Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement

This articles true, because a lot of teams were in the 4-3 for years, now the league is moving back to the 3-4. Pretty soon teams will be used to preparing for 3-4 teams, then the next thing you know that one team that runs the 4-3 will make it the next great defense to have, and people will be switching back to that.

Thats why I asked why don't teams play a 4-2-5 defense in the thread I made recently. Or for that matter 2-4-5, 5-2, 3-3-5, or 4-6 base (start the game and originate you're plays around this defense) defenses being used anywhere/anymore?

I don't see it getting better any time soon.Why don't you think the defense will be better?
They're in their second year and added upgrades at 3 of the most essential positions (NT,RDE,LOLB) and improved the depth at those positions in the process.
They had far below average play at 2 key spots (NT,RDE) which resulted in near league worst yards allowed virtually any moves they made at those position will be an improvement.

Haslett at least seemed to have a clue out there whereas Blache unquestionably did not, but he made too many mistakes with his personnel in 2010, and wasn't exactly an asset with his playcalling. Haslett, I thought, came out with very good gameplans a lot of the time, and when he didn't, it usually didn't take him long to make the necessary adjustments (whereas Blache was simply not going to make adjustments). But there was hardly ever any element of surprise in the defensive play design. The offenses always seemed to have a good feel when/where the blitz would come from.

He was very meh in year one.

The strength of the front 7 the previous season were, Haynesworth, Orakpo, Carter and Fletcher, all of whom are ideally suited to 4-3.Only in the case of Carter did one of those four actually look out of position in the 3-4. I think Orakpo and Fletcher benefited from the defensive switch, and Haynesworth's problems seemingly had nothing to do with the scheme and more to do with the coaches and teammates. I get that he feels that being a nose tackle is a bad career move...but I think he'd be good at it.

And to be fair, that was a big one. The scheme change might have cost us our best defensive player from 2009. But I don't think any coordinator was going to come in and build around a 31 year old Andre Carter anyway, and I don't think switching to the 3-4 necessarily shortened his career here. Just his effectiveness.

Only in the case of Carter did one of those four actually look out of position in the 3-4. I think Orakpo and Fletcher benefited from the defensive switch, and Haynesworth's problems seemingly had nothing to do with the scheme and more to do with the coaches and teammates. I get that he feels that being a nose tackle is a bad career move...but I think he'd be good at it.

And to be fair, that was a big one. The scheme change might have cost us our best defensive player from 2009. But I don't think any coordinator was going to come in and build around a 31 year old Andre Carter anyway, and I don't think switching to the 3-4 necessarily shortened his career here. Just his effectiveness.

Regardless of how individuals looked, the results are undeniable. When you go from a top 10 defense to 31st and second to last, that is usually a sign of failure. In the NFL people usually lose their jobs for that kind of result.
Our defense was not a problem area and Mr. Shanahan's decision made our defense an instant weakness. The Monday Night Eagles game was one the worst defensive performance I have ever seen.

Regardless of how individuals looked, the results are undeniable. When you go from a top 10 defense to 31st and second to last, that is usually a sign of failure. In the NFL people usually lose their jobs for that kind of result.
Our defense was not a problem area and Mr. Shanahan's decision made our defense an instant weakness. The Monday Night Eagles game was one the worst defensive performance I have ever seen.Well, our finish and performance in 2010 weren't very good. I don't think I'd want to be caught saying that I was happy with our performance on that side of the ball in 2009 either. Our defense in 2009 was a single strong unit (the d-line) and a crap ton of often ineffective spare parts

I think the unit was aging, and I think we went from a really strong D-Line in 2009 with Carter-Haynesworth-Griffin-Daniels to a really weak-but-younger one in Carriker-Kemo-Golston. And you're right that they turned a strength into a weakness. But the strength was built around three veterans in Griffin, Haynesworth, and Carter, and I think it would have been worse for a new DC to come in and try to ride out those three players rather than bring in fresh blood.

Regardless of how the unit performed last year, we're almost certainly better up front with Carriker, Jenkins, Bryant, and whatever they can milk out of Haynesworth than with a bunch of guys in their mid thirties who were excellent players under Grilliams...in 2007.

I feel like if Gregg Williams had stayed, we would have continued to win games and make the playoffs through the 2009 season, but even then, the day which we could no longer rely on Carter and Griffin as defensive staples was quickly approaching. And the truth is: without them, we didn't really have any 4-3 specific personnel anywhere on the roster.

1.) Albert just wants to do whatever the **** he wants. This "coaches need to do what works to the strengths of their players" bullshit really needs to die. How long have the Steelers been running the 3-4 defense in some form? How often do guys leave and move on and there defense is STILL top 10 in the league?

Teams don't have consistency because every time they add a new player to the scheme they adjust a whole defense to that one player's specific skills. Sometimes you have to know your role and shut your mouth and work. Very, VERY few players in the league are allowed to "freelance" as it were. I don't know where this concept of "coaches having to adjust to what the players are best at" comes from. You adjust in SMALL ways, you do things they're more comfortable with in SMALL ways, but you don't shift your entire philosophy based on one player.

Albert doesn't want to play unless he can do whatever the hell he wants on any given down. Jim Haslett did everything HUMANLY POSSIBLE to get Albert on the field in situations he was comfortable with.

Albert doesn't want to play nose? Haslett didn't make him play nose. He doesn't want to play defensive end. Has says fine, he doesn't have to play defensive end. (This DESPITE the fact Albert actually looked halfway decent playing nose, certainly commanding more blocks that Kemo did.)

So they decide to put him in nickel packages. Albert doesn't want to play in first and second down nickel packages. Has says he doesn't have to that, he just has to play in third down nickel packages. Albert says he doesn't want to do any of their blitz packages. Has says fine.

Albert Haynesworth took Albert Haynesworth out of the game. They had to design Albert Haynesworth specific packages were Fat Al could do whatever the frig he wanted, like lay his fat ass on the turf while Michael Vick ran past him. Lets stop talking like they didn't try with him, they DID try, and he STILL underperformed, and pretty much refused to do anything that would help the team. **** Albert, **** Albert up his ****ing ass. (To be incredibly vulgar; sorry folks.)

2.) We have to be more objective then simply saying we were a top 10 defense in 2009. In 2009, the Redskins were 16th in run D. They were 18th in scoring. We were 26th in interceptions. What helped us was that the defense got a LOT of sacks, but even then, they forced 21 fumbles but only recovered SIX.

So you have a defense that was solid in pass defense and got a lot of sacks, but everywhere else the D was kind of middle of the packish.

I get why they made the switch. Was it ideal? No, but you have to expect that everyone has to adjust to a new defense and learn it and there were some growing pains.

3.) As for Haslett's scheme and playcalling, it could be plain sometimes, but it's hard to be super exotic when you've got a bunch of guys learning what they're supposed to be doing. He did pull out the exotic stuff (I saw the "Amoeba" stuff, I saw stuff that was like Green Bay's Psycho package), but it's hard to do that kind of stuff when you've got guys learning and you're trying to figure out.

Regardless, the 3-4 is here to stay, so complaining about how we should've never changed it in the first place is pointless. A season to learn his talent, to get so more pieces, it'll be better than last year. Worst case scenario is that we just get another defensive coordinator, but we won't be switching form the 3-4 while Mike is here, methinks.

I guess I'm a glass half full type of person so I'm betting the defense will be better in its second year. and ..... most importantly...... they should be better then the Cowgirls this year who are going to start their first year of the 3-4.

...The Cowboys have run the 3-4 for a while now, sir. They're just switching defensive coordinators from Wade Phillips to Rob Ryan, but yeah, it's not going to be that different for them.

...Sorry to burst that bubble.

^ Ok, don't know why I heard they were switching to the 3-4? Oh well. Sorry.