| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Eagles_808
Joined: 12 Mar 2008
Posts: 27814
Location: California
|
 Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 7:02 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
|
| nlesthought wrote: | | Who's the maybe future all-pro u speak of? |
DeMeco Ryans was an all-pro at one point.
_________________
2013 Eagles Forum HOF
[quote="Leon Sandcastle"]Chip Kelly's system is college material...that stuff doesn't fly in the NFL[/quote] |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
PowerElite
Joined: 25 Dec 2009
Posts: 8808
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 7:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
This Eagles forum is being dumbed down with talk of 43 to 34 conversion difficulties as if the conversion in itself could ever produce something as horrible defensively as what we have witnessed from the Eagles this season.
34 to 43 conversions are simple today because coordinators are more flexible. Just like morons use to say things like a running QB prospect may need to sit the bench in the NFL for a few seasons. Now coordinators adjust to the players. Bottomline, coordinators adjust to the personnel today much more frequently than in the past. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BirdsFan06050
Joined: 02 Jan 2007
Posts: 19809
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 8:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| PowerElite wrote: | This Eagles forum is being dumbed down with talk of 43 to 34 conversion difficulties as if the conversion in itself could ever produce something as horrible defensively as what we have witnessed from the Eagles this season.
34 to 43 conversions are simple today because coordinators are more flexible. Just like morons use to say things like a running QB prospect may need to sit the bench in the NFL for a few seasons. Now coordinators adjust to the players. Bottomline, coordinators adjust to the personnel today much more frequently than in the past. |
If we brought in Ray Horton, I'd certainly be down with a switch to a base 3-4 scheme.
It's not as if Ryans, Cox, Cole, and Graham couldn't make the switch either IMO.
_________________
"There are stories of coincidence and chance, of intersections and strange things told, and which is which and who only knows; and the book says we may be through with the past, but the past ain't through with us." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheKingDP
Joined: 03 Nov 2010
Posts: 562
Location: illadelph
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| BirdsFan06050 wrote: | | PowerElite wrote: | This Eagles forum is being dumbed down with talk of 43 to 34 conversion difficulties as if the conversion in itself could ever produce something as horrible defensively as what we have witnessed from the Eagles this season.
34 to 43 conversions are simple today because coordinators are more flexible. Just like morons use to say things like a running QB prospect may need to sit the bench in the NFL for a few seasons. Now coordinators adjust to the players. Bottomline, coordinators adjust to the personnel today much more frequently than in the past. |
If we brought in Ray Horton, I'd certainly be down with a switch to a base 3-4 scheme.
It's not as if Ryans, Cox, Cole, and Graham couldn't make the switch either IMO. |
You really need a dominating NT for the 3-4 to be truly effective. Once someone has a solution there, I wouldn't touch the 3-4 with a wide-9 foot pole.
Edit: Eagles_808 sums it up perfectly. I guess I should read the entire post before I comment, eh?
| Eagles_808 wrote: | | We have no NT for a 3-4. We might have 2 ends (Cox and Thornton), but most likely only Cox could start there. Cole, Graham and Curry could maybe play OLB, but that is a stretch IMO. Kendricks and Ryans at ILB is a major question mark (with Ryans having failed in it and eventually shipped out from in HOU). Oh, and guess what else all succesful 3-4 defenses have; two competent, above average safeties. Something we lack too. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PowerElite
Joined: 25 Dec 2009
Posts: 8808
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 9:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| TheKingDP wrote: | | BirdsFan06050 wrote: | | PowerElite wrote: | This Eagles forum is being dumbed down with talk of 43 to 34 conversion difficulties as if the conversion in itself could ever produce something as horrible defensively as what we have witnessed from the Eagles this season.
34 to 43 conversions are simple today because coordinators are more flexible. Just like morons use to say things like a running QB prospect may need to sit the bench in the NFL for a few seasons. Now coordinators adjust to the players. Bottomline, coordinators adjust to the personnel today much more frequently than in the past. |
If we brought in Ray Horton, I'd certainly be down with a switch to a base 3-4 scheme.
It's not as if Ryans, Cox, Cole, and Graham couldn't make the switch either IMO. |
You really need a dominating NT for the 3-4 to be truly effective. Once someone has a solution there, I wouldn't touch the 3-4 with a wide-9 foot pole.
Edit: Eagles_808 sums it up perfectly. I guess I should read the entire post before I comment, eh?
| Eagles_808 wrote: | | We have no NT for a 3-4. We might have 2 ends (Cox and Thornton), but most likely only Cox could start there. Cole, Graham and Curry could maybe play OLB, but that is a stretch IMO. Kendricks and Ryans at ILB is a major question mark (with Ryans having failed in it and eventually shipped out from in HOU). Oh, and guess what else all succesful 3-4 defenses have; two competent, above average safeties. Something we lack too. |
|
Who's the dominating NT for the Texans?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BirdsFan06050
Joined: 02 Jan 2007
Posts: 19809
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 10:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| PowerElite wrote: | | TheKingDP wrote: | | BirdsFan06050 wrote: | | PowerElite wrote: | This Eagles forum is being dumbed down with talk of 43 to 34 conversion difficulties as if the conversion in itself could ever produce something as horrible defensively as what we have witnessed from the Eagles this season.
34 to 43 conversions are simple today because coordinators are more flexible. Just like morons use to say things like a running QB prospect may need to sit the bench in the NFL for a few seasons. Now coordinators adjust to the players. Bottomline, coordinators adjust to the personnel today much more frequently than in the past. |
If we brought in Ray Horton, I'd certainly be down with a switch to a base 3-4 scheme.
It's not as if Ryans, Cox, Cole, and Graham couldn't make the switch either IMO. |
You really need a dominating NT for the 3-4 to be truly effective. Once someone has a solution there, I wouldn't touch the 3-4 with a wide-9 foot pole.
Edit: Eagles_808 sums it up perfectly. I guess I should read the entire post before I comment, eh?
| Eagles_808 wrote: | | We have no NT for a 3-4. We might have 2 ends (Cox and Thornton), but most likely only Cox could start there. Cole, Graham and Curry could maybe play OLB, but that is a stretch IMO. Kendricks and Ryans at ILB is a major question mark (with Ryans having failed in it and eventually shipped out from in HOU). Oh, and guess what else all succesful 3-4 defenses have; two competent, above average safeties. Something we lack too. |
|
Who's the dominating NT for the Cardinals? |
Arizona too.
_________________
"There are stories of coincidence and chance, of intersections and strange things told, and which is which and who only knows; and the book says we may be through with the past, but the past ain't through with us." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nlesthought
Joined: 21 Feb 2007
Posts: 8699
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 10:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Actually stopping the run isn't solely on the NT its on the front 5
2 OLBs who line up on the LOS
2 DEs who line up from head up on the OT to head up on the OG
and the NT who's mainly over the OC
everyone one of those teams have good DEs or 5 techs notable OLBs and a decent NT
Shaun Cody is no slouch
Jay Ratliff is all pro worthy when healthy
BJ Raji
Dan Williams is coming into his own
Casey Hampton
Issac Sopoaga
NTs besides Ratliff aren't penetrating NTs but dirty work hard hat types
The thing that makes running difficult vs 34 is team can't go man v man vs that front 5 and expect to win so they have to double but doubling that frees up LBs and someone gets unaccounted for.
We had an ex Viking as our OL coach and he explained the 34 is pretty much why so many teams went to a ZBS so the OL arent responsible for a man but an area
_________________
psn: nlesthought l Peppers90 on the sig |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phire
Joined: 12 Jan 2007
Posts: 52819
Location: #FSU #championchip #2012BirdsHoF #2012GoldStnd #YAKtoseIntolerant #TrollyRangers #Danes #CAVALRY
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 11:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Swapping to the 3-4 isn't impossible, but citing the fact that coordinators have become more flexible is just plain weak.
Having a flexible coordinator means nothing if we don't have flexible players. If we swap to a 3-4, we will need to find those pieces. Wasn't Demeco Ryans basically booted from Houston because he wasn't the ideal 3-4 LB?
Does this mean we have to find yet another decent MLB to run in the 3-4?
We have all these dreams of Graham playing OLB, Cox playing DE... etc etc, and yeah, they might work. It would be silly of me to say it can't work.
But it won't be easy, and I'm confident of that regardless of how flexible coordinators are.
These guys will have to be taught a brand new defense, which could actually make this defense even worse.
_________________
| theuntouchable wrote: | | Think about this phire. I am the real chow. |
| RainbowCarebear wrote: | | Only for the quick and lucky. |
Dear Eagles Forum: Click >here< to make your own mock. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PowerElite
Joined: 25 Dec 2009
Posts: 8808
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 11:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Phire wrote: |
Having a flexible coordinator means nothing if we don't have flexible players. If we swap to a 3-4, we will need to find those pieces. Wasn't Demeco Ryans basically booted from Houston because he wasn't the ideal 3-4 LB?
|
Houston, the same team that let Mario Williams walk, the same team that decided not to pay Demeco his $6mil per season. It's amazing how few Eagles fans are knowledgeable enough about the Demeco trade to factor in dollars instead of just the"he didn't work out on the field" statements. The "he didn't work out on the field" statements are usually countered by "he was coming off of injury." Obviously that isn't good enough to shut up the "he didn't work out on the field" crowd so moving forward one has to add in the Demeco as a "cap casualty" nugget of knowledge.
Also, Demeco is no fixture. He can be cut just like anyone else. It's crazy to think to build a defense around him. He isn't that good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nlesthought
Joined: 21 Feb 2007
Posts: 8699
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 11:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
^the same could be said about Mario
Its more the level of play didn't fall off with the replacement who was making way less or would cost less (Mario's case)
_________________
psn: nlesthought l Peppers90 on the sig |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phire
Joined: 12 Jan 2007
Posts: 52819
Location: #FSU #championchip #2012BirdsHoF #2012GoldStnd #YAKtoseIntolerant #TrollyRangers #Danes #CAVALRY
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 11:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
If you can readily add the pieces fine.
We are an ill-equipped team even for the simplest 4-3 it seems. Forcing the defense into a 3-4 will do more harm for the short run and would only be remedied by building a good defense.
Can we do that? Certainly. But it's the long way around, or so it seems.
_________________
| theuntouchable wrote: | | Think about this phire. I am the real chow. |
| RainbowCarebear wrote: | | Only for the quick and lucky. |
Dear Eagles Forum: Click >here< to make your own mock. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RainbowCarebear
Joined: 31 Aug 2011
Posts: 39188
Location: "Are you hungry, child?" Yes, she thought, but not for food.
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Foles is the Quick fix?
_________________
| HT52 wrote: | I laughed way too hard at this  they talked about the Dane like Robert Downey Jr talked about The Hulk in The Avengers
"We have the Dallas forum"
"We have a Dane" |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Withmy89vision
Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Posts: 3597
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 12:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| TheKingDP wrote: | | BirdsFan06050 wrote: | | PowerElite wrote: | This Eagles forum is being dumbed down with talk of 43 to 34 conversion difficulties as if the conversion in itself could ever produce something as horrible defensively as what we have witnessed from the Eagles this season.
34 to 43 conversions are simple today because coordinators are more flexible. Just like morons use to say things like a running QB prospect may need to sit the bench in the NFL for a few seasons. Now coordinators adjust to the players. Bottomline, coordinators adjust to the personnel today much more frequently than in the past. |
If we brought in Ray Horton, I'd certainly be down with a switch to a base 3-4 scheme.
It's not as if Ryans, Cox, Cole, and Graham couldn't make the switch either IMO. |
You really need a dominating NT for the 3-4 to be truly effective. Once someone has a solution there, I wouldn't touch the 3-4 with a wide-9 foot pole.
Edit: Eagles_808 sums it up perfectly. I guess I should read the entire post before I comment, eh?
| Eagles_808 wrote: | | We have no NT for a 3-4. We might have 2 ends (Cox and Thornton), but most likely only Cox could start there. Cole, Graham and Curry could maybe play OLB, but that is a stretch IMO. Kendricks and Ryans at ILB is a major question mark (with Ryans having failed in it and eventually shipped out from in HOU). Oh, and guess what else all succesful 3-4 defenses have; two competent, above average safeties. Something we lack too. |
|
You don't need a dominant NT for a 3-4 to work. Wade Phillips' scheme doesn't even use a traditional NT. It's more of a 5-2. That said, scheme isn't the problem. 4-3 defenses can work, it's our playcalling and execution of said scheme.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheKingDP
Joined: 03 Nov 2010
Posts: 562
Location: illadelph
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 12:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Withmy89vision wrote: | | TheKingDP wrote: | | BirdsFan06050 wrote: | | PowerElite wrote: | This Eagles forum is being dumbed down with talk of 43 to 34 conversion difficulties as if the conversion in itself could ever produce something as horrible defensively as what we have witnessed from the Eagles this season.
34 to 43 conversions are simple today because coordinators are more flexible. Just like morons use to say things like a running QB prospect may need to sit the bench in the NFL for a few seasons. Now coordinators adjust to the players. Bottomline, coordinators adjust to the personnel today much more frequently than in the past. |
If we brought in Ray Horton, I'd certainly be down with a switch to a base 3-4 scheme.
It's not as if Ryans, Cox, Cole, and Graham couldn't make the switch either IMO. |
You really need a dominating NT for the 3-4 to be truly effective. Once someone has a solution there, I wouldn't touch the 3-4 with a wide-9 foot pole.
Edit: Eagles_808 sums it up perfectly. I guess I should read the entire post before I comment, eh?
| Eagles_808 wrote: | | We have no NT for a 3-4. We might have 2 ends (Cox and Thornton), but most likely only Cox could start there. Cole, Graham and Curry could maybe play OLB, but that is a stretch IMO. Kendricks and Ryans at ILB is a major question mark (with Ryans having failed in it and eventually shipped out from in HOU). Oh, and guess what else all succesful 3-4 defenses have; two competent, above average safeties. Something we lack too. |
|
You don't need a dominant NT for a 3-4 to work. Wade Phillips' scheme doesn't even use a traditional NT. It's more of a 5-2. That said, scheme isn't the problem. 4-3 defenses can work, it's our playcalling and execution of said scheme. |
You're right. Wade Phillips uses his father's version of the 3-4 defense with a 1-gap scheme that depends largely on quickness, not brute strength (the "Bum Phillips" 3-4 where the NT isn't always lined up in a 0-technique aka "head up on the center"). I believe that he's the only defensive coordinator in the NFL that currently uses that scheme. I also believe that's why Jay Ratliff was so successful in Dallas under Wade Phillips.
The 3-4 defense that someone like Vic Fangio runs in San Francisco is a more traditional 3-4 that a lot of people call the "Parcells 3-4" which is the most typical type of 3-4 defense run in the NFL today. It pretty much requires that a large, dominant, immovable DT is played in a 0-technique with 2-gap responsibility (both A-Gaps). This type of defense involves physicality at all 3 levels in order to be truly successful. We simply don't have enough effective 3-4 players to pull this off in any short amount of time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
killdawabbit
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 5604
Location: Somewhere you're not.
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 12:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| TheKingDP wrote: | | Withmy89vision wrote: | | TheKingDP wrote: | | BirdsFan06050 wrote: | | PowerElite wrote: | This Eagles forum is being dumbed down with talk of 43 to 34 conversion difficulties as if the conversion in itself could ever produce something as horrible defensively as what we have witnessed from the Eagles this season.
34 to 43 conversions are simple today because coordinators are more flexible. Just like morons use to say things like a running QB prospect may need to sit the bench in the NFL for a few seasons. Now coordinators adjust to the players. Bottomline, coordinators adjust to the personnel today much more frequently than in the past. |
If we brought in Ray Horton, I'd certainly be down with a switch to a base 3-4 scheme.
It's not as if Ryans, Cox, Cole, and Graham couldn't make the switch either IMO. |
You really need a dominating NT for the 3-4 to be truly effective. Once someone has a solution there, I wouldn't touch the 3-4 with a wide-9 foot pole.
Edit: Eagles_808 sums it up perfectly. I guess I should read the entire post before I comment, eh?
| Eagles_808 wrote: | | We have no NT for a 3-4. We might have 2 ends (Cox and Thornton), but most likely only Cox could start there. Cole, Graham and Curry could maybe play OLB, but that is a stretch IMO. Kendricks and Ryans at ILB is a major question mark (with Ryans having failed in it and eventually shipped out from in HOU). Oh, and guess what else all succesful 3-4 defenses have; two competent, above average safeties. Something we lack too. |
|
You don't need a dominant NT for a 3-4 to work. Wade Phillips' scheme doesn't even use a traditional NT. It's more of a 5-2. That said, scheme isn't the problem. 4-3 defenses can work, it's our playcalling and execution of said scheme. |
You're right. Wade Phillips uses his father's version of the 3-4 defense with a 1-gap scheme that depends largely on quickness, not brute strength (the "Bum Phillips" 3-4 where the NT isn't always lined up in a 0-technique aka "head up on the center"). I believe that he's the only defensive coordinator in the NFL that currently uses that scheme. I also believe that's why Jay Ratliff was so successful in Dallas under Wade Phillips.
The 3-4 defense that someone like Vic Fangio runs in San Francisco is a more traditional 3-4 that a lot of people call the "Parcells 3-4" which is the most typical type of 3-4 defense run in the NFL today. It pretty much requires that a large, dominant, immovable DT is played in a 0-technique with 2-gap responsibility (both A-Gaps). This type of defense involves physicality at all 3 levels in order to be truly successful. We simply don't have enough effective 3-4 players to pull this off in any short amount of time. |
I don't know that you need a "dominant" NT per say (unless you equivocate "good at a specific skill set" to dominance), but you do need a guy with a specific skill set in the more standard Parcells style 2 gap 3-4. Of course a dominant guy in that spot is more valuable than a dominant guy in most other spots in this particular defense. You mainly just need a guy who is large and strong enough to hold his ground and create a logjam in the middle. So dominant is not a necessity, but a certain physical type and skill set are definately needed. Thing is, those guys don't grow on trees. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
