Why is Haslett still our DC?

[Ruhskins]

Why do people keep saying "well our 4-3 defense wasn't great", that doesn't really excuse the decision to change it to a complete different scheme to which you don't have the personnel for.

I use the Texans as a pretty good example, their defense was TERRIBLE and now they are changing to the 3-4. Despite this, they are taking a very good 4-3 DE and putting him into a scheme where he may or may not succeed. However, their growing pains in the 3-4 will be easier to overcome, since their 4-3 defense sucked the previous year.

I am over the whole change to the 3-4, we got into this situation and we have to give it time and hopefully the team will find the right personnel. But please don't tell me that the change was a good idea. It was an unnecessary idea by Shanahan, he should've found a 4-3 D-coordinator to improve upon the defense we had.

Now we need to find an NT, younger DEs, another pass rushing/coverage OLB, and ILBs that can replace Rocky (will he be back) and Fletcher whenever he decides to hang it up. Personally, I'd like to see one or two veterans with 3-4 experience on this team (my choice would be Soliai and that DE from Cleveland that just got released). And people need to stop calling for Haslett's firing, he hasn't been given the right players for the scheme he's been ask to run.

[irish]

Originally Posted by skinster

We went from being a top 10 defense to the second worst in the league in ypg. I realize that we had a change in system, but that is a poor excuse. Green Bay and Denver changed coordinators/systems two years ago and it went great for both of them. I might be wrong, but I don't think a single coordinator that in his first year with a new team was in the bottom 5 defenses and ever proved that it was a fluke, that they could later consistently put up good defenses.

Consistancy is good, being consistantly bad/mediocre is not. There is no reason to keep around someone who can't do a good job.

That was a case where the stats really did lie. That top 10 D never made a big stop with the game on the line, had take aways, or won a game when needed. They put up good numbers but those nembers never translated into anything meaningful.

[MTK]

Haslett is still our DC for the same reason MS is still the HC. Gotta give them more than 1 season to prove themselves.

[Monkeydad]

Absolutely. I say we keep him into Year 3 MINIMUM.

Next year we should get more personnel to help the transition but don't expect the world yet. Year 3...we should be where we want to be.

The Packers and every other defense who makes this transition has at least one bad year until it's completed, but they're all FAR better after the 3-4 switch is done.

The 3-4 defense isn’t as easy as it looks

By Jamie Dukes |

The old saying, “Actions speak louder than words,” is true, especially in sports.

In the NBA, after coach Phil Jackson won his sixth league title with the Bulls, everyone wanted to try to run his triangle offense. But that experiment didn’t last long because players had to be able to execute it.

In the NFL, the bar has been set with the recent success of the Cowboys, Patriots, Ravens, Chargers and Steelers’ 3-4 defenses, and now it has become vogue to run the scheme. As many as 15 teams are either making the switch or infusing elements of the 3-4 defense.

It’s one thing to talk the talk, but can transitioning teams walk the walk? Here are five key ingredients that will make or break the transition to the 3-4:

1. Football IQ: The 3-4 requires players to have a reasonable football IQ, and it can’t be mastered overnight, even if the defensive coordinator knows the scheme like the back of his hand. The Tampa 2 was the last trendy defense to take the NFL by storm, but for all its wonderment, the byproduct was turning players into robots.

2. Elephant: This is the NFL’s equivalent of a hybrid. He is part defensive end, part linebacker, and is athletic enough to have limited coverage skills and physical enough to dominate an offensive tackle. DeMarcus Ware, Adalius Thomas, Terrell Suggs, Shawne Merriman and LaMarr Woodley are examples.

3. Sidekick: This is another outside linebacker (like Greg Ellis, Mike Vrabel, Shaun Phillips and James Harrison) who has coverage skills but also can dominate a running back and occasionally beat an offensive tackle.

4. Power pig: A 3-4 defense must have a nose guard who commands a double team on run plays. He has to be the master between the guards.

5. The 5 Techniques: You need two defensive ends who can control the line of scrimmage. They need to be able to beat one-on-one matchups on pass plays but must be dominant in stopping the run.

Does your team have what it takes to make the transition? What pieces is your team missing?

Leave a comment below or send me a tweet @jamiedukes.

– Jamie Dukes

Teams that use the 3–4 defense/2010 rank:

San Diego Chargers/1st
Pittsburgh Steelers/2nd
New York Jets/3rd
Green Bay Packers/5th
Miami Dolphins/6th
Baltimore Ravens/11th (aging, usually higher)
San Francisco 49ers/13th
Kansas City Chiefs/14th
Cleveland Browns/22nd
Dallas Cowboys/23rd
Buffalo Bills/24th
New England Patriots/25th (fallen...old D)
Arizona Cardinals/29th
Houston Texans/30th (fallen - bad year)
Washington Redskins/31st (transitioning)
Denver Broncos/32nd


Many of these teams are at the top of the league NOW. 5 out the top 6 defenses are teams who have completed the 3-4 transition. Some had an off yerar (Houston, Buffalo) and a few are aging and falling (New England, Baltimore) but were dominant at their peak.

A few just don't have the players yet. We're one of them.

[skinster]

Originally Posted by irish

That was a case where the stats really did lie. That top 10 D never made a big stop with the game on the line, had take aways, or won a game when needed. They put up good numbers but those nembers never translated into anything meaningful.

To an extent I agree with you. Our defense was nothing spectacular. But I don't think any defense ranked in the top 10 can truly be frowned upon. At least you couldn't say our defense wasn't respectable. And now it is a laughing stock.

[skinster]

Originally Posted by Buster

Absolutely. I say we keep him into Year 3 MINIMUM.

Next year we should get more personnel to help the transition but don't expect the world yet. Year 3...we should be where we want to be.

The Packers and every other defense who makes this transition has at least one bad year until it's completed, but they're all FAR better after the 3-4 switch is done.

Teams that use the 3–4 defense/2010 rank:

San Diego Chargers/1st
Pittsburgh Steelers/2nd
New York Jets/3rd
Green Bay Packers/5th
Miami Dolphins/6th
Baltimore Ravens/11th (aging, usually higher)
San Francisco 49ers/13th
Kansas City Chiefs/14th
Cleveland Browns/22nd
Dallas Cowboys/23rd
Buffalo Bills/24th
New England Patriots/25th (fallen...old D)
Arizona Cardinals/29th
Houston Texans/30th (fallen - bad year)
Washington Redskins/31st (transitioning)
Denver Broncos/32nd
Many of these teams are at the top of the league NOW. 5 out the top 6 defenses are teams who have completed the 3-4 transition. Some had an off yerar (Houston, Buffalo) and a few are aging and falling (New England, Baltimore) but were dominant at their peak.

A few just don't have the players yet. We're one of them.

What has ever happened in NFL history that would suggest that we keep him 3 years? What dc has ever been ranked 31st in their first year and ever panned out later? Talk about not having the right players? Who did denver have last year when they were ranked 7th under Mike Nolan in their first year of transition? And what are you talking about when you say that Green Bay took time to transition? They were ranked 2nd in the league in their first year in the 3-4 under Dom Capers.

Also Houston was a 4-3 last year, and (preemptively saying this to cover my bases) Mike Nolan switched from Denver to Miami this year to bring them from 22nd to 6th in his first year with them while Denver dropped from 7th to 32nd without him as their DC.

People who know how to run the 3-4 know how to run it, people who don't...don't. Give me even ONE example of a dc starting his first year ranked bottom 5 in the league that has panned out later and I will put my foot in my mouth.

[SBXVII]

I just don't get why people are so against the team changing to a 3-4? Did we have this much annymosity when the team changed to a WCO? Well maybe we did.

For those still hung up....

#1- Yes the defense was a top 10 defense as a 4-3.
#2- Yes the team did not have all the right pieces to run a 3-4.
#3- Yes it might have been better to use a hybrid 4-3/3-4.
#4- Yes you all have made some astute observations.

#5- BUT the team didn't. Get over it. Lets move on.
#6- Haslett was probably picked because he helped implement the Steelers "D".
#7- MS wants a "D" like what the Steelers have.
#8- MS went to see how their "D" practiced and works during his year off.
#9- MS WANTED A 3-4 DEFENSE. MS IS THE HC. WHICH MEANS HE MAKES THE DECISIONS.

If it's such a difficult thing to get over perhaps following Greg Williams is the answer. See some fans are "fans of the team", some fans are "fans of the players", why not start a new trend where there's "fans of a DC", or "fans of the 4-3."

[Monkeydad]

You mentioned Gregg Williams...his D was the only 4-3 ranked in the Top 6...there are #4 with New Orleans.

[irish]

Originally Posted by skinster

To an extent I agree with you. Our defense was nothing spectacular. But I don't think any defense ranked in the top 10 can truly be frowned upon. At least you couldn't say our defense wasn't respectable. And now it is a laughing stock.

The entire organization is a laughing stock at this point no matter where the D is ranked.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Buster

You mentioned Gregg Williams...his D was the only 4-3 ranked in the Top 6...there are #4 with New Orleans.

Which is why without looking or knowing I said top 10. However I'm sure the Saints will gladly sell some merchandise to those who favour the 4-3 defensive scheme.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by irish

The entire organization is a laughing stock at this point no matter where the D is ranked.

The sad fact is the organization has been a laughing stock ever since Cerrato was hired.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

I just don't get why people are so against the team changing to a 3-4? Did we have this much annymosity when the team changed to a WCO? Well maybe we did.

#1- Yes the defense was a top 10 defense as a 4-3.
#2- Yes the team did not have all the right pieces to run a 3-4.
#3- Yes it might have been better to use a hybrid 4-3/3-4.

I am over the change, but I don't agree with people who feel like the change wasn't a big deal given what you just mentioned above. Personally, I expected better judgement in the part of Shanahan, and make such a stupid change during year one. But that's water under the bridge.

I do look forward to see what this defense will look like with a true NT, a year of experience in the 3-4, and possibly some FA veterans with 3-4 experience. I really don't want to see more of this "let's force players into schemes that don't fit them" (Carter/Haynesworth) or filling key areas, such as NT, with old/injury-prone players (Kemo). Haslett was asked to run a defense without the required parts, it is up to the team to give them those key parts to run a 3-4.

[CrustyRedskin]

Hey guys!! on the bright side our D was so bad that the only place to go from here is up!!!

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

I am over the change, but I don't agree with people who feel like the change wasn't a big deal given what you just mentioned above. Personally, I expected better judgement in the part of Shanahan, and make such a stupid change during year one. But that's water under the bridge.

I do look forward to see what this defense will look like with a true NT, a year of experience in the 3-4, and possibly some FA veterans with 3-4 experience. I really don't want to see more of this "let's force players into schemes that don't fit them" (Carter/Haynesworth) or filling key areas, such as NT, with old/injury-prone players (Kemo). Haslett was asked to run a defense without the required parts, it is up to the team to give them those key parts to run a 3-4.

Again I whole heartedly agree with you but what's done is done. I doubt the coaching staff is happy and wanting keep things as status quo. They know and probably knew what problems we'd have and what problems we are to expect. The issue is they can't fill all the needs in one offseason and maybe not two offseasons.

Heck the we are having the same issues on offense. Some of it is the WCO and the other is M.Shanahan's blocking scheme. Yet no one is blasting the fact we don't have the right personel on the OL to implement the zone blocking and they don't have the size WR's needed, and god forbid some would say the we don't have the right RB for the scheme.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

I am over the change, but I don't agree with people who feel like the change wasn't a big deal given what you just mentioned above. Personally, I expected better judgement in the part of Shanahan, and make such a stupid change during year one. But that's water under the bridge.

I do look forward to see what this defense will look like with a true NT, a year of experience in the 3-4, and possibly some FA veterans with 3-4 experience. I really don't want to see more of this "let's force players into schemes that don't fit them" (Carter/Haynesworth) or filling key areas, such as NT, with old/injury-prone players (Kemo). Haslett was asked to run a defense without the required parts, it is up to the team to give them those key parts to run a 3-4.

But if you were going to make the switch, you might as well do it when you know you're in transition/rebuild mode, and when you don't expect to be in contention for the playoffs anyway. That's why, when it's all said and done, it really isn't a big deal.

3 or 4 years from now, no one will care about the switch to the 3-4 back in 2010.