Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Redskins Forums > Redskins Locker Room


Switch to 3-4 Defense a Failure

Redskins Locker Room


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-05-2012, 05:33 PM   #16
The Starter
 
CrustyRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: RatherbeinDC, TX
Posts: 2,451
Re: Switch to 3-4 Defense a Failure

Quote:
Originally Posted by skinsfaninok View Post
that was in 99 I believe
Yeah it was i meant 97-99. Cowboys swept the SKins that year but that was the last time we won the Division!
__________________
Special Teams and Defense!!!!
CrustyRedskin is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 11-05-2012, 05:33 PM   #17
Special Teams
 
Bishop Hammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 137
Re: Switch to 3-4 Defense a Failure

Quote:
Originally Posted by CrustyRedskin View Post
Oh sweet Mother of Pearl no!!!!!! I was a big football fan in 97-98 and i thought his D was terrible. Never forget being up 35-14 on the Boys and getting beat. Ill never forgive that one.
It would be better than whats here now. But its a moot point because there is no way Nolan would ever work for Snyder again. And also he wont have any talent to work with on top of his bad experience here.
__________________
I don't have to sell my soul
he's already in me
I don't need to sell my soul
he's already in me
I wanna be adored
I wanna be adored

Stone Roses
"I wanna be adored"
Bishop Hammer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 05:47 PM   #18
Living Legend
 
Ruhskins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 15,799
Re: Switch to 3-4 Defense a Failure

Regardless of the defensive scheme, this team needs to desperately to fix its secondary starting with both safeties. That said, I think we have the makings of an excellent 4-3 D-line with Orakpo and Kerrigan as DEs and a combination of Cofield, Carriker, Bowen, and Jenkins as DTs. I think the challenge with our current personnel would be the LBs. We would need a SLB, WLB, and a MLB (to replace Fletcher). I don't know how well our current crop of LBs would fit in that scheme. Still, I think it may be easier to find 4-3 LBs than to find a true 3-4 NT that this team has never found.
__________________
R.I.P. #21

New words created on The Warpath:
Rewalsr - Somretimes - Fualt - Jersesy - Itiot - Composetory
Afeard - Storgn - Empliment - Gaissn - Saftys - Minnisota
Faviort - Hatter - Phsyched - Foof - Heloing - Brutual
Stroried

"Give an opinion and move on. Your life doesn't depend on winning the internet." -FRPLG
Ruhskins is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 09:17 PM   #19
Special Teams
 
jdc65's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 246
Re: Switch to 3-4 Defense a Failure

Yes, I agree that the 3-4 switch was a colossal mistake from the beginning. Too many resources were wasted trying to convert when defense wasn't the primary problem.

Switching back to a 4-3 shouldn't be too complicated, but the team now has to think about replacing the entire secondary and getting another linebacker or 2 to make it work.
The secondary is just a mess, so that has to be priority number 1 this offseason. They would also need to release Carriker to free up salary space as he would be the odd man out.

At this point, I would be fine with going to a 4-3 after the bye and letting Robinson and Riley play on the outside with Fletch in the middle. Alexander can also play, but he isn't really starting caliber for the long term. Fletch will need to be replaced next year in my opinion as he is rapidly slowing down due to age and wear-n-tear.

I do not however believe Shanahan will make the switch back because it will be an open admission of failure. I also don't believe he will replace Haslett until the season ends because I think he blames injuries and lack of quality personnel more than coaching.

Snyder will probably have to bring a hammer down to force a change, and Haslett and D.Smith will then take the fall. It's just too hard to reasonably fathom how bad this defense is after all the resources spent on it. Mind numbing really.
jdc65 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 09:30 PM   #20
Playmaker
 
HailGreen28's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,600
Re: Switch to 3-4 Defense a Failure

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop Hammer View Post
It would be better than whats here now. But its a moot point because there is no way Nolan would ever work for Snyder again. And also he wont have any talent to work with on top of his bad experience here.
I thought everybody loved ice cream? :confused:
HailGreen28 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 09:32 PM   #21
‎\m/
 
Mattyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 41
Posts: 81,058
Re: Switch to 3-4 Defense a Failure

I'm amazed that some think changing to a 4-3 right now will improve things. Amazed.
__________________
Support The Warpath! | Warpath Shop
Mattyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 09:35 PM   #22
Quietly Dominating the East
 
Hog1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Naples, Florida
Posts: 9,005
Re: Switch to 3-4 Defense a Failure

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattyk View Post
I'm amazed that some think changing to a 4-3 right now will improve things. Amazed.
There is no limit to the wisdom found...in these humble pages.
__________________
Goodbye Sean..........Vaya Con Dios
thankyou Joe.......
Win! Always win!
By fair means or foul, by soft words and hard deeds...
by treachery, by cunning, by malpractice...
but always win--Edward Teach
Hog1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 09:51 PM   #23
Playmaker
 
HailGreen28's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,600
Re: Switch to 3-4 Defense a Failure

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruhskins View Post
Regardless of the defensive scheme, this team needs to desperately to fix its secondary starting with both safeties. That said, I think we have the makings of an excellent 4-3 D-line with Orakpo and Kerrigan as DEs and a combination of Cofield, Carriker, Bowen, and Jenkins as DTs. I think the challenge with our current personnel would be the LBs. We would need a SLB, WLB, and a MLB (to replace Fletcher). I don't know how well our current crop of LBs would fit in that scheme. Still, I think it may be easier to find 4-3 LBs than to find a true 3-4 NT that this team has never found.
Orakpo was a great SAM his first season. Though I'd rather see Rak with a hand on the ground now. I'd go with Rak and Bowen as DEs, Cofield and Jenkins at DTs, Jackson and Fletch and Kerrigan as LBs.

And four stiffs off the street for our secondary.
HailGreen28 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 10:23 PM   #24
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 26
Posts: 15,994
Re: Switch to 3-4 Defense a Failure

People make too much out of the 3-4 vs. 4-3. IN terms of run fits, we were fine before, we're fine now. We can't pressure or cover anyone, which would be the case regardless of the system we're running. Obviously we attempted this by drafting Kerrigan, but we need more pass rushers than just the pair we have. We have to beable to come from all angles.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2012, 12:04 PM   #25
The Starter
 
donofriose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,779
Re: Switch to 3-4 Defense a Failure

Quote:
Originally Posted by CultBrennan59 View Post
People don't realize 3-4 or 4-3, it doesn't matter what formation you line up in, its the coaching and the players and frankly we don't have either really.
I agree. San Fran runs a great 3-4 because of fantastic coaching and they have the best players for each role. The giants run a great 4-3 (when they want to) but also have an amazing defensive line. The bears have a great defensive scheme as well. Both schemes can work if you have the right players. Right now we do not have the best players or good coaching. You need one to be good, you need both to be great.
donofriose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2012, 01:05 PM   #26
The Starter
 
REDSKINS4ever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Born and raised in D.C.....but I'm a New Yorker now....
Posts: 2,111
Re: Switch to 3-4 Defense a Failure

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattyk View Post
I don't care what type of front we run, until we upgrade the secondary & pass rushing depth, this D isn't going anywhere.
I totally concur. Chris Wilson was able to get to the QB in preseason, but not the regular season only because he was going up against 3rd stringers. We need guys who are reserves that can step in and be just as effective as Carriker and Orakpo if they get injured. The secondary is simply a laughing stock. Watching our secondary play this season is equivilant to watching stand up comedy. If Bruce Allen had any sense, he would overrule the bad choices that Mike Shanahan has made with personnel. DeAngelo Hall needs to be moved to safety or released or perhaps traded. Move Josh Wilson to nickle back. He's not starting material. Draft a young corner who can cover like a blanket. Or trade for someone who can.

There are many ways to make the defense better. It doesn't matter if the Redskins are running the 34, 43, or the 46. The players that are put in place simply have to be better than what we have right now in order for the system to work.
REDSKINS4ever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2012, 01:21 PM   #27
Playmaker
 
los panda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: los angeles, ca
Age: 29
Posts: 4,052
Re: Switch to 3-4 Defense a Failure

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattyk View Post
I'm amazed that some think changing to a 4-3 right now will improve things. Amazed.
it's simple, when i switch kerrigan to de on madden he goes to 99 ovr. you can't argue w numbers like that...
__________________
7 9 21 28 33 42 43 44 49 65 70 81
los panda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2012, 04:25 PM   #28
Special Teams
 
jdc65's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 246
Re: Switch to 3-4 Defense a Failure

In my opinion, the 3-4 is fine if you have either a superior DE or NT to go along with a very strong linebacking corps. Every team rushes 4 men as a basic package, and the goal is to apply consistant pressure with a 4 man rush. It makes the blitz so much more effective.

The problem is logistical. It is increasingly difficult to find a 6-4, 300 lb 3-4 DE who can take on double teams and still get penetration. Teams like SF, Hou, Ari, and SD have those superior players. Other teams like Pit and GB have 330 lb 3-4 NT's who can consistantly take on double teams and push the pocket. Those teams can get constant pressure with a 4 man rush, and their blitzes work.

The Redskins don't have those guys in the front 3, all can be handled with a single blocker. When the Skins rush their 4th guy, it is an easy pickup for the O-line. They have to rush 5 guys to apply any pressure, and only then will the blitz be effective with 6-7 rushers whereas other strong defenses get it with 5.

It is much easier to find a 6-1, 300 pounder who can play 4-3 DT and get penetration beating a single blocker than a 6-2, 330 lb 3-4 NT who can consistantly occupy 2 blockers. And it is easier to get a 6-3, 260 lb 4-3 DE who can speed rush past 1 blocker than a 6-5, 300 lb 3-4 DE who can consistantly take doubles.

4-3 teams are just easier to build, and compounding the problem is most college teams want lighter, speedier defenders to attack the wide open college game. Alabama is a rare exception that runs a base 3-4, but Saban can have his choice of any kid in the country to fit his scheme. Most college teams want their kids on the track getting quicker and faster as opposed to the dining room getting bigger.

It is still about getting consistant pressure with a 4 man rush, and if you can find those guys, the 3-4 works fine. The Skins don't have them, and they need to find them. Otherwise a 4 man front with Kerrigan, Orakpo, Cofield, and Bowen/Jenkins would appear to be their best course going forward. All are 4-3 players ideally as better penetrators rather than occupiers. My opinion only.
jdc65 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2012, 05:18 PM   #29
The Starter
 
REDSKINS4ever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Born and raised in D.C.....but I'm a New Yorker now....
Posts: 2,111
Re: Switch to 3-4 Defense a Failure

The defensive coaches are scratching their heads after 9 straight weeks of mediocrity. The problem, I keep saying, is not the base defense that's being run. It's the personnel on the field. The same thing would still be happening if the Redskins were running a 43 defense just like back in 2006 when the Redskins finished 27th in defense.
REDSKINS4ever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2012, 07:24 PM   #30
F the Shannys

 
CrazyCanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,878
Re: Switch to 3-4 Defense a Failure

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdc65 View Post
I do not however believe Shanahan will make the switch back because it will be an open admission of failure.
You hit the nail on the head. While 4-3 vs. 3-4 may be a worthy debate, I think it's moot in this case.

No way Shanny goes back now, not after 3 years. The only way I could see it would be with a new DC. Then Shanny could say "I still prefer the 3-4 but for the good of the team I have decided to defer to our new DC."
CrazyCanuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.29321 seconds with 9 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25