Admitting Mistakes..key for the Chiefs franchise

[Hammock Parties]

Here's what happens if we switch to a 4-3:

Jackson gets pushed around at DT.

Dorsey continues to 2-gap.

Hali is probably not as effective.

We are left holding our dicks looking for two outside linebackers, hoping that DJ can play the middle in a 4-3.

Sounds like a recipe for a bottom 10 defense.

And THIS defense, two games ago, was shitting on Ben Roethlisberger.

Yeah, no.

[aturnis]

Originally Posted by Omega

Here's what happens if we switch to a 4-3:

Jackson gets pushed around at DT.

Dorsey continues to 2-gap.

Hali is probably not as effective.

We are left holding our dicks looking for two outside linebackers, hoping that DJ can play the middle in a 4-3.

Sounds like a recipe for a bottom 10 defense.

And THIS defense, two games ago, was shitting on Ben Roethlisberger.

Yeah, no.

Agreed. No reason whatsoever to switch to a 4-3. Bad move.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by aturnis

Agreed. No reason whatsoever to switch to a 4-3. Bad move.

I am not saying we should swtich to a 4-3. I prefer a 3-4. I think it is more confusing for an offense and is a much more aggresive scheme. My point was, however badly stated, that if we are going to continue to draft 4-3 players on the line then you might as well switch to a 4-3. And to a lesser degree if we are going to run this soft zone crap then switch to a 4-3. If you're going to run a 3-4 then let the players lace em' up and have at it.

DJ is a beast on the blitz. He almost always gets pressure that alters the play. But we need safetys and another LB that can cover TE's over the middle so you can blitz DJ more.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by petegz28

I am not saying we should swtich to a 4-3. I prefer a 3-4. I think it is more confusing for an offense and is a much more aggresive scheme. My point was, however badly stated, that if we are going to continue to draft 4-3 players on the line then you might as well switch to a 4-3. And to a lesser degree if we are going to run this soft zone crap then switch to a 4-3. If you're going to run a 3-4 then let the players lace em' up and have at it.

DJ is a beast on the blitz. He almost always gets pressure that alters the play. But we need safetys and another LB that can cover TE's over the middle so you can blitz DJ more.

I'd like to see some safety depth, but you have to remember next year we will hopefully be getting an all pro back at safety.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by aturnis

Agreed. No reason whatsoever to switch to a 4-3. Bad move.

The bad move is hiring a coach and forcing him into a scheme he doesn't believe in, or limiting your coaching search to guys that only run the 34.

Hire the best coach, and let HIM dictate what scheme you run.

If that means a switch to the 43, so ****ing be it.

Hiring a less qualified coach just because he's willing to run a 34 is just as big a mistake.

[aturnis]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

The bad move is hiring a coach and forcing him into a scheme he doesn't believe in, or limiting your coaching search to guys that only run the 34.

Hire the best coach, and let HIM dictate what scheme you run.

If that means a switch to the 43, so ****ing be it.

Hiring a less qualified coach just because he's willing to run a 34 is just as big a mistake.

I agree, but disagree. This defense is too good as it is, without Eric Berry or a good NT mind you. I'm sure there are plenty of offensive minded coaches who would have no problem running a 3-4, especially with the popularity it gained in recent years.

What coach is out there that is so worth switching to a 4-3?

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by aturnis

I agree, but disagree. This defense is too good as it is, without Eric Berry or a good NT mind you. I'm sure there are plenty of offensive minded coaches who would have no problem running a 3-4, especially with the popularity it gained in recent years.

What coach is out there that is so worth switching to a 4-3?

FWIW, I'm not advocating one or the other.

I'm just sick of forcing schemes on coaches, or eliminating coaches based on scheme.

Hire the BEST coach.

[Ebolapox]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

FWIW, I'm not advocating one or the other.

I'm just sick of forcing schemes on coaches, or eliminating coaches based on scheme.

Hire the BEST coach.

the best coach will scheme around your best players. have the personnel (aside from NT) for a good 3-4 defense? YOU ****ING RUN THE 3-4 DEFENSE (maybe a bit more attacking, hopefully)

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by aturnis

I agree, but disagree. This defense is too good as it is, without Eric Berry or a good NT mind you. I'm sure there are plenty of offensive minded coaches who would have no problem running a 3-4, especially with the popularity it gained in recent years.

What coach is out there that is so worth switching to a 4-3?

Yes but a good head coach is going to listen to his DC. And if the DC says the 3-4 is our best way to go then a good head coach is going to say ok and help draft or sign players to fit that role.

No good leader is going to come in and start dictating tactical decsions. That's what bad coaches do. A good head coach is going to come in with a strategy and tell his DC's to execute that strategy however they see the best way to do it.

A good head coach is going to say "I want an attacking defense", not "I want a 4-3 or a 3-4". However, before he even does that, a good head coach is going to evaluate his players and decide what the best strategy for that group should be. You can't say you want to be a ball-control offense if you don't have a big, powerful line. You can't say you want to be an attacking defense if you don't have the players to execute it.

Nonetheless, the coach should decide and dictate the strategy based on his evaluation of players and input from his coordinators. Nothing should be pre-meditated to a tactical level.

[aturnis]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Yes but a good head coach is going to listen to his DC. And if the DC says the 3-4 is our best way to go then a good head coach is going to say ok and help draft or sign players to fit that role.

No good leader is going to come in and start dictating tactical decsions. That's what bad coaches do. A good head coach is going to come in with a strategy and tell his DC's to execute that strategy however they see the best way to do it.

A good head coach is going to say "I want an attacking defense", not "I want a 4-3 or a 3-4". However, before he even does that, a good head coach is going to evaluate his players and decide what the best strategy for that group should be. You can't say you want to be a ball-control offense if you don't have a big, powerful line. You can't say you want to be an attacking defense if you don't have the players to execute it.

Nonetheless, the coach should decide and dictate the strategy based on his evaluation of players and input from his coordinators. Nothing should be pre-meditated to a tactical level.

Most coaches would probably want to bring along their own DC... That DC will want to install whichever damn scheme he likes most, despite the talent here.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by aturnis

Most coaches would probably want to bring along their own DC... That DC will want to install whichever damn scheme he likes most, despite the talent here.

Yep, most coaches would want to hire their own staff.

Which is exactly why a Pioli-puppet like Crennel, McD or Ferentz will get the job.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by aturnis

Most coaches would probably want to bring along their own DC... That DC will want to install whichever damn scheme he likes most, despite the talent here.

I agree. But that doesn't make them a good head coach. A good head coach will always evaluate before he dictates. If the new coach brings in his own guys and long as they have had previous success then ok, that's how it goes. But to bring guys in at that level simply as a power play is not the sign of a good leader.