• Welcome to BGO! We know you will have questions as you become familiar with the software. Please take a moment to read our New BGO User Guide which will give you a great start. If you have questions, post them in the Feedback and Tech Support Forum, or feel free to message any available Staff Member.

The one thing I hope many of you learn from this preseason so far


Nov 17, 2010
Reaction score
I live in the warmest city in the coldest provinc
Alma Mater
is that a 3-4 defence works when you have 3-4 players or at least players who are suited to the scheme. Bowen has never been a superstar, neither has Cofield or Carriker (except in college) but even so all are massive upgrades over what we had last year (Carriker looks better and leaner as well) Last year Carriker was decent but watching our defence is not a complete waste anymore as the front 7 looks somewhat competent. Our linebacking corps still needs work and we do still need a beast NT but even so, anyone who hasnt seen the difference between having solid 3-4 linemen and having none, probably shouldnt ever argue with me about defence again. night and day, and we still have spots who need upgrading. its only preseason so it means nothing but if they maintain this level? it was still a mistake, but at least its being rectified.
What did you think of the 3 man rush on 3rd and long?
well, obviously the pass rushers are going to be Orakpo and Kerrigan with the added spice of Landry coming up for an all out push.

of the down players Bowen seems to have real ability to get a rush from the outside in the 3-4. I am really surprised the Cowboys chose to dally around with Cullen Jenkins and didn't simply go to lock up Bowen to a multi-year deal.
I was impressed that we actually got some pressure, but unimpressed that we would ever rush 3 outside of prevent.

Honestly we need a stronger nosetackle against the run, and im worried that without anyone pushing him and platooning, that Carriker will not be as strong.
I don't think the argument was about the merits of having the right people in place. It was the timing of the switch, and whether it should have been done given the personnel on the team. Those who did not have a problem with the change understood it was a multi-year project and griping about lack of proper personel was pointless. We understood the offense was also a multi year project. There is obviously more needed on both sides, but given how this offseason went, I think we can feel a bit of comfort that it's heading in the right direction. Now whether or not Haslett can get the job done, even with proper personnel is another question altogether.
Steven, thats the entire point, one can argue that building an offence is a multi year deal, there are several things that you need to have in place, it is not the same with defence, defence is far more specialised when it comes to skillsets, so yes the entire argument was why make a switch when not only do you not have the pieces in place but you actually only had one piece lol. how many returning starters in the front seven? I count 3 fletch, Carriker and Rak. bottom line, you dont switch unless you have the foundation to do so, we are still going to be bad on defence, the combo of haslett and still a lot of young guys learning is a bad combo, we just wont be 31st in the league bad, probably more like 25th.
But, as is the case, when the organization decides a particular scheme is superior, you make the change and build the foundation. There was no interim period in which this team was going to be competitive while making the transisiton. The offense was not going to be competitive. So you take that time and retool. In the end, the team was destined to be sub par for a few more years. Whether or not the defense was above average while the offense rebuilt is largely irrelevant. There was no point in holding the status quo.
Steven, if we had approached this as a complete rebuild I would most likely agree, even though the reasoning behind this switch was extremely flawed.

There are 2 major problems I had with this switch.

the first was that our offence was going to require a massive infusion of resources, if Shanny had traded aging vets for youth across the board right off the hop, I would have been less irked with the move.

the second was that 3-4 schemes are not inherently better or worse, thats a fallacy believed only by non defencive coaches. scheme is far more important than alignment and when you have talent built for one scheme very rarely is it suited for another, especially when you lack depth at the 2 key spots DT and LB, and you have depth at the one spot that doesnt need depth as it becomes redendant (de) you have to shake your head. you make changes to get better, its that simple.
Ryman, I totally don't understand what you're trying to say.

I think everyone agrees that in order to run a 3-4 you need different player types, i.e. players with different skills and size/speed combos, then a 4-3. I think when we've talked about this in the past, we've all been saying it takes a couple years to make the transition to a 4-3 because you need to spend a couple years gathering those players, to overturn your roster.

So, I don't know what your trying to say now. :confused:
The loss of Jenkins is going to hurt the anticipated improvement in the front of the 3-4.

But this year's team is better built on that side of the ball to run the scheme.

Because few players come out of college with 3-4 experience you have to project, and at spots like NT and OLB it takes time for guys to fit their roles.

I don't necessarily have a problem with Cofield but I would have preferred to have seen a guy like Kelly Gregg brought in with that vet experience as part of a rotation.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device
Tsf I am saying that the majority of 3-4 supporters reasoning is flawed, in fact it does not take " a couple seasons" to change defences and when it does it means it was a fail. that in order run any scheme you should have a majority of players in place. Its ok to project players, but you had better have experienced people doing it. I would have liked Gregg as well but I also think Cofield can play end in a good 3-4 scheme, once we find a nt and play nt in a rotation where he would be the rush NT.
I was impressed that we actually got some pressure, but unimpressed that we would ever rush 3 outside of prevent.

Honestly we need a stronger nosetackle against the run, and im worried that without anyone pushing him and platooning, that Carriker will not be as strong.
I am hoping we are able to pick up a backup 3-4 DE to push/relieve Carriker now that Jenkins is on IR. When roster cutdowns happen today/tomorrow, we'll probably be able to find some of those guys (as well as possibly some stop-gap backup OL).
Ryman, you keep saying if it takes more than 2 games to improve drastically upon switching that the 3-4 is a fail - what if Jenkins returns next season, we draft one or two more key pieces, and the defense becomes a top 10 unit? Would you still consider it a fail?
I didnt say anything about 2 games Lanky, please dont put words in my mouth, I make strong enough statements without someoen doing that for me. even if this defence becomes a top 10 defence next year the change was still a fail as for at least 2 season it was pathetic. anyone could build a decent defence in 3 seasons, and if they dont make it at least a top 5 defence by year 3, its an epic fail. especially when they have invested some serious resources.

Mike, please dont feed me a turd sandwich and then ask me to say something nice about the texture, a mistake is a mistake, it doesnt matter if we are stuck with it or not.
I wish we could put this whole argument to bed. From my point of view, this team has not had a "great" defense is years, maybe a couple of decades and the change over from one to the other didn't hurt us all that much.

Let's face it, we have not had great takeaway numbers (the top mark of great defense, in my opinion) in a long time and more often than not, when it really, really had to get a stop late in a game, it failed. Just like great offenses convert that last crucial 3rd down, great defenses get that last must-have 3 and out. It has been years since any Skins could honestly say with any confidence that with the game on the line they really believed our defense would do that.

So 4-3 or 3-4 this unit has something to prove.
Not worried about the DL - it looks good and solid. Not worried about the LBs - they look great and have a lot of depth.

Got minor concerns for safety (Landry), but I think they will be ok. Gomes is someone who can really step up.

Don't have too many concerns at CB, but DHall needs to stop taking dangerous chances - he can make things happen with the right amount of discipline.

Did I learn enough? :)
Don't have too many concerns at CB, but DHall needs to stop taking dangerous chances - he can make things happen with the right amount of discipline.

Do you think the presense of Atogwe at FS may allow D Hall to take more chances at CB?

Reason I ask is that Hall is at his best when taking chances. He had a few INTs last year and, as everyone knows, these are game-changers. I would like to think thats why the coaches keep him around and that they are aware of the shortcomings that are associated with the chances he takes.
If the powers that be think that the 3-4 is the defense they want to run long term, what were they supposed to do? Start collecting the pieces needed and have those players run a 4-3 until there are enough in place to make the switch?

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Help Users
As we enjoy today's conversations, let's remember our dear friends 'Docsandy', Sandy Zier-Teitler, and 'Posse Lover', Michael Huffman, who would dearly love to be here with us today! We love and miss you guys ❤

You haven't joined any rooms.

    You haven't joined any rooms.