Cosell on 3-4 / 4-3 on shut down corner Posted twice and merged by mods :) (1 Viewer)

[bornnraisedwhodat]

Man Wade Phillips sure has been around a long time.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

 

[ndcc]

Great find, Guillermo!

The first four remarks following the article say it all:

Quote 1: We need more articles like this on the internet, and not the fluff pieces of what sort of flair the player is wearing or who they are seen with.
>>>
Quote 2: One of the best football articles written. Thank you Mr Cosell. Keep up the great work and I am looking forward to your next article.
>>>
Quote 3: This is what an article on football is supposed to look like.
>>>
Quote 4: Learned a lot about the 3-4 and 4-3 defenses. This guy is a good writer.

 

[Saint_Ward]

I love following Cosell's tweets. He got on random rolls.

 

[CaliSaint4Life]

Basically your Boundary Corner is the bigger corner and is better in run support. Keenan i think in this scenario could play here. HE gets the least amount of safety help because the safety is rotated more towards the field side. So essentially they get put on the Island the most.



The field corner would be the smaller more agile of the two because he has to cover the most ground


While i didn't explain it throughly i alluded to as much by mentioning that the field corner has the most ground to cover of the two. Meaning he plays on wide side of the field.

Yeah, I got you, that's why I said it wasn't "entirely" correct.

Here's one way to look at it, the boundary corner (the corner who lines up on the short side of the field) uses positioning and the sideline to his advantage. Bigger corners are typically more physical and tend to be more successful in "jamming" the receiver off the LOS - thus bigger corners may typically end of being your 'boundary' guy.

At the end of the day, if a guy is 5'5" tall and playing on the short side of the field, he's a boundary corner.

 

[CaliSaint4Life]

Well obviously you and TCU and several others have more knowledge than me about the game either from being around the game or playing. You are much more fundamentally sound than I am and i respect that and look to you guys to cement my own thoughts.


Respectfully when you look@scheme and how players fit i think you have to do EXACTLY that when piecing together your scheme.

When Payton and all the players talked about making the transition they've all talked about what they've done or been asked to do previously.

When SP mentioned Vilma he directly pointed to what he did LAST YEAR playing as a WOLB in the 4-3 as why he could make the transition to 3-4 ILB. He pointed to how Lofton would be asked to do some of the same things so he mentioned how the transition should be smooth in theory.

That is looking@ what your 3-4 will require as of technique and what guys do the best or what they've done well in the past and how they fit.


For that reason is why i say even though Hicks has the ability to dominate guards@ RDE for the sake of the team and not creating a hole@ NT why move him?

Im just using the same logic that Hicks was asked to play 1 tech in rotation and he and bunkley did very well with that. 3sacks 40 tkls 1 ff and a batted pass or two between then 2 off them.

With hicks seeing more time in that role and being better after a year i expect his #'s to rise. He should also see an increased role in the nickel where bunkley will be a two down player. So he gets a chance to dominate Guards from there just like ur saying he can do.. We just have a matter of opinion on if he should do it in base or sub packages like nickel/dime.

ID prefer in the base he do exactly what he was asked to do in the base of the 4-3...play the 1 tech. On occasion he played 3 tech and proved he can do it.



Now the good thing about our debates is we all come to conclusions different ways. From your knowledge and your eyes you see a guy that can play 3 tech and dominate guards.

I see a guy that can play the #2 nt and move around in packages and attack that way. He still gets on the field and he still gets to showcase his talents playing multiple techniques.




Look@ Watt. Hes a guy that can destroy guards but in the TExans Base 3-4 he playes the DE..however in the Nickel he moves to DT and thats where his sacks come from the 3tech. So does that mean hes a better 3 tech than he is 5tech. In the base he plays 5 right? and in the nickel he plays 3 tech.

He showcases his quality and it allows him to be a force against the run and also get push for the pass.


I see the same for hicks you continue to develop him from what hes shown he can do while also adding more to his plate. Allow him to continue playing 1 tech in the base and move him around in subs and let him reack havoc.


I for one would like hicks are bunkley in the triangle of my defense



Regardless to how we come to our conclusions we stil have the potential to be right/wrong based off what we see and how we see it.

I won't pretend to know more than anyone on this forum, not really my thing. I just post what I know and learn from people what I don't. I appreciate the compliment though.

To your point about scheme, of course you start off with a DC with a scheme and try to fit players into that scheme, I'm not debating that. My point is that you can't have ideal players at every position, thus you have to tailor the scheme to the talent that you have on your final 53-man roster. That's why you'll see a DC (a good one) who run the same scheme different ways different years with different teams - he has to tailor it to the available talent. Heck, we'd all love a defensive line full of J.J. Watts, Calias Campbells, and Ngata's but that isn't realistic.

We'll never agree about the Hicks thing. You'll never convince me to not start a player because you want depth at another position - it doesn't make football sense to me. If Hick is the backup NT and not the starting DE, it'll be because the coaching staff didn't think he was a fit at the DE spot. I think he can play the position because I used film study and determined that he would be adequate in that spot. You'll never convince me Hicks is a nickel only player or a rotational player, when he is, in my belief, the most well-rouned defensive lineman we have. Only thing we agree on is that he'll probably slide inside on nickel. If I'm wrong, then so be it, but I stand by my research - can't be right all the time.

 

[Saint_Ward]

I won't pretend to know more than anyone on this forum, not really my thing. I just post what I know and learn from people what I don't. I appreciate the compliment though.

To your point about scheme, of course you start off with a DC with a scheme and try to fit players into that scheme, I'm not debating that. My point is that you can't have ideal players at every position, thus you have to tailor the scheme to the talent that you have on your final 53-man roster. That's why you'll see a DC (a good one) who run the same scheme different ways different years with different teams - he has to tailor it to the available talent. Heck, we'd all love a defensive line full of J.J. Watts, Calias Campbells, and Ngata's but that isn't realistic.

We'll never agree about the Hicks thing. You'll never convince me to not start a player because you want depth at another position - it doesn't make football sense to me. If Hick is the backup NT and not the starting DE, it'll be because the coaching staff didn't think he was a fit at the DE spot. I think he can play the position because I used film study and determined that he would be adequate in that spot. You'll never convince me Hicks is a nickel only player or a rotational player, when he is, in my belief, the most well-rouned defensive lineman we have. Only thing we agree on is that he'll probably slide inside on nickel. If I'm wrong, then so be it, but I stand by my research - can't be right all the time.

Kinda like SP just said the other day.

They say some things happen for a reason. Well, sometimes things just happen.