little use for trying new things, even if the old things aren't working.
![[Linked Image from i28.photobucket.com]](http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c201/shadedog/mcenroe2.jpg) gmstrong -----------------
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,447
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,447 |
Quote:
Generally speaking, modern football coaches are anal-retentive, thinking-inside-the-box automotons who have little use for trying new things, even if the old things aren't working.
.. Outstanding 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,849
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,849 |
You don't draft Special Teams players... you draft in hopes that they can be a starter. For someone to say that he will be a special team player for years.. wow.. impressive.. lol...
Not once has anyone said he will be a great defensive player that will help contribute and make big plays...
Beau Bell had more talks about greatness than this guy.. and Bell couldn't even make the team.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,044
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,044 |
I personally don't like the 3-4....the WCO is the reason all teams but the Steelers moved away from it...and don't kid yourself, if Montana was still playing, he would show you why.....Montana had a much tougher go against the 4-3 than the 3-4
the WCO when ran like Mike Holmgren and Bill Walsh ran it, pited Linebackers against WR on short routes, in essence chewing the D to pieces....
I like the 4-3 because:
1. its easier to find guys who can play it.
2. its less complicated.
3. it is predated on speed more than stregth..speed kills and everyone knows it.
4. its easier to find 4-3 DL than it is to find 3-4 OLB....pass rushing 4-3 DE are not hard to find, good 3-4 OLB are
also, its much easier to find a 4-3 MLB and your 3-4 ilb would be 4-3 olb....
Butch Davis was so close..and thats what makes it sad
prior to injuries to Brown, Davis, Lang, and Griffith..the 2003 Browns D going into week 8 was ranked 2nd in the league against the run and 6th against the pass, and 5th overall....we was so close to have a very good 4-3 unit....its sad really...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 5,109
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 5,109 |
Your first (or maybe second) sentence killed your argument. More teams than ever run the 3-4.
Pittsburgh
Baltimore
Cleveland
Green Bay
San Fran
Miami
New York Jets
Denver
Kansas City
Denver
San Diego
Dallas
And the Jaguars are in the process of switching to it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,044
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,044 |
Quote:
Your first (or maybe second) sentence killed your argument. More teams than ever run the 3-4.
Pittsburgh
Baltimore
Cleveland
Green Bay
San Fran
Miami
New York Jets
Denver
Kansas City
Denver
San Diego
Dallas
And the Jaguars are in the process of switching to it.
good for them
this means we can switch to the 4-3 and have the advantage of less people after certain types of stud 4-3 LB and DE/DT
sounds good to me
you want to rebuild a D quick that is good, you go with the 4-3
we have been running the 3-4 here for what...5 years...and we have gotten no where
just imagone for a moment
a DL consisting of
Wimbley DE(add 20 pounds)
Rogers DT
Corey Willaims DT(Ya know Willaims had all those sacks as a 4-3 Dt in Green Bay)
DE draft/Fa/take your pick
Dqwell Jackson would be a decent 4-3 OLB..as good as Dwayne Rudd was
All we would need is a MLB, and another OLB
We can draft 4-3 DL help in the draft
we could turn this around quickly
in the 4-3 your LB don't have to do as much
also, having 4 guys on the LOS keeps the OL off your LB compared to the 3-4 3 down lineman
this is common sense....
sure the 4-3 doesn't have as many fancy blitzes, so what!
the 4-3 relies on the DL to get pressure with a good front 4...and you can mix in some safety and corner blitzes to keep it up
See the Philadelphia Eages and Jim Johnson(God rest his soul) Jim Johnson was to the 4-3 what Lebeau is to the 3-4
also The Giants and Steve Spagnola seemed to do ok..the Giants get pressure mainly with only their DL
in the 4-3 you can stunt and crash your DL more often, and since its primarily a one gap system, its easier to get peneration and to wreck havoc in the backfield
just because everyone is using it don't make it better...we should go back to the 4-3..alot of our current personal would better fit in it...especially Rogder and corey Willaims 2 Pro bowl 4-3 DL..theres half your starting DL..Corey Willaims is = to Rogers in the 4-3..the kid is a monster 4-3 DT..he shoots the gap well and brings pressure up the middle
our 3-4 wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't a 2 gap system
The Steelers run a one gap 3-4 and look at the results
the 2 gap 3-4 is extremely complicated, we have guys out there thinking instead of attacking
in a 4-3 one gap system, guys attack they don't react..se Tampa Bay and Philly with Jim johnson to catch my drift
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
It's too late dude. You already blew it when you said all teams but the Steelers moved away from it. 
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,044
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,044 |
everyone just moved to it recently
see early to mid 90's everyone left it
it has only came back in the last few years
as a matter of fact in 95 only the Steelers and the Panthers with Dom Capers were running it at all
the 3-4 is a fad, a gimmick
you know not only as the WCO a reason teams left it, but the Spread Offense is the real reason
the NFL Coach the decides to go with the Run and Shoot Offense will tear 3-4 teams apart
you want to beat the Steelers? build a good OL and go with the run and shoot with a good passing catching RB
take those LB off the field and force them to bring in their nicklel and dime CB and you will see how good the 3-4 is
see Warren Moon and the Oilers...they would have won a Super Bowl if not for Frank Reich being the luckiest man on earth....
Last edited by Knight_Of_Brown; 09/29/09 08:49 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,802
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,802 |
With legit pass rushing DE's in this draft and eliminating another risk factor (making them cover) and just focusing on their pass rush would be another good point of evidence for a 4-3 as it would give us a premier pass rusher who only rushes the pasher and lives in the backfield.
I would say you have to consider either Ole Miss DE Greg Hardy (keep in mind a lot will happen in the season, then the combine, etc.) or Florida DE Carlos Dunlop. Pass rushers are at a premium in this league but Berry can be our man in the secondary.
Politicians are puppets, y'all. Let's get Geppetto!
Formerly 4yikes2yoshi0
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 183
1st String
|
|
OP
1st String
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 183 |
I agree that tons of teams have switched to the 3-4, which is one of my reasons to oppose it. Because colleges don't run it, the valued tweeners and NT's now become overvalued and are still at best projections. Which means more competition for an unknown. The 4-3 lets you evaluate players on film and not have to rely on guesstimates of how well they can cover or play standing up. It makes something this organization has a poor track record with (the draft) a little easier.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,284
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,284 |
Quote:
you want to beat the Steelers? build a good OL and go with the run and shoot with a good passing catching RB
A good example would be the Cards against them in the superbowl last year.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,728
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,728 |
I posted and continue to be of the opinion that with the personnel that we have today we'd be a much better team in the one gap 4-3 than the two gap 3-4.
We would have an elite combo at DT. Both Rogers and Williams are excellent penetrators.
DQ would be a top level WLB.
We'd have to go from there over the next couple years transitioning but we'd have a good core foundation.
It makes too much sense but oh well.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 74
2nd String
|
|
2nd String
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 74 |
wouldn't Rubin also make a good dt?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,728
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,728 |
Sure.
He's more of a plugger though than a penetrator. But he'd still be on the team and in the rotation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,303
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,303 |
Interesting 4-3/3-4 talk, fellas. Personaly I don't have a preference cuz you can win wither system if you have the horses, but I do think if most college teams don't use a 3-4, it would be more difficult to scout for 3-4 players. I don't like tweeners.
gmstrong -----------------
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195 |
I think I prefer the more conventional 4/3 the Giants use. I don't know if our line-backing corp would suck as much as they do in the 3/4 or not, but the 3/4 obviously isn't working for us and it's time to quit throwing good money after bad.
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,802
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,802 |
More and more teams are running the 3-4 now, too. Let's look at who all runs it going from west to east. San Francisco, Arizona, San Diego, Denver, Kansas City, Dallas, New York Jets, Miami, Green Bay, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, New England is the last but they're using more and more 4-3 formations. They don't have the LB depth and they changed. Our strength is in the D-Line it sure as hell isn't at LB on this team!
That is worst-case scenario 12 other teams scouting out tweeners and occupying draft space for guys who may fit the 3-4 allignment. That's too congested of a market for such a difficult schematic transition that makes scouting a living nightmare. We went to the playoffs with a mediocre 4-3 and minor offensive competency. Just swtich over to the 4-3 if we get a solid pass-rushing DE...
Last edited by josh07dawson; 09/29/09 09:57 PM.
Politicians are puppets, y'all. Let's get Geppetto!
Formerly 4yikes2yoshi0
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,303
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,303 |
yeah and also, take our team (please): as a group the LBs suck. We could hide the deadwood a little better by having one less lousy 'backer on the field.
gmstrong -----------------
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,177
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,177 |
Either way you look at it, we either need 2 OLB's in the 34, or 2 DE's in the 4-3. Then we need an aditional LB for either a 34 or 43.
We are about 4 players away on defense...either way you look at it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Welcome to the board, glad to have ya.
There's nothing wrong with the 3-4........there's something wrong with the guys trying to play it, which is the responsibility of the guys who put them there.
Nothing wrong with a donkey...........but there is if you try and win the Kentucky Derby with one........
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Ok, there really is too much fluff going on around recently without the normal folks calling it out….so, I don’t normally do this, but I’m going to call you out on this……because you did not do your homework. Quote:
I personally don't like the 3-4....the WCO is the reason all teams but the Steelers moved away from it
Ok, others have already stated how erroneous this statement was.
Quote:
Montana had a much tougher go against the 4-3 than the 3-4
The LT (that’s Lawrence Taylor for the young folks who think it’s Tomlinson) New York Giants ran the 3-4….and Montana had his greatest playoff struggles against it.
Quote:
the WCO when ran like Mike Holmgren and Bill Walsh ran it, pited Linebackers against WR on short routes, in essence chewing the D to pieces....
Unless you had guys like Carl Banks who would literally knock down those WRs at the line. You can watch the old NYG v. SF playoff battles, but my favorite example was the NYG v. Bills superbowl where Parcells just had his LBs manhandle Beebe or Lofton (whoever setup on the inside) and completely disrupted the Bills offensive attack. Then, it was the 4-3 defense, but Coughlin used the same strategy against the Patriots 2 years ago to beat them. LBs v. WRs can be the LB advantage when they are good enough to knock them off the ball to disrupt their routes.
Quote:
I like the 4-3 because:
1. its easier to find guys who can play it.
2. its less complicated.
3. it is predated on speed more than stregth..speed kills and everyone knows it.
4. its easier to find 4-3 DL than it is to find 3-4 OLB....pass rushing 4-3 DE are not hard to find, good 3-4 OLB are
Those are good points….except that it’s easy to find 4-3 pass rushing DEs….good ones are still hard to find….i
Quote:
Butch Davis was so close..and thats what makes it sad
I’ll just leave that one hang out there….
Quote:
Wimbley DE(add 20 pounds)
DE draft/Fa/take your pick
All we would need is a MLB, and another OLB
You are admitting that we cannot switch to the 4-3 right now with the statement that we don’t have any 4-3 DE’s….and it’s not like FA is really all that deep with talent the past few years, so you are adding more draft needs. With the 3-4, I think we can be better quicker if we get one ILB and OLB who can be playmakers. Our DL can be good enough to run a good defense.
Quote:
also The Giants and Steve Spagnola seemed to do ok..the Giants get pressure mainly with only their DL
And the Steelers have seemed to do okay with the 3-4….what is your point? If you get the right people, any defense can work.
Quote:
the 3-4 is a fad, a gimmick
It’s been around longer than any fad or gimmick I can ever remember….maybe it’s like the forward pass…that’s just a gimmicky offense too.
Quote:
take those LB off the field and force them to bring in their nicklel and dime CB and you will see how good the 3-4 is
Then, it’s not the 3-4 anymore….it’s a nickel/dime defense….just like in a 4-3, when you take off a DL to bring in the dime defense……at that point, the defenses are very, very similar (just a little different due to the personel that you have for your base defense).
Quote:
see Warren Moon and the Oilers...they would have won a Super Bowl if not for Frank Reich being the luckiest man on earth....
Pretty sure Reich playing amazing had something to do with that 35 point 2nd half comeback win…..and the Oiler defense that was not great also played their part. But, even if Houston won that game, it was an AFC wildcard game. They still would have had to win the Divisional, Championship, and Superbowl. With a team that couldn’t hold a 35 point lead…pretty sure they weren’t a championship level team and the fact that they couldn’t continue their success plays into that.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 5,109
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 5,109 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,802
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,802 |
I think it is much easier to scout a 4-3 DE than it is to scout a 3-4 OLB. There is that added element of coverage to the mix along with pass rushing ability/run stopping ability. Coverage skills among the guys we are looking at are difficult to find. I like the 3-4 because of the variety of looks you can throw at an offense, but with more teams switching to it recently (there's 12 other teams running a 3-4) competing to get these rare players who can do all three at that size ("all three" meaning rush the QB, play the run effectively, then also handle their own in coverage being over 250 lbs.) it is getting more difficult to find players that fit the system because of that competition in scouting. Also, with it becoming more of a commonality, teams may eventually be able to adjust and find ways to beat it. The verticle passing game of the Cardinals gave the Stoolers all they could handle for instance. Who's to say another adaptation doesn't come along? Add in the fact that their are fewer variables to scouting a 4-3 DE over a 3-4 OLB as another reason for the argument. Response to that, anyone?
I haven't given up on the 3-4 in Cleveland, just right now I am seeing more pros to running the 4-3.
Politicians are puppets, y'all. Let's get Geppetto!
Formerly 4yikes2yoshi0
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 5,109
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 5,109 |
It cannot be denied that it is more difficult to get the personnel needed for the 3-4 than 4-3. And with the right scheme and players, both defenses can be effective. With that said, I think a 3-4 scheme with elite personnel, and an elite scheme, is better than a 4-3 with elite personnel and an elite scheme. My two examples are the Steelers and the Giants. Both have awesome talent and schemes, but the Steelers have had the better defense. The versatility the 3-4 offers is priceless. Any of four linebackers can blitz, or drop into coverage. Heck, the Steelers even have athletic enough of linemen where they are able to drop back.
And I think we will be seeing more teams start to run the 3-4 in college, which should make the scouting aspect much easier.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,160
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,160 |
Back in the 70's and 80 's there were a lot of college teams that ran the 34..especially wish-bone and option teams..the Oilers were the only NFL team who consistantly ran it..
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,802
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,802 |
Until I actually see a team other than Virginia implement the 3-4 as its primary formation, I won't put much stock into that. Also, how long will that take? We need to win now and as far as NOW and ease of getting personnel is concerned, the 4-3 helps us out much better. The most talented teams we put together this decade (seems the playoffs were forever ago, hell so does 2007) were pathetic on defense for the most part. A good offense will get us to the postseason and as the Cards showed against the Steelers, a vertical passing game is the best way to challenge and beat the 3-4 defense.
It is just too much easier to switch to the 4-3 for us to have sooner success. I'm tired of waiting for the pieces to the 3-4 to fall into place. It has been what, 4, 5 years now that we have been running the 3-4 and STILL have yet to find a bonafide pass rusher? Pathetic. Simplify it some so we can get adequate personnel to run our schemes with. The 3-4, because of the increased competition for like players and difficulty of projecting to the pros, is not the smartest alternative in my eyes.
Politicians are puppets, y'all. Let's get Geppetto!
Formerly 4yikes2yoshi0
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 5,109
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 5,109 |
Alabama and several other teams who slip my mind run it right now. A good vertical passing game is the best way to beat any defense, not just the 3-4.
And switching to the 4-3 would be much more difficult than you seem to think. We'd need to get two defense ends, a middle linebacker, and an outside linebacker. Players like Hall, Wimbley, and Veikune would have virtually no chance of being anything but role players. Robaire, Mosely, and Coleman would all be gone.
The only pieces of our defense that fit the 4-3 are Rogers, Williams, and D'Qwell. No one else in the front 7 does.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,465
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,465 |
I think the Browns have more than 3 players that can play the 4-3. Barton never played the 4-3 or Robaire? I still think Alex Hall and Wimbley could play the 4-3 lb position like when Jamir Miller was a DE in Arizona that went to play OLB in the 4-3.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,044
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,044 |
You called me out on it, thats fine
Montana WCO = 4 Super Bowls
New England Patriots WCO = 3 Super Bowls
New York Giants 2 super Bowls won with the 4-3 (Bills, Patriots)
Tampa Bay Buc - Superbowl Won 4-3
Baltimore Ravens "Record setting" Defense was a 4-3
As for the Oilers, they had a middle of the pack D, but a top ranked Offense
As for Butch DAvis, he did have a 5th Ranked D in 2003 Prior to week 8...2nd in the NFL Against the run, the Best D we have had here since 1994
Clinton Portis said in 2003 "Running against the Browns Defense is like running into a wall"
we were "so close"
Yes I admit, we don't have the DE to run the 4-3 now BUT
it would be much easier to find impact players to run the 4-3 to plug those guys in and be successful "now" not 2 years down the road
I am telling you, the 3-4 is only a good defense if it is a ONE GAP SYSTEM the current 2 gap 3-4 we play sucks
the Steelers play a one gap 3-4....its why they attack so much
the Browns either need to go one gap 3-4 or move to a one gap 4-3 period...take your pick...this 2 gap defense sucks...its not an attacking defense..
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 5,109
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 5,109 |
Once again you told a straight up lie. The Steelers run the two gap 3-4. So do the Ravens and most others. The only teams that run the one gap are the Chargers and Cowboys.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
No worries, you just have to be a little more careful how you post, that's all. I understand that many like the 4-3 better than the 3-4 and there are legitimate reasons for it. Just stick to those reasons and make sure you fact-check your numbers and reasons. Especially when you list things....they can be slanted and your argument can be torn apart even if you had a good argument to begin with....for instance: Quote:
You called me out on it, thats fine
Montana WCO = 4 Super Bowls
true. and they ran a 4-3 defense that was one of the best defenses that I have ever seen (the 1989 team....wow.
Quote:
New England Patriots WCO = 3 Super Bowls
true. sort of a spread-WCO, but still true. however, you are arguing AGAINST the 3-4 defense. And NE ran the 3-4 defense. So, you might not want to bring up their 3 superbowl wins this decade (and along with Pitt's 2 and Baltimore's which they did run a 3-4 for....that makes 6 recent superbowl wins by 3-4 defense teams).
Quote:
New York Giants 2 super Bowls won with the 4-3 (Bills, Patriots)
not true.
4-3 defense (coughlin and spags) vs. the Patriots.
3-4 defense (parcells and billyB) vs. the Bills
Quote:
Tampa Bay Buc - Superbowl Won 4-3
true. though they ran a cover-2 4-3 defense. that's fine to simplify and keep it there. let's add Indy then as well as they won a recent superbowl with a 4-3 in cover-2.
Quote:
Baltimore Ravens "Record setting" Defense was a 4-3
this is splitting hairs...and probably not fair by me. but, since Mike Nolan took over the D from Marvin Lewis.....Baltimore has played both a 4-3 and a 3-4 depending on their defensive packages on the field. there are years they play more of one defense than the other, but they do play both.
Quote:
As for the Oilers, they had a middle of the pack D, but a top ranked Offense
that is completely true. and why I don't think the Oilers "woudl have won a championship" if not for Frank Reich pulling a "godo DA" for a half.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,070
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,070 |
Welcome! Enter the Dragon, eh? Some good points, and I think it is worth considering. The slaughter continues. I think any system or scheme can overreach, and think we have committed a sin of sorts. It is this. Huge playbooks do not make for wins. However, big plays do. We are asking too many marginal talents to do too many things. or things they can't or shouldn't (like Wimbley in goal line coverage alone), or just don't have the system skills. We are getting beaten and beaten up because we don't have the mismatches to whip others yet. A sheme CAN and SHOULD compensate somewhat for weak spots, and calls and stunts should provide theoretically a competitive edge unexpectedly. Good blitz helps weak cover for example. To die for your playbook is wrong. Change it up and force the other guy to adjust or beat you. that said, here is a simpleton's observation, two cents' worth and you can make change and give it back. It is not the scheme but the play. I really do not care for 34 or 43 if they are underplayed or too cautious or unaggressive. We are getting torched worst and most often in the secondary week in and out, year in and out. The runs hurt. But throwing to convert firsts is keeping a lot of folks alive and our D on the field too long. We are lame and green and learning. Given. I do not expect it all to get better with our for crap OC calls. But I fer pity's sake would solve SOMETHING each weeek, something we get better at. And I just must be too dumb to see it if it's there, because my trend sees worse all around play now than in some pre-season. So we are overcomplicating the coaching, stressing wrong things, or underplaying. I do believe it will get worse before it improves. Maintaining status quo is not gonna happen. The weak sisters will drag you down more and more. The bench or improvement is required. But a hard look at the sidelines and philosophy has to be part of getting over this. JMO but think about it.  
"Every responsibility implies opportunity, and every opportunity implies responsibility." Otis Allen Glazebrook, 1880
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,044
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,044 |
Quote:
Once again you told a straight up lie. The Steelers run the two gap 3-4. So do the Ravens and most others. The only teams that run the one gap are the Chargers and Cowboys.
Deepthreat:
I don't Appreciate being called a liar, I think YOU need to get your facts straight:
The Parcells-Belichick system is a two gap system which requires their front 3 to line up directly in front of an offensive lineman and control the gap on both sides of that offensive lineman. Since they have to control 2 gaps, that system is referred to as a “two-gap” system. The Steelers version is primarily a “one-gap” system. The Steelers’ linemen play slightly to the side of their blockers, rather than directly in front of them. They are responsible for controlling only one gap, while the linebacker behind them is responsible for the other gap.
“With the guys we have right now, when you play two-gap you tie them down”, said Steelers’ defensive line coach John Mitchell. “Aaron Smith can run. Brett Keisel can run. Casey does a good job running. We have good inside linebackers who can cover ground. We can get away with a line playing one gap”.
http://steelerstoday.com/?p=3210
The Steelers play a One-Gap system MAINLY they DO NOT play a 2 gap 3-4
do you even watch football? seriously....you look at our 3-4 alignments, how our Defensive Line and Linebackers line up (Bellichik/Parcells System) and compare the Film to the Steelers (Cowher/Lebeau System) there are drastic differences bud....
its like night and day
the Steelers don't run very much two-gap at all...less than probably 15% of their defensive plays are two gap. The Steelers run mostly one gap
Your welcome by the way.....
Oh and the Chargers and Cowboys have a coach from the Schotenheimer tree Cowboys Wade Philips, and the Chargers of course run the one gap because Marty built that team
Cowher is also off the Marty tree, and Him, Dick Lebeau(who was DB Coach in the early 90's), and Dom Capers created the Cowher version of the 3-4 that the Steelers use today
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 5,109
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 5,109 |
Well, I guess I was wrong. I apologize for the liar comment. I admit I haven't watched the Steelers' defense a whole lot, but I know I have seen people say they run a 2 gap.
As for whether or not I actually watch football. I'd say I watch more than you considering I've noticed that other teams run the 3-4. I'll put that up against what type of 3-4 any day.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445 |
Talent trumps scheme every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
I've pointed out these examples before... oh well.
Take a look at Crennel. Last year everybody on this board thought we had this super talent on defense and we just needed to be more aggressive and creative to unleash it. Well the defense sucked last year and it sucks this year.
Yet Crennel won 3 Super Bowls in New England with the same scheme. Why? 3 stud first rounders on the D-line, a monster hitting safety, shutdown corner, some really feisty guys like Vrabel and Bruschi, etc. He had good players there and he didn't here.
Or take a look at Baltimore. The last THREE Baltimore defensive coordinators have gone on to become head coaches (Lewis, Nolan, Ryan). Do you think it's because they had such great schemes or was it just a function of having superior defensive talent, year in and year out?
Look at the 4-3 teams that won Super Bowls this decade. Going back to 2002 is a bit before I really started following football closely, but the Bucs had guys like Rice, Sapp, Barber, Brooks, and Lynch on defense. More recently, the Colts and Giants had some nasty pass rushes.
The Steelers last year... just go down the list on the defense. It's stacked. Hampton, Smith, Polomalu, Harrison, Woodley, Farrior, etc.
As others pointed out, it's not the scheme that needs to be fixed, we just need better players. And we're closer to having a good 3-4 D than a good 4-3 D, so we should stick with it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,044
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,044 |
Thanks Deepthreat, I apologize for coming off a bit rough around the edges.
I think I was misunderstood...in 95 only two teams were running the 3-4 i do believe if memory serves me correctly...the Steelers(Cowher) and the Expansion Carolina Panthers(Dom Capers, Cowher Understudy) at that time, the rest of the league was not running it.
Now in the 1980's I would say "most" teams were running the 3-4...in the last 5 years the 3-4 has come back on to the scene in the NFL in its popularity.
I am not saying the 3-4 is bad, I just prefer the 4-3....the 4-3 is built more on "pure speed" than the 3-4 is...thats why I like it
We will compete better outside this division with the likes of Arizona, Philly, and some of the other teams with a 4-3 based on speed.
in the 4-3 your LB are usually faster(as compared to your 3-4 ILB that are based on strength and run tackling) 4-3 OLB are based on speed and coverage skills first and foremost, your MLB is also based on speed from sideline to sideline
in the 3-4 since you have left and right ILB, those guys can cover a shorter amount of ground in the same time frame it takes the 4-3 MLB to go sideline to sideline...since you have 2 ILB you can get away with them being a bit slower than the 4-3 MLB counterpart.
I just prefer a 4-3 one gap system because it is easier to learn, less complicated, and you can be competitive with it in a very short amount of time. Its easier to project players that fit the 4-3 vs players that fit the 3-4. Jim Johnson ran a very aggressive 4-3 in Philly, and Steve Spagnola ran a very aggressive one for the Giants. Monte Kiffin was a guru at the 4-3
most 3-4 OLB are small college Defensive Ends that have no real experience in coverage, its a "huge" gamble that a college 4-3 DE can translate into a 3-4 OLB.
You have a much better chance of a college 4-3 DE being a 4-3 NFL defensive end...as you can see what he does and does not do well on film, and since DE don't cover very much, they only have 2 things to hone...pass rushing, and setting an edge...they don't have to think about coverage, or stand up, or drop back, or any of that other nonsense...Also, there is not a lot of college film to gauge how well a 4-3 DE can stand up and cover in a 3-4...so its a bigger gamble
with all the teams moving to the 3-4, that is an even better reason to go back to the 4-3...pure 4-3 college DE that project to 4-3 NFL DE will be much easier to get as the demand on them won't be as high as it has been in the past.
Again i apologize for coming off rough, I know you watch football. Were all frustrated with our Browns here. I just want to win.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Say no to the 3-4 Defense
|
|
![[Linked Image from i.ibb.co]](https://i.ibb.co/6WV79RV/Browns-Coach-Sig.png)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/Heldawg/rgiii2.jpg)
