Heitz Posted February 15, 2010 Posted February 15, 2010 Didn't see this one posted... http://blogs.buffalobills.com/2010/02/15/f...-on-3-4-switch/ I like the comment about getting more linebackers onto the field. Let's hope that we can return to the days of excellent LB play that we used to have here. Remember too that George Edwards' background is in the LB corps. If we can get some players in here, I think we're going to like the D over the next few years! I also thought is was interesting that he mentioned it improving special teams too. Under the DB minded Jauron and DB minded D Coordinators over the years we've seen lots of DBs on ST. I'd rather see some LBs in there; guys that can take (and dish out) a pounding. Onward and upward...
Tortured Soul Posted February 15, 2010 Posted February 15, 2010 I'm not a Chicken Little type, but the fact that Gailey's most consistent rationale for the 3-4 switch is that he has been unable to figure out the defense himself is not very reassuring.
Heitz Posted February 15, 2010 Author Posted February 15, 2010 I'm not a Chicken Little type, but the fact that Gailey's most consistent rationale for the 3-4 switch is that he has been unable to figure out the defense himself is not very reassuring. lol - maybe you have a point there!
JPS Posted February 15, 2010 Posted February 15, 2010 I have more memories of good 3-4s than 4-3s....
Preston Ridlehuber Posted February 15, 2010 Posted February 15, 2010 I'm not a Chicken Little type, but the fact that Gailey's most consistent rationale for the 3-4 switch is that he has been unable to figure out the defense himself is not very reassuring. Saying how difficult it is to plan against is a lot different then saying he can't figure it out.
Boatdrinks Posted February 15, 2010 Posted February 15, 2010 I'm not a Chicken Little type, but the fact that Gailey's most consistent rationale for the 3-4 switch is that he has been unable to figure out the defense himself is not very reassuring. Not sure if that's exactly what CG said, but it is a fact. The 3-4 puts more of the onus on the QB to make a good decision and diagnosis quickly after the snap. Even the Peyton Mannings of the world have lesser stats against the 3-4 than a 4-3. You don't face Manning every week. Could be enough to equal a couple extra wins.
Bob in STL Posted February 15, 2010 Posted February 15, 2010 Didn't see this one posted... http://blogs.buffalobills.com/2010/02/15/f...-on-3-4-switch/ I like the comment about getting more linebackers onto the field. Let's hope that we can return to the days of excellent LB play that we used to have here. Remember too that George Edwards' background is in the LB corps. If we can get some players in here, I think we're going to like the D over the next few years! I also thought is was interesting that he mentioned it improving special teams too. Under the DB minded Jauron and DB minded D Coordinators over the years we've seen lots of DBs on ST. I'd rather see some LBs in there; guys that can take (and dish out) a pounding. Onward and upward... Only problem right now our LB core lacks talent and is undersized for the 3-4. There is no gaurentee that DE's like Maybin, Ellis, Schobel oreKelsey can play the 3-4 effectively. Schobel sounded intrigued by it. Maybin should be able to convert. If an potential impact player like McClain is sitting there at #9 I say you take him.
Mikie2times Posted February 15, 2010 Posted February 15, 2010 Not sure if that's exactly what CG said, but it is a fact. The 3-4 puts more of the onus on the QB to make a good decision and diagnosis quickly after the snap. Even the Peyton Mannings of the world have lesser stats against the 3-4 than a 4-3. You don't face Manning every week. Could be enough to equal a couple extra wins. But how long does that take? I love the 3-4, but I'm not a proponent of forcing a system on a team that doesn't have players for it. We have maybe 2-3 guys in our front seven who might work out. Just about everybody else is a round hole in a square peg.
Pirate Angel Posted February 15, 2010 Posted February 15, 2010 I'm not a Chicken Little type, but the fact that Gailey's most consistent rationale for the 3-4 switch is that he has been unable to figure out the defense himself is not very reassuring. I think his point was from a player standpoint, making reads and seeing the field. IN a 4-3 its pretty cut and dry on whos doing what mainly in regards to blitz pickup. Im sure he understands it.
Beerball Posted February 15, 2010 Posted February 15, 2010 Saying how difficult it is to plan against is a lot different then saying he can't figure it out. I wonder if our offense will actually practice against the 3-4 from time to time (like before we play a 3-4 team) unlike the previous administration.
Bill from NYC Posted February 15, 2010 Posted February 15, 2010 If an potential impact player like McClain is sitting there at #9 I say you take him. Bob, I gotta fully agree with you here, despite my years of complaining about the OL. McClain might turn into a DeMarcus Ware/Bryce Paup talent, and I could not see letting someone this good slip away.
DarthICE Posted February 15, 2010 Posted February 15, 2010 Saying how difficult it is to plan against is a lot different then saying he can't figure it out. Exactly. It would be nice if some would quit mis quoteing the guy
DarthICE Posted February 15, 2010 Posted February 15, 2010 Bob, I gotta fully agree with you here, despite my years of complaining about the OL. McClain might turn into a DeMarcus Ware/Bryce Paup talent, and I could not see letting someone this good slip away. McClain won't amount to crap unless the DL is addressed. The whole D sucks unless we get a stud NT. NO LB's till the line is figured out.
uforesircher Posted February 15, 2010 Posted February 15, 2010 I'm not a Chicken Little type, but the fact that Gailey's most consistent rationale for the 3-4 switch is that he has been unable to figure out the defense himself is not very reassuring. he NEVER said that he couldn't figure it out - and if that is what you got from his statement concerning the 3-4 switch - then your understanding of the english language is not very reassuring
Tortured Soul Posted February 15, 2010 Posted February 15, 2010 Saying how difficult it is to plan against is a lot different then saying he can't figure it out. Really? Why?
Rubes Posted February 15, 2010 Posted February 15, 2010 I also thought is was interesting that he mentioned it improving special teams too. Under the DB minded Jauron and DB minded D Coordinators over the years we've seen lots of DBs on ST. I'd rather see some LBs in there; guys that can take (and dish out) a pounding. You mean having one of the top 5 special teams in the league over the past handful of years hasn't been good enough for you?
Thurman#1 Posted February 15, 2010 Posted February 15, 2010 Bob, I gotta fully agree with you here, despite my years of complaining about the OL. McClain might turn into a DeMarcus Ware/Bryce Paup talent, and I could not see letting someone this good slip away. Different types of players. Both Ware and McClain are/were lightning fast. McClain is fast, but hasn't showed all that much ability to rush the passer as those guys. McClain is more physical than either guy. It's just not a good comparison. Paup and Ware are 247. McClain is 258, which is huge for an LB. He also has 8 sacks total as a collegian. Terrible comparison. Ware had 27.5 sacks in college.
JPS Posted February 15, 2010 Posted February 15, 2010 It's starting to feel like the safest picks in the draft are McClain and Bulaga. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see Hampton or another FA here at NT. Stroud-Hampton-Williams wouldn't be the worst thing in the world....if #99 decided he felt like playing this year. Back that up with Maybin, McClain, Poz & Mitchell and the front 7 is at least credible.
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted February 15, 2010 Posted February 15, 2010 I'm not a Chicken Little type, but the fact that Gailey's most consistent rationale for the 3-4 switch is that he has been unable to figure out the defense himself is not very reassuring. Reminds me of when GW came to town and immediately said that we'd be going with a west coast offense, since that always gave him fits as a defensive coordinator.
Thurman#1 Posted February 15, 2010 Posted February 15, 2010 I'm not a Chicken Little type, but the fact that Gailey's most consistent rationale for the 3-4 switch is that he has been unable to figure out the defense himself is not very reassuring. Saying how difficult it is to plan against is a lot different then saying he can't figure it out. Really? Why? How old are you? Four? Next thing you'll be asking why "hard" is different from "soft"?
Recommended Posts