Changing to 4-3?
-
I don't think there's any real 'best' system - if there were the other wouldn't exist. But I'd really love for the owner and FO to be on the same page in terms of "this is our system, and we'll bring in guys that know it" so we don't churn the players every year or two.
but that's the problem.
all these guys have egos so big i'm surprised their heads fit through the doors. thye have to have their schemes, their staff, their players which once again puts on that merry-go-round.
but that's the problem.
all these guys have egos so big i'm surprised their heads fit through the doors. thye have to have their schemes, their staff, their players which once again puts on that merry-go-round.
That's the point though, we pick one, out of a hat if necessary, and stick with it. Then only hire people who agree with the philosophy. Sure, we might be halving the pool of coaches available, but it's not like there are no good coaches on one side of the line. Plus, if we actually stick with a coach for a few years, that won't matter.
-
but that's the problem.
all these guys have egos so big i'm surprised their heads fit through the doors. thye have to have their schemes, their staff, their players which once again puts on that merry-go-round.
That's the point though, we pick one, out of a hat if necessary, and stick with it. Then only hire people who agree with the philosophy. Sure, we might be halving the pool of coaches available, but it's not like there are no good coaches on one side of the line. Plus, if we actually stick with a coach for a few years, that won't matter.
That's the point though, we pick one, out of a hat if necessary, and stick with it. Then only hire people who agree with the philosophy. Sure, we might be halving the pool of coaches available, but it's not like there are no good coaches on one side of the line. Plus, if we actually stick with a coach for a few years, that won't matter.
well if the coach goes 4-12 next year do they fire him?
-
That's the point though, we pick one, out of a hat if necessary, and stick with it. Then only hire people who agree with the philosophy. Sure, we might be halving the pool of coaches available, but it's not like there are no good coaches on one side of the line. Plus, if we actually stick with a coach for a few years, that won't matter.
well if the coach goes 4-12 next year do they fire him?
-
Whether they 3-4 or 4-3 they will still an ILB or two coming out of this draft: Shazier/Mosley/Skove/Borland/Johnson?
-
Whether they 3-4 or 4-3 they will still an ILB or two coming out of this draft: Shazier/Mosley/Skove/Borland/Johnson?
Whether they 3-4 or 4-3 they will still an ILB or two coming out of this draft: Shazier/Mosley/Skove/Borland/Johnson?
I'll take Skov, no problems.
-
yeah he looked good in that loss yesterday.
chris if i'm missing your point please explain.
my point was with this group of defenders that have played here now for over 2-3 years they looked better in the 4-3.
-
yeah he looked good in that loss yesterday.
chris if i'm missing your point please explain.
my point was with this group of defenders that have played here now for over 2-3 years they looked better in the 4-3.
yeah he looked good in that loss yesterday.
chris if i'm missing your point please explain.
my point was with this group of defenders that have played here now for over 2-3 years they looked better in the 4-3.
My point is that the actual system doesn't matter so much, apart from getting used to it. What I'd relaly like to see is not changing the system every two years, settle on a system and bring in coaches that agree with and can work with the system we have in place, if not the players. Then you're not creating holes for yourself to fill, and can concentrate on bringing in quality not quantity.
For example, last year, we had to let go Parker, Rucker, Fujita, Gocong etc and we brought in Groves, Kruger, Mingo and Bryant, as part of the change in system. Sure, we might have upgraded the positions, but we might only have brought in one or two instead of 4 or 5. We might still have drafted Mingo, but one of rucker/parker probably would have stayed. We wouldn't have signed Kruger, I doubt we sign Bryant - Rubin and Taylor are pretty solid DTs - and that right there is a large amount of money that can be invested elsewhere.
So the point is, stick with your system, stop causing problems for yourself.
-
If the rumors are true, and 2013 was strictly a rebuilding year, with Chud as a stopgap coach until they got the guy they really wanted, it doesn't make sense to me that they'd flip-flop defenses.
But they might not have a choice? At least that's what they claim: http://www.clevelandbrowns.com/news/article-1/Browns-will-be-flexible-in-coach-search/036eea23-0832-4ee3-81d6-ad0b7dc69a69
-
i know we were ranked in top 10 in some areas of D playing in this 3-4, but we had a much more aggressive and eventful D considering pass rush when we played in the 4-3 under past staff's.
but we had a much more aggressive and eventful D considering pass rush when we played in the 4-3 under past staff's.
oh we did huh? check the stats dude...we had 40 sacks this year vs 37 in 2012. I wasn't overjoyed with our outside edge production for sure...but as a team we did better rushing the passer this year than last. On top of that we also stopped the run a hell of alot better. Improving this defense should be the objective..not another rebuild. And yes I said the same thing when Shurmur got fired...I saw promise in that 4-3 we were running. But they tossed it and went with something different...fine. Are we gonna tell Sheard hey buddy, we know we asked you to lose weight last offseason and get prepped for a new position.....but now we're gonna need you to go back up to DE weight. Fucking bullshit.
-
It seems like most of the coaches we've been liked with would bring in the 4-3 defence, and do away with the current 3-4. Well, no big deal since most of the players we currently have played in the 4-3 a year ago, right?
We would have a scary front 4, like detroit - ohithere Jim Schwartz? - with inside pressure coming from a group consisting of taylor, rubin, winn, and the bryants.
Then edge rushers, Sheard would go back in, and Mingo goes to his college position. Fine, but we could use some depth, perhaps we'll see some free agent journeyman like frostee rucker last time. But what about kruger? Can he play a 4-3 DE? Perhaps we'd see Kruger and Des Bryant in at DE for a sheer bullrushing package.
And what about any kind of linebackers? If DQJ is gone, that leaves us basically with three starting spots to fill. One piece of good news, though, would be that Robertson could move back to OLB where he had a very solid rookie year, before being moved inside. Even if DQJ stays, we're still trying to find at least one line backer.
I really don't like the idea of changing D systems again. We're one starter away from having a very solid 3-4 defence. We're at least 2 in the 4-3, and you're just creating holes for yourself to fill. There needs to be a consensus from the Browns that we're going to run one type of defence, and then find a D coordinator that fits in with it, so we're not changing personnel every year.
It seems like most of the coaches we've been liked with would bring in the 4-3 defence, and do away with the current 3-4. Well, no big deal since most of the players we currently have played in the 4-3 a year ago, right?
We would have a scary front 4, like detroit - ohithere Jim Schwartz? - with inside pressure coming from a group consisting of taylor, rubin, winn, and the bryants.
Then edge rushers, Sheard would go back in, and Mingo goes to his college position. Fine, but we could use some depth, perhaps we'll see some free agent journeyman like frostee rucker last time. But what about kruger? Can he play a 4-3 DE? Perhaps we'd see Kruger and Des Bryant in at DE for a sheer bullrushing package.
And what about any kind of linebackers? If DQJ is gone, that leaves us basically with three starting spots to fill. One piece of good news, though, would be that Robertson could move back to OLB where he had a very solid rookie year, before being moved inside. Even if DQJ stays, we're still trying to find at least one line backer.
I really don't like the idea of changing D systems again. We're one starter away from having a very solid 3-4 defence. We're at least 2 in the 4-3, and you're just creating holes for yourself to fill. There needs to be a consensus from the Browns that we're going to run one type of defence, and then find a D coordinator that fits in with it, so we're not changing personnel every year.
If we were to go back to a 4-3, the sounds of Mingo on one side and Jadaveon Clowney on the other would shake up the AFC North. We still need LBs badly. DQ's ten yards downfield tackles are getting old. Has he ever had a TFL?
-
If the rumors are true, and 2013 was strictly a rebuilding year, with Chud as a stopgap coach until they got the guy they really wanted, it doesn't make sense to me that they'd flip-flop defenses.
But they might not have a choice? At least that's what they claim: http://www.clevelandbrowns.com/news/article-1/Browns-will-be-flexible-in-coach-search/036eea23-0832-4ee3-81d6-ad0b7dc69a69
If the rumors are true, and 2013 was strictly a rebuilding year, with Chud as a stopgap coach until they got the guy they really wanted, it doesn't make sense to me that they'd flip-flop defenses.
But they might not have a choice? At least that's what they claim: http://www.clevelandbrowns.com/news/article-1/Browns-will-be-flexible-in-coach-search/036eea23-0832-4ee3-81d6-ad0b7dc69a69
I'm not buying into this stopgap coach stuff at all, it's just an attempt to save face.
-
Not a big fan of Schwartz , Fisher ... their defenses are known for being scumbags... maybe it's what we need who knows.
-
It seems like most of the coaches we've been liked with would bring in the 4-3 defence, and do away with the current 3-4. Well, no big deal since most of the players we currently have played in the 4-3 a year ago, right?
We would have a scary front 4, like detroit - ohithere Jim Schwartz? - with inside pressure coming from a group consisting of taylor, rubin, winn, and the bryants.
Then edge rushers, Sheard would go back in, and Mingo goes to his college position. Fine, but we could use some depth, perhaps we'll see some free agent journeyman like frostee rucker last time. But what about kruger? Can he play a 4-3 DE? Perhaps we'd see Kruger and Des Bryant in at DE for a sheer bullrushing package.
And what about any kind of linebackers? If DQJ is gone, that leaves us basically with three starting spots to fill. One piece of good news, though, would be that Robertson could move back to OLB where he had a very solid rookie year, before being moved inside. Even if DQJ stays, we're still trying to find at least one line backer.
I really don't like the idea of changing D systems again. We're one starter away from having a very solid 3-4 defence. We're at least 2 in the 4-3, and you're just creating holes for yourself to fill. There needs to be a consensus from the Browns that we're going to run one type of defence, and then find a D coordinator that fits in with it, so we're not changing personnel every year.
If we were to go back to a 4-3, the sounds of Mingo on one side and Jadaveon Clowney on the other would shake up the AFC North. We still need LBs badly. DQ's ten yards downfield tackles are getting old. Has he ever had a TFL?
If we were to go back to a 4-3, the sounds of Mingo on one side and Jadaveon Clowney on the other would shake up the AFC North. We still need LBs badly. DQ's ten yards downfield tackles are getting old. Has he ever had a TFL?
Clowney is not and never will be a 4-3 outside backer, you know this right? And Mingo is not and never will be a 4-3 DE...you know this as well right? Clowney currently fits with this team in either Sheards or Krugers spot...he won't play as an interior lineman on a 3-4. If we switch to a 4-3...which fuck my ass sideways while I run it's looking like we're switching again......than Clowney would fit right in as one of the ends. But basically next year we'd have mugshot, kruger, sheard and then Clowney as DE's. It's going to be a mess is what I'm saying.
-
fuck if we switch to a 4-3 than we might need to go LB with the first pick, which of course we can't cause we have to have one of these shiny new fgt qb's.
-
3-3-5
-
fuck if we switch to a 4-3 than we might need to go LB with the first pick, which of course we can't cause we have to have one of these shiny new fgt qb's.
fuck if we switch to a 4-3 than we might need to go LB with the first pick, which of course we can't cause we have to have one of these shiny new fgt qb's.
i've come to a conclussion that you are just a complete and total douchebag raised by wolves.
fuck you and anybody that looks like you.
-
If we were to go back to a 4-3, the sounds of Mingo on one side and Jadaveon Clowney on the other would shake up the AFC North. We still need LBs badly. DQ's ten yards downfield tackles are getting old. Has he ever had a TFL?
Clowney is not and never will be a 4-3 outside backer, you know this right? And Mingo is not and never will be a 4-3 DE...you know this as well right? Clowney currently fits with this team in either Sheards or Krugers spot...he won't play as an interior lineman on a 3-4. If we switch to a 4-3...which fuck my ass sideways while I run it's looking like we're switching again......than Clowney would fit right in as one of the ends. But basically next year we'd have mugshot, kruger, sheard and then Clowney as DE's. It's going to be a mess is what I'm saying.
Clowney is not and never will be a 4-3 outside backer, you know this right? And Mingo is not and never will be a 4-3 DE...you know this as well right? Clowney currently fits with this team in either Sheards or Krugers spot...he won't play as an interior lineman on a 3-4. If we switch to a 4-3...which fuck my ass sideways while I run it's looking like we're switching again......than Clowney would fit right in as one of the ends. But basically next year we'd have mugshot, kruger, sheard and then Clowney as DE's. It's going to be a mess is what I'm saying.
You know that Mingo was a 4-3 DE in college, right? And that that was a big knock on taking him to play OLB in our new 3-4? And that when you say things like that you're basically negating any point you're trying to make even if it were valid...you know this as well, right?
You know also that Bryant was a 4-3 DT for Oakland before we signed him, right? And that that's probably where he'd play, in rotation with Taylor and Rubin, if we were to switch to a 4-3?
-
Hopefully mingo gets a little bigger this off season.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login