Pitta Posted March 26, 2014 Author Posted March 26, 2014 I think the point is - if you are a 3-4 team hire a 3-4 coach, and vica versa. Post #37 and we finally have a winner! Reading is fundamental folks.
YoloinOhio Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 (edited) Post #37 and we finally have a winner! Reading is fundamental folks. This post "wins" what? The Bills aren't a 3-4 team so why do they need a 3-4 DC?. But you still haven't provided your list of 3-4 DCs who were available when the Bills needed one, if the base scheme is what overrides all. The bolded is pure irony. Edited March 26, 2014 by YoloinOhio
Nanker Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 Took 36 posts for someone to finally agree somewhat with him. Look at what Kelly the Dog said. We ran more 4-3 last year anyway. Stupid rehash. I'm out.
K-9 Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 Took 36 posts for someone to finally agree somewhat with him. Look at what Kelly the Dog said. We ran more 4-3 last year anyway. Stupid rehash. I'm out. Agree. Some people are just too simplistic and rigid in their thinking. How's this: Mario with his hand down means 43, Mario standing up equals 34. It's all about game situation and sub-packages, anyway. Regardless, I'm positive Schwartz brings expert knowledge on every defensive alignment ever played. GO BILLS!!!
3rdnlng Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 Post #37 and we finally have a winner! Reading is fundamental folks. You should take your negativity over to the Aud Club where you can join "Team Storm Cloud".
Bangarang Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 Do people seriously think we ran a 3-4 last year?
nucci Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 Do people seriously think we ran a 3-4 last year? Apparently. Did we ever have 4 LBs on the field? I don't think so...most of the time there were 2.
YoloinOhio Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 Apparently. Did we ever have 4 LBs on the field? I don't think so...most of the time there were 2. Not an x's and o's guru but I feel like the most common defense, i.e. base, I saw last year was the nickel!
The Big Cat Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 Do people seriously think we ran a 3-4 last year? Took 3 !@#$ing pages to get this. Not only did we rarely run the 3-4, we rarely had 3 LB's on the field too! I thought we were beyond the 3-4 v 4-3 arguments! Jeebus. Not an x's and o's guru but I feel like the most common defense, i.e. base, I saw last year was the nickel! EXACTLY!!
Bangarang Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 Not an x's and o's guru but I feel like the most common defense, i.e. base, I saw last year was the nickel! Base defense was nickel defense. Most of the time it was Mario, Kyle, Dareus, and either Branch or Hughes on the line with Lawson and Kiko as our LBs. I don't recall a single time we ran a true 3-4 look. When people say we were a hybrid defense last year, I think that had more to do with our linebacker and safety roles.
boyst Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 I am boggled by this thread. We didn't run a 4-3 or 3-4 last year. We ran a mixture of every scheme, lineup and coverage. We will again do this for 2014.
Big Turk Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 Finally enjoy a modicum of success on defense, turn around and hire a replacement that runs a completely different scheme after having already changed schemes each year for the past 4 seasons, sounds legit. Thanks for taking the time out to respond with your literary essay; unfortunately I read none of it. Luckily I read it for you and agree with his post. The 4-3 vs 3-4 argument is essentially irrelevant based on how often teams are in the base defense now, which is under 50%...
Bangarang Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 I am boggled by this thread. We didn't run a 4-3 or 3-4 last year. We ran a mixture of every scheme, lineup and coverage. We will again do this for 2014. Marrone already confirmed that we're not going to be a multiple defense next year. We're going to be more of a true 4-3 defense.
boyst Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 Marrone already confirmed that we're not going to be a multiple defense next year. We're going to be more of a true 4-3 defense. I'll believe it when I see it.We have too much versatility on defense to not include nickel and dime, as well as 33monster defenses. It may be a base 43 but it will have more then one flavor.
thebandit27 Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 Marrone already confirmed that we're not going to be a multiple defense next year. We're going to be more of a true 4-3 defense. Not from anything I've read: http://www.buffalorumblings.com/2014/1/27/5352166/jim-schwartz-defense-wide-9-wont-define-buffalo-bills-system "We've never put a label on it," Schwartz said of the system. "It’s going to be opponent-specific. It’s going to be multi-dimensional enough to be able to do that - I mentioned before, trying to put players in good positions, and positions that fit their capabilities. We’re an attack scheme... whatever anybody wants to tag the system with as far as a name, it won’t be us."
K-9 Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 Marrone already confirmed that we're not going to be a multiple defense next year. We're going to be more of a true 4-3 defense. Once again, it's all about game situation and sub packages. You think a team is gonna be in a 43 front when the offense presents 3 or more WRs in a spread formation? Good luck with that. GO BILLS!!!
YoloinOhio Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 Marrone already confirmed that we're not going to be a multiple defense next year. We're going to be more of a true 4-3 defense. I read his comment about the LBs... I don't think he meant they aren't going to use sub-packages.
nucci Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 Marrone already confirmed that we're not going to be a multiple defense next year. We're going to be more of a true 4-3 defense. Hard to be a true 4-3 when most if not all teams play 3 WRs for most of the game.
Bangarang Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 Apparently people are misunderstanding what I said or I did not communicate it well. Marrone's quote from yesterday's meetings Last year we were basically a two-linebacker team. Manny played on the line, and we had two linebackers in the back going against 21 and 12 personnel.“Now we have a little bit more of a switch to a three-linebacker approach — three players back there. We won’t be multiple. But that would be the biggest difference. I never said that we won't be in nickel or dime or have any other personnel packages. Obviously we're not going to exclusively be lined up in a traditional 4-3 front but in comparison to last year, the 4-3 will be our base and you will see a lot more 4-3 looks.
Recommended Posts