Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

So why did the Redskins not reap any improvement in 2010 on the defensive side of the ball?

[url=http://nflminds.blogspot.com/2011/06/immediate-impact-defenses-have-when.html]NFL Minds Blog: The Immediate Impact Defense's Have When Switching From a 4-3 to a 3-4 Defense[/url]

To an extent, I think the Redskins ran into a player supply issue. They had more 3-4 pieces on the roster already than the Buffalo Bills did, which is why the Bills failed so spectacularly that they had to switch back to a 4-3 defense. But in 2010, about half of the league is playing 3-4 defenses, so while it still offers a medium-risk, high-reward alternative to the traditional 4-3, finding players from around the league to play in it is now costly as ever. The Redskins DID NOT invest resources into their defense (beyond 1 or 2 year contracts to relatively unwanted players such as Holliday, Carriker, and Kemoeatu).

The bigger issue for the Redskins -- why they didn't improve in the first year of the 3-4 -- has to do with reasons that aren't directly related to scheme. They got less aggregate return out of Haynesworth than before, despite the fact that Haynesworth played as well as ever on a per-snap basis. Rocky McIntosh may not have been a good scheme fit, but he was bad at the fundamentals as well as the 3-4 nuances in 2010. The other thing was that the Redskins had done unreasonably well in the injury category over the prior two years on defense. That effect regressed heavily in 2010 when LaRon Landry missed the second half of the season, when Carlos Rogers missed the end of the year, when Orakpo missed the Jacksonville game and had limited effectiveness in the second half, Chris Horton on IR, etc. The team should have been better on defense in the second half than the first given their coverage gains, and they just weren't, because of the injuries.

So in my estimation, the Redskins didn't hurt themselves with a switch to the 3-4, but if Mike Shanahan was relying on any sort of defensive bump by going to a more wide open style of defense, any element of surprise was eliminated by the fact that personnel issues from the 2009 season were not fixed in the offseason. And in 2010, the virtues of the 3-4 switch turned sharply for the worst, not just for the Redskins, but for the Bills as well. Like everything that went wrong for the Redskins this past season, you could argue that Shanahan's move would have worked out in 2004, but by 2010, the "new philosophy" he and Jim Haslett brought to the Redskins was, perhaps, outdated already.

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

Altogether I think the defense played (generally speaking) better in the second half of the season than they did at the beginning of the season. I also thought we had more 3-4 pieces than anyone gave us credit for (got sick of hearing the "THEY'RE TRYING TO RUN A 3-4 DEFENSE WITH 4-3 PERSONNEL RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!" crap on the NFL Network like every week).

I agree though; most players were getting injured at the wrong time of year, despite a relatively late bye week. On top of 'Los being injured and Landry being injured, D-Hall had to deal with a rib injury, Kemo was hurt all year, Albert Haynesworth was a mondo douche...

It wasn't so much not having the personnel as 1.) sometimes the best personnel weren't on the field and 2.) the defense really got worn out and banged up because of the offenses' inability to stay on the field and maintain long drives.

I think there will be more improvement in year 2 of the defense just from having some better, younger, fresher pieces, plus the vets knowing what they're supposed to do. The only--ONLY--good thing about the lockout is that it's keeping guys fresher for longer so hopefully they won't be worn out. Cruddy part is we have a week 5 bye this year, so they're really going to need to be as fresh as possible to make it through the whole season.

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

I think you guys mention some valid reasons for the state of our 3-4 last season.

I'm trying not be negative but I believe the quality of our 3-4 defense was largely the result of mismangment from our FO/coaching staff.

I cannot put the blame for the Haynesworth debacle solely on Albert b/c I believe that Mike Shanahan/Haslett/Burney did very little to sell arguably our best defensive player on our new defense. Rather it seemed they did everything possible to antagonize and isolate him.
The resulting minimal playing time and minimal impact was major factor in the quality of our 3-4.

The acquisition of Kemo and his subsequent failure at NT was equally detrimental if not more so then Albert's failure.
I thought the FO made a huge mistake in relying on Kemo at NT before the season ever started.
When Bryant finally was inserted into the starting line-up I was happy to see his immediate and obvious improvement but I was also troubled by the fact that it took them til week 14(?) to play him.

I also thought that Darion Scott and Jarmon played well during that 3 game stretch where we actually saw more of our developmental player on the field. And I thought their play warranted more playing time at RDE considering how poorly Golston played.
To my eye Golston is out of his element as a 3-4 DE.
He's not a good pass rusher, he doesn't 2-gap well and he isn't stout against the POA.
Imo he's was just filling a spot, he was just a body, just a guy.

I also think it was a mistake not playing Riley during the 3-game 'evaluation' considering Rocky's impending FA and the fact that he wasn't playing great.
I thought it would have been a good time to see him in action.

I was also impressed with OLB Rob Jackson in his one start against the Giants(?) he showed more pass rush ability then Alexander showed the entire season.

In short I think our 3-4 would have benefitted from better managment from the coaching staff.

I also think Jim Haslett's approach to the 3-4 is a bit like Blache's approach to the 4-3.

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

#1- AH was not happy with the 4-3 we ran also. Why? Because in Tenn the other 4-3 DL had jobs to do but AH was allowed to free lance. I like to think Tenn had the same problems with him and found the best way to utilize him. I think AH sees himself as a DE rushing the QB putting on pressure every down, but AH is now older then he used to be and too fat and slow to do that every down. So most teams would want to move him inside and make him take up space and blockers.

AH was adamant about wanting to be with a 4-3 defense when we picked him up. Then he was not happy under our 4-3 because every one had a job and he was not being given permission to free lance to go after the QB. So AH was already pissed if you guys recall then we switch to the 3-4. There was no selling AH on the 3-4. He wanted out so he tried to sabatouge the contract in hopes the team would see him as a problem and trade him.

#2- all teams have gotten better the second year in the 3-4. Partly because the coaching staff know the players better and knows where they need spots filled wiu better players and because the players know the system better. Everyone brings up Green Bay but keep in mind they drafted heavily on defense to help out he transition. Plus their offense was pretty much already set. The Skins could not afford to do that.

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

[quote=SBXVII;809274]There was no selling AH on the 3-4.[/quote]
To each his own and I don't mean to turn this thread into a Haynesworth debate.
I understand that some fans don't like him; and for good reason.
The man is an asshat, but he's a damn good football player.
My memory isn't so short that I forgot what type of player Haynesworth can be:
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QUKOPAAO2k[/ame]
Imo you begin with and design your scheme around your best players.
Imo no real attempt was made, in fact they did everything but try to sell him.
They were playing games with him from the start.
All I'm saying is that the Haynesworth debacle was a 2 way failure between him [I][B]and[/B][/I] the staff.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, make no mistake I think the defense will improve this year.
In my last post I was pointing out the mistakes I saw last year.

I think the major weaknesses on defense have been addressed via the draft and some of the other answers were stumbled upon at the end of the season.

I think Jarvis Jenkins is a huge upgrade over Golston at DE and will provide valueable rotational snaps at NT.
I think Jarmon can/(will if given the chance) add some upfield pass rush ability from the RDE spot.

I think Bryant can start at NT and provide a good number of quality snaps.
I think Kemo (if he's still on the roster) will be better as a role playing rotational NT behind Bryant.
I think Chris Nield will provide quality snaps at NT.

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

From the extraordinary player and coach's open and often criticism of.....Big, I beg to differ.

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

THis quote from the article says it all:
"Bellichick’s philosophy was (and always has been) the 3-4 defense, but he [B]didn’t implement it until 2003 when he acquired all the right pieces.[/B] "
They won their first Sb in 2000-2001 with the 4-3. A defense Bellichick historically was not accustomed to playing as his base. But he looked at his roster and wisely decided to implement the 4-3 because that is what his roster could run best. Even though he always intended to go back to the 3-4 once he had the right pieces. Bellichick put his large ego aside to do what was best for the team and winning at the time.
This is a part of the mistakes our coaching staff made in 2010.

The above article incorrectly tries to imply that if you switch to the 3-4, it is like a magic pill that over time will make your defense better. NO.
If History tells us one thing is football is an ever changing sport strategically. What scheme works best yesterday will not work as well today or tomorrow, because coaches and players learn ways to counter it. The 4-3 dominated like no other defense before it in the 60' through late 90's. The 3-4 was run over during that time in the Super Bowl big game. Embarrassing.
Now 3-4 has made a huge come back. Great. But over time that will eventually change as well.
[B]In order to have a great defense or team you have to have the talented players and coaches to run it correctly. [/B] Thank you Vinny and Snyder! [B]Regardless of scheme if you do not have the horses, especially up front, you will get killed. [/B] The great defense do not have any weakness (players) that can be picked on. FO and player personnel is as or more important than any single scheme. The great teams have the great players and talent.
The Bills and the Redskins were not bad teams because we ran the 4-3. We were bad because we had mostly players that were not great.

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

[quote=30gut;809272]In short I think our 3-4 would have benefitted from better managment from the coaching staff.

I also think Jim Haslett's approach to the 3-4 is a bit like Blache's approach to the 4-3.[/quote]There were similarities, at least.

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

[quote=GTripp0012;809279]There were similarities, at least.[/quote]

[quote=me]I also think Jim Haslett's approach to the 3-4 is a bit like Blache's approach to the 4-3.[/quote]Meaning they're both vanilla.

Blache's 4-3 to me was a watered down, simplified, risk averse version of double G Williams 4-3.

Haslett's 3-4 was creatively limited, bastardized version of Dick LeBeau's Steelers 3-4.(Up until the last 3 games where I still believe Spanos was more involved in the playcalling)

Imo only a DC with limited creativity would want or even attempt to play/waste a talent like Haynesworth in a non-attacking role as a NT or DE in a 2-gap scheme.
For examples the Ravens seldom play Ngata at NT the Packers don't ask Cullen Jenkins to 2-gap and the Cowboys allow Ratliff(NT) to 1-gap penetrate.

We're supposed run a version of the Steelers 3-4 yet they don't even 2-gap that much if at all along their DL front.
Our base front package much more like a classic 2-gap 3-4 front then a stunting/attacking/slanting/zone blitizing Steelers front.

Sorry about that tangent this thread got me thinking about what could have been. Imagine (I know its totally pointless)if they would have allowed Al to play an attacking RDE (essentially a 3-tech in a 5 tech split) next to Bryant at NT and Carriker as a 2-gap LDE instead of trying to get him to 2-gap in an Okie front as a NT/DE.

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

Short answer. It was a dumb idea to switch in the first place.

Shanahan fell in love with the 3-4 during his year out and decided to implement it despite the obvious lack of personnel on the roster capable of playing it.

The strength of the front 7 the previous season were, Haynesworth, Orakpo, Carter and Fletcher, all of whom are ideally suited to 4-3.

I said before the start of last season that the defence would stink because of mismatched personnel/scheme and so it proved. I don't see it getting better any time soon.

Shanahan is known as an offensive coach for good reason.

Re: 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?

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

[quote=davy;809283]I don't see it getting better any time soon.[/quote]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.

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean 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.

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

[quote=davy;809283]The strength of the front 7 the previous season were, Haynesworth, Orakpo, Carter and Fletcher, all of whom are ideally suited to 4-3.[/quote]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.

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

[quote=GTripp0012;809287]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.[/quote]

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.

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

[quote=Defensewins;809288]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.[/quote]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.

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

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.

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

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.

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

...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.

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

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

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

[quote=SBXVII;809303]^ Ok, don't know why I heard they were switching to the 3-4? Oh well. Sorry.[/quote]

Also, adding to that, Wade Phillips is now the new Def Coordinator for Houston Texans, who used to exclusivley run the 4-3 and will now in 2011 will make the switch to 3-4. Maybe that was what you heard?

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

I read this and just assumed they were changing but in reality they are bringing in a new D-coordinator in hopes their D will be better.

[url=http://espn.go.com/blog/nfceast/post/_/id/27864/fired-up-friday-redskins-d-or-cowboys-d]Fired-up Friday: Redskins D or Cowboys D? - NFC East Blog - ESPN[/url]

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

Again, don't want to turn this into an Albert discussion but I think you're being naive when you paint the Haynesworth fiasco as one sided failure and you act/write as if Mike Shanahan and the coaching staff bears no culpability in the Haynesworth debacle.
Its well known that Mike Shanahan held a grudge against Haynesworth for missing camp, which spilled over into the 'shuttle run/endurance test' drama which spilled over into the pre-season playtime drama which spilled over into the regular season playtime issues.
Also, you may not recall but prior to the supposed refusals to play there were times at the beginning of the season when Albert wanted to play [I]more[/I] and the [I]staff [/I]wouldn't let him.
And don't forget that Albert came back from his brothers [U]funeral[/U] and [I]wanted[/I] to play but was inactived which lead to Alberts refusal to speak Mike Shanahan which lead to Albert's suspension.

Mind you I'm not saying that Albert didn't screw the pooch, he did, but I'm pointing out that our staff was holding the legs.

Also: [QUOTE]This "coaches need to do what works to the strengths of their players" [I][U]bullshit[/U][/I] really needs to die[/QUOTE]The statement above is, no offense, one of the most ignorant statements I've ever read about coaching. (P.S. I coach basketball and football)
Its not even worth a response.

Here's what I believe: If the Mike/Haslett and went to Albert in the preseason and threw him an olive branch and talked together about how they could fit him into their defense and came up with a way to use Albert as an attacking penetrating 1-gap style player ala Ngata, Cullen Jenkins etc.
Then I doubt we have the problems we had this year.

And if you think HC/teams don't make exceptions for certain players you need to look up Bill Walsh the strict disciplinarian and Fred Dean.
Here I'll help: listen@3:49-5:20

[YT]cSD6h3i8AUk[/YT]

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

Haynesworth's a crybaby who moaned and griped and complained under Greg Blanche in 2009 and then moaned and complained and griped about his role in the 3-4 until he essential wrote himself off the field. He's motivated by money (his two best seasons from a production standpoint came in contract years). He wants to do whatever he wants. He's said that what he liked about Tennessee. "They let me do what I wanted." It's about team first. It's not about doing what you want, it's about doing what you can to help the team win. They cut the guy a check to show up to camp, in shape and ready to play.

It's not like they just sprung the 3-4 defense on him. Mike told him what he expected in his first meeting with the team. Then they paid the man. I'm not saying Mike didn't handle certain aspects of what happened the wrong way, but Albert's about one person; Albert. Period.

Let me clarify what I mean about the coaches adjusting thing. Coaches do need to adjust to what their players are best at on the field and adapt what they do to suit the talents of their players. It was dumb of me to say otherwise.

However, if you're coming up with solutions to a potential problem with a player, and he just flat out refuses to play...what else can you do? I think they did everything they could to get Albert on the field, because when Albert actually could be bothered to play hard, he played well. But they pretty much offered to let him play at any position on the defensive front he wanted, and he picked one very specific set of circumstances to go out and play. He just wanted to rush the passer. He just wanted sacks.

You adjust to the strengths of your players and what they're best at...but the player's gotta meet you halfway. They have to be willing to adjust like you're willing to adjust. That was Haynesworth's problem.

The funeral thing sounds bad until you realize that Haynesworth didn't have full week of practice. Practice is a big thing with Mike, right or wrong. And since Haynesworth apparently practiced at half speed anyway...I mean, Mike was honest about it. Albert hadn't practiced, he didn't think Albert could contribute, so Albert was deactivated.

And wasn't it Phillip Daniels or one of the vets that said Haynesworth getting suspended was actually a good thing, because they didn't have to worry about trying to fit him into a scheme he didn't want to play in and could just practice?

Mistakes may have been made on both sides, but at the end of the day, it was Albert that sealed his own fate.

Now back to your regular scheduled thread.

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

I look at it this way, whoever the coach is you (the player) have to play the system he wants to impliment. Don't get me wrong I'm the first to say a good HC will find the best way to utilize his players, but the players still have to deal with the hand thats dealt. I would guess that if the owner wanted to keep the status quo he would have brought in a HC who would have kept the 4-3 and shifted back to the Don Coryal style of offense.

Instead the owner brought in another WCO style of HC, knowing full well the HC was going to shift to a 3-4 style of defense. So it doesn't matter we fans want or what we fans think is best, in reality everyone wanted a whole sale change prior to last year and we got it from the owner to the GM to the HC to the coaching staff. The only thing that can't be completed over night is the players.

As far as AH? MS didn't go out and bring him in, he got stuck with him. There is no guarantee in football even though a player might try to pick a specific style of defense to play in, the team could change at a moments notice. No different then if they are playing in high school, or college. Because there is no guarantee's players need to be able to adjust to what the team is asking them to do. It doesn't matter if they are playing for free or if they are making millions.

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

Having said all that, Everyone agree's that AH was sat down and informed of the change in style and what his new roll would be at the end of the 2009 season when Allen and MS were hired. At that time AH was given the option of taking his bonus money which would be given to him or decline the money and ask to be traded. He had about 4 months to think about it. In the end he decided that taking the money was in his best interest which also means he chose to play in the new defense and play in his new roll. Yet when the team had 99% accountability at OTA's AH was the odd man out. Throwing his tantrum supposedly getting in the best shape he had been in his whole career. Instead he showed up out of shape, and tried to sabotage his agreement to HIS liking not his coaches.

No it wasn't all AH's fault but the HC is the leader. AH started the battle and MS was going to make sure he didn't win the war. You don't collect a million dollar bonus and get traded, it doesn't work like that. You take the money you do the job that is asked of you, if you don't want to do whats asked of you don't take the money or return it and request a trade. Because of this I commend Shanahan for how he has handled the team. He's making sure all personel understand he's not going to let the players rule the roost anymore. It's his way or the highway.

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

I think it is 100% clear that AH is a moron and even I want him gone. I don't think there is nothing new to uncover about AH because the story has been beaten to death. Frankly I am tired of hearing the same thing over and over again. Whether he stays or goes is the only remaining story.

On the scheme change from 4-3 to 3-4 defense and coaches making change in general: I have no problem with changing to whatever defense works well. Change is ok with me as long as the move is done in a organized and thoughtful way that improves the team. My problem is it was managed poorly and forced through (square peg in round hole) by a rather impatient MS, instead of waiting until the roster can be adjusted for the big change.

I highlighted earlier in this thread: "(Bill) Bellichick’s philosophy was (and always has been) the 3-4 defense, but he didn’t implement it until 2003 (three years after taking charge of his new team) when he acquired all the right pieces. "
Bellechick was rewarded for his patience with his their first Sb in 2000-2001 while running an uncustomary 4-3 defense. Three years later he had acquired all the pieces [B]and then he made the change[/B] to his favorite 3-4 defense and again he was rewarded with two more SB's.
Another example of success of changing your scheme to accommodate your new team and new players is Gibbs I.
Gibbs came in with a pass happy air Coryell offense. But he immediately realized his new teams strength is running the ball. They were not initially good at passing the ball as running and they had two good run blocking TE's. So they switched to two TE run oriented attack. Even incorporated a new wrinkle to college play that would later become the counter trey. They created a new trend (counter trey) rather than jumping on an existing one (3-4 defense).
Gibbs was also rewarded with his patience and ego-less move away from his customary system to another that made his players at that moment play better.
MS on the other hand came into a new team and new players and he changed it all to his systems rather then using what worked best for his players. Our defense regressed last year played as bad or worse then during the Spurrier era.
I like Shanahan/Allen FO team and they have done much better than Ceratto.
I just wish MS would do a better job checking his ego at the door when arrives to be coach each day.

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

Crazy but maybe MS knew there would be a lockout this year so he implemented the 3-4 last year so the senior players could teach the new guys coming on.

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

There's two approaches here.

There's the "acquire all the pieces, then switch and hope everyone can make the change" approach, and then there's the "rip the Band-Aid off, deal with the consequences" approach.

Most teams who switch systems on either side of the ball take the "rip the Band-Aid off" approach. Because the problem is, waiting 2 or 3 seasons, acquiring all the pieces and THEN switching is guaranteed to work. First, you have to get a defensive coordinator who's smart enough to know how to run both systems and make them mesh, and there's only one guy I can think of that is that smart, and well...he's coaching somewhere else right now.

Second, you just don't know if it's going to work. It's not easy to switch schemes, no matter how much one feels like they've "prepared" for it preparation. If it takes two seasons to get your "pieces" in place, and then you make the switch, and it doesn't work, you're kinda back to square one. Then you have to find new pieces. Then you're right back in the place you were before you wanted to make the switch, and maybe you switch back, but if you're going to make the commitment to switch, you have to go all in and live with the consequences.

Third, I repeatedly see people talk about Mike Shanahan's ego when they talk about...well, when they talk about everything ("Mike's wearing black showlaces with white shoes because his ego told him it looks good that way!"), but switching defenses in particular.

What, exactly, does his ego have to do with the switch to the 3-4? Is the idea that he has such a big ego he thought that what is a pretty solid group of defensive players would be able to make the switch with a little less trouble? I mean...I hear about this ego of his all the time, but I just don't see it that way.

If Mike is guilty of anything, he's guilty of thinking the team was better than it was. That's what I see, on both sides of the ball. He saw a team that was closer to being good when we were closer to being bad.

There's a difference between being wrong or misguided in changing something and allowing your ego to control what you do.

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

I agree. I'm tired of this argument. I think once you make the decision to go 3-4, just do it. Rip the freaking "bandaid off" and let the message boards cry about the consequences during the offseason.

Here's why:
1) EXPERIENCE: By the time we would have had "the pieces" in 2-3 years, everyone will have already learned the 3-4. Other teams like Green Bay made switches easier, but I value the experience our guys had this year. We also immediately saw who fits in this system and who doesn't. We weren't going to the SuperBowl this year, so I'm okay we were dead last in defense -- because we got the top 10 pick while we got the 3-4 experience.

2) HAYNESWORTH: The biggest need was having an NT, and when they made the decision to go with the 3-4, they thought that eventually AH would convert over. They were wrong, and this is one of the key reasons the transition didn't work well.

3) REBUILDING: Hard to watch, but after 2 decades of mediocrity - this is the process of rebuilding. Whenever you make the switch your defense is going to suffer. If we were playoff contenders, then making this switch immediately would have been dumb. But since we are rebuilding (and denying it so we can sell tickets) - it makes sense to change everything quickly and accept a mess for a couple of years.



I'll accept that there's an argument about whether we needed to switch to the 3-4 at all, but once you make that decision, I think it makes sense to switch immediately and darn the consequences.

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

well there really isn't anywhere to go but up cause this defense was pitiful last year. basically the switch was a god awful idea and that falls in the lap of the head coach. shanahan is a fool and wanted to change cause the 3-4 causes more turnovers. what an idiot! how about getting more playmakers on the field that can create turnovers?? on top of that you get haslett who in year one was a total bum. say what you will about greg blache but he could at least make adjustments on the fly. i never saw haslett do a damn thing except look like a confused dumb ass on the sidelines. year one a total fail for the defense.

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

[quote=30gut;809307]Again, don't want to turn this into an Albert discussion but I think you're being naive when you paint the Haynesworth fiasco as one sided failure and you act/write as if Mike Shanahan and the coaching staff bears no culpability in the Haynesworth debacle.
Its well known that Mike Shanahan held a grudge against Haynesworth for missing camp, which spilled over into the 'shuttle run/endurance test' drama which spilled over into the pre-season playtime drama which spilled over into the regular season playtime issues.
Also, you may not recall but prior to the supposed refusals to play there were times at the beginning of the season when Albert wanted to play [I]more[/I] and the [I]staff [/I]wouldn't let him.
And don't forget that Albert came back from his brothers [U]funeral[/U] and [I]wanted[/I] to play but was inactived which lead to Alberts refusal to speak Mike Shanahan which lead to Albert's suspension.

Mind you I'm not saying that Albert didn't screw the pooch, he did, but I'm pointing out that our staff was holding the legs.

Also: The statement above is, no offense, one of the most ignorant statements I've ever read about coaching. (P.S. I coach basketball and football)
Its not even worth a response.

Here's what I believe: If the Mike/Haslett and went to Albert in the preseason and threw him an olive branch and talked together about how they could fit him into their defense and came up with a way to use Albert as an attacking penetrating 1-gap style player ala Ngata, Cullen Jenkins etc.
Then I doubt we have the problems we had this year.

[B]And if you think HC/teams don't make exceptions for certain players you need to look up Bill Walsh the strict disciplinarian and Fred Dean.[/B]
[B]Here I'll help: listen@3:49-5:20[/B]

[YT]cSD6h3i8AUk[/YT][/quote]

I remember Jimmy Johnson cut a guy for falling asleep in a meeting but he joked around and said if they was Troy, Emmitt or Michael Irvin he's getting them a pillow. lol. The problem is AH only shows up on the field 50% of the time. Fred Dean was a baller and is in the HOF. Huge difference.

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

AND as you have pointed out Skinsfan.....Troy, Emmitt, and Michael have played a few quality snaps as well. Big....not so much.

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

Everyone seems stuck on Albert.
[quote=skinsfan69;809332]The problem is AH only shows up on the field 50% of the time. Fred Dean was a baller and is in the HOF. Huge difference.[/quote]The flip side of your post is the that there was also a huge difference in the way the 2 players were treated.
Bill Walsh didn't tell Dean that he [I]had[/I] to workout and that he couldn't just sit on the bench and smoke cigs.
Bill Walsh didn't tell Dean that he couldn't smoke in the locker room at half time either.
But, then again Bill Walsh knew how to handle people.

And lets be fair Albert, prior to last year, was a 'baller'.
He was one of the top interior DL in the league.

I know everybody doesn't like the guy but lets have some perspective, him only 'showing up 50% of the time' was an aberration for Albert that only occurred last year.

My point isn't that Haynesworth is Fred Dean.
My point is that coaches make allowances for players with special players.
Most people seem to believe that the Haynesworth issues from last year stemmed solely from the switch to the 3-4.
I don't.
I think the main issue was a personal clash between him and Mike Shanahan.
I might be alone but I believe the Haynesworth debacle from last year was avoidable.

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

Baller? Dude played 12 games in 2009. And even then he frequently got "hurt". He had 4 sacks. The whole defense had 40. This isn't a one year thing. If giving him respect means letting him do whatever he wants...I don't want that guy.

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

[quote=NLC1054;809335]Baller? Dude played 12 games in 2009. And even then he frequently got "hurt". He had 4 sacks. The whole defense had 40. This isn't a one year thing. If giving him respect means letting him do whatever he wants...I don't want that guy.[/quote]I don't get your point here.

You think he wasn't a good player in 2009 because he had 4 sacks in 12 games?
That's a pretty weak argument.
Does that mean that Ngata had a bad season too he played 14 games w/ 1.5 sacks.

Here's some facts about Al's 2009 season:
[quote=Poster from another forum]One thing I found shocking was how many snaps Albert takes compared to other players. Albert missed 3 games this year: weeks 11, 12, and 14 (or maybe PFF just didn't chart them). Yet he still played 573 snaps or well over 50% of our total snaps for the year. That averages to about 48 snaps a game. In the 12 games he did play and PFF charted, he played an astounding 72% of our defensive snaps.

He played at a high level too according to their charts: [url]http://profootballfocus.com/by_player.php?tab=by_player&season=2009&lastname=H[/url] aynesworth&surn=Haynesworth&playerid=1022
.......................
For instance, I wanted to see how he compares to other 3-4 players who had good seasons to. Kelly Gregg and Haloti Ngata both had pretty impressive seasons according to this site's rankings, but both played far fewer snaps than Haynesworth did. Out of a possible 1,205 snaps (including playoff games), Gregg played 496 or about 41% of defensive snaps, or just over 28 snaps a game. Clearly this was an effective system for Gregg and the Ravens because he's PFF's second ranked defensive tackle according to their metrics.

Ngata missed weeks 9 & 10 (or wasn't charted for them), so he only has 16 games charted. In those games he played 630 of a possible 1,064 snaps or almost 60%. That averages out to about 40 snaps a game for him, and again this was a successful formula for the Ravens because Ngata garned positive ratings nearly every week and finished as the 17th overall tackle.

Some other guys to look at are Ratliff and Wilfork, both of which finished with excellent rankings for the season. Ratliff played 851 of a possible 1,321 snaps or 65% or about 47 snaps a game which is right in line with Haynesworth's numbers. I think it's notable that Ratliff is listed at 293 also, so you'd expect his condition to be a lot better.

Wilfork didn't play weeks 15, 16, and 17, so he only ended up playing 14 games total. In those games, he played a high number of snaps: 565 out of 873 or about 65% of his team's snaps on defense, or about 40 snaps a game.[/quote]Lets not have revisionist history.
Albert Haynesworth has been one of the top DL throughout his career.
To say otherwise is wrong because it just ain't true.

I'll be the first to say that Al needs to be gone.
But he's an asshat because he's a great player that held talent hostage last year.

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

Wow -- a whole year later and people are STILL pissed about the switch to the 3-4. It's as if losing the 4-3 was like being dumped by a supermodel. And trust me, our 4-3 defense was no supermodel.

Time to get over it folks. By the start of this year, the 2010 season will a distant memory.

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

Personnel Personnel Personnel is the easy answer. If you couldnt see the first year was gonna be a struggle with the guys we had...wow. Then I knew we be average at best, but not that bad. [B]DE and NT [/B]spots were a tremendous struggle all year long. NT and OLB play is most povital with the scheme.

Yes Orakpo and Fletcher were great, but hell you could line these guys up anywhere and they would be effective...outside that, our other LBs position play was either atrociously bad or wildely inconsistent, unless it was atrociously consistent which was the norm.

come'on everyone knew with the personnel and the growing pains of the first year we would be not great. patience please

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

Bruce Allen and Mike Shanahan were outsiders to the organization[B] and [/B]the 3-4 defense, and hence, they were not as well versed as long-tenured FO people in either the nuances of the players or what they exactly need for the system to work. Hence, their appraisals relied more on tangibles, such as TALENT, than the more difficult-to-ascertain intangible factors such as culture(turrible state for winning a championship). Remember Hunter Smith mentioned in that interview of his that he thought we could have been a contender due to the TALENT he saw. I would suspect Shanahan and Allen thought the same thing. Hence, their epicly failed gambles on McNabb, Haynesworth, Kemo, etc.

However, AH is a hopeless case of player wanting his way and coach wanting the coach's way. The style of AH is probably incompatible with MANY coordinators of various stripes because very few coordinators have a system of "one DT does whatever, everyone else compensates", which apparently is likely the ONLY system AH would agree playing for.

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

[quote=30gut;809334]Everyone seems stuck on Albert.
The flip side of your post is the that there was also a huge difference in the way the 2 players were treated.
Bill Walsh didn't tell Dean that he [I]had[/I] to workout and that he couldn't just sit on the bench and smoke cigs.
Bill Walsh didn't tell Dean that he couldn't smoke in the locker room at half time either.
But, then again Bill Walsh knew how to handle people.

And lets be fair Albert, prior to last year, was a 'baller'.
He was one of the top interior DL in the league.

I know everybody doesn't like the guy but lets have some perspective, him only 'showing up 50% of the time' was an aberration for Albert that only occurred last year.

My point isn't that Haynesworth is Fred Dean.
My point is that coaches make allowances for players with special players.
Most people seem to believe that the Haynesworth issues from last year stemmed solely from the switch to the 3-4.
I don't.
I think the main issue was a personal clash between him and Mike Shanahan.
I might be alone but I believe the Haynesworth debacle from last year was avoidable.[/quote]

All fair points about Walsh. But that was a different time and a totally different era.