PDA

View Full Version : who else in recent times ran a 4-3 under?


D-Frank
07-29-2009, 09:38 PM
love football, but not a blackbelt, what other teams in recent history have ran the 4-3 under? I have done my research on what type of players it takes to run it but i wanna know the other teams that have had sucess running it.

blackbelts take over!!!

thanks D Frank

ArlingtonTexan
07-29-2009, 10:31 PM
The Arizona Cardinals are the most recent team to run a lot of it at the pro level. i will let you figure out the "success" that they have had in doing so. Seattle is also listed as running it as its base defense.

there are a couple of links floating around about pro adaptation of the defense that I will link

Cardinals
http://draftchat.blogspot.com/?widgetType=BlogArchive&widgetId=BlogArchive2&action=toggle&dir=open&toggle=MONTHLY-1230796800000&toggleopen=MONTHLY-1233475200000

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/38727247.html
The Cardinals play a 4-3 "under" defense with threads of the 3-4 because right ends Travis LaBoy and Bertrand Berry often operate from a two-point stance rather than a three-point. LaBoy, who suffered a left biceps injury against Philadelphia, should play with his arm in a brace. LaBoy hasn't been worth the five-year, $22 million deal ($5.75 million signing bonus) that he signed March 3 to leave Tennessee. He's mostly a speed rusher and has some explosiveness, but gets bounced around against the run. Berry, 33, still provides some pressure based on his technique and excellent hand usage. But he gets worn down and can't play full time. He lacks power. LE Antonio Smith isn't fast enough to play end and isn't big enough to play inside. He does have very long arms, gives tremendous effort and at least keeps his feet moving as a rusher. At 300, former Bear Bryan Robinson is one of the smallest nose tackles in the game. He's also 34. However, Robinson still has some athletic ability, is a decent technician and plays with adequate strength at the point. His backup, chubby Gabe Watson, basically just flails around. Arizona's best D-lineman is Darnell Dockett, the three-technique DT. He has exceptional quickness for a big man. When he gets to the edge of blockers, he's hard to contain. He probably ranks among the top 10 in the NFL at his position. His backup, rookie Calais Campbell, has imposing size and is a fine athlete, but he also tends to play high and can't be counted on to stuff the run.



http://www.profootballweekly.com/2009/02/20/cardinals-olb-karlos-dansby-franchise-fa

Strengths: Bright and instinctive, Dansby is also one of the league's best linebackers in pass coverage. The Cardinals' "4-3 under" base defense has been specifically designed for Dansby to use his excellent speed to make plays both against the pass and the run. Equally important, if not more so, however, is Dansby's development into a genuine team leader after previously having a reputation as a player who only showed up on Sundays during the Dennis Green regime. Borrowing a page from veteran Cardinals SS Adrian Wilson, Dansby set a high standard with his consistent work ethic in both practices and games and became a respected team leader of the highest order.


Seahawks
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/preview08/news/story?id=3559627

Defensive scheme: Seattle runs a base 4-3 under coordinator John Marshall, with multiple blitz packages designed to harass quarterbacks from every conceivable angle. There's an emphasis on zone coverage and speed over size, especially in the front seven. Previously a read-and-react defense, the Seahawks have become very aggressive and now fly to the ball. (Marshall is beginning to use more man-to-man coverages in hopes of creating big plays.) The active linebacker unit is the key to their success, and LB Julian Peterson is a versatile weapon whose explosiveness sets the tone. But Seattle must improve the run defense, which could be difficult given the lack of size up front.

ArlingtonTexan
07-29-2009, 10:56 PM
From looking at the articles and things i have seen on this board may want to analyze teams that run a so-called hybrid 4-3/3/4 because the defense looks like a 3-4 especially if the off-side pass rusher uses a 2 point stance.

That said, after looking at these articles, our off season defensive acquisitions make a ton of sense now. Smith will play the same role here as he did in Zona, strong side DE who at times plays DT pass rusher. The DT acquisition Shaun Cody played in this defense at USC and of course Cushing is duplicating his role at USC.

The biggest hole that I see is that the Cardinals have had a top flight safety in Adrain Wilson and USC seems to always have a quality safety. the safeties in this defense seem to have to be able to switch from the box to deep coverage on the flly. Not sure the Wilson, Fergusion, etc. qualify.

Also, don't overlook the WLB battle, as it seems like this is a key position. Of the teams which are highlighted in the previous post, both Seattle (Peterson, now with Detroit) and Dansby are good sized LBers who are above average in coverage and as pass rushers. The closest physically/skill wise to these guys is Adibi. At times the WLB looks like an ILB in a 3-4 and needs to be a diverse play maker.

Overall, if nothing else, it appears as though both the players and fans now have an idea of what the defense is trying to do. Whether the Texans accomplish anything is another question, but at least there are 4-3 under blueprints to follow.


Edit note: Over the last handful of years neither Seattle nor Arizona has seemingly had the classic huge guy run stuffer in the middle. Also, the Seahawks have drafted a couple of USC defensive players , Lofa Tatupu, who physically is similiar to Ryans and Lawrence Jackson, who is physically similar to Antonio Smith...i.e a DE who is a little big/slow for De, but not really big enough for regular DT duties.

PHAROAH
07-30-2009, 04:01 AM
great re-search

bckey
07-30-2009, 05:49 AM
The only thing I didn't like was that neither Arizona or Seattle make you think of defense when mentioned.

MightyTExan
07-30-2009, 06:17 AM
Haven't had coffee yet, so too lazy to look it up, but I thought Seattle's defense carried the team last season?

TimeKiller
07-30-2009, 07:07 AM
Didn't Seattle have a top-ranking defense not too long ago?

ArlingtonTexan
07-30-2009, 07:16 AM
Neither defense has been dominate, but when effective they have agressive high sack, high turnover defenses that could run on because the DL have generaly been under sized. Seattle's version has been more successful over all, but Arizona did have a decent stretch at the end of last season, although that was not good enough to save the DC's job.

HOU-TEX
07-30-2009, 09:01 AM
Haven't had coffee yet, so too lazy to look it up, but I thought Seattle's defense carried the team last season?

If so, then they carried them to a 4-12 season. Seattle's D was ranked 30th in the league. They were unable to get off the field, leading to a league's worst TOP for defenses with 33:40.

Arizona ranked 19th overall and was horrible on 3rd down. The Cards gave up an average of 26.6 points per game, which is good for bottom 5 in the league.

El Tejano
07-30-2009, 09:30 AM
The biggest hole that I see is that the Cardinals have had a top flight safety in Adrain Wilson and USC seems to always have a quality safety. the safeties in this defense seem to have to be able to switch from the box to deep coverage on the flly. Not sure the Wilson, Fergusion, etc. qualify.




There was a thread a while back that had Pete Carroll breaking down this defense and he pretty much said the same thing. The safety is responsible for alot of things in this defense.

Vinny
07-30-2009, 09:48 AM
From looking at the articles and things i have seen on this board may want to analyze teams that run a so-called hybrid 4-3/3/4 because the defense looks like a 3-4 especially if the off-side pass rusher uses a 2 point stance.

That said, after looking at these articles, our off season defensive acquisitions make a ton of sense now. Smith will play the same role here as he did in Zona, strong side DE who at times plays DT pass rusher. The DT acquisition Shaun Cody played in this defense at USC and of course Cushing is duplicating his role at USC.

The biggest hole that I see is that the Cardinals have had a top flight safety in Adrain Wilson and USC seems to always have a quality safety. the safeties in this defense seem to have to be able to switch from the box to deep coverage on the flly. Not sure the Wilson, Fergusion, etc. qualify.

Also, don't overlook the WLB battle, as it seems like this is a key position. Of the teams which are highlighted in the previous post, both Seattle (Peterson, now with Detroit) and Dansby are good sized LBers who are above average in coverage and as pass rushers. The closest physically/skill wise to these guys is Adibi. At times the WLB looks like an ILB in a 3-4 and needs to be a diverse play maker.

Overall, if nothing else, it appears as though both the players and fans now have an idea of what the defense is trying to do. Whether the Texans accomplish anything is another question, but at least there are 4-3 under blueprints to follow.


Edit note: Over the last handful of years neither Seattle nor Arizona has seemingly had the classic huge guy run stuffer in the middle. Also, the Seahawks have drafted a couple of USC defensive players , Lofa Tatupu, who physically is similiar to Ryans and Lawrence Jackson, who is physically similar to Antonio Smith...i.e a DE who is a little big/slow for De, but not really big enough for regular DT duties.

Brian Cushing has been used in the "Elephant" role at USC (http://www.trojanfootballanalysis.com/usc_elephant_defense.html), which is similar to what we are building here I think.

as an aside, if you click the link you will see that Bear Bryant gives some credit to Bum Phillips defensive numbering system.

Maddict5
07-30-2009, 10:19 AM
The only thing I didn't like was that neither Arizona or Seattle make you think of defense when mentioned.


they both recently made it to the SB with the help of their potent offences though which luckily for us.....

D-Frank
07-30-2009, 12:18 PM
Thank you Arlington, and the rest of yall, lots of good insight

76Texan
07-30-2009, 03:15 PM
The funny thing is... when the Cards, the Seahawks, or the Trojans had the most success... you can find them in a 3-man front more often!

I do not understand all the ruckus about Pete's 4-3 Under.
The guy employed multiple fronts last year!

A couple of months ago, I found a website that lists each team and the front(s) they used, but I can't find it anymore. (I thought I had stored that link, dang it!)

At any rate, I took a quick look at the last time we played the Titans.
Everybody knows about their D, I assume. :)
I only had time for the first quarter.
They used multiple fronts like us.
Mostly MIAMI and OVER.

badboy
07-30-2009, 03:21 PM
love football, but not a blackbelt, what other teams in recent history have ran the 4-3 under? I have done my research on what type of players it takes to run it but i wanna know the other teams that have had sucess running it.

blackbelts take over!!!

thanks D FrankThought thread was talking about the 40. McCain is the closest. Anyway.. back to you guys.

ArlingtonTexan
07-30-2009, 04:09 PM
The funny thing is... when the Cards, the Seahawks, or the Trojans had the most success... you can find them in a 3-man front more often!

I do not understand all the ruckus about Pete's 4-3 Under.
The guy employed multiple fronts last year!

A couple of months ago, I found a website that lists each team and the front(s) they used, but I can't find it anymore. (I thought I had stored that link, dang it!)

At any rate, I took a quick look at the last time we played the Titans.
Everybody knows about their D, I assume. :)
I only had time for the first quarter.
They used multiple fronts like us.
Mostly MIAMI and OVER.

If i am reading some of the material correctly one the aspects of the 4-3 under is that it has elements of both the classic 4-3 and 3-4 creating the illusion that your defense is more multiple than it is. That said, most NFL teams are very multiple, but have a base defense that it is in more time than in any other individual set.

Honestly, any excitement I have about the 4-3 under is really just knowing that the Texans have some sort of defensive plan. that was my main issue with the Richard Smith defense, not one person on this board could tell me what they were trying to do as a defense. From the comments, i have read from players, they may not have known either. As bad as things got under Capers, I at least understood what they were supposed to be doing.


One the defensive fronts, one of the links I posted earlier list both offensive and defensive fronts at the beginning of 2008. Here is a 2009 list from a FF site.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=450299

76Texan
07-30-2009, 04:25 PM
If i am reading some of the material correctly one the aspects of the 4-3 under is that it has elements of both the classic 4-3 and 3-4 creating the illusion that your defense is more multiple than it is. That said, most NFL teams are very multiple, but have a base defense that it is in more time than in any other individual set.

Honestly, any excitement I have about the 4-3 under is really just knowing that the Texans have some sort of defensive plan. that was my main issue with the Richard Smith defense, not one person on this board could tell me what they were trying to do as a defense. From the comments, i have read from players, they may not have known either. As bad as things got under Capers, I at least understood what they were supposed to be doing.


One the defensive fronts, one of the links I posted earlier list both offensive and defensive fronts at the beginning of 2008. Here is a 2009 list from a FF site.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=450299
You are correct about the 4-3 Under having some elements of the 3-4.
In fact, when a team like USC or Arizona line up in a 3 man front, they can use either of the 2 OLBs in similar fashion as a DE.

The link that I saw had all the specifics about the fronts that each NFL teams employed.

As far as Dunta's comments on RS's defense, I always took it as him being frustrated, and we all know how vocal Dunta "used" to be.
What I observed since 06 between Kubiak and Smith was that, in the beginning, they tried to be really aggressive with the defense, but we still couldn't get enough pressure up front, while keep getting burned on the back side. So they scaled it down. Then they tried to find ways to get the D to be aggressive without too much risks. Still, we need better players, and that's the bottom line.

Every year, people would complain... when will they bring in some real safety... we need better DB... we need another pass rusher... we need some mean presence on the interior line... we need somebody to complement Demeco.

I don't see how you can expect any DC to perform miracles with all those questions lingering all that time.

I never said RS is a good DC, I'm only saying that he wasn't all that bad to be made out as a scapegoat, that is all !!!

ArlingtonTexan
07-30-2009, 04:57 PM
You are correct about the 4-3 Under having some elements of the 3-4.
In fact, when a team like USC or Arizona line up in a 3 man front, they can use either of the 2 OLBs in similar fashion as a DE.

The link that I saw had all the specifics about the fronts that each NFL teams employed.

As far as Dunta's comments on RS's defense, I always took it as him being frustrated, and we all know how vocal Dunta "used" to be.
What I observed since 06 between Kubiak and Smith was that, in the beginning, they tried to be really aggressive with the defense, but we still couldn't get enough pressure up front, while keep getting burned on the back side. So they scaled it down. Then they tried to find ways to get the D to be aggressive without too much risks. Still, we need better players, and that's the bottom line.

Every year, people would complain... when will they bring in some real safety... we need better DB... we need another pass rusher... we need some mean presence on the interior line... we need somebody to complement Demeco.

I don't see how you can expect any DC to perform miracles with all those questions lingering all that time.

I never said RS is a good DC, I'm only saying that he wasn't all that bad to be made out as a scapegoat, that is all !!!


The texans have have more high draft picks and high free agent dollar players on defense than offense, yet the offense went from one of the worst in the league to an effective one. If the Texans don't have a good defense it is on the some combination of coaching and talent evaluation. The offense isn't loaded with high round picks, assuming health the Texans will start 3 1st round DLmen, 1st round LBer, a high dollar DE, a high 2nd round Lber and 1 first round CB. Very few teams have that sort of draft and free agent pedigree on defense.

76Texan
07-30-2009, 05:27 PM
The texans have have more high draft picks and high free agent dollar players on defense than offense, yet the offense went from one of the worst in the league to an effective one. If the Texans don't have a good defense it is on the some combination of coaching and talent evaluation. The offense isn't loaded with high round picks, assuming health the Texans will start 3 1st round DLmen, 1st round LBer, a high dollar DE, a high 2nd round Lber and 1 first round CB. Very few teams have that sort of draft and free agent pedigree on defense.

I don't know about that! May take some research there.
(Don't need to check out the Ravens, they had a boat load of high picks on D).

Teams that don't have as many high draft picks as us were established teams with good players on their roster already.
Some has better personnel on O, some on D.

The two sides of the ball are related.
In our case, the offense has to take their share of the blame.
Those turnovers would kill a lot of teams, not just ours.
You ask any coach!

Kubiak/Shanahan/Rick Smith all have to take their share of the blame too! (And the players themselves, of course!)

ArlingtonTexan
07-30-2009, 05:44 PM
I don't know about that! May take some research there.
(Don't need to check out the Ravens, they had a boat load of high picks on D).

Teams that don't have as many high draft picks as us were established teams with good players on their roster already.
Some has better personnel on O, some on D.

The two sides of the ball are related.
In our case, the offense has to take their share of the blame.
Those turnovers would kill a lot of teams, not just ours.
You ask any coach!

Kubiak/Shanahan/Rick Smith all have to take their share of the blame too! (And the players themselves, of course!)

Conversely, one could argue of the defense gave the offense more short fields, they could score on fewer plays and lessening the chance for mistakes.

(BTW, I agree with you on the turnovers/red zone issues, just wanted to turn that phrase around).

Overall, my point is that part of the reason the offense finds guys all throughout the draft and free agency is that Kubiak has clear specific plan of what he wants out of each position. It did not seem as though the defense had the same sort of specific, clear understanding. I really don't care about the 4-3 under versus 3-4 versus Tampa 2, etc. as much as having a quality defense. The scheme stuff is just watercooler...well message board chatter that i enjoy more than really care about.

76Texan
07-30-2009, 05:59 PM
Conversely, one could argue of the defense gave the offense more short fields, they could score on fewer plays and lessening the chance for mistakes.

(BTW, I agree with you on the turnovers/red zone issues, just wanted to turn that phrase around).

Overall, my point is that part of the reason the offense finds guys all throughout the draft and free agency is that Kubiak has clear specific plan of what he wants out of each position. It did not seem as though the defense had the same sort of specific, clear understanding. I really don't care about the 4-3 under versus 3-4 versus Tampa 2, etc. as much as having a quality defense. The scheme stuff is just watercooler...well message board chatter that i enjoy more than really care about.
Well then, let's chat for a little about scheme and players.

All our players played in the same defensive scheme that our COACHES installed.

Why is that Reeves kept getting burned, especially early on in the season?
Who do we trust in our nickel package before Dunta came back from injury?
Demps and Harrison missed their assignments a whole lot more than Ferguson.
Same thing with Greenwood (and Diles) as compared with Adibi (and Bentley to a lesser extent).
Weaver could'nt do much when we switched him to the weakside as compared with Mario.
Okoye didn't do much this year as compared with the combination of Bulman and Deljuan.
And who did we use before Nading emerge as some kind of a chaser running around to create confusion for the opponent.
(All the young players need time to get use to the speed of the game and the scheme, and how the opponents played; they didn't have that early on in the season).

The better players you have, the further you can expand your scheme.
Ask Rex Ryan! http://www.texanstalk.com/forums/images/icons/icon12.gif

ArlingtonTexan
07-30-2009, 06:40 PM
Well then, let's chat for a little about scheme and players.

All our players played in the same defensive scheme that our COACHES installed.

Why is that Reeves kept getting burned, especially early on in the season?
Who do we trust in our nickel package before Dunta came back from injury?
Demps and Harrison missed their assignments a whole lot more than Ferguson.
Same thing with Greenwood (and Diles) as compared with Adibi (and Bentley to a lesser extent).
Weaver could'nt do much when we switched him to the weakside as compared with Mario.
Okoye didn't do much this year as compared with the combination of Bulman and Deljuan.
And who did we use before Nading emerge as some kind of a chaser running around to create confusion for the opponent.
(All the young players need time to get use to the speed of the game and the scheme, and how the opponents played; they didn't have that early on in the season).

The better players you have, the further you can expand your scheme.
Ask Rex Ryan! http://www.texanstalk.com/forums/images/icons/icon12.gif

You are misreading if you think that I believe a scheme will work without talent. there is some mix talent, coaching, scheme that it takes to be successful. A really good argument can be made that throughout Texans history we have been below average in all three areas on defense. I think of the three talent is the "best' shape or at least not as bad as people discuss.

In the NFL, you can't just out talent other teams. There are only a few players on any team that will preform at the same level no matter what scheme they are placed into. On the Texans, anybody past AJ, Mario, Robinson, Ryans and maybe Pitts, Winston, Schaub are players who need to fit into a specific scheme to be successsful. So if a DC is running a flawed scheme or doesn't have a proper concept of what type player works with his scheme, he maybe asking for players to do things that are not the things they do best or asking for players without the correct skill set. (In fact, your list highlights this better than I could). In other words, a flawed match of players to scheme will make you think that a player does not have talent. We can all name of player after player that flopped at one team and then when used (scheme/coaching) differently turned into a better player.

76Texan
07-31-2009, 12:58 AM
You are misreading if you think that I believe a scheme will work without talent. there is some mix talent, coaching, scheme that it takes to be successful. A really good argument can be made that throughout Texans history we have been below average in all three areas on defense. I think of the three talent is the "best' shape or at least not as bad as people discuss.

In the NFL, you can't just out talent other teams. There are only a few players on any team that will preform at the same level no matter what scheme they are placed into. On the Texans, anybody past AJ, Mario, Robinson, Ryans and maybe Pitts, Winston, Schaub are players who need to fit into a specific scheme to be successsful. So if a DC is running a flawed scheme or doesn't have a proper concept of what type player works with his scheme, he maybe asking for players to do things that are not the things they do best or asking for players without the correct skill set. (In fact, your list highlights this better than I could). In other words, a flawed match of players to scheme will make you think that a player does not have talent. We can all name of player after player that flopped at one team and then when used (scheme/coaching) differently turned into a better player.1. Let's say you're the HC (Kubiak) and you hire a DC (in this case Richard Smith). You have eyed this HC job for awhile now. You should know a little about the team. You want to have both Frank Bush and RS, but you can only get RS. You know that RS has extensive background in the 3-4, the same system that the Texans previous HC Capers used. But you want to change to a 4-3 instead. Doesn't that put a question mark on your decision(s)???

2. You made the switch anyway. Now you bring in a long time acquaintance as GM so he can help you find the correct personnel so you can work the 4-3. The GM and you both have seen a lot of the 4-3 during your previous stint. The Broncos had employed a 4-3 since Shanahan in 1995 (I believe Shanahan only tinkered with the 3-4 just this past year.).
So if you can't find the right players with the matching skill sets, who's to be hold accountable? Your DC?

3. As an experienced OC you've been there on Sundays, watching how different defenses attack your teamS. You've been there on Mons-Tues for game planning, you've had meetings with both the HCs and the DCs.
You must know at least 99.something% about defense.

Now, you and your DC agree to incorporate the 4-3 fronts with a certain version of the tampa/cover 2/ cover 3 mix shell (BTW, USC employed also something similar). You help him prepare the playbook, you know everything in there by heart. Aren't you accountable for your own defense or it's simply the DC's failure, and none your fault?

4. When a player misses an assignment is that because of the scheme?
You and your GM had found several of these players, I don't think they all were the DC's request. It does not matter one way or another anyhow. Your GM is in charge of finding the player with the skill set that match the defensive style you and your DC installed. And you give final approval, especially on the more important ones (the starters).

5. I can use specific examples if you'd like! :)

ArlingtonTexan
07-31-2009, 08:03 AM
1. Let's say you're the HC (Kubiak) and you hire a DC (in this case Richard Smith). You have eyed this HC job for awhile now. You should know a little about the team. You want to have both Frank Bush and RS, but you can only get RS. You know that RS has extensive background in the 3-4, the same system that the Texans previous HC Capers used. But you want to change to a 4-3 instead. Doesn't that put a question mark on your decision(s)???

2. You made the switch anyway. Now you bring in a long time acquaintance as GM so he can help you find the correct personnel so you can work the 4-3. The GM and you both have seen a lot of the 4-3 during your previous stint. The Broncos had employed a 4-3 since Shanahan in 1995 (I believe Shanahan only tinkered with the 3-4 just this past year.).
So if you can't find the right players with the matching skill sets, who's to be hold accountable? Your DC?

3. As an experienced OC you've been there on Sundays, watching how different defenses attack your teamS. You've been there on Mons-Tues for game planning, you've had meetings with both the HCs and the DCs.
You must know at least 99.something% about defense.

Now, you and your DC agree to incorporate the 4-3 fronts with a certain version of the tampa/cover 2/ cover 3 mix shell (BTW, USC employed also something similar). You help him prepare the playbook, you know everything in there by heart. Aren't you accountable for your own defense or it's simply the DC's failure, and none your fault?

4. When a player misses an assignment is that because of the scheme?
You and your GM had found several of these players, I don't think they all were the DC's request. It does not matter one way or another anyhow. Your GM is in charge of finding the player with the skill set that match the defensive style you and your DC installed. And you give final approval, especially on the more important ones (the starters).

5. I can use specific examples if you'd like! :)


and none of this contradicts the central idea success = coaching+ talent+ scheme. In fact, it highlights exactly how did occur.

76Texan
07-31-2009, 11:03 AM
and none of this contradicts the central idea success = coaching+ talent+ scheme. In fact, it highlights exactly how did occur.

The two things you said that I disagree with are:
1. That the D didn't have a clear concept/scheme, but we did!
2. That the scheme didn't match with the personnel 'cause we tried to force something on players that did not have the skill set to fit the scheme.

1. As far as the scheme is concerned, it remained for the coaches to get it through to the players, to sell them on the ideas!
As I remember reading "Landry Boys", the first 3-4 years, he had the hardest of time selling the 4-3 flex to many of his players.
A few grasped it early; others took a year or two, or three.
A few never liked it, even after they had had quite a bit of success with it.

"The player on the defensive line openly rebelled when they were shown Landry's defensive system".

Jack Patera, a LB who joined the Cowboys in 1960 (with 5 yrs of NFL experience), recounted:
"Remember, a lot of these players didn't know a whole lot more than their own position. It amazed me how many of these people just didn't know. They entered the situation and criticized it without understanding the overall program."

........

So, even if Smith was a poor salesman, he wouldn't be the first!

And he wouldn't be the only bad coach out there; Landry had proved that! http://www.texanstalk.com/forums/images/icons/icon12.gif

2. It would be Ricky's fault for not finding the right players for Richard if that was the case!

ArlingtonTexan
07-31-2009, 12:07 PM
The two things you said that I disagree with are:
1. That the D didn't have a clear concept/scheme, but we did!
2. That the scheme didn't match with the personnel 'cause we tried to force something on players that did not have the skill set to fit the scheme.

1. As far as the scheme is concerned, it remained for the coaches to get it through to the players, to sell them on the ideas!
As I remember reading "Landry Boys", the first 3-4 years, he had the hardest of time selling the 4-3 flex to many of his players.
A few grasped it early; others took a year or two, or three.
A few never liked it, even after they had had quite a bit of success with it.

"The player on the defensive line openly rebelled when they were shown Landry's defensive system".

Jack Patera, a LB who joined the Cowboys in 1960 (with 5 yrs of NFL experience), recounted:
"Remember, a lot of these players didn't know a whole lot more than their own position. It amazed me how many of these people just didn't know. They entered the situation and criticized it without understanding the overall program."

........

So, even if Smith was a poor salesman, he wouldn't be the first!

And he wouldn't be the only bad coach out there; Landry had proved that! http://www.texanstalk.com/forums/images/icons/icon12.gif

2. It would be Ricky's fault for not finding the right players for Richard if that was the case!


I won't disagree on the possibility of Richard Smith being a bad salesman, but a reason he could not sell it was because he was selling flawed product.

BTW, here a quote from Kubiaks press conference

http://www.houstontexans.com/news/Story.asp?story_id=5397

(on the differences between last year and this year's defense under Frank Bush) "I think it is early to sit here and start to put all these stamps on it. I think what we have to do is to go teach a base. Frank Bush has got to teach his base, which he did in the off-season so he starts again. We have to develop an identity on defense. We've got a lot of new faces. (DE) Antonio Smith, getting (LB Brian) Cushing who's been a starter since the day he's walked in this room, adding (DT)Shaun Cody, players like that and how (DE) Connor Barwin and fits in. I think our defense has got to find an identity. We have played a lot of football players on defense in the past few years compared to what we've done offensively. I think us locking in on the 11 that are going to make us as good as we can be is the most important thing."




I think we have reached to point where nothing is being gained. My overall position is more centrist than you are arguing against, and like the 2nd point here, you claim to be refuting but supporting with different words and examples than I would use.

76Texan
07-31-2009, 02:06 PM
I won't disagree on the possibility of Richard Smith being a bad salesman, but a reason he could not sell it was because he was selling flawed product.

BTW, here a quote from Kubiaks press conference

http://www.houstontexans.com/news/Story.asp?story_id=5397




I think we have reached to point where nothing is being gained. My overall position is more centrist than you are arguing against, and like the 2nd point here, you claim to be refuting but supporting with different words and examples than I would use.
I only refute bits of certain parts.

We both know that it takes 3.

But you first stated that we didn't have a clear scheme.
I said we did.
Then you said the scheme was flawed.
But I have said it wasn't. It worked well when the players complete their assignments (let's not get too deep by nitpicking, the results in the games that have Adibi starting already demonstrate that the scheme work!
Or the 07 games when we had Jason Simmons in there!)

As for Kubiak's quote, I've read it already.
I think you're trying to read a little outside the lines! http://www.texanstalk.com/forums/images/icons/icon7.gif

No matter what, Bush is our new DC. He has a few ideas to further expanding the scheme, with the new acquisitions, we're are supposed to be stronger defensively, and therefore (as I've said before) we should be able to play more agressively.
Every year, the coaches have to revise their plan to fit with the personnel.
Then going thru TC, they would start to see what they can do with certain grouping. They may scratch out something, they may add something, depending on how they see the players perform certain tasks in certain situations.
It's simply standard procedures for every team.

Unless you have a veteran team with only 2 or 3 new faces that would figure in the rotation. The DC then would have less "figuring out" to do.

I hope I didn't make it more fuzzy! :)

I always love to talk football.
There's always something to gain.
Usually, I would go back later and re-read what "the other person" wrote to make sure I understand his/her position more clearly.

See, that's gaining already! :shades: