PDA

View Full Version : Chiefs Babb: No more equivocating: The Chiefs will run a 3-4 defense...


DaWolf
05-07-2009, 11:50 PM
No more equivocating: The Chiefs will run a 3-4 defense (http://www.kansascity.com/sports/story/1185217.html)
By KENT BABB
The Kansas City Star

With more than three months of comfort and a few more significant pieces added to the Chiefs’ puzzle, Kansas City can now make it official: The Chiefs plan to run some version of the 3-4 defense in 2009.

“We’re going to try variations of it,” coach Todd Haley said Thursday. “We’re not going to force square pegs in round holes.”

In the wake of the NFL draft two weeks ago, the Chiefs possess a few more of the round pegs that Haley had hoped for when he was chosen in February as Herm Edwards’ replacement. Haley noticed at the time that the Chiefs’ defense clearly had been built in past seasons with the 4-3 in mind. Haley said Thursday that he envisioned transitioning the Chiefs to a 3-4 team, but there was work to be done — and the team has only begun to mark things off its to-do list — before Kansas City could so much as say it might be shifting to the NFL’s most fashionable defensive scheme.

And for months, no one did say that was the plan. There were hints, sure, and evidence such as the hiring of Clancy Pendergast, who oversaw the 3-4 defense in Arizona, as the Chiefs’ coordinator.

Now, first-round defensive end Tyson Jackson and third-round defensive lineman Alex Magee are in the house, and Haley said they should make his plan a little more realistic. Coaches will get their first in-house looks at the Chiefs’ newcomers today when the team begins a three-day rookie minicamp, and Haley said that’s the first real opportunity to measure players the way he wants and make certain they’ll fit into the scheme he wants to run.

“Until you get them here up close and kind of coaching them and getting after them a little bit and seeing how they respond — yeah, it isn’t really real until they’re doing that,” Haley said.

“Every day and every minute that they’re around us, they’re being evaluated. Now they’re here. Now they’re ours, and the true evaluation starts.”

Haley said the Chiefs still cannot declare that the 3-4 will be the team’s exclusive scheme. Haley might like it to be, but with most of the remaining defensive personnel having been drafted or acquired with a four-man front in mind, that requires the Chiefs to ease into the scheme and be creative in how it makes that change.

“There are some variations that make it a little easier to transition into this thing,” he said. “I knew right away it was going to be a process. You can’t just say: ‘We’re going to do this.’ ”

That’s what Haley might have wanted to do, anyway. He knows as a former offensive coordinator how difficult it is to find cracks in the 3-4. Not that he hasn’t tried. He was with his mentor, Bill Parcells, in Dallas for two years, and he was on the Arizona sideline the last two seasons as Ken Whisenhunt thrived with the 3-4 and led the Cardinals to last year’s Super Bowl.

Haley said he learned from the frustrations of having to find ways to solve the four-linebacker defense that, sure enough, it is an effective scheme that has given its share of headaches to offensive coordinators over the years.

“It’s always been a little more difficult to prepare for,” Haley said. “I kind of come from those trees. That’s what I know.”

It doesn’t hurt that New England and Pittsburgh prefer the 3-4 and that they have combined to win five Super Bowls since 2001. It’s a good model, but Haley said the Chiefs have work to do before they can feel comfortable running the defense the coach envisioned, let alone before Kansas City can claim to be on par with the NFL’s elite.

At least now, Haley said, the Chiefs are in better position to take the next step toward running his preferred defense. And after all those months of pro days and combine workouts and film study, Haley can see the conduits of that next step finally coming to play at his house.

T-post Tom
05-07-2009, 11:57 PM
“I kind of come from those trees. That’s what I know.”


Again with the trees. :D

FAX
05-08-2009, 12:22 AM
Umm. I thought we knew that already.

FAX

wild1
05-08-2009, 12:24 AM
Was there ever any question?

T-post Tom
05-08-2009, 12:25 AM
Umm. I thought we knew that already.

FAX


Well...sort of... See, we were still equivocating prior to this article. Now we're not equivocating. :D

FAX
05-08-2009, 12:29 AM
Well, I'm still equivocating. And, by God, I'll keep on equivocating until my equiver quota is quenched.

FAX

BigRock
05-08-2009, 12:52 AM
Don't miss the shocking expose "The Chiefs will throw the ball downfield" by Kent Babb in Sunday's edition of the Star.

bdeg
05-08-2009, 12:57 AM
there's speculation we'll run what pendergast ran last year in az

i think he disagrees

T-post Tom
05-08-2009, 12:58 AM
Well, I'm still equivocating. And, by God, I'll keep on equivocating until my equiver quota is quenched.

FAX

fine by me. not sure how mr. babb is going to respond though...

58kcfan89
05-08-2009, 01:09 AM
We already knew they were going to run a 3-4, the question was what variations of it were they going to throw in there? Great investigative piece there, Babb.

Saccopoo
05-08-2009, 01:28 AM
Well, I'm still equivocating. And, by God, I'll keep on equivocating until my equiver quota is quenched.

FAX

15 yard penalty for astounding alliteration abuse.

DaneMcCloud
05-08-2009, 02:13 AM
He was with his mentor, Bill Parcells, in Dallas for two years, and he was on the Arizona sideline the last two seasons as Ken Whisenhunt thrived with the 3-4 and led the Cardinals to last year’s Super Bowl.



Thrived? Thrived?

The Arizona Cardinals defense was 19th in total yards and 26th in points allowed.

26th.

Babb needs to do his fucking homework.

Oh yeah, one more thing: Pendergast was FIRED from that "thriving" defense.

bdeg
05-08-2009, 02:16 AM
according to cards fans he was fired because whisenhunt wants to install a more traditional 3-4

DaneMcCloud
05-08-2009, 02:20 AM
according to cards fans he was fired because whisenhunt wants to install a more traditional 3-4

I don't think so.

If that team had a defense in the top half of the league, they would have won the Super Bowl.

And it's not about the players, because their roster is loaded with day one players.

DaKCMan AP
05-08-2009, 07:05 AM
I don't think so.

If that team had a defense in the top half of the league, they would have won the Super Bowl.

And it's not about the players, because their roster is loaded with day one players.

If that team hadn't thrown a pick-6 from inside the opponent's 5 yd line before half time, they would have won the Super Bowl.

the Talking Can
05-08-2009, 07:54 AM
Haley can see the conduits of that next step finally coming to play at his house

wtf?

pure gibberish...did claythan write this?

htismaqe
05-08-2009, 08:00 AM
according to cards fans he was fired because whisenhunt wants to install a more traditional 3-4

THIS

htismaqe
05-08-2009, 08:00 AM
If that team hadn't thrown a pick-6 from inside the opponent's 5 yd line before half time, they would have won the Super Bowl.

THIS

hishighness
05-08-2009, 08:03 AM
wtf?

pure gibberish...did claythan write this?It's like that scene from the Simpsons where they go to Austrailia, the sign says "Yahoo Serious Festival" and Lisa goes "I know those words but that sign doesn't make any sense."

TheGuardian
05-08-2009, 09:14 AM
Whiz did in fact fire clancy because he wants to run a traditional 3-4.

Just like I said from day 1, this team will not run a traditional 2 gap 3-4 scheme. It will be a blend/hybrid whatever term you want to use. Just like what Clancy ran last year with the Cards.

And people are still overrating the Cards defensive talent. Loaded with day 1 talent?

Well that depends on what you call "day 1". Is that day 1 now or a few years ago? Either way their lineup is...

Darnell Dockett - 3rd rounder
Gerald Hayes - 4th rounder
Antonio Smith (left for Houston) - 5th rounder

Arguably their best player, Adrian Wilson, was a 4th rounder.

Okeafor was with the 49ers then the Seahawks.

Karlos Dansby was a 2nd rounder. The only first rounder that they drafted that started for them last year was Rogers-Cromartie.

So basically anyone talking up how loaded the Cards are on defensive talent is full of crap.

Detoxing
05-08-2009, 09:30 AM
Whiz did in fact fire clancy because he wants to run a traditional 3-4.

Just like I said from day 1, this team will not run a traditional 2 gap 3-4 scheme. It will be a blend/hybrid whatever term you want to use. Just like what Clancy ran last year with the Cards.

And people are still overrating the Cards defensive talent. Loaded with day 1 talent?

Well that depends on what you call "day 1". Is that day 1 now or a few years ago? Either way their lineup is...

Darnell Dockett - 3rd rounder
Gerald Hayes - 4th rounder
Antonio Smith (left for Houston) - 5th rounder

Arguably their best player, Adrian Wilson, was a 4th rounder.

Okeafor was with the 49ers then the Seahawks.

Karlos Dansby was a 2nd rounder. The only first rounder that they drafted that started for them last year was Rogers-Cromartie.

So basically anyone talking up how loaded the Cards are on defensive talent is full of crap.

First day talent. Before this past draft, first day went up to round 3.so yes, dansby is 1st rnd talent, as is dockett, okeafor, cromartie, rolle and wasn't laboy an early rounder as well?
Posted via Mobile Device

TheGuardian
05-08-2009, 09:37 AM
First day talent. Before this past draft, first day went up to round 3.so yes, dansby is 1st rnd talent, as is dockett, okeafor, cromartie, rolle and wasn't laboy an early rounder as well?
Posted via Mobile Device

Oh so now you're going by how good they have become instead of where they were drafted????

You said they were loaded with first day talent. They aren't. They are a mix of guys both from free agency and their own drafts, which most of the starters were taken from the 2nd to 5th rounds. The Cards aren't "loaded with defensive talent". They have three pro bowlers, only one of which ever made the pro bowl before last year.

kcbubb
05-08-2009, 09:41 AM
Was there ever any question?

I think the question was with the hybrid defense and the use of Dorsey. There are several types of 3-4 defenses. In the hybrid, Dorsey would play a similar role that Dockett played for the Cards. The under tackle or 3 technique.

That's not going to happen with Dorsey here. They may use him that way occasionally, but the base defense will be a pure 2 gap 3-4.

There is also a 1 gap 3-4 that Dallas primarily uses. NE uses a 2 gap 3-4. And Pioli wants to install that here.

Dorsey will play over the OT on the TE side and will not be a penetrater in the base defense. He will have 2 gaps that he is responsible for (B & C), so he won't be able to penetrate unless it is an obvious pass and the OT slides out to block a blitzing OLB.

Tyson will play opposite the TE and will also have 2 gap responsibility.

This should be GREAT for our ILBs. Thomas and DJ should do very well running around and making tackles. Both have a weakness of taking on blockers and this should free them up.

This should also help Hali. When he's blitzing from the outside, the OT that should block him will have a Dorsey or Jackson lining up right in front of him. If the OT goes directly to the OLB to pass block, he puts the G in a tough spot to reach for the DE to block him.

JASONSAUTO
05-08-2009, 09:43 AM
Oh so now you're going by how good they have become instead of where they were drafted????

You said they were loaded with first day talent. They aren't. They are a mix of guys both from free agency and their own drafts, which most of the starters were taken from the 2nd to 5th rounds. The Cards aren't "loaded with defensive talent". They have three pro bowlers, only one of which ever made the pro bowl before last year.

so you're saying that even before clancy was there these GREAT defensive players on the cards never made many probowls, or lived up to their first day talent prospects???

JASONSAUTO
05-08-2009, 09:44 AM
This should also help Hali. When he's blitzing from the outside, the OT that should block him will have a Dorsey or Jackson lining up right in front of him. If the OT goes directly to the OLB to pass block, he puts the G in a tough spot to reach for the DE to block him.

so jackson ,in this scenario, should get some sacks?

Chiefnj2
05-08-2009, 09:45 AM
Whiz did in fact fire clancy because he wants to run a traditional 3-4.

Just like I said from day 1, this team will not run a traditional 2 gap 3-4 scheme. It will be a blend/hybrid whatever term you want to use. Just like what Clancy ran last year with the Cards.

.

Clancy's base defense was a 4-3 under, wasn't it? This article says the Chiefs will run a 3-4. It may be one gap, it may be 2 gap, but per the author it'll be a 3-4. That's not the exact same thing as a 4-3 under, is it?

TheGuardian
05-08-2009, 09:58 AM
Clancy's base defense was a 4-3 under, wasn't it? This article says the Chiefs will run a 3-4. It may be one gap, it may be 2 gap, but per the author it'll be a 3-4. That's not the exact same thing as a 4-3 under, is it?

The "4-3" under just uses a stand up defensive end a lot of the time. And thus, can be called a hybrid 3-4. That's a lot of what he ran.

kcbubb
05-08-2009, 10:04 AM
so jackson ,in this scenario, should get some sacks?

on obvious passing downs, all of the d-lineman have a good opportunity to get to the QB. that may sound crazy but look at the image I attached. this is a 2 gap 3-4.

The NT and DEs have 2 gaps and if they penetrated, they obviously would be picking a side and would not be able to maintain their responsibility of the other gap (if you penetrate to B gap as a DE, you can't cover the C gap).

But on obvious passing downs, the OT will slide out to block the blitzing OLB. The OT has to at least give a little push to the DE to give a little time for the G to slide over and help. This gives more time for the OLB to get to the QB. In the 4-3 it is pure one on one. This would give Hali a little more advantage as compared to last year.

Now(still on obvious passing downs), if the OT is not awesome, he may slide out to pass block the OLB to quickly because he is afraid he will get beaten, which would put the G in a tough spot because he has to slide out quickly to get Tyson Jackson or Dorsey. That gives Dorsey and Jackson a great advantage instead of getting a pure one on one. The guard is a little out of position to block him without help.

Now getting back to all the d-lineman having a better opportunity, that includes the NT, which will be Tank. If the G is thinking he will have to slide out to get the DE (Dorsey or Tyson) that will leave the NT one on one with the C or the double team will come late after the G sees that the OLB is not blitzing. If the OLB does not blitz, the OT is in position to block the DE one on one. Then the G can slide in and help the C block the NT, instead of sliding out to get the DE.

Most centers are smaller. and that gives a great advantage to Tank. if the double team comes late, he should have a good shot at getting penetration by pushing the center back into the QB.

Sorry for the essay, but I'm getting a little more excited about the Chiefs D. This defense should give the defense better angles against blockers and more confusion to the o-line so that they can get to the QB.

Mr. Krab
05-08-2009, 10:19 AM
THISTHIS
Well you are named appropriately.

SBK
05-08-2009, 10:20 AM
This is a Pulitzer esque groundbreaking article. Chiefs are going to run some version of a 3-4, who knew??

JASONSAUTO
05-08-2009, 10:21 AM
on obvious passing downs, all of the d-lineman have a good opportunity to get to the QB. that may sound crazy but look at the image I attached. this is a 2 gap 3-4.

The NT and DEs have 2 gaps and if they penetrated, they obviously would be picking a side and would not be able to maintain their responsibility of the other gap (if you penetrate to B gap as a DE, you can't cover the C gap).

But on obvious passing downs, the OT will slide out to block the blitzing OLB. The OT has to at least give a little push to the DE to give a little time for the G to slide over and help. This gives more time for the OLB to get to the QB. In the 4-3 it is pure one on one. This would give Hali a little more advantage as compared to last year.

Now(still on obvious passing downs), if the OT is not awesome, he may slide out to pass block the OLB to quickly because he is afraid he will get beaten, which would put the G in a tough spot because he has to slide out quickly to get Tyson Jackson or Dorsey. That gives Dorsey and Jackson a great advantage instead of getting a pure one on one. The guard is a little out of position to block him without help.

Now getting back to all the d-lineman having a better opportunity, that includes the NT, which will be Tank. If the G is thinking he will have to slide out to get the DE (Dorsey or Tyson) that will leave the NT one on one with the C or the double team will come late after the G sees that the OLB is not blitzing. If the OLB does not blitz, the OT is in position to block the DE one on one. Then the G can slide in and help the C block the NT, instead of sliding out to get the DE.

Most centers are smaller. and that gives a great advantage to Tank. if the double team comes late, he should have a good shot at getting penetration by pushing the center back into the QB.

Sorry for the essay, but I'm getting a little more excited about the Chiefs D. This defense should give the defense better angles against blockers and more confusion to the o-line so that they can get to the QB.

but jackson wont get many sacks, and i know this because chiefsplanet said so

kcbubb
05-08-2009, 10:29 AM
but jackson wont get many sacks, and i know this because chiefsplanet said so

he should get some. He will be in position to get some.

kcbubb
05-08-2009, 10:31 AM
This is a Pulitzer esque groundbreaking article. Chiefs are going to run some version of a 3-4, who knew??

I think that is the point. It is not going to be some version. It's not going to be the hybrid. It's going to be a base 2 gap 3-4. That's a totally different defense than the hybrid or 4-3 under with stand up end.

With everyone saying hybrid, it is news that they are going to be running the same D as the pats.

Mr. Krab
05-08-2009, 10:36 AM
I think that is the point. It is not going to be some version. It's not going to be the hybrid. It's going to be a base 2 gap 3-4. That's a totally different defense than the hybrid or 4-3 under with stand up end.

With everyone saying hybrid, it is news that they are going to be running the same D as the pats.
We don't really know this. How could we, unless you have a spy in Arrowhead?! :spock:

Coogs
05-08-2009, 10:40 AM
I think that is the point. It is not going to be some version. It's not going to be the hybrid. It's going to be a base 2 gap 3-4. That's a totally different defense than the hybrid or 4-3 under with stand up end.

With everyone saying hybrid, it is news that they are going to be running the same D as the pats.


The very first sentence of the article says "some version". I really don't care what it is. I have always liked watching the Steelers and Ravens play defense. As long as we are morphing into something that turns out like those two, I'm a happy camper.

TheGuardian
05-08-2009, 10:43 AM
I think that is the point. It is not going to be some version. It's not going to be the hybrid. It's going to be a base 2 gap 3-4. That's a totally different defense than the hybrid or 4-3 under with stand up end.

With everyone saying hybrid, it is news that they are going to be running the same D as the pats.

Where does the article in fact say that? Oh that's right, it doesn't. Epic fail.

kcbubb
05-08-2009, 10:47 AM
the hybrid is not referred to as the 3-4. it is referred to as the hybrid. if they run a version of the 3-4. they will run the pats version.

they have also said that Tyson will play to the open side. That puts Dorsey on the TE side. There is not an under tackle on the TE side. (Dockett plays the under tackle for the Cards in the hybrid and that position is on the open side.) that puts Dorsey at DE on the TE side.

The hybrid does not fit with Dorsey playing on the TE side. It has to be the pats 3-4.

You have to piece it together, but nothing else makes sense.

King_Chief_Fan
05-08-2009, 10:47 AM
And for months, no one did say that was the plan. There were hints, sure, and evidence such as the hiring of Clancy Pendergast, who oversaw the 3-4 defense in Arizona, as the Chiefs’ coordinator.


I don't care what they run but I am pretty concerned about who is running it. Clancy's defense were never highlighted from what I remember. It took him 5 years to get the defense up to a 19 ranking in the NFL. How long will it take him to goose the Chiefs up to that point coming out of a 29 ranking?

Mr. Krab
05-08-2009, 10:48 AM
the hybrid is not referred to as the 3-4. it is referred to as the hybrid. if they run a version of the 3-4. they will run the pats version.

they have also said that Tyson will play to the open side. That puts Dorsey on the TE side. There is not an under tackle on the TE side. that puts Dorsey at DE on the TE side.

The hybrid does not fit with Dorsey playing on the TE side. It has to be the pats 3-4.
Which are all fine thoughts and ideas but they are still just conjecture. We are gonna just have to wait and see.

el borracho
05-08-2009, 10:48 AM
"Haley noticed at the time that the Chiefs’ defense clearly had been built in past seasons with the 4-3 in mind. "

See? This is the kind of in-depth understanding that professional NFL head coaches bring to the organization that bulletin board posters probably wouldn't notice. Or else it is just crappy writing.

Chiefnj2
05-08-2009, 10:51 AM
the hybrid is not referred to as the 3-4. it is referred to as the hybrid. if they run a version of the 3-4. they will run the pats version.

they have also said that Tyson will play to the open side. That puts Dorsey on the TE side. There is not an under tackle on the TE side. (Dockett plays the under tackle for the Cards in the hybrid and that position is on the open side.) that puts Dorsey at DE on the TE side.

The hybrid does not fit with Dorsey playing on the TE side. It has to be the pats 3-4.

You have to piece it together, but nothing else makes sense.

Haley said Tyson on the open side, but in Pioli's podcast with Petro earlier this week he talked about Jackson on the left side.

kcbubb
05-08-2009, 10:52 AM
Which are all fine thoughts and ideas but they are still just conjecture. We are gonna just have to wait and see.

how is it conjecture when they plainly state it?

they stated that Tyson would play on the open side.

they also stated that they would run the 3-4.

kcbubb
05-08-2009, 10:53 AM
Haley said Tyson on the open side, but in Pioli's podcast with Petro earlier this week he talked about Jackson on the left side.

do you have a link or a quote??? I'd like to see that.

Mr. Krab
05-08-2009, 10:54 AM
Haley said Tyson on the open side, but in Pioli's podcast with Petro earlier this week he talked about Jackson on the left side.
Which is just weird unless they plan on running the stack 3-4. Instead of the OLB stepping up and being an outside rusher/DE he lines up behind another DLineman and then usually rushes 1-on-1 against a guard.

Mr. Krab
05-08-2009, 10:59 AM
how is it conjecture when they plainly state it?

they stated that Tyson would play on the open side.

they also stated that they would run the 3-4.
Dude, i've seen you argue endlessly about this with anyone that dared to doubt anything you say. I'm not going there.

enjoy :toast:

Chiefnj2
05-08-2009, 11:01 AM
do you have a link or a quote??? I'd like to see that.

http://www.kcchiefs.com/news/2009/03/13/the_red_zone_with_soren_petro/

DaWolf
05-08-2009, 11:09 AM
Hell, they can play a 6-5 Diagonal defense as far as I care as long as they can stop the run and get to the QB...

Coogs
05-08-2009, 11:10 AM
Hell, they can play a 6-5 Diagonal defense as far as I care as long as they can stop the run and get to the QB...

:thumb:

LaChapelle
05-08-2009, 11:34 AM
Babb you poor bastard. The KC area will drop what they're doing for any Chiefs news. All Chiefs news outlets are trying to squeeze blood out of a turnip getting any information out of Arrowhead these days. What few drops of info you do get needs to be despensed out over weeks if not months. Keep the adult beverage fridge stocked well.

htismaqe
05-08-2009, 11:51 AM
Haley said Tyson on the open side, but in Pioli's podcast with Petro earlier this week he talked about Jackson on the left side.

Which basically means what I've said all along - they haven't decided what they're running yet, or if they have, we'll never know.

-King-
05-08-2009, 12:52 PM
I for one am grateful there's no more equivocating.
Posted via Mobile Device

Sully
05-08-2009, 01:30 PM
Hell, they can play a 6-5 Diagonal defense as far as I care as long as they can stop the run and get to the QB...

They don't have the personnel for the 6-5 Diag.

kcbubb
05-08-2009, 01:41 PM
Dude, i've seen you argue endlessly about this with anyone that dared to doubt anything you say. I'm not going there.

enjoy :toast:


ehhh... you're probably right on that one.

But I can tell that I'm either right or Haley is inventing a new defense or Haley doesn't know what he's talking about. What defenses can Tyson line up on the open side?

This Chiefs staff is annoying to me. They seem to be a bit clueless in their attempt to be secretive.

RustShack
05-08-2009, 01:43 PM
How about we try the 2-4-5?

TheGuardian
05-08-2009, 02:16 PM
ehhh... you're probably right on that one.

But I can tell that I'm either right or Haley is inventing a new defense or Haley doesn't know what he's talking about. What defenses can Tyson line up on the side?

This Chiefs staff is annoying to me. They seem to be a bit clueless in their attempt to be secretive.

Or maybe you are just the clueless one who makes things up and calls them facts?

Oh and I've never heard of a "hybrid" defense, most defenses are in fact named after the front they run. And going by all of the things we have been told the Chiefs will in fact NOT run a 2-gap 30 front. Deal with it.

kcbubb
05-08-2009, 02:49 PM
Or maybe you are just the clueless one who makes things up and calls them facts?

Oh and I've never heard of a "hybrid" defense, most defenses are in fact named after the front they run. And going by all of the things we have been told the Chiefs will in fact NOT run a 2-gap 30 front. Deal with it.

I don't care what we run. I would like to know what it is though.

what did I make up?

and where have we been told that we won't run a 2 gap 3-4?

htismaqe
05-08-2009, 02:52 PM
and where have we been told that we won't run a 2 gap 3-4?

Here, of course.

By TheGuardian.

TheGuardian
05-08-2009, 04:24 PM
I don't care what we run. I would like to know what it is though.

what did I make up?

and where have we been told that we won't run a 2 gap 3-4?

You said we are IN FACT running a 30 front with a 2-gap scheme. You have no such proof. And in fact, Pendergast has never run such a front, was fired for not having the background to run such a front in Zona, so we won't be running one here no matter what you or the idiot above me thinks.

MoreLemonPledge
05-08-2009, 04:26 PM
so we won't be running one here no matter what you or the idiot above me thinks.

But we will be because of what you think? Huh?

htismaqe
05-08-2009, 06:25 PM
You said we are IN FACT running a 30 front with a 2-gap scheme. You have no such proof. And in fact, Pendergast has never run such a front, was fired for not having the background to run such a front in Zona, so we won't be running one here no matter what you or the idiot above me thinks.

The only thing that I think, other than we don't have any real clue of what they're actually going to do, is that you're a know-it-all asshole.

philfree
05-08-2009, 06:35 PM
Or maybe you are just the clueless one who makes things up and calls them facts?

Oh and I've never heard of a "hybrid" defense, most defenses are in fact named after the front they run. And going by all of the things we have been told the Chiefs will in fact NOT run a 2-gap 30 front. Deal with it.


The Cards depth chart had them in a 4-3 base last I checked. Maybe they call it a hybrid when a team doesn't have a true NT so they play the d linemen in a 1-gap formation so they're harder to double team. Like the 4-3 under. Maybe?


PhilFree:arrow:

TheGuardian
05-08-2009, 06:36 PM
The only thing that I think, other than we don't have any real clue of what they're actually going to do, is that you're a know-it-all asshole.

Because I've had to argue with know-it-all-assholes who have said from day 1 that we are going to run a traditional 3-4 defense when Haley has never said we would, and only said we would run a variation of it. In other words, the same "variation" that you know, the guy he hired to be the defensive coordinator ran in Arizona, which isn't really a true 3-4 at all. Yet you and others have kept arguing that that isn't the case, and well, it most certainly is.

TheGuardian
05-08-2009, 06:39 PM
The Cards depth chart had them in a 4-3 base last I checked. Maybe they call it a hybrid when a team doesn't have a true NT so they play the d linemen in a 1-gap formation so they're harder to double team. Like the 4-3 under. Maybe?


PhilFree:arrow:

Not always. Wade Phillips runs a 3-4 but uses mostly 1-gap or gap and a half scheming. But it looks exactly like the Pittsburgh 3-4 defense in terms of line up.

And you're right, the Cards "base defense" was listed as a 4-3 but since the end might be in a stand up position sometimes it could be listed as a "hybrid 3-4" type of front. Since this is the only way that Pendergast knows how to run a 30 front, he will run something like that. And since Haley said we will be running some "variation" or the 3-4 mixed with the 4-3, he's basically saying THAT is the scheme we will run. Yet some retards here keep saying we are going to run a true 3-4 front with two gappers and 4 stand up traditional 3-4 linebackers. We aren't. Period. Write it down. Some people just don't like to admit they are/were wrong. That's all that is. Guess they will have to deal with it.

htismaqe
05-08-2009, 06:42 PM
Because I've had to argue with know-it-all-assholes who have said from day 1 that we are going to run a traditional 3-4 defense when Haley has never said we would, and only said we would run a variation of it. In other words, the same "variation" that you know, the guy he hired to be the defensive coordinator ran in Arizona, which isn't really a true 3-4 at all. Yet you and others have kept arguing that that isn't the case, and well, it most certainly is.

You haven't HAD to do anything. You have INTERJECTED thoughtlessly in EVERY conversation on the subject, telling people they're idiots and that you know it all.

Furthermore, I have NOT EVER said what they ARE or ARE NOT going to do. I challenge you to find ANY instance where I've made a definitive statement on the subject. For that matter, neither has kcbubb, who seems to be the #1 target of your ire. The ONLY person making definitive statements on what they'll do is YOU.

This is a DISCUSSION board, and we OFTEN participate in conjecture and speculation that is only loosely based on probability.

The fact is, you're frustrated that people aren't listening to you. However, it shouldn't be a mystery why they're not. You're an overbearing asshole and nobody cares what you have to say on the subject, correct or not.

TheGuardian
05-08-2009, 06:45 PM
You haven't HAD to do anything. You have INTERJECTED thoughtlessly in EVERY conversation on the subject, telling people they're idiots and that you know it all.

Furthermore, I have NOT EVER said what they ARE or ARE NOT going to do. I challenge you to find ANY instance where I've made a definitive statement on the subject. For that matter, neither has kcbubb, who seems to be the #1 target of your ire. The ONLY person making definitive statements on what they'll do is YOU.

This is a DISCUSSION board, and we OFTEN participate in conjecture and speculation that is only loosely based on probability.

The fact is, you're frustrated that people aren't listening to you. However, it shouldn't be a mystery why they're not. You're an overbearing asshole and nobody cares what you have to say on the subject, correct or not.

Maybe you don't read too well. This is what "kcbubb" wrote in this very thread....

I think that is the point. It is not going to be some version. It's not going to be the hybrid. It's going to be a base 2 gap 3-4. That's a totally different defense than the hybrid or 4-3 under with stand up end.

With everyone saying hybrid, it is news that they are going to be running the same D as the pats.

If that isn't a definitive statement, I'm not sure what is. Challenge met, and owned.

As far as being frustrated, well when I have to repeat myself to retards like yourself yeah it gets annoying. Sue me.

htismaqe
05-08-2009, 06:50 PM
As far as being frustrated, well when I have to repeat myself to retards like yourself yeah it gets annoying. Sue me.

You called *me* out. Stop being a punk bitch and produce a definitive statement that *I* made.

Or you could go fist yourself.

philfree
05-08-2009, 07:08 PM
You called *me* out. Stop being a punk bitch and produce a definitive statement that *I* made.

Or you could go fist yourself.


The Guardian started out just trying to discuss the D and comment on it. He may have been a little matter of fact but his posts were solid and insightful. However after being insulted he's become abrasive. I can't blame him for that.


PhilFree:arrow:

JASONSAUTO
05-08-2009, 07:10 PM
The Guardian started out just trying to discuss the D and comment on it. He may have been a little matter of fact but his posts were solid and insightful. However after being insulted he's become abrasive. I can't blame him for that.


PhilFree:arrow:

i agree here someone i will not name(not you htis) jumped all over him about his 2nd day here

htismaqe
05-08-2009, 07:15 PM
The Guardian started out just trying to discuss the D and comment on it. He may have been a little matter of fact but his posts were solid and insightful. However after being insulted he's become abrasive. I can't blame him for that.


PhilFree:arrow:

Who the fuck insulted him before being insulted first?

I gave him ALL KINDS of positive comments, pointed out his "insight" SEVERAL TIMES in various threads, REFERRED people to his posts about the defense and about defensive alignments in general.

And he - because he doesn't like the fact that people might still want to discuss it, despite him declaring "case closed" - calls me an idiot and a retard.

King_Chief_Fan
05-08-2009, 07:16 PM
The only thing that I think, other than we don't have any real clue of what they're actually going to do, is that you're a know-it-all asshole.

that saying; "takes one to know one" could not be more appropriate than now....wow.

stevieray
05-08-2009, 07:17 PM
You called *me* out. Stop being a punk bitch and produce a definitive statement that *I* made.

Or you could go fist yourself.

how long did you make it?

htismaqe
05-08-2009, 07:19 PM
that saying; "takes one to know one" could not be more appropriate than now....wow.

Yeah, because I've been running around here lately telling everybody that I'm right, they're wrong, and you're all retards. :rolleyes:

htismaqe
05-08-2009, 07:19 PM
how long did you make it?

Before whipping out the "fist yourself" comment?

Not NEARLY long enough.

JASONSAUTO
05-08-2009, 07:20 PM
Who the fuck insulted him before being insulted first?

I gave him ALL KINDS of positive comments, pointed out his "insight" SEVERAL TIMES in various threads, REFERRED people to his posts about the defense and about defensive alignments in general.

And he - because he doesn't like the fact that people might still want to discuss it, despite him declaring "case closed" - calls me an idiot and a retard.

several people did, like i said earlier it wasnt you that started it. he was MUCH calmer when he started out here, they just kind of piled on him. you know the guys that are intimidated when someone MIGHT know more than them

htismaqe
05-08-2009, 07:21 PM
several people did, like i said earlier it wasnt you that started it. he was MUCH calmer when he started out here, they just kind of piled on him. you know the guys that are intimidated when someone MIGHT know more than them

Did that happen while I was gone or something? Because I sure never saw it...

stevieray
05-08-2009, 07:22 PM
Before whipping out the "fist yourself" comment?

Not NEARLY long enough.

I hear ya.

JASONSAUTO
05-08-2009, 07:23 PM
Did that happen while I was gone or something? Because I sure never saw it...

no, but i guarantee it happened(i was in the thread) it wasnt the classic pile on but enough where it would piss a guy off. loike i said i dont think its you you are just kind of asking the same types of things, quite a bit nicer IMO, you know the types i'm talking about. they didnt like that the guy was throwing out shit that they might not have quite understood

philfree
05-08-2009, 07:25 PM
Who the **** insulted him before being insulted first?

I gave him ALL KINDS of positive comments, pointed out his "insight" SEVERAL TIMES in various threads, REFERRED people to his posts about the defense and about defensive alignments in general.

And he - because he doesn't like the fact that people might still want to discuss it, despite him declaring "case closed" - calls me an idiot and a retard.

That's fine. This place does that to people.. I guess we'll have to wait and see if we run a 1-gap or 2-gap D to see if he's right. There are lot's of people who know alot more about football then me so I like it when I get a new perspective like The Guardian's.


PhilFree:arrow:

htismaqe
05-08-2009, 07:26 PM
I hear ya.

Like I said, I told SEVERAL people about his previous post on the defense, and defenses in general. Some of his stuff was absolutely OUTSTANDING - more insightful than just about anything ever posted here. And I TOLD HIM THAT.

But he couldn't stand that people wanted to talk about it, as if his word was somehow final. He went from informative to insulting seemingly overnight and there's no reason for it.

JASONSAUTO
05-08-2009, 07:28 PM
Like I said, I told SEVERAL people about his previous post on the defense, and defenses in general. Some of his stuff was absolutely OUTSTANDING - more insightful than just about anything ever posted here. And I TOLD HIM THAT.

But he couldn't stand that people wanted to talk about it, as if his word was somehow final. He went from informative to insulting seemingly overnight and there's no reason for it.

the thing is there WAS a reason, i would have been pissed too(but i'm a little short fused:D) a guy who OBVIOUSLY didnt know what he was talking about all but called the guy a retard(actually he might have)

htismaqe
05-08-2009, 07:28 PM
That's fine. This place does that to people.. I guess we'll have to wait and see if we run a 1-gap or 2-gap D to see if he's right. There are lot's of people who know alot more about football then me so I like it when I get a new perspective like The Guardian's.


PhilFree:arrow:

Again, I learned LONG AGO that there's a people here that know more about football than me. It's that way in EVERY aspect of life - somebody always knows more. If I, or any of us, were at the pinnacle of knowledge in some topic, we'd be doing that instead of wasting our time on a football message board.

I never had a problem with his knowledge - I pointed it out to people in fact.

htismaqe
05-08-2009, 07:29 PM
the thing is there WAS a reason, i would have been pissed too(but i'm a little short fused:D) a guy who OBVIOUSLY didnt know what he was talking about all but called the guy a retard(actually he might have)

And what the **** does that have to do with me? Call that guy an idiot and retard.

I'm guessing from the way you're talking about it, the person responsible might not be posting here anymore anyhow.

JASONSAUTO
05-08-2009, 07:32 PM
And what the **** does that have to do with me? Call that guy an idiot and retard.

I'm guessing from the way you're talking about it, the person responsible might not be posting here anymore anyhow.

it has nothing to do with you, i agree, just sayin...

htismaqe
05-08-2009, 07:35 PM
it has nothing to do with you, i agree, just sayin...

It's cool. If he's acting like this because he felt attacked then I understand why he might react that way.

I certainly don't like being attacked either.

JASONSAUTO
05-08-2009, 07:36 PM
It's cool. If he's acting like this because he felt attacked then I understand why he might react that way.

I certainly don't like being attacked either.

i would say that the reason, i could be wrong though(that has happened once or twice in my life:D)

rad
05-08-2009, 08:24 PM
It's kinda good to see glimpses of the old htismaqe.....when he first came back, after a week or so, I wasn't sure it was really him. Now I know.

As for the defense, I don't care what front we run as long as it puts the best guys we have in a position to demolish Orton, Rivers and Russel. All game long.

TheGuardian
05-08-2009, 08:51 PM
several people did, like i said earlier it wasnt you that started it. he was MUCH calmer when he started out here, they just kind of piled on him. you know the guys that are intimidated when someone MIGHT know more than them

This is exactly the problem.

If I am wrong, i will own up to it, but I don't believe I will be and for the longest I was just trying to provide people the insight as to what defense we would be running. I think it's pretty tough to keep saying we are going to run a 3-4 defense with 4 linebackers and 3 linemen playing 2 gap when we don't have a defensive coordinator that runs that scheme, and never has, and lost his last job because of those very facts. If Pendergast was a true 3-4 guy he wouldn't have gotten fired from Zona. He'd still be there. But Whiz said he wanted to get a true 3-4 guy.

So there is pretty much no way that we are going to run a 3-4 ala Pittsburgh or New England style, at least not this year FOR CERTAIN, because...

a. we don't have the players overall for it, MAINLY at linebacker

b. we don't have a defensive coordinator that runs it as his base defense

B. there is a fact. Not a guess, not an assumption. A fact. I don't give two craps what Gary Gibbs ran or helped assist either. He's not going to be the coordinator. Thus, we will NOT be running some 2-gap 3-4 defense.

And when I have tried to explain this yes there are some here who have attacked that like I made them watch me bang their wife in front of them reverse cowgirl style. So eventually you fight back at this crap with the same kind of crap. If people want to have a civil discussion with me, great. But after a while people ignoring facts gets annoying as hell. I'm not sure why people here have such a hard on for us running the 3-4 2 gap defense. Some people act like their life depends on it. It's ridiculous.

rad
05-08-2009, 09:11 PM
This is exactly the problem.

If I am wrong, i will own up to it, but I don't believe I will be and for the longest I was just trying to provide people the insight as to what defense we would be running. I think it's pretty tough to keep saying we are going to run a 3-4 defense with 4 linebackers and 3 linemen playing 2 gap when we don't have a defensive coordinator that runs that scheme, and never has, and lost his last job because of those very facts. If Pendergast was a true 3-4 guy he wouldn't have gotten fired from Zona. He'd still be there. But Whiz said he wanted to get a true 3-4 guy.

So there is pretty much no way that we are going to run a 3-4 ala Pittsburgh or New England style, at least not this year FOR CERTAIN, because...

a. we don't have the players overall for it, MAINLY at linebacker

b. we don't have a defensive coordinator that runs it as his base defense

B. there is a fact. Not a guess, not an assumption. A fact. I don't give two craps what Gary Gibbs ran or helped assist either. He's not going to be the coordinator. Thus, we will NOT be running some 2-gap 3-4 defense.

And when I have tried to explain this yes there are some here who have attacked that like I made them watch me bang their wife in front of them reverse cowgirl style. So eventually you fight back at this crap with the same kind of crap. If people want to have a civil discussion with me, great. But after a while people ignoring facts gets annoying as hell. I'm not sure why people here have such a hard on for us running the 3-4 2 gap defense. Some people act like their life depends on it. It's ridiculous.


Reverse cowgirl is the shiznit.

htismaqe
05-08-2009, 10:07 PM
This is exactly the problem.

If I am wrong, i will own up to it, but I don't believe I will be and for the longest I was just trying to provide people the insight as to what defense we would be running. I think it's pretty tough to keep saying we are going to run a 3-4 defense with 4 linebackers and 3 linemen playing 2 gap when we don't have a defensive coordinator that runs that scheme, and never has, and lost his last job because of those very facts. If Pendergast was a true 3-4 guy he wouldn't have gotten fired from Zona. He'd still be there. But Whiz said he wanted to get a true 3-4 guy.

So there is pretty much no way that we are going to run a 3-4 ala Pittsburgh or New England style, at least not this year FOR CERTAIN, because...

a. we don't have the players overall for it, MAINLY at linebacker

b. we don't have a defensive coordinator that runs it as his base defense

B. there is a fact. Not a guess, not an assumption. A fact. I don't give two craps what Gary Gibbs ran or helped assist either. He's not going to be the coordinator. Thus, we will NOT be running some 2-gap 3-4 defense.

And when I have tried to explain this yes there are some here who have attacked that like I made them watch me bang their wife in front of them reverse cowgirl style. So eventually you fight back at this crap with the same kind of crap. If people want to have a civil discussion with me, great. But after a while people ignoring facts gets annoying as hell. I'm not sure why people here have such a hard on for us running the 3-4 2 gap defense. Some people act like their life depends on it. It's ridiculous.

If people truly did attack you after all the GOOD stuff you posted about defensive alignments, then fuck them. If they're that insecure, why let it get to you?

But if you want to have a civil discussion, then keep it civil and there won't be a problem. If they choose to ignore the facts, LET IT GO. I've argued plenty with kcbubb - he thought it was a good idea to draft a 4-3 OLB with the #3 overall pick. :D

Just lighten up a tad - if YOU know what you are saying is true, does it really matter if a few people don't want to hear it? Just keep posting the stuff you were before, this place can ALWAYS use more guys that know X's and O's.

Raised On Riots
05-09-2009, 02:07 AM
Don't miss the shocking expose "The Chiefs will throw the ball downfield" by Kent Babb in Sunday's edition of the Star.

ROFL

You called *me* out. Stop being a punk bitch and produce a definitive statement that *I* made.

Or you could go fist yourself.
ROFL

( Tear in my eye ) sniff...the torch is passed.

http://www.sfgate.com/blogs/images/sfgate/parenting/2007/11/07/apollopic.jpg

milkman
05-09-2009, 07:04 AM
If people truly did attack you after all the GOOD stuff you posted about defensive alignments, then **** them. If they're that insecure, why let it get to you?

But if you want to have a civil discussion, then keep it civil and there won't be a problem. If they choose to ignore the facts, LET IT GO. I've argued plenty with kcbubb - he thought it was a good idea to draft a 4-3 OLB with the #3 overall pick. :D

Just lighten up a tad - if YOU know what you are saying is true, does it really matter if a few people don't want to hear it? Just keep posting the stuff you were before, this place can ALWAYS use more guys that know X's and O's.

This.

TheGuardian
05-09-2009, 08:11 AM
If people truly did attack you after all the GOOD stuff you posted about defensive alignments, then **** them. If they're that insecure, why let it get to you?

But if you want to have a civil discussion, then keep it civil and there won't be a problem. If they choose to ignore the facts, LET IT GO. I've argued plenty with kcbubb - he thought it was a good idea to draft a 4-3 OLB with the #3 overall pick. :D

Just lighten up a tad - if YOU know what you are saying is true, does it really matter if a few people don't want to hear it? Just keep posting the stuff you were before, this place can ALWAYS use more guys that know X's and O's.

Cool. My apologies on the retard comments. :D

the Talking Can
05-09-2009, 08:41 AM
way too much barebacking in this thread

htismaqe
05-09-2009, 08:44 AM
Cool. My apologies on the retard comments. :D

Like I said, no problem. Keep posting, it's good stuff.

StcChief
05-09-2009, 08:59 AM
Whatever we run, I just has to work. 3-4/4-3/5-2/2-5/......

....10-1

kcbubb
05-09-2009, 11:51 AM
You said we are IN FACT running a 30 front with a 2-gap scheme. You have no such proof. And in fact, Pendergast has never run such a front, was fired for not having the background to run such a front in Zona, so we won't be running one here no matter what you or the idiot above me thinks.


Tyson Jackson playing on the open side is proof. What defensive alignments can Jackson play on the open side? Please elaborate.

kcbubb
05-09-2009, 11:56 AM
And you're right, the Cards "base defense" was listed as a 4-3 but since the end might be in a stand up position sometimes it could be listed as a "hybrid 3-4" type of front. Since this is the only way that Pendergast knows how to run a 30 front, he will run something like that. And since Haley said we will be running some "variation" or the 3-4 mixed with the 4-3, he's basically saying THAT is the scheme we will run.

In the hybrid or 4-3 under front that you are describing(that you think we will run), what are the alignments for the open side?

Which position will Tyson play on the open side?

chiefzilla1501
05-09-2009, 12:00 PM
This is exactly the problem.

If I am wrong, i will own up to it, but I don't believe I will be and for the longest I was just trying to provide people the insight as to what defense we would be running. I think it's pretty tough to keep saying we are going to run a 3-4 defense with 4 linebackers and 3 linemen playing 2 gap when we don't have a defensive coordinator that runs that scheme, and never has, and lost his last job because of those very facts. If Pendergast was a true 3-4 guy he wouldn't have gotten fired from Zona. He'd still be there. But Whiz said he wanted to get a true 3-4 guy.

So there is pretty much no way that we are going to run a 3-4 ala Pittsburgh or New England style, at least not this year FOR CERTAIN, because...

a. we don't have the players overall for it, MAINLY at linebacker

b. we don't have a defensive coordinator that runs it as his base defense

B. there is a fact. Not a guess, not an assumption. A fact. I don't give two craps what Gary Gibbs ran or helped assist either. He's not going to be the coordinator. Thus, we will NOT be running some 2-gap 3-4 defense.

And when I have tried to explain this yes there are some here who have attacked that like I made them watch me bang their wife in front of them reverse cowgirl style. So eventually you fight back at this crap with the same kind of crap. If people want to have a civil discussion with me, great. But after a while people ignoring facts gets annoying as hell. I'm not sure why people here have such a hard on for us running the 3-4 2 gap defense. Some people act like their life depends on it. It's ridiculous.

You are assuming that Pendergast is our long-term solution. I am still convinced that he's not. I think he was brought in for two reasons: 1) a hybrid defense is better suited for the transition phase--we simply do not have the personnel... YET... to run a pure 3-4; 2) because Pioli was brought in so late and because they took a long time with the GM and coach search, there wasn't a whole lot available to choose from. I still think that this time next year, he's coaching defensive backs. Just my opinion, though.

Because I think Pioli is smart enough to know that Pendergast's scheme wasn't doing great in Arizona. And I think Pioli would prefer to run a defense that he knows works and that he's good at building. The players Pioli has brought in are a lot more suited for a traditional 3-4. It's the scheme he knows, he's comfortable with, that he knows he can build.

kcbubb
05-09-2009, 12:27 PM
This is exactly the problem.

If I am wrong, i will own up to it, but I don't believe I will be and for the longest I was just trying to provide people the insight as to what defense we would be running. I think it's pretty tough to keep saying we are going to run a 3-4 defense with 4 linebackers and 3 linemen playing 2 gap when we don't have a defensive coordinator that runs that scheme, and never has, and lost his last job because of those very facts. If Pendergast was a true 3-4 guy he wouldn't have gotten fired from Zona. He'd still be there. But Whiz said he wanted to get a true 3-4 guy.

So there is pretty much no way that we are going to run a 3-4 ala Pittsburgh or New England style, at least not this year FOR CERTAIN, because...

a. we don't have the players overall for it, MAINLY at linebacker

b. we don't have a defensive coordinator that runs it as his base defense

B. there is a fact. Not a guess, not an assumption. A fact. I don't give two craps what Gary Gibbs ran or helped assist either. He's not going to be the coordinator. Thus, we will NOT be running some 2-gap 3-4 defense.

And when I have tried to explain this yes there are some here who have attacked that like I made them watch me bang their wife in front of them reverse cowgirl style. So eventually you fight back at this crap with the same kind of crap. If people want to have a civil discussion with me, great. But after a while people ignoring facts gets annoying as hell. I'm not sure why people here have such a hard on for us running the 3-4 2 gap defense. Some people act like their life depends on it. It's ridiculous.

I have never insulted you.

I agree with you that coaching staff and the personnel don't fit as well as
they should.

But from what Haley has said and with the selection of Tyson Jackson and with Pioli's background in the pure 2 gap 3-4, I think they will run the 2 gap 3-4.

You have never explained where Tyson Jackson will play in the hybrid on the open side. I'm still awaiting an answer.

I believe the reason you haven't is because you know that there is a 3 technique DT and a stand up DE on the open side in the hybrid that you think we will run. Tyson Jackson fits neither of those spots.

Do you believe that Tyson Jackson will play the 3 technique DT or undertackle position????

He obviously won't play the stand up DE position. Those are the only 2 positions on the open side in the hybrid, so you must believe that Tyson will play the undertackle or 3 tech DT.

Why would the Chiefs draft a 3-4 DE to play the under tackle with the 3rd overall pick??? That doesn't make sense. He would be playing out of position.

For those of you that don't know, Darnell Dockett plays the under tackle for the Cards in their hybrid. In the base defense he plays on the open side.

If the Chiefs were going to run the hybrid, which I think would fit the team, they would need to play Dorsey at the 3 tech undertackle position on the open side.

And Tyson Jackson would play on the TE side.

But Haley has stated that Tyson will play on the open side.

bdeg
05-09-2009, 08:05 PM
if you listen to the magee pc on their site, he says the only defense they practiced is 3-4
very specific, sounds like teicher asked if they'd seen any 4-3 at all and he said no

looks like you were right bubb