Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement

[30gut]

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.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 30gut

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.

There were similarities, at least.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

There were similarities, at least.

Originally Posted by me

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

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.