4-3? 3-4? Can we just tackle somebody? LOL

This just in:

Seems Creehan is adjustable re his base philosophy:

"While Creehan has enjoyed success with the three-four defence -- a scheme that sees a club use just three defensive linemen and four linebackers rather than the conventional four linemen/three linebacker format, the head coach says the Ticats will likely continue with the four-man front as their base defence,"


So...a 4-3+ ? Music to my ears!

The key is developing a system that players can buy into, know their responsibilities and that of their teammates, and execute. The team has to TACKLE PROPERLY again as a unit, not just with our stalwarts.

We shall see.

Oski Wee Wee,

great Read I am glad where Staying with a base 4-3

No offence Onknight but what difference does it make to us what defence they use ??

It all has to do with the talent you have . If you have more talent at LBS than DL then you play a 3- 4 and the opposite if you more DL . It all has to do with tackling . IF you tackle well and get pressure on the QBs you`ll win more than you lose .

I think we should let the coaches take care of this and not worry about it . We dont know enough about either one to be able to say one would work better than the other .

When Creehan gets a look at last years films he will realize he will have to re-think a 3-4 D. When we used it last year(more often than I cared for) it was a disaster. No rush, terrible blitz schemes of it, no run contain and no improvement in downfield cover.

Either the DC and the players weren't on the same page (naw..it couldn't be that) or we just didn't have the players to make it work.

If they want to go with that style of defence they will defintely have to find new players. I would prefer a standard 4-3 D for reasons that others have already stated.

I prefer the 11-1 Defense. Or the 1-11 Defense. Is there any rule regarding how many players we must have on the defensive line?

I tune out to arm chair coaches.

I’m not ocncerned whether we run 3-4 , 4-3 or some other defense.

All that matters to me is coaches that utilize scheme in combination with available talent, and how they execute that combination against the opponent for that week.

It’s not as simple as coaching (3-4 vs. 4-3) or talent. It’s about preparation and execution, and how that is directed towards exploiting your opponenents’ weaknesses.

No rule that I have ever heard of. Have seen the famous 1-11 (or in some cases the 1-10) on the last play of the game a few times to protect against the "hail mary". Pass rush s**ked, run D was non-existant but the pass coverage was awesome! Of course even that wouldn't have helped our pass coverage last year.

Sure it would have.

No pass rush with 5 DBs (last year's) would have been much improveds if instead we went with no pass rush and 11 DBs. :slight_smile:


Good point, but only if it was man cover. A zone would still have been torn apart.:slight_smile:

and umm... a coordinator offensive, or defensive will run the systems the head coach tells him to. so i'm having difficulty understanding what the big to-do is about.

  1. I know of no rule requiring defense to have a certain number of players on the line of scrimmage.

  2. I know I have seen within the past few years occasions where the D lined up all 12 across the line of scrimmage - of course some were out opposite the WRs, but all were only the required 1 yd off the line.

  3. Last year we could have run 0-12 so we had 2 DBs for every potential receiver, and still had coverage problems.


Not necesarily true.

Some HCs are overall managers of the game and team and allow the OC and DC to do their own specialized thing. Especially when the HC lacks experience.

An example would be the Pinball Clemons, Kent Austin, Rich Stubler combo.

Depends, frankly. I doubt Pinball dislodged any phlegm "lecturing" Rich Stubler on what to run in T.O. LMAO I seriously doubt Pinball ever had such a convo with him.

If you have X's and O's strengths and past success, then you dictate what your people are going to run or accomodate their talents if they themselves have a rep. Joe Gibbs surrendered his playcall to Al Saunders the last two years as one example.

Another thing: 3-15 coaches have less heft than 15-3 ones. GMs tend to hover less in the latter scenario.

The most important component is your comfort level with YOUR HIRE. So if you are an offensive guru, your OC will reflect your preferences more often than not. Same goes for the defence. If you a spread offense kind of guy, you won't opt for triple-tight end afficionados to run your O.

Oski Wee Wee,

Nobody has mentioned that with the right personnel
a D.C. can trip up the the Defence on occasion

by dropping a D.E. back from the line
into an outside linebacker position.

We did that most recently with Tim Cheatwood
and he was about Nautyn Mc Kay-Loescher's size.

Nautyn flys all around from his D.E. spot
much like Joe Montford used to already.

It might be easier to do that
if he was back off the line.

This tactic could be in our blitz package.

Any comments? Other players? etc?

He has size to Drop back into 3-4 When Needed.
To cover the flats when use a Blitz Package.
As Long we don't use a 3-4 as Base package.
It cause in Passing downs I am fine with it.

We for sure can use a montford like tackle right now!:wink: