Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement

[Defensewins]

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 and then he made the change 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.

[NYCskinfan82]

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.

[NLC1054]

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.

[ethat001]

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.

[skinsfan69]

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.

[Hog1]

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

[NLC1054]

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.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by NLC1054

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.

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:

Originally Posted by 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: http://profootballfocus.com/by_playe...009&lastname=H 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.

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.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by 30gut

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:
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.

He was a bum in 09. We didn't get the guy that was in Tenn.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

He was a bum in 09. We didn't get the guy that was in Tenn.

The more reasons why Shanahan and Haslett shouldn't have pinned their 3-4 NT hopes on Haynesworth period.

I know people (rightfully so) get worked up over AH, but in the end I think it was a mistake for Shanny and Haslett to depend on him to be their answer for the NT position. And I think this is a focus of this particular discussion. Once this didn't work out, their back up plan was to pin their hopes on Kemo, who was a big question mark in regards to health, had not played the position for (I think) four years, and was on the decline.

As I have said before, Shanny should've drafted T. Cody with that second rounder we wasted on McNabb and by now we could have been set at the NT position.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

He was a bum in 09.

I guess because you say so it must be true right?
Despite the facts showing showing otherwise.
You make a great argument, here's my counter:
He wasn't a bum in 2009.
Pretty good huh?

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by 30gut

I guess because you say so it must be true right?
Despite the facts showing showing otherwise.
You make a great argument, here's my counter:
He wasn't a bum in 2009.
Pretty good huh?

He couldn't even stay on the field for two plays in a row. His sorry ass would fall down and flap around like a fish out of water, get carried off on a stretcher and then when he got his breath he'd come back on the field. And I bet if you took a poll inside the locker room the players would agree with me. The guy makes a great play and then takes the next 10 off. Even the guy on the Rams said he basically tires out after a few plays. To me he's a big fat bum who is also a heist man. I honestly don't know how he can look himself in the mirror taking all that money and acting like dick on and off the field.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

He was a bum in 09. We didn't get the guy that was in Tenn.

The inability to get production out of veteran free agent acquisition seems to plague this team. With a few exceptions (London Fletcher comes to mind), we haven't been able to get productivity out of a big time FA signing, and that includes this FO regime (McNabb). I do hope that they are able to change this in the seasons to come.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

The inability to get production out of veteran free agent acquisition seems to plague this team. With a few exceptions (London Fletcher comes to mind), we haven't been able to get productivity out of a big time FA signing, and that includes this FO regime (McNabb). I do hope that they are able to change this in the seasons to come.

That's cause it's stupid to overpay other teams players. It rarely works and that's why I'm 100% behind drafting for the next 2-3 years. It has a better chance of working when a team is already a contender but even then it's risky. I hate free agency and trading for other teams guys.

[NLC1054]

Originally Posted by 30gut

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.

Come on, sir. That argument is weak sauce. Ngata and Haynesworth played completely different positions. By the definition of a 3-4 defensive end, Haloti Ngata isn't supposed to get a lot of sacks. He's a run stuffer and tackler first, pass rusher second.

All Albert wants to do is rush the quarterback (that's what he's said he wants to do), so you'd think a guy who only wants to rush the quarterback would have the same sort of production he'd had in the two years prior. Now, I will concede that having Haynesworth in there helped the rest of the defense get their sacks by getting double teams, which opened things up for other pass rushers.

But he still pulled himself off the field. Playing in 12 games and then leaving some of those twelve games early? No es bueno. Albert has the most active "off" switch of any player in the NFL. Those four sacks he got? He got three in the first eight games of season. Which is okay. Then he didn't get a sack until week 15 in 2009. That's to go along with pedestrian numbers in tackles and creating no turnovers.

When the man wants to turn it on and play, he can play with the best of them. But when he doesn't? He's okay-ish.