Mangini comes from the Parcells school of thought. That means the 3-4 is forced in year 1..no matter the personell. Bellichick did the same thing, as did Crennell. It is what it is.
Wtf, we weren't exactly good in the 4-3 either. Stopping the run has been a problem we've had for the past year or so. We need better players. What did you expect in only one year? We worked on the offense first, because offense is harder to build but lasts longer. A good defense can be built and coached by next year.
I'm a huge fan of the 34. But it is obvious we shouldn't be using it... My grandmother could run for 100 against us.
You hae got to have the personnel to run a 3-4 or otherwise your defense will be easily exploited. It is just that simple really. You all have a better defense but the 3-4 is taking away from that reality IMO.
You want to see a pefect guy for the 3-4? Just turn on the SD game right now, and watch Jamal Williams #76 on SD. The guy is a monster that over powers the C and penetrates the back field...Dewayne Busterson he is not...
The big difference is with Bellicheck he had an advantage with moving to the 3-4 because of the players Parcells had brought in previously(Tedy Bruischi, Ted Johnson, and Willie Mcginest). He then strengthened the D fense by adding Roman Phifer and Bobby Hamilton and other guys that i can't name. It takes time and draft picks to move to the 3-4. Good example is what Parcells did in last year's draft. He basically spent the whole draft building the 3-4 starting with his 2 1st round draft choices.
well atleast D rob looks like a monster..he can try and scare centers.:lol: :rofl2: and for u other poster wanting to switch u dont make those kind of switch mid season.. the defense have studying the 3-4 scheme all year long. it doesnt make any sense especially when mangini is tryna feel out his players.. for future purposes.
Mangini said he would play whatever front needed to give us the best chance to win....so much for that idea. I refuse to believe we can't play any better in a different from. Lets use the 4-3 more this year and next year we can try the 3-4 once we have the personnel.
You are kidding, aren't you? I don't think BB, himself, could get this D playing in the 3-4 right now and I thik we will still have issues in the 4-3. We are really bad this year against the run. It is not a result of coaching, it is a result of personnel.
Exactly. They have been using quite a few different schemes the last two games all to no avail. Basically, the D-line sucks and the LBs are very questionable.....
Kinda ironic that last year the O-line was awful and this year the D-line is bad. I do think there is something to work with on the D-line, though. I think DRob will be traded. I think we will be looking to be aggressive in the FA market, and utilizing the draft to shore up our D in general, but emphasizing the line. I think it is ridiculous to start pointing fingers at Sutton. If we were all certain our personnel were better, than I would be quite concerned about the coaching, but our personnel is not that good. We have a few very good players, quite a few average players, and also some players that don't fit in.
I don't know how much longer I can take this 3-4 defense, this season we aren't going to stop the run at all with this scheme
It's plain and simple, Mangini wants the team to learn the 3-4 and experienceit in game time situations. Obviously he knows that it is a force fit for the personnel he has on the roster and when the team has a chance to upgrade the positions without selling out the future (i.e. in the upcoming season) it will be done.. Right now, all he can do is watch the team to evaluate each player in the 3-4 to see which positions he needs to fill in the offseason. If he switched to the 4-3 he would not have ample opportunity to teach and evaluate. Remember, Rome wasn't built in a day and it takes time to re-work a roster to fit your schemes.
But this is like building a pyramid out of ice cubes in the desert, we do not, let me repeat do not have the personel to make the 3-4 effective.
