Your opinion....Should the Chiefs move to a 3-4?

[Mr. Kotter]

Maybe I've missed it, and maybe it's a repost....but I'm gonna do it anyway.

I've heard and read the same rumors as everyone else...but still haven't gotten a sense of whether there is really a SERIOUS chance of it happening. My sense is, despite the rumors....that it's unlikely this year; I just don't see it. Maybe they'll head that way, but I can't see it for next year.

Thoughts??? I'm just interested in what others think/are hearing.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Sure, but I wasn't the one who tried to use a raw numbers argument as a justification to keep the 4-3 over a 3-4. That was you.

Also, the Falcons and Cardinals ran the 4-3.

http://www.profootballweekly.com/PFW...wwhi013009.htm

http://atlantafalconstalk.com/atlant...a-3-4-defense/

The Cardinals use the 4-3 as a look, but if you watched them at all this year, you saw that they ran almost exclusively out of the 3-4. That's why Whisenhunt shitcanned Pendergast, because he wasn't a native 3-4 guy and he was just making him run it.

And the Falcons ran the 3-4 hybrid. They put Grady Jackson in the nose, and would rush Abraham from the OLB.

[BigChiefFan]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

No, they don't.

Just because a guy played end in college and is too small to play it in the pros doesn't mean that he can be a rush backer in a 3-4. It's a more complex position than that.

It's hard to play OLB in a 3-4 with stiff hips and good lateral quickness, and a lot of undersized DEs lack both.

Here's my take/point...it's easier to find an impact LBer than it is to find an impact DE.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

1. Ravens, Colts, Bucs, Giants all won this decade with a 4-3. Hell, lets count total appearances by 4-3s this decade: Ravens, Colts, Giants*2, Rams, Panthers, Eagles, Bucs, Seahawks, Raiders, Bears. The only teams who have even gone to the SB this decade who have run the 3-4 are the Pats, Steelers and Cards (who ranked 29th).

And, AGAIN, how many teams have been 3-4 teams as opposed to 4-3 teams in the league. In other words, as a percentage, which has been more successful. Take your time...... we'll wait.

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

2. The Pats and Steelers won 3/5 Super Bowls because when they needed to, their franchise QB drove them down the field to win the game.

They won. The "because" is crap.

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

3. The Steelers and Pats' Ds almost cost them three of those Super Bowls by totally folding in the fourth quarter.

This stupidity doesn't merit a full response, so I'll just play to your level of stupidity and point out that it was the 4-3 defense teams that lost those games.

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

4. You asked a completely inane question that wasn't worthy of being answered, you ignorant ****. The fact of the matter is that Glenn Dorsey was drafted to play in a 4-3. That would indicate that the odds of him succeeding are greater in a 4-3. Therefore, unless we are in the business of now evaluating DTs after one year (which is as intelligent as doing it with QBs after one year), giving up on him is premature and reactionary.

Just when I think you can't get any more stupid, you step up to the plate. Asking if you saw some definitive evidence that Dorsey is going to be able to get it done in the 4-3 is not worthy of being answered?

Shit, I think I insulted fossils earlier when I compared you to them.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Sure, but I wasn't the one who tried to use a raw numbers argument as a justification to keep the 4-3 over a 3-4. /

You really need help with reading comprehension.

I used the talents of Dorsey and Flowers as a reason for keeping the 4-3.

I used the fact that teams are no more likely to succeed or fail in a 3-4 along with the above associated risks as well as the greater difficulty in finding players as reasons for not moving to a 3-4.

When CoMo spouted off about top D's using the 3-4, I exposed that for the fraud it was, just like your baseless Super Bowl argument, which, ironically used nothing but raw numbers.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by BigChiefFan

Here's my take/point...it's easier to find an impact LBer than it is to find an impact DE.

List how many really good NTs are in the NFL right now.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

The Cardinals use the 4-3 as a look, but if you watched them at all this year, you saw that they ran almost exclusively out of the 3-4. That's why Whisenhunt shitcanned Pendergast, because he wasn't a native 3-4 guy and he was just making him run it.

And the Falcons ran the 3-4 hybrid. They put Grady Jackson in the nose, and would rush Abraham from the OLB.

Ok, so the Cardinals' linebacker coach is a liar. Got it.

[MOhillbilly]

we dont have the safties,LB, or DL to run a 3-4.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

You really need help with reading comprehension.

I used the talents of Dorsey and Flowers as a reason for keeping the 4-3.

I used the fact that teams are no more likely to succeed or fail in a 3-4 along with the above associated risks as well as the greater difficulty in finding players as reasons for not moving to a 3-4.

When CoMo spouted off about top D's using the 3-4, I exposed that for the fraud it was, just like your baseless Super Bowl argument, which, ironically used nothing but raw numbers.

You really don't have the sense that God gave a rock, do you? Just because you make a response to something doesn't mean you "exposed" it. Your response to the 3-4/4-3 comment was so incomplete that it was useless. You don't even know which teams were running which, so you can't grasp the significance of having so many 3-4 teams at the top. As for the Super Bowl argument, you were just flat out wrong.

Look, I'd love to watch you continuing to look like a complete idiot, but I've got to run.

[MOhillbilly]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Look, I'd love to watch you continuing to look like a complete idiot, but I've got to run.

BOOOO!!!!!HISSSSS!!!!!!!

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

And, AGAIN, how many teams have been 3-4 teams as opposed to 4-3 teams in the league. In other words, as a percentage, which has been more successful. Take your time...... we'll wait.



They won. The "because" is crap.



This stupidity doesn't merit a full response, so I'll just play to your level of stupidity and point out that it was the 4-3 defense teams that lost those games.




Just when I think you can't get any more stupid, you step up to the plate. Asking if you saw some definitive evidence that Dorsey is going to be able to get it done in the 4-3 is not worthy of being answered?

Shit, I think I insulted fossils earlier when I compared you to them.

Average defensive ranking of 3-4 defenses:

14.6 (this is with me counting Atlanta, which helps the rating)
Median ranking of 3-4 defenses: 16 (with me counting Atlanta)

----------------------

If a defense gives up a shitload of points in the 4th quarter, I don't think you can give them credit for winning any game. Pitt's D gets no credit for the win against Az, just like the Pats D gets no credit for its win against Carolina.

-----------------

Again, I don't know why this is so hard to understand. Look at Warren Sapp. Look at Albert Haynesworth. Look at nearly any defensive tackle. It's the hardest position on the D to learn. It takes 3 years for a DT to grasp the position, and you want to cut bait after one.

-----------------

I can call you stupid because you don't offer anything but conjecture to support your points. You calling me stupid comes off as hollow. I can offer clear and pointed examples of what I am talking about to elucidate my points.

That's the difference between proper argumentation (me) and idiotic rambling (your dumb ass).

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

You really don't have the sense that God gave a rock, do you? Just because you make a response to something doesn't mean you "exposed" it. Your response to the 3-4/4-3 comment was so incomplete that it was useless. You don't even know which teams were running which, so you can't grasp the significance of having so many 3-4 teams at the top. As for the Super Bowl argument, you were just flat out wrong.

Look, I'd love to watch you continuing to look like a complete idiot, but I've got to run.

If someone says that the top D's in the league are dominated by 3-4s and you show that they aren't, that's called exposing it.

I'm sorry that this brutally obvious point to anyone with cognitive function is so hopelessly lost upon you.

Please, Just Pass By a Gamma Ray Burst on your way to the kiddie brothel.

kthxbye.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Ok, so the Cardinals' linebacker coach is a liar. Got it.

You definitely are:

From shortly after his hire:
Whisenhunt: Defense will have look of 3-4 alignment



After saying recently the Cardinals will remain in a 4-3 defensive alignment, coach Ken Whisenhunt acknowledged Wednesday his defense will have many elements of a 3-4 look -- including using former Pro Bowl defensive end Bertrand Berry at linebacker, using outside linebacker Karlos Dansby inside and putting one-time defensive tackle Darnell Dockett at end.
"The defense is going to be a little bit different scheme-wise from what they were doing," Whisenhunt said. "Certainly there were things I was comfortable with in Pittsburgh that I want to incorporate and (defensive coordinator) Clancy (Pendergast) has been good at that, and the process of blending those things in with what he likes will be like a merger."
The Cardinals will hold their first minicamp this weekend, beginning Friday.
Whisenhunt said it was hard to categorize positions at this point because of the many different packages the Cards will use. But he said both Berry and fellow end Chike Okeafor will be "quasi-end/linebackers" who may rush from a three-point stance one play and stand up on another.

[BigChiefFan]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

List how many really good NTs are in the NFL right now.

One is not greater than four. ONE NOSE TACKLE STARTING vs. FOUR LBers STARTING. Believe me, I understand your point, but besides Dorsey, who exactly is getting the shaft on defense, when we make the transition?(there's still no evidence he can't succeed as a 3-4 DE or DT) It all depends on what they ask him to do.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by BigChiefFan

One is not greater than four. ONE NOSE TACKLE STARTING vs. FOUR LBers STARTING. Believe me, I understand your point, but besides Dorsey, who exactly is getting the shaft on defense, when we make the transition?(there's still no evidence he can't succeed as a 3-4 DE or DT) It all depends on what they ask him to do.

Here is the problem. The NT is the key to the entire 3-4. Pittsburgh and Baltimore's engines are driven by Ngata and Hampton. Those guys create the double and triple teams that allow those linebackers to make plays.

A true dominant NT is harder to find than a quarterback.

To me, Dorsey's draft position and the money we've paid him warrants us staying in the 4-3.

Think about all the shitty coaching our players have had. Give DJ a chance to show the promise he had in an attacking role in a 4-3.

We have talent on defense. People need to realize how poorly integrated our talent was with the last scheme. The Cover 2 without a pass rush is a prevent defense.

You can't blame a rookie DT for not producing at an elite level, nor can you bust the chops of a Sam who should be playing downhill who is covering tight ends.

If you give the Chiefs a 10 sack guy on the right side and two linebackers, it's an above average defense.

If we run a 3-4, we need an entire new roster on defense.

[NickAthanFan]

The only 3-4 I like is Pittsburgh's, nobody else runs one like LeBeau.

The 4-3 is a better fit for us, especially when you consider we might have a STUD at DT right now. We know that we don't have anything for the 3-4.