nuklz2594 Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 The Tampa Bay Yuccaneers are dropping the defense named after them. For the life of me I can't understand why we stopped using the 3-4 defense. It only helped get us to multiple Super Bowls. I miss the days of Ted Washington clogging up the middle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H2o Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 The 3-4 is the "hot" defense right now, but it's not like it's brand new. It's just a shift in the same way that everyone went back to a 4-3. If we had a coach that could run a 4-3 like Jim Johnson in Philly or Spags did in NY we would have no complaints here. We need the right personel and a creative coach who's going to get after the opposing offense in a variety of ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 Because winning isn't about the scheme, its about having the coaches to teach it and use it correctly, and having the right players who are talented at what the scheme needs. Just switching back to a 3-4 defence isn't going to make the defence better. It would take a couple years to compile the proper players and a new coaching staff to run it cause the current guys specialty is the 'Cover 2' defence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrobot Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 We could continue to suck at pass rush and call it the Cover 0... Anyway, switching to the 3-4 doesn't make sense with our current personnel. Our 4 best defensive linemen (much less 3)can't generate the holes that 4 linemen can attack through. Plus we have 2 NFL-caliber LB's, not 4. That will change in the draft so that we have 3, but unless there is a miracle healing and Bowen comes back better than his college days, we won't have 4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLZFAN4LIFE Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 I suppose that it's very beneficial for Trent Edwards to go through training camp and the regular season practicing against a soft coverage defense which he will never face on Sundays. But, then again, that's a decision that is made by the same mastermind that keeps the Bills practices indoors if there's the slightest chill in the air. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max997 Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 the Tamp / Cover 2 is a wuss defense that is the definition of coaching not to lose...it counts on the offense not being able to put consistant drives togther which might work against bad teams but we all know what happens when they face a good offense like the Pats yes the Colts won the super bowl with it but they play a more aggressive style when Bob Sanders is in the lineup then when he isnt and its not like their defense is why they won since they ranked near the bottom of the league all year long and just happened to have one of the best offenses of the past decade...the Colts probably would have won a few more super bowls with a better defense the Bucs won it with an all around good defense with solid players at each position and a better then average defensive line but its no coincidence that they didnt win the super bowl until they got more production out of their offense the fact is its not an aggressive defense and when you look at most of the super bowl champs they usually play more aggressive on defense and dont just sit back in a cover 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Rev.Mattb74 ESQ. Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 While I agree that scheme requires talent and coaching, I do feel the sun has set on the "Tampa Two." Formations and schemes die, no one runs the option anymore, and full house backfields are generally short yardage deals. Sure the Dolhins made a small comeback with the wildcat, but does anyone really expect that to be ran more then a few times a game. We need a more aggressive defence, and yes we need better coaching and talent this is rock bottom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lets_go_bills Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 The Tampa Bay Yuccaneers are dropping the defense named after them. For the life of me I can't understand why we stopped using the 3-4 defense. It only helped get us to multiple Super Bowls. I miss the days of Ted Washington clogging up the middle. We stopped using the 3-4 because the NFL is a copy-cat league and the 3-4 was not the "cool" defense. So when Greggo took over, he implemented the defensive scheme he coached in Tennessee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virgil Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 This switch is just a response to the offenses being run in the league. The NFL has become more of a passing league, even on 3rd and 1. Teams are using more of a speed, tandem style of running game which allows teams to counter with more speedy LBs spread out. These kind of transitions happen every few years. Trust me, all it's gonna take is for a power run team to start tearing up these 3-4 teams and you'll see a shift back to more of a 4-6, then 4-3. It's the NFL circle of life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
generaLee83 Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 This switch is just a response to the offenses being run in the league. The NFL has become more of a passing league, even on 3rd and 1. Teams are using more of a speed, tandem style of running game which allows teams to counter with more speedy LBs spread out. These kind of transitions happen every few years. Trust me, all it's gonna take is for a power run team to start tearing up these 3-4 teams and you'll see a shift back to more of a 4-6, then 4-3. It's the NFL circle of life Spot on. I still think the cover-2 is weak though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 It's not so much the scheme that is the problem, it is the players we use to try to execute the scheme. Just in the last 10 years alone, three teams that use this same defense have made the Superbowl; Chicago, Colts and Buccaneers. It works, but the one common denominator that all three of these teams had was... thats right Pass Rush Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewildrabbit Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 It's not so much the scheme that is the problem, it is the players we use to try to execute the scheme. Just in the last 10 years alone, three teams that use this same defense have made the Superbowl; Chicago, Colts and Buccaneers. It works, but the one common denominator that all three of these teams had was... thats right....GREAT PLAYERS AT KEY POSITIONS and a Pass Rush corrected Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewildrabbit Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 It was clear to me that Bob Sanders made the difference on that colts SB team,without him they were so very horrid against the run and no way were they going to win a playoff game,with him they win a super bowl. Let's not forget the Colts also had Payton Manning as their QB and even that offense wasn't enough to overcome the failure of that defense without Bob Sanders So you tell me,do the Bills have a Bob Sanders? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max997 Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 It's not so much the scheme that is the problem, it is the players we use to try to execute the scheme. i do agree having a defense full of good players will make any scheme look good but you cant say the scheme doesnt matter Jaurons scheme almost always has the CB's about 10 yards off the line of scrimmage and will always give up the quick slants if its executed properly no matter how good the CB's are...teams know its always there thats why they always call slants against the Bills on key plays and the good teams execute and keep drives going Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PISSCHUNK Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 We could continue to suck at pass rush and call it the Cover 0... Anyway, switching to the 3-4 doesn't make sense with our current personnel. Our 4 best defensive linemen (much less 3)can't generate the holes that 4 linemen can attack through. Plus we have 2 NFL-caliber LB's, not 4. That will change in the draft so that we have 3, but unless there is a miracle healing and Bowen comes back better than his college days, we won't have 4. Astro, Your mock kicks mucho butt! If we could that off, we would be on our way! Late Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazyDingo Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 If we switched schemes that didn't work after a half-dozen seasons, if we kept hiring new coaches and coordinators after 3 or four years of embarrassing losses, if we cut loose all the players who underachieved and flat-out sucked, do you know how upside-down this team would be from its current form? Russ Brandon would not stand a chance in that topsey-turvey win-this-decade environment. We don't need no fresh ideas and faces wreckin' our continuity. Get lost, malcontent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLZFAN4LIFE Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 If we switched schemes that didn't work after a half-dozen seasons, if we kept hiring new coaches and coordinators after 3 or four years of embarrassing losses, if we cut loose all the players who underachieved and flat-out sucked, do you know how upside-down this team would be from its current form? Russ Brandon would not stand a chance in that topsey-turvey win-this-decade environment. We don't need no fresh ideas and faces wreckin' our continuity. Get lost, malcontent. That just ended my night with a good laugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Fong Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 The Tampa Bay Yuccaneers are dropping the defense named after them. For the life of me I can't understand why we stopped using the 3-4 defense. It only helped get us to multiple Super Bowls. I miss the days of Ted Washington clogging up the middle. Might I remind you that the Bills lost all four of those Super Bowls. Two of the three teams they lost to played the 4-3. Watching those Super Bowls gives you a classic example of the weakness that is inherent in the 3-4 scheme. If you don't have a great NT you are susceptible to a power running game. Ted Washington was just as effective in a 4-3 scheme in Chicago as he was in Ted Cottrell's 3-4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Biscuit97 Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 In theory if everyone is switching to a 3-4, it should make the Cover 2 that much tougher to game plan for and give us an advantage. And the key to any good defense is flexibility. Just because you're a base cover 2, doesn't mean you can use other looks. I loved in 2007 when Fewell and company came up with the Creep. We need more of that this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Part of the reason the 3 - 4 has been so effective is that not many teams have been running it. The 3 - 4 requires unusual types of players (a very heavy nose tackle and very big DEs and an extremely fast pass-rushing LB who could be a "tweener" type of player who was useless to most defenses but could be a star in the 4 - 3. Since few teams were running it, almost nobody was going after those very athletic tweeners who weren't big enough to be traditional DTs. The 3 - 4 teams had a free shot at those tweeners, who could become their best players. Nobody was going after those big DEs, because they weren't all that terrific at rushing the passer, so especially the LDEs were easy to get. Now that there are many teams running the 3 - 4, those players are in high demand and the players for more traditional 4 - 3 schemes will become easier to get because of the lack of competition. In some ways, it is much better to run the unpopular defense. It's easier to get players and coaches spend more of their time planning to attack the popular defenses than the unpopular ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKOOBY Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Because winning isn't about the scheme, its about having the coaches to teach it and use it correctly, and having the right players who are talented at what the scheme needs. Just switching back to a 3-4 defence isn't going to make the defence better. It would take a couple years to compile the proper players and a new coaching staff to run it cause the current guys specialty is the 'Cover 2' defence. Without the proper talent, you have nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts