Quote:
Originally Posted by over the mountain
well, if we are going to switch to a 3-4, i think it is going to take a year or so to implement the system and turn over the personel to fit the 3-4.
its going to take atleast a year to make the switch, so why not do it this year when we are in a full flux of change. That way, next year, we already went through the transition period and am ready to roll full steam with the 3-4 in 2011.
plus, it seems we are going to ease our way into the 3-4, not commit fully to the scheme this year.
|
I guess that's my main issue. Given our current roster, switching to a 3-4 now makes no sense. Switching to a 3-4 makes sense when a team is young. However, the vast majority of our defense is at or past its prime.
In three years, when the "real" part of Haynesworth's contract is up, and Andre Carter, London Fletcher, and Phillip Daniels have all retired would seem to be the ideal time to siwtch... if we even decided to switch. I know the 3-4 defense is "trendy" right now, but its not like the 4-3 defense is obsolete.
To me, it seems like we're forcing the 3-4 just for the sake of having it. With the potential exception of Orakpo, every single defensive starter and the majority of our backups from 2009 is a prototypical 4-3 defensive player. Whereas before, we had great depth with guys like Lorenzo Alexander, Chris Wilson, and Jeremy Jarmon, now I wonder if any of these guys will even be on the team in 2011. Seems like an awful waste of existing talent to me.
However, I do agree that we will probably not run as much 3-4 as most "3-4" teams. I honestly wouldnt be surprised if we pretty much only play 3-4 when Haynesworth is "injured" or taking a breather.