xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media
Well, that is how you use argumentation, isn't it? State that someone is wrong in a condescending manner without any argumentation.You're not making a scheme argument (which is on its face deranged because the schemes have changed three times since Gannon was there), you're making a personnel argument, and then offering no evidence to support it.
Obviously teams like a variety of physical profiles along their defensive front sevens, and want to balance pass rush and run stopping. Again, this is an inane argument. If you have a more pointed one, you should make that.
Bro you don’t know what you’re talking aboutWell, that is how you use argumentation, isn't it? State that someone is wrong in a condescending manner without any argumentation.
What I'm trying to argue is fairly simple. Different teams use different schemes that deploy different gap technique by different player of different size.
The Eagles and the Cardinals use the same defensive front combination which is only used by 5-6 teams with having a 3 technique style and size player lining up at one DE and a 7 technique style and size player on the other DE. In between both have a 0 and 3 technique at DT. There is a lack of the traditional 5 DE in this scheme, which the majority of NFL teams use.
My point was that the priority to upgrade is the 0 and the 7 players. DR is the 3 DE. Jones and Stills are okay as the 3 DT, but Lopez is the only 0 and BJ, Gardeck are the only 7 players.
Thank you for proving my pointBro you don’t know what you’re talking about
What do you think 3-, 5-, and 7-technique mean?Thank you for proving my point