DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Horton: It Won't Be a Hybrid

Quote:

---

Wasn't Chung benched midway through the season?

---

Quote:

---

Lot's of options on the DL....I am not worried about that.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

So it's your position that Phil Taylor cannot play DE in the 3-4, and that Sheard won't stand a chance of occasionally not putting his hand on the ground at OLB.

---

Well I feel much better now.



We now see you think there is a possibility we are unsure of that Phil Tralor may be able to play DE in the 3-4 and Sheard stands a chance of playing OLB in the 3-4.

Even you yourself understands there's far more questions than answers here so you can quit twisting it up to be different. This guy stands a a chance? You can't say he can't?

Now that's something to hang your hat on right there!

---

Quote:

---

Well you learned a new word today!

How "whipsawed" applies here is the time and effort through the development of current assets, the draft and free agency to build a unit designed to operate in one fashion. Then after going through the growing pains we switch to another system that doesn't effectively use the assets we have. And then we have to dedicate another couple years of the draft and free agency to get it right.

---

Quote:

---

If u replace Lombardi with anyone, I think the fanbase would be elated with the Chud offense and the Horton defense.

---

Quote:

---

Oo and for those that like pounding the ball, we will air it out to get the lead then pound it out to get the win, Jimmy Johnson philosophy.

---

Shurmur said the same damn thing.. ... But Shurmurs not here

Quote:

---

What happens next year when Horton finally gets that HC gig?

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

What happens next year when Horton finally gets that HC gig?

---

That would mean our D did really well this year, so I'd be okay with that.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

What happens next year when Horton finally gets that HC gig?

---

That would mean our D did really well this year, so I'd be okay with that.

---

Beat me to it.

Quote:

---

What I would have liked Horton to say was "we will run the defense that best suits the talents of the players we have." Then over time you add players and transition.

You do not just jam a square peg into a round hole.

---

That's a legitimate concern anytime you switch schemes.

But the question becomes this: Is it the peg, or the hole?

Maybe switching the hole isn't a problem and the peg is the right answer.

If we were actually a good defense, switching would be a bad idea. But just as we've been for each of the last...oh...14 years...our defense wasn't good last year. If you rank 23rd in the league at anything you aren't very good. Guys that were "drafted for the system" are playing, but are they playing great? Not really.

People wonder what's going to become of Sheard. 7 sacks is decent production as a rusher but not great. He also isn't that stout against the run. Furthermore, coming out of college the scouting reports noted that he was a good candidate to transition to OLB in the 3-4. Here's just a snippet from one of many scouting reports, many of which said the same thing:

Quote:

---

Summary: A good-sized, high-cut, high-motor collegiate left end, Sheard stood out playing through injuries as a senior and looks most natural rushing from a wide alignment. Boasts a polished, speed-power combination and projects as a right end or rush linebacker at the next level.

---

Let's also be realistic here. Guys like James Harrison don't make their money dropping into coverage. They make their money rushing the passer. These guys aren't actually going to be regularly covering TE's 1-1. They'll be dropping into zones and reacting to the QB.

IMHO asking Sheard to drop into coverage perhaps 2-4 more times per game isn't going to hurt anything, and in fact, with the confusion that the 3-4 creates, it's going to open up far more opportunities for Sheard to do what he does best: Get to the QB.

So what about Taylor? It's the same thing as Sheard. He's a HUGE body, but as a DT he's no pass-rusher. He's all about being stout (allegedly) and pushing a pocket, not drawing from his plethora of rush-moves to get to the QB.

In 24 games as a pro Taylor has 5 sacks, 1 forced fumble, and 4 tackles for losses. If we're all going to be honest with ourselves, Taylor is more hype than he is production. Quite frankly, to my eye, Taylor looks like the prototypical 3-4 DE where his job is to just be big and occupy multiple-blockers, letting the real disruptors do their thing. I know it's blasphemy to question the curiously-odd fan-favorite Taylor, but I happen to believe we're going to get MORE production out of him as a 3-4 end than we have been as a DT. Even if they elect to move him to the nose it's the same thing. He's big enough to cover his gaps.

Like Sheard, here's a scouting report which reflects many others:

Quote:

---

On the field he is the consensus top prospect for teams looking to fill the nose tackle position in their 3-4. At the next level, he needs to keep his weight under control, improve his stamina and get after the passer a little more to be an elite player. Still, right now he can step in and make an impact in a rotation as a run stopper whom offenses need to avoid.

---

That's two of our starting 4-3 players who projected to the 3-4 in the NFL.

So what about Rubin? He's been a really good player for us, both in the 4-3 AND the 3-4, but again, he's no pass-rusher. Rubin has 9 sacks in 50 career starts, 61 career games. That's not special. He and Taylor in many ways are the same guy, except that Rubin plays stout while we are hoping that Taylor eventually does. Rubin is a huge, wide, low center-of-gravity body that can hold the nose. He's not a weak 6'2 330. He's been a good player but has he been a difference maker? No, he hasn't. Like may Browns players, the fans have loved him for being better than the others around him, but that doesn't make him great. Asking him to stick on the nose and eat blockers instead of trying to be a disruptor is probably the way to get the most out of what he brings to the table. His scouting reports note that he's solid at the point of attack but lacks range. That's nearly the definition of a 3-4 NT.

The other DE spot is open. Rucker is over-rated IMHO and isn't a difference maker. He was our "big" free agent signing and was actually outplayed by the old Juqua Parker and lost playing time to him, even though Parker is a serious liability against the run. We were either going to have to find a replacement for Parker as our 4-3 DE, because Rucker brings absolutely nothing to the table as a pass-rusher, or we're going to have to find a 3-4 OLB to, in essence, act as the exact same thing. Since Rucker doesn't get to the QB, and is supposedly stout against the run (my review of games showed he wasn't very special in that area, and in fact was rather bad when teams ran right at him) we're again going to get better production from him by just asking him to eat blockers and not get to the QB.

So IMHO I think we're actually better on the defensive front line now than we were in the 4-3.

The ONLY place I think we stand a chance of going backwards is with Jackson. He just isn't a good fit for the 3-4 in the NFL because he can't take on blockers with any regularity. Now if the Dline does what I believe they'll do, which is to keep blockers off of Jackson, he can be as good as he has been the last couple of years. I happen to believe Jackson is over-rated, much in the same way Andra Davis was over-rated, but my old question of "Is he part of the solution or part of the problem?" shows Jackson to be part of the solution.

This switch isn't tearing down a good defense and rebuilding it. This switch might just be taking parts and getting the most out of them. At the worst we're taking a bad defense and transitioning to one that is better against the modern NFL.

Mankind fear's change. We don't have to fear a switch to the 3-4. It comes down to what it has always come down to: Whether or not we are able to acquire the right people. We aren't any further away from a successful 3-4 as we were in the 4-3.

Quote:

---

I know Horton has had some success, but he's coming off as a "me" guy. Throwing a tantrum when he didn't get a head coaching gig, talking about the defense like it is all up to him and even contradicting Chud, boasting that Norv would have come with him to Arizona. What, exactly, was so terrible about Jauron?

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

So it's your position that Phil Taylor cannot play DE in the 3-4, and that Sheard won't stand a chance of occasionally not putting his hand on the ground at OLB.

---

Well I feel much better now.



We now see you think there is a possibility we are unsure of that Phil Tralor may be able to play DE in the 3-4 and Sheard stands a chance of playing OLB in the 3-4.

Even you yourself understands there's far more questions than answers here so you can quit twisting it up to be different. This guy stands a a chance? You can't say he can't?

Now that's something to hang your hat on right there!

---

You totally whiffed on the context.

Dj listed the guys who are keepers in the 4-3, of which Sheard and Taylor were a part. He then listed keepers in the 3-4, of which they weren't. Ergo, he said we needed more players. I CLEARLY stated how ludicrous that was.

What part of that confused you?

---

I missed on none of it. You refused to dispute what he said by saying they could do it. In no way did you indicate that these 4-3 players were a shoe in to adapt to the 3-4. Which despite what many posters seem to indicate, was very smart thing for you not to do.

You always use the term "I didn't say that" when someone tries to use the things you "implied". In this case, you're trying to use the opposite strategy.

So will you then commit to saying that both Sheard and Taylor will have no problem switching from the 4-3 to the 3-4 and be very productive in that system or not? Come on, at least commit one way or the instead of playing some wishy, washy middle ground here.



You know as well as I do that many players do well in the 4-3 that simply don't transfer well to the 3-4. We can sit here and speculate they will or they won't. But the fact is often they don't.

If that were the case, 3-4 DE's and LBer's wouldn't be in such a high demand and usually require higher draft picks due to the demand.

So while the "positivity train" keeps rolling along, there are far more questions than answers out there and you well know it. You may post a different story, but I understand from posting with you for so long, you know the game better than to simply bellieve that all these great predictions I've seen hold a lot of merrit.

You also know that not only the above is true, but that it will take a roster shake-up to a great extent.

In the 4-3 you need many DL players because you are rotating four DL players instead of three. Vice versa, with the 3-4 it takes more LB'ers because you have four LBer's that you must have the depth to rotate.

Thusly, we will have fewer DL players on the roster and need to increase the number of LBer's on the roster. We both know that.

So not only will we have to find four starting LBer's that are currently on our roster, we will also have to change and add LBer's suited for the rotation that are suited for the 3-4.

Not only will we have to find three starting DL players suited for the 3-4, we will need good depth on the DL that is suited well for the 3-4.

And once again, you also know that you don't just switch from the 4-3 to the 3-4 and somehow the talent you now have will go through some great transition between the two schemes as if someone just waves a magic wand over them and sprinkle a little fairy dust around.

So while so many are trying to make good predictions, the jury is far from out on how many of our current roster will transtion. It's just the facts of the matter.....

Quote:

---

You refused to dispute what he said by saying they could do it.

---

He omitted their names as a way to drive to a polar opposite for effect, to which I clearly refuted. If you are unable to glean the most simplistic of context from the words, that is a you problem, not a me problem.

Quote:

---

You always use the term "I didn't say that" when someone tries to use the things you "implied".

---

Incorrect.

I always use the term "I didn't say that" when someone tries to spin my words to fit their own argument, to which I typically say "I didn't say that, YOU said that."

Quote:

---

So will you then commit to saying that both Sheard and Taylor will have no problem switching from the 4-3 to the 3-4 and be very productive in that system or not? Come on, at least commit one way or the instead of playing some wishy, washy middle ground here.

---

Were you less interested in puffing on your own words and more interested in reading comprehension, you may just find that I did just that.

Again. Your lack of reading comprehension is a you problem, not a me problem.

Quote:

---

You also know that not only the above is true, but that it will take a roster shake-up to a great extent.

---

It's amazing, this inherent ability that you and Dj both have...reading my mind.

I would...again...reference my last sentence, where I've stated quite clearly what I believe.

It's rather entertaining to see how neither of you can accept that my reasonings run parallel to your own, and therefore must, by definition, be a lie developed for some greater, sinister purpose.

Quote:

---

So not only will we have to find four starting LBer's that are currently on our roster, we will also have to change and add LBer's suited for the rotation that are suited for the 3-4.

Not only will we have to find three starting DL players suited for the 3-4, we will need good depth on the DL that is suited well for the 3-4.

---

Again, my beliefs have been laid out not once but twice regarding a switch to the 3-4. But I'll save you the efforts of having to go back just a few posts and read it...

I think we're better on the line as a 3-4 right now, but we're worse at linebacker. Of course if the Dline does what I believe they'll do, Jackson won't go backwards.

Regardless of a 4-3 or a 3-4, we still have to find a guy to play opposite Sheard. Regardless of a 4-3 or a 3-4, we still have questions at every linebacker spot not belonging to Jackson.
Regardless of a 4-3 or a 3-4, we still have only one starting corner and one starting safety.

So where's the "roster shakeup" exactly?

I don't view the glass to be either half-empty or half-full. I see a glass with 50% liquid.

I see a defense that can be fixed in one off-season, regardless of a 4-3 or a 3-4 alignment.

As always, it comes down to whether or not the guys acquiring the players get it done. Since I see a need for only a few players on defense to make the unit solid, and since I see a very large amount of cap space combined with a very high draft pick, I don't see anything which remotely looks like a rebuild, let alone a true tear-down.

I'm no Homer, but I'm no Chicken-Little, either. I don't allow people to goad me into being trapped into one camp or another. Critical thinking often has that effect, and my critical thinking tells me that we're just as far away in the 3-4 as the 4-3.

Quote:

---

So while so many are trying to make good predictions, the jury is far from out on how many of our current roster will transtion. It's just the facts of the matter.....

---

So you're stating it's an unknown how many will be able to transition, and I'm stating they can, but I'm the one being wishy-washy.

Oh...the irony.

Quote:

---

I think we're better on the line as a 3-4 right now, but we're worse at linebacker. Of course if the Dline does what I believe they'll do, Jackson won't go backwards.

Regardless of a 4-3 or a 3-4, we still have to find a guy to play opposite Sheard. Regardless of a 4-3 or a 3-4, we still have questions at every linebacker spot not belonging to Jackson.
Regardless of a 4-3 or a 3-4, we still have only one starting corner and one starting safety.

So where's the "roster shakeup" exactly?

---

Sheard? I hope you planned on switching Sheard to the LBer position in your above scenario. But from your comments about "questions at every LBer spot accept DQ", you obviously didn't mean that.

Sheard at 255 lbs. on a 3-4 DL? Maybe if he adds 30 lbs. Parker doesn't fit the sceme at 250 lbs. so there goes that depth. Actually the only legit. position on the DL that we may be set on is NT. Unless of course you've decided to try to do a 180 degree turn and are now trying to sell Rucker as a DE in the 3-4. Or is it Billy Winn you're now trying to sell?

I didn't know trying to get someone to project where and how players will project into a new system since they seem to think we'll be "better on the line" was trying to "trap them". It seems that's more a conveniant excuse not to commit but rather try to make some sweeping generalization they can simply wiggle out of later by saying, "I didn't say that".

The only place I think we might be set on that DL is NT. We have Taylor and Hughes who may work out well there. Otherwise, we have neither DE. Nobody on this roster represents the combination of size and speed to fill those two positions.

That's why those guys are drafted so very high and command so much money on the FA market. Both of these positions, CB, 3-4 DE's command one helluva bunch of $$$ in the FA market. But hey, we'll just buy our way out of it and use a 1st and 3rd rounder too. Good luck with that.

And all I can say is a lot of people had better hope that Sheard can convert to a 3-4 LBer or we're going to need a whole lot of parts come spring time.

Yes, it's a re-build on the D side. We may have a couple of depth players there, but otherwise the cupboard is almost bare.

And BTW- The part where you said I was claiming to read your mind? Actually I was trying to give you a little credit for being able to understand and willingness to admit where we actually do stand on the D side of the ball.

But it seems obvious now that I need to rescend that comment.

Pitt, a moment of interruption as I first respond to Willie, then you can have at me.

Willie, Winn played some 3-4 in college. He doesn't project as a starter in our 4-3, so placing him as a rotational DE is a slam-dunk. He's far more active than Rucker, so shifting him in on obvious passing downs would make perfect sense. That's why for my money we're making big strides immediately on the Dline with a switch to the 3-4.

Quote:

---

Sheard? I hope you planned on switching Sheard to the LBer position in your above scenario. But from your comments about "questions at every LBer spot accept DQ", you obviously didn't mean that.

---

You are correct, my mistake. I'd outlined how Sheard was projected as a possible OLB in the 3-4 in previous comments about the switch, but not in the very last one.

Quote:

---

Unless of course you've decided to try to do a 180 degree turn and are now trying to sell Rucker as a DE in the 3-4. Or is it Billy Winn you're now trying to sell?

---

You're killing me, Smalls.

I was poking fun at the reading comprehension stuff, but I see that's not the case. You actually have to read something first before you can comprehend it, and since I've laid it out in this thread that Rucker does project to some 3-4 end work, your comments state quite clearly that you haven't read a word I'd said.

Winn played 3-4 in college. His scouting reports projected him at DE in a 3-4 as well as a rotational 4-3. He's a depth guy no matter how you slice it right now, and since he's more active that Rucker, who is a 2-down player at best anyway, hell, he may even take Rucker's job at some point.

Quote:

---

The only place I think we might be set on that DL is NT. We have Taylor and Hughes who may work out well there. Otherwise, we have neither DE. Nobody on this roster represents the combination of size and speed to fill those two positions.

That's why those guys are drafted so very high and command so much money on the FA market.

---

Eh? You've got it backwards. 3-4 DE's don't get the big bucks. They are grunts who lose stats because of their job description. Guys that pressure the QB...they get paid. 3-4 DE's are at the bottom of the food chain.

If you go look at the starting DE's in the various 3-4's, there are few high-value guys.

Here, I'll help you out. Here's a list of all the starting 3-4 DE's I can think of. Note the "quality" of the names:

Packers: Ryan Pickett, CJ Wilson
Chargers: Kendall Reyes, Corey Liuget
Ravens: Pernell Mcphee, Haloti Ngata
Cards: Calais Campbell, Darnell Dockett
Colts: Cory Redding, Clifton Geathers
Chiefs: Shaun Smith ( ) Ropati Itotitua
Steelers: Ziggy Hood, Brett Keisel
Jets: Mohamad Wilkerson, Mike Devito
Niner: Justin Smith, Ray McDonald

I'm sure there are other teams I can't remember, but that covers most of them.

So looking at that list, it's obvious there aren't a bunch of big-name, high-ticket guys in there.

No, it's not hard finding 3-4 DE's. Besides, I think we're good there, as I've said (and which you haven't read )

Quote:

---

But it seems obvious now that I need to rescend that comment.

---

Sure, I don't take compliments well.

I know most are concerned about Sheard, as you'd noted. Is it going to be a transition for him? Yes. Is it a big transition? No. Is Sheard some great all-pro DE that we're going to waste by trying this move? No. He's got some rush ability but is not a good run-defender. Most of his time in our 3-4 is going to be doing exactly what he's been doing: Rushing the passer.

I don't see where we have to rebuild this defense. For starters, we weren't very good last year. We needed new parts regardless of what scheme we run. We have a front office willing to spend money, and have the money to spend with all the cap space. We have a very high draft pick, and we have plenty of new depth on the D-line. All we need are some linebackers, or to be more precise, all we need are TWO linebackers.

No rebuild. That implies we are taking something apart which was good. We weren't. We need parts no matter what.

Quote:

---

I know most are concerned about Sheard, as you'd noted. Is it going to be a transition for him? Yes. Is it a big transition? No. Is Sheard some great all-pro DE that we're going to waste by trying this move? No.

---