Promote your business or product on 700level.com. For
more information about advertising with us CLICK HERE!

"Originally I was disgusted with the run D....not so (at least not the 1st team). Parker had 10 carries for 32 yards. Take out the 18 yrd TD (awful) and the steelers starting running back (no big runs outside of parkers TD) had 9 carries for 14 yards, with one fumble...

is my homerism so high that I must find a silver lining ..or was the run D not as bad as it seemed."


i kinda felt the same way. on the whole, i am more worried about the run defense than the pass defense. against a team that usually runs it very well, the birds D looked better against the run.

and while considine looked like a little kid bouncing off miller, he also looked good blitzing on several occasions, including the pass deflected and when he got close enough to rothsssssssssberger to tip the ball on the fluttering INT by cole early in the game.

Eh..."taking out the one run" just can;t be done in football. it's a nice "what if" scenario, but those runs aren't luck. Those runs are a trend.

Additionally, Big Ben was pacing himself for a 600 yard passing day when he left the game near the end of the 2nd quarter. Being close to almost stopping the run if...not that comforting for me.

I'm not really worried about the run or pass D right now. I'm worried about the D in general.

Are they too old in some spots and too young in others?

Does the league have the book on JJ's scheme?

Do the players just suck?

I think any of those things is possible until we see them do it for 16 games. I've long felt getting Johnson out of here might be a good thing because his D philosophy might be antiquated and his message stale, but this is the year for me...I want to see it work again.

Also, and this is just something to throw out there...3-4.

We've all joked about it in the past and I know I've personally always shot it down, but it's clearly the better defense for todays NFL. The Eagles actually have a front 7 suited for it now (for the first time).

Bradley and Gaither would both be excellent inside 3-4 backers. Kearse, Cole, Juqua, and Gocong are all prototypical 3-4 outside backers. Abiamiri (if he can play) could easily bulk up a little more and play a 3-4 end spot and Bunkley could definitely play another end spot...possibly NT.

I know JJ won't ever run it, but I'm saying that if JJ is replaced, they have the horses to run a 3-4 if they want.

One last thought on the defense...has everyone else noticed they've been running a 5-2 about 1/3 of the time this preseason?

“Also, and this is just something to throw out there...3-4.

We've all joked about it in the past and I know I've personally always shot it down, but it's clearly the better defense for todays NFL. The Eagles actually have a front 7 suited for it now (for the first time).”

What a revelation. Pssst, … The 3-4 has clearly been the better defense for yesterdays NFL as well.

(Insert your favorite punch line here: _______________ .)

The 3-4 defense is for pussies

That's the perception that's out there, but I disagree. In fact, if you check the numbers, 6 of the top 8 defenses even last year were 4-3.

The reason I like the 3-4 (if you have the horses) is the versatility. It's a heck of a lot easier to switch to a 4-3 set in your D to switch it up against a team and you can get more exotic with the blitzes.

Even traditionally, I think there is only 1 defense in the top 20 all time that ran a 3-4. The novelty makes it a little more difficult to play against, though (IMO).

Up until recently the 3-4 was soft against the run and unable to generate a big pass rush from anywhere but the OLB spot. Now with these guys like Richard Seymour who are 300+ and can rush the passer, I think it's a disaster to play against.

My post was for Dean-o.

F-d, anyone can jump on a forum and blurt out, “The 3-4 has clearly been the better defense for yesterdays NFL as well.” (That was me.)

I’ve contended that for the past several years at least one Super Bowl representing team was playing a 3-4 defense: (Irrelevant to where that defense ranked at the end of the regular season.)

‘01 Ravens
‘02 Patriots
‘04 Panthers and Patriots
‘05 Patriots
‘06 Steelers

I realize that in the grand scheme of things there are many more variables for a team to get to the Super Bowl; however I’ve always felt that the run of teams, (mentioned above), was a bit too coincidental.

I've long wondered why the Eagles didn't go for the 3-4 defense. They try to get these really fast guys and they blitz a lot to confuse QBs, both of which are what make the 3-4 work. I know that the 3-4 is not always as effective against the run, but neither is the Eagles' defense in general.

I thought the Ravens ran a 4-3.

And the reason you won't see the Birds run the 3-4 is because they need someone of great size in the middle to open up the lanes for the LBs. Donovan has a better chance of playing NT than the guys they've got in the middle now.

Although, Bunkley probably has the best chance of being the NT.

But how would that work?

‘01 Ravens
‘02 Patriots
‘04 Panthers and Patriots
‘05 Patriots
‘06 Steelers

Hey, everyone's entitled to their opinion, but on that list the Ravens ran a 4-3 that year and the Panthers run a 4-3.

So essentially, the Patriots and Steelers are the 2 3-4 teams that have made the Super Bowl in the last decade or so...the Patriots just did it 3 times.

Although, Bunkley probably has the best chance of being the NT.

But how would that work?

I think in theory Bunkley would play the DE spot Seymour plays, but he could probably play the nose. Ideally you want a fat slob on the nose who gums up the works in the middle. Jamal Williams is a great example.

Another interesting thing I just remembered was the Patriots played a 4-3 during the actual Super Bowl against the Eagles. As usual, the Eagles coaching staff was shocked, couldn't adjust, and got out-smarted by a superior coaching staff.

Yup, love him or hate him, Belichek = genius.

BTW, this whole conversation is worthless as Reid won't fire JJ.

If they suck again I just don't know how they can get around it. They've thrown a TON of picks and FA signings at that defense and it just progressively gets a little worse each year as the original players they inherited from the previous regime (Dawk, Trot, Taylor, Vincent, etc.) slowly fade away.

Someone's head has to role and I can't believe it would be Heckert.

Another interesting thing I just remembered was the Patriots played a 4-3 during the actual Super Bowl against the Eagles. As usual, the Eagles coaching staff was shocked, couldn't adjust, and got out-smarted by a superior coaching staff.

Thanks for the flashback. And I thought I was over being angry at Reid for that 2nd half.

Why would JJ be fired? Aside from the fact that Heckert doesn't have the control one would think he has, I don't see JJ getting tossed, especially if they're still good in the one thing that's kept them going - scoring defense.

Considering the problems they had with either changing schemes or telling people "what you see isn't what's happening", it's not as if they're not trying things.

But one thing's for certain - JJ's schemes are figured out, at least by Payton, if not other teams.

I doubt he'd be fired, and I know all that really matters is scoring defense, but to me a defense that gets run over and still manages to get away without giving up too many points is the equivalent of a pitcher with a high WHIP and a low ERA...it's just a matter of time.

1 2 3 4 5