Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement

[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.