Results 1 to 20 of 341

Thread: The Defense - Again, the Defense :(

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Quote Originally Posted by wist43 View Post
    It's an Elephant - an Elephant is not a 4-3. Period. Dallas ran the Elephant with Demarcus Ware standing up most of the time - they were always listed as a 3-4... where this nonsense about 3 down linemen actually being 4 came from I can't begin to fathom. 3 is actully 4, is actually 5, is actually 3... don't look now, but here comes the donut-ham-hamburger!!

    Do you work for the government max?? 2+2=5 when it is handed to you by Big Brother??

    As for New England - their defense has sucked for a while now... almost as epicly bad as ours.
    I don't know why you are trying to argue with me. Clearly your beef is with Pete Carroll who insists his 4-3 with a standing end is a 4-3 with 3-4 personnel. You must have missed the talking points email.
    Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.

  2. #2
    No scheme works without solid execution. On the other hand, there are plenty of different schemes that work with good execution.

    Why we spend pages of posts about differences in schemes and what they should be called is beyond me. It may be coaching, but IMO it is poor execution that is the main problem.

  3. #3
    Skeptical Rat HOFer wist43's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    11,777
    Quote Originally Posted by sharpe1027 View Post
    No scheme works without solid execution. On the other hand, there are plenty of different schemes that work with good execution.

    Why we spend pages of posts about differences in schemes and what they should be called is beyond me. It may be coaching, but IMO it is poor execution that is the main problem.
    The point about the 2-4 is we don't have the personnel to run it - so the coaching staff is asking them to execute an alignment for which they are completely ill-suited. That is lousy coaching.

    The same applies to one of the supposed fixes dunderdummy and MM dreamed up - the 2-5. We have terrible ILB's, yet the coaching staff refuse to acknowledge that. Instead, they dream up a scheme that keeps those poor players on the field full-time. That is lousy coaching.

    TT has done a horrible job of acquiring players that fit the style of play that Capers wants; and at the same time, Capers has done a terrible job of using the talent that TT has acquired. As I've been saying for a few years now - there is a complete disconnect between the GM and the coaching staff, and we can see the mess on the field.

    On the other side of the ledger, in the world were 2+2=4; they've incorporated the Elephant, which for my money is a 3-4 that uses 4-3 principles; and they've been using more base 3-4, even though it is not a standard 3-4, as it uses 4-3 principles as well. So they have adjusted a little bit from last seasons endless debacles.

    The Elephant is progress... a step in the right direction. Any 4-3 they throw out there is progress; and playing some actual 3-4 is progress - even though now we don't have the personnel to run a base 3-4 any longer. As long as it is a base 3-4 that uses 4-3 principles, we can get by with it, but it is not ideal given the players we have.

    Now that we have 2 games under our belt to see what the dummies at 1265 have been up to this offseason, I can envision a middle of the pack finish in defense - don't think that's good enough to get past the good teams in the playoffs. Dunderdummy still wants to play as small as possible; our ILB's are still complete junk... the bottom line is, dunderdummy is still our DC - that alone is too much to overcome to get back to the SB.
    wist

  4. #4
    Skeptical Rat HOFer wist43's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    11,777
    Quote Originally Posted by pbmax View Post
    I don't know why you are trying to argue with me. Clearly your beef is with Pete Carroll who insists his 4-3 with a standing end is a 4-3 with 3-4 personnel. You must have missed the talking points email.
    I live in a world where everyone accepts that 2+2=5... I gotta the memo, I just rejected it as being idiotic. The rest of you robots say, "... of course 2+2=5, and anyone who doesn't agree is a heretic".
    wist

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by wist43 View Post
    I live in a world where everyone accepts that 2+2=5... I gotta the memo, I just rejected it as being idiotic. The rest of you robots say, "... of course 2+2=5, and anyone who doesn't agree is a heretic".
    I live in the world where if the coach of the defense to which you are contrasting the object of your ire tells you its a 4-3 with 3-4 personnel and three or more people have spotted the fourth lineman in a two point stance, then you concede that the following statement:

    Quote Originally Posted by wist43 View Post
    Pete Carroll said the Seahawks run a 4-3 with 3-4 principles... define the principles however you want, at least he's telling the truth about the alignment b/c he always has 4 DL with their hand in the dirt.
    is incorrect. Twice over.

    Far more interesting is why is Capers still running a 3-4 with two standing OLBs rather than the 4-3 all the time? I presume its to get Matthews back on the LOS, but I would like to know more.
    Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.

  6. #6
    Skeptical Rat HOFer wist43's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    11,777
    Quote Originally Posted by pbmax View Post
    I live in the world where if the coach of the defense to which you are contrasting the object of your ire tells you its a 4-3 with 3-4 personnel and three or more people have spotted the fourth lineman in a two point stance, then you concede that the following statement:



    is incorrect. Twice over.

    Far more interesting is why is Capers still running a 3-4 with two standing OLBs rather than the 4-3 all the time? I presume its to get Matthews back on the LOS, but I would like to know more.
    I'm done with you on this subject max - you are just being obtuse.
    wist

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by wist43 View Post
    I'm done with you on this subject max - you are just being obtuse.
    Not at all. We just need to get past the idea that a Defensive lineman must also be a Down lineman. A down lineman is not as important a distinction in a defense as a lineman having LOS responsibilities.

    And that standing elephant is clearly playing a D lineman's role.

    Second better question, why are they never in a 3 point stance across the board. Why that technique?
    Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by wist43 View Post
    I live in a world where everyone accepts that 2+2=5... I gotta the memo, I just rejected it as being idiotic. The rest of you robots say, "... of course 2+2=5, and anyone who doesn't agree is a heretic".
    Everyone is against you. You see the light and everyone else is in the dark. Lead us to salvation!

  9. #9
    Drowned Rat HOFer denverYooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    10,573
    Quote Originally Posted by wist43 View Post
    I live in a world where everyone accepts that 2+2=5... I gotta the memo, I just rejected it as being idiotic. The rest of you robots say, "... of course 2+2=5, and anyone who doesn't agree is a heretic".
    You clearly never understood algebra.
    When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro ~Hunter S.

  10. #10
    Skeptical Rat HOFer wist43's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    11,777
    Quote Originally Posted by denverYooper View Post
    You clearly never understood algebra.
    Well, since I have a degree in chemistry... I think I have a handle on math - it's living in Orwellian Amerika I have serious issues with
    wist

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by wist43 View Post
    I live in a world where everyone accepts that 2+2=5... I gotta the memo, I just rejected it as being idiotic. The rest of you robots say, "... of course 2+2=5, and anyone who doesn't agree is a heretic".
    It may be better than saying 2 + 2 = 3.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •